Save the dolphins?

[Janus%TheDoorman]

Some of you may have seen in the past couple days that Heroes star Hayden Panetierre made headlines when, while on vacation in Japan, she and several friends attempted to prevent a group of Japanese fishermen from capturing, quite intentionally, a pod of dolphins. For many, this has raised questions of how widespread such practice is in Japan, and how humanely the dolphins are treated. For those who have seen these slaughterhouses, the answer is more than evident, however, for me the question that comes to mind was somewhat more abstract.

What justifiable reason is there for interfering with these fishermen and their livelihoods?

Don't be confused, these dolphins are not in any way endangered - fishermen catch thousands and thousands every year and the population have shown no signs of steep decline. You can be sure that there are still shipping containers stached somewhere with the "Save the Whales!" slogan printed on them, but for this the question is more broad.

In principle, save cultural and specific differences such as species, one could easily argue that less damage is done to these dolphins as a species than is done to cows, sheep, chicken, or any other livestock in the western world. These dolphins are still living in their natural habitat, untouched by the selective breeding process that has led most western farm species to be evolutionarily crippled. The processing of these animals aside, which I will be the first to agree is terribly cruel, the relation of these fishermen to the dolphins is, as far as I can see, much more natural than we find in western models.

So why then, are so many documentaries made, so much sympathy gathered behind the cause of saving an unendangered species? Aside from the obvious, and I pray overly cynical answer that it's simply because we find them "cute", there are suggestions that dolphins' noted intelligence is a cause for their preservation. As far as I can tell, though, the line between sentient and comparably unintelligent life is nowhere near being crossed.

There are obviously a plethora of other questions that can follow from these, but I'd like to hear what people have to say before I put them into words.

[Dr. Mobius]

What are they used for? Do the Japs eat dolphins? Make dolphin leather? Display trophy dolphin heads on their walls?

I'll need their uses and the alternatives before I can really say anything.

Until then, I suggest the fishermen storm the Heroes set for a little revenge.

[Janus%TheDoorman]

I'd thought that the comparison to livestock demonstrated it, but as far as I know, the main use is indeed as food. Dolphin meat is sold in may locations across the country as a luxury food, although sometimes mislabled as whale meat.

It'd take some more research on my part to find out if there were any other significan uses, but for now I'm not sure.

[Eddie Pinz]

If that is the use of fishing them, then I see no problem with it. That is, as long as their not overfishing. And it doesn't sound like they are by your first post.

As far as the reaction, I think it might be because of the images that come to mind when you mention catching dolphins. The first picture that comes to mind for me is tuna fishing with dolphins being inadvertantly caught. And the assumption of intelligence might have something to do with it.

But, I would have no problem with it as long as the dolphins are being used for something and are not being over fished.

[Boothby]

This whole thread has been bugging me since I first read it.

First of all, we have shown that dolphins and the other cetacea are, in fact, quite intelligent (all anthropomorphism aside). Except for the larger whales (which are too large to be kept in captivity), they can be trained to perform complicated,. multiple-step tasks. Personally, I don't feel comfortable killing and eating something that's as smart as or smarter than my dog.

The processing of these animals aside, which I will be the first to agree is terribly cruel, the relation of these fishermen to the dolphins is, as far as I can see, much more natural than we find in western models

The processing of these animals is pretty disgusting. Are you saying it's OK, as long as there's something "natural" about it? That seems to be some odd reasoning. Part of the whole meat/industrial complex is coming up with humane ways to "take" our food.

And, to be brutally honest, I could give less than a s*** about "luxury" food. We're slaughtering these beautiful and possibly intelligent animals just so their flesh can be used as "treats" for the wealthy? The hell with that; they don't have my sympathy.

[zeroguy]

Personally, I don't feel comfortable killing and eating something that's as smart as or smarter than my dog.

Why do you use intelligence as the scale of whether or not it's okay to kill something? "You" as people in general; most people seem to do this and I don't know why (I never really thought about it).

[suminonA]

Could be because of the eventual retaliation.

A.

[zeroguy]

Feh. Smarter beings would realize they have no chance against us.

[suminonA]

Feh. Smarter beings would realize they have no chance against us.

Or they might have realized that they don't have to go against us, we're dooming ourselfs already. This would explain why are we so "alone" in the Universe.

A.

[Boothby]

Zeroguy,

I forget if you are a vegan or not. Because if you're not, then you've already made this decision.

Actually, vegan or not, you've made this decision.


Here's a list of things we could eat:

Other people (adults)
Other people (children)
Mentally retarded (challenged) people
Handicapped people
People in vegetative states
Dick Cheney
Infants
Teenage sons
Poor people ("Eat the poor")
Wealthy people ("Eat the rich")
Gorillas
Other Apes
Chimpanzees
Elephants
Toothed Whales (including dolphins and porpoises)
Baleen Whales
Sharks
Whale sharks
Other large fish
Dogs
Cats
Rabbits
Squirrels
Ferrets/Weasels


And so on.

Where do your particular tastes lie?

[Boothby]

BTW, Japan is now planning on killing 50 endangered humpback whales, so that the wealthy elite in Japan can have whale snacks.

In simple terms: F^%$ them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/weeki ... ref=slogin

(requires free subscription)

Japan hopes to kill 50 of these endangered whales, which have long held a place in the public’s imagination with their other-worldly songs, habit of rocketing their 30-plus tons out of the sea and migrations of up to 10,000 miles a year. Melville once described the humpback as “the most gamesome and lighthearted of all the whales.”

Whaling nearly wiped it out, reducing the humpback’s numbers to perhaps a 1,000 by the mid-1960s. Today, estimates put the total at roughly 30,000. They are considered at high risk of extinction by the World Conservation Union.

“Humpbacks are some of the most wonderful and mysterious creatures in the ocean, with the longest vocalization produced by any animal, including humans, with their bouts of song that last up to 23 hours,” said David Rothenberg, a professor of philosophy and music at the New Jersey Institute of Technology and author of a forthcoming book on whale songs and science.

Here's a link to the "discussion" there:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/ ... e/#comment

[zeroguy]

Where do your particular tastes lie?

Well, I wasn't asking about where the line is drawn, I was asking about what characteristic determines the scale.

[Boothby]

How about this: Anything that can come when you call it. Anything that can "fetch."

[Dr. Mobius]

So teenage sons should be good to go then. Lazy bastards.

[Janus%TheDoorman]

Boothby, I'm not planning to go all the way down the Socratic path, but why is it that you feel uncomfortable killing animals for food based on intelligence? I'd think that, logically, the contribution to their environment/ecosystem would be a better gauge if we're to have one. While this is certainly harder to gauge, though perhaps only because it's not something that's often considered.

Also, the issue I take up with the meat industry is that, by comparison to these fishermen, while the methods are arguably more humane on an individual level, we've done much more damage to the species as a whole. Genetically manipulated to fit our ends, these animals have been crippled to the point of being entirely dependent upon us to sustain them. In the model of the fishermen, the dolphins are left to thrive and develop on their own, much less damaging to the animals in the long run.

Now, personally, my view of things is that it's hypocritical to view the western method as more ethical, or more humane, when in the end you're still killing the animals for food.

My question from the start has been, even if the relationship maintained by these fishermen is more natural, or western methods more "humane", why is it more ethical to eat a cow than a dolphin? And, perhaps more important, why do we draw that line?

[zeroguy]

How about this: Anything that can come when you call it. Anything that can "fetch."

Okay. Why?

[Boothby]

Janus,

but why is it that you feel uncomfortable killing animals for food based on intelligence? I'd think that, logically, the contribution to their environment/ecosystem would be a better gauge if we're to have one.

So we should, instead, eat...Americans?

I guess you could say I'm opposed to eating things with a level of self-awareness above some as-of-yet-undefined threshhold. Things on the path to humanity, if you would. Things with the beginning of a meaningful (dare I say it?) SOUL.

[Slim]

Maybe we should only eat an animal that actually wants to be eaten and is capable of saying so clearly and distinctly.

[Boothby]

Very Douglas Adams. Very not me.

[jotabe]

Well you know, i'd also feel it would be wrong if impossibly intelligent martians came to the Earth in cylinders and started eating us for food, knowing that we might be intelligent, specially when there are so many cows available.

Humans and dolphins can stablish emotional bounds. There is something special about them, at an intellectual level.
I have never heard of the same thing happening with tuna.