Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 196 posts

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#151

Post by jlgreco »

crusso wrote: post #108
jlgreco wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are suggesting basically just amounts to "dolphins cannot be a part of society because currently society only includes humans, and dolphins are different than humans." We are proposing a re-definition .

What you are suggesting ... That's not in the least what I'm suggesting. Dolphins cannot participate in our society by agreement. They don't understand what participating is. They're captured or born in captivity and then trained to perform a few tricks. They are beautiful and fascinating, but they have no contributions to make to the fiber of our society that can't be made by other animals, machines, or even simple…

What I would like to see is a special legal status/recognition given to dolphins. My motivation for wanting to see this done is that I think it would provide a sort of precedence for extending traditionally human rights to things that are not traditionally seen as equals of humans. I think there is a possibility that doing so may become necessary in the future, when "machines" and intelligence begin to blur.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#152

Post by DanBC »

papsosouid wrote: post #142
DanBC wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slight tangent: > the house cat who plays with the bird before killing it without eating it Small birds have sharp beaks and claws. Mice have sharp teeth and claws. Cats have a hunting instinct. Wild cats survive by hunting. To hunt and eat prey a cat needs working jaws. The sharp teeth / beak / claws of prey only needs to puncture the skin of a cat's jaw once to cause infection which would leave that cat at serious…

>"Playing" with the prey is a good way to weaken the prey before the killing bite is inflicted. No it isn't, it extends the amount of time the prey is alive and capable of causing harm, and the amount of contact between predator and prey. Domestic animals play with prey because they still have deeply ingrained hunting instinct, but have no actual need to hunt. This is why they will hunt a laser pointer just as intent…

> No it isn't,

Yes, really, it is.

> it extends the amount of time the prey is alive and capable of causing harm, and the amount of contact between predator and prey.

No. It keeps the cat's jaw (which is the part that delivers the killing bite, and which is the part that does the eating) away from the beak and teeth and claws, while the paws do batting and patting. It increases the chance of getting a kill, which is what gives the cat food after the hunt.

> Domestic animals play with prey because they still have deeply ingrained hunting instinct, but have no actual need to hunt.

That does not explain why feral cats, cats that need to hunt to survive, play with prey.

> This is why they will hunt a laser pointer just as intently as a mouse. They aren't after food, just reacting to instinct.

Chasing a laser point just demonstrates the hunting instinct. We both agree that cats still have a strong hunting instinct. Hunting a laser pointer is chasing prey, it is not playing with prey.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#153

Post by papsosouid »

Osmium wrote: post #146
papsosouid wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we did it purely out of consideration for the well being of animals, then would would apply laws consistently. We punish animal abuse when it happens to dogs, because people get upset about dogs being hurt. We ignore animal abuse when it happens to pigs, because we eat pigs and don't want to have to deal with the ethical dilemma posed by recognizing that they have feelings. The laws are most definitely designed ar…

Agreed that laws should be consistent but this isn't just a problem with animal cruelty laws. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be humane to animals, even ones that are ultimately killed for their meat (such as pigs). It's possible for an animal to live a perfectly content life and then be killed quickly and with as little pain as possible. And that's what a lot of people are campaigning for. Reducing animal crue…

You are reading your own extra motivation into what I said. I stated that your premise ("cruelty to animals is punished purely because of ethical considerations for the animal's well being") is false. I provided evidence to support this. That is all. I did not make a moral or ethical statement. I am not suggesting or proposing anything. Simply pointing out that our protection of non-human animals is in fact based on concern for humans, not for the animals in question.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#155

Post by papsosouid »

DanBC wrote: post #152
papsosouid wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Playing" with the prey is a good way to weaken the prey before the killing bite is inflicted. No it isn't, it extends the amount of time the prey is alive and capable of causing harm, and the amount of contact between predator and prey. Domestic animals play with prey because they still have deeply ingrained hunting instinct, but have no actual need to hunt. This is why they will hunt a laser pointer just as intent…

> No it isn't, Yes, really, it is. > it extends the amount of time the prey is alive and capable of causing harm, and the amount of contact between predator and prey. No. It keeps the cat's jaw (which is the part that delivers the killing bite, and which is the part that does the eating) away from the beak and teeth and claws, while the paws do batting and patting. It increases the chance of getting a kill, which is…

>Yes, really, it is.

Your premise is not supported by evidence. One "researcher" made this claim, and provided no evidence to support it. There is nothing to support the notion that playing with prey reduces injuries to the predator.

>It keeps the cat's jaw (which is the part that delivers the killing bite, and which is the part that does the eating) away from the beak and teeth and claws, while the paws do batting and patting.

Paws are able to be bitten, scratched and infected just as easily as faces. The consequences of paw and leg injuries are in fact more dangerous than injuries to the face. It is hard to hunt when you can't run. There is no benefit to prolonging the exposure to danger by keeping the prey alive.

>It increases the chance of getting a kill, which is what gives the cat food after the hunt

A quick bite to the neck is the best chance of killing. Letting the prey struggle and escape to be re-caught is lowering the chances of getting food, not raising it. You are claiming the opposite of reality.

>That does not explain why feral cats, cats that need to hunt to survive, play with prey.

Yes it does. They only do so when they are teaching young to hunt. They do not play with their prey when they are engaged in the process of "acquire food to prevent death".

>Hunting a laser pointer is chasing prey, it is not playing with prey.

It is engaging in instinctive hunting behaviour for no benefit. Just like catching a mouse, playing with it, then wandering off.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#156

Post by nine_k »

shawnc wrote: post #133
crusso wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a implied statement that cetaceans would somehow need to learn English to receive similar protections as people. English? Where did I say that? However, communication verbal or nonverbal that conveys agreement to participate in a society is a requirement. This kind of communication would need to happen either individually or representatives cetaceans would need to come forward who could vouch for others of t…

This too will sound silly, but we don't even know if that would happen or could happen with Dolphins and Whales, because they've really just never been given the chance. It'd be like someone invading a new land they discovered, and just killing anyone in their way, without waiting to see if these people would indeed like to participate in their 'society'. But actually, on top of that, even if the dolphins could say t…

If you call something a treaty, isn't it expected to be discussed and agreed upon by both sides?

Humans have to make the first step and propose a first draft because of their current position of power. Unfortunately, cetaceans so far haven't taken time to try to learn how to communicate with humans. A treaty with cetaceans would be a display of pure goodwill, as opposed to e.g. peace treaties between mutually menacing powers.

Another interesting question is how many treaties are needed, since cetaceans are obviously no more unified than humans.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#157

Post by jQueryIsAwesome »

Osmium wrote: post #118

It always seemed to me that our lack of consideration for these animals as "non-human persons" only serves to demonstrate a failure of empathy on our part, solely because we are unable to communicate with them. We don't know whether dolphins have a formal language yet, but we do know they can communicate with each other, and if we ever figure out a way to communicate with them too it'd probably go a long way to convi…

Human rigths were created not because we believe we deserve those, but as a tool to keep the peace among us. So the sad true is that most of us don't have a strong intrinsic motivation to grant rights to animals, one of the reasons being that they are not a thread to our existence; but even if they were the impossibility of communication would make any agreement (aka mutual rights) impossible.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#158

Post by JoeAltmaier »

papsosouid wrote: post #150
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #130

I'd like to reference an argument presented here before when this same issue came up. Japanese harvest ships slaughter thousands of dolphins each year, in a certain bay. Some escape. Next year, more olphins return to the bay and are caught, seemingly by surprise? SO either, the escaped dolphins did not communicate the danger, were unable to communicate, or just didn't care what happened to other dolphins. In any of t…

You are making a whole lot of unfounded assumptions. Who says those that escape knew the fate of those that didn't? Who says they have a choice as to where to go? Perhaps they need to be in that area at that time because that is where their food is at that time. The options you present are not even remotely close to exhaustive, yet you hide behind their totality for your excuse to avoid considering the issue at all.

Dolphins are among the freest creatures in the ocean, traveling vast distances in little time and pretty much independent. And I'm sure something drives them to be in that bay at that time; its just not a higher intelligence, by all the evidence. Thus the tendency to reinforce: dolphins are dumb animals.

So this argument isn't 'considering the issue at all'? Then what's it about? Some other issue? Would a personal attack have been more on-point? (sarcasm)

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#159

Post by Osmium »

papsosouid wrote: post #153
Osmium wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed that laws should be consistent but this isn't just a problem with animal cruelty laws. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be humane to animals, even ones that are ultimately killed for their meat (such as pigs). It's possible for an animal to live a perfectly content life and then be killed quickly and with as little pain as possible. And that's what a lot of people are campaigning for. Reducing animal crue…

You are reading your own extra motivation into what I said. I stated that your premise ("cruelty to animals is punished purely because of ethical considerations for the animal's well being") is false. I provided evidence to support this. That is all. I did not make a moral or ethical statement. I am not suggesting or proposing anything. Simply pointing out that our protection of non-human animals is in fact based on…

Fair enough; I didn't intend to put words in your mouth. I was responding to what you said about "ignoring animal abuse when it happens to pigs" and just providing a counterpoint to that: that not everybody is ignoring it, and that there's no reason why we should ignore it either (because it's not an "ethical dilemma" -- a "dilemma" presupposes we can't both reduce the suffering of pigs and continue to eat them, except this isn't actually the case because we can do both). I appreciate the point you're trying to make though, that laws are made not just based on ethical considerations, but also based on how people feel about these things.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#160

Post by astrobe_ »

Alex3917 wrote: post #34
nathan_long wrote: post #6

>> They believe dolphins and whales are sufficiently intelligent to justify the same ethical considerations as humans. I don't have a problem with extending legal protection to dolphins, but I do think that "intelligence" as the criteria is morally problematic, at least if it's the sole criteria. For instance, could a person with Down's Syndrome be denied protection from murder? The Christian worldview holds that hum…

"Especially considering how slippery the definition of 'intelligence' is." I think 'intelligence' represents how slippery all concepts are. Think about the definition of intelligence. According to the most common scientific definition, it's basically the ability to see patterns. The funny thing about that is that the ability to see patterns is basically what makes someone a good scientist, so scientists have defined…

So... the definition given by people whose job is doing research on intelligence must be the right one?

I took Latin in high school because I liked etymology (and because greek letters were really too weird):

From Latin intellegentia ("the act of choosing between, intelligence"), from intellegō ("understand"), from inter ("between") + legō ("choose, pick out, read"). [taken from wiktionnary]

So intelligence is the ability to understand, that's all (the etymologic link with dichotomy is beautiful).

Now how we understand (and please don't confuse yourself again with "oh yeah but what does 'understand' really mean") is the hard part.

Post reply on HN