Whaling could it start again?

[H2Andy]

some animals (including homo sapiens) kill and "torture" other animals seemingly
for no reason. most of them happen to be mammals (orcas, cats, chimps, dolphins, people) and on the smart side.

but is that what we want to do as a species?

also, sounds like a bad excuse to me. "why are you behaving like that, Johnny?"
"Hey, dung bettles act this way! Why can't I??"

 

[archman]

Do they kill for pleasure or other reasons Yes some species kill to be able to breed with a female, is this for pleasure or to continue there genes.

Ah, now we're getting into true sociobiology. Much of that deals entirely with behaviors that link in some way to reproduction. A lot of human emotions dealing with aggressive emotion are also so cued, especially those involving males. The lay-folk would call it killing for "sport", but the primate biologist might call it a dominance ritual, harem protection, competitive exclusion, fitness posturing, etc...

So really, "killing for fun" is a cop-out of terminology, used in any context including people. There's always supposed to be a functional behavioral reason, otherwise why select for it?

When critters display complex behaviors that are more similar to that of humans (i.e. dolphin aggression), anthropomorphy can kick in and frequently muddle things. We often use simpler terms that make little sense to animal behaviorists. To them, EVERY behavior has an intrinsic function.

Dolphins kill another spices of dolphin, why that spices? why not anything that lives? If they are killing for pleasure then what doe's it matter what they kill.
I just think there is more to it than what seems to be the obvious.

Well, dolphins do in fact kill a great deal of critters for non-feeding purposes. I've seen them retrieve sand dollars off the bottom and fling them like frisbees out of the air. They'll chomp on crabs, starfish, cucumbers, and other slow-moving animals just to taste, play with, or use in mating rituals. They don't have any sense of "higher duty" to preserve this sort of life.

With the smaller porpoises, there are several prominent theories. The most popular one (at the moment) has to do with infanticide. Male bottlenose will kill babies of their own kind to free up a female. Local porpoise loosley resemble baby dolphins. Dolphins are smart enough to easily differentiate a porpoise from a baby dolphin, but the rough similarities may be just "enough" cuing to tick male dolphins off and start them into a killing spree.

There are similarities in such behavior with chimps and humans. Chimps seem to prefer killing monkeys of different species, but still similar enough in appearance to look like chimps. And throughout mankind's history, we've killed ethnic groups that don't conform. A lot of anthropologists believe that neo-humans like the Cro-magnons and Neanderthals might have helped kill off other hominid lines, which would greatly explain why Homo sapiens has been the only living species the last several thousand years. Layfolk might call such behavior racism, but an animal behaviorist would choose defining terms that implied an intrinsic function (i.e. habitat expansion, genetic purity).

It may very well be that bottlenosed dolphins are smart enough to have figured out "racism", just like the higher primates did. Porpoises are smaller and less organized than other dolphin species that bottlenose cohabitate with, so it may just be they're an "easy mark". They can't put up much fight.

 

[cdiver2]

Ah, now we're getting into true sociobiology. Much of that deals entirely with behaviors that link in some way to reproduction. A lot of human emotions dealing with aggressive emotion are also so cued, especially those involving males. The lay-folk would call it killing for "sport", but the primate biologist might call it a dominance ritual, harem protection, competitive exclusion, fitness posturing, etc...

So really, "killing for fun" is a cop-out of terminology, used in any context including people. There's always supposed to be a functional behavioral reason, otherwise why select for it?

When critters display complex behaviors that are more similar to that of humans (i.e. dolphin aggression), anthropomorphy can kick in and frequently muddle things. We often use simpler terms that make little sense to animal behaviorists. To them, EVERY behavior has an intrinsic function.




Well, dolphins do in fact kill a great deal of critters for non-feeding purposes. I've seen them retrieve sand dollars off the bottom and fling them like frisbees out of the air. They'll chomp on crabs, starfish, cucumbers, and other slow-moving animals just to taste, play with, or use in mating rituals. They don't have any sense of "higher duty" to preserve this sort of life.

With the smaller porpoises, there are several prominent theories. The most popular one (at the moment) has to do with infanticide. Male bottlenose will kill babies of their own kind to free up a female. Local porpoise loosley resemble baby dolphins. Dolphins are smart enough to easily differentiate a porpoise from a baby dolphin, but the rough similarities may be just "enough" cuing to tick male dolphins off and start them into a killing spree.

There are similarities in such behavior with chimps and humans. Chimps seem to prefer killing monkeys of different species, but still similar enough in appearance to look like chimps. And throughout mankind's history, we've killed ethnic groups that don't conform. A lot of anthropologists believe that neo-humans like the Cro-magnons and Neanderthals might have helped kill off other hominid lines, which would greatly explain why Homo sapiens has been the only living species the last several thousand years. Layfolk might call such behavior racism, but an animal behaviorist would choose defining terms that implied an intrinsic function (i.e. habitat expansion, genetic purity).

It may very well be that bottlenosed dolphins are smart enough to have figured out "racism", just like the higher primates did. Porpoises are smaller and less organized than other dolphin species that bottlenose cohabitate with, so it may just be they're an "easy mark". They can't put up much fight.

I also remember reading that Bottlenose Dolphin will breed (by force) with other spice's of dolphin. So my question is how do they view a male Dolphin form another spice's, do they judge it by there own standards? If so then there would only be one outcome from that encounter.

 

[Mako Mark]

Ah, now we're getting into true sociobiology. Much of that deals entirely with behaviors that link in some way to reproduction. A lot of human emotions dealing with aggressive emotion are also so cued, especially those involving males. The lay-folk would call it killing for "sport", but the primate biologist might call it a dominance ritual, harem protection, competitive exclusion, fitness posturing, etc...

So really, "killing for fun" is a cop-out of terminology, used in any context including people. There's always supposed to be a functional behavioral reason, otherwise why select for it?

When critters display complex behaviors that are more similar to that of humans (i.e. dolphin aggression), anthropomorphy can kick in and frequently muddle things. We often use simpler terms that make little sense to animal behaviorists. To them, EVERY behavior has an intrinsic function.



Well, dolphins do in fact kill a great deal of critters for non-feeding purposes. I've seen them retrieve sand dollars off the bottom and fling them like frisbees out of the air. They'll chomp on crabs, starfish, cucumbers, and other slow-moving animals just to taste, play with, or use in mating rituals. They don't have any sense of "higher duty" to preserve this sort of life.

With the smaller porpoises, there are several prominent theories. The most popular one (at the moment) has to do with infanticide. Male bottlenose will kill babies of their own kind to free up a female. Local porpoise loosley resemble baby dolphins. Dolphins are smart enough to easily differentiate a porpoise from a baby dolphin, but the rough similarities may be just "enough" cuing to tick male dolphins off and start them into a killing spree.

There are similarities in such behavior with chimps and humans. Chimps seem to prefer killing monkeys of different species, but still similar enough in appearance to look like chimps. And throughout mankind's history, we've killed ethnic groups that don't conform. A lot of anthropologists believe that neo-humans like the Cro-magnons and Neanderthals might have helped kill off other hominid lines, which would greatly explain why Homo sapiens has been the only living species the last several thousand years. Layfolk might call such behavior racism, but an animal behaviorist would choose defining terms that implied an intrinsic function (i.e. habitat expansion, genetic purity).

It may very well be that bottlenosed dolphins are smart enough to have figured out "racism", just like the higher primates did. Porpoises are smaller and less organized than other dolphin species that bottlenose cohabitate with, so it may just be they're an "easy mark". They can't put up much fight.

Finally, a post by someone that knows something about animal behaviour. Thanks Archman.

I feel that a large part of the problem is that we anthropomorphize animal behaviour. as Archman pointed out.

how can you say when an animal is having fun? what exactly is fun and what is fun for us as humans may be very different for a whale or dolphin. Do they feel pain when killed or tragedy and greif when a group member dies. Certain evidence from elephants suggests they greive or at least intrigued by death of a relative and still recognize the bones of a family member long after death.

There is no doubt that dolphins at least do have a sense of self, which puts their status up into what even in recent history was what defined humanity, although they are clearly not human. Social behaviour in animals always has a reason, but putting an emotion to it is probably the wrong way of analysing it.

In my experience, explanation of animal behavior is best done through such techniques as energy analysis. Sexual investment is the perfect "animal behavior 101" example of this.

Back to the topic: Should whaling be continued?? Certainly not for the oil as was the case in the past, there are far better substitutes and synthetics. For food?? Well one whale will make a lot of sushi.

However you look at it, I believe humans are the only species on earth that feels guilty about its food.
In the animal kingdom, it is pretty much if it moves, it can be eaten, or it can eat you, so make up your mind quick.

 

[Firebrand]

Instead we are dropping a billion a week in Iraq trying to speed the extinction process...

And when did you go to Iraq to see that this billion dollar a week spending is speeding up the extinction process? Leave all political motivations aside and check out other news sources than what the TV bigwigs are showing. Last time I checked, schools are being constructed, the Iraqi people have just elected a government, people are being trained to practice medicine, the citizens are developing their religious institutions, and people are free to practice their beliefs.

My wife is finishing up her bachelors degree at a small university in Alabama, and their history department has an Iraqi exchange student. Tell me, would this Iraqi have that opportunity if the entire coalition wasn't investing into Iraq? How can investing in a country to better the lives of millions of individuals be considered investing in the extinction process?

P.S. I'm a soldier who has served under both Democrat and Republican presidents, and I faithfully carried out my duties without regard to their political affiliation.

 

[archman]

Topic... let's try to stay at least vaguely on topic.

 

[Firebrand]

Maybe Iraqi's are really whales? Hmmmmmmm....

 

[erichK]

The problem is really a fairly simple one. We have the capacity to finish turning our oceans into wastelands and to remove even the precious few restraints we have put on our wholesale pillaging of this planet---bans of hunting and trade in species that are close to extinction. The damage is already immense, and there is considerable evidence that we've managed to destroy whole ecosystems before: just do a little research into why much of Iraq is infertile.

Jacques Costeau, Thor Heyerdal, Sir Peter Blake and countless others have warned us for decades that we are destroying the complex, still poorly understood ecological systems in our oceans. What roles various whales play is still only partly understood, but a great deal of experience has demonstrated, again and again, the folly of *assuming * we understand, especially when spurred by market pressures.

We should lay off, should let whale populations recover, and should stop expanding our enterprises and economies into what little is left (relatively) intact. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the history of our species. The salt-poisoned deserts of Iraq are, three thousand years later, a monument to what a few hundred thousand Babylonians could accomplish. Over the next decades, we will discover what eight,nine, ten million of us can do. It would be nice to leave *something* behind.

BTW, why is it so hard to accept the likelyhood that species other than our own think, feel, pain, art language or emotions? The Cartesian (and biblical) great divide between "man" and "animal" is in every way *totally unscientific*. Descartes insisted that animals were mere, totally pre-programed mechanisms. We then substituted the whooly, vague concept of "instinct". Since that no longer serves, the latest fad has become to use rather tautological amalgamations of market economicand behaviorist dogmas. We continue to doggedly rejustify and rebuild the self-serving dichotomy between ourselves and other species in order to preserve our perogative to do whatever we want, with them and their worlds. The problem is, of course, that as we destroy theirs, we are destroying ours, and evenmore that of our children.

A secong btw is that, as biologists have time and again tried to point out since Darwin, chimpanzies and other primates are not 'less evolved' proto-humans who missed the boat. They are other twigs on our branch that simply went in a different direction. Whales and elephants are the highest twigs of whole other branches and more fundamentally diferent evolutionary strategies. Many of the species on the other big branches of the vastly variagated tree of life have already accumulated a much longer track record of success than we have...at least in most things other than transforming and destroying the world around them.

For the record, I eat meat, but in moderation, for health as well as moral reasons. I like to share my life with dogs, cats, etc, but do not fetishize them and am no a "rabid animal rights activist" (of whom there are very few). I do, however, attempt to be rational. And also compassionate.

 

[Spratman]

The animal-rights people started this off back in the early 90's, with pushing the idea of anthromorphism. The idea of attributing human characteristics and feelings to animals. Like most other theories, if you pump them enough in schools and colleges, they will be accepted as the norm.

I'm an not one of the dirt people and am one who grew up hunting and fishing. I'm a conservationist, so I guess I could be "categorized" as an resource management type. As Kompressor said, there is a difference between wonton killing of animals, say like back in the 1800's with the buffalo herds. Riding on a train and shooting them out the window is atrocious and I can't say much for the Native Americans running them off cliffs either. However, if there is a need and it is not pushing animals into extinction, it should be a decision made by those who practice it.

Just because there is a so called 90% majority on anything means it correct to force it on other cultures....90% of the world think the United Nations is a useful organization. 90% of the world think euthunasia and abortion is good for thinning out the human populous and is a personal choice. What's wrong with this picture???

I'm in full agreement with Kompressor regarding opinions being rammed of others being down our throats. It's a long standing part of the Norse culture, as with the Japanese. Do I agree with whaling, I don't know. I'd have to see what usefulness products are produced besides whale oil and ambergris. But I'd sure like to try one of those whale stakes, though....

Jack (yep, one of those guys...)

"Most of us could not stomach the idea of killing and eating a gorilla or a chimpanzee, likely because it would seem very much like cannibalism. And for good reason: we share over 95% of the same genes. "
Above stated by erichK.

Chimps are mean and nasty creatures. They will kill and eat anything. We give them human traits they don't have them naturally. They are CANNIBALS as well as thrill killers.
many animals kill just for the fun of it. We are the ones that try to hide it for them. Like ErichK who wants to place them up on the pedestal with us. There is only room at the top for one species and for this moment in time it's us.
Oh buy the way Chimps and gorillas are a resource. We use them as a resource everyday.
We just don't use them for a food resource. Welcome to the real world

 

[archman]

Just because there is a so called 90% majority on anything means it correct to force it on other cultures....90% of the world think the United Nations is a useful organization. 90% of the world think euthunasia and abortion is good for thinning out the human populous and is a personal choice. What's wrong with this picture???

The majority opinion thing gets sticky when we're dealing with international waters, also known as the "high seas". That's where most whaling activity occurs. In cases where a resource does not legally belong to anyone, but is used by multiple parties, it's the U.N.'s job to find a general consensus, and make everyone stick to it.