From: sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Whale rights - Science and sentimen
Date: 31 Jul 92 06:08:26 GMT
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon

In article <1992Jul29.071119.793@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.045816.7331@reed.edu> sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape) writes:

>>But, suppose whales were highly intelligent creatures: what would you have 
>>them do?  Invent nuclear weapons? 
>
>Kill swimmers and people in small boats near any whaling activity?

Whaling doesn't occur on the beach, you know.  What swimmers?  To provide the
kind of proof you want, they would have to kill the whalers, which they
cannot do.

>
>>The ability to use weapons, such as handguns, de-
>>pends considerably on what your body can do rather than what your mind can
>>do; the possession of rights depends on what your mind can do.
>
>However they don't need weapons.  In the water they can kill us with
>ease.  On land we are not a threat to them.

They need weapons to destroy whaling gunboats.  To kill swimmers and kayakers in 
response to threats from some other source could just easily indicate stupid-
ity as intelligence.

>>What would you have human cultures do whose technological & military
>>level is below that of the US's by an order of magnitude or two, and whose
>>"continuing existence" is "up to the whims" of George Bush?  Acknowledge that
>>they must, therefore, lack any rights?  "Personally" you must "think" that
>>the social structure of a pacifist community is inferior to that of
>>Iraq, but can you provide evidence for what you think?
>
>Well, first off, I have no sympathy for indigenous tribes that want to
>preserve their culture and the people who support them.  Those people
>have one chance - to change.

They have something else -- rights.  I guess since they're "tribal,"
they don't really count?

>Secondly, yes.  I think the social structyre of a pacifist community
>is inferior to that of Iraq.  (Although gien Iraq's pathetic military
>prowess the pacifists are only slightly inferior.)

Good grief.  Aren't there other criteria for quality of social structure
than "military prowess?"  Iraq is fascist nation where anyone can be tortured
and executed on the whim of its dictator, and where women have practically
no rights.  In any case, the question is whether those who choose a 
pacifist community must therefore lack rights because of an apparently lower 
order of intelligence (that's what inferior social structure was said to imply,
at the beginning of this thread).

> Do you have a source for your implied
>>claim that a higher percentage of whales go hungry than of people?  
>
>Until whaling culled them what do you think kept the population of
>whales in check?  Well, they're a grazer with no natural predators.
>What normally keeps such species in check?  Starvation.

It depends on the species.  Those which periodically face large-scale
starvation as a form of population control are usually ultra-prolific
breeders, such as rabbits.  Not all species of whales are ultra-fast
breeders (none of them compare to the rabbit or any species with many
natural enemies).  For some species, the food supply keeps the
population in check *before* reproduction rather than afterwards -- i.e., 
food supply determines the number of births, rather than deaths.  
Additionaly, what do you mean "Well, they're a grazer?"
Some whales are grazers, some are hunters.  In any case, the issue is about
percentages, not whether whales starve at all.

>>An
>>awful lot of people go hungry.  I don't appreciate "our" (who are
>>we talking about here, anyway?) social structure
>>at all; it sucks.
>
>But few starve.

I think you spend too much time watching sitcoms.  More than a "few" 
starve to death, and many are malnourished to an extent that will
shorten life and cause suffering.

>And if you hate our social structure so much why don't you become a
>flower child?

 The "our" in this context has referred to the social structure of human 
beings in general, right?  This is a comparison between species, not 
human cultures.  It's a question of whether humans -- not Americans -- can
be considered of a higher mental order because of some social structure,
a structure we are supposed to all have in common, I gather.  "Flower
children" are human, and "their" social structure is just as much a part
of "our" social structure as America's is.  For this line to continue, some-
one needs to define what, exactly, "our" social structure is.
-- 
Liberate the Weirdoes and You Liberate the Squares
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9751 sci.physics:11357 sci.energy:3517