|
DrBox posted:It's not tricky at all. Earthling Ed has a great youtube video on the subject. At the end of the day the actual money generated by zoos for conservation efforts are pennies on the dollar for every ticket sold. Everything a zoo can do for outreach can be done with rehabilitation centers and animal ambassadors that cannot be released into the wild for whatever reason. There is zero reason for zoos to continue the cycle of breeding and trading animals besides ticket sales which only generate income for the zoos. I also take exception with animals who are not endangered or in need of protection from habitat loss being included in zoos. It's complete exploitation. There is a value in exposing people to animals that they will never see in habitat. A kid in Canada would probably never see an elephant or a tiger, or a koala without a zoo or something like it, and I believe that exposure is worth something, and that it fosters an interest and an empathy towards animals you do not get another way. There is no doubt that zoos can be inhumane or even cruel, but I disagree that they must be by their nature, or that animal captivity is inherently inhumane. You can argue it is exploitation, but if the animals are well cared for, stimulated, etc. I don't see it as immoral. I think the vegan argument is strongest when arguing against things like factory farming or some animal testing, but loses people when animals and people are placed on an exactly equal footing.
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2022 22:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
DrBox posted:Did you actually watch the video I linked? Even the first few minutes is enough to convince me that zoos in the conventional sense cannot be done well. Yes I did, and I did not come to that conclusion. The video shows some really awful zoos. It does not make a good argument that being awful in this way is inherent to zoos. DrBox posted:I'm sure there is some value in exposing people to animals they will not otherwise see but that's not a good argument for chaining up a lion on my front lawn. The harm outweighs the good. Where in anything I have said do you get the idea that I would think this is a moral thing to do? I say "well cared for' and "stimulated" and you jump to a lion chained up in the front lawn. If you aren't actually going to address what I say in good faith, why bother? You are a zealot, and you only see to hear what you want to hear. If you are looking for an example of something I think is in the right direction, I think the San Diego zoo's wild animal park is more in the mode of what I am thinking, but I think you could go even further that direction. But honestly, I don't think you care. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Sep 10, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2022 22:56
|
|
|
mystes posted:Even in the better zoos like the San Diego Zoo, most animals are given a tiny fraction of the space area they would normally roam around in and they aren't in anything that's really close to their natural habitat. To me, the important thing is that the animals are happy and healthy. Not that their enclosure is exactly the same size as they would roam in the wild. mystes posted:It sounds like you're basically saying that as long as it improves the welfare of other animals it's acceptable. I am not, no. I do think the healthy and happy bit matters. If that can be achieved for an animal in captivity, I don't see an issue with doing so. mystes posted:In fact, if you do not otherwise consider yourself a utilitarian, you should probably recognize that people who advocate for animal rights from a deontological perspective are inherently not going to be able to accept your position because there is an implicit assumption in your argument that moral rules do not apply to animals in the same way as they do to humans. You're right, we would disagree on this point. I think the life of a human is worth more, morally, than the life of a chicken. If someone truly has that belief, I would think they would need to live a lifestyle similar to those who follow Jainism.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2022 23:51
|
|
|
DrBox posted:The problem is those zoos were mostly well run and regulated. Those stats on psychiatric drug use among zoo animals came from EASA zoos, not some shady roadside operations. Your implication here is that it is impossible to keep animals happy and healthy in captivity. I disagree, and think those zoos could do much better. "Mostly well run and regulated" is implying they can't do any better. DrBox posted:Yikes, I was being facetious. I didn't meant to trigger you! Nah, you were being a jerk and now you're backpedaling. Don't do this "gosh you're so triggered!" routine, it is gross. DrBox posted:I don't think cats are the same as humans but I cringe every time I walk by a pet store window regardless of how hard the employees try to entertain them. Can you explain why? If the cats you're seeing are happy, then why cringe? DrBox posted:I guess this is a fundamental disagreement where you see zoos as a promising endeavor and I see the evidence pointing to a failed experiment. I'm not sure what studies I could show to change your mind. For me the only logical answer would be to abandon the zoo concept and move towards nature preserves and national parks. I think that the exposure that people get to animals in captivity in places like zoos and aquariums encourages empathy and curiosity towards animals that a Disney movie does not. While not impossible, I think you would have a harder time convincing people that the habitats of some of these animals was worth protecting if they had never actually seen one and never would unless they had the money to go visit one in habitat or some rehabilitation center (which would likely be near habitat anyway). Maybe a personal example would help: I scuba dive so I visit local marine habitat pretty regularly. Climate change and fishing are hitting it hard, and there is generally far less empathy towards marine animals than cute tigers and elephants. There is a large aquarium nearby that has many of the same animals I see in the wild. I think that aquarium exposes a much larger audience to the marine environment that I care very much about than will *ever* see it while diving. Seeing those animals in the flesh will help people understand the value in protecting them far more than Finding Nemo will. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Sep 11, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2022 01:41
|
|
|
DrBox posted:Go to an aquarium and hang out near the fish. You'll hear kids lose their mind when they see a Nemo or a Dory. They did not need to be exposed to the fish in a tank before learning to love those fish. I take people all the time. Kids react to clownfish like seeing their favorite cartoon character. I don't think Mickey Mouse has done much for preserving mouse life. What the aquarium does do is show segments of an ecosystem that I love to people who would otherwise never see it. That's really important to me, because I feel like aquatic animals are really given short shrift, like the questions about if fish have feelings.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2022 06:25
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:I think it's wonderful that you love the ocean ecosystem so much that you want to share that with others. I think it's fantastic, myself, I started planning a beach trip literally today. But that's your interest, not the fish's. Yeah, actually. I know several divers who no longer eat seafood after diving, and while I don't think my aquarium trips have gotten people completely off fish, I do know it has made them far choosier about what they do eat (some fishing practices being more sustainable, and I would argue ethical than others). The aquarium itself is into it too, check out "seafood watch". I personally do still eat some seafood, but I am careful about what I do and don't eat. It also increases interest in things like marine preserves. Seafood is one of the only wild things we really eat, the ecological impact of farming matters, but pulling things out of habitat at a massive scale is even more direct. If we did to a forest what bottom trawlers do to the sea, there would be massive outrage. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 07:20 on Sep 11, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2022 07:09
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:Ok, now I'm confused. Careful in what way? Ethical in what way? I've heard the argument that oysters are closer to a plant than an animal and probably okay even for a vegan, and I don't have a strong opinion there. Is that the kind of thing you mean? I'd say it's probably still better not to kill an animal even if they don't feel it, just like with humans, but I wouldn't even argue if someone said oysters were fair game. I always thought they were gross as poo poo as a kid so I never learned to eat them so now it's not an issue for me. What part are you confused about? Check out seafoodwatch.org and that'll give you a general idea. The oyster argument seems pretty silly to me but I will eat sustainability grown/harvested oysters or scallops. I would eat fish someone I know caught, but otherwise would use the same sort of criteria you see on the seafood watch website. People are so calous about seafood: I was offered live octopus in Korea and was pretty upset by it. I do eat land animals. I don't like factory farming and believe we need stricter rules on the environments these animals are kept in.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2022 07:52
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:I did check out that website and it mostly seemed to be about ecological sustainability. It doesn't really touch the subject of whether it's okay to kill a living fish that has feelings for our benefit. I was answering a question you asked. Do you feel that someone who chooses not to eat a fish because it was harvested in a damaging way is immoral? I've certainly heard vegans make empassioned environmental arguments for veganism. Different opinions, I suppose. XboxPants posted:You think fish have feelings. How can there be an ethical way to kill them? Even if some methods cause less suffering than others, wouldn't no suffering be best? You seem to me to care about animal welfare, but not animal liberation, and problematically not see the difference. But those two issues are incompatible. An ethical way to kill an animal is quick and as painless as possible. Happy and healthy is how an animal should be kept; up until that point if it's a food animal, or indefinitely if we're talking about something like a zoo. But I don't think animal welfare and animal liberation are inseparable. I'd wager that position would come as a surprise to many people who support animal welfare. Unless this is a no-true-scotsman situation. XboxPants posted:Have you ever been locked up? Jail, prison, psych ward, reform school, rehab, it doesn't matter how pleasant it is, how nice they are to you, if you're in that situation I bet you'll agree that they're doing harm to you merely by stripping your ability to choose what you think is best for you. We cannot take care of a being and liberate them at the same time. Imagine a chicken that lives in an idyllic farmyard. It lives it's life being able to explore a large yard, it is fed, and well taken care of. Do you think that bird would suffer the same psychological pain that a person imprisoned against their will would be? The chicken does not understand that it is imprisoned. The person does. If it helps, my concern for the marine environment is not primarily motivated by my concern for the feelings of it's inhabitants. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 08:43 on Sep 11, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2022 08:36
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:Thank you, yes that helps. No, not at all. They are living things and not inanimate objects. XboxPants posted:But, think of that treasure as a stolen cultural relic, instead. It doesn't matter how well you care for it, or how much it helps people appreciate the culture it belongs to. It doesn't belong to you. It's theft. Only, you're advocating the theft of entire beings and their bodies and lives. Again, no. It matters very much what the chicken feels, which is why I see no issue with the happy and healthy chicken in captivity. XboxPants posted:The fish that's on the hook is fighting for it's life and freedom. I won't go into detail because you probably know way more than me: It doesn't want to be caught and killed. Do you disagree with that? I don't disagree at all.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2022 18:37
|
|
|
Kalit posted:FYI, mass deforestation is happening in the Amazon Rainforst, primarily due to the livestock industry. Unfortunately there’s no massive outrage, just a handful of news articles each year. That is probably the closest analogue, but I don't think it's quite the same. Although obviously also horrible.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Magnets show an aversion response when being held near to the same pole as another magnet, are you saying magnets need moral consideration? I think the "plants feel pain" argument against veganism is silly as anything but a game, but you are now literally comparing something moving because it is alive and reacting to stimuli, to something being moved by an external force applied by a magnetic field.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2022 14:50
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Pretty ridiculous huh It's a comparison that demonstrates a fundimental misunderstanding between something being alive vs. an inanimate object. It's ridiculous to think it demonstrates anything at all besides that misunderstanding.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2022 15:17
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:It demonstrates that just seeing a change in an object isn't enough of a reason to give it moral consideration. So there is no moral difference between something that is inanimate, and something that is alive, if there is no sentience? If I were to injure a plant, or break a rock, just for the hell of it, is there a moral distinction? What about a coral? Not a plant, but not really any more sentient. Living vs. not seems like such a strong line to me. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Oct 18, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2022 16:11
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Do you consider being a lumberjack to be more morally problematic than being a miner Yes. I don't find either occupation particularly morally problematic, but you're asking about one vs. another. Killing something living is morally different than damaging an inanimate object. Enjoy posted:I don't think plants per se deserve any more moral consideration than rocks. It's only when we think about externalities to sentient beings that things get complicated. On this point we disagree. I think life, in and of itself, has some nonzero moral weight.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2022 16:41
|
|
|
DrBox posted:If there is no subject experiencing harm or suffering, why does it matter? Do you grant bacteria moral consideration? No much consideration, but more than I'd grant a rock. Think of it as a continuum, rather than a step function at sentience the way you describe it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2022 17:22
|
|
|
DrBox posted:I don't share your view but would you consider this an even stronger case for Veganism since the amount of plant deaths required for humanity to feed itself is magnified many times over by animal agriculture? No, I wouldn't. I don't see a cow eating a plant as committing an immoral act, nor do I see a person eating a cow as an inherently immoral act. I think it's a question of how much moral weight you place. Maybe this might help: a plant (or even a bacteria) has a potential to grow and even to reproduce; to become something more than it is in the moment you see it. A rock doesn't, it can't act it can only be acted on. There is a fundimental difference there that I think has value and moral weight to a degree. The environmental and ecological arguments for vegetarianism or veganism are far more convincing to me.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2022 17:38
|
|
|
DrBox posted:What does it mean for something to have moral value but then harming, destroying, or feeding it to an animal not be immoral? If you're granting something moral value, it should matter if you destroy it. I think the difference is that I see value as a spectrum, not a binary. Your question only makes sense if you see something as either having value or not. DrBox posted:Stalactites in caves grow over time. Rust can propigate. My cell phone reacts the same as a plant. The fact that plants are alive is a byproduct of chemistry and how we define life, but it does not suffer or have wants any more than a rock or my phone. Do you think your cell phone is alive? A plant acts upon its surroundings, and uses things around it to grow itself and propagate. That is fundimentally different from a stalactites. You reaching for a plant to eat because you are hungry is just as much a byproduct of chemistry as a plant moving towards a light. DrBox posted:The environmental argument is a rough one because it justifies cruelty as long as it's sustainable. If I can torture then 3 whales a year forever so long as I eat them, that's sustainable but should not be considered moral. If an animal is killed humanely, I don't think it is cruelty. Neither is harvesting a plant. As I see it, both the method and the use matter. Killing an animal for food vs torturing it to death then eating it aren't equivalent. Again, spectrum vs. binary. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Oct 18, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2022 18:10
|
|
|
DrBox posted:My reaching for a plant to eat is not the same as a plant moving towards the light because I can choose what I'm reaching for. The plant is not making that conscious choice. There is no one in there to make a choice. Only a difference in degree, not in kind. DrBox posted:If in your view animals killed humanely (oxymoron IMO, I would say with minimal suffering) is fine, is it different to kill a human humanely? The reason matters. We don't eat people, so I'm not sure you can draw that line. Killing something living, for no reason, no matter how humanely executed, seems immoral to me.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2022 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
DrBox posted:It's not a difference in degree with plants. Sentience may be a spectrum but plants are not on that spectrum as far as we can tell. Life is not sentience. You being hungry and reaching for food is chemistry as much as it is for the plant. You don't do it purely out of sentience. DrBox posted:If killing anything living for no reason is immoral in your view, can I assume taking life for a bad reason is also immoral? Then we can at least start arguing justifications for animal harm rather than this plant lives tangent. Nah, I think I'm done. Your dismissal of an environmental argument and not understanding the plant "tangent" is enough for me to disengage.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2022 19:38
|
|