"Scientists say dolphins should be treated as non-human persons" - Times Online

I think the major problem in this way of thinking is that if we acknowledge dolphins as non-human persons, we would have to majorly change our way of behaviour on the seas, which is not going to happen.

Mankind is only prizing itself on its tolerance because it has not had to coexist with another intelligent species yet. We ve never had to share with anyone but ourselves.

At least thats my cynic view.

Will they be subject to the legal system? Because I don't wanna be on the jury that has to deal with dolphin rape.

I thought the cynical view would be that humans can't even co-exist with our OWN fucking species.

Until dolphins can speak like Darwin on Seaquest DSV, I'll consider this a non-issue.

The Japanese are like that because they know that given the latitude, the dolphins will enslave us.

Way to make me feel guilty for my long time fantasy of eating Dolphin Sushi...

And yes, while I do think we should offer greater protections to higher order animals (if it can be proven that an animal has a sense of humor, you should not make ashtrays out of it's hands), I do wonder what we're supposed to do about the issue of Dolphin cruelty. Many dolphins engage in abominably cruel behavior, seemingly for no purpose other than their own amusement. What are we to make of that, if they're "non-human persons"? Do we set up a seperate judicary system to try and convict non human persons for such acts? Or are non human persons somehow above and beyond the reach of any law? If we are to say they need special protections and rights (that we do not afford to say, earth worms), should we expect them to shoulder special reponsibilities?

EDIT: Hat tip to PMR for his post #3, which I'd missed. He basically made the same point I just did.

I guess we'll have to make dolphin courts and dolphin jails with dolphin guards to watch the rapist dolphins.

If you're so smart, dolphin, then why are you so delicious?

Just to be clear, it's not like all scientists reached this conclusion. It's understood that dolphins are generally quite intelligent (the article lists the number of 'tests' that scientists have created as general measures/categories of reasoning used/passed by higher level primates). Since dolphins have demonstrated culture, tool use, self-recognition, etc. there certainly is a case for them being in the same level of intelligence as primates.

The trouble really is that since their habitat and evolutionary track are so different, making truly accurate judgments about their relative intelligence is still fraught with uncertainties. There's certainly a case to be made about it but I think it will take considerably more time before there is a consensus among a broad range of different fields (psychologists, biological anthropologists, etc.) that this is the case.

That being said, I'd still feel like a jerk for eating them ... even if simply because their slow rate of maturity almost always means that consumption of them is not sustainable.

Won't that just lead to dolphin prison rape?

Is this a joke? Because I seriously have wanted to try dolphin for a long time. Unfortunately I've had no idea where to try it. The Cape, maybe? Any suggestions would be helpful. Dolphin populations have rebounded, so I feel like I'd be ok with eating one these days (or at least, I doubt the guilt would be overwhelming)

Fuck dolphins and people, I want to dine on a Grey - something even more advanced than ourselves! But this seems to be an impossible dream, because you can't eat upwards on the food chain.

Sure you can, trillions and trillions of parasites do it every day.

Well all I'm saying is that it sounds like the 14th Amendment all over again. That gave birth to corporate personhood, and the rise of immortal companies that had rights as citizens but could not go to jail even though the Amendment's intended purpose was to protect freed slaves. Now it seems like we're about to extend all kinds of benefits (if we listen to the ill council of some) to Dolphins, without first bothering to establish any sort of framework for dealing with these new "non human persons" in the legal system. Or for that matter, before we’ve figured out how to establish a legal system for dolphins in the first place. If you can somehow commit a crime against a dolphin, isn't that dolphin equally capable of breaking the law when it directs violence towards a member of it's own species? If the answer is yes, what , if anything, is our reponsibility in that situation? I have no idea, and thinking about it makes my head hurt. So I'll move on and address your first point second. But not before I conclude this answer by saying, I am for protecting dolphins, but the idea of "non human personhood" seems like a giant moral and legal quagmire waiting to happen


For the record:

I am against any cruel action directed at any animal, or even bug, regardless of it's intelligence.

My objection to killing higher order mammals is based in evidence that proves they are self aware and some are as smart as toddlers or slow children. I cannot in good faith say that I would sanction the killing of a self aware intelligent animal for a purpose as frivilous as a coat or ash tray. Gorillas should be left alone, and killing them, regardless of the level of cruelty involved, is wrong.

On the other hand.... I love cheese burgers. But as a decent person, I want to enjoy my cheeseburger in good health, knowing that no unnecessary cruelty came to the cow. I want to know that my cow did not die in terrible conditions, after a miserable life. I want my cow to be treated humanely, so when my cow's time comes to be turned into cheeseburger, I will not feel that a wrong has been committed. I have a pair of incisors for a reason, and it's not for eating celery sticks. I evolved to be an omnivore, so I'm alright with eating animals. I do feel though that some of the factor farming practices in this nation and around the world are abhorrent, and must be changed. Animals are not products. They are not grown or made, they are born. They need to be treated with respect



EDITED TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS:
For the record, no one has yet defined for me what a "non human person" even is, or what rights a non human person would be entitled to. The rights enumerated in the Constitution of the United States? Human Rights as defined by international Maritime Law? Does the Geneva Convention apply? As far as I've been able to discern, there is no definition for a "non human person", and the issue of how to govern non human people becomes even more nebulous

I am kind of unsure how to answer. Are you really asking me what is the difference between a human eating a human, and a human eating a marine mammal? If so, lemme know and I'll try to formulate a reponse.

Well, the tuna's not going to be fit to eat anymore.

I know, and that's why I only eat farm raised Tuna these days. I'm not evil, I want the oceans to be healthy and I do not want to actively take part in the extinction of one of nature's tastiest animals

Dolphins are the rapists of the sea. Show them no mercy.

Human meat seems like it would be too gristly. Just saying.

Also, the dolphins only rape when the people are asking for it. I saw that episode of King of the Hill.

Ideally I'd want to eat a dolphin that got caught in a net accidentally. But I'd resort to hunting one (or have professional fisherman hunt one for me) if it came to that. But that’s kind of a long time fantasy for me, and I have no idea when or how I’ll realize it.

As for human population control, it's a reasonable discussion to have, but I think it would have to be more about a global change in perspective and priorities than a Hannibal Lechter free for all. Plus, have you seen most obese people? Not exactly appetizing.


As for the morality of Dolphins as sushi, I guess my perspective on the issue is informed by a combination of two things. I'll be upfront and honest about the first one: They're not exactly my favorite sea creatures, for some of the reasons other people have already listed.

And the second, I notice you're from BC. I am a New Englander, born (well, I was born in NYC, but whatever) and raised. We are a coastal people of rich maritime traditions. To us, the dolphin is part of what we like to call "The bounty of the sea". My ancestors (I had an ancestor on the Mayflower) ate the fish and sea creatures from the Atlantic ocean, as did those who lived here long before the whites came. I am not about to look in the face of all that history and say they were doing something morally wrong. Granted, today we have greater knowledge and understanding of how fish populations live and thrive, and what needs to be done to insure they survive in this new millennium. But as previously stated, several species of Dolphin are no longer in the red, as it were, and I feel that I’d be ok with consuming one.

I hope that makes my views a little more clear!

I've attempt to address my potential double standard , and my reasons for it, (re:dolphins) in my previous post to you

Next those fucking Dolphins are going to be taking all of our jobs.

Damn! One of the smallest creatures was overlooked by myself; perhaps to my eventual doom!

That's how the Martians were eventually undone.

Enjoy your cancer. There's only a handful of seafood that's safe to eat farmed, and tuna ain't on the list.

Edit: Here.

speaking from personal experience?

I would have figured human meat was red, not white.

In The Cove dolphins are bested by a hammer and a pole. They're not so smart.

You know, the concept of personhood itself is fascinating and could be the subject of an actually interesting conversation. WG seems to have briefly covered the Singer/Animal Liberation take on personhood, which is the ability to suffer qualifies a being as a person. That is actually a much, much lower bar than what the article is talking about. This marks the first time, I believe, that a scientific body has made the argument for non-human personhood from the sentience. If dolphins are sentient in the way we normally think about it, that's a thing of awe.

However, since that is not happening, let me jump in on the pork/human skeletal muscle debate. Human muscle tissue is much, much tougher than the meat of other animals. With most animals, you can eat fresh cut meat. Human muscle tissue actual requires for it to be cured and have bacteria break down the elasticity of the muscle tissue in order to be eaten by an organism like a human. (BTW, the similarity between us and pork is not in the muscle tissue, but in the general layout of our anatomy.)

Yes.
Don't let your guard down!

I've finally found it. Sigged.

Also, are you going to stop eating cheeseburgers until you know exactly where they come from?

Are you honestly saying that living by the coast means it's ok to eat Dolphin?

I wish I had the will power to do that. Will power is not one of my super powers.

In all seriousness, factory farming bugs me quite a bit, and I try to eat free range. It's just so expensive. I need my government to step in on this one and make them change how cows are raised

No, there are obviously alot of things that must be taken under consideration when eating a dolphin, regardless of where you live. With that said, my point was that living on a coast means that you eat things from the sea. For most of history people didn't have to worry about fish running out. So this is something that is hard for East Coasters to wrap our heads around.

Congrats, you're part of the problem.

I'd just like to take a step back for one moment and say, "Wow!" I am a meat eater. I'd probably eat steak 4 or 5 times a week if given a choice. That being said, I have never looked at some animal and said to myself, "Hmmmm, I think I'd really like to take a bite out of that." Therefore, I find the fact that the Princess has apparently done this with dolphins fascinating. What makes them look so potentially delicious? Has she ever looked at another animal--say, a wombat--and said, "Hmmm, I suspect that's some good eatin' right there."

So weird.

And, lest we think I'm picking on PK, I'll say it again: Princess, you're too precious for this world. Never change.

It's actually really intersting how in the US we tend to try to separate the animal form of our food from the final form in which we eat it. I know when I've traveled/lived in Asia that they don't really have that issue. They'll show you food that is obviously from an animal ... duck head/feet, the fish with the skin/head still on it, shrimp with heads still on it, etc.

I even remember seeing ads on the side of the road where the front half is a cow and the back half is it getting cut into slices of steak that are falling off the back. It just really made me wonder if there was this effort to avoid thinking about where our food comes from.

ETA:

I can't imagine seeing that kind of stuff in the US. The only thing I can really think of that's like that is picking out your own lobster or something.

Go to a super H-mart if there's one in your area.

Pretty interesting, actually. Because the US eats so fucking much of it, we like to view our meat as a magical, styrofoam-pre-packaged, God-given right. Which leaves no room for any consequences.

So long, and thanks for all the rape.

Also, most of the countries he mentions ban factory farming. I think the reason industry in the US likes to distance the end product from its source so much is so you don't eventually piece together just how fucked up the US food industry is just from walking the aisles. They like people to believe that farming in the States hasn't changed in any essential ways from the pastoral images they use in their ads.

Still no answer. An answer in itself?