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."

Comments

Non-human intelligences

[Omnifarious]

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. :-)

Re:Non-human intelligences

[zach_the_lizard]

I agree that the comparison to slavery is over the top. We knew blacks were human, for instance. Our knowledge of what dolphins can do is a fairly recent thing.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[mcvos]

If you grant dolphins "personhood" (whatever that means), then you've got to do the same thing with chimps. And probably orang-utans. And then maybe whales and elephants too.

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.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an easy solution! When dolphins (and dolphins alone) can create tools and devices such that they are able to wage war for their freedom, it should be granted. Until then, they're screwed.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[camperdave]

What can they do? All the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. Mankind, on the other hand, has achieved so much – the wheel, New York, wars and so on. Clearly, we are much more intelligent.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Cruciform]

Some human "persons" don't understand that they have that right until you explain it to them.
Look at the caste systems.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[INeededALogin]

When they're able to ask for it, then it's obvious they deserve it.

This is awfully absurd. Maybe they are already asking to be let out of Seaworld and all the other cages we keep them in. Perhaps we aren't capable of understanding them? Does one simply ignore all signs of intelligence because we simply enjoy their tricks? Your suggestion in many ways is how slavery was justified by stating that the slaves were somehow an inferior animal.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[RsG]

I should probably preface this by stating that I am thoroughly omnivorous, fine with testing on lab rats, can't stand PETA and generally hold that most people's preconceptions about animal rights have far more to do with "cute vs ugly" than they do with "right vs wrong".

So it may sound strange that I'm all for dolphins being recognized as near-human level intelligent life, and accorded legal protection befitting said status. Actually I'd go as far as extending such status to most other cetaceans and all apes.

What is the measure of a human being? I don't believe in souls, nor should religion be invoked in temporal debates. Human genetics are no more complex than any other mammal. Human anatomy, while distinct from other apes in a few areas, is mostly unremarkable from the neck down. We're animals ourselves, vertebrate, tetrapod, primate, ape, hominid. We like to imagine ourselves as special, as evidenced by the way we write our mythologies and philosophy, but that's ego talking, not evidence.

All that distinguishes us from the other apes is brain size to body mass ratio. And even then, the gulf isn't vast. We can safely assume that any mammal with a similarly large brain in relation to body mass has the same range of emotions, capacity for complex thought, self-awareness, creativity, what-have-you. Language and communication isn't uniquely human. Nor is art. Hell, even tool use isn't unique to us.

If the only measure of value is sapience, and it can be demonstrated that a non-human of any stripe shares that characteristic with us, than damn straight we ought to treat them the way we treat humans.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[MightyMartian]

How do you know what the gap is? I suppose it's easier to tell with our closest relatives, because there's some sort of baseline. But when you start talking about species who live in considerably different environments from us, like aquatic mammals, I think it becomes a good deal harder. For all you know, a whole lot of dolphins are saying "Fuck you murdering bastards" to the Japanese hunters that kill them en masse.

I'm not saying dolphins should be called "persons", nor am I saying higher primates should be, but I am suggesting that it's a little to pat and really an application of circular reasoning to say "They're not persons because they're not like us, and we know this because they don't act like us."

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Xtravar]

The same goes for children and mentally handicapped. They get rights when they ask for them!

Re:Non-human intelligences

[joebok]

Maybe they have a comment site on a sonar-based network where some Tursiops truncatus just suggested that humans be granted cetaceanhood when they ask for it. Until then, there's a huge gap between what cetaceans and various smart animals are capable of...

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Chris Burke]

This is awfully absurd. Maybe they are already asking to be let out of Seaworld and all the other cages we keep them in. Perhaps we aren't capable of understanding them? Does one simply ignore all signs of intelligence because we simply enjoy their tricks? Your suggestion in many ways is how slavery was justified by stating that the slaves were somehow an inferior animal.

Indeed. So are you really surprised that someone should suggest that some other being doesn't deserve rights because of their own ignorance?

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Beardo the Bearded]

The dolphins think they're more intelligent for the same reason.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[mldi]

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. :-)

I fully agree. Our current standards are horrible though.

As a side-note, watch "The Cove" if you get a chance. As with all documentaries it's got an agenda, but I think it's completely legitimate for more reasons than just "the poor dolphins".

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Yvanhoe]

My mug says it wants personhood rights. Here, read it, it is marked on it.

Maybe I could learn a chimp to write a demand for such rights or to a dolphin to even say it audibly. What would it prove ? Parrots would like that too...

Re:Non-human intelligences

[mcvos]

Your suggestion in many ways is how slavery was justified by stating that the slaves were somehow an inferior animal.

No. Slaves were fully human, and humans already had "personhood". Not just that, but slaves have asked for freedom. And even when they didn't speak the same language, they were still able to express their displeasure over their captivity. (Although I seem to recall a story about a circus with African elephants that were also clearly unhappy about their captivity, no matter their treatment. And yes, that means they tore the place down, and probably got shot.)

In any case, I'm all for treating animals with respect, and letting them live in their own habitats rather than captivity. But giving them human rights simply because they might be slightly smarter than some other animals is just silly.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Yvanhoe]

Are there some animals in captivity that show signs of collective rebellions ?

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Monkeedude1212]

I agree that the comparison to slavery is over the top. We knew blacks were human, for instance. Our knowledge of what dolphins can do is a fairly recent thing.

I dunno. Perhaps the comparison to slavery is a bit exaggerated but instead of using dolphins for labour we use them for entertainment, which is hard to say which is better. Sure, in some aquarians we do our best to keep the animals generally satisfied, though the same could be said for some slave owners.

As for the whole "We knew blacks were human" - that entirely depends on who you ask. It's still an issue today, even with the general equality that goes around. Archaeologists are able to determine whether someone was Caucasoidal, Africoidal, or... Well I forget the other one but it relates to Asian cultures. Simply put - our skulls have different patterns depending on your race, things like brow ridges, size of cheek bones, size of eye holes, etc etc - all White people have similar features, all black people have similar features.
Because of this - some people are using that archaeological evidence to suggest that there is a greater seperation in our "species" than one might be willing to realize. (Species is the wrong word there, I know generally the idea is that 2 different species cannot produce offspring or if they can, the offspring can't reproduce). The issue of racism in terms of humanity has not ended.

As for dolphins, I knew they were smart since as far back as I can remember, watching Flipper on TV. How recent were you meaning?

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Yvanhoe]

Actually that is more or less what happens with children. Granted, they have far more rights than animals before 18, but some rights are stripped out of them because they are considered immature. Ditto for mentally handicapped.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Yvanhoe]

Agreed, but we need a test for that. And :

If the only measure of value is sapience, and it can be demonstrated that a non-human of any stripe shares that characteristic with us, than damn straight we ought to treat them the way we treat humans.

1. we really need a test for that.
2. we need to be prepared for the implication of some humans failing at these tests.
3. we need to be prepared for the implication of some software programs succeeding at these tests.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[tverbeek]

Calling them "persons" is emotionally charged and missing the point. They are intelligent, but less so than humans. So are a lot of animal species. We recognize that relatively intelligent animals (e.g. dogs) should be treated differently – with more respect – compared to less intelligent ones (e.g. mice); it's just a matter of degree.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Ekdar]

Human slavery isn't wrong due to the slave's species. Human slavery is wrong due to a number of attributes that humans typically possess. Most, if not all, of those attributes are associated with properties of consciousness like being self-aware, having intentions, etc.

If it is discovered that dolphins possess the properties of consciousness that make human slavery wrong, then, yes, imprisoning dolphins and forcing them to entertain audiences is almost exactly like human slavery of the past.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you imagine being so happy with your current life that you felt no need to arbitrarily impose order and restriction upon your surroundings? Are you sure you are the more intelligent creature?

Re:Non-human intelligences

[pclminion]

In your view then, a human infant is not a person until they have developed the ability to say so? What about patients in vegetative states, are they no longer persons?

Re:Non-human intelligences

[mcvos]

How do you know what the gap is? I suppose it's easier to tell with our closest relatives, because there's some sort of baseline. But when you start talking about species who live in considerably different environments from us, like aquatic mammals, I think it becomes a good deal harder. For all you know, a whole lot of dolphins are saying "Fuck you murdering bastards" to the Japanese hunters that kill them en masse.

And rightly so. I'm not saying that dolphin-killers aren't scum. But so are gorilla-killers and elephant-killers. And people who torment cats and dogs. I'm all for decent treatment of animals. I'm convinced that the "higher" animals have feelings too, and deserve to not be tortured or slaughtered or bred in brutal ways. But don't pretend that they're people, because they're just not.

I am suggesting that it's a little to pat and really an application of circular reasoning to say "They're not persons because they're not like us, and we know this because they don't act like us."

That's not circular reasoning, it's simply an observation. What better definition of person than "like us" do we have? If merely having a sense of self and a personality is enough to get the right to vote, then quite a lot of animals will fit that bill. Sure, dolphins are smart, but so are chimps and elephant. And whales, orang-utans and crows. But none of them come anywhere near any semblance of the kind of cultural ability that we have.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[webmistressrachel]

"Maybe I could learn a chimp..."

It would seem that any chimp with decent grammar skills could teach you a thing or two...

Re:Non-human intelligences

[c6gunner]

Sure, and Bill O'Riley thinks he's a smart guy. 'nuff said.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[c6gunner]

No infant can ask for personhood, nor may others with differing mental or physical capabilities. Should they be denied personhood and the rights and privileges that comes with it?

Yes, and they are. Last I checked,a newborn doesn't have much in the way of rights. Children in general are severely restricted in what they can and can't do, until they reach an age at which we feel they are capable of understanding their rights, and acting responsibly. It's also why we don't punish them as severely for crimes as we do adults.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[mcvos]

We like to imagine ourselves as special, as evidenced by the way we write our mythologies and philosophy, but that's ego talking, not evidence.

What? You don't think the fact that we write mythologies and philosophy at all makes us special among animals?

All that distinguishes us from the other apes is brain size to body mass ratio. And even then, the gulf isn't vast.

No, it's the fact that we write mythologies and philosophy that distinguishes us from other apes. And that gulf is vast.

We can safely assume that any mammal with a similarly large brain in relation to body mass has the same range of emotions, capacity for complex thought, self-awareness, creativity, what-have-you.

No we can't. That's pure speculation. In fact, it's not so much the size of the brain that matters, but the structure.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[whitehaint]

Fool, they are trying to warn us of the impending destruction of Earth to make way for the hyperspatial express route!

Re:Non-human intelligences

[sexconker]

Are there some animals in captivity that show signs of collective rebellions ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYTlkwUBwIA

Re:Non-human intelligences

[todrules]

That's a good point. Do they have to obey laws? If they enter American waters, do they need travel documents? If they're a "person" and have the same rights as a "person," then they also have the same responsibilities, too.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[c6gunner]

Actually, intelligence doesn't have much to do with why we treat dogs differently. When an animal is useful to us, we take care of it. If it happens to be edible, we take care of it for a while, at least. Historically, the most useful non-edible (well, ones most of us don't eat) animals for humans have been dogs and horses, and they've been treated better than any other species. If dolphins really want to get special treatment, they need to figure out how to do something for us. Either become delicious and easy to farm, or start building dolphin-powered cargo ships.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[mcvos]

Human infants are still human. Sure, you can question their personhood when they're unborn, a few weeks after conception and little more than a lump of cells, but once born and breathing and learning and crying, most people have little doubt about their humanity.

I'm not saying each individual dolphin has to ask for the same rights as humans, I'm fine when just one of them does it on behalf of the species. The rest will get a free pass for being the same species, just like most humans do.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[BungaDunga]

Do dolphins try to escape captivity? It's something humans do if they're where they don't want to be, so if it happens we might be able to conclude something about what the dolphins want.

Secondly: You're wrong about race. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Race is entirely arbitrary and socially constructed. Brazilians, for example, tend to delineate race differently from Americans. So someone might be thought of as "black" in the US but as "white" in Brazil. Has anything changed about them? No. (getting this second hand from a very good anthropology professor, here).

If you try to delineate race based on skin color, you quickly run into problems. Some people of Asiatic descent have very dark skin; some Africans have light skin. The San people- African- often have epicanthic eye folds (think "asian eyes"), but they're not Asian. And on and on, with any combination of characteristics. Even the most modern genetic tests can't tell you someone's race (otherwise, Americans and Brazilians would agree on what race someone is, every time). Yes, you can make very good guesses about someone's ancestry with DNA markers, but that's not race.

"all blacks have similar features" is simply, again, wrong. It's not a matter of interpretation. People of African descent are actually more varied than everyone else, because only a relatively few humans made it out of Africa in the initial emigration. Africans are the most genetically diverse, because they didn't lose the genes that didn't come along for the ride out of Africa.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[magarity]

Can you imagine being so happy with your current life that you felt no need to arbitrarily impose order and restriction upon your surroundings? Are you sure you are the more intelligent creature?

Think about it: dolphins don't have opposable thumbs with which they could arbitrarily impose upon their surroundings. Sounds pretty frustrating. If I were stuck in a dolphin's body with a human level intelligence it would drive me nuts that I couldn't make (or hold) something to ward off sharks.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[RsG]

1. we really need a test for that.

2. we need to be prepared for the implication of some humans failing at these tests.

3. we need to be prepared for the implication of some software programs succeeding at these tests.

If the test is written such that a healthy adult human being can fail it, then somethings wrong with the test. I can accept that brain damage, senility or other things that impair mental function could make a human being appear to be less than sapient, or that a very young child would not pass a sapience test. After all, in law there's the concept of "capacity" that covers the same ground, i.e. that a child or mentally disabled person isn't fit to make certain decisions due to lack of understanding of what those decisions entail.

But if we're going to set a bar for the ability to think, not genius intelligence but the bare minimum intelligence, then the best way to go about it is to find healthy undamaged adult human beings on the far low end of the bell curve for intelligence/self-awareness and use them as the baseline. People smart enough to be considered legally responsible for their actions, but only just.

Using that baseline for sapience, I fully expect some non-human intelligences to pass the test, dolphins and chimps especially. No software we have today could do it, but maybe in a few decades that will change.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[magarity]

If it is discovered that dolphins possess the properties of consciousness that make human slavery wrong, then, yes, imprisoning dolphins and forcing them to entertain audiences is almost exactly like human slavery of the past.

Forcing them to do it would be, but I bet some dolphins who've become tired of the fish catching rat race might willingly contract to put on shows in exchange for safe shelter, reliable meals, and decent working conditions. What do you do?

Re:Non-human intelligences

[nospam007]

"...suggested that humans be granted cetaceanhood when they ask for it."

Unfortunately one of the requests is to hold your breath for 20 minutes.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Monkeedude1212]

I never meant it in the terms of skin colour, but using "blacks" and "whites" as substitutes of africoid and caucasoid unintentially created that side effect.

Race is not arbitary and socially constructed. The idea isn't that "black" is only Black in the US and "White" in Brazil, it's that black and white have a distinction no matter where you are in the world.

The most modern genetic tests CAN tell you whether someone is Caucasoidal or Africoidal, though not in the sense of "He's from Europe."

Someone's Ancestry and DNA IS a large role in their race - even someone of africoidal descent in America is still looked at the same way if they were fresh of the boat.

Just because one sub-set of the species is more varied than the other doesn't mean it doesn't have traits that seperate them from the others. There is a science behind determining someone's ancestry, and it has been proven to be quite accurate.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[MightyMartian]

The problem with limiting the definition to "like us" is that it is self-limiting, and pretty much cancels out any other form of sentience.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[nospam007]

"No, it's the fact that we write mythologies and philosophy that distinguishes us from other apes."

The question is: Can _you_ do it?

Re:Non-human intelligences

[wierd_w]

Fun (but somewhat disturbing) fact--

Some species of dolphin have prehensile penises, and have been shown to pick up and manipulate objects using their genital slits.

(Star shoots over head while jingle plays)
"The more you know!"

Re:Non-human intelligences

[GooberToo]

Dolphins: "muck about"
Humans: "New York"

Score one for the dolphins.

Seriously though, the the thing that created New York was our opposable thumbs. Without them, New York would likely be muck. And despite having limited appendages, dolphins do hunt in groups, even ON LAND (shore lines). They even have oral history and tribal (pods) dialects for communication. Dolphins are surprisingly complex and intelligent animals, seemingly limited by their physical shape and lack of digits; specifically thumbs.

For what its worth, some research seems to hint that octopi are nearly as intelligent as dolphin. Yet, what sets them apart in a human's mind is a dolphin's physical ability to vocalize. Which basically makes them more accessible for research and easier to relate.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[evil_aar0n]

Your first assertion is patently not true: otherwise, we'd have endless prison riots every day at every prison. And schools.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[CrimsonAvenger]

They even have oral history

Citation?

The fact that they communicate with each other is, I think, beyond doubt. The subjects of that communication are rather less clear.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[memristance]

If dolphins really want to get special treatment, they need to figure out how to do something for us.

Does patrolling our harbors for terrorists, spies, and underwater mines count?

Re:Non-human intelligences

[GooberToo]

First of all, this is not an authoritative source for information - so, "citation needed" is completely out of context and confirms you're an idiot.

Secondly, I will clarify. Research indicates their vocalizations are taught as well as some hunting methods and synchronizations are passed via vocalizations. So when I say an oral history, I don't mean, "Form the beginning there was dolphin and it was good...". I mean much of what they are is physically and vocally instructed - just as humans learn. This is why different pods have different vocalizations and different hunting capabilities; because they were not instructed to do so despite visually observing the exact same techniques.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[c6gunner]

For the 3 or 4 which are employed in that role, sure. Not so much for the rest.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[ultranova]

I'm convinced that the "higher" animals have feelings too, and deserve to not be tortured or slaughtered or bred in brutal ways. But don't pretend that they're people, because they're just not.

Well, obviously not, since since "people" is a plural for "human beings". This is a red herring.

What better definition of person than "like us" do we have?

You aren't like me. Given any group of humans that doesn't include you, you are almost guaranteed to have some trait the people in the group don't have, or lack some which they have.

Your definition would let me declare bald people non-persons, which is clearly absurd.

If merely having a sense of self and a personality is enough to get the right to vote, then quite a lot of animals will fit that bill.

We aren't talking about right to vote, which is denied from quite a few humans too - all non-citizens, for example, making this another red herring. We're talking about things like not being kept in captivity against the individual being's will.

And yes, quite a lot of animals - at least all mammals - have a personality, most bigger ones to the point where it's easy to tell individuals apart from behaviour even if they belong to the same species or even the same herd.

Sure, dolphins are smart, but so are chimps and elephant. And whales, orang-utans and crows. But none of them come anywhere near any semblance of the kind of cultural ability that we have.

This is a thid red herring. The issue isn't whether dolphins might build a fishbowl-tank to explore the dry land, the issue is whether they're self-aware enough that they should be treated as retarded humans rather than mere sources of amusement/study.

Besides, getting a culture started requires more than intelligence, it requires hands. Elephants, whales and crows don't have those. Apes do, and, well, we are apes.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[RsG]

Except that argument conflates "personhood" with "capacity" (that is, the legal term capacity). The poster you were replying to specifically referred to the former, you responded as if they'd argued about the latter. They aren't the same thing.

A child can't sign a contract, make a will, drink, etc as they lack the legal capacity. They're still "people". The legal restrictions on capacity make that abundantly clear. What they don't have is the ability to fully understand the consequences of their actions. They have rights, but aren't mature enough to have the responsibilities that come with.

I realize this is a nit-picking distinction, but it's relevant. A person is protected under the law, irrespective of capacity. You can't go out and kill a retarded man and argue before a judge that, as the victim lacked capacity, he was not a person, and therefor fair game. Acknowledging dolphins as "persons" in a limited way extends legal protection to them, even if they aren't afforded the same legal status as a mentally sound adult human being.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[h4rr4r]

I do. I fully think a dolphin is more "person" than a baby human. A baby cannot recognize its own image in a mirror or think about the future. There are a set of developmental steps that all mammals seem to go through and some species seem not to get as far. A rat can understand the concept of zero, but none of them recognize themselves in a mirror. This means even a rat is more "person" than a baby.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[BungaDunga]

I should have qualified my statement to be more clear. How about this:

Do some dolphins sometimes appear to try to escape captivity? It's something humans sometimes do if they're where they don't want to be.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Cajun Hell]

Grant personhood only to those who ask for it? The protectors of the coma wards and unborn human fetuses are going to hate that.

That's the problem with personhood tests: not all humans can pass them, unless you set the bar so low that even most chickens can pass it. The only patch is to add unsatisfying arbitrary clauses, like whitelisting anything with human DNA. (Wait, how much human DNA?) But if you're going to arbitrarily whitelist some species, then you might as well throw out the test altogether, and just write things on your whitelist based on your intuition, preferences, etc -- subjective stuff.

This is one of those questions that can only lead to trouble. That doesn't mean don't ask it, just that trouble is coming and it might make the whole Nazi conflict seem smalltime. There is no good way to draw the line that isn't going to get someone accused of either murder or imprecise thinking. You can't win. Any answer will be hated, and rightly so because no answer will be right. This is bad shit.

Go ahead and support the dolphin research, work on AI, and look for aliens, but accept that you're asking for World War 3 to happen in your lifetime.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[EdIII]

We knew blacks were human, for instance.

Not really. There were plenty of people during those times that made "scientific" arguments to the contrary. They had to do so, as the basis for slavery at the point in many people's minds was precisely the fact they were "not human".

Re:Non-human intelligences

[SuricouRaven]

Also, octopusses are short-lived creatures. They just don't live long enough to accumulate a great deal of information.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[kheldan]

This raises two questions in my mind:

1. How do we know they haven't already asked, and we just don't understand them well enough to know that, and
2. How can we tell whether they would even understand the concept?

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Dcnjoe60]

When they're able to ask for it, then it's obvious they deserve it.

This is awfully absurd. Maybe they are already asking to be let out of Seaworld and all the other cages we keep them in. Perhaps we aren't capable of understanding them? Does one simply ignore all signs of intelligence because we simply enjoy their tricks? Your suggestion in many ways is how slavery was justified by stating that the slaves were somehow an inferior animal.

But dolphins ARE an animal.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[SuricouRaven]

I can question it. They may be human genetically and biologically, but do they have the mental capacities which make humans worth legal and moral protections? For a newborn, essentially... no. Their brains come out without even visual processing or basic motor function, and not even a hint of linquistic ability or anything else that makes humans so special. I see no problem with a scale of some sort - rather than just classify all animals as 'human' and 'not human,' find some way to recognise that it's a continuous measure.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[ultranova]

What? You don't think the fact that we write mythologies and philosophy at all makes us special among animals?

No, because we learned to write before we wrote mythology and philosophy :p

No, it's the fact that we write mythologies and philosophy that distinguishes us from other apes. And that gulf is vast.

Who's this "we" you're talking about? I have written (bad) fanfiction, which is a form of mythology. Have you done so?

Snark aside, I think you're in the right track here. Human language is very abstract, and human mind naturally needs to be capable of handling that abstraction. This has a nice side effect of allowing imagination (needed to comprehend incoming communication), planning (once you can imagine things, you can imagine the probable results of actions), and culture (one person communicates his imagination to another, who adds stuff and passes it to a third one, and so on).

Of course, all this means that human mind is so flexible because it's self-modifying code running in a virtual machine, while animal minds run close to the metal. I simply must point this out in the next C(++) vs. high-level languages debate >:).

No we can't. That's pure speculation. In fact, it's not so much the size of the brain that matters, but the structure.

All mammals have basically the same brain structure. It only differs in relative size of areas. And in any case, saying that it's the structure that matters says nothing about whether some particular structure might produce intelligence or not.

There are some examples of gorillas learning sign language and having reasonably intelligent discussions with their handlers; they could learn about 500 words, if memory serves.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[SuricouRaven]

The human mind evolved in more than just growing brain. There are a lot of specialised capabilities to handle the conditions in which early humans lived - small, highly social tribes of usually close family ties and interdependance. Thus we ended up with a brain that's exceptionally good at language, at social modeling (Theory of Mind, the ability to imagine the thought processes of another person), and that seeks out social interaction where possible (Loners generally didn't get to mate much). Spartial manipulation and long-term planning for constructing tools and running successful hunts. The ability to associate consequences with action allows for much better adaptation to changing circumstances. A big brain is a requirement for human-like intelligence, but it isn't enough on it's own. You need a few million years of tribal life for that.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[c6gunner]

*shrug* as far as I'm concerned, "person" and "child" are two different things, but the actual verbiage is irrelevant. If calling a dolphin a "person" make you happy, go for it. I don't see the relevance of the label we stick on them - what's under discussion is what kinds of rights and protections should be afforded to them.

Many animals are already protected under the law to some extent - you can't just go and shoot my dog for no reason, and we have animal cruelty legislation covering many different species. I certainly agree that dolphins should receive some protection (although how much is open to debate), I just think it's silly to call a dolphin a "person".

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Labcoat Samurai]

And if the answer is yes? You then, I suppose, move on to asking the same question but with regard to mentally deficient humans who are still awarded human rights despite not having the baseline human capacity for thought, reason, and creativity. And at that point the answer is simply that we have greater compassion for our own species than for others.

To put it another way, it's not legal to kill the mentally retarded or to enslave them for your amusement. This is not because of their self-awareness, creativity, cognitive ability, etc. This is because they are human, specifically, and we are hard-wired to feel compassion for them. The notion of whether a species is human-like enough to warrant human-like treatment is distinct from the notion of whether or not any individual human deserves such treatment. Humans feel compassion for things that are like humans, ultimately. If you could create a computer that was every bit as intelligent and creative as a person, we still wouldn't think twice about disposing of it unless it could also make an entreaty to our sense of compassion, perhaps by expressing some semblance of human-like emotion.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[CrimsonAvenger]

First of all, this is not an authoritative source for information - so, "citation needed" is completely out of context and confirms you're an idiot.

Secondly, I will clarify. Research indicates their vocalizations are taught as well as some hunting methods and synchronizations are passed via vocalizations. So when I say an oral history, I don't mean, "Form the beginning there was dolphin and it was good...". I mean much of what they are is physically and vocally instructed - just as humans learn. This is why different pods have different vocalizations and different hunting capabilities; because they were not instructed to do so despite visually observing the exact same techniques.

Which shows that they communicate. It doesn't show an oral history. Dogs communicate, and teach their pups to hunt. But they don't have an oral history.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[mister_playboy]

If you are a subscriber and had never FP'd before... you must have been doing it wrong. ;)

Congrats on your achievement. :)

Re:Non-human intelligences

[astar]

Your phrasing leads to difficulties. Since you speak of animals, I have a fairly high IQ on standard tests and a friend have a fairly low IQ on standard tests. So I realistically can suppose I am twice as "smart" as my buddy. So maybe he should have half my rights? And then I might reasonably be willing to say this guy is twice as successful as me, Maybe he should have twice my rights? We are both animals, and of the same species and culture, so these questions should be both easy and realistic. And then we are often speaking here of rights and I am not quite sure what those are. Certainly, for humans, the answers vary a great deal looking over space and time.

I have what is a probably a pretty good ethics book sitting around here and I really really need to read it, but you need to be sufficiently careful in what you say as to not open yourself to as simple a response as mine.

Directly on the topic, perhaps a equal claim on life to myself? We do not approve of national military forces killing groups of unarmed civilians in cold blood. Generally, we think genocide should be opposed. Lethal scientific experiments on people are considered inappropriate. These views are not universal, but the first, with some exceptions, is against well-established international law. Perhaps we should ask about dolphins and fish nets in a similar way. Just asking.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Sir_Lewk]

I'll consider accepting dolphins as persons if and only if that means I'm allowed to put them on trial for rape.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[nschubach]

I find it funny (and somewhat sad) rather than silly. Someone thinks that somehow we must grant those things we deem worthy the rights that we created...even though the dolphins themselves have more rights than we do:
1. They can leave their nest whenever they want (curfew)
2. Eat whatever they like without government stamp of approval
3. Swim as fast as they want without some shark or whale pulling them over and issuing a citation
4. They can literally kill to protect something/someone and not have to sit on a stand to defend their position to their peers ...

I imagine they will somehow forcibly apply those rights to the dolphins through (our) extra taxation and special underwater reserve pens built to protect the dolphins from their own choices.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[diamondmagic]

And ideally they would have counted as zero people because the only point of the census is to allocate seats in the House of Representatives, the whole point was to convince the slave states to free the slaves if they wanted to get increased representation in the House. Go read up on the "Three-fifths compromise" please.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[jcwayne]

Human anatomy, while distinct from other apes in a few areas, is mostly unremarkable from the neck down.

Speak for yourself.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[nschubach]

I happen to agree with Rinda... I think her ideas are spot on. They should build a large fence to keep us from going in their oceans and stealing their food supplies.

I still think the CETH (Cetaceans for the Ethical Treatment of Humans) is over the top though not as bad as the suicide swimmers who try to stop the nets.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[nschubach]

Apparently some of them have taken up the cause of human protectors (attacking sharks, etc.) while we are at sea. Maybe they figured it out!

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Sir_Lewk]

Are you blind, or just illiterate? He clearly just did.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Requiem18th]

It's not *THAT* hard to guess what rights they should have. They'd probably deserve the right to seat wherever they want in the bus, but the situation won't arise.

Or interactions with dolphins are so limited we really just have to take a few decisions. Is it ok to kill them? Torture them? Imprison them? Trash their environment?

There are already news against those acts, it's just a matter of rising the penalties. Murder of a dolphin deserves a few years of jail time, so is torture.

The most controversial issues are, should it be illegal to imprison dolphins? And what about the dolphins that are already in captivity? What should we do to punish those that kept them imprisoned? What should we do to punish those that still keep them imprisoned?

My guesses are:
Yes, find a way to reintegrate them to their environment, no, don't punish the keepers, they didn't know the severity of their actions, do punish those that still keep them in jails.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[thepotoo]

Octopi are not anywhere near as intelligent as humans or dolphins or even parrots. They are very smart for invertebrates (mostly in the form of hunting techniques), but they simply do not have neurons in sufficient numbers to be considered sentient. Of course, it's possible that they actually are sentient, but if shown, this would overturn well neigh everything we know about consciousness and the brain. Some species of spiders show similar signs of intelligence.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[RsG]

I certainly agree that dolphins should receive some protection (although how much is open to debate), I just think it's silly to call a dolphin a "person".

Yeah, that's fair. The problem is mostly one of semantics, as the word "person" is too closely tied to the word "human", but no other word exists that encapsulates the same concept. I suppose you could use the phrase "sapient being" instead of "person", but that just sounds clunky.

Aside from that:

as far as I'm concerned, "person" and "child" are two different things

Legally, a child is just a person who lacks capacity. If you want another example of a person who lacks capacity, one that might apply to you personally someday, people suffering from senility are in the same boat. Which is a good reason to get a will done up and power of attorney assigned well in advance of needing them, as you can lose the legal capacity to do so if you've gone senile or had a stroke. Totally offtopic, but I bring it up because my knowledge of capacity in the legal sense comes from just such a case. The law (sensibly) does not equate personhood, and all the rights that come with it, with capacity, and the responsibilities that entails.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Nyder]

Fun (but somewhat disturbing) fact--

Some species of dolphin have prehensile penises, and have been shown to pick up and manipulate objects using their genital slits.

(Star shoots over head while jingle plays)
"The more you know!"

And the japanese haven't made porn about it yet?

Re:Non-human intelligences

[dkf]

Besides, getting a culture started requires more than intelligence, it requires hands.

While I was with you for most of what you said, that sentence seems a bit off. Tool-making requires hands (or other appendage(s) capable of fine manipulation), but culture requires some level of communication. Exactly how much is an open scientific question; if someone manages to nail that down, they'll become very famous indeed.

As evidence, an important part of human culture for thousands of years was bardic tradition, the reciting of poems and songs created by former generations. This all dated from well before anyone knew how to write — Homer, author of the Iliad and the Odyssey, lived in a non-literate era, yet it was assuredly an age of culture, and it forms part of our culture today. Were hands required for its creation and maintenance? It's hard to see how that can be; the voice though, that's vital. Animals definitely can make noises, and we just don't know yet how semantically-sophisticated they can be.

So do some animals have some sort of culture? Probably. Is it as sophisticated as ours? Probably not, but that might be just a stupid parochialism on my part; we won't know until we figure out how to look properly. :-)

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Cley Faye]

Well, since we haven't been able to find all those underwater dolphin cities, they must have some nice occulting technology, which seems like a great achievement.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[noisyinstrument]

Communicating isn't the same thing has having a oral history. An oral history would be things like story telling, perhaps even creation myths. And for these, the evidence just doesn't exist.

From what I gather, a lot of scientists are now stepping back a bit from the belief that dolphins are near human-like in intelligence. I think its just wishful thinking on our part.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[CastrTroy]

So are people.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Frangible]

There's no speculation about it. Numerous studies have shown everything down to rats certainly have self-awareness, emotion, and even metacognition.

The old argument that what makes humans special is emotion is ridiculous. Emotions come from the limbic system, one of the most primitive regions of the brain, that is almost identical in humans in structure and function to many other mammals. Our frontal lobe is what sets us apart.

You can find any of this easily on PubMed, but if you've owned a dog it should be quite obvious it was self-aware and had emotions. If there's any animal species humans owe a lot to, it is canis lupus, dogs and wolves, who have been our companions and helped us survive since the dawn of man.

Further, animals certainly do have mythology and philosophy. Just because it wasn't assigned reading in college like Kant doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or it's easy to communicate. But it is there. Pigeons famously have been shown to have superstition, and here some quotes from non-human primates:

Gorilla, Volume 8, Number 1, from December, 1984. (Conversation between Koko and Maureen Sheehan)
MS: Where do gorillas go when they die?
Koko: Comfortable hole bye.
MS: When do gorillas die?
K: Trouble, old.
MS: How do gorillas feel when they die, happy, sad, afraid?
K: Sleep.


Gorilla, Volume 8, Number 2. (December 18, 1984, three days after All Ball had been killed, with Dr. Penny Patterson:)
PP: Do you want to talk about your kitty?
K: Cry.
PP: What happened to your kitty?
K: Sleep cat.
PP: Yes, he's sleeping.
K: Koko good.


(3/10/81 - Mike the Gorilla and Barbra Walters)
BW: Any dreams last night? Dreams?
M: Why. Why do you trouble quiet?
BW: Any dreams last night?
M: Dream cat bird eat taste
BW: Oh dear, bad dream about cats eating birds?
M: Sad. Cat devil


PP: Would it be fun if kittens could sign?
K: Stupid.


And I have to go with Koko on that one. Kittens aren't gorillas. And gorillas, and dolphins, aren't people. They are animals. And that alone is worthy of respect and some rights. How much? I don't know, but if serial animal abusers got executed for their crimes, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. At the same time, remember that dolphins, dogs, etc are predators. They take prey, as do we. Gorillas have pets, as do we. Things are never equal.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[RobertM1968]

Does that mean that foreign, non-English speaking slaves should still be legal?

According to the Bible. Though, the language requirements aren't part of it.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[RobertM1968]

That's not circular reasoning, it's simply an observation. What better definition of person than "like us" do we have? If merely having a sense of self and a personality is enough to get the right to vote, then quite a lot of animals will fit that bill. Sure, dolphins are smart, but so are chimps and elephant. And whales, orang-utans and crows. But none of them come anywhere near any semblance of the kind of cultural ability that we have.

Learn something, wont you? Dolphins (other than war and senseless killing) have very complex societal and cultural existences. We have known that for DECADES.

Do a Google search on it, and you will find tons of similar papers on the subject. You will also find flaws in all of them in favor of downplaying dolphin intelligence and group structures. Like the brain/size ratio. Let's just analyze that one, shall we? Let's say you have an IQ of 140 and weigh 170lbs. Two years later, you weigh 300lbs. Are you any more stupid? Should we use your changing overall weight compared to your static brain weight to determine how intelligent you now are? Now, how much of a dolphin is blubber?

That aside, dolphins have shown as complex social structures as humans (again, sans the senseless violence and senseless wars and assignation of importance to trivial things).

Seems to me, they're SMARTER than humans. And the universe no longer revolves around the Earth. We DONT understand them, we DONT do any new research. We ALWAYS err on the side of "me human! me smart! that animal! that dumb!" whenever we dont understand anything. The human ego has gotten us into a lot of trouble that way.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[t2t10]

Yeah, kind of like every peaceful and fun-loving civilization has gotten destroyed in human history. What else is new.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Sulphur]

If slaves were counted as one person, then the number of representatives would be such that slavery would be permanent.

--

Dolphin decoded : I am not a tuna.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[RobertM1968]

Actually that is more or less what happens with children. Granted, they have far more rights than animals before 18, but some rights are stripped out of them because they are considered immature. Ditto for mentally handicapped.

This has been brought up by DOZENS of others besides you, so please keep in mind this is directed at everyone who's said something similar.

There is a BIG difference between basic human rights (which ALL humans in this country, regardless of age, are supposedly entitled to) and legal rights that confer privileges onto certain groups of people.

People need to stop confusing the two in the context of this conversation.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[RobertM1968]

Human anatomy, while distinct from other apes in a few areas, is mostly unremarkable from the neck down...

YOUR human "anatomy" may be mostly unremarkable from the neck down, but dont go speaking for the rest of us!!! ;-)

No, all joking aside, well said. And another point, this is not discussing "legal rights" which is different from "person (currently human) rights". People keep comparing all of this to babies and "vegetables"... why, I dont know. No one is suggesting we give dolphins drivers licenses or ID so they can buy beer at 21.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[bhagwad]

Do dolphins try to escape captivity?

Once slaves were born into captivity, they pretty much stopped trying to escape as well.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[bhagwad]

And newborn babies and children are heavily protected too. You can't enslave them in cages for example.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Frangible]

Humans are ultimately tribal animals. We do not necessarily have universal compassion for all other humans, and have done very terrible things to each other throughout history. It is easy for us to have compassion for our nuclear families and tribes. Less so, for "the others".

The laws are as they are... in the US... Elsewhere in the world and throughout history, it was not always so, nor will it always be so in the future.

There are many examples in the past in the US of those with mental disabilities not being treated equally. I doubt they've been treated anywhere near equally throughout human history. Universal compassion is a rare exception, not a historical constant.

I would imagine most people on Slashdot have more compassion for their dogs than other humans who disagree with their political beliefs.

Make a comment like "George W. Bush was actually a much better president than most people give him credit for" or "socialized medicine is a grand idea" and you'll see how quickly universal human compassion falls apart.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[The_mad_linguist]

There's been quite a bit of controversy about how much of what Koko supposedly signed was just made up.

Among other things, Patterson told female workers that they had to "tits or gtfo" because the gorilla was signing for it.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[LongearedBat]

Slaves were fully human, and humans already had "personhood".

True, but what GP says is also true.

This is not meant as a troll...
My grandmother from South Africa went to a town meeting (many decades ago). After the town meeting there was some socialising. One white woman had a proper conversation with a black woman for the very first time in her life... and ended up very shocked and traumatised. The black woman was talking about how she was worried that her son wasn't studying hard enough at school and other such things. Just like (shock, horror) ... a real person... with feelings... caring about her son just like a real human mother! The white woman had never realised that black people are real people too, because she had never communicated properly with one before.
(I bet that changed her perception of the world a tad, eh?)

As unlikely as this may seem to us today, that was a very different time and very different setting.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[laughingcoyote]

Do dolphins try to escape captivity? It's something humans do if they're where they don't want to be, so if it happens we might be able to conclude something about what the dolphins want.

"Accidentally" leave a gate open to the ocean, and see if the dolphin escapes or not. Then I guess you'll have your answer. Wanting to escape and being able to do so are two very different things.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[guybrush3pwood]

The problem with limiting the definition to "like us" is that it is self-limiting, and pretty much cancels out any other form of sentience.

Oh, the irony! Definitions are self limiting by definition, my friend.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[T Murphy]

For what its worth, some research seems to hint that octopi are nearly as intelligent as dolphin. Yet, what sets them apart in a human's mind is a dolphin's physical ability to vocalize. Which basically makes them [...] easier to relate.

Or maybe it's just that octopi don't look like they're smiling all the time.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[aevan]

Of all the starfish in the ocean, why did it have to choose mine...

Re:Non-human intelligences

[daath93]

I don't understand your statement. Are you postulating that there is an ignorant caste? Or that caste systems cause ignorance? Or that Ignorance causes caste systems?

Re:Non-human intelligences

[daath93]

Everyone must fight for rights. Rights given are never appreciated. Look at 80% of the American voting population for my case. If they want freedom, let them fight for it.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[ArcherB]

Sure, and Bill O'Riley thinks he's a smart guy. 'nuff said.

And Keith Olbermann thinks he's smarter. What's your point?

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Rennt]

...conversely, the dolphins know that they are far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[stigmerger]

From a distance, it's hard to tell the difference between humans and yeast, except that yeasts shit alcohol. What can YOUR shit do? ... Nothing.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[regular_gonzalez]

Well that's kind of a silly standard. Most technology is ultimately based on at least one of two things: the opposable thumb (needed for dextrously manipulating one's environment, exceptions such as an elephant's nose notwithstanding) and fire (and its natural descendent electricity).

By your standard, a person in a coma or an infant are not to be granted rights.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[jadin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMCf7SNUb-Q

Re:Non-human intelligences

[TapeCutter]

"Are there some animals in captivity that show signs of collective rebellions ?"

Yes

Re:Non-human intelligences

[cavebison]

It annoys me how we decide to treat animals based on what we think goes on in their brains. We constantly discuss how big our brains are, or whale brains, dolphin brains, etc. We appear to judge person-hood purely on a judgement of brain activity. Yet we fail to support that in reality.

I mean, if we judge person-ness on what goes on in the brain, then why do we still treat people with Alzheimer's, Downs Syndrome, Autism, or serious brain damage (to the point some people can't even feel emotion, recognise faces or that their own arm belongs to them) as "people"?

We experiment to see if a crow can make a tool, or a chimp can recognise itself in the mirror. Then a human comes along who can't do something like that as we still give them preferential treatment.

We should admit we still hold onto the "in God's image" idea for dear life, and stop trying to hide the fact with discussions about which species is more worthy based on their brain. IMO, we will *never* treat animals better until we admit that and do something about changing that basic attitude.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[cavebison]

When a puppy looks at you as his/her parent, with what we may as well call "love" and "devotion", are they not speaking to you directly, asking to be treated as a person?

What about a dog who, in the pack mentality, decides that you are their equal (some dogs even assume themselves pack leader over a person)? Is that not a direct message saying "I'm equal to you".

Or any other number of animal behaviours which send the message, "this is my turf, you don't belong here" - that's clearly not asking but demanding that you treat them as dominant and superior.

That's enough messages to go on for now. The truth is we ignore the messages animals send us because it suits us to ignore them.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[c6gunner]

That what they think about themselves is completely irrelevant.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[cavebison]

I realize this is a nit-picking distinction, but it's relevant.

It's not nit-picking at all. If a human is brain-damaged to the point they can't, say, feel emotion or empathise with other's emotions (there are many fascinating types of brain dysfunction) we still consider them a "person" even though a chimpanzee might exhibit more capacity than they do. But of course the chimp isn't a "person".

We basically hold onto the idea of being "in God's image" (whether religious or not) - we simply believe we're better. The same way we just can't *assume* there is intelligent life on at least one of a billion other planets - we'd simply rather assume we're the best damn species in the universe, until shown otherwise.

It's a lovely illusion of superiority we carry. It must have something to do with our survival. We obviously need to "dehumanise" animals otherwise we couldn't kill and eat them without feeling bad about ourselves. Actually not even that. If you can't draw the line between "who" is ok to kill and "who" isn't, we wouldn't be surviving as well, people eating each other etc. Probably all comes from there. It feels ok to kill "that animal" (animal) but not "that animal" (human) so let's culturally define what that means. Let's make a word, "person", meaning "animal like me, of great value to all of us". Because that's what our basic instincts tell us to do.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[SlappyBastard]

Is the slavery so over-the-top if you consider them sentient beings?

Unless you consider fish to be currency, in which case dolphins are just independent contractors.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Omnifarious]

It annoys me how we decide to treat animals based on what we think goes on in their brains. We constantly discuss how big our brains are, or whale brains, dolphin brains, etc. We appear to judge person-hood purely on a judgement of brain activity. Yet we fail to support that in reality.

What really determines personhood in how we treat animals is if they fit into our social network, if they could fit into someone's 'monkeysphere'. That's why I'm saying that our conversations with dolphins or other animals should determine whether or not we can treat them as persons.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[quenda]

Yet, what sets them apart in a human's mind is a dolphin's physical ability to vocalize.

No, it it the resemblance of their face to a smiling human that affects us. It is really hard for an octopus to smile.
Octopuses do have big child-like eyes, but that is not enough to be cute.

(And BTW, ants hunt in groups. Not really a sign of intelligence.)

Re:Non-human intelligences

[dryeo]

In some of Larry Nivens books he uses Legal Entity or LE for beings that aren't human/persons but have the same legal rights. In the stories Dolphins are Legal Entities.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[FoolishOwl]

But giving them human rights simply because they might be slightly smarter than some other animals is just silly.

It's "not even wrong." Talking about human rights with regards to non-humans is meaningless. Rights only make sense in a context of bidirectional abstract communication, in the context of a social network with participants who can discuss their desires and intentions, who can negotiate and agree to collaborative courses of action.

The best we can do with dolphins is enjoy their company when they choose to approach us, and leave them alone the rest of the time.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[ShakaUVM]

>>I think, maybe, we should just ask, if we can figure out how.

I already asked famed goat surgeon Dr. Cornwallis, and he said not to worry about the rights for now. They don't want them.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[cavebison]

As long as by "conversation", you also take into account emotional and non-verbal interaction. We do it all the time between each other, so why not relevant with someone who might be a person? Of course that opens things up to a lot of "wishy washy" interpretations. But that's exactly my point. Human, person-to-person interactions are pretty much that at most times, and we call it valid. So?

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Arterion]

Humans were foragers for most of their existence, for the simple reason that they didn't need tools for anything complicated, and were nomadic, so a lot of tools didn't make much sense. Only when populations settled down and started growing their own food did we really become creatures that made lots of stuff. The reasons humans settled down probably don't affect dolphins, so they've been able to maintain a "foraging" lifestyle, even if they're just as intelligent as humans.

The ability to process symbols is also something we consider intelligence, because it's pretty critical to our ability to communicate. That's something done "automatically" for us in the brain when we learn language. The brain also auto-pilots us on things like reading music or playing video games. We can learn to process things on "auto pilot" that we could never individually think through step-by-step. Dolphin brains may or may not have these abilities, which would make them seem less intelligent.

They may have these abilities, albeit in an underdeveloped way because they haven't been naturally selected. The dolphins that are the best as being dolphins are the ones natural selection will pick. Eventually, it might be those that are best at interacting with humans, and so they might learn language and such. But we'll probably be able to make them intelligent with engineering long before evolution does it.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[tempest69]

They die at three years old. They're pretty smart.. The neuron argument is kinda bunk-- read "is your brain really necessary" by Roger Lewin, about John Lorber's work. Brainpower is tricky, and throwing around words like sentient is kinda silly, when there isn't a good test for it anyway.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[sjames]

We know slaves were fully human, but I kid you not, there were white people in that time who believed otherwise. Some people believed that they were a not quite human sub-species. Others believed they had no soul (and implicitly that white people did). In that time, the personhood of black people was questioned (rather conveniently by slave owners).

Later there were a wide variety of pseudo-scientific prattlings claiming to prove that black people were innately less intelligent, unable to curb criminal tendencies, and on and on and on. There were even claims that the desire to escape slavery was a mental illness that was best treated with a regimen of hard labor (as hard to believe as it is, they seem to have been sincere in the belief!).

I'm not sure what rights should be granted to various species. I am sure that some human rights wouldn't be particularly meaningful (what would it mean for a Dolphin to be a citizen?). However it is worthwhile to understand how deeply wrong we once were about members of our own species including things we consider obviously wrong now.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[AGMW]

Do dolphins try to escape captivity? It's something humans do if they're where they don't want to be, so if it happens we might be able to conclude something about what the dolphins want.

"Accidentally" leave a gate open to the ocean, and see if the dolphin escapes or not. Then I guess you'll have your answer. Wanting to escape and being able to do so are two very different things.

I went to a Dolphin training place when I was on Bermuda a few years back and it was a small tank and looked pretty bloody awful so I complained. The 'instructor' chap apologised and said it was a temporary place because a recent hurricane had smashed up their previous location which was far nicer and had, as a 'fence' to keep the dolphins in, just a boom running out into a bay. This allowed the dolphins to jump over to get out into the open ocean, which they would do on regular occasions, but they pretty much always returned at some point and seemed to enjoy the 'training' and learning new tricks stuff!

Another show I saw was in Portugal and one of the 'tricks' the dolphins did was to 'kick' (with their tails) a ball into the crowd. One of the (3) dolphins mis-hit it and it just move a few metres towards the edge of the tank. The dolphin knew it had mis-hit it and had a look at the ball and realised it was far to close to the edge of the tank for it to be able to swim under and kick again, so it swam around and (gently) kicked it back into the middle of the tank, then swam round and HOOFED it into the crowd! For me, that showed a huge amount of awareness and problem solving (assuming of course it hadn't just been trained to do it like that!).

Re:Non-human intelligences

[QuantumG]

This. A hundred times this.

People seem to think dolphins are happy smiling human-equivalents that spend all day frolicking in the water and occasionally hunt for fish. Similarly, apes are just peaceful vegetarians who live in the trees and pick nits out of each other's hair.

In reality, both dolphins and apes (and chimpanzees) are - as they'd say in the old days - brutes and spend their days waring with each other, pillaging for spoils and that includes the females.

In short, the concept of "human rights" makes no sense in a world without law. What's law? In my best Spock voice: To bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, so that the strong should not harm the weak. If you want your favorite higher mammals to have the same rights as us, then guess what, they have the same responsibilities as us too.
   

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Evtim]

I say, we decide to treat all species with respect. If nothing else, it is for our sake - there are too many holes that we blew and keep on blowing in the biosphere. It is highly destructive and irresponsible behaviour.

Who says that another species will not rise to civilization over time? Why should we decide the fate of the "runners-up" - the rest of the mammals? Oh, the arrogance..

As regards consciousness - I don't really care. It is, of course, fascinating discovery and who knows - one day we might be able to exchange "words" with dolphins or others. However, with or without consciousness, almost all living organisms experience pain and fear. So, no torture of animals of any kind! People that torture animals should be killed IMO. No needless killing, no obliteration of species just because someone wants to make a couple of bucks. Prtotect the bio-diversity, retrstrain our numbers, evolve...

Sadly, even those productive ideas are treated and presented to the world improperly both by promoters and deniers. Take the latest "bear- man" for instance. I saw his movies on the BBC. The man definitely means well. But:

1. To treat wild animals as pets is stupid.

2. To go to the hunters and try to show them how cute the bears are and look, they also care about their cubs, ain't that nice - I don't know, it rings hollow. The hunter should restrain himself not because he has been emotionally manipulated (the emotions can change - for instance the hunter might quickly discover that an animal can easily kill its neighbour's "kids" and loose the emotional attachment, which was improper in the first place) He has to restrain because of the very practical reasons to preserve HIMSELF and his children's future (and quality of life).

3. Do not try to impose "morals" on nature. The imagined hunter from point 2 should not get "disappointed" by behaviour of animals that is considered "evil" among humans. How often have I heard people dividing animals into "nice" and "bad" or "evil" categories. WTF?!?

I mean, the whole issue is (as usual), blown out of proportions and distorted. Pity.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Cruciform]

Daath,
Yes, there are people who believe that the are essentially lesser beings than others due to religion or tradition.
The idea that they could be more than that does not occur to them because they and the culture that surround them have been indoctrinated from birth that this is the way of the universe.
And both of the latter two sentences can apply, as it's cyclical. Ignorance leads to a behavior which encourages ignorance.

Look at the belief in the Abrahamic god vs. the belief in Santa. Same evidence for both. Yet one belief persists and the other does not because ignorance is perpetuated until the former belief is instilled in the next generation.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[someonestolecc]

Actually that's not true. I think the justification at the time, and any slavery, is basically to see the enslaved as sub-human - or at least not as good as what ever "us" is. We fuck all animals.. in my experience most times animals are probably more deserving of "rights" than most people... but the whole thing about slavery is that it's an exploitation of people as a resource. We exploit animals as resources all the time and while we shouldn't do that, the case being put forward is that there's enough human similarity to dolphins that they should be treated accordingly.. Though potentially we should start with the great apes as well, then extend it to other animals. ... guess it means no more dolphin full tuna

Re:Non-human intelligences

[mcvos]

I'm convinced that the "higher" animals have feelings too, and deserve to not be tortured or slaughtered or bred in brutal ways. But don't pretend that they're people, because they're just not.

Well, obviously not, since since "people" is a plural for "human beings".

I thought it was plural for "person", which is exactly what we're talking about.

What better definition of person than "like us" do we have?

You aren't like me.

You mean you don't have eyes, ears, mouth, a brain, language, culture, the ability to plan and reflect, the capacity to solve abstract problems, parents who taught you stuff, a tradition that goes back for hundreds of generations, etc? Because that's what I'm like.

Given any group of humans that doesn't include you, you are almost guaranteed to have some trait the people in the group don't have, or lack some which they have.

Your definition would let me declare bald people non-persons, which is clearly absurd.

This is a red herring. It's irrelevant to the subject at hand. It's not about whether they're indistinguishable from us, it's about whether they share sufficient characteristics to consider them people.

And I do hope you don't consider bald people sub-human. I used to have a grandfather who was bald, you know.

We aren't talking about right to vote, which is denied from quite a few humans too - all non-citizens, for example, making this another red herring. We're talking about things like not being kept in captivity against the individual being's will.

Then call it that, and keep the concept of persoonhood out of it. I'm all for proper treatment of animals. And not just dolphins, but also cows, dogs and chickens. But to what extend they're able to deal with captivity or the lack thereof, varies tremendously per species. Granting them all some sort of generic personhood will only muddy the issue. Dogs, cats and cows are bred for captivity. You're not doing them any favour by releasing them into the wild, but even in captivity, you can treat them well. To what extend dolphins and apes are able to deal with captivity I don't know, but they definitely come with a big list of requirements, whether they live in the wild or in captivity.

And yes, quite a lot of animals - at least all mammals - have a personality, most bigger ones to the point where it's easy to tell individuals apart from behaviour even if they belong to the same species or even the same herd.

Exactly. Dolphins are nothing special. Not compared to apes and elephants, at least. Pretending they're closer to us than to other animals is silly and not productive. Respect them for what they are, rather than pretending they're in some way like us, and would only deserve respect for that reason.

This is a thid red herring. The issue isn't whether dolphins might build a fishbowl-tank to explore the dry land, the issue is whether they're self-aware enough that they should be treated as retarded humans rather than mere sources of amusement/study.

And that is a really stupid issue. Treating animals as humans (retarded or not) is as stupid as treating dolphins as chimps.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[someonestolecc]

That's fine logic but you're not taking it all the way. You're saying they should be held to the same actual standards. Well, when the pod excludes a dolphin - it's because it's not down with the pack. If it gang rapes a dolphin - again, punishment etc. Those are the standards; so actually they already do. You'll also find that warring and taking fems will have biological reasons. That's why rich guy gets hot anorexic girl - most guys would'nt be able to afford to coke/rehab bill :)

Re:Non-human intelligences

[mcvos]

Learn something, wont you? Dolphins (other than war and senseless killing) have very complex societal and cultural existences. We have known that for DECADES.

But so do chimps (and that includes the senseless killing).

Sure, dolphins are smart and interesting and fascinating, but they're not significantly more "like us" than chimps or some other smart animals.

And have you read about that population of crows that have a standardized tool set? No other animal (other than us) has that. Don't they deserve special rights too?

Do a Google search on it, and you will find tons of similar papers on the subject. You will also find flaws in all of them in favor of downplaying dolphin intelligence and group structures. Like the brain/size ratio. Let's just analyze that one, shall we?

The entire discussion about brain size is ignoring the fact that brain structure is far more important. Birds have tiny brains, yet they're pretty smart in some ways. No animal has a brain that comes anywhere close to ours, however.

That aside, dolphins have shown as complex social structures as humans

Elephants have complex social structures too. They mourn their dead. And pubescent male elephants behave in some ways remarkably similar to human teenagers. But that doesn't mean they should be treated like human teenagers. They're elephants, completely different needs from humans.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[the_other_chewey]

So when I say an oral history, I don't mean, "Form the beginning there was dolphin and it was good...". I mean much of what they are is physically and vocally instructed - just as humans learn.

That's "language", not "history".

So you are being deliberately misleading by using a term that means
something specific to express something else. Thanks for telling us.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[jackchance]

I agree that the comparison to slavery takes it a bit far, but there is a kernel of truth there. Slaves are treated as resources, not persons. And when European colonists first encountered "natives" they were often considered sub-human savages. Sure, there were some who understood that they were human, but many people did not see them that way.

On another note: shouldn't rights come with responsibilities?

Re:Non-human intelligences

[mcvos]

What? You don't think the fact that we write mythologies and philosophy at all makes us special among animals?

No, because we learned to write before we wrote mythology and philosophy :p

Then what were we writing, if not mythology and philosophy? It's my impression that those were among the first subjects that we wrote a lot about.

Of course, all this means that human mind is so flexible because it's self-modifying code running in a virtual machine, while animal minds run close to the metal. I simply must point this out in the next C(++) vs. high-level languages debate >:).

Heh. Interesting notion.

No we can't. That's pure speculation. In fact, it's not so much the size of the brain that matters, but the structure.

All mammals have basically the same brain structure. It only differs in relative size of areas.

Not entirely. Yes, in broad terms, you're right. Apes and some other mammals have more neocortex than most mammals, and we have more than them. But we also have quite big parts of our brain dedicated to stuff like language, whereas other mammals have big parts of their brain dedicated to stuff like smell. Or echolocation, perhaps. I think it matters what the parts of the brain do, and not merely how big they are.

Even so, I just founds something incredibly intriguing on wikipedia: spindle cells. So far, these have only been found in humans, great apes, African elephants and some dolphins and whales. Pretty much the list of animals that's considered very intelligent and social, right?

Apparently researchers aren't entirely sure of their significance yet. It's unknown whether giraffes or hippopotami (less sophisticated animals that happen to have large brains) have them too. But if they don't, we might be on to something here.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[mcvos]

Kittens aren't gorillas. And gorillas, and dolphins, aren't people. They are animals. And that alone is worthy of respect and some rights.

That's exactly my point. Let's respect them as animals, rather than treating them as retarded humans, as the summary suggests.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[mcvos]

Are you saying that this "personhood" should be directly proportional to intelligence? I'm inclined to disagree.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[mcvos]

I can question it. They may be human genetically and biologically, but do they have the mental capacities which make humans worth legal and moral protections?

Is it really only mental capabilities that make humans worthy of legal and moral protection? I think it's mostly compassion that makes us grant these legal and moral protections.

I see no problem with a scale of some sort - rather than just classify all animals as 'human' and 'not human,' find some way to recognise that it's a continuous measure.

Rather than classifying animals according to how human they are, I'd rather just respect them for what they are. It is possible to respect non-human organisms (or even non-organic structures). They don't have to be somewhat human in order to gain rights or respect.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[mcvos]

Good points. Dolphins (and other animals) get to live as hunter-gatherers, which we humans simply can't afford anymore. It takes way too much space to be economically feasible, so you need to be bloody rich to do it. Yet dolphins get to live like that for free.

Just look at the horrors we inflict on humans: living in cramped houses on top of each other, being forced to pay for those houses, having to work 40 hours a week in tiny cubicles to pay for it, and having to fill in complicated tax forms on top of that. It'd be inhuman to inflict that on animals.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[mcvos]

Sounds like corporations. I'm sure dolphins are smarter (not to mention more compassionate) than that.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[RobertM1968]

Do a Google search on it, and you will find tons of similar papers on the subject. You will also find flaws in all of them in favor of downplaying dolphin intelligence and group structures. Like the brain/size ratio. Let's just analyze that one, shall we?

The entire discussion about brain size is ignoring the fact that brain structure is far more important. Birds have tiny brains, yet they're pretty smart in some ways. No animal has a brain that comes anywhere close to ours, however.

That's called human ego (that misbelief). Research it (not human ego; dolphin's brains). They are as complex or more complex in each and every area.

That aside, dolphins have shown as complex social structures as humans

Elephants have complex social structures too. They mourn their dead. And pubescent male elephants behave in some ways remarkably similar to human teenagers. But that doesn't mean they should be treated like human teenagers. They're elephants, completely different needs from humans.

No one said they should be. This is not discussion about granting them drivers licenses at 18, or let them drink beer at 21. This is discussion amount the very very few things that are considered basic human rights. Those pretty much about to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not being treated as slaves and... cant think of any others - but you get the idea I hope.

Perhaps with that distinction, you will see this whole set of threads in a different light.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[mcvos]

Grant personhood only to those who ask for it?

To those species who ask for it. (Unfortunately that nuance seems lost on a lot of people here.)

That's the problem with personhood tests: not all humans can pass them, unless you set the bar so low that even most chickens can pass it.

Exactly. And I don't think lowering the bar that far is really going to do anyone any good. It's better to just respect all forms of life for what they are, rather than forcing them into some human-shaped mold.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[mcvos]

These are good points. They're asking to be treated as the dominant dog, inhabitant of that territory, etc. I'm all for respecting animals as animals. It's treating them as humans that's not going to do anyone any good.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Neuticle]

By your standard, a person in a coma or an infant are not to be granted rights.

There are some well respected philosophers of ethics who argue for essentially that very viewpoint. Peter Singer is probably the most famous. Interestingly, Singer is also a big animal-rights proponent.

As disgusting as I find some of his views, I have to admit they are logically consistent within his (what I consider warped) ethical framework.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Peeteriz]

Persons in coma and infants have behind them a lot of humans that like them and want to give them rights.

It's very simple with dolphins. They will get rights right when either:
a) When we humans will just give them rights because it's no big deal/cost for as and we'll just feel like it;
b) They successfully fight for them.

Just as for any other rights-gaining example in the history - rights of different ethnicities and races, rights of women, rights of lower social classes. Any 'universal' or 'natural' or 'unalienable' rights weren't such before they were either successfully *taken*, or simply the powerful ones didn't care much about granting them.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[RichiH]

I don't think he has much in ways of standards, or ethics.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[RichiH]

Disturbing? They are using the tools that are available to them. And, presumably, they do not have the same weird concept of hidden and bad sexuality as humans.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Cwix]

Thanks for all the fish!!

Re:Non-human intelligences

[TheTurtlesMoves]

So explain it to the dolphins already.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[SuricouRaven]

"Is it really only mental capabilities that make humans worthy of legal and moral protection?"

Can you think of anything else? Other than mental capbilities, humans have only trivial differences from other animals. The biochemical processes are almost identical to those in mice (Close enough to use them in medical research) and the anatomy is just a chimp with slightly differently shaped bones and a lot less fur.

"Rather than classifying animals according to how human they are, I'd rather just respect them for what they are."

But you are just doing something similar to what I suggested - recognising animals as in some way special and deserving of respect, but to a lesser extent than humans. All I suggested was to take that one step further, and unify all organisms human and otherwise on one scale. Obviously humans would be far past even dolphins and chimps, but at least it would be recognised as a difference in capability rather than some sort of supernatural status or just arbitary distinction.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Perhaps we aren't capable of understanding them?

So they are so smart that we don't understand them. Yet they are not smart enough to work out how to communicate with us?

Yea... that is one smart dolphin \sarcasm.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[rbochan]

Oh dear god. Dolphin lawyers?!?!?

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Phoghat]

Back in the day (ante bellum) there was some debate about that. At one time, The Supreme Court ruled that Blacks, when owned as slaves were not legally human.

Maybe soon we'll just learn enough of their language To translate So Long And Thanks For All The Fish

Re:Non-human intelligences

[ravenshrike]

Don't forget they are quite good at rape and killing porpoises and infants from rival males.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Antisyzygy]

There was quite some effort to say blacks were not as human as whites using some eugenics type argument. Funny thing about that is black people are more homo sapien than we are, as it turns out, because Whites and Asians have been found to be mixed with neanderthal.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Antisyzygy]

Octopus have color changing abilities to communicate.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[DaveGod]

Fun (but somewhat disturbing) fact--

Some species of dolphin have prehensile penises, and have been shown to pick up and manipulate objects using their genital slits.

(Star shoots over head while jingle plays)
"The more you know!"

And the japanese haven't made porn about it yet?

You're aware of rule 34C, right?

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Antisyzygy]

I don't know about that. Other animals cannot achieve even remotely the level of abstraction humans can. Yes humans are animals, but they are looking out for themselves as much as we are so why should we grant them arbitrary "human rights". They can define there own rights themselves and defend them if they so choose. Im not advocating mass exploitation of animals or anything, but the way nature works is one animal may need to consume another for survival. It just so happens humans are best at doing it.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Maritz]

Totally agree. I believe it's been shown that there is more genetic variation between individuals of one 'race' than between different 'races'.

Also Western white/european culture seems to view racial mixing through the paradigm of a 'contamination' metaphor. Doesn't seem to matter if you had one black grandparent, that's enough for you to be considered 'black'. And we take facial features as cues much more strongly than skin tone. Relatively pale-skinned people might be considered 'black' due to other features they have though they might be almost the same skin shade as a tanned person of european descent.

Ultimately education and experience is the only way to remove these foolish biases and prejudices. That shouldn't take away from the fact that there are _some_ interesting differences between races, genetically, and we should investigate these without prejudice as they can offer insights into human history, migration patterns, and evolution. It's _generally_ true to say, for example, that someone from the Balkans is statistically likely to be taller than someone from south east Asia. Prejudice based on these reasonable assumptions is always evil however, i.e. suitability for a job, etc.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[cforciea]

For an easy, current, US-specific example, take a look at racism in the deep south. I work in rural Texas, and sure they aren't all in the KKK, but a significant number of the folk out here actually seem like they would be more incensed about somebody accidentally killing their pet dog than a person meeting an untimely demise, as long as that person had dark skin.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[cavebison]

Depends what you mean by treating them as humans.

Asking them around for tennis won't work too well. They tend to run off with the ball. But it doesn't take much to respect their right to live in a way which is best for them, to believe what they want to believe, to assemble, and go on TV talk shows.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[tomhudson]

Persons in coma and infants have behind them a lot of humans that like them and want to give them rights.

So do dogs, and dogs can recognize themselves in mirrors too.

t's very simple with dolphins. They will get rights right when either: a) When we humans will just give them rights because it's no big deal/cost for as and we'll just feel like it; b) They successfully fight for them.

Just as for any other rights-gaining example in the history - rights of different ethnicities and races, rights of women, rights of lower social classes. Any 'universal' or 'natural' or 'unalienable' rights weren't such before they were either successfully *taken*, or simply the powerful ones didn't care much about granting them.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. Look at how some countries (Japan!!!) continue whaling for "scientific purposes" because they believe "fish" is healthier than meat.

Then again, I've run into North Americans who still think whales and dolphins are "fish", and who also think that the flesh of a cod is "fish", not "meat".

$DIETY must have liked ignorant people - he made so many of them.

-- Barbara

Re:Non-human intelligences

[The Grim Reefer2]

Well that's kind of a silly standard.

Aren't most "standards" silly these days anyhow?

 

Most technology is ultimately based on at least one of two things: the opposable thumb

Opposable thumb: Dolphins- Nope

 

(needed for dextrously manipulating one's environment, exceptions such as an elephant's nose notwithstanding)

Infants and people in comas can't use them to manipulate their environment either.

and fire (and its natural descendent electricity).

Fire: Dolphins: a bit hard to rub two sticks together underwater to create fire, so nope.

By your standard, a person in a coma or an infant are not to be granted rights.

I'm not seeing much difference in the end result between your your definition and the parents.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[fractoid]

And the japanese haven't made porn about it yet?

...the hell makes you think THAT? :P

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Peeteriz]

That's the whole intent.

People will automagically consider "my tribe" as naturally having rights above the others. A couple millenia earlier that would be 'my tribe' in it's historical sense, now we generally consider 'our tribe' to be the whole homo sapiens - but the underlying notion is the same. Who cares what they think or what they can do or what they feel? Even if we find out that they are a super-intelligent tool-using social culture that creates incredible artwork, we wouldn't want to grant them equal rights, we'd just start to preceive them as a threat and attempt to control them, x-men style.

We'll grant them rights if and only if we consider them one of us, or if they'll force us to. Other things haven't mattered historically for right-obtaining of slaves, religious factions, ethnic minorities, serfs, women, castas, etc, and wouldn't likely matter in the future.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Labcoat Samurai]

Respectfully, I think you're missing my point. Humans can do all of the things you described to out of group humans by first dehumanizing them. We do have a universal compassion for other humans, we're just very good at overriding that with other mechanisms.

But that's all beside the point. My point is that it's not primarily the intelligence of humans that makes us feel compassion for them. As you pointed out, humans are quite capable of feeling compassion for their dogs, and this is because the dogs themselves exhibit many human-like emotional and social traits.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[noidentity]

If you grant dolphins "personhood" (whatever that means), then you've got to do the same thing with chimps. And probably orang-utans. And then maybe whales and elephants too.

Hey, we already grand corporations personhood, why not dolphins?

Re:Non-human intelligences

[slick7]

Here's my reply to you ignorant masses: If you cannot do this, what gives you the right to offer rights?

Re:Non-human intelligences

[slick7]

What can they do? All the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. Mankind, on the other hand, has achieved so much – the wheel, New York, wars and so on. Clearly, we are much more intelligent.

Yeah, play, fuck and eat, is this heaven or what?

Re:Non-human intelligences

[gurps_npc]

There is a difference between granting rights to an entire species when a single member asks for it and requiring all members of the species to ask for it.

By ignoring this rather important distinction, you are creating a false attack against a reasonable argument.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[evel aka matt]

"Automagically" is not a word.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[GooberToo]

Dogs communicate, and teach their pups to hunt. But they don't have an oral history.

Dogs instruct by example. They don't require vocalization. Dolphins do. There's a huge difference.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[maxwell demon]

So what you say is that they have oral teaching and oral tradition. The term "history" refers exclusively to information about the past. For example, how and when to use Newtons laws is science, while how Newton came to postulate those laws is history of science. Both are related, but separate.

So unless the hunting instructions of dolphins includes information about how their ancestors discovered hunting methods, or about certain successful hunts in the past, those instructions are not history.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[BungaDunga]

I never meant it in the terms of skin colour, but using "blacks" and "whites" as substitutes of africoid and caucasoid unintentially created that side effect.

Race is not arbitary and socially constructed. The idea isn't that "black" is only Black in the US and "White" in Brazil, it's that black and white have a distinction no matter where you are in the world.

The most modern genetic tests CAN tell you whether someone is Caucasoidal or Africoidal, though not in the sense of "He's from Europe."

Someone's Ancestry and DNA IS a large role in their race - even someone of africoidal descent in America is still looked at the same way if they were fresh of the boat.

Just because one sub-set of the species is more varied than the other doesn't mean it doesn't have traits that seperate them from the others. There is a science behind determining someone's ancestry, and it has been proven to be quite accurate.

Go back a ways and you'll find that Jews were considered "not white", and that you could detect one based on physical characteristics. Now most sane people don't consider being Jewish to mean being different racially. Back then people would have said "Oh, everyone knows there's a difference between Jews and white people, they have a distinction no matter where you are in the world." They would have told you that modern skull-feeling techniques could unambiguously tell the "difference".

My point about Brazil is that if I get a Brazilian, an American and someone else into a room, the Brazilian and American could well disagree as to whether the other person is white or not. What race are they really? If "race" were a physically relevant idea, you should be able to pin it down exactly for everyone. But you can't.

Times change, and so do racial boundaries. Eastern Europeans, for one, used to be "not white". Now they are. Native Americans used to be "black" or "indian". This really confused the Spanish, because if they were black they could be slaves, but if they fit in the "asian" category they might be worth trying to convert to Christianity. Eventually they settled on Asian.

Anyway, possibly the single biggest problem with notions of race is that EVERYONE is descended from Africans. We're all African, it's just a matter of how far back you need to go to see it. 99.99% of the human genome came from Africa.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[maxwell demon]

Then what were we writing, if not mythology and philosophy?

Administrative records.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[oliverthered]

Well it would be nice if I had my human rights first, such as freedom of religion. The UK is far from secular, so I don't see how I could possibly have freedom of religion when someone else's is imposed on me.

Asside from that I hope they don't have too stronger sense of self. Since that would be insane.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[GooberToo]

Communicating isn't the same thing has having a oral history. An oral history would be things like story telling

Its an oral history in that pod specific methods and forms of communication are passed vocally from generation to generation. That is EXACTLY oral history. Holy shit the people that responded for fucking arrogant and stupid.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Sir_Lewk]

Even better: Dolphin (and maybe even Kangaroo!?!) courts!

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Risen888]

all White people have similar features, all black people have similar features

This is the most ignorant thing I've ever read on Slashdot.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[marcosdumay]

It can't work, the sharks will eat them alive.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[marcosdumay]

"3. we need to be prepared for the implication of some software programs succeeding at these tests."

And that is the entire problem. I refuse to be prepared for the implications of computer programs pasing the test, even if no current program can.

But we shouldn't be torturating cetacans, primates or elephants. That is, if they really understand as torture what we do to them, and that have to be established.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[mrmeval]

We can get Mrs Cleo to tell us what they say, sign contracts, negotiate treaties and wag war.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[mcvos]

Maybe it wasn't such a good idea to grant it to corporations. Can't we revert that first, before we allow more entities to become persons?

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Risen888]

When we become capable of comprehending it, it wouldn't shock me a damn bit to discover that they are.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[The Grim Reefer2]

Here's my reply to you ignorant masses: If you cannot do
  this, what gives you the right to offer rights?

So by your standard this guy has the right to offer "rights" to other lifeforms. That's even dumber than any of the above posts.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[random_ID]

I'm sure there are geneticists somewhere who can give dolphins opposable thumbs...

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Yvanhoe]

Using that baseline for sapience, I fully expect some non-human intelligences to pass the test, dolphins and chimps especially. No software we have today could do it, but maybe in a few decades that will change.

If you design a test that can be passed by any "legally responsible" human adult, I am confident I can design a software that can pass it too. Seriously. However I doubt you can do such a test.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Yvanhoe]

Basic human rights include :
freedom of religion
freedom of circulation
freedom of speech
the right to a fair trial before punishment
the right to refuse medication

A child can be (legally) denied any of these by its parents. Children rights are a very strange area of human rights. They basically encompass the right to live, to not be tortured (by some definitions) and to receive education. But they are nothing close to anything you would call basic human right in any country.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[bigngamer92]

Was that Nimoy? That must mean Courthouses just unlocked, woot to less City maintenance!

Re:Non-human intelligences

[RobertM1968]

Actually, those are legal rights. Human rights are pretty much the amount to live free from slavery and a few similar ones. At least that is the distinction as it was always explained to me in philosophy class. All else are legal distinctions for groups of people. Freedom of religion does not apply to imposed religion on a minor by a parent or by an adult the parent has designated to do so. Same for circulation, speech, or right to refuse medication. Those are legal rights to certain classes.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[laddiebuck]

It's octopods, actually.

-- A Dolphin

Re:Non-human intelligences

[cyn1c77]

fire (and its natural descendent electricity).

I look forward to you describing how electricity descended from fire. Please use physics principles to help me understand.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[IndustrialComplex]

all White people have similar features, all black people have similar features

This is the most ignorant thing I've ever read on Slashdot.

It isn't ignorant at all.

It's like saying all blonde haired people and all brown haired people have similar features.

It may be slightly circular, but it certainly isn't ignorant.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[IndustrialComplex]

So what you are saying is that slavery might be ok if we defined a contract, let people enter into it of their own free will and granted them a fair amount of compensation in return for their services.

ie: I think you missed the point.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[vakuona]

When they're able to ask for it, then it's obvious they deserve it. This is awfully absurd. Maybe they are already asking to be let out of Seaworld and all the other cages we keep them in. Perhaps we aren't capable of understanding them? Does one simply ignore all signs of intelligence because we simply enjoy their tricks? Your suggestion in many ways is how slavery was justified by stating that the slaves were somehow an inferior animal.

I don't think that is absurd at all. If they are that intelligent, then they should realise we speak a different language, and they should let us know in other ways, such as by refusing to cooperate with us. I don't know about slaves, but I was under the impression that quite a few of them became very vocal about the whole slavery thing. If you look at Africa, the so called second class people got guns and fought for independence.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[SETIGuy]

Given that few humans would choose three squares in exchange for captivity in one room, I think dolphins that understand what their living conditions would be would make similar decisions.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[SETIGuy]

It's hard to escape when you can't survive in the environment that surrounds you.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[magarity]

So what you are saying is that slavery might be ok if we defined a contract, let people enter into it of their own free will and granted them a fair amount of compensation in return for their services.

ie: I think you missed the point.

Slavery made into voluntary contractual agreements with compensation for services bears more than a passing resemblance to 'going to work'.
 
ie: I think you missed my point.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[jaminJay]

So, because they're not written down, they don't have them?

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Zixia]

Oxford English Dictionary entry for 'automagically'.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Ekdar]

I'm sure there were human slaves working on plantations in the U.S. that didn't totally mind their situations. But, those people were still bought and sold like property and not given a real choice in the matter, so they were still slaves.

Perhaps you're saying that slavery is sometimes okay, even human slavery. I might agree with that actually, but I'm sure there are a lot of people that wouldn't.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Galestar]

I originally meant it as a tongue-in-cheek joke.

Lighten up.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Lanteran]

continuation of the hitchhiker's quote. Woosh.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Risen888]

Wrong. That's not what they said.

Full quote:

Simply put - our skulls have different patterns depending on your race, things like brow ridges, size of cheek bones, size of eye holes, etc etc - all White people have similar features, all black people have similar features.

If you want to defend that, I'll be right here waiting.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[GooberToo]

Octopi have been shown to complete tests which indicate intelligence on par with Dolphins and other avians. They are known to be very intelligent. Furthermore, research indicates, like primates and other higher animals, to have a rather wide emotional range.

It depends

[jbeaupre]

How do they taste?

Re:It depends

[EventHorizon_pc]

Full of mercury goodness... just ask the Japanese at Taiji.

Re:It depends

[mswhippingboy]

Like chicken.

Re:It depends

[Suki I]

I hear something close to pork rather than chicken. Check into it at The Hump in Santa Monica and see if they have any. Guessin' they are out of whale now.

Re:It depends

[WinstonWolfIT]

Are they cute?

Re:It depends

[dlgeek]

Using their tongues.

Re:It depends

[cababunga]

Here are some pictures for you about taste http://www.snopes.com/photos/hunting/dolphinhunt.asp

Re:It depends

[SuricouRaven]

Given that they have adapted to handle low-temperature submersion, I would guess they taste extremally fatty. Fat is a good natural insulator.

Re:It depends

[ukemike]

Go to Japan, dolphin meat is not uncommon there though the true nature of the meat is obfuscated. However the concentration of mercury and other contaminants in their flesh is so high that I would recommend that a single taste is more than enough.

If you don't believe me see "The Cove." It's really entertaining, and disturbing.

Re:It depends

[djupdal]

I would suspect it tastes very different from both pork and chicken, more like minke whales and seals. I have eaten minke whales and some seal species (its legal where I live), and they taste different from land mammals. It is very dark meat and has coarse fibres. It is like dark land mammal meat with the same hint of marine life you also get from sea bird meat. Its good when you are used to it (like most meat is).

Re:It depends

[Suki I]

Then it should be a great companion flavor for tuna!

I agree

[mswhippingboy]

they should be treated as 'non-human persons.'

Corporations are, so why not dolphins...

Re:I agree

[plopez]

Wish I had mod points. Dolphins are at least as smart as corporations and not as evil.

Re:I agree

[TheL0ser]

That's right, nothing evil about them at all.

Re:I agree

[Gordonjcp]

So, they go around beating the shit out of something and killing other animals for fun, *because they can*.

Sounds awfully like humans to me...

Re:I agree

[haruchai]

Still not as evil.as corporations and many, many, many humans

Re:I agree

[mswhippingboy]

I doubt it. Haven't you seen Flipper?

Re:I agree

[B3ryllium]

Mr. Smarty Pants (aka The Fin) disagrees, chum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq483GRQWnk&feature=related (part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM_r6XCRfXE&feature=related (part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqPq_pnMrfw&feature=related (part 3)

Re:I agree

[roman_mir]

Also clearly dogs are human. So are chimps.

What the hell, what's NOT a human? A rabbit? A cockroach?

You can come up with whatever justifications to 'give rights' to whatever you want, but in reality 'rights' are an abstract idea defined by humans.

Do dolphins have the same 'rights' as humans? Well, it's up to humans to define. I, on my part, will always discriminate against dolphins, I promise that much.

Re:I agree

[plopez]

That's the slippery slope to Godwin's Law. I'm just waiting for it to rear its ugly head :)

Re:I agree

[sconeu]

Yep. Nothing evil to see here.

Re:I agree

[digitaltraveller]

To take it one step farther, I propose that every major U.S. corporation should have a dolphin as it's chairman of the board.

Re:I agree

[Mike Buddha]

What the hell, what's NOT a human? A rabbit? A cockroach?

An unborn human, apparently.

Re:I agree

[Stregano]

Well, Tony Montana calls people dirty cockroaches (but he does pronounce it cock-a-roach), so I think there are many cockroaches that are human.

Re:I agree

[elsurexiste]

Still not as evil.as corporations and many, many, many humans

I hate it when people say that animals are not as *evil* as humans. But let's say that we forego the whole "evil is something defined in human terms" thing. They never heard of chimpanzees, who can run for miles just to murder an invading pack (plenty of time to think about it). Or dolphins, which, as TheL0ser said, kill for pleasure. Cats are also known to kill birds and rats, and they don't do it to eat them.

Re:I agree

[0123456]

What the hell, what's NOT a human? A rabbit?

Rabbits and hamsters 'have distinct personalities' and 'can think about the future'. But that doesn't mean I'd give them the vote and the car keys.

Re:I agree

[bonius_rex]

You can come up with whatever justifications to 'give rights' to whatever you want, but in reality 'rights' are an abstract idea defined by humans.

When in the Course of dolphin events it becomes necessary for one pod to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the sea, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of dolphinkind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Dolphins are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Herring.

[...]

The history of the Humans is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these Waters. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

Re:I agree

[Skidborg]

So do we arrest them for cruelty to animals when they rape and murder things within our borders? A dolphin can't have rights if it doesn't have any of the responsibilities that go with them...

Re:I agree

[h4rr4r]

We should treat them like children or the mentally challenged, limited right and limited responsibilities. All that needs to be done is the average mental human age of a dolphin needs to be calculated.

Re:I agree

[h4rr4r]

Humans do all that too, when was the last time an animal committed genocide?

Re:I agree

[h4rr4r]

Considering it has less "human" characteristics than a cockroach I agree.

Re:I agree

[h4rr4r]

Children do not have those rights either. Clearly there is a spectrum of rights, I doubt anyone is considering giving dolphins the vote. The right not to be eaten, like even babies have, might be something to consider though.

Re:I agree

[Dcnjoe60]

you mean other than that stuff called DNA?

Re:I agree

[elsurexiste]

when was the last time an animal committed genocide?

Genocide, as in killing in a systematic way because of gender, religion, or ancestry/race, for whatever reason? Animals don't have ideologies to guide them, but they sure have their procedures implemented species-wide.

For example, it's common for female spiders and insects to kill their mates after (even during) copulation. Male lions kill other males' offspring when they ascend to power. Ants also exterminate foreign ant colonies merely because they are near (they even enslave other species! Human beings didn't invent anything :( ).

Re:I agree

[SuricouRaven]

The Big List of Cliches says that if the nazis wanted some type of sea minion, they'd use sharks.

Re:I agree

[dkf]

Rabbits and hamsters 'have distinct personalities' and 'can think about the future'. But that doesn't mean I'd give them the vote and the car keys.

I think they'd have trouble pressing the gas pedal anyway.

Re:I agree

[TheoMurpse]

No one is saying dolphins are humans. They're saying they may be persons. In philosophy, for example, "personhood" refers to a being having properties such as rationality, self-consciousness, and other higher-level thinking processes.

Re:I agree

[tjhart85]

you mean other than that stuff called DNA?

A puddle of my blood has human DNA, should it be classified as a full human as well?

Re:I agree

[sznupi]

[humming "Every sperm is sacred"] ...this stuff which is ~95% identical in chimps? "95% of human" - that's still more rights than adolescents, I think? Not to mention zygotes.
[/humming "Every sperm is sacred"]

Re:I agree

[sznupi]

in reality 'rights' are an abstract idea defined by humans

Don't you mean "god-given"?

Re:I agree

[plopez]

with frickin' lasers?

Re:I agree

[sznupi]

Considering general absurdity of certain expectations (or specifically the examples of gnosticism / Demiurge, liar and damager of maltheism, the worst of cruel "sinners") - perhaps, overall, we are treated like that? ;p

One can ask - what such deity could get from a constant stream of preconditioned "souls" ... flavored to its liking? Power? Pleasure? It certainly desires adulation, worship, ... sustenance, food? (maybe, at best, as sensory organs for the "real world")

Re:I agree

[Dcnjoe60]

Ummm, the question at hand was which had more human characteristics, an unborn human (say 38weeks gestation) or a cockroach?

If you feel that DNA and chromosomes aren't an important part of being human, then that's fine, but since chimpanzees share 96% of the DNA of human beings and they aren't human, it seems unlikely that a cockroach, which shares much less DNA would be more human.

 

Re:I agree

[Dcnjoe60]

[humming "Every sperm is sacred"] ...this stuff which is ~95% identical in chimps? "95% of human" - that's still more rights than adolescents, I think? Not to mention zygotes.
[/humming "Every sperm is sacred"]

Whether one holds that life begins at conception or sometime later, at some point before exiting the birth canal there is an unborn human, able to survive outside the womb.

The fact that chimps and humans share 96% (not 95) of their DNA and chimps are not human and cockroaches share even less DNA would seem to say that cockroaches do not have more human characteristics than an unborn human which has 100% human DNA.

This isn't a religious observation, but observable, measurable fact.

Re:I agree

[sznupi]

Whether one holds that life begins at conception or sometime later, at some point before exiting the birth canal there is an unborn human, able to survive outside the womb.

The corollary to the above, as stated, is that at some point there is a biological formation (to be most generic) not fulfilling the requirements.

I said "~95%" BTW / this fact has been slightly refined numerous times / I'm most likely closer than you. But curious to see how you essentially end up with "human characteristics = DNA"...I'd say there's a lot more to it. Functional at all neural system would be a good start. Also, what of those with aneuploidy of the chromosomes?

Just to be clear - I do think that abortions in second trimester are at least controversial, and in the third - outright barbaric. Oh, and I also live in a place where all of them are illegal (yes, including first trimester), except for "medical reasons" or when the pregnancy itself is a result of illegal activity / crime (and even in those cases also generally limited to first trimester) ...theoretically. I can clearly see what mess it gives (you know, "observable facts"). Not only women performing them anyway, in dangerous circumstances. Also, two recent illustrative cases:

1) A woman with children, at a risk of losing her sight if becoming pregnant again (oh, and permanent contraceptive methods are also illegal, together with emergency contraception; in fact, a recent parliament coalition - possible largely via this breakaway (in practice) sect, nationalists and neonazis - made allowed contraceptives less / not at all subsidized; together with giving poor families money for post-labour libation (Google Translate works decently); no other financial assistance / this amount given for birth is almost pocket change for anybody except very dysfunctional "families"). She does get pregnant. Encounters roadblocks, unable to get abortion in time. One of the first things told to her by ophthalmologist afterwards - "who the hell allowed you to remain pregnant?!" She now has to care for her family while essentially blind. At least Strasbourg Tribunal ordered my country to compensate her, in the end...

2) A 14-year old girl, pregnancy due to illegal act. Local hospital unwilling to perform abortion (they can deny it, but have to point to a suitable place). Shipped to one of major medical centers in the end. Her parents are denied access to her for most of the ordeal, while her local priest enjoys essentially unlimited one (WTF?! And in case you wonder - yes, he theoretically had no right at all / they had every). Media circus around what is her legal right. Essentially - every possible backstabbing / intimidation to pull that girl over into second trimester. At least in this case, eventually, the "rule of law" prevailed...

Yay for "every sperm is sacred" and how it ends up in practice!

Re:I agree

[roman_mir]

do you also have something against people who are 'height challenged', or those with missing limbs?

Re:I agree

[roman_mir]

no.

Re:I agree

[roman_mir]

I am certain that an irrational person, who is unconscious and has not too many higher-level thinking processes is disagreeing with you somewhere somehow right now. And no, it's not just W.

Re:I agree

[sznupi]

Me obsessed? Just observant. Looking at worldwide prevalence of belief in some deity vs. generally dismissive attitudes towards "natural" (outside ours; which of course itself is far from being universally viewed as natural) forms of intelligence / civilizations (while all we know about Universe points towards serious possibility of their existence; unfortunately not towards "virtual certainty" like for life in general) - the former is a more, well, natural case scenario ;p

Fits rather nicely, too.

Re:I agree

[damaged_sectors]

they should be treated as 'non-human persons.'

Corporations are, so why not dolphins...

Hmmm - and missionaries don't bother corporations *or* dolphins....

Oh wait - are those Mormons in a wetsuits on aquabikes?

--

Caribou is not a woody word

Re:I agree

[Antisyzygy]

See parent link. Dolphins kills porpoises en masse. Genocide schmenocide.

Re:I agree

[Antisyzygy]

Uhhh... cockroaches have DNA

Re:I agree

[Dcnjoe60]

I'm not really wanting to discuss abortion. My point being, though, that at some point in the womb, whether at the beginning or just before birth, there is an unborn human and that unborn human has more human characteristics than a cockroach (as outlined in the original post).

I am not saying human DNA is the only factor of what gives us human characteristics, but it is an important one. That 4%-5% difference with chimps shows a lot of difference with just a small change. A cockroach is significantly further removed in genetic code.

I would posit, however, that it's not human characteristics = DNA but human DNA = human characteristics. Something other than human DNA gives something other than human characteristics, even though they may be similar. And that would be expected as there is much overlap in the DNA sequencing of all life.

Re:I agree

[TheoMurpse]

I am certain that an irrational person, who is unconscious and has not too many higher-level thinking processes is disagreeing with you somewhere somehow right now. And no, it's not just W.

No, it is an irrefutable fact that "personhood" is often defined somewhat the way I said it was within the realm of philosophy.

Also, a fallacy you committed in your post is called "begging the question," where you presume "person" means one thing (a human being who thinks irrationally, is unconscious, etc.) in order to argue what "person" means (i.e., a human being who thinks irrationally, is unconscious, etc.).

I think if you re-read my original post, you'll find that I never expressed agreement with what philosophers say. I merely disagreed with people erroneously casting the debate as people arguing about whether a dolphin has "humanity" rather than what is "personhood." It's like when someone says copyright should last X years and a Slashdotter chimes in with SOFTWARE PATENTS ARE UNNECESSARY AND IMMORAL. Depending on your educational background, it's just lazy or ignorant thinking to conflate the two distinct terms of art.

Re:I agree

[Dcnjoe60]

Uhhh... cockroaches have DNA

So do potatoes. But what both cockroaches and potatoes do not have is human DNA. Since you cannot be human without human DNA, that seems a pretty significant difference.

Re:I agree

[roman_mir]

and if you reread my posts, you may notice (though I doubt at this point) that I was surreptitiously going for a sarcastic remark of humorous nature, but you are welcome to go ahead and read too much into this entire thread, be my guest.

Re:I agree

[maxwell demon]

Well, while humans and companies are both considered people, there are still differences in how the law treats them. For example, if you intentionally kill a company, you'll not be sentenced with murder. OTOH a company will never be put in jail, no matter how much it breaks the law (individual people from that company may, of course, be put in jail if they are found to be personally responsible, but the company itself won't).

Re:I agree

[TheoMurpse]

I was surreptitiously going for a sarcastic remark

Well, there's your problem. You intentionally tried to make your remark surreptitiously sarcastic. Looks like you succeeded!

surreptitious
taking pains to avoid being observed

:)

Re:I agree

[roman_mir]

clearly

Re:I agree

[marcosdumay]

That is one thing that surprizes most people. Smart animals are awfully like humans. Earlier humans are even more so.

Re:I agree

[ardle]

Will an article about Schadenfreude do?

Re:I agree

[sznupi]

You can certainly be not exactly human even with quite human DNA - try asking anybody being disconnected from life support after determination of brain death, we deny them personhood quite routinely.

(OTOH, as far as we can tell, there doesn't seem to be anything about reality which would exclude eventual mind uploading / etc.; but since it's already settled / no human DNA = no person...)

Re:I agree

[sznupi]

I figured you don't want to / it always suddenly gets harder when confronted with firsthand experiences of practical results of fundamentalist approach; how it crushes lives (it's easy to forget with how many it did so in the past)

But again, what about severe aneuploidy? Pentasomy, however rare it is in "humans"(?), seems easily able to account for 5% of disparity in carried genetic code (even if disparity of a different kind). What about genetic chimeras? (it's surprisingly common)

I have a better idea

[operagost]

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.

Re:I have a better idea

[teslafreak]

Otherwise, we'll have community organizers signing up dolphins to vote in elections and lobbying for tax dollars to fund flipper-accessible housing.

It's depressing how accurate this is.

Re:I have a better idea

[0123456]

Otherwise, we'll have community organizers signing up dolphins to vote in elections and lobbying for tax dollars to fund flipper-accessible housing.

They'll be pissed once the government starts demanding they fill out tax returns and pay income tax.

'Are you sure you only caught 3,765 fish in 2020, Mr Flipper?'

Re:I have a better idea

[SuricouRaven]

Because we want fish. They want fish. There arn't enough fish for both of us. There arn't even enough fish for us.

Re:I have a better idea

[ukemike]

Why don't we just leave them to their business, and keep to our own?

Are you asserting that dolphins have the right to be left alone?

Incidentally what you propose is a great idea, but is not currently happening and is also pretty unlikely. We (humans) hunt dolphins. We capture and enslave them. We pollute their environment and food sources. We kill them while hunting for other sea life. In some places we regularly trap and slaughter them by the score to provide mystery sea meat for the Asian markets and to provide Sea World with slave performers. If there is any "leaving alone" to be done it is we that need to do it.

Re:I have a better idea

[FoolishOwl]

Why don't we just leave them to their business, and keep to our own?

I don't know what other reasonable, practical application there could be of a principle that dolphins are persons.

Re:I have a better idea

[arkenian]

Otherwise, we'll have community organizers signing up dolphins to vote in elections and lobbying for tax dollars to fund flipper-accessible housing.

They'll be pissed once the government starts demanding they fill out tax returns and pay income tax.

'Are you sure you only caught 3,765 fish in 2020, Mr Flipper?'

Hell. If they can come up with a way to pay taxes, I'd be perfectly happy to let them vote.

Re:I have a better idea

[dkathrens77]

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.

We don't do that now, do we? We pollute their environment with the raucous and confusing noise of cargo ships hauling goods back and forth across the oceans, drowning them with fishing nets, harvesting their food to eat ourselves, capturing them to amuse us with their tricks, (the Japanese) harvesting them for "scientific research" (aka, eating them), etc? Let's face it, they can't beat us OR join us...so they're well and truly frakked.

Re:I have a better idea

[datsa]

We should definitely "leave them to their business", but we don't. That's the whole point of granting them rights - ensuring that we leave them alone, and making it illegal to abduct them and torture them.

So...

[ak_hepcat]

the Uplift begins...

Not that I mind it much. As long as they remain conscientious objectors to war.

Re:So...

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

Just so long as we don't let the rest of the galaxy know about the chimps, gorillas, and our other near-sentient blunders. (Love the reference!)

Re:So...

[sconeu]

They knew about the chimps -- Chimps and Dolphins are why Homo Sapiens was considered an patron species.

Re:So...

[TheRaven64]

I think you mean the orangutangs...

Re:So...

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

Referring to the mass killings of the various species.

Re:So...

[BluBrick]

the Uplift begins...

Not that I mind it much. As long as they remain conscientious objectors to war.

A carnivore?

Not likely, given their existence requires killing other creatures.

Hunting is not the same thing as war.

Why just dolphins?

[Haedrian]

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?

Re:Why just dolphins?

[Captain Splendid]

Should a stupid person have less rights than a dolphin?

FUCK YES.

And in response to the obvious question, I'll happily eat Long Pig.

Re:Why just dolphins?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

You can grant "rights" to any species you like... Dolphins have the same intrinsic rights as humans. i.e. none.

Re:Why just dolphins?

[Paradise Pete]

And in response to the obvious question, I'll happily eat Long Pig.

It's hard to believe there exists an obvious question for which the answer is "I'll happily eat Long Pig."

Re:Why just dolphins?

[Fallingcow]

Good idea posting AC. Lots of Slashdot posters still think the concept of natural rights can stand up to reasoned examination (generally because they've never subjected it to reasoned examination, nor seen it done)

Re:Why just dolphins?

[Platinum Dragon]

Perhaps the capability to perceive intelligence and self-awareness in other lifeforms should also invoke a responsibility to treat other lifeforms as we would wish to be treated.

Think about it - if there were an intelligent predator that used us as lunch, and the relationship was stable, how would you wish to be treated by that lifeform prior to consumption?

I'm one of those nuts that thinks we need to treat our brain-possessing food sources much better anyway, and that we can choose to act better than we do.

What's scary about recognizing the right of other lifeforms to be treated with dignity and respect, anyway? Much of our intellectual evolution concerned refraining from doing things we are perfectly capable of doing, or developing more ethical methods of doing things; this is no different, in my view.

Re:Why just dolphins?

[TerranFury]

Meh. True statements are impossible. Logic is impotent. "Reason" is an 18th-century linguistic fashion.

Re:Why just dolphins?

[c6gunner]

Either you don't understand what the word "reason" means, or you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Perhaps you meant to use the word "objective" in there somewhere, in which case you'd have a valid - though insignificant - point. Without it, your objections seem rather fishy.

Re:Why just dolphins?

[Platinum Dragon]

Correct - the laws of physics do not enforce or encode any ethics or morals, only cause and effect. Sentient lifeforms can create those rules as they develop their knowledge and understanding of the world around them, and the effect their actions have upon it.

Reality will operate as it does - meanwhile, we can choose to act better toward each other, and toward other lifeforms. No one will judge us but us - now, how would you like to be viewed by our descendants, or the descendants of other, possibly sapient organisms?

Re:Why just dolphins?

[TeethWhitener]

Okay, I'll bite.

Granting a right to one party is essentially imposing a duty on one or more other parties. For example, if we as humans grant dolphins a right to life, then we are basically saying "We (humans) will try not to kill you (dolphins) on purpose." Thus, by granting them this right, we are imposing upon ourselves the duty to not purposefully kill any dolphins. You can view it, if you wish, as a type of contract, though I'll be quick to point out that the concept of rights and duties extends beyond the legal realm into the moral one.

Why would we grant dolphins rights? Possibly because of what we feel to be a collective moral obligation. Granting rights to animals on the basis of moral obligation is not unprecedented. For instance, most animals for whom there is significant evidence that they can feel pain are granted the legal (and moral) right not to be abused. There's nothing physical stopping me from beating the ever living shit out of my dog, but I don't, because I think that inflicting unnecessary pain is immoral. Thus, I have implicitly granted my dog the right not to have the ever living shit beaten out of him.

Why would we grant dolphins a right to life specifically? This is akin to the question of why we would grant, for example, Homeless Joe with no friends or family a right to life specifically. If you approach the question from a secular viewpoint, it's kind of tricky. After all, there's no one to mourn the homeless person if I kill him, and he certainly won't care if I do it painlessly (in fact, he can't care; he's dead). Most ethicists working in this field approach the problem by appealing to the human traits of foresight and planning. Killing Homeless Joe thwarts his plans and deprives him of the possibility of making his life better in the future. (Interestingly, a very similar argument is used to justify euthanasia in terminal patients). Assuming that the scientific studies that we've done on dolphins show that they share the traits of foresight and planning with humans, denying them the right to life while granting it to Homeless Joe is simply drawing a line arbitrarily and discriminating against dolphins simply because they are a different species. The discrimination has no underlying rational basis.

I think that at least begins to explain why intelligence is an important factor in granting rights to non-human animals and why other traits are not as important. As for the stupid people comment, see the above argument. Consistency would dictate that if a human is so severely mentally handicapped that they do not exhibit foresight (nor will they ever--otherwise it would be totally cool to kill babies), then they wouldn't have a specific right to life under this reasoning (similar to the euthanasia argument above). However, I doubt they would be in much danger. After all, most people would need a reason to kill them (otherwise, why would they expend the effort), and even then, based on the discussion above about non-human animals, it would still have to be done painlessly. Remember, we grant the right not to be abused to most animals anyway, so this case would be no different.

As for your last statement, you bet your ass if a tuna fisherman caught a SCUBA diver in their net and drowned him, they'd be in deep shit. But we've also seen that, unfortunately, commercial interests often trump even well-established human rights, so there's really no telling.

Re:Why just dolphins?

[Quiet_Desperation]

I've seen the same thing with my friend's cats. They have different personalities and clearly get into moods of various sorts.One even woke them up for a prowler (turned out to be a drunk neighbor not quite knowing what yard he was in).

Re:Why just dolphins?

[h4rr4r]

Should a stupid person have less rights than a dolphin?

In some cases they already do, we don't let the severely mentally challenged go running around without anyone watching them.

Re:Why just dolphins?

[fishbowl]

Would you rather eat Stupid Person or Ugly Person?

Re:Why just dolphins?

[c6gunner]

Ok, so we can discard the "don't understand what the word means" explanation.

Re:Why just dolphins?

[sznupi]

You are what you eat, so...

Re:Why just dolphins?

[Captain Splendid]

Trick question. The answer is range-fed person.

Re:Why just dolphins?

[internettoughguy]

Meh. True statements are impossible. Logic is impotent. "Reason" is an 18th-century linguistic fashion.

But it still killed Pyrrhonism.

To compare moral relativism to postmodern relativism is silly, as silly as postmodern relativism itself :). It's perfectly possible for there to be material truths, but outside of human feelings there are no moral truths.

We can attempt to point out inconsistencies in moral beliefs, but at the end of the day there is no way to reason a psychopath into empathy.

Re:Why just dolphins?

[sznupi]

Next step of nuttery - getting rid of quaint dietary taboos; greater utilization of animals with very basic brains as food sources, when there's no good reason to do otherwise. Insects are an excellent source of meat (very efficient - around an order of magnitude better, per resources used, than beef), and in things like mass-produced canned meat paste it would be even hard or impossible to taste a difference.

(in case somebody is not aware - you eat insects every day; the norms about their presence in grain / flour / fruits / etc. basically boil down to "maximum allowable number of insect body parts per unit of product")

Re:Why just dolphins?

[damaged_sectors]

Who gets to decide who is stupid then?

The bloke with the silly shower hat, the white overalls, holding the bolt gun of course. Don't you know anything?

Come on people - the bus is waiting to take you all to the Sunshine home for clever folk. Leave your old laptops - you'll all be getting new iPads when we arrive.

Re:Why just dolphins?

[damaged_sectors]

Meh. True statements are impossible. Logic is impotent. "Reason" is an 18th-century linguistic fashion.

Citation needed

--

Soylent Green - the smart peoples food

Re:Why just dolphins?

[damaged_sectors]

Next step of nuttery - getting rid of quaint dietary taboos; greater utilization of animals with very basic brains as food sources, when there's no good reason to do otherwise. Insects are an excellent source of meat (very efficient - around an order of magnitude better, per resources used, than beef), and in things like mass-produced canned meat paste it would be even hard or impossible to taste a difference.

(in case somebody is not aware - you eat insects every day; the norms about their presence in grain / flour / fruits / etc. basically boil down to "maximum allowable number of insect body parts per unit of product")

Eat the dead, decomposition just reduces the need for cooking. Meat is meat. Waste is waste.

You get the insects whether you like it or not - don't use pesticides and your insects'll be healthier and so will your vegetables and fruit (insects boost phytochemical production). Economic rationalization makes as much sense applied to food as it does to society.

--

Michael Pollan - good books about food

Re:Why just dolphins?

[maxwell demon]

And in response to the obvious question, I'll happily eat Long Pig.

It's hard to believe there exists an obvious question for which the answer is "I'll happily eat Long Pig."

Well, an obvious question would be: "What are the last five words of Post #34797840 by Captain Splendid (673276)?"
(Or the last six words if you count "I'll" as two words)

Re:Why just dolphins?

[Jonner]

Yeah, determining what rights should be given any animal is very subjective. I propose that when dolphins can communicate with us well enough to ask for special rights, we should seriously consider it. Enabling this communication may involve work by dolphins and/or humans.

Of course, all of this is based on the assumption that we're the superior species. Perhaps they've been trying to communicate something of immense import for some time and we've just been interpreting those attempts at particularly elaborate tricks.

False equivalence

[Locke2005]

...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.

Re:False equivalence

[mcvos]

Not to mention the many dolphins slaving away on the cotton fields.

Re:False equivalence

[Mitchell314]

I'm a half dolphin, you insensitive clod.

Re:False equivalence

[Haedrian]

Gives a new meaning to the word "Tuna Farm" doesn't it?

Re:False equivalence

[rwa2]

Right, because everybody knows that humans and dolphins can interbreed.

I'm not saying that you should, but you could always search for "prehensile penis bestiality"... you know, for research porpoises.

Re:False equivalence

[edalytical]

Insensitive cod! *drum sound punctuating lame joke*

Re:False equivalence

[outsider007]

So if we sterilize the negros we can have slavery again?

Re:False equivalence

[517714]

...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.

On that basis we could count them as 3/5 of a human for representative porpoises. ;)

Re:False equivalence

[ukemike]

Not to mention the many dolphins slaving away on the cotton fields.

Sea World, and the business of exhibiting sea animals for entertainment is a multibillion dollar world wide industry. All the humans that work in that industry are paid. The dolphins, whales, etc. are captured and forced to perform in appalling conditions so Sea World can make a buck. So yeah you don't look to the cotton fields for enslaved dolphins you go to Marine World.

Re:False equivalence

[internettoughguy]

...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.

With some scientific intervention it might be possible in the future. Are you suggesting that those who are impotent should be stripped of their rights?

Re:False equivalence

[Locke2005]

No, I'm suggesting that slaves were the same species as slaveholders. Dolphins are not. If it is human enough for you to fuck (and plenty of slave owners were doing exactly that), it is human enough to be granted the same rights as every other human.

Re:False equivalence

[internettoughguy]

No, I'm suggesting that slaves were the same species as slaveholders. Dolphins are not. If it is human enough for you to fuck (and plenty of slave owners were doing exactly that), it is human enough to be granted the same rights as every other human.

I'm from New Zealand, and if your right I guess we'll be hearing a lot about the sheep suffrage movement soon :).

I agree with your conclusion, that known non-human animals should not have rights, but if I were to come across a hypothetical non-human that I could reason with (which I won't), then I would happily break that rule.

Re:False equivalence

[greenreaper]

As others have said, it's not for lack of trying . . .

So they are smart ...

[CannonballHead]

... 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.

Re:So they are smart ...

[mswhippingboy]

I might remind you that humans didn't develop these capabilities until the last 10,000 years or so after around 2 billion years of evolution. Dolphins are/were quite content with their lives in the ocean being at the top of the food chain. What need did they have to develop civilization (although they are social animals), science or inventions? Humans were forced to come up with these to survive. That doesn't make humans better, just different.

Re:So they are smart ...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0607_050607_dolphin_tools.html

http://www.neatorama.com/2006/05/05/dolphins-blow-air-rings-as-toys/

Re:So they are smart ...

[Haedrian]

Maybe they don't need to? Necessity is the mother of invention. Maybe they don't want to invent land-scuba kits or whatever.

Also the lack of opposable thumbs kinda hinders things.

Re:So they are smart ...

[CannonballHead]

Many things are invented not out of necessity, though... but simply because it improves the quality of someone's life. An electric light bulb was not necessary; civilization lasted on torches and gas for quite a while. Electric light bulbs sure improved the quality of people's lives, though, one might argue. It was not necessary. It's a "luxury." You can argue it's necessary now - but only necessary to keep our current living standards and only necessary because we have built upon it and made it necessary. It was not necessary when invented.

Re:So they are smart ...

[plopez]

Develop not referring evolutionary development or something like that, but developing things to help them survive better, live better, enjoy life better.

Hmmmm... let's seem Dolphins have been on this planet longer than Homo Sapiens have, like to play, and don't seem to have a problem feeding themselves.

A huge number of humans are starving to death or live in abject poverty.
We seem determined to drive ourselves into extinction, and many other species in the process.
We make ourselves miserable wanting more cheap made in China crap.
We flat out kill each other. Which species seems to be happier, more successful, and more civilized?
Just because they don't build skyscrapers or breakfast cereal doesn't mean they cannot be considered more successful
or civilized, in some sense of the word, than humans.

Re:So they are smart ...

[CannonballHead]

I would have thought dolphins would be older on the evolutionary timetable than humans, though...?

What need did humans have? Presumably, they survived a long time without it. In the last 2000 years, many inventions have come about, but how many were necessary for life? Many people lived in the Roman Empire. I'd argue that only pockets of people found various inventions necessary for life.

So it seems to me that we apply different scales. Human necessity = pockets of humanity; cultures, etc. People were getting killed by X culture so they invented guns to fight back. Something simple like that. But we get to dolphins and we only discuss the entire population of dolphins, if that makes sense. I can think of many ways a dolphin might be better protected with some sort of spear. It kinda has one built in, sorta like humans have a built in club; but humans invented bigger clubs do increase their survival; why wouldn't a dolphin invent a bigger spear :)

And no, humans are not "better" because of intelligence or scientific development. I'm a religious nut ;) and have other opinions on what gives something worth; science is not it.

Re:So they are smart ...

[starfishsystems]

Hmm. Your incapacity to recognize these things - which will be geared toward their quality of life, not yours - may say more about you than it does about them. Just a thought.

Re:So they are smart ...

[countSudoku()]

Dolphins are/were quite content with their lives in the ocean being at the top of the food chain.

Hogwash. Have ONE of them say so. Let me also introduce you to Mr. Killer Whale and Mr. Great White. FAIL! Go take a flying jump in the ocean, misanthrope.

Re:So they are smart ...

[lgw]

Just about every species eats all it can, and this whole idea of "harmony with the environment in the state of nature" is pur fantasy. Dolphins kill each other, and capture other dolphins as sex slaves. Why do people believe this "humans are bad" crap?

Re:So they are smart ...

[plopez]

Well, since these are also human traits this sort of argues for a sort of humanity or something akin to it...

Re:So they are smart ...

[killkillkill]

Don't forget Mr. Japan.

That doesn't make humans better, just different.

Wow. Let me guess, the soccer team you played on when you were little didn't keep score and just played "for fun".

Re:So they are smart ...

[nEoN nOoDlE]

I'm sure they could come up with better patents than some humans have.

Re:So they are smart ...

[c6gunner]

The lack of fire is their biggest hindrance. Kinda hard to get one started under water.

Re:So they are smart ...

[gedhrel]

If that's the yardstick for personhood, perhaps you can outline what you've invented lately.

Re:So they are smart ...

[dkleinsc]

I might remind you that humans didn't develop these capabilities until the last 10,000 years or so after around 2 billion years of evolution.

Not really. Flintknapping was an invention. Flintknapping a hand ax or arrowhead or spearhead was an invention. The stone-tipped spear was an invention. The bow and arrow was an invention. Figuring out how to first control and then consistently be able to start a fire was an invention. What evidence we have of that period suggests that they developed some understanding how seasons worked (if they lived in a temperate climate), and made some attempts at medicine. They probably also started telling stories about the world around them, now known as myths.

Our cave men ancestors were ignorant and starting from scratch, but there's no reason to think they were stupid and didn't invent stuff, learn stuff, and pass that knowledge along. And they were really no dumber than we are.

Re:So they are smart ...

[mswhippingboy]

I might remind you that humans didn't develop these capabilities until the last 10,000 years or so after around 2 billion years of evolution.

Not really. Flintknapping was an invention. Flintknapping a hand ax or arrowhead or spearhead was an invention. The stone-tipped spear was an invention. The bow and arrow was an invention. Figuring out how to first control and then consistently be able to start a fire was an invention. What evidence we have of that period suggests that they developed some understanding how seasons worked (if they lived in a temperate climate), and made some attempts at medicine. They probably also started telling stories about the world around them, now known as myths.

Our cave men ancestors were ignorant and starting from scratch, but there's no reason to think they were stupid and didn't invent stuff, learn stuff, and pass that knowledge along. And they were really no dumber than we are.

I agree 100%. The earliest homo-sapiens were really not different (physiologically) that us. They had almost exactly the same mental capacity that we have.

Toolmaking goes back as far as 3.4 million years ago (Australopithecus afarensis - long before homo-sapiens) and it's not a even a trait unique to humans as toolmaking has been observed in other primates, birds and even octopuses.

What I was particularly referring to above was civilization and science. True civilization (not counting simple settlements which again, are not unique to humans) did not really occur until around 10,000 years ago (in the "Fertile Crescent" in the Near East, where the Nile, Tigris and Euphrates rivers, as well as the warm climate, allowed agriculture to flourish). Prior to that humans were basically hunter-gatherers. Science is even more recent than that, beginning around 3500BC in Mesopotamia.

Re:So they are smart ...

[BluBrick]

Dolphins are/were quite content with their lives in the ocean being at the top of the food chain.

Hogwash. Have ONE of them say so. Let me also introduce you to Mr. Killer Whale and Mr. Great White. FAIL! Go take a flying jump in the ocean, misanthrope.

Messrs. Great White, Killer Whale and Dolphin do not prey on each other nor are they prey to any other species. They all occupy the same level in the food chain - the top.

Re:So they are smart ...

[Adustust]

I agree with this. Given the circumstances, it would seem that dolphins are at a disadvantage to developing any type of society greater than the small pod communities they have now. Early humans were able to develop civilization, but first they found caves, they discovered wood, branches, etc, could build homes. Dolphins will never be able to develop shelter, communities, anything. Even if they were to try to live in underwater caves, they would still have to constantly rise to the surface to breathe. Humans never have to leave their homes. Again, dolphins can't cultivate, they cant grow food, or raise cattle, they live in a 360 degree environment, how would they ever develop a large food supply for a massive community? It seems to me that it's pretty obvious that we were only so fortunate to have just the right things to allow our culture to evolve to where it is today. If the planet were all desert with nothing that enabled us to manipulate our surroundings, we would be just as nomadic as they, wild animals with an ability to understand local community and self. Oh you could teach us tricks too.

Interesting

[wzinc]

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.

Re:Interesting

[swanzilla]

Perhaps your cat could weigh in on the question at hand.

Re:Interesting

[wzinc]

Good point - I'll ask him.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Get back to me when humans develop echolocation senses or become smart enough to stay out of traffic accidents.

Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity.

[geekoid]

My experiences is that most people studying dolphins are quick to rely on confirmation bias.

Re:No.

[icebike]

Someone is bound to raise the old claim that they have sex way more often than is necessary for reproduction. Surely that offsets the lack of thumbs.

All indications are they are about as smart as dogs, and try to hump your leg just as often.

Damn...

[fph il quozientatore]

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.

But they're so delicious!

[BobMcD]

But they're so delicious! Why would we risk the world's most epic source of food?

Re:What about pigs?

[Spy Handler]

Believe me, the people who dream up stuff like this would LOVE to outlaw the eating of pork (and all other animal meats).

More Protection

[b4upoo]

Dolphins do deserve a more vigorous protection even though they will never be any good at playing the piano.

We can't do this!

[0xdeadbeef]

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?

Re:We can't do this!

[mrbobjoe]

Human-derived Organic Mental Cores may be suitable.

Re:We can't do this!

[Platinum Dragon]

If dolphins have rights, we won't be able to use them in genetic experiments to make them smarter.

We could ask if individuals would like to participate, but that requires a form of descriptive, common communication between hominids and delphinids, which in and of itself could be a worthy project, and certainly a prerequisite to seeking consent for a genetic manipulation project.

Re:We can't do this!

[Gamasta]

who is going to pilot our starships?

They won't. They'll go "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish"

Re:We can't do this!

[gripen40k]

I was wondering when uplift was going to be mentioned!

That is as such.

[unity100]

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.

Re:That is as such.

[Relic of the Future]

Of course; because a species more-closely related to hedgehogs than it is to us is clearly our "twin"...

Look, they might be smart, they might be sentient, but appealing to some psychobabblely "dolphins are the yang to our yin!" nonsense (seriously, "eq"? That's not even well-defined for humans, and you want to apply it to another species?) is no way to approach this argument. If "closeness" to us if what you're after, it'd be more logical to first expand outward toward our actual closest relatives, gorillas and chimpanzees.

Re:That is as such.

[unity100]

have you any information on what goes about in japan, regarding sex ?

Re:That is as such.

[rizole]

A shark can tell the difference between fun and drowning.

Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity.

[plopez]

The question of what it means to be human is age old and very difficult to define. But I am starting to extend more aspects of being human to animals. Slowly. Since I am a carnivore it is beginning to make me uneasy.

What, BTW, would be a good word for the aspects of being human? I tried to find one but "humanness" seems awkward and "humanity" seems just the wrong word.

Re:No.

[kimvette]

Also:

behavioral studies suggest that dolphins, especially species such as the bottlenose, have distinct personalities, a strong sense of self, can think about the future

Ever watch a dog when it expects its master home in a short while? The dog becomes restless, pacing at the door, sometimes doing a fast excited pant and alternating that with whining. I'd suggest that the dog is thinking about the future when he can get under the feet of his master and dance around and be a huge annoyance for a few minutes.

MOD UP PARENT

[Alaska Jack]

Nuff said

an animal is not a human

[circletimessquare]

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

Re:an animal is not a human

[MightyMartian]

Last time I checked, humans are animals. It's you who seems to be invoking a form of special pleading, not to mention assuming your conclusion.

Re:an animal is not a human

[TerranFury]

you completely lose any logical coherence

Not really. Logic doesn't work that way. You've just asserted an axiom -- that certain rules only apply to humans. Somebody else can assert another one. Logic gives no way to choose between them.

Re:an animal is not a human

[circletimessquare]

i am a human. i have an affinity for other humans that rises above that of my affinity for other animals, which i also am

can you draw a venn diagram? its not two different circles, its a circle within a circle

Re:an animal is not a human

[circletimessquare]

i am a human. i have an affinity for other humans that rises above that of my affinity for other animals, which i also am

can you draw a venn diagram? its not two different circles, its a circle within a circle

and if we meet intelligent aliens, i am certain they will feel an affinity for others of their kind above and beyond that of less intelligent creatures on their home planet, just like us

i think you took that star trek movie where they go to 1980s san francisco WAY too seriously

Re:an animal is not a human

[circletimessquare]

i am a human. i have an affinity for other humans that rises above that of my affinity for other animals, which i also am

can you draw a venn diagram? its not two different circles, its a circle within a circle

you can say many different logical statements about the relationship between those two circles, but obviously, some of those logical statements can apply only within the smaller circle without any loss of coherence

you fail at logic

Re:an animal is not a human

[ThosLives]

The only rational argument for which I would grant a particular species some form of "rights" (rather than something along the lines of protection we offer to, say, endangered species) is if that species has the trait of being capable of distinguishing between moral choices.

While many animal species do exhibit social behavior, including things like kicking members out of their local group, I don't think any species aside from "human" has demonstrated anything along the lines of the concepts of morality. I will grant that such a thing would be difficult for which to test, but it would boil down to something along the lines of testing not if individuals follow some specific moral code, but that individuals all attempt to follow a moral code (as humans, while all our moral codes differ, every single one of us has some code by which we internally classify things as good or bad).

So I'd say I'd be for increasing anti-abuse protections for higher-functioning animals, but I would not give them rights. In fact, this is exactly what we do to disabled humans: they have numerous protections but no real "rights." In my mind, rights only come with responsibility. Of course, this is not a popular view, but in my mind the "right to life" includes some responsibility with how we conduct our lives. Otherwise we're just like any other social animal. A purely naturalistic worldview has no rational basis on which to evaluate one view regarding species or even individual treatment above any other; there is no "optimal" physical principal that can be used to say one form of behavior is more desirable than another. So we have to be honest and just say, "there's no reason to treat species X this way, other than we want to and have the power to force other individuals of our species to behave in accordance with our wishes". That would at least be honest; anything else is just pure drivel. Put another way: if a species has no mechanism or ability or demonstrated ability to perform or acknowledge or recognize "responsibility" then it should have no "rights".

There is probably some semantic issue here as well - I would not call what animal rights activists advocate as "rights" but more "mandates on humans to behave in some particular way relating to some particular phenomenon." Put another way: "animal rights" do not grant rights to animals but impose restrictions on humans. Rights are something a species can assert upon their recognition - if dolphins or species Q9537 has no ability to recognize and then later assert "rights" then they should not be classified as "rights" in my mind.

Humans, including slaves, and children when they reach a certain level of maturity, as a species trait tend to assert the concepts declared to them as "rights." I would be very interested to see a mechanism by which we could even declare the concept of "rights" to dolphins or chimpanzees, let alone recognize if they were trying to then assert those rights at a later date.

Now, realize, some of the above is thinking out loud and is not a "final answer" regarding my opinion on the matter...

Re:an animal is not a human

[internettoughguy]

Last time I checked, humans are animals. It's you who seems to be invoking a form of special pleading, not to mention assuming your conclusion.

But for right or wrong, rights are usually granted only when pleaded for, certainly those are the only cases where those granted rights are uncontroversial today.

So human or otherwise, for me it's communication that is the barrier, not "speciesism".

By the way, sentience is not only 'intelligence'

[unity100]

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.

Rape

[Andy Smith]

Will we punish dolphins for rape?
http://scienceray.com/biology/marine-biology/not-so-cute-dolphin-gang-rape/

Re:Rape

[Haedrian]

That depends. Are they leaking sensitive documents?

Re:Rape

[plopez]

Isn't that a human attribute? Do you need more proof of their.. um... humanity?

Re:Rape

[Beardo the Bearded]

Worse, they weren't wearing condoms.

Re:Rape

[TheRaven64]

No, not really. Watch those cute ducks on the pond sometime in spring and you'll see them gang rape any female they can find - they hold her under water while each one tries to impregnate her. Rape is pretty common among animals. The idea that weaker members of the species should not be subject to the whims of the stronger is a human idea, but we don't see that in dolphins or libertarians, and I'd consider that a much better test of whether something deserves human rights.

If dolphins are so smart...

[Alaska Jack]

Where are dolphin hospitals?

    - AH

Re:If dolphins are so smart...

[Alaska Jack]

Of course, dolphins rarely mistype their own initials, so what do I know?

    - AJ

Re:If Dolphins Are So Smart...

[Carcass666]

How come they can't avoid gill nets?

And why do they live in igloos?

and how come I miss typos until after I hit submit?

Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity.

[Chris Burke]

Well, I have no problem recognizing the sentience of dolphins. I could even accept them as "non-human persons", though I'm not sure exactly what that means.

But as far as the upshot of what rights should we give dolphins, that's where I don't like the tack this is taking.

Talking about "equal rights" among people -- human people -- makes sense, as we are all human and equal and have the same essential needs when living together in our societies.

Dolphins don't live in our society. They live in dolphin societies. The only right they need is the right to live in that society without us bothering them. So, I'm against fishing them, and even keeping them in captivity outside of injured or rescued dolphins. anything else is unnecessary.

Re:No.

[Suki I]

Get back to me when they develop opposable thumbs or become smart enough to stay out of tuna nets.

They probably taste great with tuna. We really should not fight with nature so much with our arbitrary laws.

No, they're not really that close

[SlideRuleGuy]

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.

Re:No, they're not really that close

[khallow]

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.

Glial cells also contribute to thinking as both energy source and connections in the brain. It may well be that the higher proportion of glial cells is superior for intelligence than fewer glial cells. Keep in mind that the human brain is heavily constrained by dissipation of the heat it generates. Perhaps there would be a mental advantage to a higher proportion of glial cells, but we can't afford more of them. On the other hand, a dolphin brain has far better cooling and hence can really pack glial cells in there.

Intelligence

[cheekyjohnson]

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.

Re:Intelligence

[khallow]

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.

So what's more likely here? That intelligence, the most remarkable trait developed by life on Earth is petty and inconsequential? Or at some point in the not so distant past, emo nihilism was evolved (not necessarily deliberately) as a reproduction strategy by certain mediocre hairless apes with not much to offer a mate?

If nothing matters in the end, then that just means that the end doesn't matter. We still have everything that happens before the end and the end hasn't happened yet.

Re:Intelligence

[cheekyjohnson]

Perhaps I was unclear. What I meant was that I'm none too fond of this seemingly common ideal that humans are factually more important than everything else on the planet (as in, they are somehow valued more by the universe than everything else). Now, if someone stated that they personally believe that humans are more important, then that is a different matter altogether, but I'm mainly speaking of people who misrepresent it as a fact.

Re:Intelligence

[khallow]

as in, they are somehow valued more by the universe than everything else

Valuation has an intelligence bias (because it is only done by things with some degree of intelligence) and implies the existence of choice.

Re:Intelligence

[cheekyjohnson]

What? I was trying to state that the universe doesn't somehow favor humans over everything else (which is what some people seem to believe).

and implies the existence of choice.

Maybe. What is your point?

Re:Intelligence

[khallow]

What? I was trying to state that the universe doesn't somehow favor humans over everything else (which is what some people seem to believe).

Um, so what? It's been a while since I asked the universe's opinion of anything. It has yet to answer. I don't see that the universe's opinion, should it ever have one on this matter, outweighs my own anyway.

How about your original argument? That intelligence is "petty". That we are "arrogant" for "elevating yourself above another entity" by virtue of the fact that we're intelligence and did a lot of cool stuff and well, they aren't and didn't.

Re:Intelligence

[cheekyjohnson]

I don't see that the universe's opinion, should it ever have one on this matter, outweighs my own anyway.

We aren't talking about opinions. We're talking about facts. People claim that the opinion that humans are the 'best' species is a fact, when it is only an opinion.

That intelligence is "petty".

It is when you consider the fact that the only meaning your life holds is what you want it to. No matter how intelligent you are, your life will eventually come to an end, and even if you left behind accomplishments, they are only for more people who will also die and eventually even those will fade away.

Re:Intelligence

[khallow]

We aren't talking about opinions. We're talking about facts. People claim that the opinion that humans are the 'best' species is a fact, when it is only an opinion.

Well, why should they have a different opinion? Humans do have a remarkable and unique combination of abilities.

It is when you consider the fact that the only meaning your life holds is what you want it to. No matter how intelligent you are, your life will eventually come to an end, and even if you left behind accomplishments, they are only for more people who will also die and eventually even those will fade away.

So what? Doesn't change that we're here now, deciding what meaning our lives hold (which incidentally is an activity most other creatures can't do).

Re:Intelligence

[cheekyjohnson]

Well, why should they have a different opinion?

I don't know, but they shouldn't state their opinion as a fact unless they can prove their claim (that some entity or object somehow gave their pointless existence more worth than everything else). For instance, I'm under the opinion that all existence is equally worthless. How am I incorrect when others aren't?

Humans do have a remarkable and unique combination of abilities.

This has nothing to do with what I'm trying to state.

Doesn't change that we're here now

No, it doesn't, but ultimately, whether you like it or not, our very existence is likely pointless.

which incidentally is an activity most other creatures can't do

Here you are pointing out the difference between humans and animals again and seemingly missing my point.

When did we start talking about opinions (because you keep mentioning them for some unexplainable reason)?

Re:Intelligence

[khallow]

I don't know, but they shouldn't state their opinion as a fact unless they can prove their claim (that some entity or object somehow gave their pointless existence more worth than everything else). For instance, I'm under the opinion that all existence is equally worthless. How am I incorrect when others aren't?

Their argument doesn't rely on another argument being even worse logically, while you apparently argue such above. Sure, it's a bit unfair. But just because some idiot confuses their facts and opinions, yet gets other idiots to take them seriously, doesn't mean the same trick will work for you.

Doesn't change that we're here now

No, it doesn't, but ultimately, whether you like it or not, our very existence is likely pointless.

And why should that matter to us? "Ultimately pointless" is not identical to "pointless on Earth in the year 2011".

When did we start talking about opinions (because you keep mentioning them for some unexplainable reason)?

You spoke of value. That is inherently an opinion.

Re:Intelligence

[cheekyjohnson]

But just because some idiot confuses their facts and opinions, yet gets other idiots to take them seriously, doesn't mean the same trick will work for you.

It's kind of hard to not take them seriously when they explicitly state it as a fact and claim that intelligence is the main reason.

And why should that matter to us?

It only matters if you're planning on stating a fact. I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.

"Ultimately pointless" is not identical to "pointless on Earth in the year 2011".

Sure it is. It's pointless now, and it will be pointless in the future. Now, can you tell me who it isn't pointless to? Us. I'm playing logic games, here.

You spoke of value. That is inherently an opinion.

Thank you! This is precisely what I mean.

Re:Intelligence

[khallow]

It's kind of hard to not take them seriously when they explicitly state it as a fact and claim that intelligence is the main reason.

I'll accept your judgment on that matter even though I think otherwise on that matter.

"Ultimately pointless" is not identical to "pointless on Earth in the year 2011".

Sure it is. It's pointless now, and it will be pointless in the future. Now, can you tell me who it isn't pointless to? Us. I'm playing logic games, here.

I'll let you stew in this paradox of your own making.

Re:Intelligence

[cheekyjohnson]

I'll accept your judgment on that matter even though I think otherwise on that matter.

That's what an opinion is, correct?

I'll let you stew in this paradox of your own making.

Apparently you've misunderstood me somewhere. I never said that it was pointless to me. I said that I was of the opinion that everything is ultimately pointless and that humans don't have some sort of inherent worth (the value of their existence is their own opinion).

Re:Intelligence

[khallow]

That's what an opinion is, correct?

No, you also said that you have difficulty in not taking some peoples' opinions seriously because they equate those opinions with facts. I don't have that problem.

Apparently you've misunderstood me somewhere. I never said that it was pointless to me. I said that I was of the opinion that everything is ultimately pointless and that humans don't have some sort of inherent worth (the value of their existence is their own opinion).

No, I don't think I have. You claim at some time T >> 0, there will be no trace of our existence. But why does that future time matter to us in the least? Think of it this way, our current time, t
So far, the argument is merely pointless not a paradox. But then you claim that our existence is also "pointless" in today's space-time even though you allow that it isn't pointless to us, the inhabitants of this bit of space-time. Well, that means it's not pointless in our space-time. Thus, we have the paradox.

Frankly, I don't get what this even has to do with your original statement:

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.

As you admit, the "end" is not everything. And as I discuss above, it is in fact wholly irrelevant to us.

We still have the possibility that no "ultimately pointless" future exists. It may even take the concerted effort of intelligence acting over infinite time and spatial scales to destroy an "ultimately pointless" future. If that is so, then intelligence isn't petty in any sense of the word.

Re:Intelligence

[khallow]

Sigh, messed up my argument for my second paragraph.

Think of it this way, our current time, t is less than T. We don't exist in "ultimately pointless" space. Nor do we interact with it. It has no meaning to us as a result. That makes your argument about things being "ultimately pointless", pointless in its own right.

Re:Intelligence

[cheekyjohnson]

No, you also said that you have difficulty in not taking some peoples' opinions seriously because they equate those opinions with facts. I don't have that problem.

Really? There is no reason that anyone should like throwing/hitting random objects around on fields. That is all a sport entails. No one can like sports because I don't, and if someone claims they do, they're instantly wrong.

You don't see any problem with that whatsoever? You don't see any problem with stating things that are clearly just opinions as facts?

But why does that future time matter to us in the least?

I've put in bold the keyword. This entire time I've been talking about mere opinions. Do not mistake opinion for fact.

Well, that means it's not pointless in our space-time.

Opinions aren't facts. I can find value in things that are ultimately worthless and a waste of time.

Frankly, I don't get what this even has to do with your original statement:

That one shouldn't judge one species as being factually more important than another species because of things such as intelligence, which, for all we know, are ultimately worthless to anyone except ourselves. Keywords: factually and ultimately.

We still have the possibility that no "ultimately pointless" future exists.

But, there's certainly no evidence supporting that claim, and plenty of reason to believe otherwise.

This could be summed up as "an opinion doesn't instantly equate to a fact."

Re:Intelligence

[khallow]

Opinions aren't facts. I can find value in things that are ultimately worthless and a waste of time.

I don't see a fact. Instead I see someone claiming they can have things that both have and don't have value from the same viewpoint. That's inherently a paradox.

That one shouldn't judge one species as being factually more important than another species because of things such as intelligence, which, for all we know, are ultimately worthless to anyone except ourselves. Keywords: factually and ultimately.

You could have cut the crap and just said in the first place, "That's an opinion not a fact." Instead you continue to insist on discussing things "ultimately" even though it is irrelevant. That diluted the strength of your argument.

Re:Intelligence

[cheekyjohnson]

Instead I see someone claiming they can have things that both have and don't have value from the same viewpoint.

Then either I spoke incorrectly (probably this) or you misunderstood. That's not the message that I wanted to convey.

You could have cut the crap and just said in the first place, "That's an opinion not a fact."

I'm sure I could have. I was also having trouble understanding what you were trying to state, but I apologize.

Re:Intelligence

[ardle]

Elevating yourself above another entity simply for that reason is incredibly arrogant.

So what reason do you propose that we use to elevate ourselves above other entities?

Re:Intelligence

[cheekyjohnson]

Me? None. I feel it's a truly foolish endeavor.

Re:Intelligence

[ardle]

It got us where we are today ;-)

Re:Intelligence

[cheekyjohnson]

No, it didn't. Actions got us where we are today, not pretending that we are factually the most important species in the universe. The value we hold in our lives is merely our own opinion.

Re:Intelligence

[ardle]

When an animal kills another for food (even more so if it is for living space), implicit in this action is an assessment (correct or not) that the killer is more important than the prey (because the killer should live and the prey should not).
Animals understand this (in my opinion) and nature has given us (all animals) a capacity to derive pleasure from the misfortune of others (see my Schadenfreude link elsewhere on this topic - satisfaction is comparable to a good meal. This strikes me as a useful trait for ensuring that prey is brought back to the entire pack and not consumed on the spot by hunters).
The idea that we achieved our current position (top) in the food chain due to our intelligence alone deliberately obscures the fact that it was our brutality that achieved it. Our earnest attempts to train ourselves to curb such brutality unfortunately leave us open to exploitation by entities who choose not to accept such constraints.

Re:Intelligence

[ardle]

Here's a really interesting article from Cracked, of all places. It sometimes covers the same areas as the Schadenfreude link. The point I gleaned from this article is that nature makes it easier for us to be "evil" than to be "good". If there is a positive to be gleaned from this, it is that if a "good" entity defeats an "evil" one, then that "good" entity has "evil" in reserve for emergencies.
Our justifications (e.g. "intelligence") are not always needed. Here's another good example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan's_Column and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEmIAHNkDOo
Intelligence does not always provide protection from brutality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier

Re:Intelligence

[cheekyjohnson]

When an animal kills another for food (even more so if it is for living space), implicit in this action is an assessment (correct or not) that the killer is more important than the prey (because the killer should live and the prey should not).

I just said it was an opinion.

This strikes me as a useful trait

I can kill something without such false delusions.

Re:Intelligence

[ardle]

I just said it was an opinion.

You described an opinion, I described a physiological feedback mechanism that gives rise to that kind of opinion (supremacy).

I can kill something without such false delusions.

Who said any kind of thinking, even delusional, is involved, apart from post-rationalisation or just plain lying?
I'm not convinced that you are not trolling.

Re:Intelligence

[cheekyjohnson]

You described an opinion, I described a physiological feedback mechanism that gives rise to that kind of opinion (supremacy).

That was the entire point of my first post. To demonstrate that such thoughts/opinions/feelings are not facts.

Who said any kind of thinking, even delusional, is involved, apart from post-rationalisation or just plain lying?

Those who are intelligent can control their own actions. I would hope there would be thinking, at least.

"Studies Suggest Dolphins Should Have Rights"

[Theotherguy_1]

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.

Rapists

[MrQuacker]

Male dolphins will separate a female from her pod and deny her food or sleep until she lets them mate with her.

They kidnap females so they can rape them.

Yup, they sure act human-like.

Re:Rapists

[Haedrian]

Humans will kill thousands and millions of their own species because the members of the other species did not share the same religion, culture, ideas or political ideals.

Humans will attempt to draw more 'wealth' for themselves by getting human children to work in their factories - in order to gain more profits on their sales.

Humans will dump dangerous materials into the air, sea or land and deny the effects of these materials. Humans will also destroy large ecosystems in order to farm non-native animals in that region to make cheap burgers.

Humans can be just as mean as other animals.

Re:Rapists

[0123456]

Male dolphins will separate a female from her pod and deny her food or sleep until she lets them mate with her.

They kidnap females so they can rape them.

Yup, they sure act human-like.

Don't worry, once Dolphins have 'human rights', any dolphin which rapes another dolphin will be sent to dolphin jail, and any dolphin which kills another dolphin will be sent to the electric chair.

Re:Rapists

[MightyMartian]

But chimps have got that beat. They are just about the only other animal on the planet besides us that seems to plot and carry out wars against their neighboring tribes of the same species.

Re:Rapists

[Haedrian]

NB: Electric Chair Underwater may not be a good idea.

Re:Rapists

[digsbo]

Right...so then if we grant dolphins personhood, we should imprison them for criminal behavior. But how do we find a jury of peers?

Re:Rapists

[RazorSharp]

The difference is that all those things you mentioned were conscious decisions made by people. They're not behavioral patterns which are consistent with all humans. The fact of the matter is, there was a time in history when male humans took a mate by force because they were stronger. Then humans became intelligent (hundred thousand years ago + ?), and then civilized (thousands of years ago), and then religious/philosophical (five thousand years ago?), and then rape became a taboo for ethical reasons (Hammurabi, ~ 3.7k years ago), and then, developed a theory of rights (a couple hundred years ago!).

So yeah, maybe in a million years, or if they're lucky, a few hundred thousand years in the future, dolphins may be comparable to humans. When a rapist dolphin is a display of rogue behavior that their dolphin society has strict penalties for, get back to me.

I understand you were going for the ironic, "if humans are so evolved how come certain so-and-sos act so barbaric" argument, but you should know better. It just doesn't logically hold up. No one is claiming that humans are infallible, but our sentience does grant us a unique status in nature that exists outside the traditional food chain. Hell, humans can be more mean than other animals -- look at sadists, masochists, ect. But those are just more examples of how we live outside nature. We make rational decisions, oftentimes bizarre ones. An animal's decision making process is purely driven by instinct and reaction.

Re:No.

[Captain Splendid]

Having seen this behavior a thousand times, I was rushing to agree, but then it occurred to me that you're overcomplicating it.

Just because they're Pavlonially excited doesn't mean they know all the nuances of why they're excited.

Re:No.

[Locke2005]

No, it's usually just an indication that they need to go pee.

Only if we can prosecute them.

[amanicdroid]

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/

Re:Only if we can prosecute them.

[hedwards]

The concept of rape doesn't really apply outside of humans. It's a social construct which really requires a lot of sophistication in order to apply. Most animals are in a situation that's probably best described as might makes right. Trying to bring rape, the product of a pretty sophisticated social system, into a social grouping without demonstrating that it makes sense is just plain silly.

Re:Only if we can prosecute them.

[amanicdroid]

I agree. Thus if we're affording them rights (part of our highly complex social system) we can apply other aspects (of our highly complex social system) like prosecuting for rape and murder according to our terms.

Re:Only if we can prosecute them.

[h4rr4r]

Only if we also let them vote. No one is suggesting this, so stop using this strawman argument. What is really being considered is giving them some right, like children, who when young enough are also not charged with crimes.

Re:Only if we can prosecute them.

[amanicdroid]

How is allowing them to vote even applicable?

Additional rights entail additional responsibilities to that society.

Re:Turing Test

[haruchai]

Will we disenfranchise all humans who fail the test?

Rights and Responsibility

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.)

Re:Rights and Responsibility

[TapeCutter]

"Likely any alien would be so alien communication would be an even bigger issue than with dolphins.)"

If Dolphins had developed technology then it would be likely they would understand the language of maths.

Re:Rights and Responsibility

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Already many animals are granted a few very limited rights, like the right to not be tortured

I wish i had that right.

Re:Rights and Responsibility

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

"Likely any alien would be so alien communication would be an even bigger issue than with dolphins.)"

If Dolphins had developed technology then it would be likely they would understand the language of maths.

Roman numerals? Hexadecimal? Math as abstracted visual images like some autistic savants? Math that is understood in a way that it is still completely incomprehensible to us? I don't understand why because they understand how to solve problems using it, means they can communicate it to us or us to them. Nor does it alleviate the problem of their intelligences being so alien that their motives and actions have no meaning or pattern that we can discern.

Re:Rights and Responsibility

[TapeCutter]

You bring up an interesting point with autistic sevants, but "abstract visual images" are not a form of communication (which is what we're talking about). The language of math has something other languages do not, a universal rossetta stone called 'nature'. If Dolphins had a comunicable form of math (as opposed to mathematical ability), then they could easily comminicate it by simply verbalizing the prime numbers in a manner that could not reasonably be mistaken for random chance.

Trying to have a non-mathematical conversation with a Dolphin/Alien is much less likely to succeed, seeing the physical world via sonar and reacting to it with 6 degrees of freedom is an entirely different "real world" than what a human experiences.

"Nor does it alleviate the problem of their intelligences being so alien that their motives and actions have no meaning or pattern that we can discern."

Never said it does, maths as a language is likely to be pre-requsite for any technological species to get as far as stone henge, good intentions toward humans are not. But I figure that tecnological species are rare and if two of them meet, the curiosity that made them a technological species in the first place is going to motivate both sides to talk to the aliens, especially if they can't physically reach each other.

We will never communicate with ET

[tekrat]

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?
   

Re:We will never communicate with ET

[killkillkill]

Actually, I'm pretty sure there have been mild success communicating with other primates with sign language. I tell my dog to sit and spin around. However, every species we've discovered has only a limited understanding and at most a very basic "language".

why are we assuming we're the ONLY intelligent species?

We aren't assuming. There has been decades (at the very least) of research.

Re:We will never communicate with ET

[billyswong]

Agree.

It's a serious failure that we still can't talk with dolphins, albeit we know they do have some form of languages. What have those biologist done?

Re:We will never communicate with ET

[marcosdumay]

"...we still can't talk to any other species, no matter how smart they may seem."

You've never had a dog, have you? Ok, it took a while, and we changed the animal we were trying to communicate with, but lots of people do sucessfully communicate with another species. Of course, you won't get any deep thinking out of dogs, and some people will reply that it isn't communication, since you get no deep thinking out of it... But people can understand their intentions, and they can understand people's intentions. It that is not communication, I need to throw my dictionary away.

They call him

[srussia]

slave Suzy, slave Suzy, faster than lightning
No one, you see, is smarter than he...

Re:No.

[countSudoku()]

Smells like Team PETA. People for Edible, Tasty Animals! Chicken of the sea, smells like dolphin to me. When's dinner?

Re:No.

[Khashishi]

Just because they're Pavlonially excited doesn't mean they know all the nuances of why they're excited.

I feel the same way about humans.

Maybe avoiding a net . . .

[drsmack1]

. . . already full of fish should be an intelligence test.

Re:No.

[rwa2]

OK, OK, maybe when humans can blow bubble rings, and dolphins can blow smoke rings, we'll call it even
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMCf7SNUb-Q /wants to see a dolphin light a fire

Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity.

[BBTaeKwonDo]

I'm not so sure about that. I've seen articles in respected publications that dolphins intelligence has been consistently overestimated.

Re:No.

[Locke2005]

Would that be more sex or less sex than Bonobo chimps? I don't hear any demands from scientists that we give those randy little Bonobos human-like legal status!

Re:Turing Test

[Captain Splendid]

If they can pass a Turing Test, then they should be treated as persons.

Could someone mention this to the anti-abortionists?

dolphin institute says

[rubycodez]

dolphins are about as intelligent as dogs or chimps, much of the brain taken up with senses like sonar imaging

I, for one...

[blackbeak]

... welcome our new Dolphin overlords! I mean, really, how much worse could they be than the ones we already have?

Re:No.

[Steneub]

Opposable thumbs are not a prerequisite for intelligence, just for object manipulation.

Re:What about pigs?

[couchslug]

Gaia designed me to be omnivorous. Who is anyone to argue with HER? :P

Animals have the inalienable right of all living things to eat what they are able to kill by luck or circumstance.

I eat them, and avoid situations where I'll be dinner (until I die, rot, and go back into the system.)

No!!

[arthurpaliden]

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.

Re:No!!

[shutdown -p now]

I think some countries could use dolphin voters, actually - it would probably bring the average sanity of elected politicians up a bit.

We still have trouble treating each other as Human

[2bfree]

We still have trouble treating each other as Human Beings.

Re:No.

[hawguy]

Opposable thumb > Echolocation

That depends where you live. Drop a human in the middle of the ocean and see how much that opposable thumb helps him survive.

Obligatory South Park

[Wonko the Sane]

Buh, hah, right, if they're so damn smart, how come they get caught in those fishing nets all the time?

Re:Obligatory South Park

[treeves]

Maybe funny, but it's not so different from us in some ways. We focus on trivial stuff while not paying attention to real dangers. Why do we have to have laws against texting while driving? Why do we eat until our health suffers? Why do we watch TV while ignoring what our kids are learning or not learning in school? Stuff like that.

Re:Obligatory South Park

[Anonymous Coward]

That may be true, but if a giant fucking net was coming at me, I'd move out of the way.

Re:Obligatory South Park

[magarity]

Why do we have to have laws against texting while driving?

So the dolphins should pass a law against swimming into fishing nets.

Re:Obligatory South Park

[BenoitRen]

A fishing net is a direct danger. Everything you've summed up as dangers for humans are indirect (potential) dangers.

Re:Obligatory South Park

[treeves]

A fishing net is not harmful to dolphins until humans pull it out of the water. My point about texting while driving is that the driver is paying attention to the device while ignoring the curve in the road, oncoming car, etc. - just as direct dangers as the fishing net.
I'm not so sure how easy it is to see a fishing net while it's in the water next to you. Maybe not as easy as you think. And maybe it's not perfectly obvious which way is the best to go to get out of it.

Re:Obligatory South Park

[nschubach]

Sadly, that's how many think. I'm afraid of what these people think "giving the dolphins rights" even means. The only dolphins without undisturbed rights are the ones that are not trained to entertain and the only way to find out if they like that life is to ask them...

I just don't understand how you can "give" an already free animal (entertaining ones excluded...) rights.

Re:Obligatory South Park

[Velocir]

A fishing net is not harmful to dolphins until humans pull it out of the water.

Except that dolphins need to surface to breathe.

Re:Obligatory South Park

[treeves]

So we're really helping the dolphins to breathe when we catch them in nets! Who knew? Maybe "dolphin-safe" you see printed on cans of tuna means the opposite of what we think it does.
  We've certainly overanalyzed the facts underlying a silly joke by now and I take the blame for starting it!

Re:Obligatory South Park

[enec]

Oh I know, we should just ban texting while swimming from dolphins...

Re:Obligatory South Park

[Merls the Sneaky]

They did, only it didn't stop swimming into fishing nets, iIt only raised revenue.

Re:Obligatory South Park

[mooingyak]

For a brief moment the thought crossed my mind that you might not have caught his reference. And then I noticed your ID...

Re:Obligatory South Park

[Golddess]

Perhaps rights is not the correct word, but by specifying that, for example, if you kill a dolphin it will be treated the same as if you'd killed a human.

Re:Obligatory South Park

[sjames]

If you trap any animal in an impossible situation long enough, they'll show signs of mental breakdown such as:

Why do we have to have laws against texting while driving? Why do we eat until our health suffers? Why do we watch TV while ignoring what our kids are learning or not learning in school? Stuff like that.

The difference is we have created our own unsuitable environment, or at least those humans in power have.

Re:Obligatory South Park

[damnfuct]

Actually, a net is as harmful to dolphins as it would be to humans. Dolphins are mammals and do breathe air instead of dissolved oxygen, and holding them underwater would prevent them from breathing air; in other words, dolphins are not fish

Re:Obligatory South Park

[someonestolecc]

That's retarded. Till it's pulled out of the water? Don't tell me you think dolphins are fish?? The net, if it doesn't lacerate the thing it's caught will stop it from moving, which will kill a fish. It'll also stop the dolphin (and whales, turtles etc) coming back up to the surface to get a nice gulp of what you and I take for granted .. air.. Texting while driving isn't comparable. The comparison would be like in the game called kill all humans or whatever where an alien race comes and decides it's funny to use a ray gun on you that happens to envelope you into some sort of liquid you can't breathe - then you die as you take gulps of it into your lungs.. let's call the liquid sea water.

Re:Obligatory South Park

[siloko]

which also perfectly illustrates how we ourselves lack freedom. Statutorily enshrined 'rights' are anathema to freedom. Great post by the way . . .

Re:Obligatory South Park

[h4rm0ny]

That may be true, but if a giant fucking net was coming at me, I'd move out of the way.

If a giatn fucking net was coming toward you in the ocean, you wouldn't see it until it was around you. Or perhaps you think nets are big opaque things and the ocean is a clear Summer's day.

Oh, I'm sorry - dolphon sonar is probably great at picking up a big load of holes coming toward you.

Re:Obligatory South Park

[durrr]

It's easy, you give them a right and then use your power to revoke it as a leverage to get them to do what you want.

Re:Obligatory South Park

[Velocir]

My point was that dolphins can drown.

Re:Obligatory South Park

[Antisyzygy]

I suppose they mean we should not meddle with their environment. I smell a PETA-esque motivation behind this, and frankly it stinks.

Re:Obligatory South Park

[maxwell demon]

Maybe some dolphins take away the rights from other dolphins. In that case, giving the dolphins rights would mean to find those bad dolphins and arrest them. :-)

Re:Obligatory South Park

[nightcats]

Yes, dolphins sometimes swim into nets. Humans swim into nets cast by online predators, hackers, thieves, swindlers, corporate con men, advertisers, media kingpins, tyrants and government scammers, profiteers, murderers, despots, politicians, and belief systems -- they do it with a repetitive and self-destructive idiocy that is almost always stunning in its blind ignorance. Which of these two species, I wonder, swims with greater folly and more recurrent insanity into the nets of destruction?

Re:Obligatory South Park

[camperdave]

Well, there would be the swish of the net moving through the water, and the noise of the boats. However, that would probably make them curious rather than evoke a fear response.

Re:Obligatory South Park

[camperdave]

I just don't understand how you can "give" an already free animal (entertaining ones excluded...) rights.

How about the right to a quiet ocean, or clean water, or fish that aren't loaded with toxins?

Dolphin-intelligence study in 1958

[BlackSupra]

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

Re:Dolphin-intelligence study in 1958

[bar-agent]

Well, they say the best way to learn a language is in bed...

Re:Dolphin-intelligence study in 1958

[minorproblem]

Ah so that's what I have been doing wrong for so long. No more biting and head butting my girlfriend while in bed! Great article btw.

Obligatory...

[Anonymous Psychopath]

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

Re:No.

[lgw]

I don't think it's technically possible to have more sex than Bonobos do!

Persons?

[gmuslera]

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.

Not just Dolphins

[plopez]

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/

Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity.

[MachDelta]

Sapience? Sentience? Inverse-anthropomorphism?

Should we lock them up, then?

[andrewagill]

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?

No no no you have it all wrong

[hellfire]

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."

Re:What about pigs?

[Warhawke]

Just imagine what this would do to the overcrowding of our local zoos.

Applies to lots of issues

[izomiac]

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.

What about birds then?

[JawzX]

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.

As a Buddisht let me say...

[B5_geek]

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

Re:Anonymous Coward

[0123456]

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?

You should probably look up the history of the left and eugenics: a century ago they'd have no problem with openly stating that retarded humans should be prevented from breeding if not simply killed.

Now they're promoting 'rights for animals' on the basis of 'intelligence', the primary result of which is to imply that the less intelligent humans should not have those rights.

Should the mentally handicapped ...

[wisnoskij]

... be treated as non-persons?
It seems pretty ridiculous to use intelligence to decide if we should treat something else well or not.

Re:Should the mentally handicapped ...

[h4rr4r]

We already do that. They are often kept locked up and if they commit a crime are not treated in the same way.

Same as children. I think it is pretty ridiculous to use any other metric.

Re:Should the mentally handicapped ...

[wisnoskij]

Well for the most extreme situations. But for the most part we do not have a scale of intelligence vs how many rights a person gets, and most mentally handicapped are not kept locked up.

This subject brings to mind a famous quote, that while taking about a different subject is similar in spirit, in my opinion.
"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi

Personally I do not think that anything does not have the right to be treated nicely. And see little reason to weight a human life over that of a Dolphins, dogs, or even grass.

Re:No.

[Stregano]

Lol, nice

Oh brother...

[jav1231]

This is stupidity. This is what happens when you give grant money to people who have entirely too much time on their hands.

Re:Oh brother...

[jav1231]

If we give them rights do we have to jail dolphins that kidnap and rape other dolphins? Yeah, the do this. When I saw the footage on that I immediately thought of all the people who look at dolphins like they're better than humans. Aaaaaapparently not.

Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity.

[Anonymous Coward]

So? My dogs have distinct personalities, are highly intelligent, socially and self aware, communicate, work independently and as teams, know language and can even do simple math. They're livestock herding dogs closely related to wolves. They're just as intelligent as dolphins and more intelligent than some humans. But there are always going to be some things outside their ken. They're not interested in politics and don't vote. Neither do 64% of the humans in this country either. Rather than upgrading other animals to entity-hood where the government is going to want to start taxing them and such let's instead start downgrading some (most) humans to their true animal status. We can start with all of the AR people, PETA, HSUS, etc. Patent lawyers certainly should go down. Politicians and bureaucrats. Lobbyists. Hmm... I'll bet I can come up with 4 billion to downgrade.

Re:What about pigs?

[Beardo the Bearded]

Woah there, cowboy.

Based on the evidence I have seen I drew the conclusion that dolphins are sentient. Should we afford them some rights based on human framing? Probably.

Do we have even the slightest idea what's under the sea? Nope.

Is it possible that we could have a meaningful conversation with a dolphin like in David Brin's Uplift? Maybe. I've talked to people that have done it but there's no evidence that they can understand us very well.

I'm a vegetarian, 90% vegan, and think that you've got the right to eat pork until you poop bacon. That's 100% your call.

Future so bright...

[SuperKendall]

can think about the future and are so bright...

Totally thought they were going somewhere else with that.

Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity.

[Americano]

You've got it all wrong: It's not confirmation bias, it's the simple fact that the dolphins are so damnably cute!

Why don't YOU try telling those cute little eyes and those stubby little flippers that they can't be a person. I can't do it, it'd break my heart. But I guess you're a MONSTER, who doesn't have any of the finer sensitivities the PETA members do.

Illegal dolphins

[formfeed]

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?

Re:No.

[angel'o'sphere]

This post does absolutely not deserve an "insightful".
Smart enough to stay out of a tuna net ...
The main "sight" ability of dolphins is their echo location sense. And a net is invisible to that.
In Europe fishers are required to but reflectors on the nets that can be sensed by dolphins since .. I don't know, 10 years, 20 years? Since then the kill rate of dolphins got reduced dramatically.
Dolphins are perfectly capable of avoiding nets if they are able to sense them.

Man even human divers die in fisher nets because they "are to dumb".

angel'o'sphere

Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity.

[Belial6]

Funny, I have heard the same kind of anthropomorphizing of dogs, cats, cars, and guns. Just because you think you see a person there, doesn't make it so. In fact, the problem of people not recognizing dogs are not human has reached an epidemic level of insanity.

Re:No.

[cowtamer]

Obligatory Onion Link:

Dolphins Evolve Opposable Thumbs

well...

[Is0m0rph]

Fuck you dolphins! Fuck you whales!

how can you tell?

[slick7]

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."

Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity.

[0123456]

Clearly the experts on a subject cannot be trusted to be impartial about it, so we should discount their opinion and listen to the ones who know less.

In science, by which I mean actual science and not what passes for it today, being an 'expert' and five bucks will buy you a cup of coffee. What matters is not whether you're an 'expert' but the results of your experiments, which anyone can reproduce and study.

If the 'experts' claim that gravity makes apples fly up in the air from the ground to the branches of trees, then anyone can do an experiment to verify or disprove that. So why should we care what they think?

So long,

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

And thanks for all the fish.

Sentient when Corrected for Body Size?

[skywire]

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.

Re:Sentient when Corrected for Body Size?

[mswhippingboy]

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.

Ummm, actually it does. Brain mass alone does not correlate to intelligence (if it did, elephants would be our overlords). Intelligence generally (although not precisely) correlates to the ration of brain to body mass. Sorry, but it does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-to-body_mass_ratio

Re:Sentient when Corrected for Body Size?

[Paul Fernhout]

And my cell phone is "smarter" than Deep Blue because it has a better computation-to-mass ratio, too. :-)

People just make this stuff up to justify enslaving and kiiling other species. Neanderthals had a better ratio, even by that standard, but homo sapiens probably killed them off anyway, too.

There are many different ways of being in this world...

I vaguely recall that John Lilly, dolphin expert, said this was bunk in one of his books, too (but I may be mistaken).

I guess since US Americans are now prooably the fattest humans on the planet, that makes them dumbest. Sounds, about right, actually, so maybe there is something too this, what with all the money watsed on wars, killer robots, junk food, torturous medical procedures, campaign donations for legalized corruption, and so on? :-(

How to eat to live and get rid of obesity, btw, for those humans not dumbed down too much by fat already: :-)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPiR9VcuVWw

I know, there is a section in the Wikipedia article n "Brain to Lean-Body Mass ratio". Epicycles on epicycles... Even in the chart there small birds have a much better ration than humans. Oh, but then it doesn't count if it is small birds, right? Too small, plus a lot of people want to eat them. Who said "Reason is great for justifying that which you want to do anyway"?

Re:Sentient when Corrected for Body Size?

[mswhippingboy]

This is not just a Wikipedia article or my idea. This is a widely accepted measure in the sciences, as long as you understand what it is, a very crude generalization (and no, it does not apply to electronic devices, although intelligence does not really apply at all to either of your two examples). The brain to body mass ratio is a very "rough" estimate and is mainly useful when comparing similar species, but when used as a rough "rule of thumb" estimate it does correlate in most cases. Obviously there are more precise measurements that take into account the relative size of the neocortex and the organization of it's various components.

The reasoning goes something like this;
The amount of body mass is relevant because (again generally) larger bodies have more and larger muscles and organs that require more neurons than smaller bodies. Therefore, a large animal (such as an elephant) has a larger overall brain mass than a human, but they have much larger muscles and organs (including skin surface area) so a larger percentage of their brains are devoted to motor and sensory areas as opposed to cognition.

Another factor that bears on this ratio has to do with how the brain is organized. Humans have a "ridiculously" large amount of brain mass (neocortex specifically) devoted to executive functions (such as reasoning, prediction and abstract thought), while other mammals, such as the dolphin, have a larger proportion devoted to spatial awareness, location memory and specialized senses such as sonar. This is exactly why the term "intelligence" is a relative term. It is thought that dolphins can remember every place in the ocean they've ever been, while some humans have trouble finding their way back home from work. Does that mean dolphins are more intelligent than humans? No. It means that they can exceed humans in certain specific abilities and therefore have a "different" intelligence, but intelligence nonetheless.

The point is, none of this is new and this is really not a productive discussion when placed in a philosophical context. Neuroscience, cognitive psychology, brain physiology, anthropology and a host of other disciplines have been studying this for years and have a far better understanding than you or I on what constitutes intelligence.

You are certainly within your rights to hold the views you do, but I think I'll go with the folks who've put more than 5 minutes of thought into this topic.

Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity.

[nauseum_dot]

by blind biker on Thursday January 06, @11:27AM (#34778808):
I am a researcher in micro and nanotech, and I can confirm this trend in my field, as well. In fact, one journal in particular has been especially bad in rejecting my articles with some awful refereeing, which I will save for posterity. I am tempted to rub my published articles under the nose of the (probably equally incompetent or corrupt) editor of that journal.

I'm going to lose the ability to mod...

I doubt that you have studied dolphin behavior nor could you be a marine biologist or even properly studied, researching biologist.

The above quote is from you, today at 11:27 AM and now at 4:22 PM, you post being the know all of behavior and animal psychology. Maybe you are a nanotechnology research specialist who develops and then implants chips into the brains of dolphins based on your personality studies measuring and recognizing "personhood" with the added bonus of statistically noting the externalities of increasing your karma/or slashdotness based on this research, but I doubt that too!

Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity.

[rsborg]

Dolphins don't live in our society. They live in dolphin societies. The only right they need is the right to live in that society without us bothering them. So, I'm against fishing them, and even keeping them in captivity outside of injured or rescued dolphins. anything else is unnecessary.

I'd add that we should consider impacts to their environment... what good does recognizing their "personhood" do when we slowly kill them by acidifying the oceans or remove their food sources for ourselves?

You're on the right path but it's a bit more complex than simple tolerance and segregation.

must suck...

[xaositects]

being slaves to the second most intelligent animals on the earth.

Re:No.

[c6gunner]

All indications are they are about as smart as dogs, and try to hump your leg just as often.

It's true!

You Know Where This is Leading...

[Greyfox]

Dolphin-centric questions on the SAT.

Re:No.

[sexconker]

Having seen this behavior a thousand times, I was rushing to agree, but then it occurred to me that you're overcomplicating it.

Just because they're Pavlonially excited doesn't mean they know all the nuances of why they're excited.

What, exactly, does "Pavlonially excited" mean?
Pro tip: It means excited.

Pavlov's famous experiment only showed that dogs can learn. It in no way, at all, showed that the reaction was subconscious or involuntary.

It's one of the worst "experiments" of all time, because everyone jumps to conclusions it simply does not lead to. This bullshit is up there with the whole frogs in a boiling pot of water anecdote. Frogs will jump out whether or not you raise the temperature quickly or gradually.

Sundiver, Startide Rising, and the Uplift War

[garyebickford]

Sundiver, and Startide Rising. 'Nuff said. Great reading too! :)

Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy

[jonfr]

Here is a Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy video clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojydNb3Lrrs

Until the have the ability to organize...

[Maltheus]

...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.

A bigger crime...

[macraig]

... 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.

Re:A bigger crime...

[TheTurtlesMoves]

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)

Try observing a 1 year old child, and you would see that a cat/dog are not even in the same ball park.

For a more concrete exercise, try playing peekaboo with a cat/dog.

Just what the dolphins need. Run, King Snorky!

[jaskelling]

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!

Sea Quest

[GodWasAnAlien]

The most annoying thing about smart dolphins is that the voice translators must use a squeaky baby voice.

"Fishy!"

If Dolphins Are So Smart...

[Carcass666]

How come they can't gill nets?

And why do they live in igloos?

First let's give rights to humans.

[blair1q]

When we treat Mexicans the same way we treat Americans, you can start bitching about the way we treat dolphins.

Re:First let's give rights to humans.

[benjamindees]

What makes you think Mexicans don't have rights? And what makes you think someone needs to "give" them rights?

They have the right to inhabit their own country. They have the right to have a reasonable amount of children and to care for them and to work to improve their lives and to elect responsible government and not to invade other countries and sell and consume drugs and thieve and kidnap and murder tourists and generally fuck things up.

But we all know what you're saying. You're saying that Mexicans should have the 'right' to free healthcare and to jobs and to retirement benefits and to free education and to food stamps and to housing and to have dozens of kids they can't possibly manage to care for while someone else foots the bill.

You have no idea what rights even are.

Re:First let's give rights to humans.

[h4rr4r]

So you think you are psychic or what?

yes

[chichilalescu]

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?

let me put it rather bluntly.

[unity100]

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.

Re:let me put it rather bluntly.

[Adam Jorgensen]

What tosh! Everyone knows that EQ is just a load of horeshit made up my moronic HR people who can't compete intellectually but have a burning desire to feel superior on some level or other, never mind the fact that they're all incompetent retards.

DOLPHIN-PORPOISE 2012

[Dthief]

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

Re:No.

[pspahn]

Not to mention that this behavior in dogs is probably also influenced by circadian rhythm.

Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity.

[Chris Burke]

I'd add that we should consider impacts to their environment...

No, we should consider impacts to the environment, including the subset that affects dolphins, regardless.

Concern for the environment should not stem from wanting to respect the rights of dolphins, as that is an incomplete and ineffective environmentalism.

As far as rights go, tolerance and segregation really are all they need. Environmentalism is a separate issue altogether and vastly more complex than just what dolphins need.

A simple test

[Lord Bitman]

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.

Re:A simple test

[h4rr4r]

We do none of those things to small children. There are a spectrum of rights, it is not all or nothing.

Why intelligence?

[hadleyburg]

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...

Re:Why intelligence?

[h4rr4r]

They are, go to your local public school, day care center or home for the mentally ill.

Re:No.

[city]

Yes, until they are able to hit eachother with things (and us I suppose), who cares! /sarcasm

person-hood should be floating point value

[smoothnorman]

...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..

[tombeard]

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.

Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity.

[Chris Burke]

My experiences is that most people studying dolphins are quick to rely on confirmation bias.

This anecdotal claim sounds rife with possibilities for confirmation bias to me.

Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity.

[winomonkey]

Maybe he just studies very small dolphins?

Does it depend where we meet them?

[nick357]

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!"

F*cking fish

[Windwraith]

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.

So long, and thanks for all the fish

[gshegosh]

Don't forget about mice - they are the most intelligent beings on Earth :-)

Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity.

[h4rr4r]

I have seen people assign these same things to children, who were still unable to talk. We all know those children are not thinking of the future or recognizing themselves in mirrors.

Re:Turing Test

[h4rr4r]

Please do.

Re:No.

[ultranova]

Get back to me when humans develop echolocation senses or become smart enough to stay out of traffic accidents.

As it happens, there are humans with echolocation.

Re:Anonymous Coward

[h4rr4r]

So why should a human who is dumber than a dolphin not have the same level of rights?

I do not support preventing anyone pair of consenting folks from breeding nor killing anyone who is only as smart as a dolphin. To pretend we give the same rights to the less intelligent is ludicrous. We keep them in day care, public school and homes for the mentally ill. If they are low enough of intelligence they are often subject to lessor punishments for the same crime or no punishment at all.

Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity.

[SuricouRaven]

There's also a selection bias in popular reporting. With so many experts to choose from, the general media just decides what conclusion they want to support and then goes looking for an expert who agrees and will appear on TV.

Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity.

[SuricouRaven]

Nice observation.

Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity.

[ultranova]

If the 'experts' claim that gravity makes apples fly up in the air from the ground to the branches of trees, then anyone can do an experiment to verify or disprove that. So why should we care what they think?

Well, an expert might have something relevant to add to the conversation, rather than making up a fictitious story about experts talking of floating apples on the apparent belief that this somehow reflects badly on actual experts.

An even bigger crime?

[Paul Fernhout]

http://www.foodincmovie.com/
http://www.johnrobbins.info/blog/the-pig-farmer/

Re:An even bigger crime?

[macraig]

I know. I've watched Food, Inc., more than once. I'd never read that John Robbins story, but I've been supportive of efforts to end factory farming of all kinds.

No way!

[prozac79]

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!!!!

Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity.

[ukemike]

It has always been the job of people of conscience to say, "hey this is wrong and must stop." Almost always the key defenders of the wrong are religious people who are dominated by dogmatic thinking. It has always been the job of thinking and questioning humans to drag the rest of humanity into behaving more ethically. If it weren't for people rejecting dogma and other religious nonsense then we'd still own slaves, and we'd still stone kids at the city gates for being disrespectful, and we'd still do all sorts of abominable things (many of which you can find prescribed in the book of Deuteronomy) So I say, Who cares if a bunch of religious bigots will never accept it. If we change the law then in a generation it will seem obvious on the face of it to nearly everyone. It has always been thus.

Here is the criterion we currently use:

[mykos]

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.

The animal's revenge...

[Paul Fernhout]

Killer fats with toxins too: http://www.ravediet.com/preview.html

Alternative: http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx

On robot rights...

[Paul Fernhout]

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/

Re:On robot rights...

[Paul Fernhout]

Second link should be: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6200005.stm

Re:On robot rights...

[Paul Fernhout]

The thing that makes robots/computers different is that a lot of our morality is based on limitations of hour human body, death, memory, individuality. With robots/computers you don't have those limitation, you could copy their memories, transfer them to another device, manipulate them at will, basically a lot of crazy stuff that would kind of break our normal morality system. You could also freely wire their emotions how you like, what a human might consider slave labor, might be the most fun a robot can have.

Basically when we or the robots ever go post-singularity, morality will be a very interesting topics, as a lot of base assumptions will no longer hold true.

Good points...

Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity.

[nschubach]

IA is waaay too close to AI... if you go around stating that, people will start bowing to our underwater overlords.

Other Way Round...

[Stormy Dragon]

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.

Re:Other Way Round...

[treeves]

Thanks for the explanation that doesn't assume I don't know that dolphins are mammals. I do know that. What I apparently didn't understand is how fishing nets trap them *before* they are hauled in. I assumed that they were not trapped until the net was hauled in.

Re:Other Way Round...

[camperdave]

They try to swim away from the crowd of fish by swimming through the net. They get caught, struggle, get entangled even worse. If the net is being dragged through the water like a giant scoop, rather than encircling an area and closing, then it may be a long time before it gets hauled out of the water.

Give all animals human rights

[DrugCheese]

the second they walk into a government building and demand them. Prior to that ... eat em.

A modest proposal

[Dwonis]

I propose the following criteria for determining whether a non-human group should have "rights":

• Can its adults show up to work on time, and file its income taxes?
• Would we be justified in trying, convicting, and punishing its adults if they broke criminal law?
• Would we be justified in holding its adults liable for damages under tort law if they damaged people's property?

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.

Smart Elitism

[v(*_*)vvvv]

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?

Re:Smart Elitism

[maxwell demon]

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?

Why stop there? Treat plants as non-human persons as well! Why should they be discriminated only because they get their energy from the sun?

Re:Smart Elitism

[v(*_*)vvvv]

Draw lines where you may, but I just don't like intelligence being the line, for many people will fall below it.

If you have a compelling argument for plants, then go for it, but it won't be based on intelligence.

Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity.

[YeaVerily]

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH [stadium erupting] How did that not get modded through the roof?

Re:War Dolphins

[cez]

MK_8_MMS.gif MK 8 MMS is a human/dolphin team that allows troops to quickly identify safe corridors for the initial landing of troops ashore. MK 8 MMS operates with a low profile in very shallow water.

Fuck yeah... gotta love low pros

I for one...

[johosaphats]

welcome our new dolphin overlords.

Animal rights

[XxtraLarGe]

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.

Dolphins May not WANT "Non Human Person" Status

[BBF_BBF]

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".

;-)

Re:No.

[alonsoac]

there are probably many similar examples with dogs in thinking about the future. Mine is no genius but when chasing a ball and getting close to a wall he knows it will bounce back and just waits for it. When I go behind a wall that is hallway he knows I will be coming out of the other end and will wait for me there. In the morning when I fill his bowl of water he does not drink but goes crazy because he knows my next move will be to fill the food bowl. I am pretty sure he can tell when I am getting ready to leave the house without him and when I am getting ready to take him out, even though it is basically the same thing and do not follow a regular schedule.

Human vs. Person

[LongearedBat]

"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?

Re:Human vs. Person

[RockDoctor]

Japanese farm cetaceans.

Citation please.

Seriously : I've heard a lot of things claimed about what the Japanese do to cetaceans, but I've not hear that claim before.

I know - google it. So I did. There was reporting of a proposal to do that in 2002. Since then ... nothing I've found. The (alleged) site doesn't mention it either.

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Is it a kite that someone once flew?

Is that inherently wrong?

Probably no more inherently wrong than farming any other self-aware organism is. And I'm looking at you, Dean Swift, you little NOT-hypocrite, you!

Re:Human vs. Person

[anaesthetica]

"Person" is some being that has a personality.

Vincent: Want some bacon?
Jules: No man, I don't eat pork.
Vincent: Are you Jewish?
Jules: Nah, I ain't Jewish, I just don't dig on swine, that's all.
Vincent: Why not?
Jules: Pigs are filthy animals. I don't eat filthy animals.
Vincent: Bacon tastes gooood. Pork chops taste gooood.
Jules: Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy motherfucker. Pigs sleep and root in shit. That's a filthy animal. I ain't eat nothin' that ain't got sense enough to disregard its own feces.
Vincent: How about a dog? Dogs eats its own feces.
Jules: I don't eat dog either.
Vincent: Yeah, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal?
Jules: I wouldn't go so far as to call a dog filthy but they're definitely dirty. But, a dog's got personality. Personality goes a long way.
Vincent: Ah, so by that rationale, if a pig had a better personality, he would cease to be a filthy animal. Is that true?
Jules: Well we'd have to be talkin' about one charming motherfuckin' pig. I mean he'd have to be ten times more charmin' than that Arnold on Green Acres, you know what I'm sayin'?

Re:Human vs. Person

[LongearedBat]

Sorry, I meant to say "eat", not "farm". My bad.

Re:Human vs. Person

[RockDoctor]

Awww, boring. I was actually quite interested if someone had seriously tried to farm them. Would have been fun to watch. From a distance. A good distance.

What would rights mean in this context?

[FoolishOwl]

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 if we want to set up a competition

[confundido]

and make all the rules so that we win, we can go right ahead. But what do we really gain from it?

Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity.

[Khyber]

"I could even accept them as "non-human persons", though I'm not sure exactly what that means."

Look at a corporation and I think you'll understand quite perfectly.

Can we tax them?

[SlappyBastard]

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.

Speaking of dolphins

[kimvette]

Speaking of dolphins - does anyone know of any good dolphin steak recipes?

There's a simple solution to this.

[Sitnalta]

We should give Dolphins rights only if they ask for them.

Sure we should

[aepervius]

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.

Brains don't matter. Ethics matters.

[cavebison]

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.

Human echolocation

[Zero return]

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

Re:What about pigs?

[Lemmy Caution]

Gaia also designed you to be dominated by jocks, infested by lice, and dead by 40.

Short answer

[JockTroll]

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.

War with the Newts Anyone?

[pavelthesecond]

Is it just me or does this sound like the beginning of the war with the newts ?

Big Difference...

[splerdu]

Pigs have been proven to be quite tasty.

Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity.

[blind biker]

I doubt that you have studied dolphin behavior nor could you be a marine biologist or even properly studied, researching biologist.

I am not a marine biologist, true. But people are not uni-dimensional creatures. Not all of them, anyway. I like to look into various different facets of life and nature, besides my main research.

The inmates are running the place!

[p51d007]

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!

yesh, tosh !!!!

[unity100]

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 ...

Why just dolphins?

[jandersen]

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.

Brain-to-body-mass ratio is speciest bunk

[Paul Fernhout]

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

Re:Brain-to-body-mass ratio is speciest bunk

[mswhippingboy]

My apologies for presuming you had not put reasonable though into your posts. I made that assessment based on some of the assertions made in your prior post but, as they say, it's hard to judge a book by it's cover. Obviously you put much effort into your latest post and you raise reasonable questions. I won't play devils advocate and try to refute all your assertions made as I agree on many of them. I'll just address a couple of the questions your raise.

First, the alligator brain. Reptiles have a very rudimentary brain structure. There is no cortex at all, so there is no capability for reasoning or true cognition. Reptiles operate 100% on instinct and have little or no capacity for learned behavior. Almost all of a reptile's brain is devoted to sensory and motor functions. It is a very different (and much simpler) structure than the brain of mammals.

Next, the elephant brain. The elephant (as you note) is a highly intelligent mammal. It's remarkable memory capacity is real. Elephants have some capacity for reasoning and cognition, although they (as far as we know) lack the capacity for abstract thought. When you consider the size of an elephant together with it's high level of intelligence, why would you expect the brain to be the size of lima beans? It makes perfect sense that their brains would be larger than humans? However, when you factor in their body size, their brain-mass to body-mass ratio is less than that of humans which only serves to confirm my original arguments.

As I stated earlier, the brain-mass to body-mass ratio is simply a very rough rule of thumb indicator which is statistically significant. It does not tell the whole story though. All animals have varying degrees of capabilities and there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes one type of intelligence over another. Dolphins exceed humans in spacial awareness, Elephants exceed humans in memory capacity, Eagles exceed humans in visual acuity and so on an so forth.

If somehow you've taken from my posts that I am against the idea of rights for animals, I don't think any of my posts reflect that and if they do, it certainly wasn't my intention. I believe all creatures have just as much right to be here as we do and we should respect that right. No other species (with the possible exception of some interesting observations of higher primates) kills for pleasure other than homo-sapiens. 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.

The golden rule?

[Paul Fernhout]

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.

How much of morality is in our social systems?

[Paul Fernhout]

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

We dont have anyone else to talk to....

[navtal]

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......

Who are we to give rights?

[tkprit]

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.)

Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity.

[m50d]

Concern for the environment should not stem from wanting to respect the rights of dolphins, as that is an incomplete and ineffective environmentalism.

I'm not interested in environmentalism for environmentalism's sake. If environmentalism isn't about preserving species, what is it about - preserving all the inert matter in the universe exactly as it was? Ceasing to exist entirely? And I'm more than happy to place more emphasis on preserving environments needed by more intelligent species than those needed by less intelligent ones.

Don't insult the dolphins

[wrencherd]

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?

Re:the coming of ishmael

[maxwell demon]

We cannot disrupt the natural order of evolution, because we are part of it. Yes, even if humans kill a species, it's still evolution. The species wasn't sufficiently adapted to a human-dominated world. The big question, of course, is whether we humans are sufficiently adapted to a human-dominated world, or if we will ultimately go extinct because we destroy the base of our own survival.

Re:What does that mean?

[maxwell demon]

You can sue them?

Let them vote

[BraksDad]

If they can get to the polling office, I say we hand them a ballot and point the towards the next open booth.

Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity.

[JesseMcDonald]

The only right [dolphins] need is the right to live in [their] society without us bothering them.

Strangely enough, that is also the only right we humans need within our own society. Unfortunately, it also happens to be one of the least recognized rights. It would be bitterly ironic if this most fundamental of rights was extended by humans to dolphins, and yet still withheld from other human beings.

personhood

[Onymous Coward]

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?

Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity.

[blind biker]

Exactly what I thought. Most people are religious, and they have very narrow views on what personhood means. After all, it was only very recently that other human beings were considered animals/lesser beings (slavery and racism).

Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity.

[blind biker]

I don't like to be silenced by sock-puppets, so I'll reiterate: what does that have to do at all with arguing the message, rather than assassinating the messenger? This rhetorical device is so old, I would have hoped that Slashdot readers would be above it. Instead, they fall right into it.

If you think you can argue the point, do so. Attacking the person will get you "Karma" but it also makes you a karma-whore. It won't win the argument.

The universal mystery; Yin/Yang

[Paul Fernhout]

"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". :-) "

Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity.

[Chris Burke]

Strangely enough, that is also the only right we humans need within our own society.

It's strange that you think that. Society is not about being left alone. Society is very much about human interactions. You have the right to leave society entirely and thereby be left alone. But within a society there are surely more rights necessary than just that. For example the right to have justice administered fairly when your interactions with other humans fall afoul of society's laws. You do not have the right to be left alone in that case.

A society that gave you no rights except the right to be left alone (by not participating in that society) would be an awful one, where the only sane choice would be to exercise the right to leave.

Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity.

[JesseMcDonald]

Society is not about being left alone. Society is very much about human interactions.

Yes, voluntary interactions. But to have meaningful voluntary interactions you have to first start with the right to avoid involuntary interactions: the right to be left alone. Once you have that, you can give up as much or as little of it as you wish in exchange for the benefits which (sometimes) result from participation in society.

For example the right to have justice administered fairly when your interactions with other humans fall afoul of society's laws.

That goes much too far, depending on what you mean by "society's laws". Certainly the right to be left alone, in the general nature of rights everywhere, is subject to reciprocation: if you don't leave others alone, they are not obligated to leave you alone. If you steal, others can take your property from you; if you commit murder then you can be killed. However, if "society's laws" go beyond reciprocation then they cannot be administered justly, much less fairly, as the laws themselves would be unjust.

A society that gave you no rights except the right to be left alone (by not participating in that society) would be an awful one, ...

I agree, but I never said that your only other choice would be not to participate at all. This is not a binary option; you can participate as much or as little as you like, provided you respect others' right not to participate if and when they so choose.

Obligatory futurama

[Lanteran]

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.