Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[quote=Aredhel;43628395]Assumptions based on actual observations, not on "wish fulfillment dreams," as you claim. You talk as if it's impossible to determine anything about the interior state of mind of an animal, which is simply not true. Abnormal behavior can be observed. Stress responses can be observed. And orcas in captivity exhibit them.
.[/quote is ]
The difference between a simple knee-jerk-response and more complicated behavior is only the level of complexity, the number of synapses involved. You are adding in the imagined factor of "happiness" based on your experiences.
Take the example of pet dogs: are they "happy" that we provide for them or "unhappy" that they are not running free in packs like their wild ancestors? I submit neither is the case. All solutions represent compromises among the conflicting factors. The dog, or any captive animal, is trading natural freedom, which involves greater danger from disease, predation, competition for food, shelter. mates, etc for a secure source of food, shelter and veterinary care.
Natural freedom allows the animal to carry out its natural "knee-jerk-behavoral responses." A cat will automatically chase any small object scurrying across an open space. That response allows it to successfully obtain its food. To chain it up so it can't chase that moving object elicits another refllex behavioral response the experimental psychologists call "frustration"-- attempts to break the bond and carry out the appropriate response. We add on the extra layer of "happy" vs "unhappy" that exists only in our own minds.
BTW- geese don't fly south "so they won't starve." They just fly south. That behavior hasn't inhibited their ability to survive so they're still with us. The geese that live by me fly south in the fall and those that live farther north fly in to replace them for the winter. They all survive. There are many seemingly odd behaviors in Nature that started by chance and persist because they have some survival value for that species. Its another application of the principle of random occurrences and persistence of the most probable.
The difference between a simple knee-jerk-response and more complicated behavior is only the level of complexity, the number of synapses involved. You are adding in the imagined factor of "happiness" based on your experiences.
So you feel "happiness" and "unhappiness" are imaginary concepts? Or are you claiming that humans uniquely experience these states?
And if the latter, why should humans be able to experience states we label as "happiness" and "unhappiness," but not other animals which possess highly complex brains similar to our own, like chimpanzees and dolphins?
Your seemingly oh-so-sophisticated and oh-so-scientific argument is merely solipsism in fancy dress. Most actual animal behaviorist reject it these days (although they take care not to claim that the same things which make a human happy or unhappy will evoke the same response in a different species).
Quote:
BTW- geese don't fly south "so they won't starve." They just fly south. That behavior hasn't inhibited their ability to survive so they're still with us. The geese that live by me fly south in the fall and those that live farther north fly in to replace them for the winter. They all survive. There are many seemingly odd behaviors in Nature that started by chance and persist because they have some survival value for that species. Its another application of the principle of random occurrences and persistence of the most probable.
Utter nonsense. Geese fly north to the Artic and subarctic tundra in the summer to exploit abundant but temporary food resources, which increases their breeding success. They fly south in the fall because those food resources become exhausted, and they would not survive the winter if they remained. The behavior did NOT evolve randomly. And because it's energetically expensive, it's quickly lost if adequate food resources do become available in the area year-round.
Maybe I better tell these Canada geese that live on my property all winter in NE Illinois that they're doing it wrong?
From my last post: " Its another application of the principle of random occurrences and persistence of the most probable."-- apparently an airplane statement-- over your head. The whole Universe abides by that rule. Darwin's theory is merely a specific application.
I agree. I haven't been to zoos or animal shows since I was a kid. My mom stopped taking me when I was around six when I told her it made me feel bad for the animals. I think SeaWorld is caving to public pressure, but their response is better than nothing, I suppose. They have another whale due to calve soon, unfortunately. That baby will probably be in captivity another 40+ years at least.
I feel bad for you. You say you care for animals, but all you really care for are pictures on a page or images on a screen. It sounds like it has likely been decades since you have actually seen a living specimen of the animals you claim to care for.
Maybe this method will create a facile, warm, fuzzy feeling for animals in some people, but to completely separate humans from having personal experiences with animals will deny the chance for anyone to develop a true love of nature.
Ancient man killed and was killed by animals in incredibly gruesome ways, and this inspired him so much that it drove him to invent art to capture his memories and admiration for the beasts that shared the world with him. How could he have developed such a powerful relationship with ink on a page or pixels on a screen? How can we?
Ultimately, the difference between the environmentalist and the conservationist is simple. The environmentalist sees man as apart from nature fit only to witness it in a derivative manner. The conservationist sees man as a part of nature who cannot fully exist as he is meant to if he refuses to participate and interact with the natural world.
I agree. I haven't been to zoos or animal shows since I was a kid. My mom stopped taking me when I was around six when I told her it made me feel bad for the animals. I think SeaWorld is caving to public pressure, but their response is better than nothing, I suppose. They have another whale due to calve soon, unfortunately. That baby will probably be in captivity another 40+ years at least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuburnAL
I feel bad for you. You say you care for animals, but all you really care for are pictures on a page or images on a screen. It sounds like it has likely been decades since you have actually seen a living specimen of the animals you claim to care for.
Maybe this method will create a facile, warm, fuzzy feeling for animals in some people, but to completely separate humans from having personal experiences with animals will deny the chance for anyone to develop a true love of nature.
Ancient man killed and was killed by animals in incredibly gruesome ways, and this inspired him so much that it drove him to invent art to capture his memories and admiration for the beasts that shared the world with him. How could he have developed such a powerful relationship with ink on a page or pixels on a screen? How can we?
Ultimately, the difference between the environmentalist and the conservationist is simple. The environmentalist sees man as apart from nature fit only to witness it in a derivative manner. The conservationist sees man as a part of nature who cannot fully exist as he is meant to if he refuses to participate and interact with the natural world.
On the contrary. It's been decades since I've seen these animals in real life precisely because I care for them and because I have strong personal ethical objections against zoos, circuses, and animal shows, I put my money where my mouth is and take my business elsewhere. I find it hard to understand how you would interpret my actions otherwise. The fact that we are able to dominate every animal on the earth doesn't mean it is right to do so, no matter how we rationalize such actions to ourselves.
On the contrary. It's been decades since I've seen these animals in real life precisely because I care for them and because I have strong personal ethical objections against zoos, circuses, and animal shows, I put my money where my mouth is and take my business elsewhere. I find it hard to understand how you would interpret my actions otherwise. The fact that we are able to dominate every animal on the earth doesn't mean it is right to do so, no matter how we rationalize such actions to ourselves.
There is no right or wrong, good or bad in Nature...only Survival.
I'm thrilled that this has happened. And I agree with PETA: enough is enough; the SeaWorld orcas need to be retired the same way that Ringling is retiring its elephants.
Yet I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the documentary Blackfish. It was an incredible film and is part of the reason that SeaWorld has received so much criticism.
And kudos to PETA. I don't agree with everything that they champion; however, I have been a member and, when I was, they sent out stickers that said "Boycotte SeaWorld" and "SeaWorld kills." I had seen Blackfish, so I understood the significance of the stickers. And I put them on every letter and package that I sent out.
I think that Sea World is correct in ending its shows and its breeding of orcas as well as ethically correct in not releasing their orcas into the wild. The problem of returning captive bred or raised in captivity wildlife -- all types not just orcas -- to the wild is that they are likely to both failed to learn all the survival skills they need and have come to be too friendly to humans to be wary. Most wildlife restoration projects today tend to stress keeping human contact to a minimum in order for the animals to have a better success of long term survival. For animals that have been kept in close contact with people for years or decades, their chances of successfully transitioning to life in the wild are miniscule. This would be doubly or triply true for animals with complex social structures.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
