OK, so we were enjoying a beautiful lunch today, and you know, if you are thinking, any situation can become a moral dillemma. Or at least a chance for philosphizing about moral concerns. So we were eating at a place in Opry Mills mall called the Aquarium resturant. It is a beautiful place and you literally feel like you are underwater there. Fish are everywhere, in huge tanks, and there are even sharks and manta rays.
You walk in and you are immediately struck by the beauty of it. You just want to sit and watch the fish go round and round; it makes you forget to look at the menu! They are just going round and round and round. And somewhere mid-meal it hits you. That shark has been just going around and around for almost an hour. And that is all he gets to do for the whole day. Every day...
So is that a good thing or not?
It made me think of Dory from
Finding Nemo. You know, the one who has like a 3 second memory. She just floats around and cant make a connection with anything because she can't remember anything. There were some of those same kind of fish in the tanks. Life for them has to be better here than in the ocean, especially if they truly have the limited brain capacity that people say they do. I mean, they have a reasonable amount of space, constant food source and no predators. I think people tend to forget that "life in the wild" includes a very high infant mortality and a very short lifespan for more animals. Whereas life in captivity may mean a less interesting life, but it is certainly one that is more comfortable and long. And that seems to make sense for the Dory fish. But for the sharks? The big Mantas? The Eel? Aren't they made to dart and zoom, hunt and roam, kill and eat? Circle with one fin out of the water? It is hard to feel good about their constant circling.
Our discussion turned to zoos as well. Is it right to keep animals in a cage? Shouldn't they be "out there" where they belong? But where is "out there" these days? I mean, think about the
wild cows in India. They are allowed to roam, but there is certainly a risk to the humans they live near. And for many animals their habitats are shrinking and disappearing. Many an animal loving zookeeper truly believes that his or her work is integral to the preservation of many species. So if we as a planet want to keep animals in their homes, we are going to have to change how we do business in a major way. ( And I don't think that would be a bad thing. I won't repeat what has been said so many times, but feel free to mentally add here a monologue on the
destruction of the rainforest,
extinct species,
pollution, etc.)
"Viewed through a sentimental lens, it’s an understandable conundrum [That is, whether animals should be kept in zoos and tanks or allowed to simply live in the wild]. And it’s a conundrum that highlights why, despite attacks suggesting the contrary, the work of animal rights is a highly unsentimental enterprise. To argue that we must consider the rights of animals like Tilikum and Tatiana is to accept that we must put aside our wish to experience these animals firsthand, and consider rather what is best for them. For many of us who love animals, it is in some ways a sacrifice. It is putting aside the selfish love of childhood, which insists that somehow, we must possess what we love, even if it is just with our eyes, and moving toward a mature love, one that recognizes we can best honor the animals we adore by allowing them to thrive in our absence, far from our view."
I like this quote for its last sentance. We must, as adults, go through that process, giving up what we want in exchange for what is best. In some cases arguments could be made that letting an animal back in the wild may not be best for it in particular. I mean, the wild cats that live among us (that is, on the streets and in the barns of America, I am not talking about so called big cats) are much more of a menace and danger than our pet cats. AND the wild cats suffer much more than our pets. So we must make determinations about that based on reason. But over all, I am in agreement with this blogger's feeling. Regardless of what we human's like or want, animals are better off living where they belong, in their natural habitat.
And we certainly should not think we can contain these dangerous animals without fear of consequence. They are still WILD ANIMALS. This week a true tragedy occurred at Sea World. A trainer was killed by a
Shamu-like whale (a killer whale living at SeaWorld, and we all know that killer whales living at Sea World should all be named Shamu, even though this one wasn't. When I was young I saw Shamu at the Sea World in Ohio and wondered how he could live both in Ohio and in Florida at the same time...) But anyway, this story leads to a lot of renewed discussion of the relationship between man and beast. I think about when the white Tiger attacked the magician from Sigfried and Roy, or the chimp that ripped the woman's face off. Again, it is not shocking that these events happened, and it should give our society pause as we think about our relationships with animals. They really aren't made to put on shows for us or live penned up in a cage. Can we make it work? Sometimes. But it will always be a tightrope walk at best. If we forget that, we are in deep Elephant poo.
Another issue is the use of animals in medical and scientific testing. NASA has recently been doing some experiments using monkeys to test the effects of space radiation. Here is a
link to an admitedly biased article about it. And when I say biased, I don't mean outrageous, just that the writer is clearly against this form of animal testing. And I think we definitely should be when there are viable alternatives. But there are gray areas depending on how we value the greater good of human lives.
Basically, I like this discussion. We as individuals have little power to make changes in the world as a whole, but we do have our vote, for one, and our ability to changes how we act in this world. This may be refusing to go to zoos, if your conscience convicts that. Or it may be donating to save the rainforest. Or it may be boycotting all of NASA, as one post suggested, although I am not sure how you do that...not eat astronaut ice cream? Or this may be picking up polluting trash at a local waterway.
I would LOVE to get your take on this one...
