Thread

Weeping whales: Stillborn humpback whale grieving documented

243 points · 192 comments · wglb

georgemcbay · 1789884732 · focus · HN ↗
Blows my mind that so many people just have this hardened internalized idea that we're somehow significantly different than any other animal.
Sure, we've got them beat on language and planning, but we're currently in the process of being passed up on both those fronts by multi-dimensional arrays of floating point numbers sitting inside of sand. So, like, how special is that then, really?
1. sethammons · 1789896279 · focus · HN ↗
  We should start from the default assumption that other animals have a lived experience not unlike our own until proven otherwise.
  Mammal brains are similar between species. Show me why they wont behave like ours. Most say who say animals can't grieve are in the same boat with those who used to say human babies don't feel pain.
  Every time we look deeper, we find we humans are less special in any given quality. Yes, humans seem unique in our level of language and knowledge passing. For now; until we discover something else.
  Here is a studying on rats. They grieve. Brain, chemical, and social activity. <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12244160/" rel="nofollow">https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12244160/
  1. david-gpu · 1789898425 · focus · HN ↗
    > Most say who say animals can't grieve are in the same boat with those who used to say human babies don't feel pain.
    My dad was an anesthesiologist, and what he told me is rather different from that meme. The reason was that the safe dosing range for babies was unknown, and giving the wrong dose can lead to death or worse. The argument wasn't that babies couldn't feel pain, but that babies would not have lasting memories of it happening, and that it was less risky that overdosing them.
    card_zero · 1789902465 · focus · HN ↗
    You know, if there was a hypnotic drug such that I could be sure I'd remember nothing (and many, many similar caveats), I'd volunteer to be caused all kinds of pain, because I don't see why I should care. The only moral angle I can see is the question of who would want it and why. Research maybe? In of itself, it doesn't seem bad.
    winter_blue · 1789917874 · focus · HN ↗
    You’re showing a lack of empathy for the instance of yourself that is experiencing all that pain. Simply forgetting it doesn’t make it right to not have empathy for the version of yourself that went through all the pain and suffering.
    card_zero · 1789918707 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, I am! Why isn't that fine? Not "right", you say.
    Bear in mind that the "version of me" is me, and cognitively is in agreement that this is fine. Instinctively I would very much not think it was fine while undergoing the pain, but I'd also think I was wrong about that at the same time. I don't suppose I'd be all stoic about it like Giles Corey*, but it's the cognitive side of me that has the valid opinion and eventually the executive function.
    *Squashed to death in Salem, 1692
    winter_blue · 1789962134 · focus · HN ↗
    I guess this might be a matter of subjective disagreement, but I'm personally opposed to all forms of consensual human suffering and death. I'd be fine with wrestling being banned, a law mandating contact sports amend rules to become non-contact, ban MAID (voluntary/consensual human euthanasia), ban anything that involves violence or harm done to any human being, including consenting adults consenting to violent acts performed on them. But that's just my opinion, and others are free to disagree with me on that. Although I will add that if I had legislative power I would not have an issue enacting such bans into law, even if people may say it taking away "rights"; to which I'd respond that certain rights like free speech are essential to a functioning free society, but certain other rights have no moral basis for being a right. The U.S. Congress (and various U.S. states) over the years progressively banned dueling. And notably, dueling was a consensual activity between two consenting adults, one that sadly took the life of Alexander Hamilton, amongst many others.
    card_zero · 1790239305 · focus · HN ↗
    This didn't explain what's wrong with the suffering. Death, sure, you're throwing your life away, it's a waste, so some authoritarian could decide on your behalf that you're not allowed to, and that would be reasonable, if heavy-handed. But in the above scenario I don't die, my purpose is maintained, the world benefits, I benefit, but a meaningless thing called "pain" is part of the plan. (I changed the name away from "suffering", because that suggests meaningfulness.) You believe pain is inherently harmful, but how does that make sense? Or can I persuade you that it doesn't count as harm?

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.