7 ms·

I haven't finished the decision yet, but from what I have read it seems the Wired reporter might have gotten a little eager to conclude that world is a quiet pl

by dfc 10y ago

I haven't finished the decision yet, but from what I have read it seems the Wired reporter might have gotten a little eager to conclude that world is a quiet place for whales. The HN submitter definitely got too excited when they paraphrased the article title. The ruling does not bar the use of LFA when there is an active military conflict. SECNAV is not going to get spend a lot of time at Woods Hole polishing an environmental impact study while the pacific fleet wonders where a couple of nuclear armed enemy subs are located. But don't take my word or the reporters word for it. The decision is here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/07/15/14-16375.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/07/15/1... For those wondering,yes, this is the latest development in the string of cases described in War of the Whales. The APA sounds kind of boring if you read the Wikipedia summary. But when you consider cases like this or what to do with DoC and ICANN it is actually pretty interesting, especially for technology or science questions.

dsfyu404ed 10y ago
Don't forget that the 9th circuit is so far left it's either foul or halfway up the stands on any given decision and gets overruled at appeal very frequently. It's very possible that the next appeal will change things.
- rbanffy 10y ago
  There is no justification for using a device that endangers animal life during times of peace.
  - dsfyu404ed 10y ago
    I didn't make any comment on the validity of the decision, just that the 9th tends to err much farther left than the other circuits and appeals of its decisions are much more frequently successful.
    - rbanffy 10y ago
      Right, because protecting marine life is such a commie thing...
  - douche 10y ago
    I guess we can only mow our lawns or harvest grain during wartime, by that logic?
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      Right. After all, neat lawns are vital to a war effort (???).
      - pc86 10y ago
        I think the GP's point was that 99% of human activity either endangers or actively destroys wildlife by at least one definition.
        rbanffy 10y ago
        True, but some of that activity, if suspended, would drive mankind extinct. That certainly would not happen with ceasing to use these sonars.
  - s_q_b 10y ago
    Okay, but you'll have to be willing to give up the following: agriculture, power generation (both fossil and renewable), housing, clothing, and shelter. Almost all industrial scale processes, including building your house, endanger animal life in one way or another, whether it's particulate creation from fossil fuels, migrating birds in wind turbines, or simple destruction of habitat. A better argument, to me, would be that dolphins and whales exhibit intelligence on par with the great apes. Dolphins have the largest number of neurons in the neocortex of any mammal, communicate with one another, transmit culture from generation to generation, and work in tandem with humans even in the wild. There's at least a decent argument to be made that they may be sentient. Given that possibility, we would be not only cruel to damage these animals, but perhaps would also deprive ourselves of an invaluable resource in understanding the roots of consciousness.
    - binarymax 10y ago
      Apples to oranges. The processes you mentioned actively produce an end product. Sonar, at best, produces intelligence during wartime and at worst, kills intelligent marine life during peacetime.
      - s_q_b 10y ago
        The end products of a powerful navy are openness of the sea for commerce, protection of international peace, and national security. Intelligence, when gathered in accordance with the law, is an invaluable resource in producing those end products. Security may be something that many in the United States take for granted, but it is one of the basic requirements of human beings, perhaps even prior to food, water, and shelter on the hierarchy of needs.
        rbanffy 10y ago
        Only as long as it's in the best interest of that powerful navy.
        s_q_b 10y ago
  - breischl 10y ago
    Right, because you really want to use your equipment for the first time when you're in a fight. Why would you want to see if it's in good repair, train your crews with it, find the limitations, or even see if the stuff works at all before the shooting starts?! </s> There definitely are justifications. Maybe not sufficient to justify the damage done, but it's not like the Navy is just screwing with whales for grins.
    - rbanffy 10y ago
      You can minimize the use of the equipment to tests that ensure its operational, made on dry land or with precautions preventing the sound to disturb marine life. Training can happen on simulators.
  - zeveb 10y ago
    > There is no justification for using a device that endangers animal life during times of peace. If you want those times of peace to last, or if you just want to ensure peace on your terms after war, you need to practise for war.
ourmandave 10y ago
The HN submitter definitely got too excited when they paraphrased the article title. I submitted it and I'm certain I used the original title: The Sea Will Get a Lot Quieter Without the Navy’s Whale-Killing Sonar =(
- dang 10y ago
  You did. We changed it in an attempt to be less baity than Wired's title (in accordance with the HN guidelines). Looks like we made it inaccurate in the process. Sorry! I've changed it again and if someone wants to suggest a more accurate and neutral title we can change it a third time.

by dfc 10y ago

dsfyu404ed 10y ago

Don't forget that the 9th circuit is so far left it's either foul or halfway up the stands on any given decision and gets overruled at appeal very frequently. It's very possible that the next appeal will change things.

rbanffy 10y ago
There is no justification for using a device that endangers animal life during times of peace.
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  I didn't make any comment on the validity of the decision, just that the 9th tends to err much farther left than the other circuits and appeals of its decisions are much more frequently successful.
  - rbanffy 10y ago
    Right, because protecting marine life is such a commie thing...
- douche 10y ago
  I guess we can only mow our lawns or harvest grain during wartime, by that logic?
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    Right. After all, neat lawns are vital to a war effort (???).
    - pc86 10y ago
      I think the GP's point was that 99% of human activity either endangers or actively destroys wildlife by at least one definition.
      - rbanffy 10y ago
        True, but some of that activity, if suspended, would drive mankind extinct. That certainly would not happen with ceasing to use these sonars.
- s_q_b 10y ago
  Okay, but you'll have to be willing to give up the following: agriculture, power generation (both fossil and renewable), housing, clothing, and shelter. Almost all industrial scale processes, including building your house, endanger animal life in one way or another, whether it's particulate creation from fossil fuels, migrating birds in wind turbines, or simple destruction of habitat. A better argument, to me, would be that dolphins and whales exhibit intelligence on par with the great apes. Dolphins have the largest number of neurons in the neocortex of any mammal, communicate with one another, transmit culture from generation to generation, and work in tandem with humans even in the wild. There's at least a decent argument to be made that they may be sentient. Given that possibility, we would be not only cruel to damage these animals, but perhaps would also deprive ourselves of an invaluable resource in understanding the roots of consciousness.
  - binarymax 10y ago
    Apples to oranges. The processes you mentioned actively produce an end product. Sonar, at best, produces intelligence during wartime and at worst, kills intelligent marine life during peacetime.
    - s_q_b 10y ago
      The end products of a powerful navy are openness of the sea for commerce, protection of international peace, and national security. Intelligence, when gathered in accordance with the law, is an invaluable resource in producing those end products. Security may be something that many in the United States take for granted, but it is one of the basic requirements of human beings, perhaps even prior to food, water, and shelter on the hierarchy of needs.
      - rbanffy 10y ago
        Only as long as it's in the best interest of that powerful navy.
        s_q_b 10y ago
- breischl 10y ago
  Right, because you really want to use your equipment for the first time when you're in a fight. Why would you want to see if it's in good repair, train your crews with it, find the limitations, or even see if the stuff works at all before the shooting starts?! </s> There definitely are justifications. Maybe not sufficient to justify the damage done, but it's not like the Navy is just screwing with whales for grins.
  - rbanffy 10y ago
    You can minimize the use of the equipment to tests that ensure its operational, made on dry land or with precautions preventing the sound to disturb marine life. Training can happen on simulators.
- zeveb 10y ago
  > There is no justification for using a device that endangers animal life during times of peace. If you want those times of peace to last, or if you just want to ensure peace on your terms after war, you need to practise for war.

ourmandave 10y ago

The HN submitter definitely got too excited when they paraphrased the article title. I submitted it and I'm certain I used the original title: The Sea Will Get a Lot Quieter Without the Navy’s Whale-Killing Sonar =(

dang 10y ago
You did. We changed it in an attempt to be less baity than Wired's title (in accordance with the HN guidelines). Looks like we made it inaccurate in the process. Sorry! I've changed it again and if someone wants to suggest a more accurate and neutral title we can change it a third time.