It is not easy to hide when you are a runaway Russian spy. It is even harder to hide when your hiding spot happens to be an island in northern Finnmark whose population hovers right around 70 people [1]. Hiding becomes nearly impossible when you are also a 14 foot long, 2,700-pound beluga whale.
This is what Hvladimir learned when he first swam up to a fishing boat near the Village of Tufjord in 2019, still wearing a Russian camera harness strapped to his torso. He has since spent the past four years drifting down the coast of Norway and Sweden, becoming a bit of a local celebrity along the way due to his personable nature around humans. At the same time, Hvladimir has faced challenges too as he tries to share the water with boats not accustomed to his presence.
While his story is endearing, it is also an ethical alarm bell regarding the dangers of weaponizing animal intelligence. I strongly believe that animals and nature should not be readily accepted as collateral damage in modern warfare. If we are to train animals to participate in human activity, it should only be for search and rescue, not as a tactical approach to geopolitical conflicts.
Training marine life to take part in human conflicts is not a new or uncommon practice, with examples dating back to World War I where the United Kingdom’s Royal Navy would bribe circus-trained sea lions to find submarines [3]. Currently, four countries have marine-mammal programs connected to their defense sector: the U.S., Russia, North Korea, and Israel [4]. All of these programs vary in scope; notably the U.S. Navy’s website makes it clear that the dolphins and sea lions they work with are trained in the detection, location, and recovery of objects and are not trained as offensive weapons [5]. Russia, North Korea, and Israel are not as candid about the limits of their programs.
The emerging moral debate connects to how we choose to honor and respect the natural world that surrounds us. It’s the age-old question that permeates scientific experimentation perhaps best stated in Jurassic Park, “your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should” [6]. There is no question that we can train animals to do incredible things, but to what extent should we exploit their intelligence to fight our wars for us? I believe that the answer is perhaps disturbingly simple, animals should only be trained to preserve and protect life, not destroy it.
Perhaps one of the best examples of this in application comes from the organization APOPO, who trains Giant African Pouched Rats to detect tuberculosis and landmines around the world. These rats are specially trained and have careful work schedules to ensure they are happy, healthy, and humanely treated. Although they often work in dangerous environments, not one has ever been injured as they work to help diagnose people who need treatment and remove explosives leftover from wars and conflicts [7]. This is an incredible application of humanely using animals to protect and preserve human lives, and one that I wholeheartedly support. That line can become slippery, however, and is not one that everyone agrees on.
Hvladimir’s future remains uncertain as he continues to roam the Nordic waters, still too domesticated to live in the open ocean and yet not entirely suited to the human occupied waters of boats and ports [8]. I believe that his story and personality offer a compelling case for the protection of animal life and innocence from human conflict. Some may say that the cruelty and violence of the animal kingdom offer justification for their application in our own wars and conflicts. In response, I think that Jane Goodall offers powerful insight, saying, “It’s an unfortunate parallel to human behavior—they have a dark side just as we do. We have less excuse, [however], because we can deliberate, so I believe only we are capable of true calculated evil” [9].
