Move Over People, “Dolphins are Nonhuman Persons?”

At the 2010 AAAS Annual Meeting (18-22 February 2010), this organization, along with its members of the same methodology of Dr Jane Lubchenko, Head of NOAA, who is of a Fellowship with AAAS, has had the arrogance to exclaim that sector management is not costing any jobs and that there has been quite a bit of consolidation within the name of science, as to redefining the way we think of other marine creatures. On Sunday, February 21, 2010: 3:30 PM-5:00 PM

Room 7B (San Diego Convention Center), your donations to my tax dollars were hard at work redefining the laws of nature in that “Dolphins are Nonhuman Persons?” There is no such animal but because “science said so”, it must be and Darwin must be rolling in his grave. The definition of a nonhuman is ; Adjective: Of, relating to, or characteristic of a creature that is not a human being or as a Noun: A creature that is not a human being, though the word non-human can be ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman animals, it is not human! A person, on the flip side of this equation is an individual characterized by a preference or liking for a specified thing, such as he is not a dolphin or A human being regarded as an individual; Dr. Jane Lubchenco is a person of bewildering thought as she and her colleges regard Dolphins as non-human persons. It was hard to believe that this came out of a think tank as described on their website “The American Association for the Advancement of Science, "Triple A-S" (AAAS), is an international non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science around the world by serving as an educator, leader, spokesperson and professional association. In addition to organizing membership activities, AAAS publishes the journal Science, as well as many scientific newsletters, books and reports, and spearheads programs that raise the bar of understanding for science worldwide,” as this is not a step forward in science but backwards, before real humans were ever on the earth.

Are we confused yet? I am but I am a human being who fishes and knows the difference between a dolphin and I, as do most human beings without the need to spend dollars lost to nothing in defining a Dolphin as something that it is not, nor ever will be; no matter how much money the UNEP, Pew Trust put into the “campaign to ensure that federal fishery managers in the Mid-Atlantic end overfishing and rebuild depleted fish populations to provide truly healthy fisheries for the future” , combined with contributions spent by the American Association for the Advancement of Science spent in talking about rubbish to refuse!

This gathering of the minds, last year, also came up with the language to include a non-human to a human status in referring to it as an individual; “Like humans, dolphins appear to be self-conscious, unique individuals [with distinctive personalities, memories and a sense of self] who are vulnerable to a wide range of physical and emotional pain and harm, and who have the power to reflect upon and choose their actions.” Now if a Dolphin is referred to as a “nonhuman persons”, how can it, in the same latitude, be called an individual as the English language defines the word individual, as to referring to persons as, a single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family. So now Mr. Limpet is a human. Well, in this case, he always was. Maybe the AAAS used the movie as its research source? Wild dolphins need clean and quiet oceans according to UNEP, who went on to say; “Dolphins worldwide face several threats to their survival. They are threatened by by-catch, pollution, habitat destruction, over-fishing and climate change. Other human activities that may frighten displace or harm these species such as underwater noise pollution from sources such as shipping traffic, seismic surveys and military sonar.” What about Real human’s?

During this Yearly Conference, the group came to the conclusion that “Humans and dolphins have profoundly different evolutionary histories.” This stuff is comic gold at its best! Some of the most brilliant minds in the world wasting time, effort and money on a subject an elementary school child could have possibly told you. But, at the same time, they also concluded that the juxtaposition of these two images as a real human and a dolphin, are but the same in that “The similarities suggest that dolphins qualify for moral standing as individuals-and, therefore, are entitled to treatment of a particular sort.” Hm, now we have added the term moral standing, to which suggests that dolphins, too feel A person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do. Next that would suggest that Dolphins must have ethics within their nonhuman persons society, right? Right! “This juxtaposition of
important similarities and differences has significant ethical implications.” With this aspiring find of utter BS, their findings concluded with the statement of “Unfortunately, humans have a poor
track record for recognizing the rights and interests even of members of our
own species once they've been dubbed "inferior." Meaningful change in
human/dolphin interaction, then, is likely to unfold slowly. Yet developing
an interspecies ethic could mark a significant turning point in the
relationship between humans and other intelligent beings on the planet. “ No wonder we are losing jobs to marine spacial planning, the nonhuman persons were consulted. My unscientific findings on nonhuman persons are; if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...beam me up Scotty!