5 ms·

To hunt a species to extinction is not logical. Edit: Because the topic is about communicating with Whales and my response was to a comment about hunting them,

To hunt a species to extinction is not logical. Edit: Because the topic is about communicating with Whales and my response was to a comment about hunting them, I thought it would be appropriate to reference something Spock said in Star Trek IV. Colloquially known as "The one with the whales".

1cvmask 5y ago
Most indigenous tribes were hunted to extinction by colonial settlers. Now some of the descendants of the colonial settlers subsume their heritage to get preferential access to colleges and jobs.
version_five 5y ago
There are many (maybe all) examples from nature in which resources will get consumed until they are gone. "Logic" has nothing to do with it. That doesn't mean we should hunt species to extinction, but its definitely a natural thing to do.
- st_goliath 5y ago
  > "Logic" has nothing to do with it. I guess the GP post is simply a direct quote from "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" (where IIRC Spock says something along those lines while he and Kirk visit a 20th century museum). Whales, their extinction and communicating with them was central to the plot of that film. EDIT: Ok, I looked it up. This exact quote is in the movie, verbatim, in the scene I mentioned. At around 00:47:39
  - DarknessFalls 5y ago
    Correct. I think we're entering an era where Star Trek is largely forgotten. As opposed to two decades ago (right column): https://www.webdesignmuseum.org/gallery/icq-2001 https://www.webdesignmuseum.org/gallery/icq-2001
    - slowmovintarget 5y ago
      Aye, it's a 35 year old movie. Which is stunning for me. I recall going to the theater to see it with my parents. It was the last movie we all saw together.
      - DarknessFalls 5y ago
        "Would now be a good time for a colorful metaphor?"
- slowmovintarget 5y ago
  One of the things that separates many humans from other kinds of animals is the ability to choose against instinct. To hold a hot cup for a little longer, enduring the pain so we don't drop it and break it. There are even some arguments that consciousness evolved to allow humans to do exactly that sort of thing; contradict hard-wired impulses. That we are so terrible at modesty of consumption in groups is the real tragedy.
inglor_cz 5y ago
Game Theory would probably say that it is logical, though at the end self-defeating. Usually the species is hunted for something valuable, and that means that the species becoming rarer translates to higher prices. So the people who successfully kill the very last specimens will get rich from them; an absolutely logical motivation, even if it has disastrous consequences down the line. If you can get ten million dollars for the very last whale on Earth, it is better than spending your life hunting some ubiquitous not-whales for 5000 dollars each. Of course, the end result is bad - the entire industry disappears - but so it is in the Prisoner's Dilemma.
- oblak 5y ago
  Wow, new heights in game theory nonsense I know you're simply explaining the logic but it's still a psychopath's logic
  - mc32 5y ago
    Not really. This happens pretty frequently. Hunting species to extinction, cutting down trees for fuel, etc.
    - oblak 5y ago
      Well, I didn't say we have a shortage of psychos, did I? Hunting the white rhinos to extinction is totally fine. It's just game theory, you guys.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - ethbr0 5y ago
        Nobody said "fine". They said it happens, and that it follows from incentives.
        oblak 5y ago
coldtea 5y ago
I don't see any logical issue with that. Logic makes no moral judgements, and also logic doesn't care about the future, if it doesn't include the invididual. (Here logic is also a stand-in for "maximizing benefit"). If one/a group hunts whales to extintion and makes a huge profit (say, enough to retire), they would be logically sound (if morally bankrupt) to not care less if there are no whales left.
- User23 5y ago
  It's a shame that the explicit study of logic, ethics, and aesthetics isn't really part of the secondary school curriculum anymore. Everyone should be able to tell whether a problem falls in the domain of logic or ethics.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    Yeah. And even "maximizing benefit/utility" is not logic (I went with that, since at best, it's what many mean by "makes logical sense"). Logic could as well be used perfectly well for minimizing benefit, it's just a tool for forming and evaluating syllogisms based on a set of axioms.
SquibblesRedux 5y ago
It is logical if the species poses an existential threat. Consider our efforts to eradicate certain diseases caused by bacteria.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Viruses, anyway. Nobody who knows basic biology has any illusions about the prospect of driving even a single species of bacteria to extinction. And anyway Russia probably still stockpiles literal tons of smallpox virus frozen underground in Siberian laboratories.

1cvmask 5y ago

Most indigenous tribes were hunted to extinction by colonial settlers. Now some of the descendants of the colonial settlers subsume their heritage to get preferential access to colleges and jobs.

version_five 5y ago

There are many (maybe all) examples from nature in which resources will get consumed until they are gone. "Logic" has nothing to do with it. That doesn't mean we should hunt species to extinction, but its definitely a natural thing to do.

st_goliath 5y ago
> "Logic" has nothing to do with it. I guess the GP post is simply a direct quote from "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" (where IIRC Spock says something along those lines while he and Kirk visit a 20th century museum). Whales, their extinction and communicating with them was central to the plot of that film. EDIT: Ok, I looked it up. This exact quote is in the movie, verbatim, in the scene I mentioned. At around 00:47:39
- DarknessFalls 5y ago
  Correct. I think we're entering an era where Star Trek is largely forgotten. As opposed to two decades ago (right column): https://www.webdesignmuseum.org/gallery/icq-2001 https://www.webdesignmuseum.org/gallery/icq-2001
  - slowmovintarget 5y ago
    Aye, it's a 35 year old movie. Which is stunning for me. I recall going to the theater to see it with my parents. It was the last movie we all saw together.
    - DarknessFalls 5y ago
      "Would now be a good time for a colorful metaphor?"
slowmovintarget 5y ago
One of the things that separates many humans from other kinds of animals is the ability to choose against instinct. To hold a hot cup for a little longer, enduring the pain so we don't drop it and break it. There are even some arguments that consciousness evolved to allow humans to do exactly that sort of thing; contradict hard-wired impulses. That we are so terrible at modesty of consumption in groups is the real tragedy.

inglor_cz 5y ago

Game Theory would probably say that it is logical, though at the end self-defeating. Usually the species is hunted for something valuable, and that means that the species becoming rarer translates to higher prices. So the people who successfully kill the very last specimens will get rich from them; an absolutely logical motivation, even if it has disastrous consequences down the line. If you can get ten million dollars for the very last whale on Earth, it is better than spending your life hunting some ubiquitous not-whales for 5000 dollars each. Of course, the end result is bad - the entire industry disappears - but so it is in the Prisoner's Dilemma.

oblak 5y ago
Wow, new heights in game theory nonsense I know you're simply explaining the logic but it's still a psychopath's logic
- mc32 5y ago
  Not really. This happens pretty frequently. Hunting species to extinction, cutting down trees for fuel, etc.
  - oblak 5y ago
    Well, I didn't say we have a shortage of psychos, did I? Hunting the white rhinos to extinction is totally fine. It's just game theory, you guys.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      Nobody said "fine". They said it happens, and that it follows from incentives.
      - oblak 5y ago

coldtea 5y ago

I don't see any logical issue with that. Logic makes no moral judgements, and also logic doesn't care about the future, if it doesn't include the invididual. (Here logic is also a stand-in for "maximizing benefit"). If one/a group hunts whales to extintion and makes a huge profit (say, enough to retire), they would be logically sound (if morally bankrupt) to not care less if there are no whales left.

User23 5y ago
It's a shame that the explicit study of logic, ethics, and aesthetics isn't really part of the secondary school curriculum anymore. Everyone should be able to tell whether a problem falls in the domain of logic or ethics.
- coldtea 5y ago
  Yeah. And even "maximizing benefit/utility" is not logic (I went with that, since at best, it's what many mean by "makes logical sense"). Logic could as well be used perfectly well for minimizing benefit, it's just a tool for forming and evaluating syllogisms based on a set of axioms.

SquibblesRedux 5y ago

It is logical if the species poses an existential threat. Consider our efforts to eradicate certain diseases caused by bacteria.

ncmncm 5y ago
Viruses, anyway. Nobody who knows basic biology has any illusions about the prospect of driving even a single species of bacteria to extinction. And anyway Russia probably still stockpiles literal tons of smallpox virus frozen underground in Siberian laboratories.