Matt Gurney: We can be nice to Flippy without declaring dolphins legally human
Matt Gurney Feb 22, 2012 – 10:33 AM ET | Last Updated: Feb 22, 2012 11:56 AM ET
On a recent trip down south, I saw dolphins in a tank, performing tricks for life-jacketed tourists. In exchange for a few fish, they'd smack a ball with their tail, jump through hoops or "kiss" the tourists by bumping them in the face with their snouts. Most of the people watching seemed suitably delighted, but a few clearly were thinking the same thing that I was: "This must really suck for the dolphins."
Not that I'm the PETA type. I love animals, dogs in particular, but still enjoy meat, don't object to fur and understand that animal testing is sometimes necessary to advance the human condition. But there is something about dolphins that seems different. Perhaps it's the fact that they always look like they're smiling, but it's also in large part because the more we learn about dolphins, the more we realize that they are eerily advanced lifeforms. As the satirical newspaper The Onion once hilariously observed, if dolphins developed opposable thumbs, humanity would be in serious trouble, quoting a fictional marine biologist: "I believe I speak for the entire human race when I say, Holy f–k. That's it for us monkeys." Another, in his suicide note, wrote to the dolphins, "Please be decent and kind masters to our poor ape-race. Oh, God, I'm so sorry about the tracking collars."
Kidding aside, humankind needn't draft its Articles of Capitulation quite yet. But the high intelligence of dolphins does present ethical challenges for humanity. Dolphins aren't just smart, they're self-aware — they can recognize their own reflection, proving they have an advanced understanding of their surroundings. They communicate with each other, grieve fallen podmates, engage in charitable acts, play, hunt, and have even used rudimentary tools. On top of this astonishing degree of intelligence, they are also, simply put, generally quite friendly and likeable.
There is an argument to be made that animals that are so highly advanced, and so intelligent, might warrant some legal protection, as part of our responsible stewardship of this planet. Such an argument would no doubt find broad popular support. But the right way to go about it is to ban cruelty, perhaps including confinement for non-scientific purposes, not to demand that cetaceans be legally declared "persons," as has been proposed. Extend protection to animals, not rights. Big difference.
At last weekend's annual meeting of the American Associating for the Advancement of Science, held in Vancouver, four scientists introduced what they called the "Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans: Whales and Dolphins." They plan to bring the issue before the United Nations, in the hopes that it might be the first step in seeing global laws that protect dolphins and whales by making it illegal to confine them, pollute their natural environments or, of course, to kill them.
There seems to be a few practical problems with this plan that might have escaped the notice of these champions of the cetaceans. First of all, getting the UN to recognize cetaceans as people won't exactly be a slamdunk. There are plenty of people, already recognized as people, who the UN won't lift a finger to help even as they're being shelled or are starving to death. There are also the legal issues — if you're out boating and run over a dolphin … what crime have you committed? And I suppose the reverse is also true — if a dolphin swims into a naval base, since it's a person, is it trespassing? These questions are only asked partially in jest — the more you think about what a legal framework for personhood would mean once extended beyond humanity, the weirder things get. Where would such a process stop? One of the scientists already says it would be logical to extend the same concept to apes … OK, fine. But is it an act of genocide to neuter a cat?
The scientists who want to protect dolphins and whales have their hearts in the right place, and their argument is intellectually engaging. As our knowledge of these other species improves, and suggests that they're far more advanced than we would have imagined in eras past, surely we must consider our obligations as the dominant species on the planet. But we should do that by enacting laws that protect them from undue harm and cruelty, not by going for the rhetorical high-score and simply declaring them human. Such acts are self-defeating — many people who might happily agree that dolphins and whales should be released from captivity and protected from harm will roll their eyes and tune out any discussion of declaring Flippy a person.
National Post
mgurney@nationalpost.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment