Dolphin Jumps Again with Artificial Fin

Ant writes "This Yahoo! News story mentions Fuji, a mother dolphin that lost 75 percent of her tail due to a mysterious disease, being able to jump again with the help of what is believed to be the world's first artificial fin. The 34-year-old dolphin held at Japan's largest aquarium in the southern island of Okinawa wears the rubber fin for about 20 minutes a day allowing her to jump and to swim at the same speed of other dolphins."

Comments

Artifical foot?

[Poltras]

I wonder where we are in bio research, getting humans able to walk, run, jump at the speed of other humans.

Re:Artifical foot?

[The Only Druid]

I dont think we have to admit that at all. The same science is being used to improve the quality of the very thing you're moaning about: prosthetics for humans. Its extremely complicated to design flexible materials that respond like types of flesh, and this is all part of the progress. Its disapointing, especially on Slashdot, to see people who don't realize that research isn't a straight line. Research is a branching tree, with some branches rejoining the main trunk, where distal improvements often reintegrate to improve the main research.

Mystery "disease"?

[rdc_uk]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/3 754310.stm

Hmmm?

Feel goodism

[MyLongNickName]

This is less applicable being in a hman controlled environement. But I have to wonder if our attempts to "help" animals actually results in long-term harm. Like it or not, the weak are supposed to die out. Perhaps we should do less to help animals.

I will also temper my argument by saying that people need to stop intruding so much on animals' natural habitats so that they can have a healthy population that can rebound from the occasional disease or natural disaster.

Re:Feel goodism

[brian0918]

" Like it or not, the weak are supposed to die out."

Uhh... says who? I think you're taking that "survival of the fittest" a little too literally. There is no direction to evolution. In the long run it might be the case that the fittest survive most often, but this isn't necessarily the case on a per-individual scale.

In any case, intelligent life has changed all this. Does this mean it's bad for evolution? No. It just means the "survival of the fittest" phrase needs some changing.

Re:Feel goodism

[Random_Goblin]

from bridgestone's point of view though, they just got some excellent worldwide feel good PR and advertising for $95,000, cheap at twice the price...I can't find data on the price of F1 tires (mostly because Bridgestone refuses to discuss figures, usually a good sign you can't afford them!),but i wouldn't be at all suprised if it made 95k look like spare change

not to mention they will have got some valuable research data from the experiment

and while i might agree that saving one dolphin, is (pardon the pun) a drop in the ocean... it's a start. Dolphins are truely facinating creatures, very bright and with a primary sense (ultra sound) we are just begining to understand. It would be a great shame if they were all gone before we actually got to know them a bit more.

and yes there is an element of "feel goodism" involved, but if that translates into more empathy for dolphins, ie NOT " euthanize the dolphin and go out and catch another one" then i for one am all for it.

Re:Feel goodism

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank god *someone* understands Darwinism. "Survival of the Fittest" is a damn phrase to mean a macro-genetic concept, not a catchphrase to justify letting things just die. Like the parent said, "intelligent life has changed all this." We use our brains and tools *instead* of evolving new biological constructs. Does that mean we're not evolving? No. We're just evolving along a different mode now, and just happen to be carrying other species along, for better or worse. Weak and strong are abstract concepts, each definition changing depending on the specifics involved. And to those of you who'll scream that Darwinian evolution depends on inheritance - what the hell do you think archiving data is about?! Just saving data for the sake of saving it? No.
Evolution is a dynamic concept, people. Get with it, and stop using terms you don't fully understand.

Re:Feel goodism

[forkazoo]

Just remember that "the fittest" is defined as whoever survives in their environment. So, this particular dolphin may have a cuteness adaptation that makes humans want to help her. While that wouldn't be a benefit in a humanless ocean, she doesn't live in a humanless ocean. It doesn't make any sense trying to decide who is the fittest beforehand. That is trying to put a human value judgement on a natural process. You do what you do. They do what they do. No need to worry about evolution. It'll keep on going without us. It's like that.

Re:Feel goodism

[cavac]

Like it or not, the weak are supposed to die out.

Well known but untrue. Although it's commonly refered as the "survival of the fittest" - which many people misunderstand as "survival of the strongest" - what modern science means is the "survival of the most adaptive". That is, species that can adapt fastest with the least amount of hazzle to changing environments and new illnesses have the biggest chances of survival.

If that means getting some two-legged ape-decendants - who still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea - to make you a rubber fin thats perfectly fine for us dolphins...

First artificial tail fin, not dolphin appendage

[dbretton]

Dolphins have been given artificial flippers on several occasions before this.

First Porpoise inaccurate

[Laebshade]

Considering that dolphins are not porpoises, yeah I'd say so.

There are only six porpoise species, sometimes called "true porpoises," four of which live in the northern hemisphere. Porpoises are smaller in size than whales and dolphins and have a low dorsal fin (one species has no dorsal fin at all) and, most distinctively, no beak. Most are shy, live close to shore and are less likely to ride alongside the bows of ships than are dolphins.

let's see

[RMH101]

spending a few tens of thousands on a fun project, overstating the cost to your company to the press, and enjoying WORLDWIDE FEELGOOD PUBLICITY FOR NOTHING? doesn't sound that bad a deal to me. Look how much bridgestone spend on F1 tyres, for example...

Re:Feel goodism (But Still Good)

[bstarrfield]

First, I generally agree with you, but this is still a worthwhile act. Corporations are, in a legal sense, people, and should act as responsible members of the community. Charitable corporate donations have plunged over the last twenty years. Any positive action, even helping a dolphin, is a good thing.

Considering that Bridgestone's primary product (tires) is environmentally quite destructive, helping an animal is the least that they can do. We can be critical about what other causes they could have chosen to support, we can even make fun of dolphins, but fundamentally it was a decent act to help the creature.

How much is a dolphin worth? It's market value, or it's value as a living, caring, creature? People spend fortunes taking care of their pets, though it would be much cheaper to purchase a new dog or cat. They do it because they recognize the moral value and ethical requirement to be a good caretaker for the creature that they own. This is a 34 year old dolphin, dependant on human beings for it's life. There is nothing wrong with being decent towards it.

All of the alternate uses are good, even better. But to get a corporation to do something good is in itself remarkable.

Re:Dolphin Swims... but Children Keep Dying

[MyLongNickName]

I'm curious. How much do you give to charity each year?

Re:Dolphin Swims... but Children Keep Dying

[Ignignot]

How is this getting rated insightful? This is either a troll or a moron.

First off, it isn't philanthropy because you can only be philanthropic towards humans.

Second, Bridgestone is doing this as a cool way to market themselves and maybe do something nice at the same time.

Third, by your argument you should sell your property, if any, stop eating nice food, stop using medical insurance, stop going on trips, stop buying new clothes, and stop using electricity. The amount of lives you could save with all of that money by far dwarfs your own - even if you die because you are homeless and malnourished, you're going to make it so that hundreds of children will live. So please, go follow your own advice and stop not saving children's lives by posting on slashdot. I figure every 10 posts is another dead baby at your feet.