Why should I give a damn about whaling?

i dont think they're cuter than sharks and even if they are, why would you discriminate based on looks? And please... the number of people eaten by sharks is so sensationalized.

Im equal opportunity... Ive brought home many whales.

You could actually make the argument that shark fishing has a far greater negative ecological impact than whaling does. Sharks are keystone predators in most of the food webs/chains in which they operate, and they are thus essential to keeping biodiversity and species populations in proper balance. The fact that we're killing off sharks in obscene numbers is really going to **** over the world's oceans and fisheries eventually. Now, I'm opposed to whale hunting just the same. But I'm not one for sentimentality, and for selectively protecting some animals more than others just because they happen to be cuter and cuddlier. I am definitely against overfishing or overhunting anything, though. What makes whaling particularly abhorrent to many, including myself, is that they have a complete and near-human experience of the world. We're not talking about the surprisingly high intelligence of pigs here. We're talking about higher mammalian intelligence on the order of chimpanzee (if not higher) intelligence. We're talking about hunting and killing animals that probably go through the trauma, pain, and horrific experience that human beings would go through if hunted and slaughtered. We're talking about killing creatures with a fully developed conscious mind. I realize that it's far too fluffy a notion for this board to make the argument that killing higher-intelligent beings is "murder." Whales don't look like us, we don't interact with them on a regular basis, and it's hard to empathize with them. I get it. But ****, man, these things have been shown to have human-like consciousness. That should give us serious pause on an ethical level.

^^ Yeah man, I've read articles suggesting that dolphins be labeled as "non-human persons", just because they're so incredibly intelligent.

Personally, I think everyone should eat less ******* meat (not "none", just much much less). If people ate less meat (which is wasteful at the caloric level), we'd have more grain for people who are dying of starvation. And then we would be making less of a mess of the Earth.

But whatever, laugh it off, talk about how you love bacon sooo much and you'll never change, ruin the planet for the rest of us. While you're at it, start a family of twelve, **** natural population limits.

Any real scientist worth his or her salt will not twist science to serve their moral agenda. I know it's a lot to ask, seeing how its so popular now to be a complete and utter shitbird about science, but the conclusion that "X is smart so killing it is morally wrong" is not a scientific one. It is anti-scientific.

So again, as non-human persons, are we going to start locking up and prosecuting dolphins for genocide, infanticide, murder, ****, and etc? Or does the fact that they are so much like humans not extend to the bad things dolphins do? When are we going to start holding dolphins accountable for their actions?

But this is taking a preexisting moral notion (it is wrong to kill humans), questioning it and reducing it to its principles (it is wrong to kill intelligent, self-aware beings), and then applying it to the results of scientific research. I wouldn't call that "twisting science to serve a moral agenda", I would call that "applied ethics".

In gathering and presenting their research, scientists are expected to be as objective as possible, so that the actual data is as free as possible from bias or human error. However, they're not expected to avoid acting on their results. If you want to hear the story free from bias or agenda-pushing, read the actual peer-reviewed work, don't walk up to a researcher and ask them what they think. I agree that it's lazy journalism, but I don't think the scientist being interviewed was at fault.

As for the whole "holding them accountable" thing, that's definitely something that needs to be talked about. The entire thing is unprecedented, and would need consideration on a legal, biological, and philosophical level. But it's going to be hard to have those conversations when people are arguing that dolphins aren't persons at all (because then they'd be inedible).

I'm opposed to the overfishing of any species, not just whales. But as for treating cetaceans like humans, its unrealistic.

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

Click to expand...

So again, as non-human persons, are we going to start locking up and prosecuting dolphins for genocide, infanticide, murder, ****, and etc? Or does the fact that they are so much like humans not extend to the bad things dolphins do? When are we going to start holding dolphins accountable for their actions?
You're making the implication that because we can't entirely treat dolphins like humans, we shouldn't make any effort to do so (such as not killing them). This doesn't make sense because while we can't do some things such as extending the legal rights of murder, ****, etc, we can still prevent their being killed for the purpose of food. The fact that we are incapable of employing a legal system that extends towards such animals is our error and thus it is absurd to suggest that they should suffer because of our defficiency in this. We may not be able to protect their rights fully, but we should god damn well try if we're to acknowledge that they are so similar to us.

Originally Posted by Arrogant Bastard

Click to expand...

You could actually make the argument that shark fishing has a far greater negative ecological impact than whaling does. Sharks are keystone predators in most of the food webs/chains in which they operate, and they are thus essential to keeping biodiversity and species populations in proper balance. The fact that we're killing off sharks in obscene numbers is really going to **** over the world's oceans and fisheries eventually.

Now, I'm opposed to whale hunting just the same. But I'm not one for sentimentality, and for selectively protecting some animals more than others just because they happen to be cuter and cuddlier. I am definitely against overfishing or overhunting anything, though.

What makes whaling particularly abhorrent to many, including myself, is that they have a complete and near-human experience of the world. We're not talking about the surprisingly high intelligence of pigs here. We're talking about higher mammalian intelligence on the order of chimpanzee (if not higher) intelligence. We're talking about hunting and killing animals that probably go through the trauma, pain, and horrific experience that human beings would go through if hunted and slaughtered. We're talking about killing creatures with a fully developed conscious mind.

I realize that it's far too fluffy a notion for this board to make the argument that killing higher-intelligent beings is "murder." Whales don't look like us, we don't interact with them on a regular basis, and it's hard to empathize with them. I get it. But ****, man, these things have been shown to have human-like consciousness. That should give us serious pause on an ethical level.

is nosu your puppet?

Originally Posted by Makeshift_Robot

Click to expand...

If you want to hear the story free from bias or agenda-pushing, read the actual peer-reviewed work
Unfortunately Nosu, nor any of you other hippie style animal rights activists will ever post any real scientific data, because it either runs counter to your point, takes your point further than you are comfortable with, or is otherwise completely inconclusive in trying to prove that A: objective morality and universal human rights exist, and B: it should be applied to dolphins because they are smart. Real science can't make that conclusion. The real science I've seen leads me away from that conclusion (though I could be wrong).

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

Click to expand...

Any real scientist worth his or her salt will not twist science to serve their moral agenda. I know it's a lot to ask, seeing how its so popular now to be a complete and utter shitbird about science, but the conclusion that "X is smart so killing it is morally wrong" is not a scientific one. It is anti-scientific. So again, as non-human persons, are we going to start locking up and prosecuting dolphins for genocide, infanticide, murder, ****, and etc? Or does the fact that they are so much like humans not extend to the bad things dolphins do? When are we going to start holding dolphins accountable for their actions?
Slippery-slope arguments like these aside, what's concerning about killing whales and dolphins isn't that they're "smart." It's that they have person-like consciousness and self-awareness. When you torture or maim or kill a whale, the whale is going through what you'd go through if someone tortured or maimed or murdered you. It's about their experience and consciousness, which are emergent properties of intelligence. I don't think anyone's arguing that we should spare whales and dolphins simply on account of their raw IQ. Personhood, or near-personhood, is a concept applied to beings that understand who they are in relation to the world and are capable of experiencing the world the way a person does. Sometimes it's helpful to use the analogy of intelligent alien beings here, because people have a hard time looking at dolphins as anything other than Sea World performers and cutesy animals. Imagine, in a District 9 type of scenario, that an intelligent alien species crash landed on Earth. We couldn't communicate with them, they look nothing like us, etc., but we can tell that they have a human-like level of intelligence and consciousness. Would you feel comfortable killing these beings for their meat, assuming they were defenseless at the time?

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

Click to expand...

Unfortunately Nosu, nor any of you other hippie style animal rights activists will ever post any real scientific data, because it either runs counter to your point, takes your point further than you are comfortable with, or is otherwise completely inconclusive in trying to prove that A: objective morality and universal human rights exist, and B: it should be applied to dolphins because they are smart. Real science can't make that conclusion. The real science I've seen leads me away from that conclusion (though I could be wrong).
Don't get me wrong; I'm not an extremist who's prepared to make the leap to granting dolphins and whales human rights and declaring them "people." They are not humans. They don't follow our moral codes, and are arguably incapable of understanding them. They may experience life the way we can experience life, but they don't think in any way similarly to how we think. It's a totally different type of logic or reasoning based on a totally different position in the world and environment. My argument is simply that we should leave them the **** alone, because killing them is ethically suspect.