Blackfish documentary on CNN - anyone else watch it?

[DeeBye]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackfish_%28film%29

The documentary focuses on the captivity of the killer whale Tilikum, who was involved in the deaths of three individuals, and the consequences of keeping such large and intelligent animals in captivity.

I've always thought that it is incredibly arrogant of us to capture and enslave Orcas, just to have them perform circus tricks with us for entertainment. Is it really shocking when Killer Whales actually kill? I feel like people need to watch Jurassic Park more often.

While I was typing this up, Jack Hannah on CNN said he supports SeaWorld because "out of sight, out of mind" - meaning since we generally don't see Orcas in the wild, we don't think about them. SeaWorld brings attention to Orcas, so we think about them and their conservation.

[Taem]

I wonder what they taste like

[DeeBye]

I wonder what they taste like

I bet they taste exactly like Orcas.

[kandrathe]

I'd agree we should question the need for "Circus" type venues using undomesticated animal attractions. Zoo's may be a good thing when focused on preservation, and rescue of endangered species -- and, every care needs to be made to give the animals a habitat, not merely a cage. My thinking for even domesticated animals is that we need to always manage them humanely.

[FireIceTalon]

I saw something on this a few months back. It is not only arrogant, but also selfish and inhumane for us to capture them, make them perform for us to line the pockets of SeaWorld owners, and then euthanize them when they turn on someone, as if its the animals fault.

Can you imagine someone kidnapping you from your family, sticking you in some circus as if you were a freak, and making you toil for the entertainment of others day after day? Then you get fed up one day, and decide to take matters into your own hands, only to be shot. I think not.

[Taem]

<I was trying to make a point, but did a truly terrible job and it came across very bad. I'm going to delete the offensive text and not even try and *fix* it>

Second point, I don't see how this is any worse then breeding domesticated animals for everyday consumption. Just go to youtube and search for Earthlings Trailer. Go ahead, do it now. I'll wait while you watch it. It's only 6-min 48-sec long for the extended trailer. I'd link it, but. I'm typing from my phone, sorry.

After watching that video, I've lost all hope in humanity as a "good" race of any sorts. That and now I always think twice before eating beef. I'm not sure if I had much of a point in my first paragraph other then pointing out the absurdity of comparing human captivity to wild animals, but I feel I did a terrible job doing it. SO hard to type on this phone.... very distracting using a touch phone

[DeeBye]

I don't think it's fair to compare to humans unless you use an appropriate comparison, such as the native American indians slavery (wild) versus the Africans of negro decent (docile)

I don't think I've read a more offensively racist thing on this forum, ever.

[FireIceTalon]

Two comments to fit; first, we're talking about wild animals here, not domesticated ones, so I don't think it's fair to compare to humans unless you use an appropriate comparison, such as the native American indians slavery (wild) versus the Africans of negro decent (docile), in which case you can see that yes, wild animals should not be enslaved, and certain breeds of human are more apt to domesticated slavery - incarceration was the term you used I believe - while others are more wild and untamable. Yes, no breed of human would like to be enslaved, but not all would revolt, but more appropriately, look at what we did to those who did not embrace our ideology? We killed them, and if we did this to ourselves, I'm sure we'd do the same to wild animals. Of course that does make it right, but I reserve judgement on if we'll ever change as a society based on my next paragraph.

Comrade, there is no such thing as 'breeds' of humans, wtf is this crap?...there are just humans. Nor are there such things as 'wild' humans or 'tame' humans - this artificial division in itself comes across as sounding highly racist (though I know u didn't intend it that way, but u should be more careful and selective in how to get your points across).....As for some people not revolting if they are enslaved or not, this doesn't make any sense either. You say Africans would be more apt for slavery than Native Americans (as if any humans should be enslaved to begin with ), but African slaves revolted or fled all the time during slavery. Ever heard of Nat Turner?

The reason I compared it to humans though is because of the specific animal in question. If this were honey bees, some type of fish, or something, it wouldn't matter so much. Honey bees actually are very important to the ecological system but humans having bee farms for instance isn't the same as the topic of this thread. While I am all for animal rights, I think some animal rights activists go too far saying we need to save every single species in the world down to the last insect. However, we are talking about Orcas here - one of the most intelligent, complex, and social animals in the world. Just has humans do not want to be put in a circus, my guess is that Orcas don't either. They'd probably rather be out in the wild with their pod hunting, playing, and making little Orcas.

Second point, I don't see how this is any worse then breeding domesticated animals for everyday consumption. Just go to youtube and search for Earthlings Trailer. Go ahead, do it now. I'll wait while you watch it. It's only 6-min 48-sec long for the extended trailer. I'd link it, but. I'm typing from my phone, sorry.

Ill give it a watch later.

After watching that video, I've lost all hope in humanity as a "good" race of any sorts. That and now I always think twice before eating beef.

This is a sweeping generalization. Humans can be both good and bad, but by nature, we are generally more of the former. When you put them in a hierarchal social organization of society though, one that is based on exploitation and commodity production for profits, then yes, you are going to bring out the worst in them. Humanity isn't the problem, and if it were, then we may as well just call it quits and kill ourselves now. The existence of a privileged, elite few that hold a cynical view of human nature and use it as justification for exploiting and oppressing the masses is the problem.

Also, not eating beef hardly makes one a "good" person.

[kandrathe]

Nor are there such things as 'wild' humans or 'tame' humans

I'm pretty wild, er, I was when I was younger before my wife caught, and tamed me. I wasn't into primitive hunting, but it would have intrigued me if anyone asked me along. I would say that I'm still pretty intrigued by tribal social systems, and given a chance, I'd try that out for awhile from a purely anthropological POV. I wouldn't say that is "wild", but different.

[Taem]

I don't think it's fair to compare to humans unless you use an appropriate comparison, such as the native American indians slavery (wild) versus the Africans of negro decent (docile)

I don't think I've read a more offensively racist thing on this forum, ever.

Yeah, it didn't come out at all like I had planned and I couldn't freaking proof-read it, or select a different paragraph, or edit it from my phone so I was hoping it somewhat carried the message I had wanted but... I won't even try and *fix* what I wrote because it's clearly a lost cause and the point I was making was so obtuse, it's not even worth the effort and the possibility of offending even greater looms so, I'll just let this one die quietly, I hope.

[Taem]

After watching that video, I've lost all hope in humanity as a "good" race of any sorts. That and now I always think twice before eating beef.

This is a sweeping generalization. Humans can be both good and bad, but by nature, we are generally more of the former. When you put them in a hierarchal social organization of society though, one that is based on exploitation and commodity production for profits, then yes, you are going to bring out the worst in them. Humanity isn't the problem, and if it were, then we may as well just call it quits and kill ourselves now. The existence of a privileged, elite few that hold a cynical view of human nature and use it as justification for exploiting and oppressing the masses is the problem.

Also, not eating beef hardly makes one a "good" person.

I was being overly dramatic. Of course I have hope we as a species can do acts perceived as good, however so long as money can be made from these wild beasts Deebee mentioned, I believe nothing will change until the $right$ political parties are motivated to do something about it.

I mention the perception of good because I believe your views of society as a right/wrong based ideology are overly simplistic and completely jaded by your beliefs of altruism. Because I don't believe in altruism at all, I feel we as a race do things for self preservation above all else, and greed is just a part of that. Now as it comes to "caring" and even "loving", rather for animals or one-another, I'm not saying people can't care or love, no not at all. I'm saying that these emotions I just mentioned have evolved inside us simply for the express interest of keeping our genes alive and expanding through our offspring. If we didn't feel the way we felt about our offspring, we might leave them to die, nary a care in the world what happens to them. In the case of these captured animals, I don't see a "right" or "wrong"; I see someone trying to preserve his/her way of life through profits on one side, and I see another comparing the way animals feel with the way humans feel as a way to try and understand what the animal might be going through (rather it's true or not) to justify a cause. Is one belief "right" and the other "wrong"? I don't believe there is any such thing, only the compelling urge to do what we feel is "correct" for our own lives. I try not to confuse morality with self preservation because, as I said, there is no true altruism; when you look at the world through my eyes, people stop looking so selfish, and you begin to understand exactly why people do what they do. I should mention that as it so happens, a majority of us do agree on some "correct" concepts and establish the rules and laws we currently live by.

On a personal note, I do feel personally offended by what I saw in that video I mentioned and it sickens me to think we, as a human race, are capable of such cruelty. It sickens me and saddens me, despite my knowledge that these emotions are only a byproduct of over-protectionism in my head from something I perceive as "sick". On a personal level, I
feel all life is sacred and should be treated as such, and I think there's been enough scientific studies done within the past 15-years that prove animals are much smarter than previously thought that, it could be argued they "feel" and "care" the same as us, so should have the same rights of freedom we have, not stuck performing circus tricks in a tiny tank, or held in a trough unable to move their entire lives only to be slaughtered in six months. That is my personal belief on animals, however this does not change my reflections of what I know about altruism, and "why" people do what it is they do.

[kandrathe]

...That is my personal belief on animals, however this does not change my reflections of what I know about altruism, and "why" people do what it is they do.

I don't subscribe to black and white thinking.

Is Pure Altruism possible?

"On Jan. 2, 2007, Mr. Autrey jumped down onto the tracks of a New York City subway platform as a train was approaching to save a man who had suffered a seizure and fallen. A few months later the Virginia Tech professor Liviu Librescu blocked the door to his classroom so his students could escape the bullets of Seung-Hui Cho, who was on a rampage that would leave 32 students and faculty members dead. In so doing, Mr. Librescu gave his life. "

It may be time to look beyond the sensationalism of Dawkins. I think while we are motivated by instincts, and biological behavioral patterns -- we are not robots and can exhibit intellect and free will beyond that of simple social insects.

Often, even altruistically, we can act selfishly. But, it is not the rule.

[FireIceTalon]

I mention the perception of good because I believe your views of society as a right/wrong based ideology are overly simplistic and completely jaded by your beliefs of altruism.

Um, at what point did I ever state my view of society is based on right/wrong, or even ideological at all? As a Marxist, "ideology" is a dirty word to me, because all it is, is an expression of ruling class interests or values. Ideology is just another term for 'false consciousness'. Secondly, my view of the world has absolutely NOTHING to do with altruism - I don't know where you got this idea from but there is no correlation there at all. Altruism is a product of capitalist, or probably even pre-capitalist society, and has no bearing whatsoever on my "beliefs". In fact, in a classless society, altruism would disappear entirely as a natural consequence of radically different existing social relations. Socialism and altruism have nothing to do with one another, unless you are talking about some type of 'utopian socialism' maybe; but I'm no utopian socialist by any measure.

I feel we as a race do things for self preservation above all else, and greed is just a part of that.

But clearly, competition is much more threatening and destructive to our self-preservation than cooperation is. Greed has nothing to do with it - it is just a natural consequence of capitalist society and its culture of consumerism, and commodity fetishism. I think you are oversimplifying things here, or just parroting bourgeois rhetoric. Greed and self-preservation need not go hand-in-hand. Does a single mother on welfare collect money from the state because she is greedy, or because she is making a rational economic decision available to her as a means to provide for her and her children?

In the case of these captured animals, I don't see a "right" or "wrong"; I see someone trying to preserve his/her way of life through profits on one side, and I see another comparing the way animals feel with the way humans feel as a way to try and understand what the animal might be going through (rather it's true or not) to justify a cause.

Its not just a question of ethics or fairness, its also a question of safety - for both the animals and people involved. There is a right and wrong here.

Is one belief "right" and the other "wrong"? I don't believe there is any such thing, only the compelling urge to do what we feel is "correct" for our own lives.

No man. Right and wrong do exist. If that weren't the case, we would have gone extinct long ago. You have totally bought into this whole culture of 'social darwinism/rugged individualism'....

I try not to confuse morality with self preservation because, as I said, there is no true altruism; when you look at the world through my eyes, people stop looking so selfish, and you begin to understand exactly why people do what they do.

It's almost impossible to confuse morality with self-preservation. One is a subjective set of values, the other is the epitome of rationality. But yes, self preservation does not necessarily equate to selfishness. And yes, I have a very solid understanding of why people do what they do (most of the time). Also, I don't think there is any question that altruism has indeed existed as an objective social phenomena for millennia now. I think philosophical questions of why it exists or should it exist are more relevant in understanding human behavior.

I should mention that as it so happens, a majority of us do agree on some "correct" concepts and establish the rules and laws we currently live by.

You mean laws made by and for a property owning class to protect said classes interests, aka rule-of-law?

[Jester]

It may be time to look beyond the sensationalism of Dawkins. I think while we are motivated by instincts, and biological behavioral patterns -- we are not robots and can exhibit intellect and free will beyond that of simple social insects.

What does this have to do with Richard Dawkins?

-Jester

[LennyLen]

What does this have to do with Richard Dawkins?

Try reading the article he linked to.

[Jester]

Try reading the article he linked to.

I did. At no point was there anything involving "sensationalism," or any concept that human beings are "robots" who cannot exhibit "intellect and free will beyond that of simple social insects." The only reference to Dawkins in the article was as an advocate for kin selection theories of altruism.

-Jester

[LennyLen]

Try reading the article he linked to.

I did. At no point was there anything involving "sensationalism," or any concept that human beings are "robots" who cannot exhibit "intellect and free will beyond that of simple social insects." The only reference to Dawkins in the article was as an advocate for kin selection theories of altruism.

-Jester

I may be putting words into Kathrande's mouth here, but I believe he was referring ti the fact that Dawkins is himself a sensationalist. When mot scientists make a discovery, they publish an article in a journal. Dawkins throws a press conference and writes a book.

The concept of being programmable machines is implied if you believe in the idea of a "selfish gene."

[Jester]

I may be putting words into Kathrande's mouth here, but I believe he was referring ti the fact that Dawkins is himself a sensationalist. When mot scientists make a discovery, they publish an article in a journal. Dawkins throws a press conference and writes a book.

Richard Dawkins is 72. His seminal contributions to the gene-centric view of evolution were published in scientific journals forty years ago, when he was in his 30s. The Selfish Gene is as old as disco, and hardly sensationalist, though it was certainly a sensation. It was a perfectly cogent (though not flawless) argument for gene-centered selection. If Dawkins is a notorious public figure today, mostly as the world's most famous professional atheist, this doesn't actually reflect his scientific career from four decades ago.

The concept of being programmable machines is implied if you believe in the idea of a "selfish gene."

The concept of humans being (loosely) programmable machines is implied if you believe in genetics at all. This is either an attribution to Dawkins of a noncontroversial statement that any biologist would agree with (genes organize and transmit the information for replicating life) or a strawman (humans are nothing more than strictly deterministic results of their genotype, with no relevance for epigenetics, environment, development, or society.)

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

c
The concept of humans being (loosely) programmable machines is implied if you believe in genetics at all. c

With Whom as Programmer?

[Jester]

With Whom as Programmer?

Either "nobody," or "everyone who ever successfully reproduced." Or "humans, past a certain point of technology."

Just because the gene sequence is a chemical code, and is constantly being recoded in response to selection, doesn't mean it was ever coded by anyone or anything in the first place. This is just how life is, self-replicating chemicals, usually but not always getting progressively more complicated.

-Jester