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.
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.
As is becoming all to typical in your self-righteous rush to save the world from GAD you fail to read/comprehend what is being said. I/we were talking about whales and my reference to billions of people were Christians who dream of heaven i.e. being gods slave in exchange for having everything they desire to be happy provided for them.
On a side note I am flattered that you find my views (even on what whales feel) such a threat that you feel compelled to save the world from them.
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.
I think Gad was slamming Christians and their hope for eternal life. So now is the time that you say “Oh, then I agree with you.”
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.
You’re probably anthropomorphizing. In all honesty, I think the whale probably doesn’t care, it just does whatever comes to mind. It gets free food for life, but we can’t give it everything, just like we can’t give people everything they want either, so the tank size for instance may be a compromise. If you’re concerned about living space, I would be more worried about all the humans living in absolute poverty in many regions of the globe.
So you are saying the suffering inflicted on a whale by being captured is worse than killing it? If I’m reading you, the captivity itself is okay, just the transition is the problem. Interesting position, but I have to disagree about extinction—I contend that the extinction of a species is worse for us than captivity of a wild individual of that species. Extinction is loss of irreplacable information—captivity is simply exploitation. The fact this bothers you suggests you are simply putting yourself in a perspective which is impossible to conceive and trying to imagine what it would be like.
You’re probably anthropomorphizing. In all honesty, I think the whale probably doesn’t care, it just does whatever comes to mind. It gets free food for life, but we can’t give it everything, just like we can’t give people everything they want either, so the tank size for instance may be a compromise. If you’re concerned about living space, I would be more worried about all the humans living in absolute poverty in many regions of the globe.
Based on my observations of the wild animals I’ve captured (everything from frogs and snakes to raccoons and foxes), I think they probably do “care.” “Care” may not be exactly the right word for what they feel, but they are certainly not indifferent to their plight. They typically spend all their waking hours trying to escape, sometimes injuring themselves in the process. They often refuse to eat, “preferring,” if you will, slow death by starvation to captivity. This despite my misguided attempts to recreate their natural environment. Not one ever returned after its release.
kbk+ - 12 March 2010 05:38 PM
So you are saying the suffering inflicted on a whale by being captured is worse than killing it? If I’m reading you, the captivity itself is okay, just the transition is the problem. Interesting position, but I have to disagree about extinction—I contend that the extinction of a species is worse for us than captivity of a wild individual of that species. Extinction is loss of irreplacable information—captivity is simply exploitation. The fact this bothers you suggests you are simply putting yourself in a perspective which is impossible to conceive and trying to imagine what it would be like.
I’m saying the suffering inflicted on a wild animal by capturing it and keeping it in captivity is worse than killing it. Death, after all, is meaningless to the dead, and cannot therefore be construed as “worse” than captivity or anything else.
Extinction may be the loss of irreplaceable information, but of what value (beyond mere entertainment) is information about an extinct species? Be specific please, and remember that you’re talking about information which can only be gained from living, captive specimens.
You’re probably anthropomorphizing. In all honesty, I think the whale probably doesn’t care, it just does whatever comes to mind.
I suggest some research prior to forming such opinions.
Well you can’t really research the subjective experience of an animal that has a brain quite different from ours. It’s hard enough figuring out the experiences of other people. I somehow doubt that a whale is capable of very much deep thought. I don’t think a captive whale really understands what is going on. It may perceive a profound difference in the way things were before it was captured, but can it’s comprehension go much beyond that?
Antisocialdarwinist - 12 March 2010 06:48 PM
Based on my observations of the wild animals I’ve captured (everything from frogs and snakes to raccoons and foxes), I think they probably do “care.” “Care” may not be exactly the right word for what they feel, but they are certainly not indifferent to their plight. They typically spend all their waking hours trying to escape, sometimes injuring themselves in the process. They often refuse to eat, “preferring,” if you will, slow death by starvation to captivity. This despite my misguided attempts to recreate their natural environment. Not one ever returned after its release.
When you say it “refuses” to eat, it probably just isn’t receiving the stimuli that “trigger” it to eat and so it just doesn’t. I don’t think it’s “rebelling” against you. Likewise just because it tries to escape doesn’t mean it’s thinking “Oh no, I’m a captive!” It is very likely an involuntary response to being contained (considering what you mentioned). Of course domesticated animals don’t do this because they are wired differently.
Antisocialdarwinist - 12 March 2010 06:48 PM
I’m saying the suffering inflicted on a wild animal by capturing it and keeping it in captivity is worse than killing it. Death, after all, is meaningless to the dead, and cannot therefore be construed as “worse” than captivity or anything else.
Here’s why I thought that:
Antisocialdarwinist - 12 March 2010 03:38 PM
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.
Maybe I wasn’t understanding you correctly. And finally:
Antisocialdarwinist - 12 March 2010 06:48 PM
Extinction may be the loss of irreplaceable information, but of what value (beyond mere entertainment) is information about an extinct species? Be specific please, and remember that you’re talking about information which can only be gained from living, captive specimens.
Of what value is anything beyond “mere” entertainment? The only thing more direct I can think of would be the relief of need (such as food/water/shelter, etc.) In sum, I think there are two primary reasons to preserve all species. First, because so many of them form irreplacable parts of the ecosystem, so if we just decided to kill all the animals, we would die too. Secondly, they are fascinating and interesting; why destroy the information? It would be a waste. This is not even to mention the evolutionary aspect; they evolved to where they are along with us and they are still evolving. Extinction happens, but why should we hasten it? If anything is important, then this information undoubtedly is up there in importance.
There are two reasons (probably more) to oppose holding whales (and other large marine mammals) in captivity:
1) Places like Sea World espouse a certain level of hypocrisy and manipulation. They do this by the language they use to convince the public that marine mammals “enjoy” the experience and that they are “ambassadors” for their species. And they teach children—in particular—- (and adults) who frequent these places , that these animals are “cute” and “friendly” and other affective descriptors to hook them emotionally so they will buy into the belief that captive animals are here for their pleasure. IOW, they use an anthropomorphic argument to argue their case.
Yet when their critics (usually animal advocates) question to what level an animal that swims under natural conditions over 100 miles a day, eats a vast array of nutritionally dense food, has complex social and sonar networks, has complex cognitive skills, lives on average longer in the expansive oceanic world than in captivity, and in an environment that it has evolved and adapted to for millions of years without human assistance——in what capacity is it humane to expect such an animal to possibly thrive in a concrete tank?——they are accused of “anthropomorphizing.”
2) Secondly, the argument that studying these vast creatures under isolating and confining conditions, and under the guise of “entertainment” is somehow more “scientific” than studying them in their natural habitats is akin to someone telling Jane Goodall that her studies of primates in the wild were somehow specious, inferior and invalid compared to those studied in a zoo.
There are two reasons (probably more) to oppose holding whales (and other large marine mammals) in captivity:
1) Places like Sea World espouse a certain level of hypocrisy and manipulation. They do this by the language they use to convince the public that marine mammals “enjoy” the experience and that they are “ambassadors” for their species. And they teach children—in particular—- (and adults) who frequent these places , that these animals are “cute” and “friendly” and other affective descriptors to hook them emotionally so they will buy into the belief that captive animals are here for their pleasure. IOW, they use an anthropomorphic argument to argue their case.
Yet when their critics (usually animal advocates) question to what level an animal that swims under natural conditions over 100 miles a day, eats a vast array of nutritionally dense food, has complex social and sonar networks, has complex cognitive skills, lives on average longer in the expansive oceanic world than in captivity, and in an environment that it has evolved and adapted to for millions of years without human assistance——in what capacity is it humane to expect such an animal to possibly thrive in a concrete tank?——they are accused of “anthropomorphizing.”
I don’t expect a whale to thrive in a tank. Nobody is really arguing that the main reason we should keep whales is because they’re cute, friendly or something. It’s all about the money to them—which really does equate to providing entertainment in whatever way is possible. It’s simply exploitation, which is a shame but there are worse things happening to humans right now, for sure. Yes they are hypocrites in the sense you are using, but no, that doesn’t necessarily make what they’re doing “wrong” in an objective sense. For example, by utilitarianism, perhaps the utility generated for all the people far exceeds that lost by the single whale.
zelzo - 14 March 2010 01:24 PM
2) Secondly, the argument that studying these vast creatures under isolating and confining conditions, and under the guise of “entertainment” is somehow more “scientific” than studying them in their natural habitats is akin to someone telling Jane Goodall that her studies of primates in the wild were somehow specious, inferior and invalid compared to those studied in a zoo.
Nope, although you can observe captive whales a great deal more, which is perhaps better for learning some information about them, you pay the price by eliminating the habitat, so you can’t expect them to “act natural” in a tank. So you are right about this, never disagreed with you here. I don’t see how it’s an arguement against keeping any whales in captivity though. I was arguing that the removal of a few whales isn’t going to ruin everything like some people seem to imply. The void created by a couple missing whales from the ecosystem can easily be filled by other whales that might otherwise have starved.
Well now that you point that out, it’s a rather exaggerated statement of the position people will take which seems to imply that by removing a whale from it’s habitat, we will somehow damage the ecosystem because we’re taking it from “where it should be”. I know none of you think that, it was just one of the original reasons I posted in here. I just wanted to clarify that I wasn’t saying stuff like “it’s more scientific this way”.
This argument is indeed fascinating to me, as it is one that I can clearly see and understand both sides. There seems to be multiple goods and bads with each position.
My primary inquiry is this-if we did not captivate any wild marine mammals, would we be as scientifically knowledgeable about them as a species? Overall, has captivating a few of them helped them, or hurt them as a species?
This argument is indeed fascinating to me, as it is one that I can clearly see and understand both sides. There seems to be multiple goods and bads with each position.
My primary inquiry is this-if we did not captivate any wild marine mammals, would we be as scientifically knowledgeable about them as a species? Overall, has captivating a few of them helped them, or hurt them as a species?
Thanks for your inquiries. I too am interested in marine mammals.
It is important to keep in mind that places like Sea World first and foremost are commercial entities that profit off of the captivity of whales and dolphins. Any “research” one can attribute to them needs to question how natural the behaviors studied were under the captivity umbrella. And some scientists are paid by these entities so I’m dubious of what exactly they study and the outcomes.
Some websites below discuss research in the wild.
Numerous animal protection agencies (including The Vancouver Humane Society, The Humane Society of the United States, The Vancouver SPCA) all agree that whales physically suffer the limited movement allowed in small artificial pools, suffer social deprivation when removed from their families in the wild, and suffer much shorter life spans than their counterparts in the wild.
Studies on physiology, senses, and energetic can be valid in limited ways to determine such physical responses as eye sensitivity to light, or the number of calories it takes to swim a certain distance. But, for the most part, behavioral studies on captives whales can’t be applied to wild whales because captivity forces these animals to behave unnaturally.
“This week, 13 nations with a common interest in the Southern Ocean will work with scientists and specialists on an agreed approach to take us to a future where conservation of whales is the focus of science. “This is an opportunity for us all to examine current Southern Ocean research efforts, discuss research priorities, identify knowledge gaps, and map out how to build a scientific research program based on non-lethal methods,” Garrett said.
The partner nations will use modern research technologies such as genetic and molecular techniques, satellite tagging, acoustic surveys and aerial surveying of cetacean populations.
Orcas are bred in captivity, so capture is not always necessary, but their lives are far from ideal. Continued captivity is rationalized by those who love the whales as well as those who just profit from them - but when you distill the arguments what remains is a question of compassion, and how we treat the creatures that share our planet.
