Zoo's good or bad?

htid said:
I keep saying it but at the basic level it comes back to two things (which cobra will class as anthropomorphism). 1) would I want it to happen to me? If not I shouldn't force it on something else and 2) is there an alternative to death? If there is, the only reason to choose death is because you want the taste/texture at the expense of a life.
Click to expand...

That is a rather simplified outlook.
Would you have all big cats/predators destroyed because they kill to survive, the prey animals obviously don't enjoy being killed for food, so where does the destruction of life end,
you can't force a lion to become a vegan
You also have to remember that it isn't only humans that kill for reasons other then survival, some monkeys, chimps for example are known to hunt and kill their own kind in a mob like
way
 
htid said:
It won't start a war as far as I'm concerned but unfortunately I'm that type of person. If I could, I'd have a dictatorship where everybody is forced to be vegan, but that's because I value an animals right to life above a human's right to eat a meal just because they want it and like the taste. When it comes to opinion, one such as mine that gives more rights to more things is more valid than one that gives less rights. That's how I see a civilised and constantly evolving society anyway. I don't know how providing less rights can be seen as a positive thing unless there is reason for rights to be taken away. The inherent right to live without being killed should be a basic right of everything on the planet. This obviously can't be applied to other animal predators as they NEED to eat meat and have no alternatives. But if rights can be given and we have the mental capacity to give them, how can it be seen as worse to give them?

I keep saying it but at the basic level it comes back to two things (which cobra will class as anthropomorphism). 1) would I want it to happen to me? If not I shouldn't force it on something else and 2) is there an alternative to death? If there is, the only reason to choose death is because you want the taste/texture at the expense of a life.
Click to expand...
Sorry but wars have been fought to stop such a world evolving, no one view should override all others against their will.
I care about animal welfare and conservation a lot, but I can't agree that we all have to do as we're told, that's not democracy and dictatorships do not belong in our world, the current wars and mass terrorism around the world right now surely make that obvious and intolerable in the modern world.
You may want a world where one rule is for all but I will never agree with that Philosophy I'm afraid.
I decide what I eat and what I believe in and as long as I'm within the law, that's how it will stay.
 
Gremlin said:
That is a rather simplified outlook.
Would you have all big cats/predators destroyed because they kill to survive, the prey animals obviously don't enjoy being killed for food, so where does the destruction of life end,
you can't force a lion to become a vegan
You also have to remember that it isn't only humans that kill for reasons other then survival, some monkeys, chimps for example are known to hunt and kill their own kind in a mob like
way
Click to expand...
I agree and this is where most if not all radical arguments break down. The contra argument often becomes untenable because in real terms it is a contradiction somewhere down the line.
 
htid said:
It won't start a war as far as I'm concerned but unfortunately I'm that type of person. If I could, I'd have a dictatorship where everybody is forced to be vegan, but that's because I value an animals right to life above a human's right to eat a meal just because they want it and like the taste. When it comes to opinion, one such as mine that gives more rights to more things is more valid than one that gives less rights. That's how I see a civilised and constantly evolving society anyway. I don't know how providing less rights can be seen as a positive thing unless there is reason for rights to be taken away. The inherent right to live without being killed should be a basic right of everything on the planet. This obviously can't be applied to other animal predators as they NEED to eat meat and have no alternatives. But if rights can be given and we have the mental capacity to give them, how can it be seen as worse to give them?

I keep saying it but at the basic level it comes back to two things (which cobra will class as anthropomorphism). 1) would I want it to happen to me? If not I shouldn't force it on something else and 2) is there an alternative to death? If there is, the only reason to choose death is because you want the taste/texture at the expense of a life.
Click to expand...

So You'll force veganism on everyone....yet no one forces their eating habits on you. Hmmm.

You don't respect the rights of all animals above humans as you've already so ably demonstrated.
Forced ai is rape, but forced castration/sterilisation is perfectly OK?

Forcing the eradication of many many species to suit your so called ideals is just as barbaric as the systems of farming already in place.

I'm sorry, but your constant conflicting arguments make them impossible to take seriously.
Without the contradictions you might make valid points for discussion, but sadly that's not the case here.
 
Unfortunately, I agree Ruth.

He does make some good points which need to be discussed.

As I said earlier, the use of emotive anthropomorsism, whether or not he perceives it to be that, simply puts people off.

If the case could be put forward with logic and supported evidence people would, I believe, be willing to listen.

Further, there is the problem of the western, colonialist mind set. There are many societies that rely heavily on animal husbandry. Perhaps we should "educate" them out of that 10,000 year lifestyle.
 
Interesting that someone mentioned Paradise Wildlife

http://www.enforbusiness.com/feature/zoos

Peter Sampson bought Broxbourne Zoo in Hertfordshire in 1984 for £100,000 when it had a reputation as one of the worst zoos in Britain.
The Sampson family gave the zoo a new name – Paradise Wildlife – and invested in developing the site’s reputation as a zoo dedicated to the conservation and preservation of rare and endangered animals.
Now it turns over around £3 million and generates a profit of around £400,000 from its 200,000 visitors a year – all of which is reinvested in the business. Sampson says that profit could easily be increased to £600,000 by a purely profit motivated operator.
Sampson’s accountants have put a value on the zoo of £5 million: “The sad thing is I know I’d get four or five times that amount if I put it on the market as a development site for someone to build houses on. Sometimes that makes you wonder why you bother.”
Click to expand...
 
Chris, in the natural course of things, humans are the most intelligent and as a consequence, the fittest & strongest (by use of tools etc) so what happens to other species is entirely dependant on us. As such the farming of animals, the controlled breeding and the keeping of specific species to stop their extinction is natural. You personally may not like it, but that's just the way it is.

Our own offspring need to be educated not to over fish/farm/hunt animals to extinction, and to make sure that our wild animals have the right habitat to survive. That's the next step in our evolution.
 
Zoos and Game Parks are essential for breeding and protecting endangered species

There are only 3 Northern White Rhinos left, other Rhinos in Java etc., are in similar positions with their numbers dwindling - I don't see how we can protect them until attitudes change and they can be release back into the wild.

Quite a few species which have been reduced to very small numbers were bred in captivity before being released back into the wild and such was part of a successful breeding programme
 
Condors are a prime example.
Almost eradicated because if humans, yet saved by them too.
 
BBR said:
In my experience 'vegans' are best avoided. That is all I'm saying.
Click to expand...
The few face to face discussions with vegans that I have met, have certainly been interesting.
 
it's pretty sad that Seaworld have used a post informing that Tilikum is very ill, as a way to blow their own trumpet and sing the praises of their own care of orcas

https://seaworldcares.com/2016/03/caring-for-tilikum-the-killer-whale/

"he has received the best in marine mammal health care and life enrichment available for killer whales – including a focus on his physical health, mental engagement and social activity with other whales." - I could see them just about being able to justify claiming this for a captive bred orca - but given he was captured from the ocean near Iceland in 1983 (even if it wasnt by them), and given his history, it's pretty bold of them to write such a thing i think.

Either way, very sad.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...aworld-orlando-killer-whale-trainer-blackfish
 
Indeed. Not that I doubt the keepers efforts to maintain the health and wellbeing of said Orca while in their care.

It's the "best......available for killer whales" bit that to me is at least somewhat conceited. If they were to add the word 'captive', then perhaps they'd have a point.
 
Breaking news on the Seaworld front - PR is still very back slapping but at least its a start. i wont go again but at least the orca wont be subjected to the breeding procedures of the past. I know its done so they are hoping some people will come back to Seaworld because they 'forgive them' or think its the 'last chance' - it may be the best we can get. ive never wanted Seaworld to close as that could risk the other animals, it was too much of a 'black and white' take on things.

https://seaworldcares.com/2016/03/Breaking-News-The-Last-Generation-of-Orcas-at-SeaWorld/

now something needs to be done to try and help Morgan in Tenerife and Lolita in Miami, among others. Morgan is recently 'captured' so potentially to go back to her family - and Lolita just needs to stop performing and live in a MUCH bigger tank and perhaps get to meet other orcas, but transporting her might not be a good idea. dont know, but at the very least needs bigger tank and to be retired.
 
dan_yell said:
Short, but might be of interest
Click to expand...
Cheers. Zoochat have a good thread going on this and predicted this kind of reaction; ie Born Free and others see this as a victory and the first step to closing all zoos (I've simplified that myself)
But as the elephant example at the end of that clip exemplifies, Born Free and WAZA (and all other groups on either side) can be very selective in presenting 'facts' to support their arguments.
 
nickEnackEnoo said:
and all other groups on either side) can be very selective in presenting 'facts' to support their arguments.
Click to expand...
Very true of all subjects, not just zoo's
TBH these groups can't have it "always" they have to make a stance, "We" either protect all forms of wildlife the best we can or know how, or we don't interfere and let nature take its course.
However, I know that's a very simplistic view as "we" have been responsible for damage to much of the wild habitat, one way or another, from logging the rain forests to polluting the barrier reef.
 
I've been reading some of the comments on Seaworlds posts about this news (and resisting the urge to comment as i dont like commenting on public pages as facebook is a stalker) and the amount of people that think orcas are endangered and thats why they are in places like seaworld is quite staggering - which i think itself is proof of the power of misinformation by some zoos and wildlife parks. They were never endangered, just fascinating. I don't know if it signifies closing all zoos - but def to question why certain animals are there (why not apply the seaworld orca rule to the dolphins and begulas they have? or seals? or penguins?) - the Maui dolphin, native to NZ, there are only around 50 left - but hardly anyone has heard of them!

This is also an interesting piece by Dr Naomi Rose (why is that name so hard to spell for me??!) who has been campaigning against cetaceans in captivity since 1993 and is a good balanced comment on things (met her once at 'Whalefest' in Brighton - interesting lady)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...he-first-step-on-a-long-road/article29273417/
 
htid said:
If I had the resources to do that kind of thing, I would. I do go on protest marches amongst other things but sadly I can't do everything.

I don't want to offend anybody because that doesn't help anything, but since you've asked me questions, I'll reply. The trouble with your viewpoint is that it's very human centric. Contrary to what we may believe, we are not the centre of the universe and the only real reason it seems that we want to conserve things is for the future benefit of humans (our children). I couldn't care in the slightest if future generations never see these wild animals as long as the animals have died out due to natural means and not because of humans. I want animals to survive or die out based on the rules of natural selection and without human interference. It all comes back to "would I want this to happen to me?". Would I want to be imprisoned in a zoo for the rest of my life for the future of our species? No. Does a captive lynx care that it is helping towards the future survival of the species? I care about the individual not the species. They each have feelings and emotions and it should not be for us to decide which members will be imprisoned for the survival of the species as a whole.

FWIW I agree with the milk thing but then again I would rather cows die out (naturally, as in no more are bred) and nobody has milk as I'm vegan. Animals should not be our slaves.
Click to expand...

The trouble with your viewpoint is you clearly only care about animals with faces.

Sod the ant, the beetle and the millions of other animals that die just so you can type your self-righteous diatribe. Animals die all the time, so you can shoot your photographs and type on your computer; you just don't care because they aren't cows, sheep etc who have faces.

You also want animals to survive or die based on the rules of natural selection yet the same is not true of you. You are alive because we beat natural selection; we beat it through medicine, science and modern technology.

Finally, why do you personify emotions onto animals? They are animals, not humans.
 
inkiboo said:
The trouble with your viewpoint is you clearly only care about animals with faces.

Sod the ant, the beetle and the millions of other animals that die just so you can type your self-righteous diatribe. Animals die all the time, so you can shoot your photographs and type on your computer; you just don't care because they aren't cows, sheep etc who have faces.

You also want animals to survive or die based on the rules of natural selection yet the same is not true of you. You are alive because we beat natural selection; we beat it through medicine, science and modern technology.

Finally, why do you personify emotions onto animals? They are animals, not humans.
Click to expand...

Humans ARE animals. But as I said I'm out of this so I'm not going to reply any more than that.

Also, don't presume to know which animals I and do not care about. You don't know me. An ant or beetle has the same right to life as any other living thing.
 
Last edited:
@inkiboo I think you are a little harsh there. @htid has made valid points, but some extreme points too that I wouldn't support. Obviously, all in my humble opinion.
 
htid said:
Also, don't presume to know which animals I and do not care about. You don't know me. An ant or beetle has the same right to life as any other living thing.
Click to expand...

And this is where your viewpoint is just nonsense.

You have decided that certain animals can die to support your lifestyle but you moan when others draw the line differently to you.

You could make changes in your life that resulted in less animals dying. But you choose not to for your benefit, so please do not sit there and judge when others decide to eat meat, wear leather etc.
 
inkiboo said:
And this is where your viewpoint is just nonsense.

You have decided that certain animals can die to support your lifestyle but you moan when others draw the line differently to you.

You could make changes in your life that resulted in less animals dying. But you choose not to for your benefit, so please do not sit there and judge when others decide to eat meat, wear leather etc.
Click to expand...

Do you really think that's a logical argument? I assume you believe in stopping world poverty/hunger. Do you, then, give every spare pound you have towards solving this problem? Have you changed your entire lifestyle to that end? No. But as somebody who I assume cares about African children dieing of starvation, would you judge somebody who went over there and sat in front of starving children whilst eating lots of food gloating and saying "ha look at what I have, I don't care if you die"? Would you feel morally superior to that person? I'm sure you would. (If you say no I won't believe you anyway, you'd only be saying it to try and be consistent).

In the same way, just because I don't kill myself to avoid causing unnecessary suffering to any living thing, does not mean I can't judge others for doing nothing at all.
 
I'm not advocating your position, you are. You berate others for killing animals when by your very existence and the choices you make, you kill animals too.

Life is not binary as you seem to be making out.
 
Sorry for quoting this from another forum, but this sounded pretty preposterous at first
The biggest danger to wildlife today is that wild animals will be delegated into a fantasy world together with dinosaurs, aliens and wizards, and the public will entertain itself with computer-generated imagery and other artificial products without bothering about destruction of nature.
Click to expand...
But actually, having been brought up 5 minutes from farmland, it wasn't until I was about 30 and living in London that I heard first hand that some people a little younger than me had never seen real cows and sheep! It's quite scary really.
 
inkiboo said:
I'm not advocating your position, you are. You berate others for killing animals when by your very existence and the choices you make, you kill animals too.

Life is not binary as you seem to be making out.
Click to expand...

No you're making it binary. All or nothing. Eat meat or kill myself. Obviously we'll never agree which is why I quit this thread in the first place.

And for the record I do care about things without faces...vegans don't have honey, shellac, cochineal etc.
 
nickEnackEnoo said:
it wasn't until I was about 30 and living in London that I heard first hand that some people a little younger than me had never seen real cows and sheep! It's quite scary really.
Click to expand...
I've mentioned this a few times in the past, but not sure if it was also in this thread or not,
The MK Concrete cows are quite a source of amusement, however, the planners / developers had them commissioned, so that future generations wouldn't forget
what a cow looked like as, approx 35 square miles of farmland and countryside disappeared under erm ... concrete.
 
Cobra said:
I've mentioned this a few times in the past, but not sure if it was also in this thread or not,
The MK Concrete cows are quite a source of amusement, however, the planners / developers had them commissioned, so that future generations wouldn't forget
what a cow looked like as, approx 35 square miles of farmland and countryside disappeared under erm ... concrete.
Click to expand...
Ha, according to wiki :cautious: that is one interpretation, held by people that didn't know the place ;)
 
nickEnackEnoo said:
Ha, according to wiki :cautious: that is one interpretation, held by people that didn't know the place ;)
Click to expand...
Ah but actually its true, I heard that from the horses one of the planners mouths,
who I also p***ed off by calling ( to his face) the snow dome, or the Xscape building, as it was later known, "That giant slug" ( as its known locally :D )

Another very true anecdote, You remember the foot and mouth outbreak 2007 ( I think it was?)
There is a footpath that runs through the field that the concrete cows are in, beyond that, there were a few sheep grazing, they put up a Quarantine notice,
on the foot path style, for the field.
So yep, you guessed it, they effectively quarantined the concrete cows :D
 
Last edited:
htid said:
An ant or beetle has the same right to life as any other living thing.
Click to expand...

Except any kind of domestic farm animal, apparently. o_O
 
viv1969 said:
Except any kind of domestic farm animal, apparently. o_O
Click to expand...
Last time I looked Plants were living things too.
They grow, they re-act to stimuli, ...
 
Cobra said:
Last time I looked Plants were living things too.
They grow, they re-act to stimuli, ...
Click to expand...

I also hope he doesn't have any plywood in his home, or paint.
 
viv1969 said:
Except any kind of domestic farm animal, apparently. o_O
Click to expand...

Are we still doing this? Ooook...

When did I say domestic farm animals don't have a right to life or should be killed? That is totally against my ethics and so not something I've ever said.

As for the plywood/paint thing. I never claimed to be a perfect vegan who has zero impact on any living animal, but just so you know, when veganism was 'invented' by the vegan society in 1977, the definition was set up as:

"A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

Either way, I didn't know about those things containing animal products and now I do. You live and learn and I will in future no longer buy these products if they contain animal products. But are you really telling me that trying as hard as you can to cut out cruelty and death is worse than what you do, being complict in it? You seem adamant to try and 'win' this argument but there's no winning from an ethical and moral point of view. The way I live my life is more ethical and moral than the way you live yours (unless you're vegan and have just being playing devil's advocate the whole time which I very much doubt). What are you trying to prove or what argument are you trying to win by posting?

@Cobra OK fair enough, living things not including plants etc. You know what I mean without me having to make it abundantly clear.
 
Yeah but it's still this kind of statement....

htid said:
If I could, I'd have a dictatorship where everybody is forced to be vegan
Click to expand...

.....that highlights your general ignorance and ultimate selfishness towards anyone who doesn't share your lifestyle choices; choices which are impossible to truly adhere to.
The two examples I used were the tip of the iceberg. Your home is filled with items containing animal derivatives, not to mention everywhere you choose to work or visit.

Oh and as far as ethics go....I'm assuming these ethics in question are yours, so again with the dictating.
 
Last edited:
not to mention that if everyone was vegan all the farm animals would be killed because farmers wouldnt be able to afford to keep them with no income

(since this doesnt appear to be about photography anymore might i suggest a move to OOF or hot topics)
 
htid said:
"A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
Click to expand...
I could be wrong here, but that sounds like a vegetarian definition to me.
I was under the impression the vegans removed all animal products and by products from their lives?


big soft moose said:
(since this doesnt appear to be about photography anymore might i suggest a move to OOF or hot topics
Click to expand...
It never was about photography, but captive animals, & animals per se that's why I split it in the first place.
We are talking nature at its basic form, "talk nature" seems fair enough to me.
 
big soft moose said:
not to mention that if everyone was vegan all the farm animals would be killed because farmers wouldnt be able to afford to keep them with no income

(since this doesnt appear to be about photography anymore might i suggest a move to OOF or hot topics)
Click to expand...

Oh no no. The vegan would afford them every right....by interring them, castrating / sterilising them until the demise of the species.
 
viv1969 said:
castrating / sterilising
Click to expand...
No, as already mentioned, that apparently is rape or some other sexual crime.
And completely abhorrent to the vegan way of life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top