Save the Dolphins?

[Yum]

Wow, this has to be the coolest thread in RMXP's symposium.

Dolphins are cute though And apparently they taste like tuna? So they should just regulate the fishing and stuff of the dolphins because tuna tastes good but I wouldn't want such cool things getting totally massacred. On the other hand, making society accept the killing of dolphins (an intelligent mammal) may bring us one step closer to making society accept hunting down the Greatest Game of them all...

That's right, I'm talking about putting a bullet in your head Jonathan.

 

[rpgfan_2007]

The problem lies in the fact that a chicken is not endangered and taking it from the ecosystem will not upset the balance of the ecosystem around it. Dolphins are very endangered and very important to their ecosystem, and thusly we should be able to refrain from killing them, atleast until they are no longer endangered.

You're missing that we're higher creatures capable of reason and able to amass food, so there's no reason to shit all over the ecosystem more than we already have by completely removing an entire species from it.

I don't believe Dolphins are an endangered species. Who says that?

And besides, the point isn't whether a species is endangered or not. The point is. how can one party determine what is acceptable to kill or not, when that very same party also kills?

I never said eating meat was immoral. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy. And we already are shitting all over the ecosystem and also the world's climate. We've exploited the world's oil resources, pollutted our air and oceans. We've been shitting all over the planet and into outerspace. Man is the problem. We need to find a better way to live than what we currently are doing.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

The bottle nosed dolphin is not endangered like people think it is. And most people think of flipper when they think of dolphins, only reason I bring that up.

However, here are the only endangered dolphins (according to the IUCN Red Data Book)

Indus river dolphin
(Platanista minor)

Baiji or Yangtze river dolphin
(Lipotes vexillifer)

And that's it. Here are the only dolphins listed as vulnerable:
Ganges river dolphin
(Platanista gangetica)

Amazon river dolphin
(Inia geoffrensis)

True, some species are hard to figure out - but they aren't on the official lists. Unless we're talking about those 4 dolphins (out of all the species) let's leave the endangered arguments aside.

And dolphin is considered only slightly more intelligent than pigs by some contemporary studies nowadays, so I guess if you're against a dolphin soup because of it's once intelligence and social savvy behavior, don't eat pork chops.

 

[Arcanum]

Thank you Bearcat and Venetia. I think, Rpgfan, that you are trying to change the subject when you're talking about morality. What Bearcat has addressed is that it isn't intelligent to heavily hunt and reduce the population of a species that would significantly impact our ability to survive by destabilizing one of the ecosystems on which we, as well as many other animals rely.

I'm not advocating industrial farming of animals, in fact, I am vehemently opposed to it (if I eat meat, I pay more to buy more humanely raised animals, i.e. not ones living in boxes all their lives and fed on corn they cannot digest without antibiotics. A discussion of just how much more humane that is, as well as the effectiveness of doing that is for another time), but I do think there is a significant difference between killing cows that are not major high level predators and that we have a direct investment in having around, as opposed to dolphins, which are high level predators, and which human hunters are likely to over fish. Capitalism isn't an excuse for destabilizing an ecosystem.

As for the ethics of doing something such as killing large numbers of a population of animals, I think about it this way. Biodiversity is a necessary element for the healthy existence of any species, humans included. By reducing biodiversity of an ecosystem, you are reducing the capacity of living things to survive, because with fewer species around, if some large interspecies disease or cataclysmic event comes about, then it is possible that no animals or plants will be able to survive it. There are also many other reasons to have biodiversity. If you want me to elaborate, just ask. My view of morality depends upon whether a successful ecosystem exists for both humans and animals to live within, so you don't need to think hard to guess what my moral standpoint is.

EDIT: @RPGfan and 60.25: The bottlenose dolphin isn't endangered overall, but striped dolphins are considered endangered around the area of Japan where they are hunted.

 

[rpgfan_2007]

Thank you Bearcat and Venetia. I think, Rpgfan, that you are trying to change the subject when you're talking about morality. What Bearcat has addressed is that it isn't intelligent to heavily hunt and reduce the population of a species that would significantly impact our ability to survive by destabilizing one of the ecosystems on which we, as well as many other animals rely.

I'm not advocating industrial farming of animals, in fact, I am vehemently opposed to it (if I eat meat, I pay more to buy more humanely raised animals, i.e. not ones living in boxes all their lives and fed on corn they cannot digest without antibiotics. A discussion of just how much more humane that is, as well as the effectiveness of doing that is for another time), but I do think there is a significant difference between killing cows that are not major high level predators and that we have a direct investment in having around, as opposed to dolphins, which are high level predators, and which human hunters are likely to over fish. Capitalism isn't an excuse for destabilizing an ecosystem.

As for the ethics of doing something such as killing large numbers of a population of animals, I think about it this way. Biodiversity is a necessary element for the healthy existence of any species, humans included. By reducing biodiversity of an ecosystem, you are reducing the capacity of living things to survive, because with fewer species around, if some large interspecies disease or cataclysmic event comes about, then it is possible that no animals or plants will be able to survive it. There are also many other reasons to have biodiversity. If you want me to elaborate, just ask. My view of morality depends upon whether a successful ecosystem exists for both humans and animals to live within, so you don't need to think hard to guess what my moral standpoint is.

Blah blah blah.


I hope that the Japanese ignore idiotic people like you, and continue on killing the dolphins for food. Who the hell are you to tell what they can and shouldn't eat? You dont friggin own the Dolphins, moron. There's plenty of dolphins in the seas.

I can't stand hypocrites. I swear the human species is quite possibly the stupidest species on the planet. Always being a hypocritical dumbass. It really really bugs me.

 

[Arcanum]

Blah blah blah.


I hope that the Japanese ignore idiotic people like you, and continue on killing the dolphins for food. Who the hell are you to tell what they can and shouldn't eat? You dont friggin own the Dolphins, moron. There's plenty of dolphins in the seas.

I can't stand hypocrites. I swear the human species is quite possibly the stupidest species on the planet. Always being a hypocritical dumbass. It really really bugs me.

Can you be a little more specific about what you thought was hypocritical?

The only argument in the post you just made is that there are plenty of dolphins. There may be plenty of dolphins now, but the populations of many fish that have been fished commercially have declined to a mere shadow of what they have been. [Link]
I was just going from what I knew about that, and that many commercial fisheries have been depleted, leading to largely disrupted ecosystems.
I could probably scrape up a better, more recent, and more direct source if I looked harder, but this gets the point across.

Though, I would be willing to concede if you came up with a reliable source that shows that the hunting of dolphins is sustainable in this context. I admit I was a little hasty with the post I made and didn't go on anything besides what I knew about commercial fishing practices in the last 50 years... but hell, that's what the symposium is for, right? To share information, make people more educated about things that are important, and to correct misinformed judgments. If trolling is all there is to offer, I might as well not bother posting. I have an open mind though, especially if I see something that's convincing enough to change it.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

Arcanum, I said bottle nosed dolphins are not endangered. I put stress on not.

I haven't seen anything but those I listed on any list. If it's on there, let me know, and I'll edit my post if you'd like.

And I too would like to know what is meant by "hypocritical" on rpgfan's post.

 

[Lene]

I'm pretty sure Sharks will go after and eat dolphins. I'm pretty sure Killer Whales will do the same. They may not be prey, but its not like dolphins will not be eaten at all of a sudden humans stopped liking the taste.

Also where are people getting this information that dolphins are an endangered species? Only a few dolphin species are endangered and as people have said, the dolphins that are being hunted do not fall within that line.

Speaking of killing Top Level Predators for food...did you know Florida has Alligator Hunting Season (well not sure if it's a season, but I do know that you can hunt them)? They actually want the number of alligators to go down, which is interesting considering that not too long ago they were endangered. (You can get Alligator burgers in the Everglades, never tried it though, lol!)

 

[Arcanum]

I said high level predator, not top. Bottlenose Dolphins eat mackerel, herring, cod, squids, sardines, cuttlefish, shrimp, and many other animals. And they are eaten by sharks and killer whales, but mostly when they are either weak or old. There are always exceptions of course, but that is essentially their place in their ecosystem. Either way, if their numbers were to decline seriously, the ecosystem which they are a part of would become unbalanced and there would be some serious problems.

EDIT: To Lene's edit, I think a lot of the discussion of endangered dolphin populations is based upon local, not worldwide populations, hence you being confused. Some dolphin populations in certain areas are heavily diminished, and others are doing alright. It's the ones that are heavily diminished that I worry about.

Hmm, and I didn't know that about the Everglades... yikes.

 

[Venetia]

I don't believe Dolphins are an endangered species. Who says that?

I wasn't talking specifically of bottlenose dolphins. I think Sixty pointed out there are other species that are endangered. I didn't really bother reading most of the other posts from boredom :'/

I wouldn't kill a dolphin, and I wouldn't eat one (mainly because I particularly like them), but if it's not endangered or threatened, there isn't a reason to ban it. Restrictions are in place to keep species from becoming endangered, however.

Also I believe some fishermen break restrictions when they kill an animal inhumanely (i.e. letting them bleed out/cutting off limbs before the kill/slow poison/separating mother from calf), and that should have restrictions. If we're going to hunt something for the hell of it (dolphin is not nor ever will be a staple food), we may as well do it cleanly without letting them suffer or affect future generations of the animal.

@ Lene: I've had alligator, it's not that great. They're off the threatened list, I believe. They're doing so well they're affecting other species of wildlife, and affecting local populations of humans, so that's why the hunting resumed. I see them everywhere, there's a small family of them living close to my house. They're attributable to a number of deaths a year, and have been reported as being far more aggressive in recent years, perhaps due to the large number of them vying for the same food sources, and perhaps due to the hotter temperatures, which affect their sexual maturity.

 

[PINEDAXP]

I'll throw in my two cents okay, It'll be a test for my new try to not be a jerk in the Symposium...

I live in Costa Rica, it's a small place, but last time I checked we had a great amount of the natural resources, if someone checks for it please give me the percentage. Anyway, we have many policies and laws against killing and hunting of some animal species, precisely for the reasons Ven posted.

To prevent the endangering of species, regulations are created. Nevertheless, we humans tend to do the opposite of what we're told. Mainly because of a money matter (think of oil and CO2 and the likes)

I think that MAYBE illegal fishing isn't punished enough to be a back up to the law... I mean, come on... It hasn't reached general culture to be seen as a real matter by all...

But yeah, I stated it before, I'm against savage techniques of animal hunting, like cutting of a shark's fins and let the shark die, you get the picture...

Dolphins? Not all of dolphins' species are endangered, but we don't want them to be... at least some of us?

 

[Jeff the Green]

It doesn't matter that bottle nosed dolphins aren't endangered. Red tail hawks aren't anywhere near endangered in the states, but it would be disastrous to hunt them because they are top predators. Because each step above producers (plants) causes an exponential decrease in biomass (number * size of a given animal), the healthy population of high level predators is very low, especially when, like dolphins, the predator is much larger than their prey.

As for orcas and sharks, it is true that they occasionally will eat dolphins when they get the chance. However, dolphins have evolved defenses against them: most dolphins will kill any large sharks they come across, even if they don't appear to be hunting at the time, and avoid areas that orcas haunt (also, orcas prefer things that aren't smart enough to gang up on them to escape). The dent they make in dolphin populations are nothing compared to even the accidental dolphin kills by humans, and organized hunting will almost certainly destabilize the populations.

 

[Lene]

Bearcat- Japanese fishers have been doing this for generations. Dolphin as a delicacy is nothing new. The dolphins in these areas have not become endangered in the process and there have been no reports on negative environment effects.

It's one thing if the big outcry about Dolphin fishing was overfishing, but apparently nobody is screaming about that. Frankly, I think fishers are a bit more aware that if they over do it, then they won't have jobs anymore. They have guilds regulating who can kill dolphin and how many; just like Florida with Alligators.

We're not in the time of the Buffalo, where people didn't know better and were killing them for sport.

I was reading an article about people complaining that dolphins are being killed inhumanely? What?! Seriously...I remember eating a cow I saw shot in the head. People break chickens' necks, and slit goats' throats. I'm pretty sure that none of these are very "humane", but how the hell are you going to have meat if you don't kill it? People are too naive when it comes to where their food comes from.

I bet if we look at accidental dolphin death from careless fishing in other places, there's probably a problem people can get behind. And what's worse, nobody is eating these dolphins. The dolphins are dying for absolutely nothing. Where's the outcry for that?

 

[Jeff the Green]

I know they have, but, if I recall correctly, there's been an increase lately since more people can afford delicacies.

Also, shooting something in the head and breaking the neck are actually very humane (if done correctly) since they are absolutely instantaneous, and many people buy only meat that has been farmed humanely, that is, the animals were not mistreated, and their deaths were humane.

Finally, I'll do something that's probably unfair: introduce a new argument. Killing dolphins is immoral because they have a sense of self, an ego, and are one of only three known species that do (chimps and humans are the other two). We know (or at least can deduce) this because a) they have names for themselves, b) introduce themselves, but not others, c) recognize themselves in a mirror (they're quite vain, actually), and d) distinguish the mirror-self from the self-self and from others. Life has value in as much as it is valued by its owner and has value to others (though the former is far more important). Since cows, chickens, etc., have no sense of self, they cannot value their life, and thus their lives have much lower value than those of humans, chimps, and dolphins.

 

[Shizu]

I know they have, but, if I recall correctly, there's Since cows, chickens, etc., have no sense of self, they cannot value their life, and thus their lives have much lower value than those of humans, chimps, and dolphins.

If all animals could talk, humanity, out of compassion would go extinct from starvation.

 

[rpgfan_2007]

Either we all become vegetarians, or we admit we're hypocrites to say animal X is ok for consumption but animal Y isn't Ok.

 

[Jeff the Green]

If all animals could talk, humanity, out of compassion would go extinct from starvation.

Erm, my point was that most animals don't have that mental capacity. And actually, fewer people would starve, since eating animals is a very inefficient way of getting food. For a human to get one calorie of pork, a pig must eat many more times the number of calories.

Either we all become vegetarians, or we admit we're hypocrites to say animal X is ok for consumption but animal Y isn't Ok.

You'd be correct if eating animal X is equivalent to eating animal Y. I've been arguing that since dolphins differ substantially and relevantly from cows, chickens, etc., eating dolphins is not equivalent to eating cows, chickens, etc.

 

[rpgfan_2007]

Erm, my point was that most animals don't have that mental capacity. And actually, fewer people would starve, since eating animals is a very inefficient way of getting food. For a human to get one calorie of pork, a pig must eat many more times the number of calories.



You'd be correct if eating animal X is equivalent to eating animal Y. I've been arguing that since dolphins differ substantially and relevantly from cows, chickens, etc., eating dolphins is not equivalent to eating cows, chickens, etc.

You're argument is flawed. Animals may not have the mental capacity of Human beings, but that doesn't mean they dont' have a sense of self-awareness.

All animals from dolphins to a mouse, have self-awareness, and consciousness. If you've ever owned a dog before, you'd know they are extremely self-aware ( ha, some would say too self-aware ). They have definite personalities, and moods, and emotions. They are like children when they are young, and like adults when they are older.

Please do not say anymore that animals lack self-awareness. Also, please do not separate animals from one another. Who are you to say Dolphins are worthy to be spared, but a chicken, not. Pigs are some of the most intelligent animals.

We eat animals, rightly or wrongly, and therefore, should not condemn others of doing the same thing.

 

[Jeff the Green]

You're argument is flawed. Animals may not have the mental capacity of Human beings, but that doesn't mean they dont' have a sense of self-awareness.

All animals from dolphins to a mouse, have self-awareness, and consciousness. If you've ever owned a dog before, you'd know they are extremely self-aware ( ha, some would say too self-aware ). They have definite personalities, and moods, and emotions. They are like children when they are young, and like adults when they are older.

Please do not say anymore that animals lack self-awareness. Also, please do not separate animals from one another. Who are you to say Dolphins are worthy to be spared, but a chicken, not. Pigs are some of the most intelligent animals.

We eat animals, rightly or wrongly, and therefore, should not condemn others of doing the same thing.

First of all, reductio ad absurdum: if all animals have self-awareness and consciousness, do jellyfish, which have no brains? Even among those with a central nervous system, do ants, which have fewer brain cells than the skin cells you remove by scratching your head? If you say no, then where would you draw the line? I've already drawn one, which is the one supported by most animal behaviorists.

Second, consciousness is completely separate from self-awareness. Consciousness is impossible to define precisely, since we don't know exactly how it works (or even if it exists at all, since there's no external sign of consciousness). Self-awareness, however, is a specific brain function, it is the ego (not exactly as Freud described it, but close). It is what tells us that we are separate from the world, our body belongs to us, we are in our body, etc. In fact, it can be turned on and off or heightened or decreased in humans with certain drugs, and in certain altered states (like during meditation or during a near-death experience). While it is impossible to say for sure that cows and chickens have no self-awareness, since one can't spend a day as one, from our knowledge of where the ego is located in the brain we can tell that it is extremely unlikely that they are self-aware, since they have virtually no development in that area of the brain. Other animals, such as dogs, may lie in some gray area, or they may be self-aware, or not, since the part of the brain that controls the ego is partially developed in them.

Finally, personalities are not dependent on self-awareness, or even consciousness. If you prod one ant it may bite you, while another may run away. This fits a strict definition of a personality, but is defined solely by the way their environment shaped their brain, not on self-awareness.

 

[Yum]

Finally, I'll do something that's probably unfair: introduce a new argument. Killing dolphins is immoral because they have a sense of self, an ego, and are one of only three known species that do (chimps and humans are the other two). We know (or at least can deduce) this because a) they have names for themselves, b) introduce themselves, but not others, c) recognize themselves in a mirror (they're quite vain, actually), and d) distinguish the mirror-self from the self-self and from others. Life has value in as much as it is valued by its owner and has value to others (though the former is far more important). Since cows, chickens, etc., have no sense of self, they cannot value their life, and thus their lives have much lower value than those of humans, chimps, and dolphins.

Objection. Subjective statements with regards to what is immoral. (Sustained!)

i.e. Assumes killing something with a sense of self (in this case, the dolphin, 1 out of 3 species) is immoral.

e.g. So then killing an enemy soldier during an engagement in war is immoral? (He should have considered context with relation to his argument... but I'm not gonna make an argument here, it probably wouldn't be worth my time against bearcat. I'm just telling bearcat his 2 latest posts are insubstantial unless he proves it IS immoral to kill something that's got "a sense of self" as he puts it that isn't human.)

Ugh. Only 1 sentence required to debuff his paragraph. I wish other people would see these cracks in his fundamental arguments. I'm getting bored.

Stop being so arrogant about your debating damnit! - Andy (PS, talk on IRC)