So why is it wrong to kill dolphins? - The Cove (2009) Discussion

[–] clyons 14 years ago

We do it all the time, and we always have. We even do it legally, in wars, and in prisons.

If you've got to ask, you'll never know.

reply

[–] Lord-Bigglesworth 14 years ago

I'm sorry, I don't know. I feel your question would be better addressed on your own thread. And probably on a board for a movie about killing humans. I don't know if you've seen it, but The Cove is about killing dolphins. I didn't see all of it, but I don't think a single human was killed in it.

You'd feel cocky too if you were full of myself.

reply

[–] clyons 14 years ago

I'm sorry, I don't know. I feel your question would be better addressed on your own thread.

I feel like you're just typing to imagine the sound of your own voice the way you wish it actually sounded.

And probably on a board for a movie about killing humans.

Which is to say, pretty much every movie in release now.

I don't know if you've seen it, but The Cove is about killing dolphins.

I've seen it, and understood it. You didn't. Sorry about that.

I didn't see all of it, but I don't think a single human was killed in it.

You probably didn't process the bit about how the people in coastal Japanese towns that eat a lot of dolphin meat are dying at a much higher rate than other Japanese. But no, they're not being harpooned.

I don't think you've asked an intelligent question. I think if you want to talk about why something is wrong, you have to be able to understand why anything is wrong. I'm guessing you don't believe things are wrong because it says so in some holy book. I'm sure we can agree that whether something is legal or not has no direct bearing on whether it's wrong. I'm also guessing you, like most people, do things many other people very strongly believe are wrong.

Why is killing people wrong? If you can't refer to laws, religion, or basic empathy (the basis for many people deciding killing dolphins is wrong), what's your basis for saying you can't just murder whoever you want to? Sure, it's socially disruptive, but that's a legal argument, a political argument--not a moral one.

My moral argument for not killing dolphins is that they not only don't kill us (there are no known instances of unprovoked attacks on humans by wild dolphins), but actually go out of their way to save us under certain circumstances--they even risk their lives defending us from sharks. Not all of them, no. It happens pretty rarely, since we come into direct contact so rarely, except at places where dolphins are held captive. But there are recorded instances of dolphins saving humans that go back for much of recorded history. They seem to see us as fellow beings whose lives have value.

It may be that some are more altruistic than others, and some dolphins definitely can behave violently and selfishly--but this would seem to underscore the notion that those dolphins that do save human lives are making a moral choice, though probably lacking all the navelgazing us humans do about such choices (well of course dolphins don't have navels).

They can't really know what we are, or understand how we think, or know whether we have emotions and thoughts like them--we couldn't be much more different in shape and behavior. But somehow, they don't seem to care about those differences. They see a helpless awkward fellow mammal in the water, and instead of swimming away, or taking advantage, they actually save us. They did this long before any of us ever tried to help them.

So if we can't see them the same way, we're less than them. And we can, in fact, see them as fellow beings, and an increasing number of us correspondingly are enraged when we see them wantonly slaughtered for no good reason--just to put a few dollars or yen in somebody's pocket. We see footage of dolphins being trapped and stabbed to death, some of them dragged off to what amounts to slavery--and we feel ashamed. For our entire species. We feel disgraced. We feel inferior to dolphins, and we don't want to feel that way. And that's really where all human morality comes from. Because basically everything we say is wrong now was at some time or another, and some place or another, considered perfectly justified and ordinary by other humans. Morality, ethics, conscience--they're just a work in progress. And in this case, progress would mean ending the slaughter of highly intelligent fellow mammals that have never hurt us, and have often intentionally helped us.

If a dolphin threatened somebody I loved, I might well kill it.

I'd kill you too under those circumstances.

I'd feel worse about the dolphin.

You're kind of boring.

reply

[–] JPfanatic93 14 years ago

It's called empathy. Normal people sympathize with animals being so brutally slaughtered as these dolphins are. And though the movie focuses on Taiji, there's 23,000 dolphins killed in Japan annually, not to mention it happens in other places like The Solomon and Faroe islands: considering this, the fact that dolphins are migratory (so killing dolphins in one place could hurt other places dependant on tourism (whale watching for example): dolphins aren't solely Japanese), and the number of people worldwide opposed to this, it is a global issue.

From a more human egocentric point, the movie adresses the issue of Japan secretly poisoning its citizens with mercury. Would you not call this wrong, a heinous act to be opposed.

You're not a troll, you just don't see the problems. I hope my post helps somewhat. If not, sucks...

reply

[–] clyons 14 years ago

All good arguments. But we can empathize with much less intelligent animals, and we can hunt animals responsibly and still conserve them (not that Taiji's dolphin hunt would be equivalent to responsible harvesting of a legitimate food source, even if dolphins were clearly non-sentient).

I think what makes dolphin hunting especially vile is that several species dolphins have tried, while remaining in a fully wild state, to relate to us as fellow beings--and even to assist us when we're in trouble. Not even our fellow primates have done that (not that we give them much chance).

Those people who say "Well what about all the other horrible things that we do to other animals?" are making as much sense as all the people who say it was ridiculous to be particularly offended by South African Apartheid as long as we had racism here. Apartheid was surely an internal matter of the South African government, no? We were meddling in their affairs by protesting, boycotting, etc. Ending it didn't put an end to injustice and racism in South Africa or anywhere else.

But it was so out of step with where the rest of the world was, it had to go. We had to get rid of that last atavistic remnant of old school racism before we could fully focus on the more durable modern abuses.

Apartheid ended, and so will dolphin-hunting. And there'll still be horrible abuses, of dolphins and other animals, all over the world. But there'll be one less. And Japan will surely point out some of our sins in return. Which is only fair.

reply

[–] Lord-Bigglesworth 14 years ago

Ah, no, I understood The Cove just fine. But, like the Japanese whaling representative, I don't understand all of you. Aside from the Mercury levels (which if that weren't the case, do you really think that would stop you from caring about the slaughter of dolphins?), no one can really present a logical argument for not killing and eating dolphins. The same goes for cats, dogs and horses. What?--because these animals can show emotion, we shouldn't eat them? Or because they're intelligent? If that's the argument, then you're fine with killing and eating a person who's in a vegetative state?

Too many humans operate on an emotional instead of a logical reasoning basis. You started to talk about what's right and wrong. The best argument I've ever heard for what is "right" is whatever helps eternally perpetuates the existence of life on earth--whatever helps maintain "balance." And, yes, part of maintaining that balance is doing our part at the top of the food chain, which involves limiting the population of those animals that don't have any natural predators, and whose unchecked growth could threaten the balance of the ecosystem, and checking our own growth.

Intelligence is the worst thing to have ever happened to mankind.

You'd feel cocky too if you were full of myself.

reply

[–] clyons 14 years ago

Ah, no, I understood The Cove just fine.

We'll agree to disagree. About your ability to understand anything.

But, like the Japanese whaling representative, I don't understand all of you.

The same representative who when faced with a video that directly and undeniably contradicted what he was stating as an undeniable fact, asked with a face of solid stone, "Where did you get this footage?"

Aside from the Mercury levels (which if that weren't the case, do you really think that would stop you from caring about the slaughter of dolphins?)

Finally a good question. No. But considering the horrific statistics from in and around Taiji, I have to ask--why do you regard that as a mere 'aside'?
A diet with lots of dolphin meat in it is probably more fatal than a life of smoking two packs of cigarettes a day. Do you ask why we put so much effort into warning people not to smoke, and ban smoking from so many public places?

no one can really present a logical argument for not killing and eating dolphins.

And no one can present a logical argument for not killing anything. Including other humans. There are billions of us. Many of us are desperately poor and lead miserable lives. Why not have human hunts, where starving people volunteer to be hunted by rich people for fun, and survivors get a prize? The unlucky ones could be eaten--you know there are rich people out there who have already eaten human meat. Give me a LOGICAL reason not to allow that. Me and Dean Swift would love to hear it.

The same goes for cats, dogs and horses. What?--because these animals can show emotion, we shouldn't eat them?

That wasn't the argument, of course. But you don't know how to argue. Of course.

Or because they're intelligent?

There are many levels of intelligence, and it's most unlikely human intelligence represents the absolute pinnacle of what is possible. Let's hope that Twilight Zone episode "To Serve Man" never comes to pass. But if it does, you can go first.

If that's the argument, then you're fine with killing and eating a person who's in a vegetative state?

Give me a logical reason not to. I'm a vegetarian, FYI. Not because I think it's inherently wrong to eat other animals. I have a dog, and he loves to eat other animals. But this friend of mine has a dog (Rottweiler), and she met a dolphin once--and treated this strange creature as a potential new friend, not food or a threat. True story.

Too many humans operate on an emotional instead of a logical reasoning basis.

True. And many others can't feel any strong emotions at all (at least for others), and so discount them--particularly empathy, which they hold in absolute contempt. Sour grapes, you ask me.

You started to talk about what's right and wrong. The best argument I've ever heard for what is "right" is whatever helps eternally perpetuates the existence of life on earth--whatever helps maintain "balance."

And since the existence of nearly seven billion humans on this planet is the single biggest unbalancing factor, and the single biggest threat to life--

And, yes, part of maintaining that balance is doing our part at the top of the food chain, which involves limiting the population of those animals that don't have any natural predators, and whose unchecked growth could threaten the balance of the ecosystem, and checking our own growth.

No qualified marine biologist would agree that dolphins are exhibiting signs of 'unchecked growth', or are unbalancing the ocean's ecosystem. Most would agree that human overharvesting of oceanic life, and particularly its predators, is accomplishing that. So you go from talking about 'logic' to discounting science, which is the most evolved form of human logic.

Intelligence is the worst thing to have ever happened to mankind.

Well, there's no reason for you to worry your wee head about that m'lord.

You'd feel cocky too if you were full of myself.

Nah, I'd just throw up.

reply

[–] Lord-Bigglesworth 14 years ago

You're so fixated on insulting me that you skipped over an important part of my post that could've saved you a lot of time:

And, yes, part of maintaining that balance is doing our part at the top of the food chain, which involves limiting the population of those animals that don't have any natural predators, and whose unchecked growth could threaten the balance of the ecosystem, and checking our own growth.

When you're at the top of the food chain, you have to be your own predator.

Moving on.

All of my counter-arguments to any that you've presented (at least the one's that are relevant) would rely on one's willingness to accept that there's a certain balance that we must maintain, and, seeing as you're a vegetarian, I'm going to assume that you deem this irrelevant in favor of your excessive empathy for animals.

You'd feel cocky too if you were full of myself.

reply

[–] clyons 14 years ago

When you're at the top of the food chain, you have to be your own predator.

Or alternatively, you could just use birth control. Dolphins, in the meantime, have never been overpopulated, even though they have few natural predators. So who's the superior species, really? Feel free to start chowing down on yourself anytime.

All of my counter-arguments to any that you've presented (at least the one's that are relevant) would rely on one's willingness to accept that there's a certain balance that we must maintain, and, seeing as you're a vegetarian, I'm going to assume that you deem this irrelevant in favor of your excessive empathy for animals.

You have made no arguments, and you clearly didn't understand mine.

You'd feel cocky too if you were full of myself.

Bon appetit.

reply

[–] Lord-Bigglesworth 14 years ago

Or alternatively, you could just use birth control.

You could, but having everybody just kill each other is much more natural.

I didn't come here to present an argument. I came here to ask why people feel it's wrong to kill dolphins. Your reason is

My moral argument for not killing dolphins is that they not only don't kill us (there are no known instances of unprovoked attacks on humans by wild dolphins), but actually go out of their way to save us under certain circumstances--they even risk their lives defending us from sharks.

It has been duly noted. Thank you for your contribution.

You'd feel cocky too if you were full of myself.

reply

[–] clyons 14 years ago

You could, but having everybody just kill each other is much more natural.

Depends on what you mean by 'natural'--and there are numerous examples of birth control in nature.

I didn't come here to present an argument. I came here to ask why people feel it's wrong to kill dolphins.

And in so doing, to suggest that it's 'only' a feeling, and has no logical basis to it. There are many logical reasons for us not to kill and enslave dolphins, as there are many logical reasons for us not to kill and enslave each other, but successful social movements are NEVER motivated primarily by logic. Logic makes life possible; passion makes life worthwhile. Most people opposed to dolphin hunting are moved by compassion, and a sense of shame. If we'd depended solely on logical arguments to end, for example, human chattel slavery, it would probably still be legal.

It has been duly noted. Thank you for your contribution.

Still waiting for yours.

reply

[–] Lord-Bigglesworth 14 years ago

There are many logical reasons for us not to kill and enslave dolphins, as there are many logical reasons for us not to kill and enslave each other

Like what?

You'd feel cocky too if you were full of myself.

reply

[–] clyons 14 years ago

You know, that tagline of yours really kind of defeats this agenda of you trying to be the Voice of Reason. I'm just saying.

The logical reason not to kill dolphins is that there's no reason to do it. They are not a useful source of food, and they're a valuable part of the ecosystem. Enslaving them for entertainment purposes gives us a distorted idea of their true nature, and we end up getting sprayed with water full of dolphin feces. They make the oceans a safer place for us, and they ask for nothing in return. That may not be very logical of them, but logic and ethics are supposed to be compatible (ask any Vulcan) and it's supremely unethical to return cruelty for kindness.

The logical reason not to kill and enslave other people is that what comes around goes around.

Actually, that works for dolphins too, but only in a karmic sense.

People will actually kill and enslave you back.

reply

[–] Lord-Bigglesworth 14 years ago

BTW... that's one crazy registration date you've got there.

You'd feel cocky too if you were full of myself.

reply

[–] clyons 14 years ago

That's one crazy set of forums you've been active on.

Eclipse?

Really?

What team are you on?

reply

[–] Lord-Bigglesworth 14 years ago

Team Jacob, all the way. Edward's a light-skinned pansy stalker I'm not a fan of the books or movies, but I'm a fan of some of the fans. Some cool peoples over there. Well, at least there were.

You'd feel cocky too if you were full of myself.

reply

[–] clyons 14 years ago

I'm not a fan of the books or movies--

Which would certainly explain the 100+ posts you've made to the Eclipse forum in the last few months.

reply

[–] Lord-Bigglesworth 14 years ago

I don't know if I should be creeped out or flattered.

You'd feel cocky too if you were full of myself.

reply

[–] clyons 14 years ago

Didn't take much longer than you checking my registration date.

Should I have been creeped out by that? Or just amused?

Put me down for Team Amused.

reply

[–] Lord-Bigglesworth 14 years ago

Well, I checked your profile to see if you had anything in your biography. I didn't check several months worth of your posting history (in my case, that's dozens of pages), 'cause that'd be weird.

You'd feel cocky too if you were full of myself.

reply

[–] clyons 14 years ago

Okay, switching over to Team Bored now.

reply

[–] nemotwo-811-289790 8 years ago

I've just watched The Cove after watching Racing Extinction. Came in here to read the comments and both of you brought up some valid questions and answers. Ironically, genders aside, I think you two would make a cute couple. lol ;)

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] corpus_callosum 10 years ago

clyons,

nice job of thoroughly schooling that guy.

too bad he'll never do the homework.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DWreck17 14 years ago

It's interesting you should mention the food chain, because as the film said, "dolphins and humans feed on the same level of the food chain."

But you did kill him...and then when i unkilled him, you KIND of did it again.

reply

[–] zinabaggins 10 years ago

Intelligence is the worst thing to have ever happened to mankind.

What do you know about intelligence?

reply

[–] betenoire-1 13 years ago

Clyons: (well of course dolphins don't have navels).

Actually, they do.

reply

[–] clyons 13 years ago

They have an 'umbilicus', which looks nothing like our belly buttons.

It was just a turn of phrase, you know.

reply

[–] Shantanab-Lone-Voyager 14 years ago

1.Because JFA is defending it as a "traditional hunt" - which it is not!
2.Dolphins have high mercury and PCB content, more than the prescribed limit!
3.JFA is not regulating the practice of mislabeling dolphin-meat as whale-meat..
4.Virtually nobody in Japan eats dolphin meat(atleast knowingly).And majority of them does not support dolphin hunt anyway!
5.Dolphins are not a SUSTAINABLE "FOOD" resource!

Happiness is only Illusion

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lark7774 14 years ago

The documentary did, I though, a great job at exploring the current scientific indicators of dolphin sentience. At the end of the day, the question whether it’s immoral to kill dolphins even though we kill other animal species comes down to such questions of sentience: Whether an animal has a sense of self consciousness; whether it knows and can anticipate what is happening to it; whether it can experience fear of mortality on more than a primal level; whether it can experience fear of pain or mortality for others of its species or other species; whether it can have rudimentary philosophical or abstract thoughts. The issue is not intelligence, although that's probably a marker for sentience -- it's sentience.

If such non-human sentient beings exist, putting them in a water pen and slowly murdering them in a brutal way along with others in their species and perhaps to whom they are related and know they are related is intolerable. Imagine two monkeys in a room. One watches while you torture the other and then kill it. If the second monkey understands that this is his fate too, and has feelings of attachment toward the other that are more than instinctual, that is something you need to know before you kill any monkey.

There are strong indicators that dolphins indeed have this kind of sentience, and it clear that cows do not. Maybe dolphins do not. Maybe they are swimming cows. Science will probably unlock that question sooner rather than later, but for now the evidence seems to be pointing in one direction – use of tools and other evidence of abstract thinking, types of attachments, self-awareness, etc. So understood, it’s a rather simple distinction to be drawn and an urgent one. So long as there is reasonable and legitimate suspicion of that type of sentience, one needs to tread carefully.

Killing an animal that may be in the same universe as humans on the sentience spectrum must be undertaken with great care and only for compelling reasons. Doing it when the animal presents very little danger to humans, when the meat is not necessary for human survival and when, in any event, it appears to be poisoned, is repugnant. Reasonable people can debate whether it’s justified even then. Doing it in a brutal way that the animal may well understand as it’s happening is something that intelligent people should condemn.

The slippery slope argument that some humans might be in a state in which they no longer have sentience, but they cannot be killed legally, is facile. The reasons for that are not necessarily moral, they are legal and based on suspicion about who should decide and when.

reply

[–] NothingButDVD 13 years ago

It's no more "wrong" to kill/eat dolphins than it is to kill/eat cows, chickens, deer, etc. (I don't really buy into the "Sentient animals should have more rights" argument. It's a can of worms with no clear answer.) But it IS an issue of cruelty and inhumane killing, that these animals are butchered with no concern for their suffering. However, maybe Japan doesn't have cruelty laws about how animals can be killed/processed. In America, we have standards in place (that's not to say that the standards are always followed! But at least the effort is made and there is huge public concern over it), but maybe Japan treats all its food animals horribly... I don't know.
But, it does seem that there is something really wrong with the dolphin situation, due to the extreme coverup and that Japanese people are not aware of it, and would be pretty horrified if they found out. The "secret" cove and the government involvement - it's all smoke that means fire.

had to do was jump over a net

Dolphins are brilliant and amazing, but this came to my attention as well. Similarly, why wouldn't later generations of dolphins learn to avoid the boats in the first place, or even give the Japanese islands a wide berth completely in their migration route. Maybe some of the dolphins do - who knows? Maybe Taiji only catches the ones who fall for those things, and the other dolphins understand and think that the dolphins who get caught *are* stupid.
Dolphins are a lot like people. It's possible that they have different cultures and different behaviors, that some are smarter than others, and that not every group listens to reason.

But re: The Nets... If we really want to help dolphins, it would be great to capture some and train them to jump over the barriers, then release them back into their groups to influence the others!

reply

[–] clyons 13 years ago

Dolphins are far more intelligent than chickens and cows, NBD. What's more, chickens and cows only exist because we raise them for food. If we stop eating them, their numbers will plummet, and they may eventually cease to exist. Whereas dolphin slaughter, along with pollution and overfishing, is a threat to the future of dolphins--and of the oceans itself, of which they are an integral component.

The way we raise and slaughter livestock is often inhumane, but livestock aren't bred for intelligence and consciousness--quite the opposite.

I'm a vegetarian, but I don't think killing animals for food is exactly the same no matter what animal it is. That's just not consistent with what we know.

reply

[–] NothingButDVD 13 years ago

Dolphins are far more intelligent than chickens and cows
Duh. Read my post again:

It's no more "wrong" to kill/eat dolphins than it is to kill/eat cows, chickens, deer, etc. (I don't really buy into the "Sentient animals should have more rights" argument.)

Obviously, dolphins are sentient. Chickens probably aren't. My reply was to OP, who used "wrong." I discussed it in a moral sense, because every animal can be valuable in its own way. In India, cows are sacred, and we're probably considered barbaric for eating them.

dolphin slaughter... is a threat to the future of dolphins
No. Most wildlife populations can sustain a certain amount of hunting/harvesting. These dolphins are not endangered, and it's no more threatening than our harvesting of other sea animals (fish), which we do a million times more. If you want to start arguing the slaughter of wildlife, it's the tuna that need your help, not the dolphins.

"chickens and cows only exist because we raise them for food. If we stop eating them, their numbers will plummet, and they may eventually cease to exist."
Huh? Who ever suggested NOT eating them? People can eat a variety of animals, from dolphins, to deer, to cows and chickens. Just because people eat dolphins, doesn't mean they'll STOP eating beef and poultry. Introducing a new food animal has never "endangered" the existing ones.

livestock aren't bred for intelligence and consciousness--quite the opposite.

I'm all for breeding livestock for food - It IS better to do it that way and avoid killing wildlife. But people should be legally allowed to harvest wildlife, as long as it's regulated and done as *humanely* as possible (Unlike The Cove).

But I called this a Can of Worms for good reason.
Are we saying that sentient animals shouldn't be harvested or used for food, ever? Who's to say that cows aren't sentient? Or horses? We judge their "intelligence" by measuring it against our own, which is a flimsy method. We can't even speak the language of these animals. We don't even know if sentience is a black or white issue, and we can't prove it.
Obviously, dolphins are. So are great apes, elephants, and some species of birds. But even with these, we don't have a clear way to measure it.

And what else? That sentient animals shouldn't be kept in captivity? If that's the case, then we'll *really* be looking at extinction, because the great apes will disappear.

I'm an animal person. Wildlife is my field and my passion. I find hunting barbaric, but even I can see that "Dolphins" is not the simple issue it appears to be. Not to mention the political aspect - that these dolphins are in Japanese waters. They're no more our jurisdiction than any of the other wildlife there. Nations make their own laws. The only Universal Laws that can be fairly applied have to do with sustainable harvest, and humane method of killing, which I've already discussed.

reply

[–] JPfanatic93 13 years ago

They may be 'in Japanese waters' when they're killed, they're not Japanese dolphins. They're migratory creatures, whose presence is being enjoyed in many countries the world over (including for commercial reasons which garner a lot more money and respect than the Japanese way will ever do). No single nation should have the right to kill migratory animals knowing full well other nations do not appreciate such behavior at all.

So, on a similar note: *beep* you, Malta! (for the mass killing of migratory birds using Malta as feeding grounds out of necessity while crossing the Mediterranean, only to be viciously killed by bored Maltese locals, making these birds ever more rare in other countries).

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] NothingButDVD 13 years ago

No single nation should have the right to kill migratory animals knowing full well other nations do not appreciate such behavior at all.

Huh? Most nations (including the US) DO harvest their migratory wildlife, which includes birds (esp. waterfowl) and fish. Even Tuna are migratory, so on those grounds it's wrong to harvest them. (And again, the Tuna are slaughtered in millions - they need our "help" more than the dolphins do.)
You can pick that fight if you want (with Malta lol), but it's a matter of rarity, not morality. If a migratory animal is endangered, then obviously it's wrong to hunt it. But these dolphins aren't endangered. It's like saying that the American hunting of Mallard ducks is morally wrong, or some kind of insult to Canada.

Possum, I dunno why you're replying to me. Many of your points I already mentioned. (The lack of adherence to cruelty laws in slaughterhouses, sentience not being the red line for harvesting, etc.)

Re: Killing an animal is killing an animal, I tend to agree. My concern is the suffering/cruelty problem, and we certainly need to fix that in this country. If somebody did a documentary on how cows/chickens/pigs are kept and slaughtered in the US, it probably would cause a giant public outcry and lead to positive changes. It's a more humane than what happens to the dolphins, but it still needs to be improved.

Re: Humane, I think it's much worse to cause pain than just to reduce quality of life. That's from personal experience in my own life. I got used to Low Quality of life and even learned to find some happiness in having nothing and trying to survive, but I never got used to the physical pain. That was pure torture and made me wish I was dead.

reply

[–] JPfanatic93 13 years ago

Yup, you're right, it's also wrong to kill migratory fish and other animals.

reply

[–] clyons 13 years ago

Salmon are famously migratory fish, and highly sustainable, due to their short lifespans and fecund breeding habits.

I respect the opinion of anyone who says eating other animals is wrong, but animals eat each other all the time. Our species evolved with meat and fish as a small but significant part of its diet--we probably couldn't have evolved such big brains without that extra protein.

If we can someday evolve to the point where we avoid the taking of life for any reason, great. We aren't anywhere near that point, and I don't want dolphin hunting placed in the same category as salmon fishing or poultry farming, because that's nonsense. It's not inherently wrong to kill an animal to sustain yourself. It's inherently wrong to take more than you need, without giving anything back.

reply

[–] NothingButDVD 13 years ago

it's also wrong to kill migratory fish and other animals

Then you've definitely got your work cut out for you. But I wouldn't focus on dolphins - again, it's tuna and other fish that are being slaughtered x a billion.

This is the problem with conservation from an emotional place. It's subjective, makes no sense, and can't be enforced with any logic or consistency. There's nothing actually "WRONG" with using dolphins as food (no more wrong than harvesting other animals). We're just against it because we have emotional attachment to dolphins. I love dolphins, too, but except for the method of killing (which would be super-cruel for any animal!) I can't find anything conceptually wrong with using a non-endangered animal for food.

Maybe the mercury content is an angle ? But even that seems inconsistent, cuz tuna has plenty of mercury in it too. What if it's just an Eating in Moderation thing? Like people shouldn't eat tuna (or dolphin) every single day.

reply

[–] clyons 13 years ago

Then you've definitely got your work cut out for you. But I wouldn't focus on dolphins - again, it's tuna and other fish that are being slaughtered x a billion.

You know, some of us are able to multitask, dude.

This is the problem with conservation from an emotional place.

Yeah, you might as well say that's the problem with anything from an emotional place, but emotions are more powerful motivators than statistics, and that's reality. Saving dolphins is less important to our long-term survival than saving tuna. But if we kill all the dolphins, who says we deserve to survive? If we're capable of wiping out animals that we find attractive, funny, and surprisingly like us--who are not a healthy and sustainable food source--and who have historically shown a remarkable willingness to not only befriend us, but to actually save our stupid-ass lives when we're in their element--c'mon. That's a species with no future. Tuna or no tuna.

I think you're letting the emotion of impatience skew your rational judgment here. This film is not saying that squishy emotional feelings are the only reason to save dolphins. But if you'd actually THINK, you'd realize that a lot more people saw the information about potential fishery collapses because they were moved by the plight of these intelligent animals--who have somehow managed to achieve consciousness without becoming a threat to the biosphere.

I don't want to survive in a world without such creatures in it. Particularly when there's no reason to think we would survive.

In any event, what's right is right, and what's wrong is wrong. Conscious life without a sense of right and wrong is worthless; rational self-interest can be supremely short-sighted and destructive without a bit of perspective.

If we cared about the dolphins enough to save them, we'd also be capable of seeing beyond our bellies. In case you haven't noticed, most of the people critiquing this film here have been in favor of just taking whatever we want from the oceans.

reply

[–] JPfanatic93 13 years ago

I agree industrial fishery is much worse ecologically than dolphin drive hunting, but it's less appalling than seeing intelligent creatures herded in a cove and viciously muredered in front of each other un til the sea runs red and there being no good reason for their deaths. Also, dolphin drive hunting is a 'fightable' cause, it can still be banned, whereas I'm convinced it's too late for tuna (sadly!). There's emotionalism involved, but don't write off a cause for that. Emotionalism is what causes much needed change.

And of course, tuna aren't the topic of these discussion boards. That's more for The End of the Line.

reply

[–] clyons 13 years ago

But bear this in mind, both of you--the main reason the Japanese government has resisted banning dolphin-hunting and whaling is that it believes such bans would undermine its right to take whatever else it wants from the ocean--including endangered fish that make great sushi.

Say this for the Japanese, institutionally speaking--they connect the dots a lot better than us roundeyes.

reply

[–] gregwolfe55 13 years ago

Didn't the noises the fishermen were basically torturing them to death...?

And we also have scientific evidence that they are very intelligent.

reply

[–] CoSMiGoNoN 10 years ago

I agree with you. So dolphins are intelligent, so what? They're still animals. That makes them fair game, just like fish, cows, chicken, pork, cats, dogs, etc. So japanese are poisoning themselves? I think everybody shoulkd be free to ingest the poison of their liking. This documentary has a huge western bias and is just a big piece of propaganda.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]