
Scientists say dolphins should be treated as 'non-human persons'  - riffraff
http://current.com/news/91825903_scientists-say-dolphins-should-be-treated-as-non-human-persons.htm
======
alanh
Hell, yes they should. We’ve known they can identify themselves in a mirror
for years. They are even known to sexually pleasure each other outside of
procreation.

(If I recall the study correctly, the scientists introduced the dolphins to a
mirror, and then placed an object on the dolphin’s back, out of its sight,
with suction cups; the dolphin swam to the mirror and contorted to view the
object.)

We should really stop poisoning their habitat. It didn’t use to be the case
that most fish had such high levels of mercury.

 _Edit_ Wow, this comment just went from +7 to +4 in a minute… I guess some
people feel very threatened by the idea that humans are overly dismissive of
other species.

~~~
lowglow
What about an art test: What other species makes art for the sake of art?

~~~
alanh
Is your goal to create a test that only humans pass because we already know
humans are the only worthwhile species? Sort of begging the question, isn’t
it? (Edit: I don’t mean any offense — just suspicious of human heuristics.)

~~~
jpwagner
No offense, but this comment is awfully condescending considering the
interesting question it's in response to.

I think Alan's claim of the motive of the original question is unfounded.

*edit: reworded for clarity

~~~
chc
I don't see how it's condescending. Either you're seeing something I'm not or
you're mistaking a rhetorical device for condescension. The idea of art being
some kind of moral threshold does seem very arbitrary.

Edit: Incidentally, I'm not one of the people who downvoted you.

~~~
jpwagner
I would be totally with you if lowglow's question was:

"what about a long division test?" or something similarly snarky.

but art is an interesting cultural phenomenon that very likely occurs in some
form in many animals. Alan's supposition that there was some bad intent in
posing the question is absurd here, in my opinion.

~~~
chc
Art is an interesting cultural phenomenon, but not something that even all
humans are very interested in (unless you define it very loosely). I wouldn't
be surprised to see animals produce some form of art, but neither would I
surprised to see a species as intelligent as humans — or even more intelligent
— that didn't give a hoot about art. Let's reframe the validity of this test
in terms that we don't have thousands of years of cultural baggage around: If
an alien species arrives here and teaches us all sorts of miraculous things,
would we feel compelled to conclude that they are not intelligent beings if
they aren't very interested in the works of Rothko?

It seems particularly likely to me that an aquatic species would not have art
at least until it was very advanced, since they don't have the tools or media
for creating it that, say, a caveman did.

~~~
jpwagner
art is not what you learn in "art class"

------
DavidAdams
I watched the excellent documentary "The Cove" a few weeks ago, and I highly
recommend watching it. Though the film did fill me with dread and outrage (as
intended), ironically, the portrayal of the brutal slaughter of dolphins by
Japanese fishermen convinced me that dolphins are not nearly as smart as many
people would like to convince us of.

Here's why: Imagine there were one particular mountain valley tucked away in
some corner of the world, and while human beings could range all over the
vastness of this earth unharmed, if they ventured into that valley they would
be killed. In that valley there was a race of essentially invincible beings
that would herd any wayward human beings into a side canyon and spear them to
death.

How would the human race react to that? Let's assume that mounting a military
attack and killing the invincible beings weren't possible. Well, first of all,
we'd put up signs and fences and maybe even sentries to warn people not to go
into that valley. We'd tell our children about the danger, and pass the
knowledge of the invincible murderous monsters on, generation to generation.
If people did go in there and got killed we'd cover the event in detail on TV,
as a warning to others (like Shark Week). Even really stupid people would know
not to go into the "valley of the stabby monsters."

Well, if Dolphins are so smart, and they have such good communication and
advanced social structure, then why haven't the many dolphins that have
personally witnessed the slaughter at "The Cove" and escaped (the movie shows
dolphins escaping) managed to warn other dolphins not to go there?

Honestly, if dolphins were anywhere near as smart as humans and were anywhere
near as ruthless, they not only would have prevented the slaughter, but would
have mounted a commando raid wherein expert jumping dolphins would have
trained to jump out of the water, knock the fishermen out of their little
boats, then beaten and dragged them down into the cove until they were
drowned. And I'm being serious about this. Human beings wouldn't put up with
that shit.

Other observed dolphin behavior, such as dolphins killing each other and
attacking sharks to defend swimming humans does prove that they have the
wherewithal to act in both self-preservation, and in the defense of others,
even to violence. But they still get speared in the cove. That tells me
they're not that smart.

~~~
ck2
Lack of collective memory does diminish an intelligence rating.

Humans didn't have recorded history for tens of thousands of years (maybe a
million depending what science you follow, frontal lobes and all that) and
were doomed to repeat the same mistakes (heck we still do the same massive
mistakes with lots of recorded history).

~~~
kiba
Dolphins don't have hands to write with. Nor did we invent a communication
system by which dolphins and humans can communicate ideas.

~~~
ck2
Humans have had spoken-word history long before written. Native Americans for
example. Dolphins may have something similar, perhaps a "show and tell" of
sorts, who knows, but I admit it's obviously not as evolved if they can't
avoid an annual slaughter.

Another extremely intelligent creature is the octopus, I wouldn't mind them
having some protection as well. But they aren't as "sexy" as dolphins so I
don't expect that to be forthcoming any century soon.

~~~
LaGrange
I'd guess communication methods available to dolphins aren't as good as those
available to humans. I think all aural communication that is available to
dolphins is available to humans, and yet we use mostly speech and
gesticulation, both of which seem to be either unavailable or very limited for
dolphins.

As for the octopus, by quickly browsing the usual suspects you can find that
quite a lot of people find them much more sexy than dolphins, but let's not
get to deep into that.

~~~
evgen
While dolphins lack the communication methods available to humans, I believe
that they have the same methods available to them that whales possess. Whales
have a pretty sophisticated "culture" that is encapsulated in the variying
songs of different species and among the various geographic and tribal
groupings within a particular species.

~~~
LaGrange
Yes, I know about that. I just doubt that it's as effective at expressing
precise meanings as methods available for humans ("area within 100km radius
from 33.593316 135.943022 is to be considered unsafe," and let's not get
started on bordering the area with 3 meter high fences topped with barbed
wire).

------
joeyo
I've always been a little uneasy with the idea that we should assign rights
(or personhood, or whatever) to animals in a graded way in proportion to their
intelligence. It implies that humans should be deprived of those same rights
when their intelligence doesn't meet some similar threshold.

~~~
alanh
Emotional capacity is another axis that matters a lot.

But we _do_ deprive people of rights if they are really lacking, mentally. We
put crazies in madhouses (are bad at doing so accurately). We deny minors most
rights of self-determination (more than strictly based on intelligence, but
the idea’s the same).

Heck, to sign your will, you have to represent that your noggin isn’t fried.

 _Edit (response to pyre):_ I never said we treat unintelligent people the
same way we do animals. Psychologically we don’t even like to disrespect
_dead_ people (intelligence: 0). I’m just saying that intelligence does affect
the rights we afford other humans.

~~~
joeyo
I absolutely agree that emotional processing is an important component of
intelligence. But I'm still not convinced that it's a good way of ascribing
rights.

Regarding your examples: we certainly do act in the interests of the insane,
mentally disabled and children. But that is not because they have fewer rights
or have less personhood. We act for them _because and in defense of_ their
rights. We do this because they are unable to protect themselves and need
guardians to defend them from abuses to their dignity, bodily integrity, etc.

~~~
anigbrowl
Up to a point. You can't vote on behalf of an incompetent relative, for
example. Some rights are not delegable.

------
DanielBMarkham
Science is all about how things work, not how we should act.

 _The researchers argue that their work shows it is morally unacceptable..._

See, this is what we get when we confuse science and activism. Should a
"researcher" have any more weight with the public about what they consider
"morally acceptable"?

I think there is some meat to this story: we need a more nuanced scale of what
is morally acceptable or not that includes various forms of intelligence
(without the same logic being used to treat disabled people poorly) I can't
emphasize enough how important these issues are. Dolphins are obviously highly
intelligent creatures. But such a discussion needs to happen from a neutral
and reasonable standpoint. Asking folks who are deeply in love with their
subject to tell us what's morally acceptable or not is whacked.

Doctors shouldn't treat themselves, lawyers shouldn't have themselves as
clients, accountants shouldn't audit their own books, programmers shouldn't
peer-review their own code -- and scientists shouldn't advocate on the topics
they are deeply attached to. This is just common sense.

EDIT: Just to be clear, there are at least three problems with scientists-as-
activist.

1) The public gets to make the decision on these issues. This means that any
communication from scientists has to have as its goal informing the public,
not persuading it. In an article like this, it is not clear to the public
where the discussion of science ends and where the discussion of advocacy
begins. This confusion, aside from being unethical in any profession, is a
poor use of the public's resources.

2) The end result of such advocacy has a direct impact on the scientist's
lives, creating a moral hazard. This is like when your chiropractor tells you
that you have a bad back -- and need many more chiropractor visits. Maybe
true, maybe not, but when a professional judgment can also be self-serving it
creates mixed incentives and doubt, which is bad for any group of
professionals

3) Morality is not science: you cannot add one and one and get "moral" or
"immoral". When a conclusion like this is put forth by a scientist, it glosses
over all sorts of other questions which other professionals are interested in,
like when life begins, or what constitutes sentience. To make a statement
about morality is -- at the very least -- to jump into areas for which you are
not trained. As a professional, once again, it's your job to make it clear
which things you speak about are part of your work and part of your opinions.
The most important thing a scientist can say is "I don't know"

That's not even getting into the entire issue of just being too close to
something to make a good call. Or -- if you think such behavior is okay -- the
use of scientists as pawns to have proxy battles over other larger political
causes.

These are not new standards. Other professions have been living inside of them
for years. Ask your accounting consulting firm whether it's moral for you to
invest in Indonesia and you'll get a very careful reply which will boil down
to "I am not the person to ask that question of"

~~~
ced
_Doctors shouldn't treat themselves, lawyers shouldn't have themselves as
clients_

Why not? Is there a law against that? I'm genuinely curious.

 _and scientists shouldn't advocate on the topics they are deeply attached to_

That's a non-sequitur analogy.

Besides, who do you propose to advocate a position if not those who have
learned the most about it? Shall we forbid Dawkins from advocating evolution?
Economists (it's a science!) from advocating economic policy?

Should we forbid programmers from advocating software patent reform because
"it's a topic they are deeply attached to"?

~~~
electromagnetic
> Shall we forbid Dawkins from advocating evolution?

Yes, please, I'm begging you. Dawkins has made himself the _WORST_ person to
be advocating evolution because he's turned it from a rational scientific
argument into the moron-capades by arguing about the existence of god.

To put it simply, he's trying to get his finger out of a Chinese-finger-trap
by pulling, which makes him a moron because every 5-year old will tell you to
give up and push your fingers together because its... you guessed it...
_POINTLESS_ , just like arguing about an unresolvable argument like whether
god does or doesn't exist.

Does a tree falling in the forest make a noise? Yes, it's called _science_
lets invite Dawkins to talk about it again.

Why shouldn't a doctor treat themselves? Because it's very hard to do open
heart surgery on yourself!

Edit: > Should we forbid programmers from advocating software patent reform
because "it's a topic they are deeply attached to"?

I thought the conventional wisdom with copyright reform was that the MPAA,
RIAA, etc. should be forbidden from advocating because "it's a topic they are
deeply attached to" ... you know all those hundred-dollar bills don't roll
themselves up into big fat wads and slip into Congressmen's pockets for
nothing.

~~~
pstuart
There is a war on evolution by the religious right. How is one to try to take
that on without talking about God?

~~~
gloob
Because the existence or nonexistence of god has nothing whatsoever to do with
evolution?

~~~
Jach
Depends which god you're talking about. A god that created the earth and
everything on it in seven days some number of years ago is in direct conflict
with observable evidence. The generic "idea of god", where it may be possible
that some being with powers that shouldn't be possible according to our
understanding of physics exists somewhere in the universe, does not conflict
with evolution. If you don't think evidence is powerful enough to let us infer
the existence or non-existence of something, well...

------
Tyrant505
Does intelligence somehow determine the significance and importance of pain?
Is it less real?

------
iuguy
This is solely my opinion, and I could be (and would love to be proven)
completely wrong, but as I understand it we as a race are the most incredible
predators on the planet. There is no animal on this earth that could survive a
full onslaught by a group of humans. We win, put simply.

Now for dolphins to turn around and say so long and thanks for all the fish is
a great thing. I like dolphins. There are people here who think eugenics is a
good thing. What will dolphins do for them?

Sadly, the eugenics side will probably live. As long as what we produce is on
the scale of Dr Julian Bashir I only have a minor problem. If we're producing
Khan Noonien Singh then I have a major problem.

Going back to the problem, I believe that dolphins are great creatures but not
on the same terms as us. I'm sorry if you view it differently. I think
Dolphins are great in their own right, therefore don't need our help to become
intelligent but should have a supporter definately.

------
JulianMorrison
If you consider intelligence in terms of IQ tests, they're pretty smart. If
you consider it in terms of optimizing power, the ability to shape the future
to their goals, a quadriplegic low-IQ human with a eyeblink controlled typing
screen obliterates them. I would consider them pre-people at most, ripe for
uplift.

~~~
puredemo
I wonder how brain-computer interfaces and neuroprosthetics might change this
in the upcoming years.

Seaquest was right!

------
waynecolvin
If dolphins became legal persons then how would you take one to court? If one
ever broke into your house or something.

------
tremendo
I'm all for the humane treatment of animals. Humans are animals. But doesn't
"person" imply "human"? Does a human need to be intelligent to be a person?
what about someone with extensive brain damage, wouldn't (s)he still be a
person? Why muddle definitions?

~~~
fleitz
It's a very interesting philosophical question about what implies a person and
if such a thing can be lost, and when personhood is gained. It was once very
easy to lose personhood, for example being unable to pay your debts, or losing
in combat. It seems that for the present personhood is gained at birth and is
never lost.

For better or worse, corporations are also treated as persons.

------
russellallen
Although science can help us know the facts before we make our decision, how
we should treat dolphins is not a scientific question but an ethical and moral
one.

~~~
jamesbritt
" how we should treat dolphins is not a scientific question but an ethical and
moral one."

How did you decide that science and the scientific process should be excluded
from ethics and morality?

~~~
zackattack
because science is about objective facts. facts are objective because they can
be verified by different minds if they use the same processes.

ethics and morality are EMOTIONAL, vary widely between individuals, and must
be arbitrarily decided upon by an entity representing tribal leadership.

------
known
And give them voting rights.

