We started out talking about a specific variety of intelligence, technological sapience, and there's no doubt that whales don't qualify because they don't use technology.

I think your criteria for intelligence in general are too narrow, though. We evolved in an environment in which were never the largest animal around, so an ability to kill was a necessary survival trait that intelligence later worked on and enhanced. But whales are at the top of the food chain in their environment, and I think if you could talk to a whale about it, he'd never include killing ability on the list of whale values. They've rarely needed it.

Nature's full of examples of how a new predator can enter a new environment and slaughter existing inhabitants that hadn't evolved a defense. That's why we have the advantage over whales, for the moment--they don't have natural defense mechanisms against our ability to use technology. But evolution works eventually, so don't be surprised if we end up training the cetaceans to kill...if we let them live long enough.

I don't think killing ability is an absolute requirement for intelligence and self-awareness. My theory of social interactions exercizing intelligence into being provides an alternate path for whales and other marine mammals. They're sociable, and as mammals they have vulnerable young who need protection after birth, and social behaviors improve the odds of survival of their young.

Both whales and dolphins are known to communicate. I'm not sure why you're saying they don't. Possession of language makes it possible to develop culture, and the pattern of whale song, even if we don't understand its content, looks very much like they're passing stories and other lore.

Intelligent behavior, communication, suggestions of self-awareness, suggestions of culture...to me that's hardly "indistinguishable in every way from animal actions". Quite a number of things distinguish whales and dolphins from ordinary animals.

I admit there's a bit of philosophy behind the position I'm taking. I once argued that genetics provides a rational basis for according legal protection to the cousins of homo sapiens sapiens. If hss DNA accords one 100% of the rights and protections of a human, shouldn't 98.6% entitle a chimpanzee to some degree of membership in the club?

Same thing with other intellgences. It's not necessary that they be 100% identical to us. Just because whales lack our killer instinct doesn't mean they shouldn't be accorded some respect for their other intellectual achievements. Their inability to fight back doesn't make them our "rightful" prey. Just because whalers have been able to commit a form of murder and get away with it doesn't make it right.

(I hope you appreciate the self-control I had to exercize to not bring up politics through all that. Might doesn't make right, whether it's whales or Democrats. I'll stop there.)