Why Do We Keep Animals in Captivity?

Hello Thicus,

What's happening with your understanding? Some kids, just finish school and suicide! They cannot accept the "torture" or "twisted" teachers. Sorry for the teachers, a few of them but I have no one other to incriminate in the educational establishment. Let me do it simply.

Every country has its own educational system with some variation but closely the same, except in certain countries like North-Korea or Afganistan... The comments about "torture", physical "torture" is coming from there. Education kills if we talk about Stalin's method of treating around 36 millions Russians in the Goulags. Here, we use only psychological "torture" to indoctrinate youngs (hats on the side, tong with a ring, the paint is around the knees, tatoos everywhere, and more) for the future we want to build. It's smooth and no physical "torture" there. However, many accept and some refuse but we do for profits.

Oh! The orca? I courageously suggest to release to the ocean after tagging to be able to follow everywhere. Don't let go free! This will be another "torture"? So, don't tag and let free free! We will never know if it will kill another human? Now, we have questions over questions! What can I do better for the orca? I let you know the next time, Gil.

See you have the same bias, which actually is unfounded under application of evolutionary theory, as those people you find playing at enviroactivist on the weekends. You actually hold rats evolution to take advantage and adapt best to nearly any environment agaisnt them. Rats would be one of those species that will evolve and survive even under continued human pressures. Rats and cockraaches are good examples of evolution at work, they survive and thrive even with human being continued efforts to eradicate the entire species for centuries. We are actually part of the evolutionary process, and the concept of preservation actually would violate that process by trying to maintain species that are currently unviable under the existing nvironmental pressures (humans are part of that equation, we are not some how above being part of nature). How then do they survive, they adapt rapidly to overcome the pressures or they evolve to fit the pressures or change interspecies relationships that modify the imapcts of the pressures. Dogs about 10,000 years ago were just wolves, some wolves overcame their fear of humans and campfires and began to associate with human beings for the mutual benefit of both species. Cattle have evolved to the mutaul benefit of each, they can be domesticated easily and used to supply needs of the humans, otherwise human pressures would likely have long ago eradicated most of them. Sometimes maybe the benefit to the other species does not seem balanced or fair, but the alternative is to be a useless species (or even worse one that poses a risk to humans) that adversely impacts human growth and development, and one of the two must then give way. Obviously humanity would prevail against most species on the planet over time. If a species goes extinct under human pressures or evolved to thrive under human environmental changes, this is evolution at work. We are just another cog in the evolutionary wheel, we are not a whole different machine. We are the only species that conceives of unnecessary cruelty, other species do what they perceive as needed to survive better. If a lion causes long enduring pain and injury to an animal that escapes to survive in pain, do you think the lion considers that or is just disappointed by the loss of a meal.

Zoos present an opportunity to the masses to learn soemthing of the wild animals in a more tangible sense. As we all know that television is for the most part all staged and manipulated to fit a producer or directors concept for selling the product, and many times more fiction than real. Sometimes it is more helpful to take what you learn on TV and compare to a real living being. If you believed TV we would be running around talking about sasquatch attacks and ghosts like they were factual rather than unproven concepts.

Lots of bias, I hold lots of bias. I am after all only human. What I hold against rats is their ability to carry diesese into my life whether it be themselves doing the carrying or the fleas on their back. Ferral cats and dogs probably do the same but not on the same scale, I think because cats and dogs seem to have some degree of personal hygeine.

Roaches I dispise because they are a sign of the degree of cleanliness my neighbours maintain. I am currently involved in a war in my condo with the neighbours and the board who refuse to deal with the neighbours. But that is a more personal tale. I do realize that our attempts to erradicte them (the bugs not the neighbours) has in fact made them all the more hardy.

Sasquatches aren't real!??! But I read in on the internet it MUST be true. TV is soooo 5 minutes ago.

Actually most modern pandemics are vectored from Birds, as birds are the primary initial pool from which all influenza viruses that effect mankind are originally derived. Thus you should really want to eliminate all migratory bird as they spread the diseases around from various populations to other populations with a high frequency. Monkey and primates are the primary pools from which we come into contact with diseases such as HIV and many other diseases. Pigs are a vector for translating and conveying viruses from birds to mankind. Skunks, racoons, squirrels, bats, and other wild animals are a much more common vector for diseases like bubonic plague, and rabies. Dogs and cats make excelelent vectors for rabies, and are a far more common source than all others.

From what I have read, the Orca in question did not try to eat his trainer, but simply seized the woman in his mouth and dragged her under the surface where she drowned.

Now, I remember as a kid in a pool the better part of half a century ago, we would play similar games, grabbing other kids and dunking them under the water. I remember playing similar games later in life with girlfriends.

So I ask you all, has anyone considered the possibility that this fellow was simply playing with his trainer, and didn't realize that she, unlike he himself, could not hold her breath for more than a few minutes?

Hi DrMoose,

I strongly believe that it was not a killing process from the animal side but the result is showing a killing process against human who has no equipment and chance to survive under the water.

Also, I catch what you say about human games but I personally never did something similar. Never came to my mind to do it because I care about others' health and most importantly for their life. I born before WWII and saw many horrifying things, thanks.

I don't condemn the orca but after my knowledge most wild animals injure or bite a human once, they will do it again in certain circumstances. Also, when they are really hungry but this is not the case, I think so. I can be wrong but this is my opinion about the relationship of this particular orca with humans.

Again, your explanation could be correct, just a play. However, the facts are with disastrous result for the trainer. Human can do the same, through play someone is dead. The human society will punish the player with jail term and will be concidered as a murderer by many or most. Again, we have a judgment for one case and we have an opinion and a judgment for another case. Honestly, I am not a judge and I am not here to judging. I told and repeat my solution, let the animal free in the ocean and we eliminate another eventual and possible hurt to human. We can do nothing for the trainer, just wish the best of her family and her close people.

After my opinion, I just wait for action of authorized people, without power, concernig the orca, Gil.

This is a paper I wrote on the subject of "animal rights" about ten years ago. As I recall, it got a few people rather upset with me. Funny how liberals get when confronted with facts.

Some Thoughts on the Subject of Animal Rights

by DrMoose

There are many who consider that all creatures have certain rights, such as self-determination and freedom from suffering, and that it is wrong to take the life of any creature for food or any other reason, that we humans have no right to use other creatures for our own purposes. This is I think based upon the notion that we are all animals, and that all animals have the same rights as ourselves.

But consider. The concept of rights is a highly artificial thing to begin with. In nature, "right" is a null concept, one which nature does not recognize. For example, if you are drowning in the ocean, does the ocean consider your right to life?

In their natural environment, animals live under a harsh dictate of survival of the fittest. Predators hunt with no regard for the right to life of the prey animals, and killing for food is the natural order of things. Animals survive as they are able and die as they are killed by other animals or as conditions dictate. How then can animals have any concept of right or wrong? And are not we humans the top predator on this planet?

Now certainly it is a good thing to treat other creatures kindly. We humans seem to have dominion over this world, and for our own considerations it is good for us to treat other creatures as we might wish to be treated ourselves. But this in no wise implies that animals have anything resembling rights.

Take for example hunting. In the natural order, predators hunt and eat the flesh of prey animals. We humans do in fact eat meat. Shall it be wrong then for us to hunt? If we eat meat, how then are we different from any other predator in that sense?

Now I will grant that it is perhaps not good to hunt if one does not kill quickly and cleanly, but again, only for our own human purposes. Certainly when a lion or tiger kills, it is anything but quick or clean, but there is no wrong in it. Also we will say that it is wrong to kill without utilizing the body of the prey, but even this is a false assumption, in that the body will be utilized if not by the hunter then by other creatures that will find and consume it. And even that which is not consumed by other animals will will return to the earth to nourish plants, so it can hardly be considered waste. Our only human consideration seems to be for needless pain and suffering, but this is not a thing which nature takes any consideration for.

We humans are part of the natural world, just as much as any other creature. As with all creatures, we carry on for our own purposes and are not required by nature to consider the requirements or purposes of any other creature. To prefer the purposes of other creatures above our own is to consider other creatures as more important than ourselves, which to me implies a certain self-loathing which is hardly to be found in nature.

Now certainly, in so far as we humans have the capability to alter the natural environment in ways far beyond that of other creatures, we must take further consideration of our actions. But again I say that this must be for our own purposes and not for any misplaced notion of the "rights" of other creatures. We must live in this world, and to drastically alter our environment is to incur far reaching consequences. And yet even this occurs with other species.

For example, if a creature such as the rabbit over-breeds, it very quickly outstrips it's food supply. Whole regions can be laid waste with all vegetation stripped away, and this will have consequences reaching far beyond the rabbit population. Still, nature will find a new balance, though this may not include the rabbit.

So, we humans must consider our own survival, and ensure that we will continue. In as much as this includes the well-being of other creatures, well and good, but no other consideration is owed to these other creatures, nor will these other creatures consider our well-being.

The paper reads well, there are no factual errors in it. My complaint would be that it completely ignores empathy, a human (liberal?) failing I guess. You could turn that also to a purely selfish slant. If I cause unnecessary pain or surffering to another being, 2 or 4 legged, I feel bad. Does that mean I try to avoid it just so I don't feel bad, or do I avoid it so the other being isn't hurt. A question best left to philosophers I guess.

It is unclear at the end of your piece if "we humans" is menmt to be singular or plural. I mean when I make my decisions is it only ME that I consider or do I have to take all you other humans into consideration? Or perhaps just my children and me but not you or yours? Based on the view proposed in your article I think there is very little hope for the future. It kind of sounds like "Get your's now and to hell with everbody else". If opposing that viewpoint makes me a liberal, so be it.

In fact this is (was) a philosophical dissertation on the question. But please take note that I did not say that empathy or compassion towards others and other creatures was wrong, but simply that it must be for our own human purposes. What I consider to be wrong is the placing of other creatures above ourselves. Given a choice between a bear cub and a human child, I will choose the human child, always.

And when I said we humans, I would have hoped that the plural was obvious. I did and do mean the whole of the human species. But even there I draw the line at well meaning do-gooders that insist that I must do this or refrain from doing that. I alone shall be the judge of what I must or must not do, and I alone shall bear the responsibility for my choices.

As for liberals, some of my best friends are liberals.

Hi Moose,

In the first paragraph you can also say that any animal defends its race. If you choose a human child, the tiger eat the human child and will protect young tigers. The rules are the same everywhere and not particular to us, humans!

For the second, I think we can get some variations too. When someone, a human being is in the army and they get the order to kill, the execution is not a personal choice but will be done. The choice and the responsibility don't pertain to the executor of the action. So, sometimes, we are not responsible for our choice and/or action.

Let us know if my reflection is good or incorrect, Gil.

I have to think other animals are capable of empathy too, or why would dolphins aid drowning human swimmers? Empathy is rooted in imagination, from whence all our powerful survival(?) techniques stem. Empathy is the foundation of ethics, without which we would be incapable of sophisticated social organization. (Yes, I know about ants and they've changed relatively little over the millenia compared to us.) If we won't make the effort walk in other beings shoes (or no shoes) we won't be able to appreciate all life has to offer in this world or on any other, whence our technique may take us. Our capacity for empathy may be what ultimately rules our fate.

It has been suggested that dolphins are not so much aiding the swimmer as cleaning trash out of their area.

BTW, what you actually meant was sympathy, not empathy. em,pathy implies some understanding of the mental state and characteristics of the other being and a personal level of understanding of the emotions and thought processes of that being. Sympathy is just the application of your own emotions to the plight of another putting yourself in their position and feeling sorry for them. In other words, it is the difference between saying I know how you feel, and I know how I would feel in your situation.

I like the first part about it being wrong to take any life for for food, since plants are highly evolved life forms, possibly even more highly evolved than animals. This would only leave rocks for people to eat, seems a bit hard on the teeth and digestion.

There is actually a branch of vegetarianism, I believe they call themselves "fruititarians", who do feel that it is also wrong to kill plants for food. These people only eat that which falls to the ground of itself, which in this case I suppose would be fruit.

But fruit contains the equivalent of an embryo, so the question becomes, do they pick up the fruit and then help establish the living seed to continue its growth cycle. Or torture the living seed to a slow death through consuming it reserve energy sources while it awaits an opportunity to establish new nutrient pathways and continue growing. In essence like letting a man survive on his fat reserves until he dies or gets some more food. Plus in edible fruit the cells of the tissue are still living. So i guess they must wait for the fruit to rot to avoid eating a living being. There is really no argument regarding avoidance of consuming living beings that works, as even archaea and bacteria are well defined living beings (unless of course you consume rocks, other raw minerals and such like plants do).

I know, the argument becomes more ridiculous the further you try to take it. The final absurdity of the environmental movement. I wonder how many modern environmentalists would be horrified to know that the original environmentalists were in fact avid hunters?

Yeah, about the same number who would be surprised to hear that the early environmental activists were trying to conserve natural environments for the people to see and use for activities such as camping and visiting, not to preserve to keep the people from ever coming anywhere near the natural environments. Zealots lack rational process, and thus when they latch on to an idea they tend to believe more extreme is better ( paricularly since it does tend to gain more public awareness as we tend to be more interested in discussing extremist ideas than common ideas).

I'm with you all the way. It's the same with dogs and cats. if we had more pack leaders (which they WANT us to be) the world would be a better place. Dogs only know 2 things, "I love YOU, and pit me to work". they live in the moment with unconditional love, and can teach us all sooo much. They are truly the Wise ones.