Nick asks two questions. His first question is: Is the attatchment of these (neighly wieghtless to the animal) transmitters morally justifiable if the researchers claim to do it for the end result of "knowing the habits and migratory patterns of these animals"? Many claim that such data would provide information on how to best 'protect' these animals and their ancient system of life of which migration plays a large role.
To answer this question, I do feel that these transmitters are morally justifiable when used for gathering scientific research. The transmitters do no harm to the animals, and most of them fall off after a certain amount of time. The information gathered can be helpful to scientists and researchers, as Nick points out, in mapping migratory routes. This way, these routes can be patrolled more strictly (if necessary) during migratory seasons and the animals can be protected more from humans.
Nick then asks: What is the difference between a (supossed) securly attatched transmitter on an animal and a human's cell-phone?
The difference is that humans know about the transmitters in their phones while animals have no idea what transmitters are. It is possible an animal may not even know that a transmitter has been attached to them. Another difference, as I metioned earlier, is that the transmitters on the animals generally fall off after a certain amount of time. With humans, the transmitter is working as long as the phone is active.
My question is this: Can you think of any other differences between animal transmitters and transmitters in a phone?
No comments:
Post a Comment