INDIVIDUAL WRITEUP

GEH1010

APRIL 10, 2017

BY: TAN HUI MIN, RACHEL (A0160661L)
Tutor: Shivani Gupta

Question:
“Is the way we are feeding on animals leading to a sustainable world? Should
social justice include justice for non-humans?”
 Social justice can be defined as justice in terms of opportunities but in this topic, it means equal
consideration for the lives of non-humans. This can come in the form of freedom from captivity, slaughter
houses, fur factories, and in general – valuing their lives as more than a simple commodity that humans
can use and take advantage of as they please. My reading was about the contestation of dolphin captivity
in Singapore by Neo and Ngiam. It addressed both sides of the arguments for and against captivity. Here,
captivity is symbolic of social justice for non-humans. After reading the article, although there are valid
points that non-humans do not need social justice; the arguments of the proponents of justice – animal
activists, outweighs the arguments of the opponents – Resorts World Singapore (RWS). Including social
justice for non-humans is essential for both non-humans and humans alike because, if one part of the whole
suffers eventually all will suffer.

The naturalness of cetacean nature is the main cause of debate for their freedom. The concept of
natural is defined differently by both parties. Animal activists define natural or a natural dolphin as a
dolphin that exists and behaves in accordance to its own agency in the wild with no human interference.
RWS defines natural as a purely physical nature like their physical wellbeing. Activists argue that captivity
is unnatural, unnecessary and capitalistic because this species of dolphin was not endangered and not in
need of ex situ conservation – conservation outside of their natural habitat. The motivations of RWS were
mainly for the sake of human entertainment and financial gain. It is doubtful that RWS would actually put
in effort and resources into conservation if all the visitors were not paying an entrance fee for their
patronage. Captivity can only be justified to a certain extent if it serves a purpose, which would be
conservation and this criterion was not fulfilled by RWS. On the other hand, RWS takes on a naturalistic
view and demonizes the wild – stating that they are doing dolphins a favor by taking care of them and
keeping them safe from the dangers of the wild. This naturalistic ideal proposed by Descola (Descola,
1996) shows how humans believe in their superior capabilities through the need for them to control the
environment and care for the dolphins because they would not otherwise survive. RWS justifies their
actions by stating that any deviation from their wild and original natural behavior is within the realm of all
possible dolphin natures and since the dolphins are physically well, it is deemed that captivity is not
harmful. However, something that is not harmful is not necessarily natural or morally acceptable. Captivity
should only be a last resort in the efforts of repopulating an endangered species and not for capitalistic
intentions hidden behind a façade claiming captivity serves educational purposes. Scientists learned that
alvarezsaurid dinosaurs can dig due to adaptations in structures like their claws and wrists. (Hone, 2014)
If scientists can learn so much about a species that has been extinct for 65 million years, it is highly
plausible they can educate humans about cetaceans more sustainably. Therefore, justice should include
non-humans and in this case cetaceans should be granted their freedom because captivity by RWS is
unnatural and unnecessary.

The desire to conserve and experience natural cetaceans has led to the increased protection and
sustainable experiential consumption of cetaceans. Dolphins are often by-catches by tuna boats, so tuna
companies now use a dolphin free tuna label to state no dolphins were circled by netting or died in the
process of catching tuna. Also, now eco-tourism has evolved to limit human interaction with cetaceans
while still engaging experientially. Tourists can swim with whale sharks in Oslob, Philippines because the
locals feed them and the sharks always follow the feeding boats – which guarantees tourists a whale shark
sighting. However, the scale and frequency of human-shark interaction albeit slightly less invasive than
capturing them and putting them in a tank, has caused significant changes in their natural behavior. Now,
the sharks migrate for feeding or reproduction infrequently and have disregarded their natural instincts to
be wary of boats and humans. This could be detrimental as they might mistake a fishing boat for a feeding
boat and get harmed. Just because the interactions are harmless, it does not mean that they are natural. We
as humans should be wary of our interactions with wildlife as it can greatly impact their natural behavior.

In conclusion, humans should take on a greater moral responsibility for non-humans – especially
if we choose to believe that we are superior. Animals are creatures of worth much like us and they deserve
to have equal consideration with regards to their lives and freedom. They should be allowed to retain their
natural behavior and environment as that is the way life is intended for them. We should not take away
something that does not even belong to us, let alone make a profit out of it. Animals deserve justice and
fair treatment just like humans because all life is one and every life deserves respect and kindness.
2
Bibliography

Descola, P. (1996). Anthropological perspectives. Nature and Society, 82-99.

doi:10.4324/9780203451069_chapter_5

Hone, D. (2014, May 01). How do we know what we know about dinosaur behaviour?
Retrieved April 5, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/science/lost-worlds/2014/may/01/how-
do-we-know-what-we-know-about-dinosaur-behaviour

In-situ and Ex-situ Conservation. (n.d.). Retrieved April 5, 2017, from

http://www.jamaicachm.org.jm/BHS/conservation.htm

Neo, H., & Ngiam, J. (2014). Contesting captive cetaceans: (il)legal spaces and the nature of
dolphins in urban Singapore. Social & Cultural Geography, 15(3), 235-254.
doi:10.1080/14649365.2014.882974