This is so brutal!

[JimmytheT]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I think for it to be a clever remark, it has to be true.

They protest rats being tested on, and they are the people you see on the news scrubbing some seagull that's covered in crude oil. Pamela Anderson/PETA are making noise about protecting chickens.

Do you know many people that find rats, seagulls and chickens cute and cuddly?

I don't have anything to do with animal rights, but I do know the whole movement is based on plenty more than protecting a fuzzy bunny because it's cute or a dolphin because it has that delightful smile on it's face.

Yes, it was a generalization, but you will find many animals (especially Fish, insects and amphibians), the PETA and other animal rights activists could give a damn about.

There is more sentimental value in the cutesy, easy to anthropomorphize animals, when it comes to the general public, and hence, survival of the cutest.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by JimmytheT

Yes, it was a generalization, but you will find many animals (especially Fish, insects and amphibians), the PETA and other animal rights activists could give a damn about.

How do you know this? I don't know, but I'm sure there are groups out there that are concerned with fish, insects and amphibians. I don't know if PETA cares, but there are plenty of other people paying attention.

Any sincere animal rights advocate would, out of concern for animal rights, not eat animals, including fish. That tells me they give a damn about them.

Originally Posted by JimmytheT

There is more sentimental value in the cutesy, easy to anthropomorphize animals, when it comes to the general public, and hence, survival of the cutest.

I suppose. The general public are not animal rights advocates though. It is true that most people would care more about kittens getting whacked down at the animal shelter than they would about some tree frog going extinct. Too bad.

[Ford Prefect]

The human species needs to be eradicated. Surely there's a less invasive means than global warming though.

[Sparks]

I haven't watched the video, but I agree with those who've said that dolphins' advanced cognitive abilities should separate them from animals like cows and chickens, etc. Dolphins' experience of pain might be somewhat similar to our own, since they have a substantial, well developed cerebral cortex/forebrain, and therefore, may experience the very unpleasant psychological effects of physical pain that make the experience particularly brutal for us.

I'm amazed that people are able to torture animals (any animals) and live with themselves afterwards. You think we'd at least give animals the benefit of the most humane death possible, even at much greater expense. I'd pay more for my meat if that's what it took. And no dolphins!

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Sparks

I haven't watched the video, but I agree with those who've said that dolphins' advanced cognitive abilities should separate them from animals like cows and chickens, etc. Dolphins' experience of pain might be somewhat similar to our own, since they have a substantial, well developed cerebral cortex/forebrain, and therefore, may experience the very unpleasant psychological effects of physical pain that make the experience particularly brutal for us.

It was mentioned earlier, but where do you draw the line then? A dolphins intelligence is a moot point in my mind. Don't cows and chickens not feel pain? They have brains that process pain just as a dolphins brain would process the same pain. I don't see the connection. They can communicate and do other intellectual things, but how does effect how they process pain? Does it hurt their feelings? I am not trying be condescending, I just don't get how having a higher intelligence makes something as this more painful.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Does it hurt their feelings? I am not trying be condescending, I just don't get how having a higher intelligence makes something as this more painful.

That's a simplification, but part of it. It's the "why is this happening to me?" instead of just "ow."

On the opposite end of the spectrum, a lobster is believed to not even feel pain; just they have some actions that could almost be considered reflexes. Just like when one of your reflexes fires, you don't feel pain until later on. In the lobster's case, he never feels the pain.

Not sure where chickens and cows fall into this, but my experience with dolphins tells me they are as smart (if not smarter) than we are.

[Manson?]

Originally Posted by ken0042

That's a simplification, but part of it. It's the "why is this happening to me?" instead of just "ow."

On the opposite end of the spectrum, a lobster is believed to not even feel pain; just they have some actions that could almost be considered reflexes. Just like when one of your reflexes fires, you don't feel pain until later on. In the lobster's case, he never feels the pain.

Not sure where chickens and cows fall into this, but my experience with dolphins tells me they are as smart (if not smarter) than we are.

While I'm sure it is much more complex than this, but if dolphins were smarter than us wouldn't they have cities and be hunting us?

Seriously, an animal will do its best to ensure survival and meet its primary concerns (obvious). Humans do just that. If there exists a smarter animal than humans, why haven't they developed culture, societies etc to map out their existence? Like I said there is probably way more to it than this and a more clear way to convey, but we are the only animals that out think our genes. Its funny because from a 'survival of the fittest' we are contradicting it by preserving animals that are getting eliminated via natural selection no? Not that I am against it or for it, but only humans act in this manner or think on this level.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Manson?

While I'm sure it is much more complex than this, but if dolphins were smarter than us wouldn't they have cities and be hunting us?

Seriously, an animal will do its best to ensure survival and meet its primary concerns (obvious). Humans do just that. If there exists a smarter animal than humans, why haven't they developed culture, societies etc to map out their existence? Like I said there is probably way more to it than this and a more clear way to convey, but we are the only animals that out think our genes. Its funny because from a 'survival of the fittest' we are contradicting it by preserving animals that are getting eliminated via natural selection no? Not that I am against it or for it, but only humans act in this manner or think on this level.

You said a mouthful. I would just like to comment, hopefully without throwing this thread off on a tangent.

You could make a case that humans are not very smart in terms of there long term survival. We destroy our environment and continue to do so. Animals typically don't destroy their environment, but rather adapt to it and live in it, rather than dominate it. We fight with each other over non-survival issues. These are just a couple of examples, and some food for thought.

But natural selection doesn't really apply when humans are interfering. How can animals adapt when are over hunting them, destroying their environment faster than anything has ever done to them? The time line for evolving isn't there.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Burninator

You could make a case that humans are not very smart in terms of there long term survival. We destroy our environment and continue to do so. Animals typically don't destroy their environment, but rather adapt to it and live in it, rather than dominate it. We fight with each other over non-survival issues. These are just a couple of examples, and some food for thought.

That is actually quite untrue. In some environments, some animals have eaten all their prey and suffered because of it. I remember back in the 80s David Suzuki saying about the Newfoundland cod stocks that if Canada stopped overfishing, that would make man the first species to recognize that it is overconsuming a food source and make moves to correct it (of course, we didn't and the cod stocks are still decimated).

But look at the rabbits in Australia... their overabundance has destroyed their habitat and their food source.

Humans are destroying their environment because they are acting like the natural animals that we are. Not the reverse.

[FurnaceFace]

Dolphins are not alone. I believe there is much more outrage at this than this is over the plight of the shark. Sharks are being culled not for their entire body (as these dolphins appear to have been) but for their fins and fins alone. I would strongly suggest everyone see Sharkwater (www.sharkwater.com) for a view of how we are affecting our oceans and our lives through over fishing of sharks and through the practice of long line fishing. I would also recommend a visit to the Shark Research Institute (www.sharks.org).

I would suggest harvesting animals we are not able to "grow" is much different than harvesting cows, chickens, pigs, etc we have domesticated and can farm. The both impact the environment however I think we have more control over the farm.

[FlamesAddiction]

I think it's a little more than them just being cute. Dolphins are commonly seen by people in the realm of biological science, as having a high (very high) intelligence level. As such, they are capable of intense higher emotions and are aware of what is happening to them.

The fact is, the dolphins probably suffer more than most other animals because of their intelligence level. (Even more than a dog would )

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

I would strongly suggest everyone see Sharkwater (www.sharkwater.com)

Interesting. I'll have to go looking for that. Though the fellow that said there was no Greenpeace effort to save the sharks was wrong. Their Ocean Defenders program isn't just about whaling - it's about protecting all endangered species.

And is that Paul Watson? He's still going? Damn, I was sure he would be rotting in a jail cell by now. How a guy keeps ramming fishing boats and near sinking them without being locked up is beyond me. I've had debates with friends about his tactics (I think endangering human lives, even if the goal is protecting future generations, is wrong) and I can understand their point of view. "If no government is going to act on behalf of protecting endangered species, someone has to go vigilante"

[Manson?]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

That is actually quite untrue. In some environments, some animals have eaten all their prey and suffered because of it. I remember back in the 80s David Suzuki saying about the Newfoundland cod stocks that if Canada stopped overfishing, that would make man the first species to recognize that it is overconsuming a food source and make moves to correct it (of course, we didn't and the cod stocks are still decimated).

But look at the rabbits in Australia... their overabundance has destroyed their habitat and their food source.

Humans are destroying their environment because they are acting like the natural animals that we are. Not the reverse.

...what he said.

I could be mininterpreting you burninator, but it seems you are looking at a natural system where humans are apart from animals. Maybe our advanced cognitive ability allows us to consider sustainability as a longterm means of survival, but us homo sapiens are part of a biological system 4.6 billion years old. Assuming this, we would act on instinct before we use our brains to rationalize and think of longterm solutions. Survival doesn't need to be applied to future generations. As long as we can ensure offspring, that is enough from the most basic instinct point of view.

Back to the topic at hand, assuming a moral stance, it is quite disgusting and wrong what is done to the dolphins.

PS Can we find out what we did to deserve the blue dot? (under the skill bar on the side)

[ricoFlame]

Originally Posted by JimmytheT

A professor I once had made a clever remark regarding protecting animal rights:

"Survival of the cutest" - That is only animals that are cute and/or cuddly get any attention from animal rights people. THey could give a damn about some ugly fish being pushed to extinction, or the treatment of insects and amphibians.

i'd agree with that, i've never thought about it like that, but it definitely makes sense.

[HOZ]

I'd like more info on the film. WHen was it made and where. Just something about that video seems "not recent"

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Manson?

...what he said.

I could be mininterpreting you burninator, but it seems you are looking at a natural system where humans are apart from animals. Maybe our advanced cognitive ability allows us to consider sustainability as a longterm means of survival, but us homo sapiens are part of a biological system 4.6 billion years old. Assuming this, we would act on instinct before we use our brains to rationalize and think of longterm solutions. Survival doesn't need to be applied to future generations. As long as we can ensure offspring, that is enough from the most basic instinct point of view.

Back to the topic at hand, assuming a moral stance, it is quite disgusting and wrong what is done to the dolphins.

PS Can we find out what we did to deserve the blue dot? (under the skill bar on the side)

Basically what I was saying is that humans things do things intentionally that are counter for our survival, whether we realize it or not. Where as animals typically have a reason for doing every action. I am sure there are some exceptions or instances that we don't have explains why animals seem to do certain things. But largely speaking humans are doing things that are detrimental for our survival. Now I am no expert, so I could be totally out to lunch on this...

As for your "skill" rating, click on the "User CP" on the red bar at the top of the page, and it will tell where and why you got it.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

That is actually quite untrue. In some environments, some animals have eaten all their prey and suffered because of it. I remember back in the 80s David Suzuki saying about the Newfoundland cod stocks that if Canada stopped overfishing, that would make man the first species to recognize that it is overconsuming a food source and make moves to correct it (of course, we didn't and the cod stocks are still decimated).

But look at the rabbits in Australia... their overabundance has destroyed their habitat and their food source.

Humans are destroying their environment because they are acting like the natural animals that we are. Not the reverse.

Unfortunately I am unfamiliar with the cod stocks of Canada. So your point could trump mine. But the rabbits in Australia does not support your point because they were introduced to that environment from humans. Most likely rabbits would have never ended up in Australia with out human interference.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Burninator

But largely speaking humans are doing things that are detrimental for our survival. Now I am no expert, so I could be totally out to lunch on this...

Kinda of an interesting dynamic, don't you think? The more intelligent the species, the more apt they are to do things counter to their own suvival. Quite a paradox, no? Sorta like in the video where the dolphin's don't try to escape because they stay trying to protect their pod-mates. Mother elephants actually will actually mourn the death of a child. They dig holes, put the calf in the hole, bury it and then stay by the grave for days. Some have even stayed so long that they die from dehydration. The greater the capacity for emotion, the more inclined a species is to act against the survival instinct.

[FurnaceFace]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Interesting. I'll have to go looking for that. Though the fellow that said there was no Greenpeace effort to save the sharks was wrong. Their Ocean Defenders program isn't just about whaling - it's about protecting all endangered species.

And is that Paul Watson? He's still going? Damn, I was sure he would be rotting in a jail cell by now. How a guy keeps ramming fishing boats and near sinking them without being locked up is beyond me. I've had debates with friends about his tactics (I think endangering human lives, even if the goal is protecting future generations, is wrong) and I can understand their point of view. "If no government is going to act on behalf of protecting endangered species, someone has to go vigilante"

It's a very interesting and shows the level of involvement the fishing industry has in some of these governments.

Greenpeace is referenced in the movie.

Yep, that's Paul Watson, although the film maker is a guy from Toronto. I agree Paul is rather over the top, but as you said, gov'ts don't seem to really do anything about it so guys like him are necessary to bring about some change and to get the message across.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Unfortunately I am unfamiliar with the cod stocks of Canada. So your point could trump mine. But the rabbits in Australia does not support your point because they were introduced to that environment from humans. Most likely rabbits would have never ended up in Australia with out human interference.

How they were introduced is of no consequence to my point. Once introduced, they acted as nature would have them - multiplying as fast as they could, destroying their food source along the way. It's like a bacteria in a petri dish of plasma. It is of no consequence whether the bacteria was germain to the petri dish or added by a scientist... it still acted as a bacteria would, multiplying and eating the food source until it was gone and the bacteria dies.