6 ms·

Their view is not that intelligence makes your life more worthwhile, but that there is a threshold of species intelligence which makes that species "persons".

by swombat 14y ago

Their view is not that intelligence makes your life more worthwhile, but that there is a threshold of species intelligence which makes that species "persons". Note the focus on a species, rather than individuals.

crusso 14y ago
When cetaceans let us know that they will mutually honor some sort of Interspecies Protective Treaty, I will be the first in line to support the move that they should have similar protections to people. Until then, I don't want to see such beautiful intelligent creatures harmed -- but murder/manslaughter charges would be inappropriate if one were inadvertently killed. The current animal protection/endangered species protection rules are sufficient.
- belorn 14y ago
  There is a implied statement that cetaceans would somehow need to learn English to receive similar protections as people. This is of course a really bad requirement. A lot of people in the world do not know English, and would thus be unable to let anyone know that they will mutually honor some sort of Interspecies Protective Treaty. Mostly, they would be unable to read any such treaty, or reply with the word "yes". First create a requirement that all human being will pass. Then see if cetaceans do pass it.
  - crusso 14y ago
    There is a implied statement that cetaceans would somehow need to learn English to receive similar protections as people. English? Where did I say that? However, communication verbal or nonverbal that conveys agreement to participate in a society is a requirement. This kind of communication would need to happen either individually or representatives cetaceans would need to come forward who could vouch for others of their species. From there, we'd need to observe whether or not the agreement(s) were being followed. This starts to sound silly, doesn't it? But that's what being a member of a society entails. That's what being "human" or reasonably equivalent to oen entails.
    - shawnc 14y ago
      This too will sound silly, but we don't even know if that would happen or could happen with Dolphins and Whales, because they've really just never been given the chance. It'd be like someone invading a new land they discovered, and just killing anyone in their way, without waiting to see if these people would indeed like to participate in their 'society'. But actually, on top of that, even if the dolphins could say they'd participate in this required society - why would it be deemed appropriate for the humans to make the rules here?
      - nine_k 14y ago
        If you call something a treaty, isn't it expected to be discussed and agreed upon by both sides? Humans have to make the first step and propose a first draft because of their current position of power. Unfortunately, cetaceans so far haven't taken time to try to learn how to communicate with humans. A treaty with cetaceans would be a display of pure goodwill, as opposed to e.g. peace treaties between mutually menacing powers. Another interesting question is how many treaties are needed, since cetaceans are obviously no more unified than humans.
    - thenduks 14y ago
      Why do they have to participate in our society in order to be protected from torture/murder/slavery/etc? The point of this article is that they have their own society and should not be made our playthings. I'm also not sure why they would need to agree to some kind of treaty with humans just to be spared our cruelty. There's no evidence they mean us harm, we have the ability to protect ourselves if they did, let's just leave them alone.
      - crusso 14y ago
        Why do they have to participate in our society in order to be protected from torture/murder/slavery/etc? That's a strawman. The proposal was to give Dolphins "the same rights as humans". Protection of the creatures from hunting and physical exploitation is sufficient and something normally agreed to through international treaties. Equating cetaceans with humans is unnecessary and illogical.
- analog 14y ago
  A quick google search provides plenty of examples of dolphins rescuing humans.
- njharman 14y ago
  > The current animal protection/endangered species protection rules are sufficient. The recently and soon to be extinct species would disagree with you. Also, if homo sapiens had the same levels of "protection" I'd be able to cull yuppies when too many of them moved into my neighborhood.
jcarreiro 14y ago
I believe their argument stems not so much from the intelligence of cetaceans -- as others have pointed out, intelligence is hard to define -- but from evidence that they are self-aware, conscious beings.

by swombat 14y ago

crusso 14y ago

When cetaceans let us know that they will mutually honor some sort of Interspecies Protective Treaty, I will be the first in line to support the move that they should have similar protections to people. Until then, I don't want to see such beautiful intelligent creatures harmed -- but murder/manslaughter charges would be inappropriate if one were inadvertently killed. The current animal protection/endangered species protection rules are sufficient.

belorn 14y ago
There is a implied statement that cetaceans would somehow need to learn English to receive similar protections as people. This is of course a really bad requirement. A lot of people in the world do not know English, and would thus be unable to let anyone know that they will mutually honor some sort of Interspecies Protective Treaty. Mostly, they would be unable to read any such treaty, or reply with the word "yes". First create a requirement that all human being will pass. Then see if cetaceans do pass it.
- crusso 14y ago
  There is a implied statement that cetaceans would somehow need to learn English to receive similar protections as people. English? Where did I say that? However, communication verbal or nonverbal that conveys agreement to participate in a society is a requirement. This kind of communication would need to happen either individually or representatives cetaceans would need to come forward who could vouch for others of their species. From there, we'd need to observe whether or not the agreement(s) were being followed. This starts to sound silly, doesn't it? But that's what being a member of a society entails. That's what being "human" or reasonably equivalent to oen entails.
  - shawnc 14y ago
    This too will sound silly, but we don't even know if that would happen or could happen with Dolphins and Whales, because they've really just never been given the chance. It'd be like someone invading a new land they discovered, and just killing anyone in their way, without waiting to see if these people would indeed like to participate in their 'society'. But actually, on top of that, even if the dolphins could say they'd participate in this required society - why would it be deemed appropriate for the humans to make the rules here?
    - nine_k 14y ago
      If you call something a treaty, isn't it expected to be discussed and agreed upon by both sides? Humans have to make the first step and propose a first draft because of their current position of power. Unfortunately, cetaceans so far haven't taken time to try to learn how to communicate with humans. A treaty with cetaceans would be a display of pure goodwill, as opposed to e.g. peace treaties between mutually menacing powers. Another interesting question is how many treaties are needed, since cetaceans are obviously no more unified than humans.
  - thenduks 14y ago
    Why do they have to participate in our society in order to be protected from torture/murder/slavery/etc? The point of this article is that they have their own society and should not be made our playthings. I'm also not sure why they would need to agree to some kind of treaty with humans just to be spared our cruelty. There's no evidence they mean us harm, we have the ability to protect ourselves if they did, let's just leave them alone.
    - crusso 14y ago
      Why do they have to participate in our society in order to be protected from torture/murder/slavery/etc? That's a strawman. The proposal was to give Dolphins "the same rights as humans". Protection of the creatures from hunting and physical exploitation is sufficient and something normally agreed to through international treaties. Equating cetaceans with humans is unnecessary and illogical.
analog 14y ago
A quick google search provides plenty of examples of dolphins rescuing humans.
njharman 14y ago
> The current animal protection/endangered species protection rules are sufficient. The recently and soon to be extinct species would disagree with you. Also, if homo sapiens had the same levels of "protection" I'd be able to cull yuppies when too many of them moved into my neighborhood.

jcarreiro 14y ago

I believe their argument stems not so much from the intelligence of cetaceans -- as others have pointed out, intelligence is hard to define -- but from evidence that they are self-aware, conscious beings.