Dear Jennifer,
A review on cetacean brains and cognition was published last week in PLOS Biology. I think it is the best summary to date on this subject and it raises again the uncomfortable matter of the ethics of whaling irrespective of sustainability, legalities or cultural practices.
It should make for an interesting debate.
The article begins:
“The brain of a sperm whale is about 60% larger in absolute mass than that of an elephant. Furthermore, the brains of toothed whales and dolphins are significantly larger than those of any nonhuman primates and are second only to human brains when measured with respect to body size [1]. How and why did such large brains evolve in these modern cetaceans? One current view of the evolution of dolphin brains is that their large size was primarily a response to social forces—the requirements for effective functioning within a complex society characterized by communication and collaboration as well as competition among group members [2–4]. In such a society, individuals can benefit from the recognition of others and knowledge of their relationships and from flexibility in adapting to or implementing new behaviors as social or ecological context shifts. Other views focus on the cognitive demands associated with the use of echolocation [5–7].
Recently, Manger [8] made the controversial claim that cetacean brains are large because they contain an unusually large number of thermogenic glial cells whose numbers increased greatly to counteract heat loss during a decrease in ocean temperatures in the Eocene-Oligocene transition. Therefore, he argues, cetacean brain size could have evolved independently of any cognitive demands and, further, that there is neither neuronal evidence nor behavioral evidence of complex cognition in cetaceans. These claims have garnered considerable attention in the popular press, because they challenge prevailing knowledge and understanding of cetacean brain evolution, cognition, and behavior.
We believe that the time is ripe to present an integrated view of cetacean brains, behavior, and evolution based on the wealth of accumulated and recent data on these topics. Our conclusions support the more generally accepted view that the large brain of cetaceans evolved to support complex cognitive abilities…
You can read the complete article here: http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0050139
Regards,
Walter Starck
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
So HOW smart are the whales?
” Beyond seeking out death, Vikingsson( an Icelandic researcher) says minkes are reluctant to run away from it too…
““There are skodarar (“seekers”) in the minke population,” Víkingsson says as our 30-foot boat pitches and bucks in a tight arc to follow our minke.
The whale is lunge fishing, pushing its beaked face to the surface and sucking in krill, sand eels, capelin – whatever he can get in his mouth.
“The skodarar will just come up to boats. It’s very good for whale watching, but in the old days the whalers would just come up and turn off their boat and the minkes came to them.
“Curiosity killed the cat,” he says with a smile. Usually it’s the calves; when whales get older, they lose some of their deadly curiosity. Beyond seeking out death, Víkingsson says minkes are reluctant to run from it, too. ”
Anyway Walter, interesting stuff to discuss!
There seems no doubt that toothed whales and dolphins display considerable behavioural evidence of intellect. The issue is, how much?
There is an obvious capacity to be tought complex tasks and also a capacity to learn and deduce. On a behavioural basis their intellect would seem on a par with dogs, with capacity to recognise basic signals, to empathise, and co-operate with other species.
But this does not appear to have been replicated by baleen whales. To assign a high intellect to these species is equivalent to assigning the intellect of a good sheep dog to the brains of sheep or cattle.
Ian, as always, speaks with good authority on such issues.
The paper Walter highlighted is a good summary of what is known so far about cetacean brains and cognitive abilities. It deals mainly with odontocetes for some pretty obvious reasons – they are small and can be kept in captivity. Studies of mysticete cognition and brain structure are limited due to the “rarity of mysticete brains”, mysticetes can’t be kept in captive situations longterm, and observing them in the wild is logistically difficult and expensive.
Sperm and killer whales have the largest brains in so far as absolute size, yet not the “highest encephalization quotients”. They have fewer spindle cells in the frontopolar cortex compared to the humpback whale. This has been discussed briefly in a previous thread. Researchers have found that humpback whales have a “similar degree of regional complexity as in smaller size cetaceans”.
The paper Walter featured mentions “the expansion of the insular and cingulate cortices in cetaceans is consistent with high-level cognitive functions- such as attention, judgment, intuition, and social awareness-known to be associated with these regions in primates. Ths view is further supported by the observation that the anterior insular and anterior cingulate cortex in cetacean species having the largest brains exhibit a large number of large layer V spindle neurons, similar to those originally reported to be unuque to humans and great apes. These particular neurons are considered to be responsible for neural networks subserving aspects of social cognition.” These findings are addressing what is known for both odontocetes and mysticetes.
The paper also mentions “imitation is a complex multidimensional ability that is most intimately studied in the laboratory.” There is a photograph of a bottlenose dolphin and human using comparitive parts of the anatomy to imitate behaviour. I know of a case of a subadult humpback whale that imitated a swimmer by raising its corresponding pectoral fins when the diver raised his arms, and turned on its axis when the swimmer turned on his in the water. Clearly there is much to be learned yet about the “inteligence” of the larger cetaceans.
The paper also mentions culture, saying “Culture, the transmission of learned behaviour, is one of the attributes of cetaceans that most sets them apart from the majority of other nonhuman species and is likely underpinned by advanced social learning abilities. Cultural attributes have been identified in many species of cetaceans but principally in those best studied: the bottlenose dolphin, the killer whale, the sperm whale, and the humpback whale. One of the most distinctive elements of cetacean culture is multiculturalism-groups with different cultures using the same habitat-which is known in bottlenose dolphins, humpback whales, killer whales, and sperm whales.”
I am quoting swathes from the available paper as appears some contributors here have not read it before making comments, presumably because they have their own ideas, expertise or biases.
As Walter has said “it raises again the uncomfortable matter of the ethics of whaling irrespective of sustainability, legalities or cultural practices”. All too often it is forgotten here that there are huge hunts of small cetaceans, often accompanied by extreme cruelty. It seems too convenient for some to overlook these hunts and focus instead on the whaling debate. To somehow portray whaling as the better option because ‘whales = cows or sheep’ simply shows that to engage in the small cetacean takes is showing an even greater lack of compassion regarding animal welfare and intelligence.
As Marino et al. point out; the demonstrated cogitative abilities of dolphins are more comparable to those of the great apes than of dogs. The relevant issue is not simply how much intelligence they have but is it enough that consideration need be given to our treatment of them. Is there any level of consciousness, other than our own, at which ethical consideration should be given to our killing of it? In particular, do low value purposes such as data gathering or marginal economic activity justify such killing?
As for the relative intelligence of baleen whales vs. dolphins, our knowledge of the former is simply too limited to make any meaningful assessment. Large brains. However, have a high oxygen demand and impose a considerable metabolic cost in a diving mammal. It is reasonable to assume that they would not have been selected for if they were not doing something important. Echolocation seems unlikely. Bats do it superbly with tiny brains. As for the general mode of life as large animals feeding on plankton, whale sharks, basking sharks and manta rays do this quite successfully with relatively small brains. The only apparent explanation for such large brains is via social selection in a complex social environment. A very high degree of socialization is also consistent with their remarkable reluctance to abandon young or injured members of a group despite any danger. That we find such behaviour so inexplicable may say more about the nature of our own consciousness than of theirs.
I’ve been assured that pigs are at least as smart as dogs. Lots of people eat pigs, and in Asia, they eat dogs, too.
I’ve never heard a suggestion that whales are as smart as either pigs or dogs.
From the discussion above, whales are perhaps as smart as cats. Cats aren’t real bright, but I’ll give them credit for being smarter than sheep.
Whether sheep are smarter than earthworms is debatable.
But sheep have bigger brains than cats. Well, that doesn’t make sheep smarter. Just because some critters have big brains doesn’t mean they use them.
And I’m willing to be that gram for gram, the earthworm brain is close to the genius level. And it may well be that the whale brain is mainly important for ballast.
My 2c on this discussion :
Posted by: Schiller Thurkettle at May 24, 2007 09:56 AM
“” And it may well be that the whale brain is mainly important for ballast.””
Damn it Schiller, I spat my coffee over my keyboard laughing when I read that one – funniest thing I´ve read on the blog for a LONG time ;O)
The headline of the post encapsulates where the debate on whaling should concentrate, rather than on environmental grounds, which just goes to show that most green groups have got it wrong again. Most of the whaling debate in recent years has revolved around the sustainability of harvesting and supposed environmental issues when it appears their is not much foundation for this argument. Walter, as could be expected, has cut to the chase with identifying what should be the centre of the debate – Is it ethical to kill whales? Unlike Walter I have not eaten whale, but as a hunter would have had no qualms in doing so on environmental or sustainability grounds. I suspect as this debate develops I would have more and more trouble doing so on ethical grounds. If environment groups and others really wanted to do the whales a favour they should concentrate their campaigning on the ethics of whaling. They may then earn some credibility.
For an interesting perspective on the cultural background of Japanese attitudes to whaling this item from today’s BBC news is worth reading.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6667797.stm
Max, perhaps you are not so familiar with the debate. The animal welfare aspects are often raised as an objection to whaling. As an example, footage taken by environmental groups of whales struggling at the end of a harpoon line. Many TV stations in this country don’t show such footage as they get complaints from viewers that it is disturbing. It is a head-in-the-sand situation. There is also the argument that when animal intelligence and welfare are brought into it, pro-whalers accuse anti-whalers of being emotional.
Schiller is another mighty fine example of not being able to read something that may show evidence that goes against his beliefs. Reading can actually be fun Schiller, and educating yourself on an issue before you press that send button can also be a sign of “higher intelligence.”
OK folks,
Saw once a guy with a t-shirt logo ” Intelligent people , eat intelligent meat( whale meat)!
What do ya think????
Max,
Frankly I don’t think this angle is likely to contribute significantly towards resolutions of international issues of this nature, at least not for the foreseeable future.
The “environmental” groups have already stunted their opportunities for asserting influence within Japan because they blurred their “environmental” messages with attempts to assert other areas of their belief systems.
An amicable resolution to this issue would involve all participants in the debate acting not with arrogance and an unbending conviction in their own superiority, but with understanding, empathy, humility, and common human decency.
That said, an amicable resolution is but a fairy tale.
>An amicable resolution to this issue would involve all participants in the debate acting not with arrogance and an unbending conviction in their own superiority, but with understanding, empathy, humility, and common human decency.
The emphasis, of course, is on the ‘ALL’, and agreed, ‘an amicable resolution is but a fairy tale’.
The eventual end-point of discussions of “animal rights” is to equate their rights with “human rights,” and by that ethical and verbal alchemy and prestidigitation to render human life as disposable as a matter of political expediency.
We’ve already seen this in Africa, where humans are completely expendable on the false pretext that DDT thins the eggshells of birds.
The leaders of many “environmental” groups have been honest in saying that being pro-natural malaria is simply a way to reduce the world’s burden of excess people.
The next time someone suggests that you have the same rights as an animal, I suggest you shoot them, and let the carrion-eaters (their confreres, no less) take their remains.
Right thread Schiller?
This one seems to be about the ethical view of some people, which as I understand it, suggests that humans ought to regard killing and eating whales as food as “wrong”.
Mildly similar to “animal rights”, yet distinct 🙂
David,
Your call.
By the way, I have to wonder if you happen to know a person by the name of “thingfish” who wrote a brilliant exposition regarding the riots in Asia over the WTO.
Like how native fishermen were loathing the fishing practices of giant corporations and wanted instead to preserve their own folkways, like dynamiting coral reefs to make it easier to pluck fish from the water.
And these fish are smart enough to know how to swim, which puts them way ahead of some humans with Ph.Ds.
Libby quotes, “One of the most distinctive elements of cetacean culture is multiculturalism-groups with different cultures using the same habitat-which is known in bottlenose dolphins, humpback whales, killer whales, and sperm whales.”
Is this meant to imply that sheep, cattle, kangaroos, wallabys and wombats are also highly intelligent because they, too, are capable of using the same habitat. I guess the flies, spiders and snakes in my outdoor dunny will be really chuffed at that news. Does that make them human by association with me?
Well put, Schills, you’re in fine fettle today.
I don’t like to see whales killed, but the argument that the life of a more intelligent animal is worth more than that of a less intelligent one leads into very murky ethical waters. Euthanasia for the mentally handicapped? Triage in hospitals based on IQ? What about the right to life of krill?
Anne,
I have one saying ” Intellegent food for intellegent people ” :O)
along with a few others 😉
What about the right to life of krill?
Thicko´s – Off with their heads.. umm.. legs… ummm tails… ummmm thingies….
Funny that you pick out something I wrote Ian, and not anything from Walter. Perhaps you should actually bother to read the article and then maybe your questions will be answered?
I found this info on pigs:
” Pigs lead social lives of a complexity previously observed only in primates”
” Pigs enjoy listening to music”
” Pigs are the smartest animals outside primates and pigs even outclassed some primate species in some intellectual areas”
Define intelligence, apply it to homo sapiens and other species, eat whatever´s below a threshold for a given value of intellegence.
Ethics ” problem ” solved – So throw another Luke on the Barbie Ian please … make sure you stuff him real good with sage and onion first 😉
Nah Walter, eating intellegent animals is a read herring 😉
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/study-finds-dolphins-speaking-welsh/2007/05/25/1179601610948.html
Jean Brooks, a retired Berkeley schoolteacher, said she was saddened by the whale’s death. “I think whales are very intelligent,” she said. “We think they’re fish but they’re not.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/24/BAGEUQ183S5.DTL
From a British politician in 1991:
“Anyone … who has talked to people who have studied whales will know that they are highly intelligent, warm-blooded creatures with a social structure and could not justify their slaughter in any way. We know that whales communicate effectively. It is only a matter of time before human beings will communicate with them.”
(http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199091/cmhansrd/1991-04-30/Debate-16.html)
No doubt the would-be whale rescuers working in the Sacramento-San Joaquin river delta were wishing more progress had been made in that area.
Hhmmn, 1991 indication of high priority of learning to communicate with whales. And 16 years later are we any further? It only took a year or so to crack “enigma” and that was deliberately designed to remain unsolved.
George,
If I understand correctly, you feel that killing other species should involve no ethical consideration, that there is really no ethical distinction between eating a carrot, a chicken or a chimp and presumably any pain or suffering inflicted is either non-existent or irrelevant.
It has always seemed to me that ethics could and should be based on reason and evidence, however, you do make me reconsider. Perhaps the God bothers are correct. At least for some, belief in the supernatural may indeed be necessary for any ethics.
Incidentally, I make no claims to a definitive conclusion but am simply raising an issue for consideration. The preference among thinking people to dismiss rather than address such matters is apparent but, leaving ethical considerations to the legions of righteousness is a poor default.
The issue with ethics eating an animal with high intelligence has much to do IMO if it the animal shows any human traits.
Meanwhile many people in whaling nations see the whale mostly as a big fish( Japanese) me believe it would be very difficult for most??? people to eat a schimp.
I know one person who could think of eating whales , but was disgusted by the thought of eating schimps because it was almost human and possessed almost human hands etc.
She regarded this as cannibalism….
Whatever the answer to the ethics questions, is involving such considerations in decision-making at an international forum such as the IWC appropriate? When inevitably no consensus is reached, is it appropriate to put such matters to a vote?
A farmer mate of mine down near Manjimup was having a lot of trouble with his free-range pigs getting through the wire fence in his bottom paddock and roaming around in the neighboring State Forest, where they were hard to re-muster. He thought he would fix the problem by elecrifying the fence. A few days later he went down to see how the pigs were going under the new arrangements. As he watched the pigs massed into a tight group about 50 metres from the electric fence. Then, as one pig, they started screaming and ran full tilt at the fence, took the jolt at full scream, tumbled through and then happily dispersed into the forest.
I was impressed by this, as it seemed to indicate that pigs can develop a strategy, have physical courage, can value ends over means and understand the psychology of mob behaviour. Either than or they are stupid. Well, no more stupid than the members of a rugby team geeing themselves up in the change-rooms before running onto the field knowing that they are about to be seriously bashed about, injured or permanently maimed.
Hi Roger,
Great story!
Sometime ago I commented at this blog that when I lived in Madagascar I had a pet pig which was as smart as my dog: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001715.html .
Both slept under my bed.
Hi Walter, some comments,
“If I understand correctly, you feel that killing other species should involve no ethical consideration,”
No, killing ( or not ) other species based on intelligence is a luxury that some homo sapiens may /can afford – but not all, my problem with that is the threshold of intelligence – who decides? whats the criteria? where´s the threshold? it´s all too vague Walter.. and i´ve yet to see a “good” definition of intellegence
“that there is really no ethical distinction between eating a carrot, a chicken or a chimp and presumably any pain or suffering inflicted is either non-existent or irrelevant.”
To me there is no distinction between eating a chicken – lamb – pig or a whale of a plentiful species walter – I don´t eat carrots whatsoever:)
I am certainly concerned that the level of pain and suffering inflicted is kept to a minimum and that it be as humane as possible – please don´t try suggest otherwise Walter..
Having experience of commercial slaughterhouse practice Walter, where the level of pain and suffering can and does vary wildly, I find the focus on the ethics of pain and suffering in whaling to be simply just another hypocritical tactic to be used by those org´s against whaling to try and stop it. Those very same folk generally will quite happily dig into some roast pig … a creature I personally find as ” intellegent ” as your average baleen whale….
Walter, If we as a species cannot manage to apply such ethics of pain and suffering to ourselves, then it´s a bit of a lost cause ( albeit noble )to try and apply them to other species.
Does´nt stop us trying though does it?
What does Peter Singer have to say about all of this?
” What does Peter Singer have to say about all of this?” – Jennifer
Hi Jennifer, a good question!
As far as I have understood the controversial Peter Singer, a favorite amongst animal rights groups, thinks it is as bad to eat a whale as a pig…
Personally, methinks it’s not too nice to be a great ” save the whales ” person meanwhile gladly munching a burger…
When I was active in Greenpeace , I was a vegetarian to 100%…stopped due to some health concerns, I never ate the beans and soya stuff…
OK, hate extremes, there are certainly ” good” meat choices as well, free range animals and preferably farm slaughtered animals etc.
Sigh … For intellegent read intelligent in my previous posts – where´s that spell checker ;op
George, I said nothing 🙂
Posted by: Libby at May 25, 2007 08:08 PM
“George, I said nothing :)”
;O)
Two kudo points for you libs ;op 😉
Recent research found that whale brains have relatively high numbers of “spindle cells”. These are types of cells that have long extensive connections across the neocortex. These cells are very rich in human brains and lesser so in primate brain generally. In his work “The Wisdom Paradox”, Elkhonen Goldberg puts forward the hypothesis that these cells may be a fundamentally important part of developing multi modal capabilities.
For most of history we have perceived animals as lacking consciousness. Intelligence is not the issue, consciousness is, and the evidence that is slowly emerging is that a great many animals possess consciousness. That is the worry.
George,
You say “No, killing ( or not ) other species based on intelligence is a luxury that some homo sapiens may /can afford – but not all, my problem with that is the threshold of intelligence – who decides? whats the criteria? where´s the threshold? it´s all too vague Walter.. and i´ve yet to see a “good” definition of intelligence”
I agree that such decisions are not easy. Where we seem to differ is that I think it is worth taking a fresh look. Simply ignoring the issue because it’s too hard leaves it for those to whom ignorance is no deterrent to passionate conviction. The level of relevant knowledge is much better than it was only a decade ago and is probably sufficient to begin to reach some reasonable new conclusions even though they will still be less than certain.
There is a lot of new information on both behavior and neurology to consider. Prevailing attitudes on such matters have, in my own lifetime, altered very considerably and will undoubtedly continue to change. My concern is whether such change is guided by new understanding or “new age” delusions.
That one’s view on such matters might need revision in light of new evidence seems a risk worth taking.
Hi Walter,
I think the correlation between the absolute scale of the brain and smarness is weak.
If we carry out a IQ test between a parrot, chimp and a dolphin it is very hard to see which is the most intelligent one even if the parrots brain is very small.
It is true that neurology is a branch of medical science that has developed enormously, methinks for example that you find a dozen new neurotransmittors every month or week.
As far as I have understood the whale’s brain consists of a lot of white matter.
A bigger brain is also needed for a bigger animal for various functions, such as movement.
There is a movement for whales and primates , arguing it must be banned to kill them for their high intelligence and social complexity etc. But they have poor reasons/arguments why farm animals shouldn’t be part of the movement.
I’m not very smart today;)…lots of spelling errors, sorry!
And what of the cephalopods?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1933907.htm
Re chimps.
Thanks for your contributions Walter.
Libby and Walter,
It’s perfectly OK for me if no whales are going to be killed, but I’m a little bit intrigued of the topic and the core issue.
-Do you have problems to kill an animal because it is intelligent, meaning intelligence is giving the animal a higher ethical value , or
– Do you have problems with the whales social structure, meaning its cognitive properties will make the rest of the pod/ herd unhappy if some of its family members are killed?
PS. Libby , glad about the news about the lab chimps….
Hi Walter,
“I agree that such decisions are not easy. Where we seem to differ is that I think it is worth taking a fresh look.”
I don´t ignore it and read widely in the lit on this subject and others. I´m still not convinced Walter – however, for many, these ethics are a luxury – and with current population trends, will most likely remain so
“Simply ignoring the issue because it’s too hard leaves it for those to whom ignorance is no deterrent to passionate conviction. ”
I don´t ignore it – ´tho I do find that my own species deserves first choice ..
“The level of relevant knowledge is much better than it was only a decade ago and is probably sufficient to begin to reach some reasonable new conclusions even though they will still be less than certain.”
Precisely Walter – ” less than certain ” and in addition, extremely debateable..
My views remain the same Walter, despite new evidence – I´m not convinced beyond reasonable doubt- 😉
” How about cephalopods”? -Libby
Even if this discussion is about vertebrates and so called higher organisms,methinks we know very little about invertebrates and its CNS.
Meanwhile I have no intention to get into extremes I read this on the internet :
“Therefore, although humans and the higher vertebrates have unique behavioral and intellectual capabilities, the underlying physical-chemical principles of nerve cell activity and the strategies for organizing higher nervous systems are already present in the lower forms. Thus neuroscientists have taken advantage of the simpler nervous systems of invertebrates to acquire further understanding of those processes by which all brains function. See also Nervous system (vertebrate).”
I saw in the telly that the squid is as intelligent as a cat….:)
Another thing that I saw in the telly.
As we have heard , dolphins have been involved in human rescues from shark attacks… we all say Ooooh!….
But in the telly I heard a farmer say that his cows had rescued him from a bull attack… they all had encircled the farmer and kept the bull from attacking the farmer….amazing!
” As we have heard , dolphins have been involved in human rescues from shark attacks… we all say Ooooh!….”
And we hear every now and again about dolphins that push drowning swimmers to land …..
What we don´t hear is about the ones they push away from land ….. ;op
If whales have ethical concerns about each other to the same extent that people have concerns about each other, this may not reflect well on the whales, but it probably doesn’t answer the question.
I would have ethical concerns about whales if it could be shown that they have ethical concerns about us.
I’d have ethical concerns about Schiller if he had any ethics.
Luke,
You’ve made it clear numerous times that you care more about “the environment” than about human welfare, so ethically, you’re lower than anything I’ve ever met.
You may be on a level with wharf rats–they eat each other opportunistically, but that’s being generous. You’re a traitor to your species.
Luke,
You’ve made it clear numerous times that you care more about “the environment” than about human welfare, so ethically, you’re lower than anything I’ve ever met.
You may be on a level with wharf rats–they eat each other opportunistically, but that’s being generous.
You’re a traitor to your species. What’s ethically lower than that?
Schiller says: “I would have ethical concerns about whales if it could be shown that they have ethical concerns about us.”
Whales and dolphins are in fact amazingly tolerant of humans compared to any other large animals in the wild. While bottlenose dolphins will readily attack sharks that come too close to their young they only circle closely and vocalize if we chase them down and dive in to catch them. This was commonly done when I was a kid in the Florida Keys. If you don’t think this means anything, try it with any other large wild animal, terrestrial or marine.
Orcas are voracious predators on a wide range of prey but show divers no aggression at all.
I have video footage shot by a colleague of a humpback whale backing up to the photographer from some distance away and then using its massive tail fluke to just gently brush the camera lens port.
I could go on and on with such facts and anecdotes, but suffice it to say cetaceans clearly treat us with unique tolerance and deference. While I can’t say ethics is involved something very different from any other large animal is going on. In my experience anyone with close personal experience of these animals recognizes this, regardless of whether they are scientists, animal trainers, fishermen, divers, military or whatever.
On a more general note re: this blog, I have found that listening when I don’t really have anything worthwhile to contribute saves a lot of time. It may also be worth bearing in mind that gratuitous opinions based on neither information nor experience tend to say more about their source than their subject.
Hi Walter, I have to take issue with this :
” Orcas are voracious predators on a wide range of prey but show divers no aggression at all. ”
Killer whales are pretty much catholic in their diet and will tend to specialise on the most available food source. Some populations specialise on fish, other on marine mammals – though they may take other food sources opportunistically. I´ve always half joked that the only reason that they don´t take homo sapiens regularly is that they have´nt realised that we´re a cheap and easy food source yet ;op
I´ve seen underwater video footage from swim with killer whale programs in arctic Norway where you can clearly see threat postures from the killer whales towards snorkellers… it´s an accident waiting to happen
I´ve personally been thwacked hard enough to crack ribs during a catch in the gulf of mexico by bottlenose dolphins – I know of others with facial injuries, broken noses, smashed masks broken and cracked ribs, tooth rakes etc etc from catch trips…
There are various cases worldwide of cetaceans being aggressive towards divers – just off the top of my head, the one off hawaii where the woman was dragged down & raked by a male pilot whale whilst her husband filmed it a few years back springs to mind…
Swimming with wild cetaceans is not my idea of a safe pastime by any stretch of the imagination – you do it at your own risk – these are large wild animals – folk tend to forget this
To add to George McC’s list, the death of the Tom Smith last year http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3507703
Ethically, I’m a bit of a contractarian and if the rules aren’t reciprocated (in whatever state of nature you wish to begin with), then I’m dubious about the merit of giving non-contractable parties human-level rights.
I have also seen a video footage of some big whale “attacking” a photograher in the wild…(don’t recall what kind of a whale it was)
Re orcas, captured orcas have been known for attacking their trainers, there happened an accident recently in some dolphinarium in the States…
Organisations such as WDCS doesn’t recommend people to swim with captured cetaceans, not only do they oppose the captivity industry but they warn people that the dolphins may harm people…
don’t know personally if their behaviour in this case is due to altered behaviour in captivity…it might trigger some aggressivity???
” reluctance to abandon young or injured members of a group despite any danger” -Walter
Has this something to do with intelligence or is it something that differs with species?
I know eiders and some other diving ducks , that would never abandon the nests , even if they were surrounded by fire…and we have very fun calling Graeme a ” birdbrain!
On the other hand many species such as elephants and bisons gladly abandon their calves when they are threatened by starvation…the instinct in this case seems that this must be best for the survival of the species…
“I would have ethical concerns about whales if it could be shown that they have ethical concerns about us”.
I’d have ethical concerns about a whale having ethical concerns about you too Schiller.
The pilot whale that dragged the woman down in Hawaii could easily have killed her. It didn’t. She was stupid enough to ignore the low-level threats and the animal took it to the next stage in order to get the message clear. Had the animal been serious, she would have drowned. If anyone here felt their group was being threatened by an outsider, signalled their displeasure at the intruder, and these signals were ignored, what would you do?
The fact highly social and ‘intelligent’ animals such as orcas and other dolphins attack keepers etc in captivity says more about the conditions these types of animals should be kept in than anything else. They are bored brainless and in a totally artificical environment. Put humans in homes or prisons and how do they respond?
Time and again I see the ‘patience’ of cetaceans (and other animals) tested by Homo sapiens. It tells me the naked apes tend to be the stupider of the species. On the one hand there is the argument these animals can’t communicate with us, on the other you have people putting themselves in situations where an animal is clearly trying to communicate its intent yet those signals are ignored. Says more about us than them.
I in no way suggested that cetaceans will never under any circumstances act aggressively towards humans. They do however show a markedly greater disinclination to do so than any other large mammals and noticeably less than they show other animals. That they also show little fear of us and often considerable curiosity all makes me wonder why. It seems probable that it might have something to so with their exceptionally large brains and increasing evidence of a high intelligence.
Attempting to dismiss such evidence out of hand would appear to be a response arising from the lymbic system rather than the cerebrum.
Walter,
Your comment reminds me of the Christmas dinner that I looked in the eye one year, so I wonder if you might give examples of other large mammals that you have in mind.
Excuse me guys I missed a bit of biffo from Schillsbo
“” You’ve made it clear numerous times that you care more about “the environment” than about human welfare, so ethically, you’re lower than anything I’ve ever met.. ..
You may be on a level with wharf rats.. ..
You’re a traitor to your species.. .. “”
Ooooooo – gee Schillsa I’m mortally wounded. Don’t think I’m gonna be getting over this sometime soon. Ya got me Shillsy. Is a wharf rat a Rattus rattus. My brother was a wharf rat. How cruel.
Actually if you are going to insult an Aussie try “you’re lower than a snake’s duodenum {mate}”.
But just before I crawl off for a good howl with a box of Kleenex. I find it very interesting that you think I care more about the environment than people. There’s a choice?
Anyway – choke choke – death scene – “Et tu Schillsbo” – It’s all going black and it’s so cold, “Momma take this badge offa me – I can’t use it anymore” – Luke exits (stage left of course).
David,
What part of “any” do you need specified? I am, of course, referring to animals in the wild, not domesticated ones or individuals acclimated to humans. Even these, however, have a worse record of attacks on humans than do cetaceans.
Sorry Walter, I guess I just missed the “any” in there.
Still, I wonder if cetaceans being sea creatures has something to do with what I take it you perceive as benevolence towards humans – an “advantage”, if you like, over those other terrestrial mammals with which we share land.
It really is a pity that conversation on this interesting and important topic degenerated into something like drunken bar talk. It might be unethical to kill conscious sentient beings -as cetaceans undoubtedly are. But we kill people, don’t we – though it’s not so long since we used make it easier by dehumanising those we intend to kill. But, more seriously, is the basic ethical question about not intelligence, but pain We do know whales and other species experience pgysical pain, and many of at least the mammals experience mental pian – desperate fear, with all its physiological consequences. So it seems to me this is the primary reason not to treat whales as lethally exploitable species. With domestic mammals raised for food, whether they be pigs, sheep or cattle, civilised nations and peoples try, at a minimum, to execute with as little fear, pain and delay as possible. We know that is not possible with the great whales (there have been 80 years of unsuccessful attempts to devise “humane killing” ways. So the conslusion, ethically, must be we should not kill them. Ironically, the present commercial whaling for so-called scientific purposes, is decidedly more cruel than legitimate commercial whaling. But that’s another story
“It really is a pity that conversation on this interesting and important topic degenerated into something like drunken bar talk.”
Sorry, Sidney. If you have just tuned in to this blog, this thread is actually very mild and pleasant compared to most. Some of us no longer put much effort into comments as the effort is wasted.
“Ironically, the present commercial whaling for so-called scientific purposes, is decidedly more cruel than legitimate commercial whaling. But that’s another story.”
As you are not known here to many, do you think you could expand on this comment a little (if you have the time and inclination). It would be a perspective from somebody else, and somebody who has much knowledge and experience on the whaling issue. Thanks for your contribution.
I’m gladdened that people are staying on topic on this thread. It’s remarkably rare to see this. I very nearly think that people can exhibit the intelligence and social habits they like to imagine whales, birds, insects, etc. have.
It’s interesting that ecology-lovers invest animals with the virtues they would most like to see in humans.
Somehow, animals are seen as egalitarian, noble, righteous, harmonious, beautiful, and anything else the average misanthropic urbanite zealot would like discover among humans at the local shopping mall.
In their case, fiction is stranger than truth.
P.S. Luke, if you put tin foil under your toupee you will quickly feel much better.
I agree that the ethical issue is not about intelligence, but pain.
I also agree that civilised people try, at a minimum, to kill domesticated animals they raise for the purpose of eating with as little fear, pain and delay as possible – this is “humane killing”.
It is on this same basis, however, that I have to disagree that attempts to devise “humane killing” methods with respect to killing whales for the purpose of food have been “unsuccessful”, and hence this puts a large question mark over the subsequent conclusion suggested.
>It’s interesting that ecology-lovers invest animals with the virtues they would most like to see in humans.
‘Ecology-lovers’ Schiller are a diverse bunch. You are suggesting that all these people are naive enough and homo-centric enough to wish positive human attributes on animals. That’s a remarkably sweeping and well-informed statement to make, as usual.
>I very nearly think that people can exhibit the intelligence and social habits they like to imagine whales, birds, insects, etc. have.
You constantly prove that wrong.
> You constantly prove that wrong.
lol!
nice one!
Mr. Holt,
” With domestic mammals raised for food, whether they be pigs, sheep or cattle, civilised nations and peoples try, at a minimum, to execute with as little fear, pain and delay as possible.”
Same with Wild Populations of minke whales, the object is to minimise suffering and make the “kill” as quick and humane as possible. It could very well be argued that wild minke hunts fare far better in the area of “as little fear “.
Fear in commercial slaughterhouses of animals penned and in the chutes leading to the killing floors could be argued to be far worse than that of a minke being hunted.
Regarding your comment as regards to whales :
” there have been 80 years of unsuccessful attempts to devise “humane killing” ways. So the conslusion, ethically, must be we should not kill them.”
There have been hundreds of years of attempts to devise humane killing methods for domestic cattle as well – to date, none are 100% effective .. should we also ( ethically speaking ) give up killing domestic cattle?
The deveopment of the penthracite grenade harpoon and its effects is a vast improvement over the cold harpoon or? Should we ( homo sapiens ) simply give up on development or better and more humane killing methods if we do not achieve a 100% instantanious death rate with any hunt / killing method?
The 80% instant death rate in the Norwegian minke hunt should be applauded and they should be encouraged to improve methods and develop even “better” materials and methods to make the hunt even more humane, unless of course the objective is to stop whaling irregardless –
On the subject of ethics, is it ethical to argue for a complete stop to commercial and scientific whaling and at the same time, allow aboriginal whaling, which is often far less humane?
On that note George, is it ethical (*1) to sacrifice (if I may) the lives of 50 humpback whales each year just to ensure that one can continue to use one’s favourite “Japan’s scientific permit whaling is a sham, commercial whaling in disguise” rhetoric?
(*1) For people “we don’t eat whales here, we eat other animals” background
Dear Mr Holt,
First , a big thanks for your contibution, and apologises for my poor English.
I must inform you re your statement that “pigs, sheep or cattle, civilised nations and peoples try, at a minimum, to execute with as little fear, pain and delay as possible. ”
Very good indeed, but actually I must inform you that factory farming and live transports are as cruel as whalingIMO.
For your information,regulations re marine mammal kills are under the same strict regulations as farm animals in Norway.( Don’t recall the exact name of the regulation right now).
As with many regulations with animals much is just words.
It seems sometimes that many well meaning persons are undermining the work that some organisations are doing on farm animals when they point out in whale discussions how well treated farm animals are and how swift the killing methods are.( Not even mentioning the transports).
I read this morning on the WDCS’s website that they are upset that pig and beef meat are sold on the same shelves as whale meat in Norway. This is total hypocracy IMO.
I’m going to post WDCS a mail if they ever have talked to an farm animal inspector or vet ever in their life???
I received this anti whaling newsletter:
“I am appalled at the thought that Japan may begin hunting Humpback and Fin Whales. These animals are far too intelligent and magnificent to be harpooned and turned into meat. In addition, many of these whales are known to people across the entire Southern Ocean and they are the basis for many eco-friendly businesses. I urge you to stop the horrific slaughter of whales. ”
I must say that I receive the most strange newsletters from some organisations and I’m confused with their points.
This Blue Voice organisation points out that the Fin whales and Humpbacks are too intelligent and magnificent to be turned into meat…
But what do they think about minkes???
l like whales
🙂