NT, We need to do something about animals in captivity,

[tree4twenty]

A lack of a central nervous systems still doesn't change the fact that plants are living things. We were created to surive based on what is surrounding us and animals just so happen to exist. I have no problem eating a chicken, cow, pig, or a fish. I will however agree that animal abuse is wrong. If the animal(be it goat, chicken, cow, pig, etc) is not going to be eaten oror used for helping society(zoos,esearch for dieases), then there is no reason to bother it.

What? How do zoos help society?

I eat meat and love it even though I don't like "where" it comes from.

I also hate circuses. Animals traveling around in trailers being forced to do the same act over and over just so we can laugh and take pics. Disgusting.

 

[urbetterthenme]

What? How do zoos help society?

I eat meat and love it even though I don't like "where" it comes from.

I also hate circuses. Animals traveling around in trailers being forced to do the same act over and over just so we can laugh and take pics. Disgusting.

[h3]Arguments For Zoos[/h3]

• By bringing people and animals together, zoos educate the public and foster an appreciation of the animals. This exposure and education motivates people to protect the animals.
• Zoos save endangered species by bringing them into a safe environment, where they are protected from poachers, habitat loss, starvation and predators.
• Many zoos also have breeding programs for endangered species. In the wild, these individuals might have trouble finding mates and breeding.
• Reputable zoos are accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums and are held to high standards for the treatment of the animals. According to the AZA, accreditation means, "official recognition and approval of a zoo or aquarium by a group of experts."
• A good zoo provides an enriched habitat in which the animals are never bored, are well cared-for, and have plenty of space.
• Zoos are a tradition, and a visit to a zoo is a wholesome, family activity.
• Seeing an animal in person is a much more personal and more memorable experience than seeing that animal in a nature documentary.
• Some would argue that humans have little, if any duty to non-human animals because humans are more important, and if keeping animals in zoos serves any educational or entertainment purposes, we can ethically do it.
• Zoos help rehabilitate wildlife and take in exotic pets that people no longer want or are no longer able to care for.
• Both accredited and unaccredited animal exhibitors are regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act, which establishes standards for care.

 

[rustlenomics]

i love how this thread about animals in captivity turned into chastising OP for being vegan.

i for the most part eat animals and they are effin delicious, just had some in n out pleighboi.

for the most part i dont think ANY kind of animal should be paraded for the sole purpose of entertainment,

some places such as zoos that educate humans and also eventually release the animals either into the wild or some type of wildlife preserve is cool.

but other than that it's just plain cruel, they are mistreated and often housed in deplorable conditions unfit for ANY animal.

yes they are animals, but still they should be allowed to live as they wish.

humans are the stupidest creatures.

 

[frink85]

i dont think ive even seen zoos with animals stuffed up in cramped cages anymore...been to san diego zoo/wild animal park, and its very well done. nature preserve type places which simulates their natural habitat, gives them room to roam and educates the public are great IMO. plus these places are great for species preservation, not to mention a lot of the animals there are domesticated so its not like you could just release them into the wild (they gettin eaten ASAP ) but i will concede with large animals like elephants or whales...the areas for them never seem large enough.

 

[timbo109]

A well-run zoo with proper oversight likely is more beneficial to the species that it holds due to awareness, breeding of sensitive species, etc. than these zoos not existing. There are certainly a lot of zoos and parks out there that operate without the proper resources to do this though.

That said, there are much more harmful factors out there for animals. Zoos aren't causing extinction of entire species, but things like global warming and encroachment on habitat are.

 

[Methodical Management]

 A lack of a central nervous systems still doesn't change the fact that plants are living things. We were created to surive based on what is surrounding us and animals just so happen to exist. I have no problem eating a chicken, cow, pig, or a fish. I will however agree that animal abuse is wrong. If the animal(be it goat, chicken, cow, pig, etc) is not going to be eaten or used for helping society(zoos, research for dieases), then there is no reason to bother it.

Other humans happen to exist.  The human organism is capable of subsisting on lots of substances.  Would you have a problem eating other humans?  What about dogs, cats, horses, dolphins, whales, etc.?

My point is that necessity is not the driving force behind most humans' dietary decisions.  Consequently, people have developed many arbitrary standards and guidelines (some religious, some cultural, some individual) to determine which substances are socially/personally acceptable to eat and which aren't.  

"If your body can eat it, it's meant to be eaten" is not a popular standard in 2013.  

We don't eat other humans because we don't have to eat other humans.  Survival doesn't demand it.  We've reached a point where the only real reason left to eat meat is because people have a preference for it.  You've acknowledged that suffering isn't exclusive to humans by agreeing that "animal abuse is wrong."  So, by that token, I'm sure you can understand why more and more people have decided that causing unnecessary harm and suffering to other creatures solely because they "taste good" is unethical.  

Just about everyone has some line they're not willing to cross - at least not in times of surplus.  A vegan is simply someone who tries to draw the line at sentience and suffering.  It's no less logical than any other popular standard.

By bringing people and animals together, zoos educate the public and foster an appreciation of the animals. This exposure and education motivates people to protect the animals.

This is probably the most specious and cynical point zoo proponents make.  I've seen "Jungle" Jack Hanna make it hundreds of times in attempting to defend Sea World against cruelty charges.

By this logic, forcing women to perform at strip clubs is necessary to fighting sexism.  "By bringing men and women together, strip clubs educate men and foster an appreciation of women.  This exposure and education motivates men to respect the rights of women in the workplace and society at large."  

You don't teach people to respect other species by commodifying them, imprisoning them, and coercing them to perform by withholding and food.  

At this point, there are PLENTY of films people can watch to learn about other species and observe them in the wild.  

No zoo has ever held a blue whale.  Most people have never seen a blue whale in the wild, either.  If asked via public opinion poll, do really think the majority of respondents would favor driving these creatures to extinction?  That "save the whales" is a thing owes nothing to Sea World.  

Children are fascinated with dinosaurs.  How many children have the opportunity to watch a dinosaur perform backflips in captivity?  

It's a weak, weak argument. 

As far as species preservation goes...

There's a distinction to be made between the "upper case Gorilla" and the "lower case gorilla."  In other words:  between Gorillas, as a species, and gorillas, as individuals.  

If a human sub-population were driven to the brink of extermination, would it be considered ethical to round up the remaining few, incarcerate them in a facility designed expressly for the entertainment of visitors, and "encourage" them to mate in attempt to bolster their numbers?  What you'd be doing, there, is DECIDING - as an outsider - that the survival of the group is more important than the rights of the individual, and that you have the authority (or the "obligation") to decide FOR that individual and force them to give the remainder of their life to ensure the survival of their "kind."  

Ever hear the phrase "not if you were the last man on Earth?"  This speaks to the individual agency that we deny nonhuman members of endangered species.  

For whose benefit are we "saving" species that WE are responsible for endangering?  If it is for OUR benefit - to assuage our guilt - then we owe nothing to the individuals.  They can be used and exploited to serve our selfish ends.  And that's what we have now.  

If it is for THEIR benefit - to "make amends" - then we ought to treat the individuals with respect. 

It changes our strategies.  

It's not IMPOSSIBLE to try and preserve endangered species without abduction, incarceration, and forced mating.  It's just more expensive, in that a comprehensive strategy would need to 1) protect an endangered species' habitat from development and climate change  2) address the nearby human suffering that promotes poaching.

If zoos WEREN'T an option (and a lucrative option, at that), our collective response would change.  And, let's face it, captive breeding is a band-aid solution to begin with.  If the goal is to eventually return these creatures to the wild, we have to ensure that there's still something for them to come back to - which would require us to address their habitat and the condition of surrounding human populations anyway. 

If, on the other hand, the goal is to ensure that, for example, pandas are a zoo "exclusive," and no longer have a place in the world - then what's really been accomplished?  

It's like keeping a loved one in perpetual agony on artificial life support because we can't bear the guilt of allowing them to die.  

The individual creature shouldn't be forced to bear the burden of reviving a species brought to the brink of extinction through absolutely no fault of their own.  We're making them pay for our mistakes.  

 

[urbetterthenme]

 
Other humans happen to exist.  The human organism is capable of subsisting on lots of substances.  Would you have a problem eating other humans?  What about dogs, cats, horses, dolphins, whales, etc.?

My point is that necessity is not the driving force behind most humans' dietary decisions.  Consequently, people have developed many arbitrary standards and guidelines (some religious, some cultural, some individual) to determine which substances are socially/personally acceptable to eat and which aren't.  

"If your body can eat it, it's meant to be eaten" is not a popular standard in 2013.  

We don't eat other humans because we don't have to eat other humans.  Survival doesn't demand it.  We've reached a point where the only real reason left to eat meat is because people have a preference for it.  You've acknowledged that suffering isn't exclusive to humans by agreeing that "animal abuse is wrong."  So, by that token, I'm sure you can understand why more and more people have decided that causing unnecessary harm and suffering to other creatures solely because they "taste good" is unethical.  

Just about everyone has some line they're not willing to cross - at least not in times of surplus.  A vegan is simply someone who tries to draw the line at sentience and suffering.  It's no less logical than any other popular standard.

This is probably the most specious and cynical point zoo proponents make.  I've seen "Jungle" Jack Hanna make it hundreds of times in attempting to defend Sea World against cruelty charges.

By this logic, forcing women to perform at strip clubs is necessary to fighting sexism.  "By bringing men and women together, strip clubs educate men and foster an appreciation of women.  This exposure and education motivates men to respect the rights of women in the workplace and society at large."  

You don't teach people to respect other species by commodifying them, imprisoning them, and coercing them to perform by withholding and food.  

At this point, there are PLENTY of films people can watch to learn about other species and observe them in the wild.  

No zoo has ever held a blue whale.  Most people have never seen a blue whale in the wild, either.  If asked via public opinion poll, do really think the majority of respondents would favor driving these creatures to extinction?  That "save the whales" is a thing owes nothing to Sea World.  

Children are fascinated with dinosaurs.  How many children have the opportunity to watch a dinosaur perform backflips in captivity?  

It's a weak, weak argument. 

As far as species preservation goes...

There's a distinction to be made between the "upper case Gorilla" and the "lower case gorilla."  In other words:  between Gorillas, as a species, and gorillas, as individuals.  

If a human sub-population were driven to the brink of extermination, would it be considered ethical to round up the remaining few, incarcerate them in a facility designed expressly for the entertainment of visitors, and "encourage" them to mate in attempt to bolster their numbers?  What you'd be doing, there, is DECIDING - as an outsider - that the survival of the group is more important than the rights of the individual, and that you have the authority (or the "obligation") to decide FOR that individual and force them to give the remainder of their life to ensure the survival of their "kind."  

Ever hear the phrase "not if you were the last man on Earth?"  This speaks to the individual agency that we deny nonhuman members of endangered species.  

For whose benefit are we "saving" species that WE are responsible for endangering?  If it is for OUR benefit - to assuage our guilt - then we owe nothing to the individuals.  They can be used and exploited to serve our selfish ends.  And that's what we have now.  

If it is for THEIR benefit - to "make amends" - then we ought to treat the individuals with respect. 

It changes our strategies.  

It's not IMPOSSIBLE to try and preserve endangered species without abduction, incarceration, and forced mating.  It's just more expensive, in that a comprehensive strategy would need to 1) protect an endangered species' habitat from development and climate change  2) address the nearby human suffering that promotes poaching.

If zoos WEREN'T an option (and a lucrative option, at that), our collective response would change.  And, let's face it, captive breeding is a band-aid solution to begin with.  If the goal is to eventually return these creatures to the wild, we have to ensure that there's still something for them to come back to - which would require us to address their habitat and the condition of surrounding human populations anyway. 

If, on the other hand, the goal is to ensure that, for example, pandas are a zoo "exclusive," and no longer have a place in the world - then what's really been accomplished?  

It's like keeping a loved one in perpetual agony on artificial life support because we can't bear the guilt of allowing them to die.  

The individual creature shouldn't be forced to bear the burden of reviving a species brought to the brink of extinction through absolutely no fault of their own.  We're making them pay for our mistakes.  

To say its a preference to eat meat is semi right yet wrong. Sure there are some who can go without meat and live a strictly vegan lifestyle, however its not a lifestyle many can financially nor health wise afford to live.

Add to the fact that many vegans eat subsitutes for meat based product benefits(soy, tofu, etc) which many times include hella ingredients that are probably more harmful than meat, its just a not a lifestyle for everyone. For few its fine, but the majority no. Animals are here for a reason, to be observed, respected, but eventually eaten by us or themsleves

 

[Methodical Management]

 
To say its a preference to eat meat is semi right yet wrong. Sure there are some who can go without meat and live a strictly vegan lifestyle, however its not a lifestyle many can financially nor health wise afford to live.

Add to the fact that many vegans eat subsitutes for meat based product benefits(soy, tofu, etc) which many times include hella ingredients that are probably more harmful than meat, its just a not a lifestyle for everyone. For few its fine, but the majority no. Animals are here for a reason, to be observed, respected, but eventually eaten by us or themsleves

I think it's fair to say that I've researched vegan diets quite a bit, considering I've entrusted my health to one.  Suffice it to say, I don't know where you're coming from in suggesting that people can't "afford to live" on a vegan diet "health-wise."  You can't on one hand say "humans are omnivores, we can live on whatever" and then say, "except vegetables, fruits, and legumes.  We need meat."   We don't. 

Vegan diets aren't universally affordable at the moment because it's considered a niche, not because it's somehow inherently more costly to produce plants than animals.  We all know that's not true.  Fundamentally, the energy loss that occurs when you feed tons of crops to livestock and then eat the livestock dictates that we can feed more people with fewer resources if we voluntarily "move down the food chain" and subsist on largely plant-based diets.  In fact, this has been the recommendation of environmental sustainability experts like Lester Brown and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization - the ethics of animal consumption don't even factor into consideration for them.  

It seems reasonable to suggest that, because fancy prepared vegan meals are expensive, that vegan diets are, or would be, price prohibitive - but that's really not the case.  People have relied on lentils as a primary protein source for ages, for example, and that's certainly cheaper than steak.  

Using the cost of vegan products marketed to yuppies in the United States as your basis of comparison is like suggesting that electric cars are inherently price prohibitive based exclusively on the cost of a Tesla S.  That pricing is contingent on its status as a niche product in a market that heavily subsidizes to public and environmental costs associated with fossil fuel consumption.  

I'm not going to defend each of the innumerable meat substitutes marketed to vegans, but it's important to point out that omnivorous diets aren't considered flawed based purely on the very WORST choices an omnivore could make.  What's more, vegans don't need to consume these substitutes.  Raw vegan diets, for example, sidestep such concerns.  

You have a belief about the "purpose" of animals that seems almost faith based.  Many people do.  They believe that other species were put on Earth to serve human needs.  However, many religious and spiritual people cite the "caretaker" role they believe has been divinely bestowed upon humanity as cause to harm other creatures only when they feel it is absolutely critical to survival.  Matthew Scully, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush and a devout Christian, wrote a book called Dominion a few years ago that attempts to make a religious case for the humane treatment of nonhuman animals.  

There are many different beliefs on the subject as far as the ethics of animal consumption are concerned.  I just want to clarify some popular misconceptions about vegan diets and beliefs. 

 

[trilluminated]

i bet OP wears nikes, though...

and he likes football..

humans are some damb hypocrites for real.

 

[urbetterthenme]

I'm just wondering at what point is it possible to eat 100 percent vegan. The amount of time and effort required to eat vegan based is so far out of reach for your average person.

Its a very time consuming lifestyle that humans were never met to live.

 

[am1x90xnike]

Tried to think of a good argue me t for eating meat and zoos...couldn't think of one.

I like both zoos and eating animals. Am I moraly right? Probably not, but who the hell holds the morally right view on everything in life? If you did would it make you a better person?

*cooks stake while watching home videos from the circus*

*kanye shrugs*

 

[jhova718]

do vegans wear leather?

edit: not to mention the sphere of animal products that we literally can not do without, even if you tried to.

 

[urbetterthenme]

do vegans wear leather?

edit: not to mention the sphere of animal products that we literally can not do without, even if you tried to.

Hence the fact We need Animals

 

[Methodical Management]

 
I'm just wondering at what point is it possible to eat 100 percent vegan. The amount of time and effort required to eat vegan based is so far out of reach for your average person.

Its a very time consuming lifestyle that humans were never met to live.

It's entirely possible to eat 100% vegan.  There are more vegan products available now than ever and there are tons of resources available to make well planned, healthy vegan diets manageable for those who aren't experts in nutrition.  

Once you get into the habit, once you have food on hand and you've established your "go to" sources for quick meals, it's not that difficult.  Caring at all about your diet requires some sort of time investment for everyone.  If you rule out fast food and microwave dinners, you're going to spend more time and energy planning meals than you would if you were purely a creature of convenience.  It takes time and effort to exercise.  Most of us are willing to invest in what matters to us.

Just as it's easier to live a healthy lifestyle in a community and a society that values healthy lifestyles, it could be very easy to go vegan under the right circumstances.  You're evaluating it at a point in time where vegan diets are relatively uncommon.  The same could've been said 200 years ago about any sort of healthy diet.  How feasible would it have been to count calories, balance your omega III:VI ratio, etc. etc. in 1700?  We have more information and resources today than we ever have to make more informed choices.  Assuming that these trends continue, there's no reason to believe that it won't be even easier - and cheaper - for the next generation to enjoy vegan diets if they choose.  

To say that we "were never meant" to attempt vegan diets is a bit like suggesting that humans "were never meant" to use computers, fly airplanes, or cure diseases.  What's "natural" about factory farming?  Contemporary meat consumption relies heavily on technological innovations.  Is it natural to administer antibiotics and growth hormones to livestock?  Is it somehow less natural to eat fruits, vegetables, and legumes instead? 

You may not prefer a vegan diet, but it's unfair to suggest that vegan diets are somehow "unnatural" compared to factory farming. 

Tried to think of a good argue me t for eating meat and zoos...couldn't think of one.

I like both zoos and eating animals. Am I moraly right? Probably not, but who the hell holds the morally right view on everything in life? If you did would it make you a better person?

*cooks stake while watching home videos from the circus*

*kanye shrugs*

Most of us value honesty.  Should we abandon that value if we don't personally know of someone who's been 100% honest 100% of the time?  

Values represent an aspiration.  They represent the people we'd like to be and the societies we'd like to inhabit.  They impel us to be the change we wish to see in the world.  

If our values were easily attainable, then they deny us the ability to continually improve ourselves. 

Should your goal at the gym be to curl five pounds, or to be the very best you can be in every aspect?  

 

[solecity]

Son, in other words..

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

Starve

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

JK

I tried doing the whole vegetarian thing once but could not. I have cut off pork though.

 

[createdestroy]

people have developed many arbitrary standards and guidelines (some religious, some cultural, some individual) to determine which substances are socially/personally acceptable to eat and which aren't.  

Im going to say this to every vegetarian i meat.

 

[am1x90xnike]

Methodical Management

But I don't think not eating meat is a noble goal IMO. I dig not wanting animals to be killed in terrible ways, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop eatin animals nor does that mean I think not eating is something I aspire to. I like eating animals, I'd hunt. If someone decided to hunt me, before you ask, I'd be in survival mode but I wouldn't hate them because I would hunt also, id be trying to win.

As far as animals in cages, so long as they aren't being brutalized (which I know they currently are) then I don't care. They could be way more humane, but that doesn't mean im against zoos.

Caring for animals doesn't make you better, I'm indifferent to the whole thing. Ill sign a petition so long as its not a petition to end either of these institutions.

No one is perfect, and to say that we should all aspire to be better is to say nothing, because 'better' is a very subjective term. I don't think it makes you 'better' nor do I think being a vegan is something we should 'aspire' to. Nor do I think shutting down zoos is something we should 'aspire' to; it's perfectly possible to treat the animals more humane but not abolish these institutions, we've done it for thousands of years.

I want to treat them better because its disrespectful to God and nature for us to kill thousands of animals that end up getting thrown away. It's disrespectful to the animals to beat them when they say no. According to my belief system it's not disrespectful to kill and eat them as part of the circle of life.


This planet has a delicate balance, a balance that includes animals eating other animals but doesn't include animals being killed and thrown in the garbage, man is the only one that does that.