Hacker News Reader

Comment by tsumnia | Hacker News Reader

> If they can learn by observing humans, without the humans specifically intending it, then what's so different, or unethical, if it's done with intent?

I think this might interfere with some research involving the gorillas. You cannot study their natural behaviors if you are assisting them. Not to say there isn't research teams looking to train gorillas, my point is that may not be THEIR focus. While they cannot control for poachers, they can control for them own interactions. Furthermore, not to slippery slope, but to what end do you believe they should be allowed to interfere? If, say, a diseased food source begins to decimate the group that could be prevented through cooking, should the researchers attempt to teach them how to cook the food source to kill the bacteria?

View on HN

It's a lot harder to study them if they're dead. I'm heartily in favor of assisting them to the extent they want to learn, it's possible that the more effort we make to communicate the more we'll learn ourselves.

Also, if they're capable of learning then they're sapient by definition which means we have some moral obligations to them rather than being disinterested observers, because it's our species that is trying to kill them.

Perhaps we should start considering them as different species of people rather than mere livestock.

Training them to disarm traps could cause more harm than good. Training them to avoid traps would maybe be better. If poachers learn that their prey are hanging around the traps all day disarming them they become lures. We also don't want an arms race between poachers and trained disarmers because the poachers are at a massive advantage. Once they know a significant number of their traps will be disarmed they will just develop traps that are more difficult to disarm or even traps that hurt the animal attempting to disarm them at which point we've trained Gorillas to walk right into their traps.

From the article, the poachers are not directly hunting for gorillas or other monkeys. When they find them in the traps, they leave them there to die.

> Also, if they're capable of learning then they're sapient by definition which means we have some moral obligations to them rather than being disinterested observers

It's because we have moral obligations to them that researchers try not to interfere.

> Perhaps we should start considering them as different species of people rather than mere livestock.

If we considered them livestock they'd be in cages. These researches are treating them as we treat many uncontacted tribes of humans.

---

It's fine if you disagree with the option, but this approach has nothing to do with being callous or indifferent, it's just a different point of view on how best to protect them. And in my opinion, it's a reaction to the full contact approach that was already tried in the 60s/70s, and frankly didn't go well for either side.

> I think this might interfere with some research involving the gorillas. You cannot study their natural behaviors if you are assisting them.

I think this is a very poor argument. First of all, conservation trumps research. Secondly, their environment already isn't "natural" when it has got snare traps in it.

> If, say, a diseased food source begins to decimate the group that could be prevented through cooking, should the researchers attempt to teach them how to cook the food source to kill the bacteria?

Seems far-fetched, but in principle: Yes, why the hell not?

Teaching gorillas how to make fire - what could possibly go wrong ;-)

Spit roasted poachers?

Add giving them goggles for when they don't see well.

Ear devices for when they don't hear well.

A wheelchair for when they can't walk.

I'm afraid when Darwin passes by ( other group of gorillas) and the word of the strongest will be law.

( Just thinking out loud, with controversy :) )

Technology assures long term survival and it is in a species best interest to develop them. That is apparent. Now the question is how do you nurture technological development?

I can agree somewhat.

Except if it makes genetics weaker on the very long term and tech becomes a requirement instead of optional.

Glasses, smoking, IVF,...

Ps. I wear goggles myselve. And I know the above will be a hated opinion.

It makes genetics different. Your argument sets the default environment to be fit for the stone age one. I can respect that, but it needs to be put explicitly more often than it is.

It could go like "If we were to suddenly revert to, in the far future, some sort of stone age like environment, our distant descendants may be very unfit for that environment. This would be unfortunate."

Congratulations, you've reinvented eugenics.

> Add giving them goggles for when they don't see well.

see no evil

> Ear devices for when they don't hear well.

hear no evil

> A wheelchair for when they can't walk.

...okay, you lost me there

Reply on news.ycombinator.com