From: sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Whale rights - Science and sentimen
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:09:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Jul27.220912.6903
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon

In article <4596@balrog.ctron.com> smith@ctron.com writes:

>Look, folks, you don't have to accord cetaceans full civil rights nor with
>a "higher" or "better" intelligence to be against exterminating them for
>short-term gain.  It is demonstrably stupid to send an entire species to
>extinction, we need no more justification than that.  In view of the fer-
>ocious "efficiency" of the whale hunt in years past and accounting for the
>number of whales left alive, and in view of the fact that a dead whale pro-
>vides nothing that we can't get more of and better from cheaper sources,
>I think we need look no further to decide the time has come to end the whaling
>industry for at least a century.  Whether is it desirable to start it up
>again then should be a question for our grandchildren, not us.

No one said anything about cetaceans having a "higher" or "better" intel-
gence, or an equal one.  The topic is: do some whale species possess
an order of intelligence sufficient to indicate the existence rights?  More,
generally, does intelligence have anything to do with where rights come from,
and if so how?

Why is it "demonstrably stupid" to send an entire species to extinction?  How
does it hurt me?  More importantly, how does it hurt someone who doesn't care
about biological diversity, and whose health is not connected to this
particular species?  Is it only demonstrably stupid in the case of
"somewhat" intelligent species, or in the case of fungi and microbes too?

If it is demonstrably stupid, why does that, in itself, justify government
intervention?  It is demonstrably stupid to play slot-machines and ride
motorcycles without a helmet too, but the arguments against prohibition of those
activities are excellent.  It is stupid for people to choose to spend
enough money on footabll games to feed thousands of people
throughout the world for years to come.  So what?  Should we outlaw
choosing to value football over choosing to relieve famine?  Why outlaw
choosing to value whale-meat-derived income over the whales themselves?
It is much easier to justify prohibition of an act that is morally wrong 
than of one that is just dumb and/or selfish.

>Why do we have to have this mystical nonsense when simple pragmatism will
>suffice?  Environmentalism should not be a religion, and if you make it one,
>you will find that people will oppose it on religious grounds and with
>religious ferver.  What do want to accomplish?  Do you want to protect whales,
>or do you want to smite the infidels?

In any case, it is neither "mystical" nor "nonsense" to propose that
intelligence has something to do with rights, and, in a discussion of 
what kind of intelligence whales possess, to point out that quality of 
social structure would be a more accurate measure of group intelligence
than complexity of social structure.  Stick your insults up your ass.
-- 
Liberate the Weirdoes and You Liberate the Squares
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy