This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Morning all,
Just saw this and I'm lost for words !
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26734377
What a waste ?, I find this very sad - why let the lions breed , produce 2 cubs only to be put down 10 months later ?
I refuse to believe there wasn't any other alternative - just no will .
Just saw this and I'm lost for words !
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26734377
What a waste ?, I find this very sad - why let the lions breed , produce 2 cubs only to be put down 10 months later ?
I refuse to believe there wasn't any other alternative - just no will .
In reply to MGC:
Won't most alternatives also have to treat animals as commodities?
Unless there's a quick way to release them into the wild, they need fed - and I don't think they're too keen on tofu...
> I refuse to believe there wasn't any other alternative - just no will .
Won't most alternatives also have to treat animals as commodities?
Unless there's a quick way to release them into the wild, they need fed - and I don't think they're too keen on tofu...
In reply to MGC:
Your already playing God when you say 'why let the lions breed'. I guess its something you have to accept if you accept lions being in captivity.
Your already playing God when you say 'why let the lions breed'. I guess its something you have to accept if you accept lions being in captivity.
In reply to MGC:
The zoo believes that allowing the animals to mate and raise cubs is a key part of the environmental enrichment for the adults. There are then too many cubs and some must be put down. Do you know how many cubs would reach adulthood in the wild?
Reputable zoos will only allow animals to go to other reputable zoos and breed animals in a genetically responsible way. I'm sure there were people who would take the cubs, but they wouldn't necessarily have the same standards.
By the way, all zoos do this all the time, just the spotlight is currently on that particular zoo.
The zoo believes that allowing the animals to mate and raise cubs is a key part of the environmental enrichment for the adults. There are then too many cubs and some must be put down. Do you know how many cubs would reach adulthood in the wild?
Reputable zoos will only allow animals to go to other reputable zoos and breed animals in a genetically responsible way. I'm sure there were people who would take the cubs, but they wouldn't necessarily have the same standards.
By the way, all zoos do this all the time, just the spotlight is currently on that particular zoo.
Post edited at 11:10
In reply to Indy:
Personally I wouldn't want lions in captivity - I derive no pleasure seeing wild animals in cages (be it nice looking cages or not).
As I said I find it very sad - and maybe I'm an idealist but I like (maybe incorrectly ) to think there is always an alternative to murder.
Personally I wouldn't want lions in captivity - I derive no pleasure seeing wild animals in cages (be it nice looking cages or not).
As I said I find it very sad - and maybe I'm an idealist but I like (maybe incorrectly ) to think there is always an alternative to murder.
In reply to MGC:
I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments. Except we do treat ALL domestic animals and many wild animals as commodities. Cows, sheep, rabbits sentenced to solitary confinment in hutches, chickens, pigs etc., can all be bought and sold for food. Wild animals & birds can be hunted - for money. If you want to buy or sell an animal you can. If you want to buy or sell your fishery quotas you can. Thousands of domestic animals are put down every year because "they're not wanted".
What is so different about a lion?
I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments. Except we do treat ALL domestic animals and many wild animals as commodities. Cows, sheep, rabbits sentenced to solitary confinment in hutches, chickens, pigs etc., can all be bought and sold for food. Wild animals & birds can be hunted - for money. If you want to buy or sell an animal you can. If you want to buy or sell your fishery quotas you can. Thousands of domestic animals are put down every year because "they're not wanted".
What is so different about a lion?
In reply to Dave Perry:
What is so different about a lion?
Nothing really - just an example (although I understand lions are sort of in short supply due to habitat destruction) .
The message is then - Might is right - who ever is top of the food chain eg humans, knows what's best for nature ???
Should I start from the proposition that whatever I can control , manipulate , use from my own ends is fair game (including humans ).
This leads to a very un-compassionate and heartless view of nature, that I sometimes understand, but that doesn't sit comfortably with my morals.
Suppose I'm just thinking aloud . I in no way disagree with the reply's so far .
What is so different about a lion?
Nothing really - just an example (although I understand lions are sort of in short supply due to habitat destruction) .
The message is then - Might is right - who ever is top of the food chain eg humans, knows what's best for nature ???
Should I start from the proposition that whatever I can control , manipulate , use from my own ends is fair game (including humans ).
This leads to a very un-compassionate and heartless view of nature, that I sometimes understand, but that doesn't sit comfortably with my morals.
Suppose I'm just thinking aloud . I in no way disagree with the reply's so far .
In reply to MGC:
but nature is heartless and un-compassionate. For most animals, most of their offspring die before adulthood. This was true for humans until relatively recently too... It is actually very unnatural for all offspring to have long and healthy lives.
All those dead offspring are what form the backbone of food chains - lions tend to go for young or weak prey, rather than the strongest or healthyest. Think of all the animals that those cubs would have eaten over their lifetimes that now don't have to be killed in order to feed them...
I read a thing once - it was about grendal, the monster in beowulf, written from grendal's point of view. He sees a baby bird, that has fallen out of the nest and is on the ground, chirping and dying. He says how kind nature is, to provide this meal for some old fox that would otherwise be incapable of hunting for a meal...
> The message is then - Might is right - who ever is top of the food chain eg humans, knows what's best for nature ???
> his leads to a very un-compassionate and heartless view of nature, that I sometimes understand, but that doesn't sit comfortably with my morals.
but nature is heartless and un-compassionate. For most animals, most of their offspring die before adulthood. This was true for humans until relatively recently too... It is actually very unnatural for all offspring to have long and healthy lives.
All those dead offspring are what form the backbone of food chains - lions tend to go for young or weak prey, rather than the strongest or healthyest. Think of all the animals that those cubs would have eaten over their lifetimes that now don't have to be killed in order to feed them...
I read a thing once - it was about grendal, the monster in beowulf, written from grendal's point of view. He sees a baby bird, that has fallen out of the nest and is on the ground, chirping and dying. He says how kind nature is, to provide this meal for some old fox that would otherwise be incapable of hunting for a meal...
In reply to tlm:
It does help to think of it this way - Let nature decide - and not humans
That sits better in my psyche.
I read a thing once - it was about grendal, the monster in beowulf, written from grendal's point of view. He sees a baby bird, that has fallen out of the nest and is on the ground, chirping and dying. He says how kind nature is, to provide this meal for some old fox that would otherwise be incapable of hunting for a meal.
The distinction here is the lions are not being killed and used for much needed food (just killed due to a lack of space) ?
Make a couple of burgers out of them and its not a bad thing ?
Honestly that would at least make it less wasteful.
It does help to think of it this way - Let nature decide - and not humans
That sits better in my psyche.
I read a thing once - it was about grendal, the monster in beowulf, written from grendal's point of view. He sees a baby bird, that has fallen out of the nest and is on the ground, chirping and dying. He says how kind nature is, to provide this meal for some old fox that would otherwise be incapable of hunting for a meal.
The distinction here is the lions are not being killed and used for much needed food (just killed due to a lack of space) ?
Make a couple of burgers out of them and its not a bad thing ?
Honestly that would at least make it less wasteful.
Post edited at 12:27
In reply to MGC:
Waste? Their molecules won't vanish - they might fertilize plants, or be eaten by bacteria or something - nothing is ever wasted in nature, it just all goes around in circles. Life isn't a linear thing, but a circular thing.
In nature, some animals die for 'senseless' reasons - they fall out of nests, or get ill, or are injured. The point is that nature isn't a planned, meaningful thing. It just is, and humans are part of it, not apart from it.
> The distinction here is the lions are not being killed and used for much needed food (just killed due to a lack of space) ?
Waste? Their molecules won't vanish - they might fertilize plants, or be eaten by bacteria or something - nothing is ever wasted in nature, it just all goes around in circles. Life isn't a linear thing, but a circular thing.
In nature, some animals die for 'senseless' reasons - they fall out of nests, or get ill, or are injured. The point is that nature isn't a planned, meaningful thing. It just is, and humans are part of it, not apart from it.
In reply to MGC:
A thought experiment. If we encountered alien life and they treated us in the way we treat animals, how would we feel? Lets be generous and assume they treat us like our best treated animals - domestic pets.
Assigned owners and confined to live within their house.
Neutered to make us less aggressive and to prevent breeding
Selected 'breeding stock' repeatedly impregnated, their young taken from them and sold.
A thought experiment. If we encountered alien life and they treated us in the way we treat animals, how would we feel? Lets be generous and assume they treat us like our best treated animals - domestic pets.
Assigned owners and confined to live within their house.
Neutered to make us less aggressive and to prevent breeding
Selected 'breeding stock' repeatedly impregnated, their young taken from them and sold.
In reply to Oujmik:
A thought experiment. If we encountered alien life and they treated us in the way lions treat animals, how would we feel?
Hunted, killed and eaten, youngest and sickest first.
A thought experiment. If we encountered alien life and they treated us in the way lions treat animals, how would we feel?
Hunted, killed and eaten, youngest and sickest first.
In reply to tlm:
The point is that nature isn't a planned, meaningful thing. It just is, and humans are part of it, not apart from it.
I would find it hard to except that nature isn't planned or meaningful - by planned I mean part of a greater scheme of evolution - a bit of a rabbit hole that one though.
Meaningful - if we take it as meaningless then I think we really are lost .
I allows for horrendous and unjustified actions due to lack of perspective.
I'm at present on the fence as to if there is any truth or its just observer based local truth.
Again thinking aloud
The point is that nature isn't a planned, meaningful thing. It just is, and humans are part of it, not apart from it.
I would find it hard to except that nature isn't planned or meaningful - by planned I mean part of a greater scheme of evolution - a bit of a rabbit hole that one though.
Meaningful - if we take it as meaningless then I think we really are lost .
I allows for horrendous and unjustified actions due to lack of perspective.
I'm at present on the fence as to if there is any truth or its just observer based local truth.
Again thinking aloud
In reply to MGC:
Evolution isn't planned, any more than water finding a level if you pour it onto an uneven surface is planned. It just obeys basic physical laws.
Well, that rather depends on what you mean by meaningful. Obviously things have meaning to individuals. Someone will be very upset if their own pet dog dies, but might not notice that 100 children died that day, as they don't know them. You might happily spray antibiotic spray and kill whole colonies of bacteria without a second thought, or might even feel happy at the thought of their deaths...
It depends on what you think of as horrendous and unjustified. Plenty of people think the death of bacteria is justified, and plenty of people think the death of the cubs was justified. We can't get rid of our individual consciences or morals - they are a part of being human, but they can vary a lot from one person to the next, depending on perspective. One person might think it is evil to show your hair, another might think it is evil to show your breasts, another might think it is evil to be naked, and another might think all of these are fine.
> I would find it hard to except that nature isn't planned or meaningful - by planned I mean part of a greater scheme of evolution - a bit of a rabbit hole that one though.
Evolution isn't planned, any more than water finding a level if you pour it onto an uneven surface is planned. It just obeys basic physical laws.
> Meaningful - if we take it as meaningless then I think we really are lost
Well, that rather depends on what you mean by meaningful. Obviously things have meaning to individuals. Someone will be very upset if their own pet dog dies, but might not notice that 100 children died that day, as they don't know them. You might happily spray antibiotic spray and kill whole colonies of bacteria without a second thought, or might even feel happy at the thought of their deaths...
> I allows for horrendous and unjustified actions due to lack of perspective.
It depends on what you think of as horrendous and unjustified. Plenty of people think the death of bacteria is justified, and plenty of people think the death of the cubs was justified. We can't get rid of our individual consciences or morals - they are a part of being human, but they can vary a lot from one person to the next, depending on perspective. One person might think it is evil to show your hair, another might think it is evil to show your breasts, another might think it is evil to be naked, and another might think all of these are fine.
In reply to MGC:
To a large part i agree with you, however i'm assuming from your posts that you do not keep pets, don't visit zoos and are a vegan, both dietry and lifestyle?
To a large part i agree with you, however i'm assuming from your posts that you do not keep pets, don't visit zoos and are a vegan, both dietry and lifestyle?
In reply to tlm:
I would argue that the physical laws of the materialistic universe are a plan /blueprint if you will (I'm a scientist by the way) . This could be just semantics though. Take it as you will.
Likewise there could be operational laws for the metaphysical universe - such as moral , ethical codes of conduct in advanced beings. These would be really very different from the materialistic laws. Some religions and philosophies have attempted this question with various degrees of success.
Depends if one is a pure materialist or not as to if these concepts are even debated or ignored.
I think a major stumbling block to further human development is the lack of understanding as to what we are and our place within the universe/ Nature.
I would argue that the physical laws of the materialistic universe are a plan /blueprint if you will (I'm a scientist by the way) . This could be just semantics though. Take it as you will.
Likewise there could be operational laws for the metaphysical universe - such as moral , ethical codes of conduct in advanced beings. These would be really very different from the materialistic laws. Some religions and philosophies have attempted this question with various degrees of success.
Depends if one is a pure materialist or not as to if these concepts are even debated or ignored.
I think a major stumbling block to further human development is the lack of understanding as to what we are and our place within the universe/ Nature.
In reply to tlm:
Okay, so you've established that lions eat other animals, I don't think you'll get much argument on that one. My experiment was purely designed to give some perspective on what we think of as 'good' treatment of animals.
Okay, so you've established that lions eat other animals, I don't think you'll get much argument on that one. My experiment was purely designed to give some perspective on what we think of as 'good' treatment of animals.
In reply to TomBaker:
The last known thylacine, the 'Tasmanian Tiger' died in Hobart Zoo on 7th September, 1936. These days every effort would be made to preserve the species
http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=4765
Hope for the Future?
The thylacine is the only mammal to have (possibly) become extinct in Tasmania since European settlement. This is in vivid contrast to mainland Australia, which has the worst record of mammalian extinctions of any country on Earth, with nearly 50% of its native mammals becoming extinct in the past 200 years. Tasmania is unique in that our fauna is abundant, and that the State acts as a refuge - a final hope -- for many species that have recently become extinct on mainland Australia.
Despite our wishes to have a perfect record, the lack of any hard evidence of the thylacine's continued existence supports the increasingly held notion that the species is extinct. Nonetheless, the incidence of sightings introduces a reluctance among some authorities to make empahatic statements on the status of the species. Even if there did exist a few remaining individuals, it is unlikely that such a tiny population would be able to maintain a sufficient genetic diversity to allow for the viable perpetuation of the species in the long-term.
Recent attention has been given to the possibility of cloning the species. However, it is very unlikely to be achievable from a single individual preserved in alchohol. Even if cloning were possible, it should be asked whether such effort and expense is justifiable when many other species are currently threatened with extinction, and when we allow the same processes that threatenen habitats and wildlife to continue.
Perhaps the lesson to be learned from the loss of the thylacine is to ensure that the rich natural heritage of our island State is no longer jeopardised.
The last known thylacine, the 'Tasmanian Tiger' died in Hobart Zoo on 7th September, 1936. These days every effort would be made to preserve the species
http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=4765
Hope for the Future?
The thylacine is the only mammal to have (possibly) become extinct in Tasmania since European settlement. This is in vivid contrast to mainland Australia, which has the worst record of mammalian extinctions of any country on Earth, with nearly 50% of its native mammals becoming extinct in the past 200 years. Tasmania is unique in that our fauna is abundant, and that the State acts as a refuge - a final hope -- for many species that have recently become extinct on mainland Australia.
Despite our wishes to have a perfect record, the lack of any hard evidence of the thylacine's continued existence supports the increasingly held notion that the species is extinct. Nonetheless, the incidence of sightings introduces a reluctance among some authorities to make empahatic statements on the status of the species. Even if there did exist a few remaining individuals, it is unlikely that such a tiny population would be able to maintain a sufficient genetic diversity to allow for the viable perpetuation of the species in the long-term.
Recent attention has been given to the possibility of cloning the species. However, it is very unlikely to be achievable from a single individual preserved in alchohol. Even if cloning were possible, it should be asked whether such effort and expense is justifiable when many other species are currently threatened with extinction, and when we allow the same processes that threatenen habitats and wildlife to continue.
Perhaps the lesson to be learned from the loss of the thylacine is to ensure that the rich natural heritage of our island State is no longer jeopardised.
Post edited at 14:12
In reply to TomBaker:
No I love animals - we have had a couple of dogs.
I also am not a vegetarian or vegan .
I just like to think a lot - sometimes this can be a bad thing , although finding out about other peoples perspectives is a valuable thing.
I like to think of it by allegory .
Imagine standing on a big hill and being able to see clearly in all directions, 360 degrees, once you can see like this , you can choose your direction of travel if any. Then you can converse with others sensibly about any chosen topic its merits and downfalls. without this view of the intellectual horizon we aren't even aware of the 360 degree view point.
Not being able to think along any lines of inquiry limits our understanding
.
This is why I enjoy many topics that aren't always in my comfort zone - It enables me to understand more about myself - others as well
Its all meant in the most innocent attempt at understanding .
No I love animals - we have had a couple of dogs.
I also am not a vegetarian or vegan .
I just like to think a lot - sometimes this can be a bad thing , although finding out about other peoples perspectives is a valuable thing.
I like to think of it by allegory .
Imagine standing on a big hill and being able to see clearly in all directions, 360 degrees, once you can see like this , you can choose your direction of travel if any. Then you can converse with others sensibly about any chosen topic its merits and downfalls. without this view of the intellectual horizon we aren't even aware of the 360 degree view point.
Not being able to think along any lines of inquiry limits our understanding
.
This is why I enjoy many topics that aren't always in my comfort zone - It enables me to understand more about myself - others as well
Its all meant in the most innocent attempt at understanding .
In reply to Oujmik:
Don't you need to factor in the awareness of the animals, too?
Gorillas in an enclosure with environment enrichment, as far as we know, lack the ability to figure out that they're not in their natural environment, and are still able to be happy, where as human would able to be aware of the fact that they were being kept as pets, and not free.
In theory, if we weren't aware of the fact, if some aliens managed to keep us as pets and we didn't know and were happy about it, using the logic we apply to animals, that would be okay.
I find that thought thought provoking.
> Okay, so you've established that lions eat other animals, I don't think you'll get much argument on that one. My experiment was purely designed to give some perspective on what we think of as 'good' treatment of animals.
Don't you need to factor in the awareness of the animals, too?
Gorillas in an enclosure with environment enrichment, as far as we know, lack the ability to figure out that they're not in their natural environment, and are still able to be happy, where as human would able to be aware of the fact that they were being kept as pets, and not free.
In theory, if we weren't aware of the fact, if some aliens managed to keep us as pets and we didn't know and were happy about it, using the logic we apply to animals, that would be okay.
I find that thought thought provoking.
Post edited at 16:25
In reply to Timmd:
'In theory, if we weren't aware of the fact, if some aliens managed to keep us as pets and we didn't know and were happy about it, using the logic we apply to animals, that would be okay.'
Isn't that where we are?
'In theory, if we weren't aware of the fact, if some aliens managed to keep us as pets and we didn't know and were happy about it, using the logic we apply to animals, that would be okay.'
Isn't that where we are?
In reply to Oujmik:
When we did have a cat, it was free to come and go whenever it wanted to. It chose to generally spend time around us...
Free food, medical treatment, heating, company. Why on earth didn't it just go off to live in the wild with the other feral cats?
> Okay, so you've established that lions eat other animals, I don't think you'll get much argument on that one. My experiment was purely designed to give some perspective on what we think of as 'good' treatment of animals.
When we did have a cat, it was free to come and go whenever it wanted to. It chose to generally spend time around us...
Free food, medical treatment, heating, company. Why on earth didn't it just go off to live in the wild with the other feral cats?
In reply to MGC:
ok based on this your current lifestyle very much treats animals as a commodity.
Any animal grown for food or for clothing is being treated very much as such. Pets are not really any different.
Therefore why should lions be treated any different to cows?
ok based on this your current lifestyle very much treats animals as a commodity.
Any animal grown for food or for clothing is being treated very much as such. Pets are not really any different.
Therefore why should lions be treated any different to cows?
In reply to thomasadixon:
We try and work out how much they're aware of/how they experience things, so that if we keep them, they're happy.
Possibly 'logic' was an incorrect word...
> What's the logic we apply to mammals?
We try and work out how much they're aware of/how they experience things, so that if we keep them, they're happy.
Possibly 'logic' was an incorrect word...
Post edited at 18:54
In reply to TomBaker:
Again the example is that there are millions of cats , sheep, cows,chickens etc
and they have been selectively produced to be commodities.
I understand that lions are in short supply in comparison - due to habitat destruction . This alone makes me think twice before murdering a family unit over money/space issues.
Perhaps this would be totally different if we bread lions for food and had domesticated them to our needs. There would be so many it wouldn't be a issue.
Should we not even question the motives ?
This is the way it has been and this is the way it should stay ???
Again the example is that there are millions of cats , sheep, cows,chickens etc
and they have been selectively produced to be commodities.
I understand that lions are in short supply in comparison - due to habitat destruction . This alone makes me think twice before murdering a family unit over money/space issues.
Perhaps this would be totally different if we bread lions for food and had domesticated them to our needs. There would be so many it wouldn't be a issue.
Should we not even question the motives ?
This is the way it has been and this is the way it should stay ???
In reply to MGC:
Are you prepared to offer the money or/and space required to house the lions?
If not, who do you think should pay for these?
> I understand that lions are in short supply in comparison - due to habitat destruction . This alone makes me think twice before murdering a family unit over money/space issues.
Are you prepared to offer the money or/and space required to house the lions?
If not, who do you think should pay for these?
In reply to tlm:
I might have donated to the cause YES !
I'm sure there would be some charities that would contribute to keeping them alive given the option ( it just wasn't reported much) and if not so be it - it would probably be a small sum compared to what people pay for later trying to bring a species back from extinction. Remember they killed two cubs only 10 months old. bravo human's standing ovation
People seam so keen on death as the only option - with the opinion there's only room in the world for people and what they can manipulate and use for their own ends .I find that strange and quite alien.
Ho hum - They are dead anyway now - so I guess they wont trouble anyone again with living .
My final thoughts.
I might have donated to the cause YES !
I'm sure there would be some charities that would contribute to keeping them alive given the option ( it just wasn't reported much) and if not so be it - it would probably be a small sum compared to what people pay for later trying to bring a species back from extinction. Remember they killed two cubs only 10 months old. bravo human's standing ovation
People seam so keen on death as the only option - with the opinion there's only room in the world for people and what they can manipulate and use for their own ends .I find that strange and quite alien.
Ho hum - They are dead anyway now - so I guess they wont trouble anyone again with living .
My final thoughts.
In reply to MGC:
You still could donate to the cause - what is stopping you? If you think that zoo needs more money, then give them some of yours...
I'm not all for unnecessary death, but I think we overdo the importance of it. After all, there is no avoiding death. If the cubs hadn't been killed then, they still would have died one day. I think quality of life is more important than the particular date you die on - what you do with your life, or how good life for those lions is when they are alive...
You still could donate to the cause - what is stopping you? If you think that zoo needs more money, then give them some of yours...
I'm not all for unnecessary death, but I think we overdo the importance of it. After all, there is no avoiding death. If the cubs hadn't been killed then, they still would have died one day. I think quality of life is more important than the particular date you die on - what you do with your life, or how good life for those lions is when they are alive...
In reply to Timmd:
An interesting question and thought provoking indeed. I think perhaps awareness is important to an extent, but its not clear cut.
Certainly in your scenario (that we are the pets of aliens but we're not aware of it) my first thought is 'I guess that's okay then'. But that response is based on not knowing what it would be like if we were not the aliens' pets. Perhaps these aliens are actually responsible for all war on this planet, starting trouble just for their own entertainment. Perhaps they justify this to themselves by saying 'it's not cruel on the humans, as they've never known anything else'.
Similarly if I was born and raised in an Austrian basement and the greatest joy I knew was when I had pleased the master and he gave me my 'reward' would that be okay? Perhaps I would be happy because I had won the approval of the most important figure in my life, but does that make what the master is doing acceptable?
In response to the point about cats, I'm not saying pet keeping is cruel per se and I know a lot of people care deeply about their pets. Of course there's a lot in it for the animal in many cases and cats would be the first to bugger off if they didn't fancy it.
You may be surprised to learn that I actually agree with the 'why should lions be any different to cows' sentiment. I am not sure why the number of any particular animal in existence should be important in our decision as to how we treat any individual. Why is it okay to kill individuals as long as we don't kill the species? And the 'we bred them so we can kill them' doesn't hold much water with me either I'm afraid. I have no belief in god, but there is something I find deeply disturbing about humanity ascribing itself the right 'to give life, and to take it away'.
An interesting question and thought provoking indeed. I think perhaps awareness is important to an extent, but its not clear cut.
Certainly in your scenario (that we are the pets of aliens but we're not aware of it) my first thought is 'I guess that's okay then'. But that response is based on not knowing what it would be like if we were not the aliens' pets. Perhaps these aliens are actually responsible for all war on this planet, starting trouble just for their own entertainment. Perhaps they justify this to themselves by saying 'it's not cruel on the humans, as they've never known anything else'.
Similarly if I was born and raised in an Austrian basement and the greatest joy I knew was when I had pleased the master and he gave me my 'reward' would that be okay? Perhaps I would be happy because I had won the approval of the most important figure in my life, but does that make what the master is doing acceptable?
In response to the point about cats, I'm not saying pet keeping is cruel per se and I know a lot of people care deeply about their pets. Of course there's a lot in it for the animal in many cases and cats would be the first to bugger off if they didn't fancy it.
You may be surprised to learn that I actually agree with the 'why should lions be any different to cows' sentiment. I am not sure why the number of any particular animal in existence should be important in our decision as to how we treat any individual. Why is it okay to kill individuals as long as we don't kill the species? And the 'we bred them so we can kill them' doesn't hold much water with me either I'm afraid. I have no belief in god, but there is something I find deeply disturbing about humanity ascribing itself the right 'to give life, and to take it away'.
In reply to MGC:
Short supply in comparison is very different to short supply, wild Lions are considered Vunerable.
"Vulnerability is mainly caused by habitat loss or destruction. Vulnerable species are monitored and are becoming threatened. However, some species listed as "vulnerable" may in fact be quite common in captivity"
So in short there may well be too many in captivity, there are lots in the wild still but currently declining. If you were to donate to keeping zoo lions alive you're throwing away money that would be far better spent ensuring the wild population halts its decline.
Short supply in comparison is very different to short supply, wild Lions are considered Vunerable.
"Vulnerability is mainly caused by habitat loss or destruction. Vulnerable species are monitored and are becoming threatened. However, some species listed as "vulnerable" may in fact be quite common in captivity"
So in short there may well be too many in captivity, there are lots in the wild still but currently declining. If you were to donate to keeping zoo lions alive you're throwing away money that would be far better spent ensuring the wild population halts its decline.
In reply to MGC:
Actually, depending on what sub-species they were, I don't think lions are that scarce, so I'm not sure the conservation angle is such an issue - especially if habitat destruction is the real issue.
However, I do question the motives of allowing them to breed in captivity without a clear plan as to what was to happen to the cubs. Reputable zoos cooperate in captive breeding programmes to ensure genetic diversity and many sign up to agreements that they won't dispose of animal to non-accredited private zoos. Contraception is routinely used for many zoo animals, so you have to wonder why not in this case.
One rather unsavoury consideration is that baby animals increase visitor numbers. There have been suggestions in a number of cases that animals have been allowed to breed to provide cuddly babies, with the offspring being cynically euthanised later (google the Edinburgh Zoo 'save the hogs' controversy). Of course, the Daily Mail usually blames it all on EU quotas!
> (In reply to TomBaker)
>
>
> I understand that lions are in short supply in comparison - due to habitat destruction . This alone makes me think twice before murdering a family unit over money/space issues.
>
> Should we not even question the motives ?
>
> Should we not even question the motives ?
Actually, depending on what sub-species they were, I don't think lions are that scarce, so I'm not sure the conservation angle is such an issue - especially if habitat destruction is the real issue.
However, I do question the motives of allowing them to breed in captivity without a clear plan as to what was to happen to the cubs. Reputable zoos cooperate in captive breeding programmes to ensure genetic diversity and many sign up to agreements that they won't dispose of animal to non-accredited private zoos. Contraception is routinely used for many zoo animals, so you have to wonder why not in this case.
One rather unsavoury consideration is that baby animals increase visitor numbers. There have been suggestions in a number of cases that animals have been allowed to breed to provide cuddly babies, with the offspring being cynically euthanised later (google the Edinburgh Zoo 'save the hogs' controversy). Of course, the Daily Mail usually blames it all on EU quotas!
In reply to Oujmik:
I think a key thing is that at the moment, we are incapable of creating lion DNA. Only lions can do that. So if we get rid of a species, we get rid of the DNA and reduce the gene pool. This then means that if the environment changes, there is less likely to be DNA around that can deal with the new environment.
Just like with plant crops - we've bred and bred a few varieties of wheat to the extent that they become very vulnerable to disease, and if they all die off, we might be left with nothing to replace them.
> You may be surprised to learn that I actually agree with the 'why should lions be any different to cows' sentiment. I am not sure why the number of any particular animal in existence should be important in our decision as to how we treat any individual.
I think a key thing is that at the moment, we are incapable of creating lion DNA. Only lions can do that. So if we get rid of a species, we get rid of the DNA and reduce the gene pool. This then means that if the environment changes, there is less likely to be DNA around that can deal with the new environment.
Just like with plant crops - we've bred and bred a few varieties of wheat to the extent that they become very vulnerable to disease, and if they all die off, we might be left with nothing to replace them.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...