Single issue groups with too much time on their hands come out with a lot of bollocks, but this takes the cake. I'm even wondering if the article is just a piss take.
Dolphins are so intelligent that they should be thought of as ‘non-human persons’ and given their own bill of rights, it is claimed.And what exactly do they expect dolphins to do with these rights? How can you even tell a dolphin that you have selflessly campaigned on it's behalf for it's rights to be established in law and make it understand? You can't, because a dolphin is an animal. It has no intelligence, only instinct. You can train animals to perform tricks but this is not intelligence. On the contrary, a dolphin can be taught to perform tricks at the whim of a human, my cat will only do what it wants and when it wants. Which one is the more intelligent?
A coalition of scientists, philosophers and animal welfare groups have come up with a declaration of dolphin rights which they hope will one day be enshrined in law.
Whales would also be elevated above other animals by the list of rules, leading to whalers being classed as murderers, the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual conference heard in Vancouver.Give me strength! Whaling may not be very nice, but to class whalers as murderers does nothing more than water down the meaning of the word murder and make killing human beings to be less important. I sometimes wonder though, that some animal rights activists put the lives of animals above those of humans.
Whale watching trips would be subject to regulations which would respect the creatures’ privacy, and developers and oil companies would have to give huge consideration to the effect their projects would have on the animals’ life and culture.This actually is a joke isn't it, and I've fallen for it. Whales don't care about privacy and they don't have a culture. Culture is a human word that applies to human activities. The only creatures on planet earth who care about whale privacy are batshit crazy activists.
Given the opportunity, dolphins will watch TV and follow instructions delivered on the screen. Chimps do this only after months of training.Yes, some animals can be taught to do things. That does not make them intelligent and does not entitle them to rights on a par with humans.
Dolphins can be taught to understand human words, sentences and demands.
They have a form of adult onset diabetes but are able to turn it on and off. Learning how they do this could lead to new treatments for the human form of the condition.Erm, but what about their right to privacy? Surely this new bill says you can't experiment on them? Doesn't it? (And I have to ask, what kind of an intelligent creature turns diabetes on?)
When brain weight is compared with body weight, the dolphin has the second-largest brain on the planet after humans.That means nothing. Humans only use 10 percent of their brains. How much do dolphins actually use?
The conference heard that dolphins are self-aware – they can recognise themselves in the mirror.So can my cat. Recognising yourself in a mirror is not a condition of self awareness. Do these people have any scientific training?
Philosopher Thomas White said: ‘Scientific evidence is now strong enough to support the claim that dolphins are, like humans, self-aware, intelligent beings with emotions and personalities.Then sir, you are no scientist. Oh, that's right, you are a philosopher. Dolphins are not self aware and they don't have emotions. Those characteristics are only evident in sentient beings, the only ones of which in our know universe are human beings.
'Accordingly, dolphins should be regarded as “non-human persons” and valued as individuals. From an ethical perspective, the injury, deaths and captivity of dolphins are wrong.’Injury, deaths and the captivity of dolphins may well be wrong. That doesn't mean you have to pretend they are like humans and need a bill of rights they know nothing about or how to take advantage of.
Fair enough, don't be cruel to animals, but let's call a dolphin a dolphin.
27 Comments:
And it's still crap at chess. All it does is spin webs between the pieces.
Dolphins might be intelligent, but they're not intelligent enough to not get caught and even if they were salty Einsteins... we don't know how to speak to them.
"Hey Dolphins, you have rights."
"Click-click squee?" (The right to do what?)
"Well... to swim around and eat fish, I suppose."
"Squee-click rattle click, arsehead squee click-click." (untranslatable).
Oh well, the coming collapse of civilisation will soon turn all these idiot people into tinned food anyway.
Vote Labour?
"Given the opportunity, dolphins will watch TV and follow instructions delivered on the screen."
The tax/licence-funded BBC says 'The politics is settled. Vote Labour'.
"Chimps do this only after months of training."
Even chimps are intelligent enough to try to resist but can only hold out for months - that's why Labour like postal voting.
Or keeps getting caught in tuna nets? ;)
Should they be 'arrested' upon suspicion of murder?
Leg-Iron - It's only the brain size of thier current pet they are concered about. Which means they can just pick and choose figures like any other modern scientist.
That web idea might actually take off in Chess one day. It's worth considering
Derek P - I think you've got it. After all, that's what they did with the chavs and the imported muslims
Julia - Yeah, further proof they are actually thick as pig shit.
Bill Sticker - I get the impression that dolphin rights will only extend one way. After all, that's what they did with the chavs and imported muslims...
Doesn't alter your main point, though, as they haven't evolved to the point where they can reason philosophical points, a bill of rights is about as useful to them as a bowl of mung beans for breakfast.
Longrider - These people are crediting animals with the intelligence of sentient life.
They may have some intelligence but really it's all based on instinct, like the dolphin in the article collecting things to exchange for fish.
Animal intelligence should not be confused with or even compared to human intelligence because the two are so vastly different.
At least dolphins haven't used thier intelligence to invent taxes yet
Like I said, it doesn't alter your point, but to deny that they are intelligent is to ignore the facts. They are demonstrably possessed of intelligence. Just not as developed as our own.
Some animals may posess a level of itelligence above others and some may be capeable of evolving into a sentient species given the chance and the time.
I don't like the idea of comparing animal and human life based on human comparisons and ideals. It only serves to devalue human life in my opinion.
Fair enough, like you and Longrider say, they do have a level of intelligence, however it is very different than our own. They are not self aware and the bulk of thier actions are based on instinct. Some of them can use thier instincts to learn, like the dolphin in the story collecting things to swap for fish. They could never concieve of a fishing rod though.
I'm sorry but I don't know what Cartesian means and I'm not looking for favour with philosophers. I would however like to know the opinion of a zoologist and how they define intelligence and sentience.
As to natural human rights, well that's become almost as silly as animal rights these days. Most of the stuff in the ECHR is bollocks. I would say the right to live your life unhindered is the only real one.
Sentience these days is usually taken to mean the ability to have subjective feelings and responses, there is as I said evidence that more species than we thought are self aware to some degree. As I also said many, maybe the bulk, of our actions are unconscious and therefore can be described as instinctive, we don't have as much free will as we like to think.
Cartesian refers to the French philosopher Rene Descartes who for theological reasons drew a sharp distinction between body and mind, " I think therefore I am " and had a big influence on western philosophy, animals of course didn't have souls according to this view and therefore could not be sentient ( in the older meaning of the word ). There's been a strong tendency since the nineteenth century in the matter of rights to put the emphasis on suffering rather than the ability to think and this is particularly the case with modern animal rights advocates. I'm not a supporter of the more radical views of these people, nevertheless I think it is correct to move the debate on from just concentrating on definitions of intelligence and sentience based solely on human cognitive abilities.
There are a number of characteristics that got to sentience and all must be met. I suppose there are other religious and philosophical definitions also.
At the end of the day, this bill of rights proposal is still nonsense, however you define intelligence :-)
So, yes, mammals are sentient beings. Instinct is an unconsciousness thing, something that as Thornavis pointed out exists in humans too. Intelligence is the conscious mind. Again, as mentioned before, higher mammals - cats, dolphins, elephants, horses and dogs all display the ability to work out puzzles to get what they want, therefore they have a degree of reasoning capacity. They are also able to play, which it itself a measure of intelligence.
To say that mammals do not have it is false. They demonstrably do. To state that their level of awareness lacks the ability to understand such things as rights is demonstrably true. Not least because they have not mastered language ;)
Well, by my definition, these idiots have already demonstrated that they fall well below the acceptable level, so no rights for them. Or maybe that's the point?
Hmm, so I as a white male, British, nominally Christian, non-disabled, heterosexual, non-Guardian reader, smoker, anti-AGW, meat eater, etc .... will obviously never quite make the cut.
I'll just line up over there and wait for my trip in the box-car to those nice 'showers' that PETA and their ilk had constructed in an eco-friendly manner, shall I?
Now I have no gripe with dolphins, and wish them no ill. I don't eat dolphinburgers (or dolphincakes or whatever) and am happy to let them frolic as they wish. On the other hand it isn't enough to be taken in by the fact they look as if they are smiling; I believe dolphins can be pretty nasty to other marine life and no doubt if push came to shove or flipper, they'd be off doing what they wanted.
But now we have self-sustaining narrow interest groups because there is bugger all else to do for these people, and in relying on the state to sustain them have time to come up with strange concepts and unworkable ideas.
Now, if the dolphinists get the rights they demand for their favourite mammal they will need safeguards in law, so there will have to be compliance officers (coastguards?) backed by lawyers (a whole new meaning to the word 'shark' perhaps) who will scour the oceans looking for suspected infringements of dolphin rights. Again, no problem with that as coastguards would only be employed otherwise on mundane things like smuggling, marine safety and illegal immigration. And I am sure watching dolphins play in the waves is more fun that intercepting a sinking boat full of Afghans.
Anyways, the law will have to be enforced or there is no point in it. A bit like what if we gave a party and no one came?
However, come the collapse of society (not I admit guaranteed but looking more likely with every wappy idea) the whole edifice of learned books, clever thinkers and foaming-at-the-mouth judges will come tumbling down. I am afraid the whole idea will be abandoned in favour of staying alive. If we are all reduced with the efforts of the eco-loons to grubbing for food I am sorry to say those dolphinburgers begin to look mighty tasty.
Post a Comment