Should Dolphins Be Treated As Non-Human Persons? 785
Hugh Pickens writes "Dolphins have long been recognized as among the most intelligent of animals, but now the Times reports that a series of behavioral studies suggest that dolphins, especially species such as the bottlenose, have distinct personalities, a strong sense of self, can think about the future and are so bright that they should be treated as 'non-human persons.' 'Many dolphin brains are larger than our own and second in mass only to the human brain when corrected for body size,' says Lori Marino, a zoologist at Emory University. 'The neuroanatomy suggests psychological continuity between humans and dolphins and has profound implications for the ethics of human-dolphin interactions.' For example, one study found that dolphins can recognize their image in a mirror as a reflection of themselves — a finding that indicates self-awareness similar to that seen in higher primates and elephants. Other studies have found that dolphins are capable of advanced cognitive abilities such as problem-solving, artificial language comprehension, and complex social behavior, indicating that dolphins are far more intellectually and emotionally sophisticated than previously thought. Thomas White, professor of ethics at Loyola Marymount University, has written a series of academic studies suggesting dolphins should have rights, claiming that the current relationship between humans and dolphins is, in effect, equivalent to the relationship between whites and black slaves two centuries ago."
I agree (Score:5, Interesting)
they should be treated as 'non-human persons.'
Corporations are, so why not dolphins...
More Protection (Score:3, Interesting)
Dolphins do deserve a more vigorous protection even though they will never be any good at playing the piano.
Re:I agree (Score:4, Interesting)
That is as such. (Score:5, Interesting)
the difference in between humans and dolphins is that, humans are loaded on the iq side, and dolphins, are on the eq side. practically, human and dolphin populations are basically opposite twins of each others, when it comes to social interaction. of course humans are able to field some eq, as well as dolphins are able to field considerable iq. (the mind blobbing 'creating rings and blobs underwater play' pastime of dolphins, what they can do in research centers etc).
i think it is time we have dropped the late 19th century standards and concepts for sentience (most of which depend on iq, not even basic cognition), and adapt something that is more appropriate with the level of science our civilization has.
No, they're not really that close (Score:5, Interesting)
Rights and Responsibility (Score:4, Interesting)
I support limited rights for animals, in parallel with the level of legal responsibility that they have. Already many animals are granted a few very limited rights, like the right to not be tortured (even if it is legal to kill them). This goes along with their legal responsibilities as in they are not held accountable for their actions like theft or even murder, which is the responsibility of the owner (if there is one). The courts might order an animal put down, but only as a protection for the community, not as a punishment.
So, what level of rights should dolphins be granted? What level or responsibility? Should we make it illegal to kill them? Should we convict them of murder if they kill another person or dolphin? Should it be illegal to confine them? Should they be held responsible if they steal fish from a net?
I suspect much of the problem is one of communication. Dolphin are simply so alien to humans that we may not think similarly enough to communicate richly enough to make sense of this sort of ethical issue. (It also shatters all those awesome sci-fi fantasies about meeting cool alien species who are similar to us, but different, but we communicate and get along. Likely any alien would be so alien communication would be an even bigger issue than with dolphins.)
Dolphin-intelligence study in 1958 (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/75068 [mentalfloss.com]
4. For the Love of Dolphins
Perhaps the most troubling experiment in recent history is the dolphin-intelligence study conducted by neuroscientist John C. Lilly in 1958. While working at the Communication Research Institute, a state-of-the-art laboratory in the Virgin Islands, Lilly wanted to find out if dolphins could talk to people. At the time, the dominant theory of human language development posited that children learn to talk through constant, close contact with their mothers. So, Lilly tried to apply the same idea to dolphins.
For 10 weeks in 1965, Lilly's young, female research associate, Margaret Howe, live with a dolphin named Peter. The two shared a partially flooded, two-room house. The water was just shallow enough for Margaret to wade through the rooms and just deep enough for Peter to swim. Margaret and Peter were constantly interacting with each other, eating, sleeping, working, and playing together. Margaret slept on a bed soaked in saltwater and worked on a floating desk, so that her dolphin roommate could interrupt her whenever he wanted. She also spent hours playing ball with Peter, encouraging his more "humanoid" noises and trying to teach him simple words.
As time passed, it became clear that Peter didn't want a mom; he wanted a girlfriend. The dolphin became uninterested in his lessons, and he started wooing Margaret by nibbling at her feet and legs. When his advances weren't reciprocated, Peter got violent. He started using his nose and flippers to hit Margaret's shins, which quickly became bruised. For a while, she wore rubber boots and carried a broom to fight off Peter's advances. When that didn't work, she started sending him out for conjugal visits with other dolphins. But the research team grew worried that if Peter spent too much time with his kind, he'd forget what he'd learned about being human.
Before long, Peter was back in the house with Margaret, still attempting to woo her. But this time, he changed his tactics. Instead of biting his lady friend, he started courting her by gently rubbing his teeth up and down her leg and showing off his genitals. Shockingly, this final strategy worked, and Margaret began rubbing the dolphin's erection. Unsurprisingly, he became a lot more cooperative with his language lessons.
Discovering that a human could satisfy a dolphin's sexual needs was the experiment's biggest interspecies breakthrough. Dr. Lilly still believed that dolphins could learn to talk if given enough time, and he hoped to conduct a year-long study with Margaret and another dolphin. When the plans turned out to be too expensive, Lilly tried to get the dolphins to talk another way--by giving them LSD. And although Lilly reported that they all had "very good trips," the scientist's reputation in the academic community deteriorated. Before long, he'd lost federal funding for his research.
This article originally appeared in mental_floss magazine
http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/75068 [mentalfloss.com]
Re:Non-human intelligences (Score:5, Interesting)
How do you know what the gap is? I suppose it's easier to tell with our closest relatives, because there's some sort of baseline. But when you start talking about species who live in considerably different environments from us, like aquatic mammals, I think it becomes a good deal harder. For all you know, a whole lot of dolphins are saying "Fuck you murdering bastards" to the Japanese hunters that kill them en masse.
And rightly so. I'm not saying that dolphin-killers aren't scum. But so are gorilla-killers and elephant-killers. And people who torment cats and dogs. I'm all for decent treatment of animals. I'm convinced that the "higher" animals have feelings too, and deserve to not be tortured or slaughtered or bred in brutal ways. But don't pretend that they're people, because they're just not.
I am suggesting that it's a little to pat and really an application of circular reasoning to say "They're not persons because they're not like us, and we know this because they don't act like us."
That's not circular reasoning, it's simply an observation. What better definition of person than "like us" do we have? If merely having a sense of self and a personality is enough to get the right to vote, then quite a lot of animals will fit that bill. Sure, dolphins are smart, but so are chimps and elephant. And whales, orang-utans and crows. But none of them come anywhere near any semblance of the kind of cultural ability that we have.
Re:Non-human intelligences (Score:5, Interesting)
We like to imagine ourselves as special, as evidenced by the way we write our mythologies and philosophy, but that's ego talking, not evidence.
What? You don't think the fact that we write mythologies and philosophy at all makes us special among animals?
All that distinguishes us from the other apes is brain size to body mass ratio. And even then, the gulf isn't vast.
No, it's the fact that we write mythologies and philosophy that distinguishes us from other apes. And that gulf is vast.
We can safely assume that any mammal with a similarly large brain in relation to body mass has the same range of emotions, capacity for complex thought, self-awareness, creativity, what-have-you.
No we can't. That's pure speculation. In fact, it's not so much the size of the brain that matters, but the structure.
Re:Obligatory South Park (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe funny, but it's not so different from us in some ways. We focus on trivial stuff while not paying attention to real dangers. Why do we have to have laws against texting while driving? Why do we eat until our health suffers? Why do we watch TV while ignoring what our kids are learning or not learning in school? Stuff like that.
Re:No. (Score:5, Interesting)
This post does absolutely not deserve an "insightful". ... .. I don't know, 10 years, 20 years? Since then the kill rate of dolphins got reduced dramatically.
Smart enough to stay out of a tuna net
The main "sight" ability of dolphins is their echo location sense. And a net is invisible to that.
In Europe fishers are required to but reflectors on the nets that can be sensed by dolphins since
Dolphins are perfectly capable of avoiding nets if they are able to sense them.
Man even human divers die in fisher nets because they "are to dumb".
angel'o'sphere
Re:Non-human intelligences (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, obviously not, since since "people" is a plural for "human beings". This is a red herring.
You aren't like me. Given any group of humans that doesn't include you, you are almost guaranteed to have some trait the people in the group don't have, or lack some which they have.
Your definition would let me declare bald people non-persons, which is clearly absurd.
We aren't talking about right to vote, which is denied from quite a few humans too - all non-citizens, for example, making this another red herring. We're talking about things like not being kept in captivity against the individual being's will.
And yes, quite a lot of animals - at least all mammals - have a personality, most bigger ones to the point where it's easy to tell individuals apart from behaviour even if they belong to the same species or even the same herd.
This is a thid red herring. The issue isn't whether dolphins might build a fishbowl-tank to explore the dry land, the issue is whether they're self-aware enough that they should be treated as retarded humans rather than mere sources of amusement/study.
Besides, getting a culture started requires more than intelligence, it requires hands. Elephants, whales and crows don't have those. Apes do, and, well, we are apes.