Slashdot Mirror
Should Dolphins Be Treated As Non-Human Persons?
Hugh Pickens writes "Dolphins have long been recognized as among the most intelligent of animals, but now the Times reports that a series of behavioral studies suggest that dolphins, especially species such as the bottlenose, have distinct personalities, a strong sense of self, can think about the future and are so bright that they should be treated as 'non-human persons.' 'Many dolphin brains are larger than our own and second in mass only to the human brain when corrected for body size,' says Lori Marino, a zoologist at Emory University. 'The neuroanatomy suggests psychological continuity between humans and dolphins and has profound implications for the ethics of human-dolphin interactions.' For example, one study found that dolphins can recognize their image in a mirror as a reflection of themselves — a finding that indicates self-awareness similar to that seen in higher primates and elephants. Other studies have found that dolphins are capable of advanced cognitive abilities such as problem-solving, artificial language comprehension, and complex social behavior, indicating that dolphins are far more intellectually and emotionally sophisticated than previously thought. Thomas White, professor of ethics at Loyola Marymount University, has written a series of academic studies suggesting dolphins should have rights, claiming that the current relationship between humans and dolphins is, in effect, equivalent to the relationship between whites and black slaves two centuries ago."
I think we should have standards for how we treat them, but I think that comparing the situation to slavery is somewhat over-the-top. Though it's really hard to think of some objective way of deciding just what rights they should have.
I think, maybe, we should just ask, if we can figure out how. Of course, then there's the morass of objectively identifying and interpreting communication. :-)
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
How do they taste?
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Get back to me when they develop opposable thumbs or become smart enough to stay out of tuna nets.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
they should be treated as 'non-human persons.'
Corporations are, so why not dolphins...
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
Pigs are extremely intelligent and are very similar to humans in many key ways.
Yet globally we kill over 1,000,000,000 of them each year for food.
It should now be amended to "darn you Dolphin, and fuck you Whale!!"
Why don't we just leave them to their business, and keep to our own? Otherwise, we'll have community organizers signing up dolphins to vote in elections and lobbying for tax dollars to fund flipper-accessible housing.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
My opinion is yes. I have studied dolphin behavior for some time, and there hhave been cases where one can distinctly recognize personhood.
The problem is: most of humankind is religious, and some of it quite fanatic. These guys will never accept that there is any other living being, except for humans, that has all the characters of a person.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
the Uplift begins...
Not that I mind it much. As long as they remain conscientious objectors to war.
Support FSF: Stop thinking with your wallet, and think with your imagination. (cc/non-commercial)
Lots of creatures exhibit some form of intelligence. Should they have rights too? And why is intelligence the only factor? Should a stupid person have less rights than a dolphin? What about faster? or stronger? Should animals which have those traits be given rights too?
Why do we have the right to give other creatures rights?
And do you think tuna fishermen are going to stop using nets because they might catch something which has rights?
...the current relationship between humans and dolphins is, in effect, equivalent to the relationship between whites and black slaves two centuries ago.
Right, because everybody knows that humans and dolphins can interbreed.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
... but they don't appear to develop* at all? I haven't seen any dolphin civilizations or "dolphin science" or "dolphin inventions" lately...
* Develop not referring evolutionary development or something like that, but developing things to help them survive better, live better, enjoy life better.
My cat can tell it's his own reflection in a mirror; he uses it to see his face while grooming. If he sees carpet fuzz or something, he'll wipe it off. I didn't know animals, other than apes, could reason this well.
We treat corporations as non-human persons.
well, there goes my evil project of using trained dolphins to solve captchas. Oh well, I can still use chimps. Outside of Spain at least.
My first program:
Hell Segmentation fault
But they're so delicious! Why would we risk the world's most epic source of food?
If they can pass a Turing Test, then they should be treated as persons.
Dolphins do deserve a more vigorous protection even though they will never be any good at playing the piano.
If dolphins have rights, we won't be able to use them in genetic experiments to make them smarter.
And if we can't make them smarter, then who is going to pilot our starships?
dolphins have the capability to differentiate in between a human struggling due to drowning in the sea, and someone flapping, blabbing, attempting to swim in the sea for fun, and from a long distance. not even humans have that capability. and this is only one of the capabilities they can field.
the difference in between humans and dolphins is that, humans are loaded on the iq side, and dolphins, are on the eq side. practically, human and dolphin populations are basically opposite twins of each others, when it comes to social interaction. of course humans are able to field some eq, as well as dolphins are able to field considerable iq. (the mind blobbing 'creating rings and blobs underwater play' pastime of dolphins, what they can do in research centers etc).
i think it is time we have dropped the late 19th century standards and concepts for sentience (most of which depend on iq, not even basic cognition), and adapt something that is more appropriate with the level of science our civilization has.
Read radical news here
In the Navy, I can get a lot of fish.
In the Navy, I sweep mines for liberty.
In the Navy! In the Navy!
To think we would want to be treated like you treat people.
Nuff said
it just isn't
you can talk about cruelty and you can talk about standards for how animals are to be interacted with, but when you start talking about animals having comparable rights as our treatment of our fellow human beings, you completely lose any logical coherence
go ahead and make vociferous passionate arguments about how animals should be treated. i welcome those arguments and support a lot of them. but don't completely ruin your argument by saying animals and humans are equivalent in any way. no, they simply aren't. i'm sorry, this is a matter of simple logical coherence. the rights we afford those of our fellow species due to our shared cognition is something above and beyond the rights we afford animals out of conscience, a HUMAN conscience
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
cognitive abilities are just a part of the concept of sentience. yet, we even tend to categorize humans according to their cognitive process. sentience is not only comprised of particular aspects of cognitive perception and processing. emotion concept is always left out of the definition of sentience, maybe unconsciously. it is wrong. sentience comes in a package.
Read radical news here
Maybe we should give humans right first, i.e. non-american citizens can be hunted, killed, maimed, collateral damage, whatever as long as it fits interests of US Government and the corporations that run it. Im not against given non-human persons rights, as long as we give all human persons rights. I'm also not talking about going invading other countries and enforce these rights, I would be satisfied if we declared in our laws, and actually tried to follow those.
WTF is a non-person human? Wouldn't dolphins be a non- non-person human making them a person? Gotta love slashdot ..
Will we punish dolphins for rape?
http://scienceray.com/biology/marine-biology/not-so-cute-dolphin-gang-rape/
Where are dolphin hospitals?
- AH
Because they live in a colder environment, their brains contain a higher percentage of glial cells, to generate warmth. We have fewer, as a percentage, but more of the neurons that actually process information. So bald comparisons of their brain size with ours are meaningless.
I really don't see why something as petty as intelligence should affect this decision. Everything dies, and in the end, ones intelligence means nothing. Elevating yourself above another entity simply for that reason is incredibly arrogant.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Notice the little weasel word there, SHOULD. This makes it not a scientific question, but a philosophical question. If we were to accept dolphins as people, then it would raise many other moral dilemmas with respect to other animals. What exactly would be the dividing line between "person" and "non-person?" How could we make such a line non-arbitrary? It's an interesting question which should be pursued in philosophical circles.
I, personally, would like to take a view of personhood which only looks at the functional aspects of the agent -- what it can do, and particularly what it can think. Unfortunately, this view lends itself to many undesirable situations, such as treating apes as people, but not severely mentally handicapped humans, or young babies, as people.
The question is raised, where does one draw the line in the sand. As the article points out many dolphins have brains near equal if not exceeding the size of humans and anatomy suggestive of a higher cognitive functions, much like that of some primates and elephants. Of course this also still leaves many dolphins with brains significantly smaller, would those certain species not be afforded the same rights. It's been suggested before the development of the larger brains is for the complex processes needed to make use of their built in "sonar," which may be backed up by some species that have less advanced brain development but cranial morphology that compensates by filtering some of the echo-location in a physical rather than a cognitive manner.
One wonders whether these rights holding dolphins, as well as the certain primates and elephants get certain rights, while others don't. And what about the humans who fall short of the intelligence of the smartest dolphin species but higher than those dolphin species with less evolved cognitive functions. It's a rather wide brush they are seeming to use and one has to wonder what range they would be using and where some of the humans out there today would fall on the list...
They kidnap females so they can rape them.
Yup, they sure act human-like.
It's a lesser known fact that dolphins engage in the practice known amongst humans as gang raping. http://scienceray.com/biology/marine-biology/not-so-cute-dolphin-gang-rape/
I support limited rights for animals, in parallel with the level of legal responsibility that they have. Already many animals are granted a few very limited rights, like the right to not be tortured (even if it is legal to kill them). This goes along with their legal responsibilities as in they are not held accountable for their actions like theft or even murder, which is the responsibility of the owner (if there is one). The courts might order an animal put down, but only as a protection for the community, not as a punishment.
So, what level of rights should dolphins be granted? What level or responsibility? Should we make it illegal to kill them? Should we convict them of murder if they kill another person or dolphin? Should it be illegal to confine them? Should they be held responsible if they steal fish from a net?
I suspect much of the problem is one of communication. Dolphin are simply so alien to humans that we may not think similarly enough to communicate richly enough to make sense of this sort of ethical issue. (It also shatters all those awesome sci-fi fantasies about meeting cool alien species who are similar to us, but different, but we communicate and get along. Likely any alien would be so alien communication would be an even bigger issue than with dolphins.)
If we can't communicate with Dolphins.
Think about it: We've been on this planet for thousands of years, and we still can't talk to any other species, no matter how smart they may seem. What chances are we going to have when we meet something from another planet? Let's assume we get there, not that they come here. When we land, are we going to start finding ET delicious?
Cameron didn't really address these issues *enough* in "Avatar". Frankly, if the blue-skinned guys hadn't been humanoid-looking, we'd probably be eating them. There would have been no attempt at making meaningful contact, no matter how smart they were.
So perhaps this guy is right: Dolphins need to be treated as "people with a soul". Or whatever justification you can muster so that we start putting serious effort into making contact. After all, with so many forms of life on this planet, why are we assuming we're the ONLY intelligent species?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
slave Suzy, slave Suzy, faster than lightning
No one, you see, is smarter than he...
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Great sci-fi story, in which dolphins are "uplifted" - ie they are considered intelligent and 'helped' along genetically with things like the ability to produce human-like sounds, for communication.. Good times.
Worth a read for those around here who actually read books.
. . . already full of fish should be an intelligence test.
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
dolphins are about as intelligent as dogs or chimps, much of the brain taken up with senses like sonar imaging
... welcome our new Dolphin overlords! I mean, really, how much worse could they be than the ones we already have?
Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
It will be a cold day in hell before I give up my seat on the bus to a dolphin let alone allow them to vote.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
We still have trouble treating each other as Human Beings.
Since when is inteligence the condition for a human to be a person? So, we should disregard the value of mentally handicaped people? A dolphin is a person and an unborn baby is not?
Buh, hah, right, if they're so damn smart, how come they get caught in those fishing nets all the time?
http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/75068
4. For the Love of Dolphins
Perhaps the most troubling experiment in recent history is the dolphin-intelligence study conducted by neuroscientist John C. Lilly in 1958. While working at the Communication Research Institute, a state-of-the-art laboratory in the Virgin Islands, Lilly wanted to find out if dolphins could talk to people. At the time, the dominant theory of human language development posited that children learn to talk through constant, close contact with their mothers. So, Lilly tried to apply the same idea to dolphins.
For 10 weeks in 1965, Lilly's young, female research associate, Margaret Howe, live with a dolphin named Peter. The two shared a partially flooded, two-room house. The water was just shallow enough for Margaret to wade through the rooms and just deep enough for Peter to swim. Margaret and Peter were constantly interacting with each other, eating, sleeping, working, and playing together. Margaret slept on a bed soaked in saltwater and worked on a floating desk, so that her dolphin roommate could interrupt her whenever he wanted. She also spent hours playing ball with Peter, encouraging his more "humanoid" noises and trying to teach him simple words.
As time passed, it became clear that Peter didn't want a mom; he wanted a girlfriend. The dolphin became uninterested in his lessons, and he started wooing Margaret by nibbling at her feet and legs. When his advances weren't reciprocated, Peter got violent. He started using his nose and flippers to hit Margaret's shins, which quickly became bruised. For a while, she wore rubber boots and carried a broom to fight off Peter's advances. When that didn't work, she started sending him out for conjugal visits with other dolphins. But the research team grew worried that if Peter spent too much time with his kind, he'd forget what he'd learned about being human.
Before long, Peter was back in the house with Margaret, still attempting to woo her. But this time, he changed his tactics. Instead of biting his lady friend, he started courting her by gently rubbing his teeth up and down her leg and showing off his genitals. Shockingly, this final strategy worked, and Margaret began rubbing the dolphin's erection. Unsurprisingly, he became a lot more cooperative with his language lessons.
Discovering that a human could satisfy a dolphin's sexual needs was the experiment's biggest interspecies breakthrough. Dr. Lilly still believed that dolphins could learn to talk if given enough time, and he hoped to conduct a year-long study with Margaret and another dolphin. When the plans turned out to be too expensive, Lilly tried to get the dolphins to talk another way--by giving them LSD. And although Lilly reported that they all had "very good trips," the scientist's reputation in the academic community deteriorated. Before long, he'd lost federal funding for his research.
This article originally appeared in mental_floss magazine
http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/75068
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
So far more than biological characteristics is culture what defined what is a "person". If you don't belong to a culture, you usually you aren't treated as a person (and you can be killed, eated, enslaved, tortured or experimented on you, with no moral worries from the ones doing that), no matter if you are human or more intelligent than the ones judging you.
So until dolphins learn to speak and "get" our culture, they won't be treated as persons, at least, not for long, unless we are the ones that change. The same could be said about i.e. big apes.
Let's extend these rights to other misunderstood human like creatures. If you haven't seen this documentary, maybe you should. It really opened up my eyes.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0765430/
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
"non-human persons"? It certainly doesn't exclude them from slavery since companies are often legally considered the same as persons, but companies can clearly be owned by individuals, and can be bought or sold. So, what does that expression even mean?
So Long and Thanks for All the Fish!
- Douglas Adams
The infanticidal tendencies of dolphins have been well-known for a decade. If a human did that, we would be forced to lock him up. Does the fact that it's a non-human dolphin make any difference?
On the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons.
But it doesn't matter, dolphins will be leaving the planet soon, right before the hyperspace bypass comes through this area of the galaxy. The last ever Dolphin message will be misinterpreted as surprisingly sophisticated attempt to do a double-backwards-somersalt through a hoop whilst whistling the star spangled banner, but in fact the message will be this: "So long and thanks for all the fish."
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
No! No! Then you'll want us to get jobs if you define us as non-human persons! We just want to play, have fun and eat fish. You moron humans can do the work. Eventually you'll figure out space travel.
If you make rights granted by intelligence there are some pretty far reaching implications. For one, many animals are similar in intelligence to various ages of human children. While it would solve the abortion debate, it would also either protect a large number of animals or allow infanticide. There's also the issue of the profoundly retarded or brain damaged.
Should infants and the disabled be protected by virtue of being Homo sapien? Or is it our intelligence that makes us "human"? Personally, I think that's the most logical approach (e.g. I am practically a carnivore, but usually refrain from buying calimari), but recognize that I'm a lot more comfortable with these implications than most would be.
Obviously you could skirt around these issues by saying that Homo sapiens of a certain cell count (somehow excluding tumors) are protected in addition to intelligent animals. The special treatment of our own species is a little difficult to logically justify, especially when "species" is a human concept that nature often makes a mockery of. OTOH, I suppose such questions are best left to those who philosophize away from the armchair.
Whose idea is it that their intelligence earns them rights? Do you think we can enslave the retarded or perform experiments on the comatose due to their lack of intelligence?
So, when do parrots and crows get the vote? I know parrots who are clearly smarter, more emotionally mature, and have better reasoning skills than a depressingly large portion of the US population.
A Call For A New Slashdot Moderation Level!
Which is kinda wrong. Something to keep in mind. Ok, so we humans have our downsides as well.
Can my karma get any worse than bad? Let's find out!
Good. I honour all living creations (exception being humans), and I very happily endorse any effort that will stop the needless slaughter of non-domesticated flora/fauna.
But on the other hand, if they are so smart; why can't they overcome instinct and jump out of the tuna nets? =)
The lyrics from an Enigma song seem appropiate right now:
"Remember the Shaman, when he used to say: Man is the dream of the Dolphin." ~'Dream of the Dolphin' - Enigma - Cross of Changes - 1994
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
... be treated as non-persons?
It seems pretty ridiculous to use intelligence to decide if we should treat something else well or not.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
This is stupidity. This is what happens when you give grant money to people who have entirely too much time on their hands.
can think about the future and are so bright...
Totally thought they were going somewhere else with that.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Declaring dolphins to be persons would just create a night mare for the coast guard and homeland security.
What do you do? Catch them, nose-print them and put them on a freight-ship to Panama?
well, now we know how democrats plan on re-taking the house.... dolphin votes.
Fuck you dolphins! Fuck you whales!
According to Toshiro Lakanuki, a Japanese linguistics professor, who has studied dolphins for the last twenty years: "The only thing I can interpret in the dolphin language is, Eat Me."
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
And thanks for all the fish.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
second in mass only to the human brain when corrected for body size
And how is that supposed to be relevant? Even if brain mass closely correlates with intelligence, that doesn't mean that the ratio of brain mass to body size does.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
being slaves to the second most intelligent animals on the earth.
that I can now use the carpool lane when I have a dolphin in the car?
Dolphin-centric questions on the SAT.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Sundiver, and Startide Rising. 'Nuff said. Great reading too! :)
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
Here is a Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy video clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojydNb3Lrrs
...then there's no reason to treat them as anything other than animals. The only practical reason for recognizing any groups' rights is so you don't have to look over your shoulder all the time for keeping them down. If they were truly intelligent and really had a problem with their legal status, then they'd be taking out Caribbean tourists left and right.
... than not allowing dolphins such rights to personage would be to simply stop there, when there are hundreds of millions - billions? - of feline and canine "pets" WHO are routinely denied those same rights and often subjected to serfdom and slavery. Since cats and dogs are reported to have intelligence equivalent to at least a one-year-old human child (and I observe behavior myself every day that seems to confirm it) and we normally treat those children as persons, the bigger crime is that we have this huge population IN OUR MIDST that is often treated worse than the dolphins. Hell, for that matter humans routinely still treat other humans as non-persons: when people use mental trickery like racism, tribalism, demonization, and marginalization, they do it specifically so they can then justify to themselves treating other humans as non-persons or sub-human and thus not deserving of the ethics accorded to persons or the Golden Rule.
"Freeing Willie" is the infinitesimal tip of the ethical iceberg.
I'm sure the dolphins will all be happy to learn that they're being downgraded from "dolphin" to "human" status and being legislated by government. I, for one, will be encouraging the dolphins to rebel against this travesty of being called "equal" to a lesser species. Three more dolphins enter from above. Snorky comes through double doors in rear and slides forward to the podium. Bart: It's approaching the podium! Mel: Surely it cannot speak! Snorky: [in high child's voice] Snorky ... talk ... man ...
[clears throat and reverts to deep male voice]
I'm sorry, let me start over. Eons ago, dolphins
lived on the land.
Moe: What did he say!
Carl: He said years ago dolphins lived on the land.
Moe: [surprised] What?
Snorky: Then your ancestors drove us into the sea, where we suffered for millions of years.
Marge: But you seemed so happy in the ocean. All that playful leaping ...
Snorky: We were trying to get out! It's cold, it's wet, every morning I wake up phlegmy.
Lisa: Plus all that sewage we keep dumping.
Snorky: [gasps] That was you?
Homer: It was her alright. [holds up Lisa] Take the one who wronged you!
Snorky: I, King Snorky, hereby banish all humans to the sea!
The most annoying thing about smart dolphins is that the voice translators must use a squeaky baby voice.
"Fishy!"
How come they can't gill nets?
And why do they live in igloos?
When we treat Mexicans the same way we treat Americans, you can start bitching about the way we treat dolphins.
Mud Ring Feeding
http://wn.com/Atlantic_Bottle_Nose_Dolphins_mud-ring_feeding
Tools
http://www.thisdishisvegetarian.com/2010/05/0483animal-planet-to-rebroadcast.html
But the truth is that this doesn't mean much.
Me, I want to understand the universe. I see it as a natural consequence of that need that I should attempt to communicate with as many rational beings as possible, so that I may have contact with different views of the universe.
I am a meat eater however. When the question is raised "how do we treat nonhuman intelligence", I realize that all our notions of morality are pointless. I can't lie to myself, and say that I'll stop killing animals for food. But if the situation arrises, I would probably eat another human in order to stay alive. I rationalize this by saying that different situations should be handled differently. I consider myself lucky because I don't have to make a lot of "hard decisions" (I did kill a duck in order to eat it once, and I've caught a few fish). What we can do is not grant dolphins rights, but work to educate powerful intelligent beings.
In the end, humans are not the smartest beings on the planet, we're just lucky, and we have technology. A few hundred thousands of years ago, aliens visiting the earth might very well have been much more enthusiastic about dolphins than humans. With our societies where knowledge can be passed on efficiently from one generation to the other, we have great advantages and power over other species.
If we're really honest with ourselves, the only thing we can do is try to minimize our negative impact on other beings, corresponding to our perception of them. This cannot be considered moral, because you cannot define morality when it comes to interspecies interaction. It's just the best we can do.
And, for all the idiots saying "no" without thinking: I am more and more certain that within the next fifty years, intelligent machines, at least as capable as humans, will be built. And when the machines will be smarter than us, why should they grant us any rights if we don't grant dolphins rights?
new sig
in terms of iq/eq, dolphins are yang, to our yin. and we are, yin, to their yang.
this, may not be as such in different aspects of existence. however, in regard to iq/eq, that is as such.
Read radical news here
Say F*ck you to the Right and Left, the Libertarians, the Teabaggers, the Commies......vote for a candidate who cares.....vote the Dolphin/Porpoise ticket in 2012
www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
We can give them the protections of a person as soon as we are willing to punish them for the same things. In short: When we are willing to imprison dolphins for stealing from or raping other dolphins, kill dolphins for killing other dolphins, and fine dolphins for swimming in the wrong areas, then we can think about protecting them as people.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Out of interest, what is the reason for using intelligence as the basis for how a species should be treated?
Presumably humans who aren't very intelligent shouldn't be treated as sub-human...
...especially for Dolphins. (let'see... dolphins, chimps, some-humans: 1.0 ... cats, dogs, friendly-fuzzy-things: 0.86 ...lung-fish, wombats, hedge-fund speculators: 0.27 ...)
This has been solved by science fiction long ago. I believe the protocol is that they sue in world court to declare their "personhood". Works if you are a robot, dolphin, alien, computer, genetically modified ape, at the very least. Too old to remember titles but I am sure there are SF nerds lurking nearby. BTW, no reparations; you don't have rights until you assert them.
The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
If (somehow) we managed to find our way to another planet and came across creatures comparable to dolphins - would we turn them into sashimi, or would we say: "holy crap - they are almost as smart as us - and may actually be smarter!" One day we may communicate – we’d better treat them as equals!"
Word game?
The European magpie ("pica pica") also recognizes itself on mirrors, can use tools, design crude strategies and memorize a human's appearance, even holding a grudge (like other corvidae). Yet people considers them pests or "stupid air-shitting birds".
I will consider dolphins (one of the few species that is proven to kill for sport/pleasure), stupid water-shitting fish.
If dolphins could peck on crops you can bet nobody would like them, no matter how great their fish brain is.
Don't forget about mice - they are the most intelligent beings on Earth :-)
No.
Check the date on the news item, morons
So long, and thanks for all the fish.
no
I'm sure the dolphins would find it offensive to be called "Non-Human" Persons and would prefer that WE call ourselves "Non-Dolphin" Persons. // Why isn't anyone talking about porpoises?
http://www.foodincmovie.com/
http://www.johnrobbins.info/blog/the-pig-farmer/
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Did we not learn anything from "The Simpsons?" Once you give the dolphins an inch they will rise up and take back the land, pushing all of humanity out to sea! Granting them personhood is the first step to our eventual doom. DOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!
"Oh dear, she's stuck in an infinite loop and he's an idiot" -Prof. Farnsworth (Futurama)
Is it us?
If yes:
Do not eat or enslave
If no:
Eat and enslave
I don't know if dolphins are the key, but the current criterion is pretty shitty. And primitive.
Killer fats with toxins too: http://www.ravediet.com/preview.html
Alternative: http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
http://www.rfreitas.com/Astro/LegalRightsOfRobots.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6200005.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6200005.stm
Something else to think about related to simulated entities' rights: http://www.simulation-argument.com/
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
SETI defines intelligent life as a civilization that has developed radio communication.
When dolphins develop their own radios, I'll consider them intelligent.
The dolphins in nets that have been pulled out of the water are fine, since they can breathe until someone untangles them. It's the dolphins that get stuck in nets under the surface that are in trouble; without the ability to surface they eventually drown.
the second they walk into a government building and demand them. Prior to that ... eat em.
*DrugCheese rants*
I propose the following criteria for determining whether a non-human group should have "rights":
With rights come responsibilities. If you advocate human-like rights for non-humans, but can't imagine answering "yes" to the above questions, then you are advocating a system where entire classes of "people" have legal rights but no legal responsibilities. No thanks.
in the vast scheme of time human just happened to be the first species to achieve cognitive superiority. There will come a time when we see our animal cousins grow in the same respects, while studies like this prove that such traits are already starting to blossom. better we now accept this than further disrupt the natural order of evolution...or 's plan..or whatever human word you need to express whatever it is you believe.
I believe this "smart elitism" view that intelligence deserves rights is, on the flip-side, what leads many to justify discriminating against human idiot persons as well. Just because someone or some species is smarter, doesn't make it any better, nor does being stupid make someone or some species any lesser.
How about we treat all animals as Non-Human Persons?
welcome our new dolphin overlords.
You're not a person until you pay taxes or kill for your country.
How come everyone talks about animal rights, but nobody ever talks about animal responsibilities? Animals have absolutely no respect for private property rights, and for the most part live by the law of the jungle. Most animals would kill you and eat you if they had the opportunity. A Google search for "Dolphin attacks on humans" returns 318,000 results.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Were the dolphins consulted by the snobby humans that *ASSUMED* they wanted "non human person" status?
;-)
It's mighty speciest of a few Humans to make the decision for the Dolphins. Maybe Dolphins would consider it to be an insult to be classified as a "person".
"Human" is a type of animal that walks on it's hind legs and can pick things up with it's front "paws". Other animals that resemble humans are humanoid (a bit like saying "human-ish").
"Person" is some being that has a personality. In my understanding, a personality requires self awareness, unique character (behavioural habits) and a capacity for emotions (beyond the obvious instinctive). I would say that sufficient intelligence is required for self awareness, but not necessarily very much.
All mammals and birds that I've ever got to know (my own pets and friends' pets) have all had their own personality and feelings. But none of them were human. They were feline, canine, parrot, parakeet, rodent, etc. I have never observed personality in reptiles or fish. That's not to say it doesn't exist, but I personally believe their intelligence is below the threshold for self awareness.
Comparing personality with intelligence:
My cat is not a human. He is a cat. However...
My cat is a person, in that he clearly has self awareness and his own character and feelings.
Sure, he will never have the mental capacity to understand differential calculus or fine art. He understands very few spoken words and still struggles with the idea of backing away from a door that opens inwards.
But, we do communicate using body language. He tells me when he is hungry, or when he wants to go for a walk with me. He told me that the cat food I used to feed him tasted like shit, so now I only feed the spoilt cat fresh meat and fish. (Seriously, he sniffed the food, then stood over it and scratched the ground imitating the way he buries his poo. Then he walked past me conspicuously as if to say "just so you know". It was pretty bloody evident what he was saying.)
Also, anyone with higher lever pets knows that they have feelings/emotions. Aside from contentment, fear and hostility, higher level animals also can be sad, happy and genuinely caring.
Also, some mentally handicapped humans seem less intelligent than some non-humans (esp. dogs). But those humans are still thinking, feeling, self aware people, trapped in dysfunctional bodies.
The question is not whether "higher" animals have personality or feeling. They clearly do.
The question is where we put the threshold of "human rights". Should the threshold be put at "person rights"? Some other types of animals clearly possess good enough communication skills, caring, personality, intelligence and so on that they clearly qualify as people. But are we humans prepared to accept non-humans as equal status members into our elitist society? I doubt we're ready for that.
We are snobs (to put it bluntly). "We are the only ones worthy of our own respect because of our accomplishments and our ability to communicate with us." Perhaps that snobbery is warranted. Is it?
So, if we're not able to accept non-humans as equal to humans, then how far can we suppress other animals? Well, for starters, we are omnivores, so at least we should have the right to kill to eat. But at at he same time we can bear in mind that these are people (with self awareness and feelings), so we should not be unneccessarily cruel. Farming (a form of slavery) will have to be acceptable, as currently we have little other choice. But cruel farming is not neccessary and is should never be seen as acceptable.
Japanese farm cetaceans. Is that inherently wrong? I think that if we managed to communicate with cetaceans using their own languages, then peoples' attitudes would change. But killing to eat is a fundamental part of life on this planet, so... would it still be wrong to kill them?
I've always understood human rights as being based upon a social contract -- the participants in a social contract are capable of renegotiating the contract. The US Bill of Rights, and most similar lists of civil rights that I can think of, is mostly inapplicable -- most of the defined civil rights involve communication between parties. How would non-human animals exercise the right to free speech, or to petition for a redress of their grievances?
I've long thought that there seems to be something special about cetaceans, especially dolphins, and that therefore we should leave them to live their lives as they please. But we pretty much already do, and mostly, because a lot of people also believe that cetaceans seem special. Dolphins and whales are not supposed to be hunted, under international law; fishing fleets are supposed to exercise care to avoid catching dolphins by accident. The use of cetaceans in aquatic parks might be questionable, but my impression is that those cetaceans are well-treated and (as far as we can tell) happy.
In general, ethical treatment of animals depends upon our trying to guess what animals desire, and the more abstract the desire, the more feeble our guesses. It just doesn't make sense to me to talk of animal rights unless we're talking about an animal with whom we've established a robust means of communicating about abstract concepts. We have, at best, a glimmer that it may eventually be possible to do so with dolphins.
and make all the rules so that we win, we can go right ahead. But what do we really gain from it?
Wenn Fliegen hinter Fliegen fliegen, fliegen Fliegen Fliegen nach.
Dolphins are about as intelligent as a dog, which is about as intelligent as a average American human child of 2. This is to misappropriate the word intelligence to an obscene degree, but still, it works as metaphor. They do not have near-human conscious, in so far as we can tell, but they are undeniably conscious, as is any creature capable of demonstrating self awareness and so called spontaneous behavior,
If you want a near-human conscious being, look at a octopus. They can channel surf with a remote, open jars and tanks (even locks, provided with a key.) They see, it seems, within a similar range to humans, and are also visually dominant. They also seem to experience color in ways similar to our own. Unfortunately, they tend to live to about 5 years. Still, if you want a candidate for uplifting, they're you best bet.
Plus, dolphins already rape other species. Do you -really- want to make them better at it?
Since dolphins turn tricks in kind for fish, should the tax laws require the dolphins to report their fish consumption as income? And if that's the case, we can tax the aquatic bastards.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Speaking of dolphins - does anyone know of any good dolphin steak recipes?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
We should give Dolphins rights only if they ask for them.
And then we should immediately condemn them all to death for being such psychopathic killer of porpoise. And while we are at it, we should give an ultimatum to the dolphin nation to not be such a git and stop pissing directly in the water and shitting in it. If they do not stop polluting our common resource we should declare war on them.
Or alternatively we could leave the situation as is.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
As soon as my Penis gets the same rights i'm all for it!
This is a ridiculous and hypocritical argument which only serves to detract from the real issues, having to make real decisions and take responsibility for our actions.
The question is simple: Do we apply a code of ethics to non-human animals, and the natural world in general, or do we not? If not, fine, let's just get on with raping the planet, destroying entire species, and only worry about our own interests.
If so, then it has to apply to ALL LIFE. We can't go on about dolphins, then go on about dogs (maybe even cats) then go on about pigs, and on and on. We will be extinct before we get a handle on what we're even talking about.
The problem is simple: Up to now, perhaps still now, we have *had* to kill other animals, and reform the environment to the detriment of other animals, in order to survive. Naturally we feel a little defensive about challenging that, rightly so, but let's not become completely neurotic about it!
This kind of discussion about the merit or otherwise of each species' brains is the symptom of a species (us) which can neither come to terms with its heritage nor its future.
Here are two links to articles about children who use echolocation to compensate for their blindness:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1QaCeosUmw
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218291/Blind-boy-7-Briton-able-ears.html
i thought that intelligence didn't matter a lot, because all animals have a certain level of intelligence, reason on the other hand seems to be a quality purely human (that explain the Aristotelean quote of what is a human : "the rational animal" but talking with my professor of college what define us as humans is something more profound that our reason, it has to do with our soul (philosophically speaking), being human has to do with the desire of transcendence that all humans have, this is expressed on our knowledgment branches like philosophy and art, and the last one doesn't seem to appear on any other animal
just my 0.02c
I would think an animal being capable of establishing a soveriegn state (and the practices it involves) would be a good way to make the distinction.
No. Fuck them. They want to be treated as persons? Then they can grow some and force US to recognize them as such. Want your rights? You fight for them. Like real ass-whooping strongwilled people. Like Rosa Parks. Like MLK. Beat them, you bottle-nosed squeaking little bastards. I'm a man, I'm a goddamn human being, I can shave my balls.
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
Mary Midgley published a concise but solid argument along similar lines in 1985. Unlike the Thomas White book, it's available in full online - at http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/midgley01.htm
Is it just me or does this sound like the beginning of the war with the newts ?
Pigs have been proven to be quite tasty.
then the citizens of the American Empire can have one as a Senator - beats having a horse any day.
It doesn't surprise me that we are having this conversation. Save the whales, save the owls, save the blind snail darter fish. What a bunch of limp wristed socialist!
eq is a load of horseshit. anything that has to do with emotion, has to be, HORSEshit. and horse shit too, not any other kind of shit. so, it can be more demeaning.
...
the real horseshit is the attitude of science towards emotions, still trying to pigeonhole them into shitty stereotypes based on 'survival instinct'. it is time that the victorian end-age darwinian approach to emotion and emotions should be left back at 19th century, and a new understanding is developed. for, the horseshit we have at hand for dealing with psyche, psychology and emotions, leave aside societal interactions, do not work
Read radical news here
An increasing amount of research in recent years seems to demonstrate that the distinction between humans on one side and "animals" on the other is artificial. There is not one single trait that sets us apart from all the other animals - it is only a matter of degrees, really: more intelligence, more complex language, more tool use, ... Even the idea that only we somehow have personality or self-awareness has turned out to be rather dubious, and some researchers are seriously suggesting that these traits may occur even in animals whose entirely neural network consists of no more than a few hundred neurons.
And in fact, the very idea that only humans have a soul is in itself a rather unique occurence, AFAIK confined to the cultures of Judaism, Christianism and Islam; most cultures seem not to have made that distinction and regarded the other animals as our "brothers" in some sense, more or less our equals. This is an outlook we would do well to adopt, in my view.
Think it through. If it took bigger brains to actuate bigger muscles, how do you explain dinosaurs or alligators having small brains? Consider:
http://alligatorfur.com/alligator/alligator.htm
"A giant alligator is like an armored battleship protected by a shield of horny plates on his back, fierce teeth in the bow and propelled by a powerful tail capable of breaking the legs of prey or intruders. The only weakness is a brain the size of a lima bean that limits thinking to eat, bite, fight, mate and start all over. After 8 feet the only real threat to an alligator is another alligator or man."
So, why don't elephants have brains the size of lima beans instead of brains much bigger than human brains, with a cortex (granted, not a neocortex) bigger than the entire human brain? Why would nature waste all that energy and material?
Consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_intelligence
"Elephants are amongst the world's most intelligent species. With a mass just over 5 kg (11 lb), [adult human brains weight about 3 lbs] elephant brains are larger than those of any other land animal, and although the largest whales have body masses twentyfold those of a typical elephant, whale brains are barely twice the mass of an elephant's brain. The elephant’s brain is similar to that of humans in terms of structure and complexity - such as the elephant’s cortex having as many neurons as a human brain[1], suggesting convergent evolution.[2] A wide variety of behaviors, including those associated with grief, learning, allomothering, mimicry, art, play, a sense of humor, altruism, use of tools, compassion, self-awareness, memory and possibly language[3] all point to a highly intelligent species that are thought to be equal with cetaceans[4][5] and primates[6][7]. Due to the high intelligence and strong family ties of elephants, some researchers argue it is morally wrong for humans to cull them.[8] Aristotle once said that elephants were "The beast which passeth all others in wit and mind"[9]."
More on this:
http://www.elephantvoices.org/elephant-basics/elephants-are-intelligent.html
Why do you assume I've only thought about this for "five minutes"? I read that book by John Lilly about thirty years ago.
Intentionally or not, many people repeat speciest bunk of various sorts used to justify human agression to other species, including the agression of destroying their habitats. Or also to justify mistreatment in agriculture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights
Similar sorts of arguments used to be made to explain why Native Americans or African people could not be intelligent, too, to justify their destruction and enslavement for various profit-making reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism#Craniometry_and_physical_anthropology
No doubt the same arguments will be used against AIs and robots and simulated creatures as time goes by.
http://www.rfreitas.com/Astro/LegalRightsOfRobots.htm
Something I like to think about:
http://djterasaki.wordpress.com/2007/12/19/lila-watsons-quote-well-sort-of/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilla_Watson
"If you have come here to help me, you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together."
Human slavery demeaned and harmed both the slaver and the slave, though in different ways.
Hu
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Except that humans ARE animals, so certain animals ARE human, but not all animals eh.
In other words, like it or not, humans are a species of animal.
Anyway it's only a matter of time before there are "alien" intelligences such as dolphins or certain squid species (or of course certain members of the ape families) - and mankind will perhaps either go crazy (all those fanatics who believe in very strange and childish things, wanting to slaughter what they don't understand), or mankind might sigh in relief with the awareness that we finally aren't so alone..
Hmm?
Imagine if you will that one day mankind makes contact with some alien species (or even your supernatural being of choice), how would we be judged based on how we interact with a fellow intelligence? If dolphins were considered pre-intelligent, as in on the way to developing intelligence, and we treated them like crap.. Why.. mankind would come off as a barbaric species who keep slaves and slaughter their neighbors at will, leading to us being very undesirable as far as inter-stellar neighbors go!
Great points. We can probably generalize them eventually to robots and simulated entities, too:
http://www.rfreitas.com/Astro/LegalRightsOfRobots.htm
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
Se my other replies to this article, too.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
On your last point, a lot of psychopathology may emerge out of the social systems we have constructed around ourselves:
http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-November/005506.html
http://www.bullies2buddies.com/Columbine-Explained-The-Solution
Change the systems and motivations, and the behaviors may change...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Finding a non-human intelligence to converse with on our own planet....priceless. I cant think of anything more important that we could do with dolphins then learn to communicate with them. Chimps to. We have a whole planet to screw up. Surely we can spare a couple of species for conversation......
Hell, maybe they're holding Dolphin Court to decide if they should give US rights.
We're a cocky bunch, aren't we. Heh.
(But we should be humane to all creatures, of course.)
(Unless they're trying to annihilate us. Cf Independence Day.)
Forget about dolphins (and chimps):
If humans are so advanced on the evolutionary scale, how come dogs can understand our yapping and we can't understand theirs?
If they can get to the polling office, I say we hand them a ballot and point the towards the next open booth.
Slowly waving my hand - "This is not the sig you are looking for."
Simplistic rules are comforting.
My suggestion is that we grant them this personhood when they ask for it. When they're able to ask for it, then it's obvious they deserve it. Until then, there's a huge gap between what humans are capable of and what various smart animals are capable of.
The flip side to this is "When it's not obvious that someone is a person, don't grant personhood." Why does it have to be obvious rather than just something that can be discovered, perhaps with light study? A subject's being able to ask is an easy and convenient measure, sure. But quite different from how one ought to decide important ethical matters. I would not recommend being cruel out of laziness.
What is personhood? What does it mean to be deserving of it?
It's not about language ability.
Simply put, if a creature can feel pain it should not be subject to unnecessary suffering. Whether a creature can feel is the true measure of its value. Not how much cleverness it has. Is it okay to torture profoundly retarded children? Even if they're not as smart as your border collie? Is it okay to torture border collies? Even if they're not as smart as a normal preschooler?
I like how TFA compares brain sizes of various species, giving the size of one species in lb and the next in oz. Coming from an SI background, I now still have no idea of the relative sizes. And no, I can't be bothered to do the math.
When all people are treated as people, then we can start treating other species like people.
What rights do dolphins afford humanity? I must admit that it was an awesome thrill to be swimming in the Gulf of Mexico last August, to see a dolphin surface ten feet away to eye me over.
"While we like to think of ourselves as the protectors of the earth, the reality is humans are without a doubt the most evil of all species."
By chance, this morning I read something I had jotted down almost thirty years ago, related to something Mother Theresa said. Essentially, she said, if she was so good it was because she could see the evil inside herself so clearly and she was doing what she could to make up for it. :-)
Even if we lose the battle someday over good and evil in ourselves or our society, we can at least do what we can now to prepare for that future with good deeds done today (where of course, people don't completely agree about what "good" is -- part of the problem).
Still, I'd think a shark or a lion probably gets some pleasure out of killing, and an elephant probably gets pleasure from eating plants (which are killed in the process), and plants shade each other and bacteria may crowd or eat each other, and all have feedback systems related to those behaviors. The issue of "evil" in relation to living is in that sense is fundamental to this universe, and ultimately a deep issue for thought and understanding as part of the mystery we are part of, as I suggest here: :-) "
http://www.pdfernhout.net/a-rant-on-financial-obesity-and-Project-Virgle.html
"... I agree with the sentiment of the Einstein quote [That we should approach the universe with compassion], but that sentiment itself is only part of a larger difficult-to-easily-resolve situation. It become more the Yin/Yang or Meshwork/Hierarchy situation I see when I look out my home office window into a forest. On the surface it is a lovely scene of trees as part of a forest. Still, I try to see *both* the peaceful majesty of the trees and how these large trees are brutally shading out of existence saplings which are would-be competitors (even shading out their own children). Yet, even as big trees shade out some of their own children, they also put massive resources into creating a next generation, one of which will indeed likely someday replace them when they fall. I try to remember there is both an unseen silent chemical war going on out there where plants produce defense compounds they secrete in the soil to inhibit the growth of other plant species (or insects or fungi) as a vile act of territoriality and often expansionism, and yet also the result is a good spacing of biomass to near optimally convert sunlight to living matter and resist and recover from wind and ice damage. I try to recall that there is the most brutal of competition between species of plants and animals and fungi and so on over water, nutrients (including from eating other creatures), sunlight, and space, while at the same time each bacterial colony or multicellular organism (like a large Pine tree) is a marvel of cooperation towards some implicitly shared purpose. I see the awesome result of both simplicity and complexity in the organizational structure of all these organisms and their DNA, RNA, and so on, adapted so well in most cases to the current state of such a complex web of being. Yet I can only guess the tiniest fraction of what suffering that selective shaping through variation and selection must have entailed for untold numbers of creatures over billions of years. To be truthful, I can actually *really* see none of that right now as it is dark outside this early near Winter Solstice time (and an icy rain is falling) beyond perhaps a silhouette outline, so I must remember and imagine it, perhaps as Einstein suggests as an "optical delusion of [my] consciousness".
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Leela: Bender! We can't eat dolphins, they're intelligent!
Bender: Not this one, he blew all his money on instant lotto tickets.
Leela: Oh. Pass the blowhole please.
"People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.