quote:

ORIGINAL: TheFireWithinMe

Iass you had me riiiight up to the zoo and Sea World part. If you had written conservation type places I would agree but let's be honest, zoos and SW are for entertainment and I abhor them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Don't get me wrong, fire. I would rather wildlife be wild. But Sea World takes great care of their animals and many zoos are integral to breeding programs that are keeping species from extinction. California condors are only alive today because of captive breeding programs. They are more than just entertainment. I would rather preserve habitat, but I have to be realistic about that. Captivity is probably better than extinction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheFireWithinMe

Iass you had me riiiight up to the zoo and Sea World part. If you had written conservation type places I would agree but let's be honest, zoos and SW are for entertainment and I abhor them.

quote:

Life would get really interesting (for anyone not aboard a large vessel) on the world's oceans if the blackfish started seeing people as enemies.

quote:

Don't get me wrong, fire. I would rather wildlife be wild. But Sea World takes great care of their animals and many zoos are integral to breeding programs that are keeping species from extinction. California condors are only alive today because of captive breeding programs. They are more than just entertainment. I would rather preserve habitat, but I have to be realistic about that. Captivity is probably better than extinction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheFireWithinMe
It just pisses me off that we encroach on natural habitats as if we have some divine right to the land and then people complain that wild animals are showing up. Well DUH what else are they supposed to do?

quote:

agreed -- it's really sad that we've made a situation that excuses captivity for wildlife, and the only excuse is our own over-consumption of said wildlife. we are the reason they have to be in captivity, and we think that's a good thing that captivity exists. =p

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheFireWithinMe

quote:

agreed -- it's really sad that we've made a situation that excuses captivity for wildlife, and the only excuse is our own over-consumption of said wildlife. we are the reason they have to be in captivity, and we think that's a good thing that captivity exists. =p

In turn, agreed (gee what a surprise ) It's totally ironic that we say yay for captivity! when it wouldn't be necessary if it weren't for our own fucking greed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyBoPeep

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheFireWithinMe

quote:

agreed -- it's really sad that we've made a situation that excuses captivity for wildlife, and the only excuse is our own over-consumption of said wildlife. we are the reason they have to be in captivity, and we think that's a good thing that captivity exists. =p

In turn, agreed (gee what a surprise ) It's totally ironic that we say yay for captivity! when it wouldn't be necessary if it weren't for our own fucking greed.

exactly! it's hilarious. =p

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Because you can't separate an individual species from it's environment, Firm. I'm also a biologist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheFireWithinMe

quote:

Don't get me wrong, fire. I would rather wildlife be wild. But Sea World takes great care of their animals and many zoos are integral to breeding programs that are keeping species from extinction. California condors are only alive today because of captive breeding programs. They are more than just entertainment. I would rather preserve habitat, but I have to be realistic about that. Captivity is probably better than extinction.

Again, I agree with you to a point. But some of the zoos out there really need to be shut down. Putting a big cat in a tiny cage is just plain cruel. The "zoos" that true to approximate their natural habitat are imo much better. We have one such place here in Quebec and it seriously rocks. Rather than the animals being caged, people drive through and the animals have plenty of space to roam. As for Sea World, okay you've convinced me. Captive breeding programs I agree with and sadly it seems to be the only way to keep certain species from going extinct.

It just pisses me off that we encroach on natural habitats as if we have some divine right to the land and then people complain that wild animals are showing up. Well DUH what else are they supposed to do?

quote:

ORIGINAL: HannahLynn

interesting post firm, but you're overly complicating a very simple question with a very simple answer, sentience is completely fucking irrelevant. the whole issue can be boiled down to two very simple and obvious maxims.

if it can knock me up, it's people.
if it isn't people, its food.

quote:

Private zoos are often pretty horrible. While I accept that animals are property, they are also an enhanced kind of property, worthy of special protection and treatment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

That sounds all very romantic and deep, Firm, but the whole idea will be largely moot very very soon. many of the very species that you consider worthy of being considered sentient are also the ones that are in the most danger of extinction. If you want to save wildlife, you have to save habitat. It is actually very cut and dried. All this wrangling about legal status is meaningless when you are discussing species that may be largely extinct in our lifetimes, especially in the wild.
Your pretty words touched me emotionally. Practically, though, while it is all very well to consider on a conceptual basis, it means nothing when you consider that if the species is extinct, it really doesn't matter whether they are accorded some sort of elevated status. Now that makes me sad. The thinking of PETA scares me though, since they are fighting like hell to shut down places that are these animals' best hope of survival. I would rather consider practical ways to help animals, rather than theorize about neanderthals and whether chimps "are people too". I know from doing ESA work early in my career how little people are willing to sacrifice for the good of wildlife.

It is also pretty simplistic to think you can take whales fromSea World, for example, and just return them to the ocean. They tried that with poor Keiko, and it was an expensive disaster and cruel to him. But dumb fucks like PETA don't care.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Again, so what? I don't care about machine hybrids or uploaded intelligence. I can see that you do, and that's fine. I would rather live in a world where there are wild primates, whales, and elephants. Things like this suit won't make that possible.

quote:

onsidered "fully human". Other races were "sub-human". While these grou

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Because you can't separate an individual species from it's environment, Firm. I'm also a biologist.

True, to an extent.

To clarify: I'm not agreeing with PETA in the particulars, but I do think that the concept of "what is sentient" is a discussion worth having.

I'm not against captive breeding programs.  What I am saying is that the moral definition of what is worth recognizing as "sentient" may need a deeper discussion. 

At one time, anyone not of your own family or clan was "non-human".  At one time, women weren't considered "fully human".  Other races were "sub-human".  While these groups were all part of homo sapiens, the societal definition of "man" didn't include them.

We are now technologically on the cusp of making sentient computers, and/or human/computer hybrids.   We are on the cusp of being able to biologically modify other species to change some of their basic biological construct.

Over time, every single definition that we have had about what makes "man" unique has been proven to be non-exclusive.  Tool user?  Language?  Laughter?  Self-awareness?  We share all of these traits with other species in the animal kingdom.

I asked a question about homo sapiens neanderthalensis and if they were around today, would we eat them, and kill them for entertainment?  After all, they weren't human!  There is evidence, however, that we both ate them, and interbreed with them.

This discussion might have more resonance if they were still around: another sapient species that "wasn't human".  Were they animals, or something else?

We don't have a definition of "something else" other than animal.  I think we should consider that there ought to be another category.

Firm