Dolphins recognized as non-human persons

[psyche101]

You're right in that humanity may be more capable to act decently than dolphins, but to say we were always like that, no... in so many places, a lot of atrocities done. Slavery was a common thing only two hundred years ago or so. In many armies in the world you get "toughened up" with a beating or such for moot reasons. Before that... I dont know the real everyday life's history so well from the medieval ages or before on that perspective, but history's full of wars and all that. It's not everyday occurrence, but it might be us repressing some violent side of ourselves. Doesn't make sense that one person would have the power to lead a nation to war, no matter how you think it. Because people have a mind of their own... it shouldn't happen, if what you say is true.

It does make sense that one person could lead a country to war, we have leadership, and group concepts, that's that intricate level of communication I touched on briefly with the FOXP2 gene. People can object, and people can work together, but the idea of going to war is to better the clan and increase chances of survival, evolution. Animals often have a hierarchy as well, I know, but as to the rest of it - yes, nail on the head. This long process of evolution led us down a different path to animals, as I say, we manipulate the environment to suit us, not the other way around, but more on that when we get to beavers. I have a thing for beavers you see.

It was a long process, one that took us on another path not previously known to the inhabitants of this planet.

And you can give anything a justification. No matter what it is, you can say "it's for a higher cause" and it might be a lot of times. But you still "break the eggs" in the process, do the same things other animals do in the process. We're disciplined ourselves, and learned new habits. Animals can do that too, look at the circus animals. We do it under pressure, because if we acted uncivilized, no one would take you to a job. Try to say "UGU UGU" while arriving naked to your job interview, I bet that'll go well. It's because we repress those sides of ourselves that there's all kinds of pressure we feel. I dont say raping would be in our nature, but having sex and killing things is, just like with all other animals. Also "being ourselves" is a part of our nature, like with other animals. I think we're not so different from animals apart from having learned more. The capacity for learning may be heightened, but saying how much heightened is a matter of opinions, relative.

When an animal reacts to a gesture to be rewarded, that is more like instinct I feel. It's being able to move forward on your own, such as our own explorers, pioneers and inventors have done. This is along that path we have taken for the first time in this planets history. For some people raping is in their nature, they see nothing wrong with it, many consider that a sickness, and I would too, but the point more being a group of adults wont sit around and abide by such behaviour, animals know no better, they cannot make that basic moral distinction.

Beavers build dams. A lot of animals build nests. Monkeys use tools. Granted, they dont seem very developed. Sorry for my bad tone.. I just dont look at it only from the logical perspective... my main point is dolphins are like a lot of other animals, including us, in that they react to things in different, varying ways. I've seen rats, cats and dogs show affection, happiness, support, shyness, wariness (being wary, I'm not a native speaker sorry), playfulness, frustration, anger, depression, kindness even, a lot of emotions. They also are intelligent, even if they struggle against us which shouldn't have to be the case. They can work around problems (my pet rat opening a human-size door for example, dogs do the same). Their lifespan is shorter than ours, we're blessed with more longevity than most animals in this world as well as great motoric and thinking skills so in that we're pretty exceptional. But that's more a thing of survival and technology... I dont think being able to be technological is what makes you a person... I mean if you come across a human who's very very bad at math, physics and such, then would you say that human is less a person?

I would not worry about your prose, you are an eloquent poster, and as for you English, Well, I wish more of the supposedly English speaking people here were up to your standard.

Yes, I agree animals have feelings and affection, I completely believe my Dog smiles, all dogs do I feel. And yes, animals can be intelligent, very much so, but I do think you place too much responsibility on humans here.

See, this is where I think we crossed wires, to me Dictionary definitions need to be adhered to particularly in a place like this where we cross Oceans, as just the cultural slang can be wildly different and be benign in one country, but a vitriolic insult in another. A dictionary defines a "person" as "Human" so to me calling a Dolphin human is anthropomorphising it, which I think is not only incorrect, but unfair to the Dolphin even.

Do you know who Joan Ocean is? People like that. I thought when you replied to me that you might support such New Age nonsense, but I will continue to pray that such is not the case, and I am not religious so goodness knows how this will work out. But that is the sort of person I would expect to call a Dolphin a "person" according to definition.

I have the same problem with gay marriage, and it got me into many arguments. Definitions are not just for decoration, I think we should stick to the letter of that which they offer.

I'm not really expecting anything from you, maybe only that you just think my words and then let it be if it doesn't ring a bell, because this is as good as I can put it. Logic is only one form of thinking, emotions are another. Emotions are not governed by logic for a major part of living beings.

As for the dictionary meaning of the word "person" or "people"... language changes all the time. It's not an one-time change but new words come to play, and words get slightly different meanings depending on who you talk with. Sometimes changes are major. It's best to agree to disagree in cases where you dont see eye-to-eye when it's about world-views.

Well, I read this post yesterday and thought I might sit on the thought and see how it turns out. I do not think you and I disagree that much, but are used to being in a defensive position.

Well yes, emotions rarely have much to do with thought. kind of like how men have two brains, but only one speaks most of the time. Animals can have emotions I agree, but they do not have the levels of communication and concepts that we do that help us accomplish things like an Industrial Revolution.

Yes words change from time to time, but if you are going to change a definition, it is best to let other know, and perhaps make such legal? I can only go with what the actual definition is, I cannot account for each person in the world to have an individual interpretation. It would be completely impossible for one person just to process so much information.

Trust me, you haven't seen my nasty side yet... you're a master of yourself like all of us, I dont expect anything else. Good for you if you're happy with your life.

We all are, but mate, a word of advice? Starting out a sentence with "Trust me" rarely garners trust

Trust me

Know what I mean?

Lets not get nasty hey? There is more than enough of that on this forum as it is.

Animals too can learn conceptions, if you give them time... it's just that we dont have much time with most animals due to their shorter lifespans and due to their learning being slower than ours. I dont expect all the animals to learn conceptions, their capacity to learn is varying on many things, not only because of themselves. And humans repairing the damage we did... landfills, junkyards, the pacific plastic ocean? Nuclear wastes? And China holding onto it's coal factories. I think you're right, but it's just a matter of time. I've seen rats taught to poop only on a certain spot, taught with gentle means. We're also taught a lot of things, it's because we're taught too that we learn. The teaching for humans has been developed more than teaching for other animals, for obvious reasons. But I say this because I think the same potential exists in them, even if their potential might not be as strong as ours, not equal in all aspects.

Whales and turtles outlive us by an impressive margin.

Yes, landfills are being adressed, the plastic ocean did get away from us, and it took a while before some responsible people found out the magnitude of it, but when they did it was globally reported, and everyone was shocked and horrified. One team even proposed making it a self sustaining Island, not sure that would work, but hey, a step in the right direction! We do stuff up, like all species, but that is what I am saying, we are the only species that tries to tidy up behind us. Sometimes we make a hell of a mess, and we cannot clean it all up, but we do what we can, and I think we are getting better at it.

I don't get the big problem with Nuclear energy, my wife is terrified of it. I thin it is more scare tactics than anything else, heck the sun does ok

Teaching humans happens because we had developed into a state where we had free time, this came hand in hand with manipulating the environment as opposed to vice versa. All animals have had the same opportunity we have, none have a plasma telly. Our shape, sex, behaviours and needs took us here. A Jellyfish will not ever build a plasma telly, not because it is an animal solely but because it works with the environment, as do the beavers. They have special teeth to get the structures built, that helps them survive, they still are working to the environment and develop to be suited to tasks with it. They do not master it, and they never go further than building a dam as they have no need for such. That's a major difference.

To revolutionize the way we treat a lot of the animals we eat, and plants too. Rid of monoculture, toxins and industrial farming. I'm not expecting everyone in the world to adopt this (who would?), but we could start to try let nature live more on it's own terms instead of keeping it confined and poisoned the way we do in many cases around the world. I know this is all on the idealistic level, the practical level of it is permaculture for one and lets not derail this into that.

I do not think it is that easy, man has spread, the world is a different place. Plants grow in countries that never saw such, ecosystems have been rearranged with invasive species that have been introduced, we have affected the atmosphere it's not the same place but how do we know that is not the natural order of things? Maybe questioning it is also part of the natural order of things? It seems quite normal to me considering the nature of the Universe is Chaos.

I'd like to know more about how Bill Gates plans to end poverty.

You can think however you want, dont let anyone stop you. What you refer in my posts as imagination, is something I've observed through life. But it's not the surface observations but what's the drives behind them that I pick up. I may pick up something that's not there at times, and that why I dont usually say things as if they were facts unless I'm sure or unless I know it's with someone who doesn't get all hung-up about that. If you want to learn new things, sometimes you scrap the old conceptions in order to do so. That's been the red line I've followed. But each to their own.

Ohh I do, and I am sure such is quite apparent.

I do not know you. My own sisters go to Psychic fairs and try to tell me Ghosts are real. My wife's best friend believes in Fairies. I am not real good with personal interpretations as I just do not trust what I hear. If you have specific observations that you honestly feel are relevant, and indicate a deeper understanding of other species, why not at least head up a blog and table your observations? That would be more conducive than getting mad at me for insisting on sticking with dictionary definitions wouldn't it?

I can and wil scrap old convictions, if what I can see is proven to me. Some people seem to think one must hold such concepts for life, but gat is why we have the term empirical proof. No matter what one says, or what equations exist, at the end of the day, a practical repeatable demonstration on hand is impossible to deny.

I've been almost killed by a human being. But I dont consider that human less than a person because of that. But, each to their own. If I see a madman saying "IM ARCHANGEL MICHAEL AND I RAIN LAZER BEANS FROM MY EYES" I dont go debate with him. Actually saw a guy like that on a bus you know... gotta say you're more pleasant company than him. But yeah, conclusion. Gotta love different opinions?

I would, and I do consider who tried to kill you less of a person for that. It's less human in my eyes. A subjective term, I understand, but I think you know what I mean by now? And I agree opinions are fine, everyone is entitled to them, but when someone tells me their opinion is fact, I will debate it. I want to know of I am wrong, and if I am not then many seem to appreciate receiving the correct information. I am a curious dicken, and I want to know as much as I can about a subject.

[psyche101]

We have the technology to observe these whales in their natural environment. I hope some day that will be enough but it's not good enough to make money or sell tickets. Dancing bears remind me of Mrs. Romney's walking horses. It's a shame there's money to be exchanged for animals engaging in unnatural behavior (stupid human tricks).

Aren't you talking about Whale Watching tours? They have been happening for decades, and do exactly what you say you would like to see and are immensely popular. Dear too, but the boats are full all season.

[Yamato]

That would be a good avatar pic for you psyche

[psyche101]

Humans number over six billion and live on a 2D plane.

[psyche101]

That would be a good avatar pic for you psyche

Only if you can get it on the bulls head. Only changed my Avatar once, when Boony Modified and modernised it.

It used to look like:

But if I do ever change it. I have considered these options in the past.

But now I have a new and excellent suggestion. Thanks. If I ever change, I'll take that into consideration. But if my Grandfather logs on, this could get very confusing.........

Edited June 4, 2013 by psyche101

[Yamato]

The false expectation of endless growth is a mathematical myth that's been duped upon countless humans everywhere. We've been encouraged by our religions and governments alike to be fruitful and multiply; it's still apparently the Godly thing to do. The word "wilderness" is used throughout the Bible each time with negative connotations. We're indoctrinated from ancient days to think that nature is here for our exploitation and consumption but that's not good enough for diversity of species or continuation of ecosystems.

[Yamato]

Dolphins NOT recognized as non-human persons:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/254165/preview-its-the-japanese

[psyche101]

The false expectation of endless growth is a mathematical myth that's been duped upon countless humans everywhere. We've been encouraged by our religions and governments alike to be fruitful and multiply; it's still apparently the Godly thing to do. The word "wilderness" is used throughout the Bible each time with negative connotations. We're indoctrinated from ancient days to think that nature is here for our exploitation and consumption but that's not good enough for diversity of species or continuation of ecosystems.

Dude, we do not live in 2D, we would be stick figures if we did.

That is a dying ideal I hope, Australia has been debating against the idea of a Big Australia, and opting to attempt a small Australia (keeping the population pretty much where it is) and I think it is a good idea. Many do, the main benefit being maintaing lifestyle. There is opposition, there always is, but I am optimistic in this regard. Kevin Rudd wanted a Big Australia, but when Julia stabbed him she had other ideas. One of the very, very few things I agree with her on.

[Yamato]

Dude, we do not live in 2D, we would be stick figures if we did.

We live on the planet's surface, we don't swim through the earth's crust a mile deep.

[psyche101]

We live on the planet's surface, we don't swim through the earth's crust a mile deep.

LINK - Two Dimensional Space

Edited June 6, 2013 by psyche101

[Yamato]

Yeah there's the feasible way to spread out the human population. Submarines.

[woopypooky]

I wonder dolphins ranked where in the land of kasta

[psyche101]

Yeah there's the feasible way to spread out the human population. Submarines.

What's that got to do with anything, you said we do not swim a mile deep. We do.

[Yamato]

What's that got to do with anything, you said we do not swim a mile deep. We do.

It's got everything to do with it. I said we do not swim through the earth's crust a mile deep. Airplanes in the atmosphere and submarines in the sea notwithstanding.

Submarines had nothing to do with global human population. It's so important for you to be disagreeable, you're disingenuous as a result.

[psyche101]

It's got everything to do with it. I said we do not swim through the earth's crust a mile deep. Airplanes in the atmosphere and submarines in the sea notwithstanding.

That is the difference that I was pointing out we manipulate the environment so we may achieve what we want, it sets us apart.

Airlines and submarines give us access to the areas you say we cannot access. And we can access them all.

Submarines had nothing to do with global human population. It's so important for you to be disagreeable, you're disingenuous as a result.

I think you just want to be disagreeable, you said :

we do not swim through the earth's crust a mile deep

After saying we live in 2D.

With submarines we do. What that has to do with population only you know at this stage.

Edited June 6, 2013 by psyche101

[Yamato]

That is the difference that I was pointing out we manipulate the environment so we may achieve what we want, it sets us apart.

Airlines and submarines give us access to the areas you say we cannot access. And we can access them all.

I think you just want to be disagreeable, you said :

we do not swim through the earth's crust a mile deep

After saying we live in 2D.

With submarines we do. What that has to do with population only you know at this stage.

We can put a tank of water on land and put whales in it just like I can put a cylinder of air in the water and put people in it.

Don't tell me what I said. I did not say we "cannot access them", I was the one who introduced airplanes inferring that we could. I did not say "we live in 2D".

We live on the planet's surface. The difference between the volume of the planet's oceans vs. the surface area of the earth's landmasses is enormous. In the context of my statements it's even more enormous when we consider there are millions of whales and billions of humans.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Yamato

[jaguarsky]

Good job, now if India could just recognize women as people with rights and liberties that must be respected.

[ciriuslea]

That some description, I don't know if I would describe Dolphins as such but there's no denying they're intelligence...I guess the next step is to create an intelligence barrier to incorporate 'persons of all species' and kick the rest back to the wild.

[psyche101]

We can put a tank of water on land and put whales in it just like I can put a cylinder of air in the water and put people in it.

We can, they cannot, that is the thread remember Yam? Dolphins are Persons?

Don't tell me what I said. I did not say we "cannot access them", I was the one who introduced airplanes inferring that we could. I did not say "we live in 2D".

I never told you what you said Yam, I quoted you. And here it is again.

Humans number over six billion and live on a 2D plane.

Did you forget typing that?

We live on the planet's surface. The difference between the volume of the planet's oceans vs. the surface area of the earth's landmasses is enormous. In the context of my statements it's even more enormous when we consider there are millions of whales and billions of humans.

I am not sure what you are trying to say Yam, I suspect you may have forgotten too. What does us living on land got to do with Dolphins being classified as persons?

[Yamato]

What does us living on land got to do with Dolphins being classified as persons?

You make up all kinds of words for me and deny it. We do live on a 2D plane, that's what a surface is. I don't sink into the ground and I don't float away. We don't live in submarines 100 miles across and we don't live inside floating continents. We live on land. Operative word "on".

What does any of your obfuscation and banter have to do with the subject? Nothing whatever that I can tell. What do my comments have to do with it? If they're persons, then let's oppose those who treat them like they're anything but.

[psyche101]

You make up all kinds of words for me and deny it. We do live on a 2D plane, that's what a surface is. I don't sink into the ground and I don't float away. We don't live in submarines 100 miles across and we don't live inside floating continents. We live on land. Operative word "on".

What does any of your obfuscation and banter have to do with the subject? Nothing whatever that I can tell. What do my comments have to do with it? If they're persons, then let's oppose those who treat them like they're anything but.

The surface is not 2D, I dont think you understand dimensions. Your a walking face palm Yam. Every-time you try to dig out of a hole you hit a sinkhole.

I do not know how you get that out of your comments, they do not fit the definition of person. To be a "person" one has to be human by definition. It's that simple. Just like how we call Bananas Bananas and some people do not call them apples.

[Yamato]

The surface is not 2D, I dont think you understand dimensions. Your a walking face palm Yam. Every-time you try to dig out of a hole you hit a sinkhole.

I do not know how you get that out of your comments, they do not fit the definition of person. To be a "person" one has to be human by definition. It's that simple. Just like how we call Bananas Bananas and some people do not call them apples.

The subject of the OP is non-human persons so obviously, it's not that simple to everyone.

Various debates have focused on questions about the personhood of different classes of entities. Historically, the personhood of animals, women, and slaves has been a catalyst of social upheaval. In most societies today, living adult humans are usually considered persons, but depending on the context, theory or definition, the category of "person" may be taken to include such non-human entities as animals, artificial intelligences, or extraterrestrial life, as well as legal entities such as corporations, sovereign states and other polities, or estates in probate.^[3] The category may exclude some human entities in prenatal development, and those with extreme mental impairment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person

the surface of the Earth is (ideally) a two-dimensional sphere, and latitude and longitude provide two-dimensional coordinates on it (except at the poles and along the 180th meridian).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface

Problem with the encyclopedia too? Why even try anymore, psyche? Give it up.

[psyche101]

The subject of the OP is non-human persons so obviously, it's not that simple to everyone.

Various debates have focused on questions about the personhood of different classes of entities. Historically, the personhood of animals, women, and slaves has been a catalyst of social upheaval. In most societies today, living adult humans are usually considered persons, but depending on the context, theory or definition, the category of "person" may be taken to include such non-human entities as animals, artificial intelligences, or extraterrestrial life, as well as legal entities such as corporations, sovereign states and other polities, or estates in probate.^[3] The category may exclude some human entities in prenatal development, and those with extreme mental impairment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person

the surface of the Earth is (ideally) a two-dimensional sphere, and latitude and longitude provide two-dimensional coordinates on it (except at the poles and along the 180th meridian).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface

Problem with the encyclopedia too? Why even try anymore, psyche? Give it up.

Try? LOL, nah, your overstating your abilities, your not that much effort Yam.

I think you missed this

Various debates have focused on questions about the personhood of different classes of entities.

and it seems perhaps this:

the surface of the Earth is (ideally) a two-dimensional sphere,

Because as far as the dictionary is concerned:

per·son

/ˈpərsən/

Noun

• A human being regarded as an individual.
  

To my knowledge has not been rewritten to date and

LINK - Mapping Earth's surface in 3D

Ideally:

adv.

1.

in accordance with an ideal; perfectly.

2.

in theory or principle.

[/color]

3.

in idea or imagination.

I believe Number 2 would be the choice here. Hell, you make up your own idea of what countries boundaries are, you make up your own laws that you think people should follow, this really should not surprise me should it? Making up your own definitions is just a natural progression.

Edited June 7, 2013 by psyche101

[Yamato]

So there is no meaningful mathematical difference between 149,000,000 square kilometers and 1,347,000,000 cubic kilometers, because of submarines and the usual litany of personal attack against me caused by soreness from debates in the past. You'll have to get back on topic by yourself, psyche. We're done here.

[Timothy]

LINK - Mapping Earth's surface in 3D

This is very cool!