US Navy barred from sonar use over harm to whales

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Snrrub
I don't think that humans are any more/less valuable than other type of animal life.

Of course we are more valuable. Not only for the obvious reasons (like the fact that we are the only sentient species on the planet) but also scientific or religious ones. It doesn't matter which way you lean, the result is the same.

If you are a creationist, you believe we are God's chosen species of the planet.

If you believe in evolution, you believe in survival of the fittest and we are STILL the most important and valuable species on the planet. Also, it is basic science that a species is biologically programmed to value itself over all others.

The only way to believe we are not the most valuable is to take an absurd, touchy-feely, nonsense stance that is contrary to science, religion, AND common sense. That's a triple whammy.

This doesn't mean we should just trash everything around us simply because we are superior. It is in our own best interests to preserve our natural environment. Clean air, clean water, and planet-wide biological diversity are all important and valuable goals.

---

With that out of the way, back to the main topic:

I think it is almost impossible to take a real stand on this issue without a LOT more information.

For example:

1) Is there nowhere else this training can reasonably be done?

2) Is there any way to hold all other elements of the training EXCEPT active sonar, and find another way to train in the use of active sonar?

3) Can the elements of training that involve active sonar be limited or reduced in any way such that the impact is minimized?

4) To what extent does the sonar actually harm sea life?

5) How extensive is the damage, if any.

6) How seriously has the impact been studied? How definitive and reliable are the results?

So far, I think a lot of stands have been taken by assuming the worst of the "other side." I can actually see myself going either way depending on how questions like the above would be answered.

I want to be safe, and I want a well trained military defending me. But I also do not approve of unnecessary harm being done to the environment.

[kestra]

One of the issues that came up in my mind was say the US Navy is forced to ban their use of sonar. This is extremely limiting, considering the enemy would be under no such obligation.
That ain't gonna fly!!
Do America's enemies (north korea for example) have subs?

[Liathano]

Originally posted by Aristotle
I think it is almost impossible to take a real stand on this issue without a LOT more information.

For example:

1) Is there nowhere else this training can reasonably be done?

2) Is there any way to hold all other elements of the training EXCEPT active sonar, and find another way to train in the use of active sonar?

3) Can the elements of training that involve active sonar be limited or reduced in any way such that the impact is minimized?
[/B]

these are the answers i can give without divulging any classified information.

1) probably not. we would have to be near our home port, in this case, most likely san diego, in order to effectively collect the data we need and be able to react as necessary in accordance with the war simulations for more effective training. our greatest threats are on the pacific right now...china and north korea. so we need the pacific fleet to be as ready as possible

2) there's not. at least if subs are involved. every ship in the navy relies on sonar techs to detect incoming vessels and identify their classes and whatnot.

3) not if the navy wants to have the war games really have any effect. we're far past the days when a lookout in the crow's nest determines if a ship is hostile and what kind it is by eyesight. the only way some of the sonar techs learn how to track enemy vessels is through these war games, so the training is vital.

it's really a question of what's more important...us or the animals?

[Snrrub]

Originally posted by Aristotle
Of course we are more valuable. Not only for the obvious reasons (like the fact that we are the only sentient species on the planet) but also scientific or religious ones. It doesn't matter which way you lean, the result is the same.

If you are a creationist, you believe we are God's chosen species of the planet.

There isn't any agreement by either scientists or philosophers as to what qualifies as 'sentience'. In fact, I think the concept is entirely fictional. Animals vary by intelligence, but I don't place value on animals based on the capcity of their brains. This is, for example, why I don't think that mentally disabled humans are less valuable than the rest of us. It needs to be noted, that when I use the word "valuable", I don't mean in any materialistic sense, but rather one's worthiness to exist (maybe I could articulate it in an even better way if I had more time to think about it).

To address your religious point, several religions (including Buddhism and Hinduism) do recognize nonhumans as sentient beings.

Originally posted by Aristotle
If you believe in evolution, you believe in survival of the fittest and we are STILL the most important and valuable species on the planet.

In evolutionary terms, being the 'fittest' species implies that we are best able to produce survivable offspring. By evolutionary defition, a sterile human isn't "important and valuable" as you put it. Further, while humans may be the most fit animal on the planet, we are not the fittest of all the species on the planet. There are microscopic organisms (completely non-intelligent ones, in fact) that have a much higher survivability than humans, such as super viruses, and so on. Do you think that they are more valuable than yourself?

Originally posted by Aristotle
Also, it is basic science that a species is biologically programmed to value itself over all others.

I don't see how this is particularly relavent. If you're saying that your lesser compassion for other animals is a result of a basic hereditary instinct rather than a result of intellectual reason, a logic argument on the subject seems rather pointless, doesn't it?

[Gromgor]

As stated by Bumper Stickers nation wide:

"Fuck the whales"

I won't go out of my way to harm an animal. But I won't really go out of my way, to the extent that it leaves untrained people in charge of million, or even billion, dollar equipment just because it might hurt some big goofy looking creature, to not hurt an animal either.

There's a delicate balance to the ecosystem and all that. Hurting the whales will throw it out of whack. Yeah. Ok. I don't care. What happens when a sub gets sunk off the coast because people weren't properly trained? A media firestorm asking where our tax dollars went. How vulnerable are we to attacks? Blah blah blah.

And what would we have to respond to it? "It might have hurt the whales."

Kiss my ass hippies! Nuke the whales.

[Dalaena]

Too bad a shark isn't going to be worried about your inherent value in the hierarchy of the world as it chews your legs off, Snrrub.

To address your religious point, several religions (including Buddhism and Hinduism) do recognize nonhumans as sentient beings.

This is an incorrect statement when it comes to Buddhism. Buddhism values all LIFE, not sentience. Buddhism doesn't address sentience at all. Beating up a mosquito as it sucks your blood is unappealing to Buddhists not based on a mosquito's sentience but based on the fact that it is alive. Of course, a lot of Buddhist philosophy is inherently flawed. For example, a bunch of Buddhist monks set themselves on fire to protest a war. Well, Buddhist monks are not supposed to kill ANYTHING. That probably includes themselves. Most religions are flawed in their practice as opposed to their teachings.

In evolutionary terms, being the 'fittest' species implies that we are best able to produce survivable offspring.

This is also an incorrect statement. You cannot be the "fittest" in terms of species because not all members of any given species is reproductively viable, yet the species as a whole may be reproductively viable. You are a "fit" member of the species if you are capable of reproducing, but the term cannot actually be applied to a species as a whole. The biological term "fit" can only be applied to reproducing adults of a certain species. This should not be confused with the phrase coined by Herbert Spencer (not Darwin, though coined after reading On Origin of Species) which discussed a free market economy. "Survival of the fittest" is used in reference to natural selection, which does apply in this case though it is, ultimately, irrelevant.

Humans, by far, have the most impact on the globe as a species, and it is this criteria by which we must judge our actions. The fact that this issue is even being addressed (as opposed to 75 years ago when we didn't even think of such things) shows our progress from what we once were. This is all a balancing act. People should not exclude thoughts of other human beings, their safety, their livelihood, etc. for animals, and at the same time, because we share this planet with others, we have to think of non-human species as well. This really all comes down to our own self-preservation. Humans are actively trying to "preserve" the world at the moment because we believe in our own self-importance, and frankly, we like this world we live in.

Do you really think that the cat that ate the last Stephens Island wren thought, "Oh, gee, maybe I shouldn't eat this really rare bird?" Probably not since he ate the LAST ONE of the species, knocking those wrens onto the list of extinct species. As various species vie for dominance in a habitat or an ecology or fight to even obtain a niche, they are doing it by instinct, not by some evil, uncaring intent to kill off or drive off other animals. So, do we hold them responsible for acting like the animals they are? Do we accuse them of valuing other animals less than them? (Which they do, of course.) If not, then are we simply so much "better" than them that we should hold ourselves responsible for the world we live in? So, either we are the same as animals, and thus, cannot be held accountable for our actions. We should continue on our race to become the dominant species on the planet regardless of the impact that we have on others. OR... we SHOULD know better and DO know better, and we need to control ourselves and respect the world we live in.

In this particular case, I think you can do no better than to have a cost benefit analysis by more than the military and the scientists involved. Things really are never as cut and dry as "Humans or whales?"

[Darion]

By evolutionary defition, a sterile human isn't "important and valuable" as you put it.

A sterile human is typically able to contribute to the greater good of the species simply by existing. So are individuals that never have children. Perpetuation of the species, though ultimately the only thing that matters, is not the only benchmark to determine worth of an individual.

In general, I would say that humans are superior to animals because we are able to enter into moral contracts - a concept which animals have no capacity to understand. This is why I tend to grimace every time someone uses the term "animal rights" - because they do not have the ability to understand inherent rights, and a bear would not hesitate to maim or kill someone if it was hungry or disturbed. What are we supposed to do now, put it on trial?

That said, I default to the military in this case. I have not heard every last detail, but it seems to be a general case of disturbing local wildlife except the issue has been transported under the sea. You would hear the exact same arguments trotted out if the Army wanted to build a new base in a government forest preserve somewhere. It is in our benefit to have a well-trained military. Especially when considering something as fundamental as coastal defenses, I would be heavily inclined to be permissive about this.

[Savaric]

Well I value the whales. Once they're gone they're gone and they deserve our protection (protection from us that is). Wiping out an entire species should be abominable. China wiped out some kind of river dolphin which was confirmend recently. Well it's gone, so much for that.

As far the sonar goes it is important. The Chinese are constantly trying to steal our silent sub technology so they can use it to take out our aircraft carriers (or I should say, obtain that capability). No it's not a Tom Clancy novel. Our carriers are our most powerful weapons, but they are not invulnerable. The idea is that a quiet Chinese sub could get in close enough to take out our carriers. We have to keep an eye out on where they are and, as part of never ending military readiness, be able to take them out in the event of all-out war. But what a truly fictional event that would be! (Is he being sarcastic?). I'm sure we could collapse China economically, but too many corporate Americans are making money off their slave labor and too busy selling us out.

If I had to redo the Navy again I would try to get into the subs. That's very cool stuff (don't knock the Navy!). It's open season on the Chair Force though

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Savaric
Well I value the whales. Once they're gone they're gone and they deserve our protection (protection from us that is). Wiping out an entire species should be abominable.

I think I missed the part where active sonar testing of a few hours would wipe out the entire whale population.

Lets keep this in perspective.

[Snrrub]

Originally posted by Dalaena
This is an incorrect statement when it comes to Buddhism. ... Buddhism doesn't address sentience at all.

You are wrong. Modern Buddhist philosophy does indeed address sentience. For example, the Dalai Lama's book, "The Universe in a Single Atom" has several chapters devoted to consciousness, and sentience is specifically addressed a number of times. I don't want to spend too much time on this point since it was more tangental to my argument rather than fundamental to it.

Originally posted by Dalaena

This is also an incorrect statement. You cannot be the "fittest" in terms of species because not all members of any given species is reproductively viable, yet the species as a whole may be reproductively viable. You are a "fit" member of the species if you are capable of reproducing, but the term cannot actually be applied to a species as a whole. The biological term "fit" can only be applied to reproducing adults of a certain species. This should not be confused with the phrase coined by Herbert Spencer (not Darwin, though coined after reading On Origin of Species) which discussed a free market economy. "Survival of the fittest" is used in reference to natural selection, which does apply in this case though it is, ultimately, irrelevant.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but in any case I think you missed the substance of what I originally said. Therefore I'll clarify my own position. As a believer in evolution, and in the concept of 'survival of the fittest', I do not (contrary to what Aristotle claimed) need to believe that humans are the most 'important and valuable' species on the planet. Also, the fact that humans might be stronger than whales, for instance, gives us no greater moral authority to kill them than a stronger human would have when killing a weaker human.

Originally posted by Dalaena

Do you really think that the cat that ate the last Stephens Island wren thought, "Oh, gee, maybe I shouldn't eat this really rare bird?"

Since I'm not using cats as ethical rolemodels, I'm not sure how this is particularly relevant.