Critique on Australian Marine Parks - Essay Example

1. Bill Daly’s article ‘Marine Parks’ is a critique on the Australian marine parks which feature a semblance of wildlife in confined, artificial surroundings. This is done presumably to attract people who never get a chance to se these wild animals at close quarters in real life. However, Daly refutes the many excuses the perpetrators of such ideas posit, and sticks on to the premise that such parks treat animals cruelly and substantiates his viewpoints with the help of factual information and ethical arguments.’ The opinion of Daly regarding marine parks is evident from the last sentence of the first paragraph in which he refers to them as “unnecessary and cruel institutions”. Quoting those who support marine parks, he investigates the validity of their arguments, like the one that states that most Australians live in cities and cannot come across marine wild life except through such parks. However, Daly asserts that there are quite a number of places where city dwellers can afford to see wild life. In fact, such places are more in number than the number of marine parks. Moreover, most Australians need to travel more to the parks than to the natural surroundings which feature wildlife. Therefore, it is evident that there are a sufficient number of places where wildlife exists in Australia and most of them are accessible to Australians. Moreover, no one has to pay a costly fee to see the animals in natural surroundings – they are absolutely free. Daly contests another view propagated by scientists like Dr. Alison Lane, that people need marine parks so as to conduct scientific research on them. According to her most of the knowledge regarding marine mammals were conducted at such parks. Daly quotes Jones to assert that such research is useful only as far the life of captive animals goes, and hardly useful for the life of wild animals. Even the biology and life habits of whales and dolphins change in marine parks. For instance, their diet habits are different, they have a lower life span and are more porno to disease. Their social behavior is also significantly different from wild animals, since they are trained at the parks, for providing entertainment for the visitors. Daly states that the research undertaken at marine parks are not reliable because of all these reasons. Daly attacks the view held by the Marine Park Owners association that marine parks attract a great number of tourists. But surveys prove that most of the tourists who visit Australia are drawn to its real wild life and natural beauty than what Daly calls “ugly concrete marine park venues”. A very serious issue that affects marine mammals like dolphins and whales in such artificial surroundings is that the concrete walls of the pools interfere with the sonar systems of communication. Moreover, the high level of intelligence and language abilities of these wonderful creatures are unjustifiably damaged in marine parks. Dale concludes that marine parks are to be closed down for all these strong reasons. Instead of spreading the message that Australians treat wild animals cruelly through these parks, those who really care for wild life must find alternate ways to preserve wild life for conducting research and for tourist purposes. Dale contests the arguments that support marine parks and tries to substantiate his views with the help of scientific studies and surveys. The only weak argument, though convincing in many ways, is the one which dismisses the relevance of scientific studies conducted at marine parks. Even as the suggestion that such studies can be conducted in the real wild life, the risk factors and lack of convenience to do that in the present conditions make it a difficult proposition, especially since Daly does not provide an effective, workable alternate model. On an ethical level, all the arguments are very significant and convincing. If one could think of the issue of the marine parks from the side of the animals, or at least for the true benefit of them, it would be obvious that marine parks are not to be encouraged for any reason. 2. The article “Who are you calling ‘affirmative’?” by Talbert Walters is an assertive discourse on the need for affirmative action in public institutions. It is evident that Walters takes a bold step to voice his conviction by referring to the anti-affirmative stance taken by many newspapers, including the one for which he wrote the piece. He deplores the Us President George W Bush’s intervention in the Supreme Court case against the University of Michigan’s policy of making race a consideration for admissions. Many news papers showed allegiance to the general view that it is time to end race-based quotas, supporting the president. Walters shows his distaste for this line of argument: “To tell the truth, I am sick of it.” He challenges the newspapers who side up with the president to show him if there are any better, fairer, more creative ways to root out discrimination in the field of education or at workplaces. The general argument against affirmative action is that those students who benefit from it are stigmatized at institutions. They can be looked down upon by their peers as the ones who got through the admission procedure just because of their minority status, and they can even face devaluation in the labor market. Many even think that affirmative action institutionalizes mediocrity. They argue that the action reinforces racist notions like the one that minorities are never as meritorious as white students. In response, Walters posits the relevant question as to who does the stigmatizing, devaluing and tainting. The answer is that it is done by “scared, small white people, mostly men”. Since there is no chance that the minorities will not hold such views against them, it is better to bring sense to those white people and enable them accept the moral values affixed to affirmative action than getting rid of affirmative action which does not mean getting rid of racist prejudices. Walters reveals that the support shown by his newspaper to Mr. Bush reveals a general negative sentiment against blacks, and asserts that his presence in their office as an editor does not mean that he has just filled a quota, regardless of his merit. Affirmative action in educational institutions like the University of Michigan does not imply that people with a certain skin color cannot succeed in life. On the contrary, it means that some sects of people impediments in life that are not faced by others and that if these impediments are removed, they will be able to pursue their own paths to success in a just society Walters further states that there are two longest-standing affirmative programs that exist in the white communities: legacy and family connection. He accuses that Mr. Bush himself has succeeded through his educational years and even reached his present positions through these affirmative action programs. He concludes that affirmative action that supports minorities may not always be perfect and may even fail to support those who are in real need of it. But it does not mean that it is proper to kill it. Many people who are in need of it exist in all parts of the world. Walter’s arguments are very clear and convincing. All the references he makes use of in this article are authentic and his counter-arguments make some real sense. Overall, the article is a well-substantiated thesis that proves all the initial premises. Read More