Orcas in captivity: #emptythetanks

[Atlantis]

On February 24th 2010, nearly six years ago now, Tilikum, a killer whale 'living' in SeaWorld Florida, caused the death of an experienced trainer, Dawn Brancheau, by pulling her into the water. Her autopsy showed the cause of death was drowning and blunt force trauma. Her body was pretty much destroyed, with her scalp torn off her head, her arm severed below the shoulder, her ribs and jawbone and been fractured and her spinal cord had been severed.

Now, would this have happened if Tilikum was in the wild? No.
I went to Florida about a month after when this happened, I was only eight years old at the time. I remember that my sister, who would have been 15 or 16 at the time, completely refused to go to SeaWorld (and still does). Why? 'Because it's mean on the animals.'

Now that I am older, I now understand why she thinks that way:

Since 1961, at least 150 orcas have been taken into captivity worldwide. 127 of those have now died. 163 orcas have died in captivity overall, plus over 30 miscarriages and still-borns.
The annual mortality rate for orcas living in captivity is 2.5x times higher than if they were in the wild. Also, the average lifespan for orcas is 30 years for males and 50 years for females. 92% of orcas living SeaWorld did not live past the age of 25. That, in my eyes, is simply unacceptable.

But why are they so unhealthy? What makes them die so young? The size of their tanks. The size of the tanks at SeaWorld for the orcas to live in are like a bathtub to them. Could you imagine spending every single minute of your life in your bathtub? Nobody could. So why are companies like SeaWorld allowed to do this?
In the SeaWorld tanks, the orcas would have to swim around the tanks 1400 times to swim the same distance they would in the wild.
You may have noticed that SeaWorld's orcas have a 'collapsed dorsal fin'. Almost 100% of the orcas in captivity have a collapsed dorsal fin, compared to 1% in the wild. I believe that SeaWorld have said that it is 'normal', but with these figures it is obviously a captivity problem.

To finish with, a quick sum up:
In the wild, there has been 1 'aggressive act' and no deaths.
In captivity, there has been 100+ aggressive acts and 4 human deaths, three of which are from Tilikum.

So, what's your viewpoint on this? Should the orcas in captivity be released?
I definitely think so.

#emptythetanks

[Judean Zealot]

There's little purpose in holding animals in captivity for purposes other than consumption or scientific research, and as such I oppose it on grounds of cruelty (unless, of course, we're dealing with a perfectly equal or enhanced environment, which we generally aren't).

Nonetheless, even as a radical statist, I'm unsure whether governmental authority extends to normative judgements that cannot reasonably be said to extend to the public welfare of the people.

Edit: After thinking about it a bit, I would add that the government also has a responsibility not to wreck the lands that it controls (presumably that places international waters under the joint responsibility of the international community), and while having orcas in aquariums doesn't harm the environment, we still may be able to say that the animals themselves are included in that mandate of preservation. So I'm genuinely unsure about this.

[Vlerchan]

Nonetheless, even as a radical statist, I'm unsure whether governmental authority extends to normative judgements that cannot reasonably be said to extend to the public welfare of the people.
Letting people mistreat animals might engender antisocial and/or hedonistic impulses in the people to their ultimate detriment - no?

[Judean Zealot]

Letting people mistreat animals might engender antisocial and/or hedonistic impulses in the people to their ultimate detriment - no?

It depends to what extent. I would outlaw bullfighting and such, but keeping animals in captivity, which is hardly an apparent or conscious cruelty, wouldn't really engender any further negative impulses.

Also, I would appreciate it if you can express your thoughts on my edit above.

[Porpoise101]

I don't like it. To me it is a waste of life. I have a pet newt, but it was bred from captivity and has a big tank with lots of plants to hide in so that he doesn't become stressed. So as a caretaker of this creature, I have dedicated myself to make it's life have value and something of a purpose. SeaWorld animals are wasted and I do not approve. In general I do not like having sentient beings in captivity like this. To me, that means no cetaceans, elephants, or primates in the zoo or tank. But that is my opinion.

[Judean Zealot]

I don't like it. To me it is a waste of life. I have a pet newt, but it was bred from captivity and has a big tank with lots of plants to hide in so that he doesn't become stressed. So as a caretaker of this creature, I have dedicated myself to make it's life have value and something of a purpose. SeaWorld animals are wasted and I do not approve. In general I do not like having sentient beings in captivity like this. To me, that means no cetaceans, elephants, or primates in the zoo or tank. But that is my opinion.

Eh. I'm kind of skeptical about assigning some sort of meaning to the life of an animal qua the animal itself, insofar as they themselves are incapable of relating to it.

[Vlerchan]

I would outlaw bullfighting and such, but keeping animals in captivity, which is hardly an apparent or conscious cruelty, wouldn't really engender or further negative impulses.
I'm having a difficult time imaging how it translates to the people too.

---

Nonetheless I'm thinking the likelihood is that individual's welfare functions intersect to some extent with that of animals. That is - perceptions of cruelty is likely to leave people feeling less well off and thus eliminating this would be optimal in a utilitarian framework. This can be dealt with in an informationally-efficient market without government intervention. But the likelihood is that the market for Orca-viewing isn't informationally-efficient and thus limited intervention [information-provision] is valid.

Now the government growing the number of people with knowledge of the prevalence of cruelty is likely to lead to a greater amount of unhappiness in the immediate-run but considered over the course of a life-cycle it would probably lead to a happier population after people act on this information.

Also, I would appreciate it if you can express your thoughts on my edit above.
You'd need to define 'wreck'. For example - what would it entail for pollution?

[Babs]

With the overwhelming evidence that keeping orcas in tanks is really, really bad for them, fuck no let's not do that anymore.

[Judean Zealot]

Nonetheless I'm thinking the likelihood is that individual's welfare functions intersect to some extent with that of animals. That is - perceptions of cruelty is likely to leave people feeling less well off and thus eliminating this would be optimal in a utilitarian framework.

Eliminating this abuse in particular may be a proper utilitarian goal, but the extension of State authority into micromanaging utility which this necessitates is not optimal, even (or perhaps especially) on a utilitarian account.

This can be dealt with in an informationally-efficient market without government intervention. But the likelihood is that the market for Orca-viewing isn't informationally-efficient and thus limited intervention [information-provision] is valid.

It is generally better to intervene via increasing informational efficiency than by bypassing the popular conception.

You'd need to define 'wreck'. For example - what would it entail for pollution?

Heavy regulation - I'm a strong environmentalist. I would favor the creation of a curve of sorts wherein the requisite utilitarian cost increases exponentially, proportionate to the severity of the environmental upheaval. The question in this instance is (1) whether the protection of individual specimens falls under said mandate, and then (2) whether the utility of the industry exceeds the rather trivial cruelty of animal captivity (I'm leaning towards yes).

[Uniquemind]

Old news.

If you were paying attention, you'd have realized Sea World IS ending the program.

Idk where they are releasing the ORCA's but they are being retired.

However might I add that ORCA's are wild animals and they hunt other whales.


After seeing a group of Orca's attack a mother blue whale, causing her to drop her baby blue whale, and then watching the Orca's rip that baby to shreds on (I think the discovery channel) I am a lot less sympathetic to animals than I was.

You sister has good emotional intentions, but she is misguided in where and to what extent she projects human empathy and sympathy onto animals.

[Vlerchan]

Eliminating this abuse in particular may be a proper utilitarian goal, but the extension of State authority into micromanaging utility which this necessitates is not optimal, even (or perhaps especially) on a utilitarian account.
I'm in agreement. In this instance that's the reason I'd support the government engaging in information provision and then allowing individuals to find a pareto optimal solution amongst themselves.

The question in this instance is (1) whether the protection of individual specimens falls under said mandate, and then (2) whether the utility of the industry exceeds the rather trivial cruelty of animal captivity (I'm leaning towards yes).
(1) I'm not sure here.

(2) I'm good to leave that the markets. I'd lean yes too though.

---

On pollution I'm also of the opinion that the government should target a socially-optimal level. The presumption here is that both before and after this level costs increase exponentially.

Leaving this as an addendum because it's not really central to the thread but stands as a good indication of my approach to the environment.

[Porpoise101]

After seeing a group of Orca's attack a mother blue whale, causing her to drop her baby blue whale, and then watching the Orca's rip that baby to shreds on (I think the discovery channel) I am a lot less sympathetic to animals than I was.
But the duty of the orca is to predate on other wildlife. That is why it does that. It is necessary for the world in the big picture. To the orca, it is either kill a baby to survive with its pod, or have everyone die. The point is that these animals should be free to live and do their duty in nature.

[phuckphace]

I'm always leery about capitalist enterprise getting all up in the environment since they tend to make messes that are really easy to create but often difficult or impossible to reverse.

the American bison is one example of this: they were slaughtered by the thousands and their bones piled into enormous mounds for use as fertilizer, resulting in the species almost going extinct. that's still a possibility in the long term since the near-extinction caused a genetic bottleneck, and many of the few remaining bison are crossed with domestic cattle.

I say we let all zoo and laboratory animals go (except for species that are extinct in the wild and undergoing recovery programs) and legalize human experimentation instead - we've got an enormous prison population that can be put to good use here.

[Syzygy]

Old news.

If you were paying attention, you'd have realized Sea World IS ending the program.

Idk where they are releasing the ORCA's but they are being retired.

However might I add that ORCA's are wild animals and they hunt other whales.


After seeing a group of Orca's attack a mother blue whale, causing her to drop her baby blue whale, and then watching the Orca's rip that baby to shreds on (I think the discovery channel) I am a lot less sympathetic to animals than I was.

You sister has good emotional intentions, but she is misguided in where and to what extent she projects human empathy and sympathy onto animals.

These animals kill to survive and can't separate right from wrong, yet because of they follow their inborn instincts you are less sympathetic towards these sentient creatures being abused by people, who can separate right from wrong?

Also Tilikum's story really is a sad one. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't survive if released into the wild as a result of his lifelong abuse and lack of experience in the wild, combined with the poor condition of his teeth.

[Porpoise101]

I'm always leery about capitalist enterprise getting all up in the environment since they tend to make messes that are really easy to create but often difficult or impossible to reverse.

the American bison is one example of this: they were slaughtered by the thousands and their bones piled into enormous mounds for use as fertilizer, resulting in the species almost going extinct. that's still a possibility in the long term since the near-extinction caused a genetic bottleneck, and many of the few remaining bison are crossed with domestic cattle.

I say we let all zoo and laboratory animals go (except for species that are extinct in the wild and undergoing recovery programs) and legalize human experimentation instead - we've got an enormous prison population that can be put to good use here.
I found myself strangely agreeing with this. It's kind of making me sick, but I'm accepting it. Might I add that we start with the would be former SeaWorld owners and managers?

[West Coast Sheriff]

Would captive orcas still possess the skills to hunt in the wild?

I recently checked out a library book on this. I'll have to contribute more, after, I do some reading.

[phuckphace]

I found myself strangely agreeing with this. It's kind of making me sick, but I'm accepting it. Might I add that we start with the would be former SeaWorld owners and managers?

I'll make a shitlord out of you yet.

I was thinking the type of experimentation would be proportional to the seriousness of the crime committed - like I'll be testing the newest strains of medical cannabis on myself, the latest in surgical sterilization on the r-selected proles, and execution methods on murderers (who will then sleep with the [-]fishes[/-] orcas)

[Judean Zealot]

I'll make a shitlord out of you yet.

I was thinking the type of experimentation would be proportional to the seriousness of the crime committed - like I'll be testing the newest strains of medical cannabis on myself, the latest in surgical sterilization on the r-selected proles, and execution methods on murderers (who will then sleep with the [-]fishes[/-] orcas)

Christ! You're serious!?

[Uniquemind]

But the duty of the orca is to predate on other wildlife. That is why it does that. It is necessary for the world in the big picture. To the orca, it is either kill a baby to survive with its pod, or have everyone die. The point is that these animals should be free to live and do their duty in nature.

Yup. But the big picture is so far off from where we should be now, that things are beginning to spiral, to the point where I no longer hold "ideals" of right or wrong anymore, and I find it ironic that ideas of "right or wrong" can then be projected upon the treatment of animals once man begins to make a quasi-humane industry out of it, albeit it's not perfect.

Blue whales are endangered, and I think orca's are too.

Ultimately mankind is to blame especially because world economies are addicted to growth and know no other model to follow. Teens, and adults in all societies also don't seem to be repopulating sustainably either, every individual thinks they have a right to sex and to offspring, this is sadly a lie, that death has to correct by it's various avenues and is the answer to why tragedies exist.


These animals kill to survive and can't separate right from wrong, yet because of they follow their inborn instincts you are less sympathetic towards these sentient creatures being abused by people, who can separate right from wrong?

Also Tilikum's story really is a sad one. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't survive if released into the wild as a result of his lifelong abuse and lack of experience in the wild, combined with the poor condition of his teeth.

It's sad, but there's nothing to be done now. That fate was set in motion years ago at the onset of events that started every other event that followed. In that sense, despite biologically being alive, he was already dead; doomed from the start.


Also you should know a base foundation of how I understand or define evil, is an entity that does things without higher cognition or self-awareness or a shirking of the ability of higher thought.

If you go down the path of "oh I only did it for survival" then that would imply under certain conditions what humans do, as not evil acts, despite the horrific nature.

There are many animalistic behaviors that would be interpreted by humans as sadistic and calculated when observed.

[Vlerchan]

the American bison is one example of this:
It's not. The over-hunting of bison is a quintessential example of the tragedy of the commons which is a phenomenon that markets act to ensure against.

---

Is it bad that I've come across human experimentation advocacy so many times that it no longer prompts strong feelings? I feel it should be.

[Syzygy]

It's sad, but there's nothing to be done now. That fate was set in motion years ago at the onset of events that started every other event that followed. In that sense, despite biologically being alive, he was already dead; doomed from the start.


Also you should know a base foundation of how I understand or define evil, is an entity that does things without higher cognition or self-awareness or a shirking of the ability of higher thought.

If you go down the path of "oh I only did it for survival" then that would imply under certain conditions what humans do, as not evil acts, despite the horrific nature.

There are many animalistic behaviors that would be interpreted by humans as sadistic and calculated when observed.

Give an example please of what humans do for survival that is evil?

In your own words you said you shouldn't project human empathy onto animals, you also shouldn't project human morality onto them as well.

Also I'm not sure what your point is, are you saying orcas are inherently evil, and that's why you don't feel sympathetic towards their abuse in captivity? What's evil to me is willingly and knowingly (key words) inflicting suffering on sentient beings.

[phuckphace]

Christ! You're serious!?

Is it bad that I've come across human experimentation advocacy so many times that it no longer prompts strong feelings? I feel it should be.

in my case it's not that I believe animal life is inherently more valuable or whatever (although orcas are significantly more majestic to look at than serial-murderers) but for a more practical reason: human test subjects would give us the most accurate results cf. laboratory animals. SCIENCE! (there are also some genetic questions pertaining to races that I'd like a definitive answer for, but that we won't get now that politics has infected the field).

of course, there would still be ethical limits - nothing too extreme or torturous, and the "Forbidden Experiment" would remain forbidden. just 'cause I'm the next Hitler doesn't mean I'm the next Mengele, jeez!

I'm derailing this thread but at some point I'll start a thread on my environmental policy wherein we can explore this further

[Uniquemind]

Give an example please of what humans do for survival that is evil?

In your own words you said you shouldn't project human empathy onto animals, you also shouldn't project human morality onto them as well.

Also I'm not sure what your point is, are you saying orcas are inherently evil, and that's why you don't feel sympathetic towards their abuse in captivity? What's evil to me is willingly and knowingly (key words) inflicting suffering on sentient beings.

Human examples:

Putting idealistic platforms over common sense behavior.
Ignorance despite having the potential to go farther in learning.
Almost all policies derived from the concept of social Darwinism and a growth addictive economy that knows and values little else.
Religious or even just tribal warfare in 1st, and 3rd world countries respectively.
Various gang violence.
Apathy of Black Friday shoppers.
People who do crap selfishly on the road when driving, aka: road rage.
Human lack of patience in many scenarios.
The very fact that people rate other people in their social networks of different levels of importance and meaning, and when put into a context of survival, resources would be diverted to save one person, and let another perish.


I project morality onto animals to the extent of intelligence of said species or even that one particular animal of a species, if it's a prodigy perhaps.

I didn't say you couldn't sympathize with them, I said to a certain extent, it becomes a false equivalency to do so, and it's from that foundation you get the judgements of it being good or bad.

They are animals and humans do have dominion over them for better or worse.

[Syzygy]

Human examples:

Putting idealistic platforms over common sense behavior.
Ignorance despite having the potential to go farther in learning.
Almost all policies derived from the concept of social Darwinism and a growth addictive economy that knows and values little else.
Religious or even just tribal warfare in 1st, and 3rd world countries respectively.
Various gang violence.
Apathy of Black Friday shoppers.
People who do crap selfishly on the road when driving, aka: road rage.
Human lack of patience in many scenarios.
The very fact that people rate other people in their social networks of different levels of importance and meaning, and when put into a context of survival, resources would be diverted to save one person, and let another perish.


I project morality onto animals to the extent of intelligence of said species or even that one particular animal of a species, if it's a prodigy perhaps.

I didn't say you couldn't sympathize with them, I said to a certain extent, it becomes a false equivalency to do so, and it's from that foundation you get the judgements of it being good or bad.

They are animals and humans do have dominion over them for better or worse.

I guess this is where we fundamentally disagree.

[Uniquemind]

I guess this is where we fundamentally disagree.

Fair enough.


In this case though is it orca's or blue whales who are more endangered?

The species who is more endangered, is the side I'm gonna go with given we are trying to prevent a genetic bottleneck for Blue Whales.

From what I researched blue whales take a long time to gestate, so losing a baby blue whale before it could breed on it's own as an adult is a huge loss.

Orcas to blame, who I think have an easier chance at reproducing.

---
Primary blame though for pushing the first domino of problems are humans. So you'll find no argument from me there.

1. We pollute oceans and land, due to a growth based economy that likes disposable products.