Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
I have observed some really spirited debate the last several nights on this. What do you think?
Are Killer Whales exploited in captivity for purely business purposes or are entities like Sea World justified in harboring wild marine mammals in captivity for recreation, research and education for the public?
Are you aligned more with Bob Barker or Jack Hannah?
I have observed some really spirited debate the last several nights on this. What do you think?
Are Killer Whales exploited in captivity for purely business purposes or are entities like Sea World justified in harboring wild marine mammals in captivity for recreation, research and education for the public?
Are you aligned more with Bob Barker or Jack Hannah?
Regardless, it’s wrong to keep them in captivity for any reason.
But what about the other question: did the whale knowingly murder the trainer or was it an accident? I heard one account on the radio which said the trainer was lying on her back on a platform with her hair dangling in the water. This was against park regulations; because this same whale had already killed another person years before, she was supposed to be standing on the platform when performing with him. The whale grabbed her by the hair and pulled her down to the bottom of the pool.
For a whale to murder a person, it would have to do so with malice and aforethought according to the definition of murder. I don’t think we know enough about killer whale cognition to claim that. Thus it seems reasonable at this point to call it a killing, inadvertent or even accidental.
Maybe thats why they are called killer whales and not murderous whales?
Still, the issue here is whether to keep marine mammals in captivity for our enjoyment, research and understanding of them as a species.
‘As long as a stable population of killer whales exists in the wild, there is no problem keeping some in captivity.’
Oh there is a problem kb, whether you think so or not. Ethical treatment of animals is always a problem to those who have that opinion. I heard comparisons from the the PETA Bob Barker types that, keeping a Killer Whale in tanks at Seaworld was the equivalent of a human in a bathtub.
Silly analogy or not? Thats what those people believe.
They are driven by their emotions and fail to see that there will always (for our purposes) be more killer whales provided we are economical about it.
I’m pretty sure they’re not thinking so narcissistically about our purposes, but rather are concerned with these highly intelligent animals’ quality of life.
Yes kb, you are missing the point, or their point I should say. They are concerned with the ethical treatment of EVERY Killer Whale, not the survival or sustaining of the species necessarily. They are basically affording the same rights to Killer Whales as those afforded to humans. To live naturally, free and ethically.
Allow me to refine my point—I was in a rush so I could get ready for a lecture.
I know they aren’t thinking this will drive the whales to extinction. But what I’m trying to say is that removing one whale from the wild isn’t some kind of great loss. All the adult killer whales are pretty much the same for all intents and purposes and collecting a few from the population is the same as getting a sample of bacteria to make a vaccine or gathering some minerals from a geological site.
The reason we afford extra rights to humans is because otherwise we would not be able to cooperate and trust each other as well. The better we cooperate, the better everything is for everyone. It’s an unbelievably good tradeoff for everyone. Giving this to animals doesn’t do anything for us other than satisfy feelings about “natural rights” and “freedom”. Ironically, this fascination with whales (they are a lot more like us than bacteria) is the whole reason we display them in sea world in the first place—because they are interesting. So it’s like people can’t even make up their mind. Personally I don’t really care either way. I have no reason to want to remove a whale from it’s habitat—I just don’t see what the big deal is leaving them all there rather than any other use we might have for a few of em (in this case a quite harmless one). Yes, I am a speciesist. Everything is “natural”. If something were truly unnatural, it would have to be physically impossible, imho.
My opinion is that it is better to captivate a few of many wild animals, especially marine mammals, so we can study them and learn more about them. The knowledge we gain from this actually helps us to save their species. Knowledge is power. Plus there is no evidence that the animals are miserable or uhappy in captivity. They eat and breed in captivity so that lends to the idea that they are not horribly disrupted. Visibility for the public also grants great respect for the animals. Younger people are the ones to save them in the future, so anything they can learn about them now is good for the posterity and prosperity of the species. Animal rights peoples focus is too narrow in my view.
But what I’m trying to say is that removing one whale from the wild isn’t some kind of great loss.
Maybe not from your selfish perspective, but I’m sure that one, unfortunate whale would disagree. Or maybe I’m anthropomorphizing?
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not some bleeding heart vegetarian. I would have no problem with hunting the whales to extinction. I also have no problem keeping whales born in captivity in captivity. But it seems cruel to catch an animal from the wild (as in this whale’s case) and keep it locked up for any reason. And that includes catching endangered species in order to try and stave off their extinction. Better that the entire species goes extinct than one wild animal be locked up.
Maybe not from your selfish perspective, but I’m sure that one, unfortunate whale would disagree. Or maybe I’m anthropomorphizing?
Probably. We don’t know if the whale cares about being free in the ocean or not. We can assume it wants to follow it’s nature, fight for food, group dominance, breed, etc but that’s different then freedom. Also we assume that living in the wild in some great thing when in reality it is tough and brutal, maybe having everything provided to you is whale heaven, it’s the dream of billions of humans after all….......
Maybe not from your selfish perspective, but I’m sure that one, unfortunate whale would disagree. Or maybe I’m anthropomorphizing?
Probably. We don’t know if the whale cares about being free in the ocean or not. We can assume it wants to follow it’s nature, fight for food, group dominance, breed, etc but that’s different then freedom. Also we assume that living in the wild in some great thing when in reality it is tough and brutal, maybe having everything provided to you is whale heaven, it’s the dream of billions of humans after all….......
There were 1,610,446 sentenced prisoners in the United States at yearend 2008. I assure you that most of them didn’t want to have “everything provided to them.”
In fact, I have no idea who these billions of human being are who want to be infantilzed; I realize that certain people think that unemployment insurance is a disincentive to finding work, and that anyone who decries that fact that 45,000 people a year die in the US for want of health insurance is just looking for a free health handout, but seriously GAD, are you projecting a desire to be coddled or do you have some explanation for who these billions of humans are who want everything provided.
