
Are dolphins sufficiently self-aware to deserve more ethical treatment? - cwan
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/006958.html
======
coffeemug
Swimming with the dolphins (for about 15-20 minutes in an amusement park) has
been one of the most awe-inspiring and cherished experiences in my life. I
always knew dolphins are mammals, but the experience of seeing their features
up close was still fascinating. They have eye lashes, and their eyes look very
close to dog/human eyes and seem to have a spark of intelligence in them. In
retrospect this is pretty obvious, but I still remember how amazed I was to
see it up close.

One of the dolphins was a new mother - her newborn was confined to a small
area in the corner of the pool. Every few minutes the mother would turn around
to briefly glance if her newborn is ok.

They seem to really enjoy playing with people - they'd do tricks like swim up
to you from the back and poke you in the butt to surprise you. Then they'd
turn on their backs to let you rub their belly and after a while they'd rise
above the water surface and touch your face with their nose. I asked the guide
if they were taught to do this and she said one of the dolphins came up with
the 'poking' trick and the other dolphins picked it up.

These are really fascinating creatures. I have no idea whether holding them in
captivity should be considered unethical, but the idea of killing them for a
commercial purpose (or even research) makes me feel extremely uneasy.

If you get the chance to swim with them, do take take the opportunity. It's
worth the money many times over and will almost certainly change the way you
think about these amazing creatures.

------
pedalpete
Why does 'self aware[ness]' have any effect on ethical or humane treatment?

~~~
grellas
Here is a prior thread in which I asked essentially the same question, from
which quite a lively discussion ensued:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1029406>.

On reflection, I think I see the legal angle here (which I did not in the
prior thread). Activist groups have long looked for a hook by which to bring
class actions against those whom they see as perpetrators of wrongs that they
wish to stop. In this case, it is commercial tuna fishermen. However, the
courts have denied them the right to sue on behalf of the dolphins (which are
accidentally killed in the course of industrial tuna fishing) on grounds that
dolphins aren't human beings and therefore do not have 'standing' to sue. This
means that the activist groups also cannot bring class actions in the name of
the dolphins. Of course, if the dolphins are 'self-aware,' then they arguably
can be treated in a special way by the courts - as 'non-human humans' - and be
given the right to sue. The research is being cast as disinterested science,
but I believe it may be motivated by this extra-scientific goal and that is
why it is routinely presented along with arguments for better ethical
treatment of the dolphins. In essence, the bottom line will be this: better
ethical treatment = enforceable legal rights (i.e., enforceable by activist
groups suing tuna fisherman in federal court once a court recognizes their
right to bring such suits on behalf of a 'self-aware' species that now should
have 'standing' to sue).

As I have come to see this in such a light, I believe the science here may be
authentic but it may equally be agenda-driven, potentially making its findings
suspect. I leave that to those who understand the scientific issues (I do not)
but it does need to be evaluated in light of this background motive and its
implications.

~~~
metamemetics
Pure science is purely descriptive, it is not prescriptive. People often use
science as justification for prescriptive action. But prescriptive action also
always requires a categorization of outcomes as [good, bad]. Good vs. bad is
an aesthetic decision that is not intrinsic to pure science.

~~~
pavlov
Aesthetic? I think I see what you mean -- if Heisenberg had developed a
nuclear bomb during the war, it would have had a significant impact on
European landscape aesthetics.

~~~
metamemetics
correct. For most, such nuclear devestation would be extremely displeasing to
envision. However this does not make it scientifically bad, and if you were a
nazi you would probably use darwinism to justify it.

------
pmccool
Interesting, related question: when is a creature self-aware enough to be held
to a different standard of behaviour than, say, a dog?

~~~
metamemetics
I don't think self-aware is a good metric. I would argue the economy is self-
aware. I think a better metric of how evovled or human-like something's
consciousness is would be capacity for analogical reasoning.

Humans are by far the best, by the great apes and dolphins can do it too.

A biologial metric that is more accurate than brain size is cortical folding.
Again humans have the most, but bottlenose dolphins actually have more than
early human ancestors.

