2b) By choosing to be rescued and studied you are increasing the scientific knowledge, general awareness and overall compassion for your species.
Thus, you would be contributing to your species' long term survival.
Site note: I don't think a 6x6 human cage is analogous. Maybe a medium-sized apartment in which you can socialize with other humans is a fairer comparison? It would be a poor existence indeed. But worse than death?
In what universe can you possibly explain to an anxious, confined whale that their non-ideal living conditions (read: conditions which kill them) is at least beneficial to their species?
How does this make the practice any less cruel?
Reading through the comments on this thread I'm actually flabbergasted.
Obviously you can't explain it to a whale. What are you even talking about? This is a message board for human beings. The topic was what choice the animal might make if it had the reasoning skills of a human being (and all the facts).
>How does this make the practice any less cruel?
It doesn't. It's arguing that there might be at least some long term potential benefit to the practice for the species and therefore morally defensible (if the alternative is letting the animal die slowly and painfully).
I don't pretend to know all the answers. But lets at least be clear on what the question is.
Right and my assertion is that because the whales are incapable of understanding their "sacrifice" for their species they are simply kept in a state of anxiety, trapped in a too small enclosure for the remainder of their days and THAT trumps any argument built on vagueries about the potential conservation benefits. I'd much rather spend all the money used in housing these whales on field studies and establishing conservation zones in the actual environment.
There's nothing whatsoever vague about the benefits it provides researchers (and therefore the species). To suggest otherwise is anti-science akin to climate denial.
You're also misunderstanding the choices available:
1) The alternative for the whale in this scenario is death. Are you sure the whale would choose that over living in an aquarium? How sure?
Remember - The overwhelming majority of human beings don't even make that choice (see: suicide rates of long-term prisoners).
2) > I'd much rather spend all the money used in housing these whales on field studies and establishing conservation zones in the actual environment.
What money? You mean the money generated from the aquarium? Oh wait. Ummm... I have some very bad news about your proposed scheme.
It really doesn't sound like you've thought this through. I admire the compassion of people like you. I really do. But, you seem to be living in some alternate universe from the rest of us. You might be better served to think with your heart and your brain.
Obviously zoos and aquariums can do great work but there are animals in this world that do not live in captivity very well and if they were capable of properly weighing the options I'm sure many would choose death. I know many humans (myself inclused) who would make the same choice. If we can show certain species of whale can handle captivity well then by all means save them, house them, whatever but I doubt these particular whales are being let go lightly and sitting around saying 'think of the missed scientific opportunity' ignores the well-being of the whale. And maybe if it were possible to communicate to the whale the benefit of its sacrifice it might be ok but we can't and to ignore the anxiety of the whale is cruel.
Except nobody is being asked - we force a decision on them.
Another interesting hypothetical situation:
You are a stray cat, happily living on a street, feeding on garbage and screwing your cat-girlfriends in the free time. One day you are caught by humans and presented with the following choice:
1. Get euthanized.
2. Get your balls cut off and released back to freedom.
Pick one.
1) To be left to die of starvation.
2) To be rescued and spend the rest of your life fed but kept in a 6x6 ft cage.
Pick one.