|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Animal Rights Hypocrisy
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
A city in California bans exotic animal displays
This line from the article
quote:
West Hollywood has long been known for its animal-friendly laws. Pets are formally recognized as “companions” and their owners as “guardians.
struck me as massively incongruous.
I posit that if one take the extreme position which PETA and similar take, that they are hypocrites if they have, or condone having, dogs and cats or other domesticated animals.
Note: I am not anti-pet/animal companion.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I posit that if one take the extreme position which PETA and similar take, that they are hypocrites if they have, or condone having, dogs and cats or other domesticated animals.
Dogs and cats are usually not classified as "exotics". I'm not sure how that relates to the linked story.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I am saying the logic used regarding the keeping/treatment of exotic animals could easily be applied to cats and dogs. And that the euphamism "companion" is a flimsy workaround.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am saying the logic used regarding the keeping/treatment of exotic animals could easily be applied to cats and dogs. And that the euphamism "companion" is a flimsy workaround.
I'm pretty sure the argument that the exotic animal trade can provide a financial incentive to violate endangered/threatened species protections don't apply to dogs or cats.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
There are problems with exotic animals that do not occur with dogs and cats. I am not arguing this.
I am arguing PETA philosophy also should preclude cats and dogs.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
The ordinance you cite as objectionable lists two main objectives:
- [T]o protect the public from the hazards and dangers that are inherent in the use of wild and exotic animals for entertainment and amusement purposes
- [T]o also protect animals form cruel and inhumane treatment from errant trainers and caretakers
Contrary to your assertion, there are both significant dangers to the public and much greater caretaking difficulties associated with the commercial display of (for example) a bengal tiger than there is with the private ownership of a domestic cat. I'm not seeing this as unreasonable, nor am I seeing how these two objectives are equally applicable to typical forms of dog or cat ownership.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I posit that if one take the extreme position which PETA and similar take, that they are hypocrites if they have, or condone having, dogs and cats or other domesticated animals.
The problem is that domesticated animals have been bred to depend on human beings. Without people, they would not survive.
Exotic animals that grew up in the wild can take care of themselves if they are returned to their natural environment. Cats, dogs, cattle, etc. cannot take care of themselves.
I suspect that PETA would say that domestication was a crime to begin with, but that's water over the dam. These animals now depend on human beings.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
That's undoubtedly true, but I suspect lilBuddha is questioning the premises of the basic longstanding relationship between humans and animals.
1. Many of us eat animals, both wild and domesticated.
2. We use/have used both wild and domesticated animals for transport.
3. We use/have used domesticated animals as work partners; wild ones appear more rarely in this role.
4. We use both wild and domesticated animals as companions.
5. We put both wild and domesticated animals on display as a form of "edutainment."
To none of this do animals give consent, since they can't. Of course, a domestic tabby or terrier born into a human-dominated environment, fed every day and given a warm spot by the woodstove, might well choose captivity over any alternative, but when is it given that choice?
To pretend that "exotic" animals should be exempt from such considerations ignores the fact that one mammal specie has already assumed significant and unilateral control over many others along with a few birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and insects. It seems, well, a bit precious.
We've been altering animals' physical surroundings and changing their habits since hunter-gatherer days, and now we worry about their welfare?
This is especially true when we make such paltry efforts to control those members of our own specie busy shooting, trapping, poaching, skinning, de-horning, and otherwise mutilating endangered creatures for the sake of fast bucks from the quack medicine and aphrodisiacs trade.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
We've been altering animals' physical surroundings and changing their habits since hunter-gatherer days, and now we worry about their welfare?
I think you'll find that most jurisdictions have laws against mistreating domestic animals, and have for some time.
PS the singular of "species" is "species."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
PETA uses mistreatment by some wool producers to condemn the industry. So it is logical to condemn pet ownership due to the abuse of many pets by people. One example.
Yes, domestic animals such as cats and dogs would have difficulty in the wild. The solution to this is to cease breeding them and let these unnatural species die out. They serve no purpose to the environment.
If one purports animals have the same right as people, it should carry through completely.
Stating once again, I am not arguing against pets. Simply applying activist logic to their keeping of pets.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Be sure not to lump all animal rights activists with PETA. Most everybody who isn't actually in PETA think they're fucking nuts.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Be sure not to lump all animal rights activists with PETA. Most everybody who isn't actually in PETA think they're fucking nuts.
True. I picked an extreme example as shorthand.
But I do think it is still a serious question.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Be sure not to lump all animal rights activists with PETA. Most everybody who isn't actually in PETA think they're fucking nuts.
True. I picked an extreme example as shorthand.
But I do think it is still a serious question.
Really? I'm having a hard time figuring out how the question applies to anyone but PETA.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
If animals are pure utility, there is no argument.
But we purport to truly care about our pets. We call them "family" and "companion" but often treat them in ways that belies this concern. I am not merely speaking to what most would recognise as cruelty.
Cats are stuck in infantile behaviour, dogs are given confusing messages re their instincts and our convenience.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
At this point, lilBuddha, I have absolutely no idea what you're on about.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I've never had pets, but I have a big garden, and it's been welcoming to stray cats and dogs lots of times. Some stay shorter, some stay longer.
Ah, and I have marmoset monkeys in my garden. They don't always get along well with the dogs.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
West Hollywood has long been known for its animal-friendly laws. Pets are formally recognized as “companions” and their owners as “guardians.”
This quote is what I am on about. This is a bit much. If one truly takes pets to the level implied by this, one is a hypocrite. If one thinks it necessary to formally hide the word pet, one should campaign to end pet ownership.
Owning a pet is using an animal for one's personal benefit as much as eating an animal is.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
I can't answer the question put to lilBuddha, but do laws protect cats from being de-clawed by their owners?
Personally, I'd call that mistreatment of a domestic animal, yet it's a fairly common practice among people with indoor cats who often shred people's upholstery or drapes.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
West Hollywood has long been known for its animal-friendly laws. Pets are formally recognized as “companions” and their owners as “guardians.”
This quote is what I am on about. This is a bit much. If one truly takes pets to the level implied by this, one is a hypocrite. If one thinks it necessary to formally hide the word pet, one should campaign to end pet ownership.
Owning a pet is using an animal for one's personal benefit as much as eating an animal is.
A bit of a stretch, doncha think?
Most relationships, including human-to-human ones, have some payback. Friendships tend to be mutual-- we give our time and attention, and we get time and attention, affection, fellowship, whatever, from our friend. I'm not sure how that's different from animals, whether we call them "companions" or "pets"
But I'm pretty sure that even if I was annoyed that someone was "using" our friendship to boost their ego or ease their loneliness, I'd still find that far preferable than having them eat me.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I understand lilbuddha's point to be that a 'companion' dog or cat is still owned, in a way that a human companion couldn't be. You can dress it up with nice words, but a pet animal still has characteristics of being your property. It's not allowed to break off the relationship, for example.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I go with the aboriginal-First Nations approach. Eat what you kill. Treat your dog like a member of the family and the dog will treat you like a member of the pack. Be respectful. Expect others to leave you alone when you are to them, even if they disagree with you.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Owning a pet is using an animal for one's personal benefit as much as eating an animal is.
Soooooooo whaaaaaaaat?
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I understand lilbuddha's point to be that a 'companion' dog or cat is still owned, in a way that a human companion couldn't be. You can dress it up with nice words, but a pet animal still has characteristics of being your property. It's not allowed to break off the relationship, for example.
Is this a linguistic game? "Companion" must mean "human companion" and using it for an animal is somehow hypocritical? You all do know, right, that "pet" merely means "favorite" and has been used of humans in the not too distant past?
"Do you remember the day we met?
That was the day I knew you were my pet."
--Sea of Love, Phil Phillips & George Khoury, 1959
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
*shrug* I'm largely translating, rather than advocating. I can see the point, whether or not I agree with it.
The ACT banned animal circuses long ago. If any come around here then they stay over the border in Queanbeyan. We get all-human circuses instead. But we don't have the companion/guardian shtick.
I wouldn't have as much beef with the word 'companion' as I would with the word 'guardian', because the latter has pretty specific legal meanings.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I can't answer the question put to lilBuddha, but do laws protect cats from being de-clawed by their owners?
West Hollywood -- the same California city in the OP - was the first in the state to ban de-clawing cats, back in 2003, I think. Then the state legislature passed a bill saying that only the state could regulate what vets can and can not do, starting Jan. 1, 2010 -- which prompted a bunch of California cities to adopt laws banning de-clawing cats in 2009, getting in before the deadline (read an LA Times article here).
As for the comparison between using animals for food and having pets or companion animals ... I doubt very much that the circumstances endured by cattle in feedlots compare in any real way to the lives my two cats lead.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Owning a pet is using an animal for one's personal benefit as much as eating an animal is.
Soooooooo whaaaaaaaat?
sigh There are those who think there exists a difference. I disagree and wished to see what SOF thought.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I wouldn't have as much beef with the word 'companion' as I would with the word 'guardian', because the latter has pretty specific legal meanings.
Pretty much agree. It also implies a level of sameness that doesn't exist, even in the minds of most of those who profess it. IMO, anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
As for the comparison between using animals for food and having pets or companion animals ... I doubt very much that the circumstances endured by cattle in feedlots compare in any real way to the lives my two cats lead.
There is the option of more ethically raised food animals.
Your animals are treated well, and this is to your credit. However, not everyone does. So, just as with the cattle, there are alternatives. That some are treated well/abused does not change the value of the concept.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
As for the comparison between using animals for food and having pets or companion animals ... I doubt very much that the circumstances endured by cattle in feedlots compare in any real way to the lives my two cats lead.
There is the option of more ethically raised food animals.
Your animals are treated well, and this is to your credit. However, not everyone does. So, just as with the cattle, there are alternatives. That some are treated well/abused does not change the value of the concept.
If anyone were raising cattle in West Hollywood, they'd probably be coddled even more than my cats are. And I'd bet the rent that the meat-eaters in West Hollywood (as opposed to the vegans and vegetarians) are more likely than most other people in the state to seek out the ethically raised beef.
I really don't see why you're singling out WeHo for accusations of hypocrisy. They're actually trying to have laws that promote the good treatment of animals. People have difference relationships with different animals, and WeHo isn't going to change that with local legislation. They ban de-clawing cats but not having cats as pets, and they ban displaying elephants, and I really don't have a problem with this, as they are simply trying to do the best they can in the world we actually inhabit.
Do you serious expect the good people of West Hollywood to honor the god of some crazy notion of consistency by giving up their pet dogs and cats?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
As for the comparison between using animals for food and having pets or companion animals ... I doubt very much that the circumstances endured by cattle in feedlots compare in any real way to the lives my two cats lead.
There is the option of more ethically raised food animals.
Your animals are treated well, and this is to your credit. However, not everyone does. So, just as with the cattle, there are alternatives. That some are treated well/abused does not change the value of the concept.
If anyone were raising cattle in West Hollywood, they'd probably be coddled even more than my cats are. And I'd bet the rent that the meat-eaters in West Hollywood (as opposed to the vegans and vegetarians) are more likely than most other people in the state to seek out the ethically raised beef.
I really don't see why you're singling out WeHo for accusations of hypocrisy. They're actually trying to have laws that promote the good treatment of animals. People have difference relationships with different animals, and WeHo isn't going to change that with local legislation. They ban de-clawing cats but not having cats as pets, and they ban displaying elephants, and I really don't have a problem with this, as they are simply trying to do the best they can in the world we actually inhabit.
Do you serious expect the good people of West Hollywood to honor the god of some crazy notion of consistency by giving up their pet dogs and cats?
I am not singling out West Hollywood. It happened to be an article about that city that triggered the post, yes. But the phenomena hardly resides only there.
I hardly think consistency is crazy. Though thinking people might ever operate in this manner might indeed be crazy.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
Are "animal-friendly" regulations in a locality like West Hollywood even worth the paper they're printed on when there is no meat industry there?
The former Noarlunga City in the southern suburbs of Adelaide had a law just like this, banning possession or use of a nuclear weapon. It obviously worked, since they have never been subjected to a nuclear attack - though a couple of post-industrial sites in the area could pass for post-apocalyptic if you only added zombies. The nitwit councillors who did that instead of focusing on useful stuff like collecting rubbish and repairing footpaths would probably be happy to ignore the very slight possibility that the foreign policies of Australia had anything to do with the lack of mushroom clouds rising from the ashes of their city.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
West Hollywood has long been known for its animal-friendly laws. Pets are formally recognized as “companions” and their owners as “guardians.”
This quote is what I am on about. This is a bit much. If one truly takes pets to the level implied by this, one is a hypocrite.
Okay someone is a hypocrite if they say one thing and do something else that they would not do if their actions were in accord with their words. What are people saying and what are they doing that so contradict in your mind? Because you have absolutely not made this clear.
[ 20. September 2013, 05:15: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
I believe there is a fundamental difference between wildlife and domesticated animals. When we display an elephant or cheetah, the animal has been taken out of its natural environment by human action. There is no such thing as a "natural environment" for a domesticated animal; in fact, most of them cannot survive without human care of some sort. Their very existence is a result of human action.
In my ideal world, we leave wild animals in the wild and take good care of our domesticated animals, whether they've been domesticated to work, to produce milk or wool or whatever, to be companions, or to be eaten. I don't think that's hypocrisy; I think we should both respect Creation and accept responsibility for our creations.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
There is no such thing as a "natural environment" for a domesticated animal; in fact, most of them cannot survive without human care of some sort. Their very existence is a result of human action.
That's one way of looking at it. Another is that domesticated animals have adopted a fairly successful (from an evolutionary point of view) way to exploit human-dominated environments. Compare two canid lines, by way of example.
Number of dogs in the United States: ~80,000,000
Number of wolves in the United States: ~10,000 (mostly in Alaska)
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I don't think the evolutionary angle is quite the proper one. Humans have a way of extinguishing species which have plenty of resources to survive otherwise. And a chihuahua is not an example of evolution.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I don't think the evolutionary angle is quite the proper one. Humans have a way of extinguishing species which have plenty of resources to survive otherwise.
That's one way of looking at it. Another is that human impacts on the environment both creates new environmental niches for species to fill and reduces or destroys a number of previously-existing niches.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And a chihuahua is not an example of evolution.
Only if you think selection by humans is fundamentally different than selection by other factors. I'm not sure that's the case.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I think it is a bit of a stretch to equate direct manipulation with selection in the evolutionary sense. Even if one foes, it is an off shoot of human evolution, not canine.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think it is a bit of a stretch to equate direct manipulation with selection in the evolutionary sense. Even if one [d]oes, it is an off shoot of human evolution, not canine.
That's not a standard applied to any other interspecies selective mechanism. For example, the pronghorn antelope has an exceptionally fast top speed, a trait it developed to evade the (now extinct) North American cousin of the cheetah. Despite the fact that the selective pressure was applied by another species, we wouldn't regard this adaptation by the pronghorn as "an offshoot of feline evolution, not ungulate".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I think it makes sense to make a distinction between natural selection and human-induced breeding, even if the ontological distinction isn't always clear.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think it makes sense to make a distinction between natural selection and human-induced breeding, even if the ontological distinction isn't always clear.
Darwin actually did a lot of study of pigeon fanciers which was big in the 19th century. Artificial selection of domesticated animals which he subsequently wrote about in "The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication". Selection whether natural or human-determined does the same thing in terms of change, one is for preference of the human breeder, the other to adapt to local environmental conditions. Combine variation with excess production of young with differential survival (whether culled by nature or by people) shows that evolution is an inevitable fact, and is one of the best ideas science ever has brought forth.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think it makes sense to make a distinction between natural selection and human-induced breeding, even if the ontological distinction isn't always clear.
I'm not sure it does. For example, if a certain genus of grass adapts by encouraging its propagation by humans is that different in an evolutionarily meaningful way from a species of flower adapting to encourage its spread by insects? I think the only distinguishing factor is the human ego's desire to see itself as apart from and outside of nature.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Crœsos: For example, if a certain genus of grass adapts by encouraging its propagation by humans is that different in an evolutionarily meaningful way from a species of flower adapting to encourage its spread by insects? I think the only distinguishing factor is the human ego's desire to see itself as apart from and outside of nature.
The distinction is that in the breeding dogs, wheat or horses, we have a rather direct influence on the process. We are making decisions there.
So, if we are having a discussion in which we are presented with choices, it makes sense to make a distinction on what we are having a direct influence on and what not, even if the biological processes are the same.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Crœsos: For example, if a certain genus of grass adapts by encouraging its propagation by humans is that different in an evolutionarily meaningful way from a species of flower adapting to encourage its spread by insects? I think the only distinguishing factor is the human ego's desire to see itself as apart from and outside of nature.
The distinction is that in the breeding dogs, wheat or horses, we have a rather direct influence on the process.
I'm not sure what makes insect pollination less "direct" than agriculture. Choosing to plant these seeds rather than those seeds seems pretty equivalent to choosing to pollinate this flower instead of that flower. The only distinction is whether the decision is reached due to some cognitive process or because the right chemical signals are received.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
We are making decisions there.
Well, yes. Humans are, evolutionarily speaking, a one-trick pony. Our advanced cognitive functions (including our ability to make decisions) is our one dominant adaptation. I'm not sure the distinction between cognition and chemical signals (or whatever method bees use to determine which flowers to pollinate) is evolutionarily significant in regards to selective pressure exerted on other species, though.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Crœsos: I'm not sure what makes insect pollination less "direct" than agriculture.
The difference is: the beings that are having a discussion on this thread are humans, not insects.
This thread is about the relationship between humans and (the rest of) Nature. In this context, it makes sense to make a distinction between the parts of Nature on which the choices of humans have a direct influence, and the parts on which they don't.
I'm sure that when cheetahs discuss the other animals on the savannah, they make a distinction between the animals they have a direct influence on (by eating them) and on which they don't.
And that when insects discuss about flowers, they make a distinction between the flowers they have a direct influence on (by pollinating them) and on which they don't.
But the thing is, we are neither cheetahs nor insects.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think it makes sense to make a distinction between natural selection and human-induced breeding, even if the ontological distinction isn't always clear.
Yes, the first is clearly a random process of natural selection, whilst the second is intelligent design.
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Yo, lilBuddha.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What are people saying and what are they doing that so contradict in your mind?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
If one advocates extraordinary steps in the treatment of animals pets should not receive an exclusion.
The article linked is not the best to illustrate my point, no. But it is the one that triggered the thought. I have encountered many anti-zoo, it's wrong to eat meat types who have pets.
I think this is hypocritical. If one merely advocates for hane treatment, then not so much.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
I thinks there's a problem when we claim rights for animals, pretend we're treating them on a par with humans, when we're really just using them for our own ends. Nowhere is it more clear than Stephen Hawking's latest opinion on assisted dying.
We pretend we're doing what's best for the pet in "putting it out of its misery", when we know what we're doing is disposing of it because we can't face the cost (emotional and financial) of palliative care for what is, after all, only and animal. But then we come to believe our own lies, and we start to think "wouldn't it be more convenient if we didn't have all the dying people cluttering up our lives?".
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
I thinks there's a problem when we claim rights for animals, pretend we're treating them on a par with humans, when we're really just using them for our own ends.
You know, after thinking more about this, I think the real problem comes down to claiming rights for animals, period. I hesitate to say so, because animals can suffer, and surely any being capable of suffering deserves to be protected from doing so needlessly.
But "deserving protection" is different from "having a right to be protected." The problem lies in what rights are and how they work.
I have a right to vote, but that's actually meaningful in only two situations: (1) when I'm casting a vote; (2) when someone or something tries to prevent me from voting.
If someone tries to prevent my voting, nothing will happen unless I protest or file a complaint. The person behind me in line can't meaningfully complain or protest on my behalf (though s/he might be able to corroborate my story); I have to file the complaint, as it was my right that was violated.
Basically, most rights seem to work in approximately this way.
Animals can't act for themselves. They can't demonstrate against animal testing, or mount a protest against factory farm practices, or threaten a strike against breeders who refuse to leave them to their own devices when mating. They can't call the cops when their owners are loading the shotgun instead of kenneling them for a ride to the vet.
So the core problem here is that rights said to belong to animals are actually being exercised/guarded by humans, allegedly on animals' behalf.
It's something I have to remind my staff of constantly with our adult but nonverbal clients who live with their families: what's in our client's interests is not necessarily what's in his/her family's (or parents') interests.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
You know, after thinking more about this, I think the real problem comes down to claiming rights for animals, period. I hesitate to say so, because animals can suffer, and surely any being capable of suffering deserves to be protected from doing so needlessly.
But "deserving protection" is different from "having a right to be protected." The problem lies in what rights are and how they work.
I have a right to vote, but that's actually meaningful in only two situations: (1) when I'm casting a vote; (2) when someone or something tries to prevent me from voting.
If someone tries to prevent my voting, nothing will happen unless I protest or file a complaint. The person behind me in line can't meaningfully complain or protest on my behalf (though s/he might be able to corroborate my story); I have to file the complaint, as it was my right that was violated.
Basically, most rights seem to work in approximately this way.
During the American civil rights movement, there were whites as well as blacks, Northerners as well as Southerners, who were active in working to register and protect the voting rights of Southern blacks.
Do you really want to argue that our rights only exist when we are in a position to demand or advocate for them? In fact, your own example would seem to argue against the very point you are making:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
[QUOTE]It's something I have to remind my staff of constantly with our adult but nonverbal clients who live with their families: what's in our client's interests is not necessarily what's in his/her family's (or parents') interests.
Doesn't this dispute your own claim above? Aren't you then going to urge your staff to work on behalf of their nonverbal client's best interests (even if it conflicts with families)? Doesn't that entail recognizing that their rights exist as an absolute good even when they are incapable of demanding or claiming them for themselves?
Perhaps a better caution from your example is that when it comes to one more powerful group advocating for the rights of another less powerful group, it can be difficult knowing exactly what is in their best interests, particularly when they can't speak for themselves. That would seem to be the case with your nonverbal clients, and may in fact sometimes be at play here when talking about animal rights. For example, one might ask, are a rare, endangered but wild animal's "rights" being better served when it is taken into captivity where it is fed, cared for, and protected-- but restricted? Or are it's "rights" better served when it is left in the wild-- free, but vulnerable to predators and poachers, possibly to the point of extinction?
[ 23. September 2013, 21:41: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
During the American civil rights movement, there were whites as well as blacks, Northerners as well as Southerners, who were active in working to register and protect the voting rights of Southern blacks.
Sure, cliffdweller. But Southerners and Northerners and blacks and whites in this struggle were human. They had human understandings of right and wrong, of how human society works in the U.S. (or should), human conceptions of justice.
They had human voices, human words, human reason, the human ability to congregate and organize and strategize, a human grasp of what they risked, what they desired, and the courage to act.
What do we actually know of how animals understand the world they share with us? I've seen animal mothers thwack or nip their own young -- actions whose analogs many of us would condemn in a human mother with a misbehaving child. Cats kill birds; humans (some, anyway) value both species. There's no way I know of to explain to a cat why it really shouldn't slaughter chickadees; even if we could explain, how far should we go in trying to prevent this? Should we alter the cat's instincts somehow? Should we breed a chickadee capable of retaliation against the cat?
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Do you really want to argue that our rights only exist when we are in a position to demand or advocate for them?
Well, at one level, that's true: when enough people fail to respond to an attempted hijacking of their rights, chances are high those rights disappear. The civil rights movement you cite was a response to the Jim Crow and other efforts to deprive people of their rights.
But notice that you're talking about "our" rights; who belongs to the group you're designating with this possessive pronoun? Humans? Animals? Both?
Does a cat have a right to its life? Does it understand itself as in possession of one? I'm no expert on animals, though I've shared living space with a few, and aside from watching one cat go through a spell of what looked and sounded to me like mourning following the death of a fellow-cat, I wouldn't dare venture a guess.
Would a panda in a zoo (or a cocker spaniel at a breeder's) prefer to locate a mate of its own rather than have prospective mates selected for it and introduced into its quarters? If a female panda is in estrus (do pandas have this?), will any handy male panda do, or does she have criteria peculiar to herself? I have no idea; does anyone?
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
In fact, your own example would seem to argue against the very point you are making:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
[QUOTE]It's something I have to remind my staff of constantly with our adult but nonverbal clients who live with their families: what's in our client's interests is not necessarily what's in his/her family's (or parents') interests.
Doesn't this dispute your own claim above? Aren't you then going to urge your staff to work on behalf of their nonverbal client's best interests (even if it conflicts with families)? Doesn't that entail recognizing that their rights exist as an absolute good even when they are incapable of demanding or claiming them for themselves?
Unless you're prepared to argue that there are only trivial differences between a nonverbal human and a cow or a squirrel or a trout, I don't see the dispute.
Nonverbal humans (who may be nonverbal for very different reasons) have, perforce, human rights. Other humans can reasonably be expected to grasp how humans (in general) attach to their families, or respond to a very hot or very cold day, or to hunger or pain. I have watched cats pass, of their own volition, from a cozy 70 F-degree kitchen out into a 10 below-zero yard with perfect aplomb, remain outside for a while chasing dried leaves scudding across the snow, and then return indoors with no apparent surprise or dismay -- all without donning a coat or foot coverings. I don't think I've ever observed a human do something similar without at least a lot of clothing and some marked observable reaction to the change in temps.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Perhaps a better caution from your example is that when it comes to one more powerful group advocating for the rights of another less powerful group, it can be difficult knowing exactly what is in their best interests, particularly when they can't speak for themselves.
Italics mine. That is exactly what I'm saying. Given the widespread human tendency to (a) project our own issues onto others, and (b) to anthropomorphize animals, I wish we practiced a lot more cautious humility and a lot less certainty than we seem prone to do when speaking for creatures whose experience and desires (if any) we may have little understanding of.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
That would seem to be the case with your nonverbal clients, and may in fact sometimes be at play here when talking about animal rights. For example, one might ask, are a rare, endangered but wild animal's "rights" being better served when it is taken into captivity where it is fed, cared for, and protected-- but restricted? Or are it's "rights" better served when it is left in the wild-- free, but vulnerable to predators and poachers, possibly to the point of extinction?
Again, I am extremely hesitant to make human-animal comparisons, especially when discussing people with significant functional differences from the "norm." Such comparisons have produced appalling abuse of atypical people in the past.
As to the question of what's best for an endangered species, I find it imponderable and unanswerable, for all the reasons I've given. What I'm pretty sure of is that humans and our regrettable tendency to stamp out competition, reproduce with irresponsible abandon, and generally treat our planet like one vast sink are the sources of the "danger" in "endangered."
Where was this discussion of animal rights when we began overpopulating and poisoning our planet?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Unless you're prepared to argue that there are only trivial differences between a nonverbal human and a cow or a squirrel or a trout, I don't see the dispute.
While I would agree with your position, you would appear to be arguing the question.
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Perhaps a better caution from your example is that when it comes to one more powerful group advocating for the rights of another less powerful group, it can be difficult knowing exactly what is in their best interests, particularly when they can't speak for themselves.
Italics mine. That is exactly what I'm saying.
OK. I don't think that's exactly what you said, but yes, obviously I would agree with you.
Just for the purpose of clarification, what, precisely, is the difference between this:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
For example, one might ask, are a rare, endangered but wild animal's "rights" being better served when it is taken into captivity where it is fed, cared for, and protected-- but restricted? Or are it's "rights" better served when it is left in the wild-- free, but vulnerable to predators and poachers, possibly to the point of extinction?
and this:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Would a panda in a zoo (or a cocker spaniel at a breeder's) prefer to locate a mate of its own rather than have prospective mates selected for it and introduced into its quarters? If a female panda is in estrus (do pandas have this?), will any handy male panda do, or does she have criteria peculiar to herself? I have no idea; does anyone?
And then, finally, just to wrap things up:
quote:
What I'm pretty sure of is that humans and our regrettable tendency to stamp out competition, reproduce with irresponsible abandon, and generally treat our planet like one vast sink are the sources of the "danger" in "endangered."
I don't think anyone here is disputing that, but I'm not really sure it's relevant to the discussion, even if it happens to leap off of my own illustration.
All in all, I find this thread floundering for lack of a clear question.
[ 24. September 2013, 01:58: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I don't think anyone here is disputing that, but I'm not really sure it's relevant to the discussion, even if it happens to leap off of my own illustration.
All in all, I find this thread floundering for lack of a clear question.
The relevance (as well as the hypocrisy), at least for me, is this: A community bans displays of exotic animals. Taken in isolation, I suppose that could be considered commendable.
That said, that community (along with many others) is no doubt the former habitat of any number of animals (though probably more ordinary than exotic) which have been displaced from their original habitat, and/or have had their food sources despoiled or restricted or their ranges/territories chopped up unmanageably as a result.
If we really cared about wild species (or were even remotely serious about their putative rights), wouldn't we be addressing this problem along with the issues raised by the display of exotics?
That's one set of issues.
The other set has to do with the "rights" of animals. I'm using scare quotes badly here; I don't want to claim I think such rights are completely specious, but I do think we need to handle this notion with the recognition that, at some level, any insistence that animals have "rights" as we commonly understand that idea is almost a contradiction in terms.
In human (as opposed to animal) history, rights are generally won, not granted. Rights are generally the self-conscious fruit of struggle. But that's exactly the position we humans assume in imagining animal rights: because animals cannot demand them, we "grant" them.
Quite aside from the question of whether we're able to do this with understanding or wisdom, there's this: Anything we can give we can also take away. And we have been.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
