I happened to be in Seaworld (San Diego) Monday this week. Today, both the San Diego and Orlando parks are closed because of the yesterday's accident, in which a killer whale killed one of his trainers, in full view of horrified tourists who had signed up for the "Dining with Shamu" event.
I was going to write about this anyway; this surprising and tragic accident puts my intended comments into even sharper focus.
The performance part of the "Shamu" stadium program was, indeed, very cool: you don't often see an animal of that size — from land or sea — moving that fast and gracefully. They are beautiful and graceful animals, and I believe we all have a legitimate concern about protecting them and their environment.
On the other hand, I found a number of the blatantly "religious" overtones disturbing. In particular, there were a number of video clips of different animals with captions beneath each like "Brother In-Law", "Sister", "Cousin", "Father" ("Father" was a bird) — culminating in the message that Earth was "Our Mother" and that we had to love, care for, respect (etc.) our "Mother" earth. Another segment showed a boy in a canoe and an Orca, narrating that they were members of two different species, both straining to become one with the other. And, stealing a cue from my least favorite Christmas movie ever ("Polar Express"), they constantly flashed the vacuous phrase "Believe!" on the video screens. They even had rituals: the crowd was to make an supplicating whale-tale shape and motion with their hands and chant "Shamu shamu!" repeatedly.
I think I understand the intention: If we imbue whales, earth, birds and so on with nearly magical properties, and teach each other that they're exactly as important as our human friends and relatives, then we'll treat them wonderfully and take better care of the earth.
But, to the contrary, if history is any guide, (and it is) blurring such distinctions tends to result in treating humans worse. In India rats were allowed to live off the harvested grain, while human beings starved. The Nazis were very sensitive to the suffering of animals (Hitler, a vegetarian, equated eating cows with eating humans), and were among the first anywhere to outlaw vivisection — and yet, well, we all know how compassionate they were towards their fellow human beings. A dog is not a boy. A bird is not your father. Humans are worth much, much more than rats.
Ironically, the ideology Seaworld promotes in such displays makes a mockery of their own business. If a bird really is my "Father", then is Seaworld a gang of terrorists for keeping penguins confined in a tank? Or do we conclude the opposite: if there's educational benefit in keeping dolphins or other animals confined and on display, then perhaps a similar logic can be applied to random human beings?
And the bit about two species "straining to become one" is particularly narcissistic. While I'm sure that there are people who deeply desire to "become one with" some other specie of animal (Timothy Treadwell, and the woman who married a dolphin spring to mind) animals don't wish to "become one with" humans. A bird near your park bench just wants your sandwich crumbs. A dolphin probably wants fish, to get back to the ocean, or some means of relieving boredom. Animals may even interact with us socially — dogs certainly do. But they're not seeking a religious experience — through us, or by any other means. That distinction sets humans apart.
Finally, one of the songs about "Saving the Earth" (you can listen here) has lyrics which sound nice until you think about what they're really saying:
We're playing our part
We're making some noise
Joining together with one voice
'Cause when it comes to saving this amazing place
The answer's black and white
It's our world / it's our chance / let's make it right
Does the world need "saving"? Patching up, protecting, healing even, in places — sure. But "saving"? The word presents an immediate crisis, permitting no time for delay, thought, research, or debate. Indeed: we apparently need to "make some noise" (politically) "with one voice." Whose voice? Mine? Saying what? (Do my opinions count?) Or is it to be the opinions and voice of someone more like Greenpeace or Al Gore? We should all unite behind them: "The answer's black and white", isn't it? No debate, no ambiguity, and if you don't agree, well, it's pretty clear which part of the two-toned spectrum you fall into.
Yeah, yeah, it's all entertainment. So are TV ads, but they're meant to persuade, too.
I'm in a hurry, so this'll have to be too brief for now...
And does a creature have to seek a religious experience to have one?
The two questions are independent. If reality has what's usually called a 'supernatural' dimension or aspect, then there's no reason animals couldn't encounter that kind of phenomenon, just as humans would. For example, if angels, ghosts, an afterlife, even UFO existed (not strictly supernatural, but often treated as if they were) (pick your belief system) then such a reality could impact nonhuman animals as well.
(E.g. we hear stories of dogs snarling or barking wildly at what later appear to be 'evil' spirits or malevolent ghosts. Such stories might be true.)
On other other hand, whether God, spirits, UFO, or whatever exist is different than the fact people have a longing for them to exist (or, in other cases, a strong hope they don't exist).
Just curious, how would we test this?
I suspect language would be an important marker, a necessary minimal capability. Language relies on certain abstraction abilities which seem (to me) also necessary for "religious" thought: "This place has a purpose", "what happens after I die?", "Is there life out there?"
Dolphins may, in fact, have language. I don't know; we're still finding out. If so, my statement above may then also be shown to be false. But I'm guessing not, at present, obviously.
You once spoke about some Eastern practices physically installing beliefs and seemed to argue that these should be classified as religious...
The belief or conviction that we are "one" with stars, trees, or belief that life is illusory, both seem (to me) to be a philosophical position best describe as religious. If "illusory" then something else must be "true" at a universal level; and a characterization of "oneness" seems an artifact of mind; if all is truly one (if that is the transcendent reality) then we also appeal to a transcendent mind (e.g. something akin to "God").
I don't think these experiences would register the same in a dog's mind (much as I like dogs). Instead of "life is illusory" (for example), I suspect they'd just register more: "Yeah, whatever." Why? Because the action acts upon whatever gray matter we have. If that animal isn't capable of thinking very abstractly, then it can't have any similarly abstract effects produced.
Ironically, the ideology Seaworld promotes in such displays makes a mockery of their own business.
Megan McArdle wrote something similar, in regards to the tone of the press conference following the death:
Posted by: Ryan W. on February 28, 2010 01:36 AM