

Dolphins, and the right side of history - dsirijus
http://swombat.com/2012/11/6/dolphin-history

======
ColinWright
Sad, but not surprising, to see this flagged off the front page and into
oblivion. It took some time to find it, but it's now at rank 1181.

------
thebigrace
I am a vegetarian and agree with most of the article up until the very last
sentence - "where would you have stood on the issue of slave labour" or words
to that effect.

I feel like that confuses the issue and makes it easier to argue against -
humans are very clearly different to dolphins and equating the two does noone
any favours.

~~~
ColinWright
It used to be that people would say:

    
    
        "These savages are clearly different
         from civilised people"
    

and I can easily imagine them saying:

    
    
        "... and equating the two does no one any favours."
    

There's the point of the entire article: In the future, perhaps people will
find it incomprehensible that we, today, considered humans different from
dolphins in a significant aspect.

~~~
markive
They didn't then try to eat the savages did they? It's comparing apples and
oranges..

~~~
ColinWright
I don't believe it is comparing apples and oranges. It was once considered by
some slave owners to be a mere trifling problem occasionally to beat one of
them to death, or work them to death, or otherwise behave in ways that are now
considered unacceptable.

In the same way, some people put dolphins in captivity, and consider it an
inconvenient side-effect of tuna fishing that dolphins are regularly killed in
large numbers. And yes, some people eat dolphins, and that supports an
industry that kills them for profit, just as slave traders used to capture
people and ferry them across oceans. For profit. Deaths of a percentage were
considered acceptable losses.

It seems to me that the parallels are stronger than the differences, and I
also wonder how people of the future will judge the actions of today, and
silence of those who didn't speak up.

------
markive
Nature is cruel, animals are food, we are animals.

I don't see why any animal no matter how cute or intelligent deserves more
rights than any other, but it's a messy philosophical argument.

Does an animal have the right not to be made extinct? The scientist in me says
No, the naturalist says Yes.

~~~
RobAley
"we are animals" && "I don't see why any animal ... deserves more rights than
any other"

I think that's his point. We are not too different from dolphins.

~~~
markive
You missed my point, sentience is a human concept, what happens when robots
have indistinguishable sentient properties?

It's a messy philosophical argument, what about the vegetables they feel pain
too! <http://www.vegetablecruelty.com>

~~~
RobAley
We are animals. We are not robots or vegetables.

If a robot becomes sufficiently sentient, possesses emotions and needs, has
empathy and reproductive capacity, and other such animal traits, then I see no
reason not to extend similar rights to it too. If we develop the ability to
create such a creature (for that is what it will be), and choose to create
such a creature, then we must face the responsibilities that our actions bring
and the rights that that creature will have.

It is unlikely carrots will evolve to a similar level any time soon, so we've
a while to think about vegetable ethics. In the meantime, brussels sprout
genocide is fine by me.

~~~
markive
Haha..

I like your little reproductive capacity caveat.

But since it's a purely philosophical argument.. If you create a program with
all the sentient properties, feels pain etc.. Does it not afford these magic
rights you speak of? After all pain is just an electrical impulse expressed as
a negative emotion..

If vegetables prove to create a chemical response to trauma, does that not
mean they feel pain too?

~~~
RobAley
If we create a program that has all of that, then yes.

Note that my criteria (individual items are of course up for discussion, but
the point is a broad range of human/animal like criteria) go way beyond pain.
Emotion, empathy, maybe other things like self-learning etc. are a long, long
way off being implemented successfully in software. I think that maybe when we
reach the point where they are, it may not seem such a daft idea to protect
them in this way. "After all pain is just an electrical impulse expressed as a
negative emotion" which helps to illustrate the close relation between us and
the (currently) mythical software we are talking about.

The rights which we are talking about aren't "magic" as you quote. They
actually serve a practical purpose and in my opinion are a positive
evolutionary trait. When applied to humans, their purpose is obvious
(protecting us from each other, promoting cooperation and ensuring our
survival as a species). But we live in a world beyond just humans, and inter-
species protection and co-operation is in both human and animal (and, one day
perhaps, computer) interests.

On the subject of vegetables, I have never found cabbages to be particularly
empathetic, so I happy to relegate them to the inferior classes for the time
being.

