Is it you ? :razz: :lol:

As far as I know we have not talked about this subject in the past so there are at least 2 of you with that opinion ... is that what you are saying ?

What is your views on the subject then and are you then a " tree-hugger " ? :razz: :eek:

Must be something in the water :neutral:

salt ? :eek:

I know you said not to take anything you said personally but you make it kind of difficult with stingers like this. Quite a bold statement.

I second Quinn's suggestion that you do some more research into the science of evololutionary and other theories which differ from creationism as many of the "facts" you cited are either highly inaccurate or mere rumours. Remember to always study both sides of an issue to obtain an unbiased opinion, or at least try. I have read the bible and have taken a couple university courses on the practice and study of various religions, quite possibly my favorite classes. There are so many different beliefs that it seems impulsive to say only one could be correct.

I once met a guy who described himself as an apathetic agnostic, "I don't know, and I don't care.".

Now this one has me confused...

First off, I did not call you a redneck, I was illistrating the fact that it was unfair to call me a tree-hugger because the act of chaining oneself to a tree to save it from a chainsaw has little to do with the topic(s) of this discussion. If you re-read the post I hope you'll see that I was saying it would be just as inaccurate to call you something dissimilar.

And...I don't wear panties, never been a lady, don't plan on having the sex change operation anytime soon.


I might as well add, I have a moose-hunting, 4x4 driving, C&W listening good friend of mine who I often call an ignorant redneck, and he loves to call his backpack wearing, anti-TV, bicycle commuting friend of his a tree-hugger, so I can take a good natured ribbing, I'm not that sensitive.

pro life = anti choice

.

[tangent]
I don't think it is necessary/desireable to get into this debate but I strongly dissagree with this statement. I think that we can all agree that the names these different camps have decided to call themselves are not really descriptive of their respective views so much as they are derrogatory of the opposing view. Really, no one belives that if you are not "pro life" you are "anti life" or "pro death" and if you are not "pro choice" you are "anti choice". Obviously choice and life are valuable to all of us. The difference in opinions lies in when human life is believed to begin.
[/tangent]

I did not call you a tree-hugger ... you did :lol:

you were also the one that brought up the term redneck and threw it out there with my name attached to it and then retracted it just as quickly ... I know you may feel very fond of your 4X4 friend but lets keep the term redneck out of this conversation if you dont mind.

also ... the term tree-hugger in this case was a term my friend called herself ... not that she actually chained herself to trees or anything like that but she has very strong feelings on the subject where animals are concerned ... but fails to have that much passion for people starving in the third world countries or the diseases like aids that are ravaging some countries.

Agree it is not a desirable topic.

Disagree that the name is insignificant. There are many pro-lifers who could more accurately be described as anti-choice.

Personally, it's a terrible thing that is sometimes necessary.

I'm ready to move on, was enjoying this thread 'til now. Not meaning to offend.

Worry not Cap'n I wasn't offended :cool: .

And I never suggested that the name is insignifigant. Only that the names cleverly represent a falicy of logic - the strawman falicy I think.

Hey man, you did call me a tree-hugger, I never did.

And I didn't retract anything, even the part of my post that you quoted states "I think not" in reference to the possibilty of calling you such a term.

Ah, a more eloquent way to say the same thing I was attempting.
Thank you.

No but I think... uh... oh... ur welcome. :razz:

- Chad

LOL ...

this was you saying this as well right ? or was your friend referring to somebody else ?

you dont deny being a tree-hugger though as it is a term you are familiar with right ? :razz: :rofl:

I'm a tree hugging redneck that has a fixation on glass boxes full of rocks and water! :BIG:

Bahhh trees just get in the way of good space for parking cars :mrgreen:

Steve

Careful Steve, or God will evolve you back into a monkey, and then you'll miss the trees.

Now, I'm thinkin', as us mods must every now and then, that this thread is heading in a precarious direction. Let's try to keep it on the long noses, or it may get aborted. :razz:

Thanks

Our concern with the welfare of other species is definitely self-motivated. Beginning centuries ago, we have destroyed other species' habitat at an ever excelerating pace. In the last few decades it has become increasingly clear that if we do not have more of a balance between the ever-expanding, so-called civilized human world and the natural world, humans will eventually share the planet with only a few other pest species.

Actually, we subconsciously rely on the knowledge that elephants still exist on our planet to relieve ourselves of the guilt we would feel if elephants, along with other well known species, were inadvertantly killed by our aggressive human expansionism.

Humans are the only animals on the planet that keep other animals in zoos. There are two elephants at the Edmonton Valley Zoo. Every time I've seen them, they and the other animals looked so sad in their relatively small enclosures, that I had to stop going to the zoo. Can you imagine yourself as an animal in a zoo? I mean, honestly see yourself caged in surroundings not of your choosing, being fed food not of your choosing, and being without others of your own kind, such as friends and family?

Actually, elephants lived in the places where farms now exist, so who is the competitor here?

This is a pretty harsh thought, but sometimes I think a good plague that would wipe out 90% of the human population might do the planet and all who live here plenty of good.

Bev,
If this is how you feel how is keeping fish in a glass box any different? :confused:
I don't think they choose to live there either...

I think if you ran this past the men and women who care for these animals in the zoos they would have slightly different opinions. Unfortunately, zoos have become vital for the survival of some species whos natural habitat has been swallowed up. I'm not saying this is good, or it's the best possible outcome - I'm saying this is reality. I think you would also find that these people are motivated by a true love for these other animals and not by a desire to appease their own unconcious guilt. JMO.

- Chad

Um... well that's the whole point of my post (I guess I'm not very good at expressing myself today :smile: ). Of course we are the competitor! But as the ultimate competitor, would the elephant, or any other animal, strive to prevent our extinction? Would any other animal mourne if we as a species dissapeared from the earth?
It was asked earlier what qualities separated us from the other animals. I merely pointed out that our concern for the welfare of other species (as evident in many of the posts) makes us kinda special (or kinda wierd :rolleyes: ) in the animal kingdom.

- Chad

Without going into details, to assume everything humans do now is adaptive would be foolish.

I expect keeping animals with little resource value in captivity started with the Pharaohs, who brought various African animals back from war with them, perhaps to impress their people.

I wouldn't argue that this isn't a unique and perhaps "higher level" activity, but as shown by Koko's experience with the kitten, this interest in other living things is quite natural, and our concern for other species does not indicate we are somehow special.

I'm sorry Quinn, you're not angry at all. I forgot how frustrating the quest to replicate one's genes can become... :mrgreen:

Great post, that one, BTW. I'm encouraged by the openness and sensitivity displayed by many here.

I don't know know whether to be amazed, or impressed, where this has gone.

I wanted to express my sadness at the loss. Whether the practise of attempting to breed is right or wrong, regardless of our place in the universe, or whatever we may feel the need to expound on, this is still a loss.

My condolences and best wishes go out to those who tried so hard. It may not feel as such, but your efforts were not in vain. I think, as a value, quality of life supercedes quantity of life, and this baby knew that she was loved in her brief existence. Such would be my hope, anyhow.

Yes, you are completely correct that the animals in my tanks are not there because of their choice. Personally, I have conflicting attitudes when it comes to the animals I keep that are not in their native habitat.

One is that I feel guilt by keeping them in an environment not natural to them, even though I try my best to give them as non stressful a place to live as possible. But who knows, according to fish/invert standards, if I am hitting anywhere near the mark.

The other is that I'm as selfish a human being as the rest of us and justify my keeping these animals in that I don't expend a lot of energy on vacations, drive a small car when I drive at all, and try not to be a grand consumer of much of anything else.

I realize the choices we make in life are not black and white, but many shades of grey. I am also fully aware of the dichotomy of my own feelings when it comes to reefkeeping and the keeping of other animals in our care.

I disagree, I feel that the primate examples only demonstrate how powerful the adaptive phenomenon of maternal instinct is. I think it is reasonable that a captive gorilla, wanting to have children would accept and nurture and care for a cat. The point is "are gorrilas as a species (not isolated incidents) as concerned with our well being as we are with theirs? Also the story of the boy that was rescued by the gorrila at the zoo. I think that that story would have turned out a lot differently if the enclosure was full of only males. Or females with their children. Or if the fallee didn't have the good furtune of being bipedal, having opposable thumbs, and bearing a close resemblance to the gorilla herself. I don't think that the recently childless female gorilla would have cared so much for a dolphin that fell into her enclosure.

- Chad

I agree, infact I personally believe that adaptive learning motivates us as a species far less than it motivates any other animal. I guess me trying to describe people's behaviour on the same level as other animals' is as problem-frought as you trying to contest humans are not superior by giving examples of animals that posses human-like attributes :smile: .
I mean really, if we are not superior over other animals why can't it be due to qualities or physical abilities that other animals posess and we do not? Why must it be due to qualites that we posess that other animals do too???
The focus of the argument itself seems to pre-assume our superiority.
JMO.

- Chad

Ahh, okay, I understand what you are saying about humans being the great competitor.

You ask if any other animal would be capable of mourning us if they outcompeted us into extinction. To this I have no answer as I do not know what would go on in the mind of an animal capable of beating us at our own aggressive game.

The only animal that is as aggressive as humans are is other humans. So the question can only be, do we mourn the loss of others we kill in war? Personally, overall, I don't think so.

That's a good point Beverly, and would also make for a chilling movie :biggrin: .

WoW! :eek:

I thought the Lounge was for aquarium related topics :razz: :wink:

I guess to answer this one, we would have to ask someone who has actually killed someone else in a war. I don't want to keep answering for other people but I think you will find some very sobering responses from our war veterans. Even though it is not a popular thought in our hollywood-violence society, throughout every war prior to Vietnam, the recorded fireing rate for soldiers on the front line was 15-20%. That means that 80% of the soldiers would not even FIRE their weapons at the enemy - even to save their own lives. There have been other studies which have shown that even those who did shoot could not possibly have missed their mark as many times as they did unless it was intentional. Of the rifles recovered on civil war battlefields over 20% of the unfired ones were loaded with multiple loads, some loaded with as many as 16 differnt ball and powder charges. This suggests that many of these soldiers merely went through the motions of loading and firing their guns, not wanting their companions to know that they were in fact concientios objectors.
The only way that fireing and killing rates were increased (90%) in Vietnam and subsequent wars was though intensive training that most closely resembles behavioral conditioning ie "Pablo's" ( :razz: ) dog. And the prevalence of PTSD amongst these soldiers may indicate the high costs that must be payed for overcoming this natural aversion to killing a member of your own species. (Note: not my own thoughts. Plagerized from a pulitzer prize winning book called "On Killing" by LT Col. Grossman).

- Chad

Sorry everyone, Iguess that I mistook this "Lounge" for being the same idea as Reef Central's "Lounge" which is really the opposite. I'll be quiet now. :redface:

- Chad

Looks like chad has doubled his post count from this thread... :razz: :mrgreen:

ha!... ok ok
I'll be in the nano forum if anyone needs me :redface:

Cheers,

- Chad

no worries Chad.
It was actually a very interesting read. Its great to see people actually discussing their point of views, beliefs with an open mind. I wish more people would do that as opposed to the great "Im right and thats final" philosophy.

Whether you believe God created all the animals, or whether you believe evolution is responsible, or whether you believe like me that God created the conditions necessary for all life to evolve, doesn't matter.

Yes we are more intelligent than other animals, most of us anyways. It is clear that animals have demonstrated intelligence and not just simple repetitive behaviours. Many people by the way seem to have no intelligence but are just "along for the ride", letting others do all their thinking for them.

It is interesting the way the logic goes: We are more intelligent than other animals, therefore intelligence is a measure of superiority, therefore we are superior to other animals.

If zoos do everything they can to keep animals like elephants healthy and thriving, then OK. Some animals will die despite this, as they do in nature. But if a zoo is not able to provide the best possible environment for these creatures, then leave them alone. Animals were not put on this earth for our entertainment.

Anyway I have no use for the "tree hugger" environmental types who are generally a bunch of unemployed hippie pot smoking feminist types who could use a good bath and a firm kick in the butt. At the same time if we do not clean up our act and take better care of our environment, we will all be worse off in the future in many ways.

Well that is my opinion, go ahead and blast away now.

Hehe, Chad I was just kidding. :biggrin:

I just found it interesting reading through the 5 pages of this thread that it went from the sadness of a baby elephant dying to whether baby elephants should be referred to as infants since infants can apparently only be human, then of course captive breeding/keeping zoos, "I hate tree huggers", instinct vs. conditioning, evolution, much bickering and name calling (all in good fun no doubt :razz:), a few things out of left field, and finally the ethics in keeping reef tanks.

I find it amazing how you can start with such a seemingly harmless topic and incite such hot debate on such a wide range of topics.

Way to go!! :mrgreen:

I love 5 page threads. They make for a good break from reading stupid microscope slides at work :wink:

Christy :)

He,he. This thread would have been closed on RC already. Politics and religion threads are not allowed in the lounge there.

They do have another board where it all hangs out. :eek: Or one can get entertained on RDO lounge. I would not be able to argue on either and not lose. Cant keep up to them. :lol:

I agree this has been really entertaining and thought provoking!
But I am not coming out of retirement to comment anymore in this thread...
not even to bump my post count to 200...
:razz:

- Chad

... and that's final!

- Chad