Ethics and Cetacean-Human Relations
by Robyn Waayers and Robert Anderson
Our time with the orcas left us deeply impressed with their qualities. We have spent years contemplating the nature of the relationships that developed. But in a larger sense, we have also contemplated the nature of the relationship between Orcinus orca and Homo sapiens, what is and what should be. We would like to share those thoughts in the following pages.
The Biological Origins of Morals and Ethics in Humans
Humans, and all other organisms are susceptible to evolutionary mechanisms. Those genes that cause a species to be more fit (in other words more able to pass on their genes to future generations) will become more established in a species' genome.
Early in human evolution, it appears that humans developed rules for interacting with members of our own species. Within a social group (for example a tribe), individuals who behaved in antisocial ways would not long be tolerated in the group. Stealing, physical assault, sexual assault, etc., would not be tolerated in the cohesive group, and those individuals might have been expelled from the group, reducing their fitness. If this antisocial behavior was genetic, these genes would tend to remain in a minority of the gene pool.
In contrast, humans in social groups outside one's own may have been considered outside the social rules, especially if they were competitors with one's own group. The social rules would not apply to these "outsiders." Today this is very evident with regard to rival ethnic or religious groups in many parts of the world, or simply in times of war. Murder, rape, theft, and so forth are readily committed against these "outsiders."
Some groups of humans, a progressively larger subsection of our species as the years and decades pass, have come to view the entire human population as a single unit, or "tribe." This view does not allow antisocial behavior against fellow members of the group, which includes ALL humanity.
In recent decades, this view of the "group" (or "horizon of empathy") has expanded in the human mind to other species and to the environment itself.
Humans have a strong tendency towards cultural (learned) behaviors, as well. Codes of ethics and rules determining behavior have been passed down culturally from generation to generation over millennia.
Whether genetic tendencies towards social behavior, or learned behaviors are more deeply ingrained in humans is difficult to determine, although some genetic evidence now exists suggesting that some social behaviors are genetic (for example, the "serial killer gene", which in itself does not make a person a serial killer, but when combined with environmental factors, like physical abuse as a child, leads to a much higher than average likelihood of a person behaving in antisocial ways). Our behavior towards others is surely determined by a combination of genetics and learning.
Ethical or moral behavior towards members of "the group" helped humans survive. An empathetic view of our fellow humans has given rise to many laws designed to protect the well being of our fellow humans, especially those that are less powerful and more vulnerable to exploitation.
Why extend legal protections to other species? What does behaving empathetically do to benefit humankind? Cooperation and empathy have benefited humans for many centuries. Our species can only benefit from fostering as much empathy as possible for the plight of other sentient species with which we share the planet. With the problems facing humanity in the coming decades and centuries, treating others as we would have others treat us is much more likely to lead to a healthy outcome for our species. We are inextricably connected to the other species and ecosystems of the planet, and the more we respect that connection, and treat others respectfully, the greater chance we have of perpetuating ourselves into the future.
Humans have a fairly long history of devising anti-cruelty laws, to protect our fellow humans, but also to protect other species. Orcas, which have reached such an advanced stage of intellectual, emotional, and social complexity almost certainly suffer more profoundly than other species when confined in tiny, unnatural conditions, deprived of social contact and stimulation. Their captivity is verging on "cruel and unusual" punishment, due their very natures. Each and every individual orca truly deserves inclusion within our "horizon of empathy" as much as our fellow humans do.
This paper will focus on the ethics of humans and orcas, but many of the points within it could be extended to other species. For the time being, this discussion will ultimately be confined to the two species, Orcinus orca and Homo sapiens.
Cognition in Cetaceans and Humans
There are a few cognitive abilities that could be characterized as quantum steps rather than as increments along a spectrum. Some species at the highest end of this scale are said to be “self-aware”. This is believed be true of those species that pass the “mirror test”, i.e. they can recognize that their image in a mirror is of themselves. Humans, great apes, some birds, orcas, and dolphins are able to pass the mirror test.
Passing the mirror test could also be described as “other-awareness”. Above some minimal level of consciousness, the observer is fully aware of himself or herself. Perhaps there is some critical point of mental development at which the observer realizes that members of his or her own species are likewise conscious and that consciousness is not directly observable.
Other-awareness related to another species probably requires a still further degree of development. Humans readily ascribe emotions and thoughts to other members of our own species (we have "other awareness"), but also readily ascribe such emotions and thoughts to other species such as cats, dogs and orcas. Can some other species do the same with us humans? Some of the observations on this web site suggest that orcas can indeed do this with humans. In other words, orcas can feel empathy towards humans, just as we feel empathy towards orcas.
Human “tool making” was another quantum step. Many animals are observed to have rudimentary abilities to use and even make tools. Humans have developed a large brain well adapted to conceptualizing the creation and use of tools, along with the corresponding anatomical characteristics of opposable thumbs and bipedalism. The human ability to create and use tools as well as other physical artifacts goes well beyond that of any other species.
Orcas and other cetaceans, like humans, have highly developed brains. By some neurological metrics they are superior to humans. Like humans, they have evolved corresponding physical features, but instead of hands, they have evolved very sophisticated sonic sensory capabilities. The frequency bandwidth they are physically capable of both sending and receiving can carry hundreds of times more information than human hearing can perceive or human speech can convey. The human native ability to understand what cetaceans can do with their sonic senses is as limited as a cetacean’s native ability to understand designing a complex tool. Think about an animal with one-color vision trying to conceptualize the world of an animal with three-color vision. The dual existence of serious neurological and sound sensory systems strongly suggests there was some evolutionary “quantum step” regarding cetaceans that humans simply do not fully understand yet. Relatively speaking, virtually no effort has been to understand these cetacean abilities. The net expenditure on cetacean research hardly compares to the cost of a single space mission.
The Historical Cetacean-Human Connection
In prehistoric times, humans and cetaceans likely had minimal interaction.
As human technology developed, the ability for humans to utilize cetaceans as prey became increasingly possible.
For several hundred years, the vast majority of human-cetacean interactions were of a predator-prey nature, with cetaceans being our prey. Through the first half of the twentieth century and beyond, orcas were at times exterminated as vermin. In the latter part of the twentieth century, as a variety of conservation-related laws came into being (as the "horizon of empathy" described above expanded in the human mind) laws began to be enacted to protect cetaceans, as well as other marine mammals, from depredation by humans. An awareness of the intelligence levels of these fellow mammals began to grow as research on the cetacean mind progressed.
Throughout our history, humans have developed ever-stronger codes for our interaction with each other as a species, like, for example, anti-slavery laws, anti-child-labor laws, and so forth. Similarly, with landmark legislation such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act and others, humans in recent decades have developed ever-stronger "codes" governing our ethical interaction with cetaceans. Since most societies do not consume marine mammals (as we do wild fish stocks) and we no longer "harvest" marine mammals for use as human entertainment (as in marine amusement parks), and since many species protected by our laws are not endangered or threatened at the moment, one must assume that these protections exist for basically ethical reasons.
The Ethics of Modern Cetacean-Human Relations
It is no longer legal for orcas to be removed from the wild for containment in United States facilities designed for the entertainment of people. Unfortunately this has not constrained the practice from being revived outside the U.S. in recent years - a highly disturbing new trend. But, at least in the United States, because orcas are long-lived, and due to captive breeding, many orcas acquired before these restrictions on wild-capture were developed (or their descendants) are still confined in such facilities.
Many researchers have helped increase the understanding of the complexity of cetacean minds over the past few decades, and some interactions with untrained captive orcas described on this web site suggest that this species, at least, may have the ability to extend the "codes" of ethics and respect which exist within their own species, and independently in our human species, from themselves to us. Captive orcas not only readily interact socially with humans, but quickly learn the "rules" for respectful interaction with our species, and may even pass that knowledge to other orcas.
And as has been well documented and increasingly publicized in recent times, captive orcas maintained in highly artificial physical and social conditions for many years show deterioration of the understanding of and compliance with the social "rules" governing interaction with humans. Human beings in similar conditions show analogous reversion to antisocial behavior.
Few today would question the ethical soundness of anti-slavery or anti-child-labor laws, among many laws devised to protect humans from harm and exploitation. Those laws were enacted over the protests of a minority of stakeholders who argued that their private profits would be negatively impacted by such legislation. Today, there is a similar minority of stakeholders who will be negatively impacted by laws prohibiting orca captivity.
Orcas deserve special ethical consideration in their treatment before the law. As already stated:
· They possess brains which by objective measures are comparable if not in some ways superior to those of humans.
· They demonstrate self-awareness.
· They possess sophisticated sensory and communications abilities, the limits of which are beyond our current understanding.
· They have complex adaptable social systems, with codes of behavior.
· They demonstrably have a “horizon of empathy” that encompasses humans within its bounds.
It is completely unethical that orcas remain in life long confinement, in cramped spaces, with their social structures constantly being overturned, to die young, just so that humans can be entertained and questionably educated.
The various orcas in captive environments must be restored to the most natural lives possible, whether that be in sea pens, or back in their original wild-living family groups.
Based on our time with the orcas, we personally do not support the captivity industry with our patronage. We ask the reader to consider the evidence we have presented and follow his or her own best conscience.
by Robyn Waayers and Robert Anderson
Our time with the orcas left us deeply impressed with their qualities. We have spent years contemplating the nature of the relationships that developed. But in a larger sense, we have also contemplated the nature of the relationship between Orcinus orca and Homo sapiens, what is and what should be. We would like to share those thoughts in the following pages.
The Biological Origins of Morals and Ethics in Humans
Humans, and all other organisms are susceptible to evolutionary mechanisms. Those genes that cause a species to be more fit (in other words more able to pass on their genes to future generations) will become more established in a species' genome.
Early in human evolution, it appears that humans developed rules for interacting with members of our own species. Within a social group (for example a tribe), individuals who behaved in antisocial ways would not long be tolerated in the group. Stealing, physical assault, sexual assault, etc., would not be tolerated in the cohesive group, and those individuals might have been expelled from the group, reducing their fitness. If this antisocial behavior was genetic, these genes would tend to remain in a minority of the gene pool.
In contrast, humans in social groups outside one's own may have been considered outside the social rules, especially if they were competitors with one's own group. The social rules would not apply to these "outsiders." Today this is very evident with regard to rival ethnic or religious groups in many parts of the world, or simply in times of war. Murder, rape, theft, and so forth are readily committed against these "outsiders."
Some groups of humans, a progressively larger subsection of our species as the years and decades pass, have come to view the entire human population as a single unit, or "tribe." This view does not allow antisocial behavior against fellow members of the group, which includes ALL humanity.
In recent decades, this view of the "group" (or "horizon of empathy") has expanded in the human mind to other species and to the environment itself.
Humans have a strong tendency towards cultural (learned) behaviors, as well. Codes of ethics and rules determining behavior have been passed down culturally from generation to generation over millennia.
Whether genetic tendencies towards social behavior, or learned behaviors are more deeply ingrained in humans is difficult to determine, although some genetic evidence now exists suggesting that some social behaviors are genetic (for example, the "serial killer gene", which in itself does not make a person a serial killer, but when combined with environmental factors, like physical abuse as a child, leads to a much higher than average likelihood of a person behaving in antisocial ways). Our behavior towards others is surely determined by a combination of genetics and learning.
Ethical or moral behavior towards members of "the group" helped humans survive. An empathetic view of our fellow humans has given rise to many laws designed to protect the well being of our fellow humans, especially those that are less powerful and more vulnerable to exploitation.
Why extend legal protections to other species? What does behaving empathetically do to benefit humankind? Cooperation and empathy have benefited humans for many centuries. Our species can only benefit from fostering as much empathy as possible for the plight of other sentient species with which we share the planet. With the problems facing humanity in the coming decades and centuries, treating others as we would have others treat us is much more likely to lead to a healthy outcome for our species. We are inextricably connected to the other species and ecosystems of the planet, and the more we respect that connection, and treat others respectfully, the greater chance we have of perpetuating ourselves into the future.
Humans have a fairly long history of devising anti-cruelty laws, to protect our fellow humans, but also to protect other species. Orcas, which have reached such an advanced stage of intellectual, emotional, and social complexity almost certainly suffer more profoundly than other species when confined in tiny, unnatural conditions, deprived of social contact and stimulation. Their captivity is verging on "cruel and unusual" punishment, due their very natures. Each and every individual orca truly deserves inclusion within our "horizon of empathy" as much as our fellow humans do.
This paper will focus on the ethics of humans and orcas, but many of the points within it could be extended to other species. For the time being, this discussion will ultimately be confined to the two species, Orcinus orca and Homo sapiens.
Cognition in Cetaceans and Humans
There are a few cognitive abilities that could be characterized as quantum steps rather than as increments along a spectrum. Some species at the highest end of this scale are said to be “self-aware”. This is believed be true of those species that pass the “mirror test”, i.e. they can recognize that their image in a mirror is of themselves. Humans, great apes, some birds, orcas, and dolphins are able to pass the mirror test.
Passing the mirror test could also be described as “other-awareness”. Above some minimal level of consciousness, the observer is fully aware of himself or herself. Perhaps there is some critical point of mental development at which the observer realizes that members of his or her own species are likewise conscious and that consciousness is not directly observable.
Other-awareness related to another species probably requires a still further degree of development. Humans readily ascribe emotions and thoughts to other members of our own species (we have "other awareness"), but also readily ascribe such emotions and thoughts to other species such as cats, dogs and orcas. Can some other species do the same with us humans? Some of the observations on this web site suggest that orcas can indeed do this with humans. In other words, orcas can feel empathy towards humans, just as we feel empathy towards orcas.
Human “tool making” was another quantum step. Many animals are observed to have rudimentary abilities to use and even make tools. Humans have developed a large brain well adapted to conceptualizing the creation and use of tools, along with the corresponding anatomical characteristics of opposable thumbs and bipedalism. The human ability to create and use tools as well as other physical artifacts goes well beyond that of any other species.
Orcas and other cetaceans, like humans, have highly developed brains. By some neurological metrics they are superior to humans. Like humans, they have evolved corresponding physical features, but instead of hands, they have evolved very sophisticated sonic sensory capabilities. The frequency bandwidth they are physically capable of both sending and receiving can carry hundreds of times more information than human hearing can perceive or human speech can convey. The human native ability to understand what cetaceans can do with their sonic senses is as limited as a cetacean’s native ability to understand designing a complex tool. Think about an animal with one-color vision trying to conceptualize the world of an animal with three-color vision. The dual existence of serious neurological and sound sensory systems strongly suggests there was some evolutionary “quantum step” regarding cetaceans that humans simply do not fully understand yet. Relatively speaking, virtually no effort has been to understand these cetacean abilities. The net expenditure on cetacean research hardly compares to the cost of a single space mission.
The Historical Cetacean-Human Connection
In prehistoric times, humans and cetaceans likely had minimal interaction.
As human technology developed, the ability for humans to utilize cetaceans as prey became increasingly possible.
For several hundred years, the vast majority of human-cetacean interactions were of a predator-prey nature, with cetaceans being our prey. Through the first half of the twentieth century and beyond, orcas were at times exterminated as vermin. In the latter part of the twentieth century, as a variety of conservation-related laws came into being (as the "horizon of empathy" described above expanded in the human mind) laws began to be enacted to protect cetaceans, as well as other marine mammals, from depredation by humans. An awareness of the intelligence levels of these fellow mammals began to grow as research on the cetacean mind progressed.
Throughout our history, humans have developed ever-stronger codes for our interaction with each other as a species, like, for example, anti-slavery laws, anti-child-labor laws, and so forth. Similarly, with landmark legislation such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act and others, humans in recent decades have developed ever-stronger "codes" governing our ethical interaction with cetaceans. Since most societies do not consume marine mammals (as we do wild fish stocks) and we no longer "harvest" marine mammals for use as human entertainment (as in marine amusement parks), and since many species protected by our laws are not endangered or threatened at the moment, one must assume that these protections exist for basically ethical reasons.
The Ethics of Modern Cetacean-Human Relations
It is no longer legal for orcas to be removed from the wild for containment in United States facilities designed for the entertainment of people. Unfortunately this has not constrained the practice from being revived outside the U.S. in recent years - a highly disturbing new trend. But, at least in the United States, because orcas are long-lived, and due to captive breeding, many orcas acquired before these restrictions on wild-capture were developed (or their descendants) are still confined in such facilities.
Many researchers have helped increase the understanding of the complexity of cetacean minds over the past few decades, and some interactions with untrained captive orcas described on this web site suggest that this species, at least, may have the ability to extend the "codes" of ethics and respect which exist within their own species, and independently in our human species, from themselves to us. Captive orcas not only readily interact socially with humans, but quickly learn the "rules" for respectful interaction with our species, and may even pass that knowledge to other orcas.
And as has been well documented and increasingly publicized in recent times, captive orcas maintained in highly artificial physical and social conditions for many years show deterioration of the understanding of and compliance with the social "rules" governing interaction with humans. Human beings in similar conditions show analogous reversion to antisocial behavior.
Few today would question the ethical soundness of anti-slavery or anti-child-labor laws, among many laws devised to protect humans from harm and exploitation. Those laws were enacted over the protests of a minority of stakeholders who argued that their private profits would be negatively impacted by such legislation. Today, there is a similar minority of stakeholders who will be negatively impacted by laws prohibiting orca captivity.
Orcas deserve special ethical consideration in their treatment before the law. As already stated:
· They possess brains which by objective measures are comparable if not in some ways superior to those of humans.
· They demonstrate self-awareness.
· They possess sophisticated sensory and communications abilities, the limits of which are beyond our current understanding.
· They have complex adaptable social systems, with codes of behavior.
· They demonstrably have a “horizon of empathy” that encompasses humans within its bounds.
It is completely unethical that orcas remain in life long confinement, in cramped spaces, with their social structures constantly being overturned, to die young, just so that humans can be entertained and questionably educated.
The various orcas in captive environments must be restored to the most natural lives possible, whether that be in sea pens, or back in their original wild-living family groups.
Based on our time with the orcas, we personally do not support the captivity industry with our patronage. We ask the reader to consider the evidence we have presented and follow his or her own best conscience.