Skip to main content

The Real Killer Whale Was the Friends We Made Along the Way.

     1: Morality is a mostly human-made invention to categorize actions and behaviors of other humans as either desirable (good) or undesirable (bad). Morality is not a binary, obviously there's a lot of grey area, in fact, most of it is grey-area, but my larger point is that ascribing it to stuff that isn't human gets messy. Is a lion "bad" for eating an elk? Is water "good" for hydrating us? Is lightning "a douche" for turning my hotdog into ash? The answer to all of these is, probably, no.
     This was a longwinded way of saying that I don't think Tilikum was the villain in this situation. Were they the victim? Broadly speaking, yes. SeaWorld, famously, is a factory for marine-mammal misery, and if the article is anything to go by, Sealand was basically the equivalent of orca hell, “If you pen killer whales in a small steel tank, you are imposing an extreme level of sensory deprivation on them,”.
    The villain of this story, in my opinion, is Don Goldsberry. Of course, with the way the article is written, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the writer was aiming for. As for the hero, I don't really think there is a hero. Balcomb is the closest there is but even then he only informs the writer of orca whale behaviors.

    2: It's a profile essay in the sense that it paints a word-picture of the perspectives/careers of multiple individuals. most notably: Tilikum the orca, Ken Balcomb the human, Don Goldsberry the demon human, and, of course, Dawn Brancheau the human.

    3: The author uses active language to paint a person (in this case, Don Goldsberry) in a specific light:  "“I’m only speaking with you because those idiots out there, mainly the politicians, want to release all the killer whales,” he growls."  the usage of the word "growls" instead of something more neutral like "said" gives the reader an image of Don as an angry, malicious man. Honestly, the way it's written kinda reminds me of Ebenezer Scrooge. This depiction of someone who treaded dangerously close to animal poacher territory fits into the larger whole of the article which talks about the effect captivity has on intelligent, social animals.

    4: Based on description, I would contrast them as such: Goldsberry is a true-blooded capitalist who won't let some trivial thing like "ethics" get in the way of a juicy profit:  "“I would go into SeaWorld and say, ‘I need a quarter of a million’ or ‘a half-million dollars,’ and they put it in my suitcase,” he says with a grin. “It was good, catching animals. It was exciting. I was the best in the world. There is no question about it.”". Balcomb, on the flipside, seems to just be a lovable orca nerd: "Since then, he’s become the Southern Residents’ scientific godfather, noting every birth and death, and plotting family connections."

    5: I think the argument the article makes is the inherent cruelty of keeping orcas in captivity. I'm not a zoo abolitionist but even so it feels wrong to keep such intelligent animals in such unnatural, mind-breaking conditions.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Another blog about the virus-book

1: "I'm a man of my word," Jeevan said. At that point in his directionless life he wasn't sure if this was true or not, but it was nice to think that it might be.  And ...and then one night Jeevan opened his eyes at two a.m. and the news-room was empty. Everyone had left. He stared at the empty room on the screen for a long time. I chose the former because it's a somewhat comforting line, the idea that we're better than we maybe are. It doesn't come across as egotistic/self-serving in my eyes, but more hopeful. Hopeful that you can be a better person. I chose the latter because I can just imagine it so vividly, a slowly dwindling news-source eventually reduced to nothing. It's pathetically miserable, how it just gradually peters out instead of being violently destroyed in its prime via. a meteor or something. Powerless to stop as the momentum carrying civilization is gone. 2: I'm writing the utopia part, so I plan on writing about good infrastructu...

Forget this book, let's talk about Early Modern English!

-It's nice that they have a traveling acting troupe in the post-apocalypse. -I hope Jeeves died. Not because I dislike him, but because it would be narratively interesting. We get to learn about a person: their past, their hopes and dreams, their struggles... only for their story to be cut-short by the virus. -The farther we get from Shakespeare's time the more incomprehensible plays of that time become. "The safer sense will ne'er accommodate his master thus"?? What does "thus" mean in this context? In modern English it's used like "[cause] thus [effect]," you don't just end a sentence with it! And even if thus wasn't there to muck-up the whole line, what does it mean for a safer sense to not accommodate something? My best guess on what "safer sense" means is caution. Like, "Oh I would go play on the highway but I have a safer sense for that." or something. Does this mean that the person doesn't think cautio...

Utopia? I hardly KNOW 'eh!

Okay so my answer to this question depends on how realistic I'm allowed to be. On one end of the spectrum I could just say "everyone is happy and healthy all the time and there's no conflict because I say so." and on the other end I would say "I don't have a deep enough grasp of infrastructure/socioeconomics to describe a society that would for-certain be better." Assuming I'm constrained to modern day tech, but at the same time I don't have to take every single detail into consideration, here's what my Utopia would be: The Great Commune of Shlorpth (named because I like the sound "shlorpth" makes.) There would be UBI (universal basic income) for everyone at/over 18, tax-subsidized necessities (food, water, shelter, education, healthcare.) A reliance on nuclear energy over fossil fuels. Corporations would have elected managerial positions (discouraging the exploitation of workers, because then the person probably wouldn't be re-...