Orca that carried dead calf for weeks appears to be in mourning again
176 comments
·January 5, 2025otabdeveloper4
Anthropomorphism? In my science?! Yes please!
throwaway3287
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
Sammi
I don't find the comment to be without substance. It's a concise and concrete critique.
collingreen
It's dismissive without substance. The point is discussing if the whale feels grief. A blanket dismissal of all animals feeling anything "just because" is not a critique. If there is some reason science should dismiss everything like this as valueless and not worth even considering then I don't know it yet and a comment talking about that would be constructive.
null
TomMasz
This is one more reason that Orcas should not be kept in captivity.
bobxmax
> Tahlequah is using much of her energy to cling to the dead calf, which weighs about 300 pounds, and she is unable to forage for food, scientists said during a news briefing on Thursday. They said that her closely knit pod was supporting her. Other female orcas, especially her sister, have been observed to be consistently at her side.
Utterly tragic. It's also singularly evil the devastation humans have brought to some of the hyperintelligent species on the planet.
cloverich
I always have mixed feelings about this. It's sad. But how is her pod supporting her exactly? Are they bringing her food? If so is that food the dead offspring of other animals? I feel these kinds of stories often have a kind of selective empathy for the focused animal. Ultimately nature is extraordinarily cruel absent humans; imo humans are the only hope for something better, if such a thing even makes sense.
jvanderbot
I've recently taken up hunting, mostly because my rural family prioritizes it.
The natural world is full of unimaginable cruelty. Wolves will take down young deer and eat them alive while parents watch. Bears will pin down whatever they can catch and who cares if it is alive. On and on, the amount of bloodshed required to support an omnivore/carnivore is simply bananas. Killer whales are hyper-intelligent aquatic nightmares, imho, that thankfully have not decided to eat humans.
We, humans, made the following bargain with nature, at least until recently: We will drive away the predators that keep you in constant alert and savage your children, and in exchange we will determine how and when you die (quickly, but perhaps also fearfully).
I agree - we can carefully manage the wilderness for our own benefit, and that may take away the randomized killings. But there is _no_ version of a carnivore or meat-eating omnivore that does not involve killing and savagery and disregard for the life that has been reduced to just a link in the grass-to-meat or plankton-to-meat foodchain.
I've come to terms with that and continue to eat meat.
Cpoll
> We will drive away the predators that keep you in constant alert and savage your children, and in exchange we will determine how and when you die (quickly, but perhaps also fearfully).
Maybe once in the past, or in places that still graze their animals. I don't think the average factory farm situation can be framed as mutually beneficial for the animals.
AnonHP
> But there is _no_ version of a carnivore or meat-eating omnivore that does not involve killing and savagery
Absolute statements are not useful in this context. Vultures are obligate scavengers who eat the flesh of already dead animals as a practice. The dead animal could be due to death from natural causes (diseases, old age, injury, poisoning, starvation) or hunting by other animals. So there are some versions.
Also, as a couple of examples, the animal world is not one that has consent to sexual intercourse or empathy in killing an offspring who’s not their own. So your (or our) morals cannot be absolute for one purpose (killing an animal to eat the flesh) while being considerate for other aspects. In other words, we don’t gain much by pointing to the non-human world as a justification or excuse for our actions.
foota
I'm not a vegetarian etc., but you could argue that humans are both the only hope for something different, but also the only species capable of a particular sort of cruelty that comes from the society we live in for animals and other people.
That is, animals may kill to eat, but humans slaughter animals to get tastier/more convenient/etc., food.
tw04
And yet nature has historically found balance. Humans, on a large scale, seem incapable of doing the same. At this point humans have become a perpetual extinction event with no end in sight.
bmitc
> imo humans are the only hope for something better, if such a thing even makes sense.
Humans are the number one cause of environmental destruction and animal and plant suffering on Earth that is completely out of whack with what it takes for humans to live. All of the "hope for something better" you refer to are for humans to solve less than 1% that we have ourselves caused in the first place.
codeproject
can't agree more !!!
andy_ppp
Yes, it made me think about animals panicking so much before slaughter that they often have heart attacks. And dairy cows who have their babies slaughtered who cry for weeks. Maybe these are apocryphal stories, but we are very much trained to believe we shouldn’t anthropomorphise animals. I hope that we are able to grow meat in a way without suffering as soon as possible.
Daub
As someone who has worked on farms i can verify that such things happen. I personally witnessed sheep behaving exactly as decided in The Silence of the Lambs. Our sheep were famously noisy and certainly were used to being moved around in lorries but when the abattoir lorry turned up you could almost smell their fear. I also witnessed a cow storm through four fences in order to be reunited with her calf.
The irony: The farm was run by vegetarians and as the only meat eater it became my responsibility to oversee any time an animal was taken to slaughter. This simultaneously put me off meat eating and vegetarians.
addicted
It’s ironic how accepted vegetarians, who have a dietary preference, are in society, and how hated vegans, who have an ethical argument against unnecessary killing of sentient animals, are in society.
I only turned vegan a couple of years ago as something clicked and I was able to make the connection between the food I was eating and the animals who were being killed, almost certainly unnecessarily, for that food. But before then I disliked vegans a lot, and was completely fine with vegetarians. I’m honestly unable to reconcile my thinking.
It’s kind of like how I don’t understand how I strongly believed in god before I lost faith. Now the idea that I ever could, or ever did, believe in a personal god seems unbelievable to me.
Human psychology is ridiculously interesting.
hellojesus
My assumption is that the weight of including vegans socially is too much to bear for some. On the extreme end, you can't use store pasta because it was made in a facility that processes eggs and dairy. But even on the lighter end, social eating modification is pretty extreme: don't use butter when cooking, or eggs, or honey, etc. It's a lot easier to accommodate vegetarians than vegans.
Though I do have a vegan friend that always brings her own food to gatherings, and it does make things far easier.
y-curious
The problem I have always had with veganism, as someone who has had stints of vegetarianism, is the absurdity of certain restrictions. Milk, I can agree, is bad because of how it's derived. Honey and eggs (sourced ethically) are a restriction I cannot stand behind. I think the dislike of self-labeled vegans is aligned with someone publicizing an extreme decision.
throwaway3287
The problem with veganism is that, unless you grow your own food, it does not change the fact that an immense amount of pain and suffering is inflicted on other beings in the production and transportation of the food you eat. It's pure virtue signaling. If they genuinely cared about minimizing suffering, they'd be Jains, not vegans.
bamboozled
Why are the cows taken away from the calves, especially dairy cows? Just curious.
addicted
Why would the calves be kept near the cows?
They’re not gonna feed the milk that their mothers are producing for them, because that would mean less milk to sell and less milk for people to consume.
And so why keep the calves in the milking side of the facility when you can move them to the fattening side for meat/leather or to get them to age so you can forcibly impregnate them every year for their milk, depending on their gender.
ornornor
That’s how we get all their milk, how we get meat (the calf isn’t kept around for more than a few weeks/months), and rennet to make cheese (it’s the digestion liquid that’s in their stomach while they eat milk, must kill the animal to extract it)
Same with eggs, they don’t exist in a vacuum. To get eggs you have to have chickens, and to have chickens you must grind male chicks alive as they hatch because they don’t produce eggs. And hens aren’t supposed make eggs year round but we make them anyway with artificial lights etc, which drastically shortens their lifespan.
rafaelmn
Because you want to get the milk.
doublerabbit
Veal.
lotsofpulp
[flagged]
halestock
I’m gonna guess it was somewhat tongue in cheek.
shadow28
Humans aren't always rational and that's okay, we're all human after all :)
erikerikson
Have you forgotten your priors about human bias? ;)
mystified5016
Most vegetarians decide to choose that diet after contemplating the suffering of the animals involved. Or had you never thought to ask why someone would be vegetarian?
kibwen
> we are very much trained to believe we shouldn’t anthropomorphise animals
We shouldn't anthropomorphize animals. Instead, the point here is that emotions are not anthropic; humans do not have a monopoly on emotions.
Which is to say, we should be sure not to think that "grief" means the same thing for an orca that it means to a human; yet naturally animals do grieve in their own ways. (Heck, "grief" doesn't even mean the same thing for all humans!)
bmitc
And in the context of orcas specifically, their emotional processing centers in their brain dwarf that of humans, even when taking the relative brain sizes into account. So by scientific accounting, it's likely their emotional intelligence is far more advanced than ours.
cowfriend
yeah, the funny thing about the anthropomorphism debate is that supposedly the thing that makes humans different from (other) animals is our "advanced" brain, i.e. language, civilization, etc.
in other words, all the ways we have to manage emotions, and all of our "non-emotional" functioning.
So we have somehow evolved to be able to better manage emotions.
Ok, so if we grant all of that, then haven't we just said that emotions are common to animals? So then how is it anthropomorphising to say that animals have the traits which we've just said define animals, whereas what makes humans special is that we have 'risen above' mere emotion?
Shorel
Not really common to 'animals' in general, for example reptiles only have the very basic instincts of eat, reproduce, fight.
Insects don't have emotions, they barely have hyper specialized sensors as brains.
However, emotions efficiently direct behaviours in mammals. They enact immediate and persistent responses.
We can say without much doubt that emotions in mammals are similar to our own emotions.
The big unknowns are animals further away from us, which are demonstrably intelligent, like birds and octopuses.
ridgeguy
The scientist M. Temple Grandin is known for her great contributions in the field of mitigating pre-slaughter animal panic.
She is autistic. Her methodology included walking the chutes used to direct cattle to slaughter and working out in great detaiL mods that would reduce their stress. I've heard her interviewed a few times. She's extraordinary.
hombre_fatal
[flagged]
xp84
[flagged]
null
mystified5016
Practicality. To put it bluntly, the majority of humans do not think it is immoral in principle to kill and eat an animal. After all, that's how biological life just is. At an individual level, you can choose to think it's wrong but you do have to simply accept the fact that not everyone agrees, and very likely there will always be someone who disagrees.
To most people, killing an animal for food is not a problem conceptually. Causing undue and unnecessary suffering is a problem for pretty much everyone with a functioning moral system.
But given that mass farming will not be stopping tomorrow, would you rather the animals suffer more? Or is less suffering better? Should we actively torture the animals on the way to slaughter or maybe not?
All that aside, if we stopped farming tomorrow, a billion or two people would have to stop eating. So we do the least worst thing and give the cow a pat on the head before we grind it up.
That said, most people would probably prefer if no animals were killed at all. Once cultured meat starts producing at the required scale, industry farming will probably end very quickly.
honeybadger1
[flagged]
myvoiceismypass
Extraordinary? She invented a machine to hug cows before they get bolted in the head.
We’d be better off not making animal slaughter the core of the American diet.
jeremyjh
So here is a person who has reduced suffering for animals. And your idea is...what?
xp84
[flagged]
GrantMoyer
Temple Grandin designed more efficient killing machines to streamline and reduce the costs of industrial scale slaughter.
neom
https://www.google.com/search?q=rat+not+eating+after+death+o...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277240852....
I've kept rats for a long time, I don't know why, but I do know they change behaviour for a period of time once one dies.
rednafi
It’s the same as how soldiers were trained to de-anthropomorphize their enemies.
mrtksn
That's why I can't wait for lab grown meat becoming a thing. I love meat and my understanding is that its healthy and necessary product but i also have nothing but respect to vegetarians.
bamboozled
In my opinion, this is why hunting is ethically superior. Almost nothing dies peacefully in the wild, it's either massive long term suffering, or being mauled by dogs, bears or big cats, strangled by pythons etc.
A skilled hunter can choose an adult animal without kids and take it fairly humanely.
Sadly, we all have to die somehow.
Hunters and fisherman generally have great respect for nature and the environment, which is important.
encoderer
Love animals but “grown meat” has proven to be very gross.
fuzzythinker
Birth article in Sept - https://archive.ph/uZ5mx
javaskrrt
reading this made me want to cry. my heart goes out to the momma whale.
bmitc
It's such a travesty what we've done to the Southern Resident Orca population. We decimated their numbers with captures and killings, cutoff their food supply, and poisoned them via their environment and food supply. These are effectively war crimes committed by humans against the orcas, but even for an animal that likely meets and possibly even exceeds our emotional intelligence, articles like this are about as good as they can hope for from us.
qwertyuiop_
bamboozled
I believe this is nice, but how do regular people actually find the time to care about this stuff?
If you have kids, bills, a job, listen to crap from politicians all day, where do you find the time to be this empathetic.
My kids school gives them milk as part of lunch, my kid likes milk now. You have to live in a very special world to get around this.
I was a vegetarian for a while, I was mostly starving hungry and I had to spend hours a day cooking and eating to feel full. It's a shit situation but yeah, it's the way it is for many people.
2muchcoffeeman
The western idea of making things better for animals often involves abstinence. Which is unpalatable if you are a meat eater.
The messaging should be to reduce your meat consumption. By reported national averages, I eat 25% of the meat eaten by the average Australian. And I don’t feel that I’m missing out.
bamboozled
Yeah, we eat vegetarian / vegan every second night.
jhanschoo
As the other commenter, some differential resistance that's within your capacity should be sufficient. Eating proportionately less sends a signal to the supply chain, which adapts to such signals. Comparatively, you can imagine being vegetarian to be extremely easy in, say, India; because the supply chain is built to support such a diet. (Of course, vegetarianism in India is likely to still mete lot of animal suffering as well.)
mongol
> listen to crap from politicians all day
This part I recently decided I will stop doing. It will not be easy and I may fail, but I think my mood requires it.
bamboozled
It's pretty bleak, I agree. I'm concerned regular people are going to be more and more trampled on in the near future.
doublerabbit
It's easy, first step just stop watching the news. There is no FOMO or if you really need your dosage keep it to end of the week roundup.
Because in reality there is nothing you can do.
You can't have a shot of vodka with Putin and ask him to stop war.
You can't stop Twitter and Elon from raging, nor can you can't Isreal.
What you can stop is giving these puppets headspace time and hold compassion to those who are involved in the conflicts.
doublerabbit
> listen to crap from politicians all day, where do you find the time to be this empathetic.
Swap those two.
Stop listening to politicians. It's not empathy you require, it's compassion. Empathy is very tiring.
Klonoar
> I was mostly starving hungry
What? Vegetarian doesn't necessarily mean you lose all sources of animal protein, there's no real reason to be starving on the diet.
maxbond
It's pretty common for would-be vegetarians to be "carbotarians" and fail to feed themselves properly because they simply don't know any better and eat primarily bread and pasta. I also had this experience of being a ravenous carbotarian, but my roommates were all vegetarians and taught me. If you don't know vegetarians, look to athletes and home chefs for advice.
Tl;Dr combine a grain with a legume at least once a day to obtain a full protein. Beans and rice is a good staple, for example (but to reduce exposure to arsenic you should parboil the rice[1] as well as rotate through some other staples). Put peanut butter or peanut protein powder in stir fries, put hummus in your sandwiches, eat eggs, etc. And, I know it sounds obvious, but it's a reminder I needed, do actually eat vegetables.
It's not difficult but if you've eaten meat your whole life you may need to change some habits, because you have more room to get away with a poor diet if you're eating meat.
[1] https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-say-this-rice-cookin...
bamboozled
I guess it's not eating flesh, but it's still causing a lot of harm is what I'm hearing.
In our family, we eat vegetarian every second night. Basically vegan 3/4 nights a week. However I do find myself running to the fridge for cheese or a whey protein shake for desert quite often.
null
renewiltord
[flagged]
pavel_lishin
I hope you never go through a life event that makes you regret this comment.
renewiltord
It’s a freaking fish, man. Of course we should all hope that humans don’t go through the same thing. It’s like looking at salmon and being “I hope you, guy eating the salmon, never experiences being filleted and then cooked into a delicious dish in an oven, with some sliced lemons on top of you and some asparagus on the side”. No shit! Humans are different! This is just one of those pity parties that people throw posting upworthy etc etc because a fish got long covid.
pavel_lishin
I also hope you never experience being filleted and cooked.
gnabgib
The orca is a mammal[0]. Salmon, while also impressive, are fish.
llamaimperative
Why not apply this dismissive logic to all suffering?
dudeinjapan
[flagged]
konfusinomicon
[flagged]
https://archive.ph/AUxP6