Riley
Very Well-Known Member
poor thing.. imo they should of put him yesterday or the day before, instead of making the poor little bugger starving, away from his mum! his mums probably in restaurant right now overseas..
Colin the whale and ethics
- Thread starter SlothHead
- Start date
Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:
- Status
Good to see a lot of passion, keeps the moment alive.
But there are a couple of issues here which don’t appear to be surfacing.
Firstly, to argue – leave it to its fate, the fact that the boundary of intervening in the natural world is being crossed is of significant importance. Certainly, by all means this boundary should be crossed in events where humans have caused the problem. But as far as I understand this is a case where the calf was abandoned or fell behind which is a common occurrence for whales born so far south of the nursing grounds.
That being the case, as a complete natural event, if we then start to intervene here, are we venturing onto a slippery slope where we should be intervening in every other situation. For example, I was watching a doco last night about caribou; the mother of a calf was injured, fell behind the pack, and was killed by bears. The calf was left sitting by the (essentially eaten) body of the mother. Thus if we are intervening in the whale situation, then we should be intervening in the caribou situation.
Secondly, which argues on the side of putting the animal down, is the argument of ending needless suffering. When the cost of ending the suffering does not adversely affect the natural balance then it would appear appropriate, which is a ‘natural’ emotional response to a species such as a whale. But again, it is a slippery slope and sets the precedent of ending suffering. So does this mean that if we see a lion about to attack and eat a wildebeest or whatever, and the wildebeest is certainly doomed, therefore should it be put down to stop the suffering that it is about to go through, knowing that it is not going to make it.
Economically, it is not feasible to save the animal at all. So that counts that case out all together. But lets just say for a second we could easily “fix” the colin problem and raise the whale. Disregarding the complexities of that, there is a pretty obvious issue. The fact that by artificially saving this animal we are taking a couple of tones out of the food chain which would otherwise be there.
It is surprising (well maybe not) to see people using words like, cruel and inhumane to describe a naturally occurring event. Ecosystems are like chemical reactions in that they develop a balance and direction all of their own and as you change part of it, you change every other part.
Well by now, it may all be over, certainly a harsh situation, but a natural situation and its good see everyone’s ideas and opinions on these conundrums.
But there are a couple of issues here which don’t appear to be surfacing.
Firstly, to argue – leave it to its fate, the fact that the boundary of intervening in the natural world is being crossed is of significant importance. Certainly, by all means this boundary should be crossed in events where humans have caused the problem. But as far as I understand this is a case where the calf was abandoned or fell behind which is a common occurrence for whales born so far south of the nursing grounds.
That being the case, as a complete natural event, if we then start to intervene here, are we venturing onto a slippery slope where we should be intervening in every other situation. For example, I was watching a doco last night about caribou; the mother of a calf was injured, fell behind the pack, and was killed by bears. The calf was left sitting by the (essentially eaten) body of the mother. Thus if we are intervening in the whale situation, then we should be intervening in the caribou situation.
Secondly, which argues on the side of putting the animal down, is the argument of ending needless suffering. When the cost of ending the suffering does not adversely affect the natural balance then it would appear appropriate, which is a ‘natural’ emotional response to a species such as a whale. But again, it is a slippery slope and sets the precedent of ending suffering. So does this mean that if we see a lion about to attack and eat a wildebeest or whatever, and the wildebeest is certainly doomed, therefore should it be put down to stop the suffering that it is about to go through, knowing that it is not going to make it.
Economically, it is not feasible to save the animal at all. So that counts that case out all together. But lets just say for a second we could easily “fix” the colin problem and raise the whale. Disregarding the complexities of that, there is a pretty obvious issue. The fact that by artificially saving this animal we are taking a couple of tones out of the food chain which would otherwise be there.
It is surprising (well maybe not) to see people using words like, cruel and inhumane to describe a naturally occurring event. Ecosystems are like chemical reactions in that they develop a balance and direction all of their own and as you change part of it, you change every other part.
Well by now, it may all be over, certainly a harsh situation, but a natural situation and its good see everyone’s ideas and opinions on these conundrums.
JasonL
Almost Legendary
There putting it down????? I just filled the van with F26 and was about to head on over...... bugger..anyone need 500kg of baby formula?
If it dies, the Japanese aren't going to buy it. Why would they buy one when they can harpoon one? If it dies of ill health it's not going to be good to eat and we all know they aren't actually doing any research (quite amusingly, they've so far produced all of zero scientific papers from all these decades of research - someone correct me if I'm wrong, please). Even if they did buy it for ten times what it is worth in meat (which they sure as heck wouldn't), the cost of building an enclosure for it would be far, far more.
Does anyone remember the movie "Free Willy"? A massive real life zillion dollar campaign was made to save the whale from that movie, and that involved building it a net type enclosure as some people here have suggested. Someone might want to google what that one cost, then take inflation into account. I think you'll find $2,000,000 would buy you the hinge for the cage door if you were lucky.
Putting many millions of dollars into a single whale might work as a publicity stunt, but what would be gained? People in Australia would appreciate whales, but they already do. The Japanese are never going to change their 'if it lives underwater, eat it' mentality, and this won't do squat. Putting millions upon millions of dollars into a project isn't trivial, any as much as we'd all love to save this whale, we have to think about all of the other animals, people, habitat, etc which we'd also like to save. Conservation is not a lucrative business, but it is something which needs to be looked at as seriously as possible so we can do as much good as possible. This project would take many times what our government is already putting into the entire endangered species budget. Sure, it'd be nice if the government would do more, but as the global economy is based on military budgets etc. It's very sad, and of course I wish money was allocated in a better way.
JasonL
Almost Legendary
What ever happened to the golden rule when dealing with wild animals ie; let nature take it course, Oh that's right, the media got involved and gave it a name.....make me feel warm and fuzzy.. 
What ever happened to the golden rule when dealing with wild animals ie; let nature take it course, Oh that's right, the media got involved and gave it a name.....make me feel warm and fuzzy..
lol thats another golden rule never name anything or it ends up getting euthed, thats my motto with wildlife
RIP miss Queeny-wattle and danny plover................................dont laugh miss b your already going to hell
You're on fire tonight Bob
I really like your idea of fleecing all the bleeding hearts whilst the emotions are strong, then when Colin finally bites the bullet, dice him up and wrap him in seaweed. We could even erect a floating monument to Colin and charge $5 for people to go and visit it.
The left over bits can feed the roach colony for a few years at least
Only problem I see is where are you going to get enough ice to keep 2 tonnes of blubber from going off? Might have to duck down to the local servo and raid their ice machine.
JasonL
Almost Legendary
All I know is the bream will be off the bite in the harbour for 6 months after a feed like that!
MAIA77
Active Member
So Colin has done a runner, the "experts" can't locate him, they continue the search and will carry on at first light..
And there's an uproar about Japanese whaling? They are hunting Colin to euthanize him, please point out how that is different..
Let nature take its course, why are humankind so arrogant that they insist on "fixing" problems that are well and truly beyond their comprehension?
And there's an uproar about Japanese whaling? They are hunting Colin to euthanize him, please point out how that is different..
Let nature take its course, why are humankind so arrogant that they insist on "fixing" problems that are well and truly beyond their comprehension?
Funny how easy it is for some to turn their back on a animal cause its "natures way", but a human child that is severely deformed and would definately die on its own is a completely different story. Humans interfere with human lives, altering chances of survival to a almost 100% rate, and yet nothing is done for animals when we do have the power and intelligence to do something to help.
The rules of natural selection is what makes animals so suitable for their environment and aids to their survival, humans have been interfering with human natural selection so much, that when a virus comes along, the whole human race will probably be wiped out in one go...
This is My opinion anyway. If we are going to change the mortality rate in humans as much as we do, we should offer something to help animals too.
The rules of natural selection is what makes animals so suitable for their environment and aids to their survival, humans have been interfering with human natural selection so much, that when a virus comes along, the whole human race will probably be wiped out in one go...
This is My opinion anyway. If we are going to change the mortality rate in humans as much as we do, we should offer something to help animals too.
inthegrass
Very Well-Known Member
colin is in hiding, maybe he has met harold holt.
cheers
cheers
Well played....
Australis
Almost Legendary
I agree that the human species as a whole is trying to avoid traditional natural selection... and you seem
to think thats a bad thing... and that it might some how lead to us all being wiped out by some blockbuster
virus.
But im surprised you want to subject other species to this problem?
MAIA77
Active Member
Do humans euthanize severely deformed children? Do they "try" to help for 5 days and realising their incompetence choose to end their suffering?
Human knowledge of the underwater world and it's vast idiosyncrasies is highly underdeveloped. Assuming that they can help this calf and then choosing to kill it when it fails to respond is just another example of human arrogance.
callith
Very Well-Known Member
well said
MAIA77
Active Member
Couldn't agree more! Is the glass half full or half empty? The opinion of "why let the animal suffer, better allow it a fast, painless(?) death" versus "the animal may have a slim chance but a chance nonetheless, to live"
- Status
