Japan poised to re-open commercial whaling

[Darth Raptor]

Don't post like a retard. Sapience as a cutoff point is not fucking arbitrary.

And self-awareness is not some kind of simplistic I/O dichotomy. It's not like you either have it or you don't. If it's acceptable to eat anything that's not completely on par with humanity, it should be ethical for aliens to eat us. They could, you know, eat cows or something. But hey, humans taste great, and who are we to shit all over their proud culture?

Yeah, because all the animals we hunt are so willing to be hunted. This is just moronic.

Whether or not you like your place on the food chain is irrelevant. By your childish concept of animal ethics, anything smarter than you should be able to chow down so long as humanity as a whole is in no danger of extinction. I'm merely pointing out that your ideas probably wouldn't last long if something showed up that made us look like whales.

I mentioned that the assumption of extinction in the event of the resumption of whaling was a slippery slope and your post was clearly in response to that. It was still a slippery slope after you made your point.

Whales were going extinct in the 20th Century so it's a slippery slope to assume they'll go extinct if we return to the 20th Century status quo?

[Lord Zentei]

As for "inhumane slaughter" go check out a slaughterhouse. And "nigh-sapient"? Close means no cigar.

I've been to a slaughterhouse and I've seen harpooning, I am under no allusions which way I'd rather go. Bolt to the brain please. I'm sure there are whales smarter than several severely retarded people, but I doubt you'd react so glibly to the japanese asking for a lift on the ban against harpooning them.

Retarded individuals of a species are not the benchmark to judge whether a species can be hunted for food.

Your doubts != proof. Moreover, this doubt of yours does not change the sustainability of whaling those species that are not endangered, now does it?

Japan still has illegal whaling under the guise of the already mentioned "scientific studies" where endangered whales are considered fair game, despite international outrage and law. They do this shit now, what do you think they'll do if they're given more leeway? Stay exactly the same, or just let the commercial whalers tackle the sustainable stocks while "scientific" ones go after the endangered ones? Japan has very little credibility when it comes to abiding whaling laws.

The scientific hunting has quotas based on species.

Tot toally reverse the moratorium, I presume that means any and all whales are fair game, and since multiple other species have been hunted to extinction, it's not a terribly slippery slope to say that the Japanese might hunt further species to extinction.

You presume incorrectly. They want quotas that would allow for sustainable commercial hunting, and minkie whales are specifically mentioned in this capacity. For other whales that were mentioned, the numbers proposed were several dozen. In any case, no species of whale has been hunted to extinction.

[Lord Zentei]

Don't post like a retard. Sapience as a cutoff point is not fucking arbitrary.

And self-awareness is not some kind of simplistic I/O dichotomy. It's not like you either have it or you don't.

So? It's not as if you have anything that demonstrates that eating whales is beyond the pale beyond your sayso.

If it's acceptable to eat anything that's not completely on par with humanity, it should be ethical for aliens to eat us. They could, you know, eat cows or something. But hey, humans taste great, and who are we to shit all over their proud culture?

Bullshit. Sapience means just that, despite the possibility of further advancement.

Yeah, because all the animals we hunt are so willing to be hunted. This is just moronic.

Whether or not you like your place on the food chain is irrelevant. By your childish concept of animal ethics, anything smarter than you should be able to chow down so long as humanity as a whole is in no danger of extinction. I'm merely pointing out that your ideas probably wouldn't last long if something showed up that made us look like whales.

It is you who are being childish. The fact that whales do not like to be hunted means jack and shit. And if something showed up that made us look like whales, complaining about it or drawing false analogies would not make much difference.

I mentioned that the assumption of extinction in the event of the resumption of whaling was a slippery slope and your post was clearly in response to that. It was still a slippery slope after you made your point.

Whales were going extinct in the 20th Century so it's a slippery slope to assume they'll go extinct if we return to the 20th Century status quo?

Yes it is, if you are objecting to hunting with quotas as opposed to unrestricted whaling. Who is using simplistic I/O dichotomies?

[Darth Raptor]

So? It's not as if you have anything that demonstrates that eating whales is beyond the pale beyond your sayso.

The fact that the only practical way to kill a whale is barbaric as hell? The fact that the Japanese and Norwegians have plenty of dumber than shit alternatives who are also killed humanely? The fact that whales are one of the few animals on the planet save humans that have demonstrated self-awareness? I could have sworn I said all of these things at one point or another.

Bullshit. Sapience means just that, despite the possibility of further advancement.

What reason would a species with incredible cognitive power (relative to us) have to place the cutoff for sapience at H. sapiens? It's relative.

It is you who are being childish. The fact that whales do not like to be hunted means jack and shit. And if something showed up that made us look like whales, complaining about it or drawing false analogies would not make much difference.

Thank you for saying absolutely nothing in nothing in regards to the ethics of the situation.

Yes it is, if you are objecting to hunting with quotas as opposed to unrestricted whaling. Who is using simplistic I/O dichotomies?

I'm objecting to hunting whales. Period. Conservation issues are indeed only an issue when the topic is unrestricted hunting. There was a miscommunication somewhere on this particular point. Conceeded.

[Lord Zentei]

So? It's not as if you have anything that demonstrates that eating whales is beyond the pale beyond your sayso.

The fact that the only practical way to kill a whale is barbaric as hell? The fact that the Japanese and Norwegians have plenty of dumber than shit alternatives who are also killed humanely? The fact that whales are one of the few animals on the planet save humans that have demonstrated self-awareness? I could have sworn I said all of these things at one point or another.

You mean this?

Animal rights are not a dichotomous condition; there are varying degrees. The only thing that separates humanity from lower animals is the capacity for reason. Ergo, the more intelligent a being is, the more considerations it should be entitled to. Barring survival conditions or institutionalized, artificially imposed dependence (see pork) you should eat stupid animals first. That's doubly true if there's no real need for it, they're on the verge of extinction and the only practical way to kill one is with an exploding harpoon.

Must have missed it on my earlier read-through.

Anyway: the problem I see with this is that your argument has no clearly defined cutoff point. In fact it specifically leads to the conclusion that there is no cutoff point, which logically implies veganism. Are you a vegan?

How are an institutional, artificially imposed dependence an acceptable excuse and preference is not?

Is being stunned by a grenade and then bleeding out truly more inhumane than being electrocuted? And would you support whaling if a "more humane" method of whaling were actually found?

Bullshit. Sapience means just that, despite the possibility of further advancement.

What reason would a species with incredible cognitive power (relative to us) have to place the cutoff for sapience at H. sapiens? It's relative.

Oh, so? If that is the case any cutoff point may be argued for and we are left with veganism. Only that results in animal deaths also.

It is you who are being childish. The fact that whales do not like to be hunted means jack and shit. And if something showed up that made us look like whales, complaining about it or drawing false analogies would not make much difference.

Thank you for saying absolutely nothing in nothing in regards to the ethics of the situation..

Hey: it is you who need to convince me that whaling is unethical. The burden of proof is upon those who want to ban something, not upon those who want to allow it.

Yes it is, if you are objecting to hunting with quotas as opposed to unrestricted whaling. Who is using simplistic I/O dichotomies?

I'm objecting to hunting whales. Period. Conservation issues are indeed only an issue when the topic is unrestricted hunting. There was a miscommunication somewhere on this particular point. Conceeded.

Fair enough.

[Darth Raptor]

Anyway: the problem I see with this is that your argument has no clearly defined cutoff point. In fact it specifically leads to the conclusion that there is no cutoff point, which logically implies veganism. Are you a vegan?

No I'm not, and I don't think anyone else should be either (children especially). It's woefully inadequate in terms of nutrition and our bodies have evolved to consume plant as well as animal matter. Simply put, the consumption of meat is a necessary evil. Because animal rights should be vested on a sliding scale according to intelligence, it's less "evil" to eat lower on said scale.

How are an institutional, artificially imposed dependence an acceptable excuse and preference is not?

Because, by virtue of our intelligence, human concerns trump animal concerns (see above). Pork is so heavily integrated into human agriculture and the economy that abolishing it would seriously fuck shit up (any analogy to slavery is false because it involves other humans). I'd be fully in favor of phasing it out gradually, however.

Is being stunned by a grenade and then bleeding out truly more inhumane than being electrocuted? And would you support whaling if a "more humane" method of whaling were actually found?

I'd support it more (again, grayscale). But then, it would also be ideal if we could procure meat without any killing at all. The apex of agriculture will be when we can grow the striated tissue in isolation. Eat whatever you want then. Whale, spotted owl, human. The point is, utilitarian ethics apply to nonhumans on a limited basis.

Oh, so? If that is the case any cutoff point may be argued for and we are left with veganism. Only that results in animal deaths also.

No, again, human concerns trump animal concerns. We deal out rights to lesser beings because we can; it's a luxury. If Japan was transplanted onto Whaleworld where the only viable living could be made by hunting whales I say stick 'em.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Well, we're all fucked when that space-probe comes looking for the whales. Time to dig a hole.

[Gil Hamilton]

On the matter of whale intelligences, virtually all varieties of whales more than meet the criteria for being self-aware and intelligent, save for intelligence tests that require the individuals in question to be tool using (even then, they are finding that some variety of cetaceans pass that). Cetaceans are certainly self-aware and possess significant abstract reasoning and communication skills (the more data we collect, they more complex we are finding cetacean language skills are). In fact, the more we study them, the more we are learning about cetacean culture and how their behavior and mannerism are different from range to range. At this point, the only reason we haven't started talking to them using standard linguistic methods to set up translations is that their vocal range is so acrobatic that humans can't deal with it, necessitating a whole lot of sound analysis with recorders. Plus, they certainly think, but they almost certainly don't think using the same thought processes that are common to all human beings.

Frankly, the only reason alot of cetacean species don't have immediately recognizable society is the prohibitive nature of their environment, which makes anything beyond very basic tool using impossible.

If we are going to talk about self-awareness and sentience, most cetacean breeds certainly qualify, if you don't use a double standard that excludes non-humans from being intelligent. If you apply the same standards to them as one does to demonstrating a human being has personhood, then you are forced to admit that cetaceans aren't merely dumb animals.

[Lord Zentei]

Anyway: the problem I see with this is that your argument has no clearly defined cutoff point. In fact it specifically leads to the conclusion that there is no cutoff point, which logically implies veganism. Are you a vegan?

No I'm not, and I don't think anyone else should be either (children especially). It's woefully inadequate in terms of nutrition and our bodies have evolved to consume plant as well as animal matter.

Well, that's good.

Simply put, the consumption of meat is a necessary evil. Because animal rights should be vested on a sliding scale according to intelligence, it's less "evil" to eat lower on said scale.

And how would you scale that? Do many less intelligent creatures outweigh a few smart ones? How about many slightly less intelligent creatures?

Is being stunned by a grenade and then bleeding out truly more inhumane than being electrocuted? And would you support whaling if a "more humane" method of whaling were actually found?

I'd support it more (again, grayscale).

Well, if the whale were knocked unconcious by the blast, I'm not so sure it would suffer.

But then, it would also be ideal if we could procure meat without any killing at all. The apex of agriculture will be when we can grow the striated tissue in isolation. Eat whatever you want then. Whale, spotted owl, human.

Been reading Transmetropolitan?

The point is, utilitarian ethics apply to nonhumans on a limited basis.

The problem is scaling quantity and quality on the same scale. As for myself, the scale drops quite steeply.

If we are going to talk about self-awareness and sentience, most cetacean breeds certainly qualify, if you don't use a double standard that excludes non-humans from being intelligent. If you apply the same standards to them as one does to demonstrating a human being has personhood, then you are forced to admit that cetaceans aren't merely dumb animals.

I have seen a number of articles claiming such in the past, though I have yet to be impressed by their arguments. And if you state "most", does that not allow for some types to not qualify?

[Gil Hamilton]

I have seen a number of articles claiming such in the past, though I have yet to be impressed by their arguments. And if you state "most", does that not allow for some types to not qualify?

Not all members of the cetacean family are created equal. All are bright, but not all are as sophisticated as others. Baleens aren't going to be nearly as smart as any cetacean from Delphinidae, but then again, that's true of anything as so broad as an order.

But Bottlenosed Dolphins? Orcas? Porpoises? Forget about it. There is no doubt about their intelligence.

[Qwerty 42]

Wasn't there an article posted a while ago about evidence surfacing of whales using different dialects in their speech?

[Gil Hamilton]

Wasn't there an article posted a while ago about evidence surfacing of whales using different dialects in their speech?

Yeah. There is no doubt about it, whales talk. It's just we don't know how to listen to them yet.

[Qwerty 42]

Wasn't there an article posted a while ago about evidence surfacing of whales using different dialects in their speech?

Yeah. There is no doubt about it, whales talk. It's just we don't know how to listen to them yet.

I mean, not just that, but they had different dialects depending on where they were geographically?

[Lord Zentei]

Wasn't there an article posted a while ago about evidence surfacing of whales using different dialects in their speech?

Yeah. There is no doubt about it, whales talk. It's just we don't know how to listen to them yet.

I mean, not just that, but they had different dialects depending on where they were geographically?

So? Songbirds have regional dialects.

[SirNitram]

Yeah. There is no doubt about it, whales talk. It's just we don't know how to listen to them yet.

I mean, not just that, but they had different dialects depending on where they were geographically?

So? Songbirds have regional dialects.

Given that dialect requires language? Gonna have to say no, then.

[Lord Zentei]

Given that dialect requires language? Gonna have to say no, then.

Linka.

Linka.

Linka.

[SirNitram]

Given that dialect requires language? Gonna have to say no, then.

Linka.

Linka.

Linka.

You know, when someone says 'Dialects require language, no language, no dialects', you cannot make a logical rebuttal consisting entirely of links saying 'There's regional variation in birdsong' without proving birdsong is language.

[Lord Zentei]

You know, when someone says 'Dialects require language, no language, no dialects', you cannot make a logical rebuttal consisting entirely of links saying 'There's regional variation in birdsong' without proving birdsong is language.

Except the variation is learned, not genetic, as the third link showed:

Abstract

Dialects of song exist in song birds. It can be hypothesized that these dialects have no genetic basis: there are no genes to predict which notes should be sung and in what sequence; or how often they should be repeated; or how long they should be, etc. As such, bird songs can be considered purely cultural, behavioural phenomena with no determining roots in genetics. Combined with - equally culturally determined - differential preferences of females for male bird songs, one can hypothesize about cultural mechanisms which may increase genetic polymorphism in a population.

In other words, it can be hypothesized that nongenetically encoded phenotypic behaviour may cause actual isolation of subpopulations, leading to increased genetic polymorphism in the population and eventually to speciation in some taxa of sexually reproducing organisms.

In summary, purely cultural phenomena may act as an evolutionary drive, in nonhuman as well as human organisms, by causing important gene frequency alterations in a population and may eventually lead to speciation (cultural speciation).

If you want to insist that "language" is required for the term "dialect" to be relevant, please define that term above and beyond communication that is not inherently programmed.

[SirNitram]

If you want to insist that "language" is required for the term "dialect" to be relevant, please define that term above and beyond communication that is not inherently programmed.

Forms of interaction that are learned are language? My cats therefore have language, because they've learned how to get my attention apart from just yowling real loud?

And I'll just go with the dictionary.

A. #

1. Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols.
2. Such a system including its rules for combining its components, such as words.
3. Such a system as used by a nation, people, or other distinct community; often contrasted with dialect.

Unless you've got proof there's thoughts and feelings being transmitted with rules... No. No language there.

[Lord Zentei]

If you want to insist that "language" is required for the term "dialect" to be relevant, please define that term above and beyond communication that is not inherently programmed.

Forms of interaction that are learned are language? My cats therefore have language, because they've learned how to get my attention apart from just yowling real loud?

Well, please post your definition of language, and explain why this defenition must hold for the term "dialects" to be relevant in the context of this thread (i.e. the above exchange that posits that non-genetically programmed communication among whales having "dialects" is somehow special when the same holds for other species).

[SirNitram]

If you want to insist that "language" is required for the term "dialect" to be relevant, please define that term above and beyond communication that is not inherently programmed.

Forms of interaction that are learned are language? My cats therefore have language, because they've learned how to get my attention apart from just yowling real loud?

Well, please post your definition of language, and explain why this defenition must hold for the term "dialects" to be relevant in the context of this thread (i.e. the above exchange that posits that non-genetically programmed communication among whales having "dialects" is somehow special when the same holds for other species).

Posted above. Again, all learned behavior to interact is not language. Language requires rules, the transmissions of thoughts and feelings, and must be consistant.

[felineki]

I have no particular affection for that species; they are interesting, but quite possibly the single-most overrated species on the planet.

I would have thought that particular honor would go to us.

[Lord Zentei]

Posted above. Again, all learned behavior to interact is not language. Language requires rules, the transmissions of thoughts and feelings, and must be consistant.

You mean like the ability to learn grammar?

Linka.

Or complex syntax in the "native" communication of birds?

Linka.

[SirNitram]

Posted above. Again, all learned behavior to interact is not language. Language requires rules, the transmissions of thoughts and feelings, and must be consistant.

You mean like the ability to learn grammar?

Linka.

A bird noted for it's capability to 'mimic' happens to mimic grammar? And I'm supposed to see this as proof it's language?

This all points to birds being clever in terms of animals, but I think if they were on-par with whales(Which is where this whole stupid tangent of yours comes from), someone would come out and say 'They've got language' just like they do with cateceans.

[Lord Zentei]

Posted above. Again, all learned behavior to interact is not language. Language requires rules, the transmissions of thoughts and feelings, and must be consistant.

You mean like the ability to learn grammar?

Linka.

A bird noted for it's capability to 'mimic' happens to mimic grammar? And I'm supposed to see this as proof it's language?

The articles claimed that they can learn to distinguish grammatical rules which is rather more than mere mimicry. And you neglected to comment on the second article which discusses cultural evolution among bird populations based on learned communication with complex syntax.

This all points to birds being clever in terms of animals, but I think if they were on-par with whales (Which is where this whole stupid tangent of yours comes from), someone would come out and say 'They've got language' just like they do with cateceans.

The tangent came from the notion that dialects somehow made whales special among the animal kingdom, which they do not.