Kilrathi War.

... and we don't hunt whales and dolphins for sport.

(Especially not Ecco the Dolphin: Defender of the Future)
 
Not for sport but for profit (dolphin free, remenber).
I dont know that hunting endanger species is considered "Good".
 
Originally posted by Dragon
Not for sport but for profit (dolphin free, remenber).
I dont know that hunting endanger species is considered "Good".

Notice that because of international pressure, methods of collecting tuna that do not require the killing of dolphins and whales are now used.
 
Well I can still see japonese whailers hunting whales.
For "scientific study" (and to sell the meat and stuff back in japan, but its a very intersing way to use the "scientific study" part of the international treaty that banned whale hunting)
As for the Dolphis, did they really stop it or not?
 
Originally posted by Dragon
Well I can still see japonese whailers hunting whales.
For "scientific study" (and to sell the meat and stuff back in japan, but its a very intersing way to use the "scientific study" part of the international treaty that banned whale hunting)
As for the Dolphis, did they really stop it or not?

AFAIK, they did. Occasionally, a dead dolphin will still show up, but by and large tuna netting operations are much safer for them than they once were.

As for the Japanese still hunting whales, it should be pointed out that the Japanese have been eating whale for a LONG time and it's hard to get cultural values to change overnight.
 
Iceburg, what on earth do you think motivates polar bears, cougars, deer and antelope if there not capabile of thought?
Just because none of the scientific journals , have yet to confirm it, doesn't mean it's not viable.

[Edited by Dekkar on 02-26-2001 at 17:45]
 
Originally posted by Dekkar
Iceburg, what on earth do you think motivates polar bears, cougars, deer and antelope if there not capabile of thought?
Just because none of the scientific journals , have yet to confirm it, doesn't mean it's not viable.

[Edited by Dekkar on 02-26-2001 at 17:45]

Prehaps something called INSTINCT???????? A bug doesn't think, neither does a robot, yet both react according to stimuli the way they are "programed" to.
 
The Japanese also buy poachered rhino horns because they believe if the horns are powdered, they will give an aphrodesiac effect. Not very bright, especially when Viagra exists
 
Regardless of what the use the whales for, they did signed the international ban on whale hunting, they are using a loop hole in the treaty to hunt whales for comercial purposes, that is not allowed by the treaty.
 
Well instinct, only goes so far. To think a cougar is robot acting entirely on instinct is ridiculous, animals show signs of both thinking and feeling if they do infact think and feel they are sentient. There is nothing to contridict this concept. The simplest answer, they show signs of being sentient because they are is most likely true.
 
name one sign of anything that can not be simply described as an instinctual genetically ingranded, learned trait (learning is not a sign of seintience, robots as I have said do it as well)
 
"To hunt a species to extinction is not logical"--Mr. Spock, STTVH.

"Who ever said the human race was logical"--Dr. Julian Taylor, STTVH.

RFBurns
 
A cougar sees it's prey instinctivly it speeds up faster and faster, prounces apon it's pay and eats until it's full.
A robot could do that.

I take two slices of bread bring both into my dogs line of sight at the the same time, I hold one in my right hand and one in my left, he sniffs the one on the right then the one on the left hesitates takes the one in my left hand puts it on the floor then takes the one on the right eats it then goes to eat the other.
This is not a learned trait, yet it is not instinct either it was thought. While eating is instinct choosing how to procede when given two viable sources of food, takes thought. It would be the equivelent of giving me a 600ml of coke and a 600ml of pepsi if I was thirsty, I'd take a second think about it, drink one then drink then the other. The choice is in no way instint, as I would hesitate and consider both options, and act apon it, just as my dog did.
 
Originally posted by Dekkar
Iceburg, what on earth do you think motivates polar bears, cougars, deer and antelope if there not capabile of thought?
Just because none of the scientific journals , have yet to confirm it, doesn't mean it's not viable.

[Edited by Dekkar on 02-26-2001 at 17:45]

Frankly, I trust the opinion of a professionally-reviewed scientific journal over the opinion of a single sci-fi fan. The journal is published by people who have made the advancement of human scientific knowledge their life's work.

What makes you think that personal supposition is more accurate than years or decades of painstaking research?

And to answer your question, instinct.
 
Originally posted by Dekkar
A cougar sees it's prey instinctivly it speeds up faster and faster, prounces apon it's pay and eats until it's full.
A robot could do that.

I take two slices of bread bring both into my dogs line of sight at the the same time, I hold one in my right hand and one in my left, he sniffs the one on the right then the one on the left hesitates takes the one in my left hand puts it on the floor then takes the one on the right eats it then goes to eat the other.
This is not a learned trait, yet it is not instinct either it was thought. While eating is instinct choosing how to procede when given two viable sources of food, takes thought. It would be the equivelent of giving me a 600ml of coke and a 600ml of pepsi if I was thirsty, I'd take a second think about it, drink one then drink then the other. The choice is in no way instint, as I would hesitate and consider both options, and act apon it, just as my dog did.

I would have to see what the other variables in this experiment are, but a casual experiment like this has so many potential sources for outside contamination that any results that you can take from it are tentative at best.
 
Again with the necessary reality checks...

It appears that some people around here REALLY need to acquaint themselves with REAL scientific principles.

In real science, you don't assume anything unless you ABSOLUTELY have to.

Some of the marks of sentience are language skills and tool use. If an animal can't use symbolic language (i.e. a language capable of transmitting concepts more esoteric than "run away" or "food this way") or tools, it's probably not sentient.

A good example of a non-human symbolic language is whalesong. We don't understand whalesong and we probably never will. We know that it has a very complex structure, and that it appears to communicate complex concepts, but we can't understand it because humans simply lack the proper auditory organs to do so.
 
Originally posted by Dekkar
A cougar sees it's prey instinctivly it speeds up faster and faster, prounces apon it's pay and eats until it's full.
A robot could do that.

I take two slices of bread bring both into my dogs line of sight at the the same time, I hold one in my right hand and one in my left, he sniffs the one on the right then the one on the left hesitates takes the one in my left hand puts it on the floor then takes the one on the right eats it then goes to eat the other.
This is not a learned trait, yet it is not instinct either it was thought. While eating is instinct choosing how to procede when given two viable sources of food, takes thought. It would be the equivelent of giving me a 600ml of coke and a 600ml of pepsi if I was thirsty, I'd take a second think about it, drink one then drink then the other. The choice is in no way instint, as I would hesitate and consider both options, and act apon it, just as my dog did.


Actually choosing to take both is a well know instincutal trait. All animals when given the choice will attempt to take as much food as it can inorder to save up incase there isn't enough food the next time. Choosing a specific beverage is based on the sensor data recieved from consuming the beverage and comparing the two to determine which your body (taste buds and olfactory nerves) perfers, and then when given the choice you will choose the "better" one
 
Originally posted by Iceberg
...Some of the marks of sentience are language skills and tool use. If an animal can't use symbolic language (i.e. a language capable of transmitting concepts more esoteric than "run away" or "food this way") or tools, it's probably not sentient...

Mmmmmh, it seems that you really know A LOT on scientific issues Iceberg...

I would be interested in your opinion, about the issue of just "how sentient" you consider the Kilrathi to be...

Indeed, they show an amazing use their intelligence, unfortunately for destructive means, but ultimately they are somewhat dominated by their primal instincts of "hunting the prey"...

When they are in cockpits fighting the "apes", they are hunting the prey... They hunt human POWs and alien species for sport!

Of course, let's not generalize here, otherwise Quarto will wake up (;)), as there are Kilrathi who have learnt to withold their instincts (e.g. Melek, an generally post-war Kilrathi)... but what do you think Iceberg?
 
Back
Top