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.
Here is a great link on how we can help the animals in practical and realistic ways. Their take? Go on a whale watching cruise and skip Sea World completely.
I would LOVE to get your take on this one...
This is really a hard one. I've been thinking about my cat a lot lately. I mean, we keep the cat inside and we know that, in theory, keeping the cat in extends his life expectancy from 5 years to 15. But as I watch my cat, who once lived exclusively outside and could hunt and run and be free, grow fatter and more sleepy, I can't help but wonder if, given the choice, the cat wouldn't choose a short life with access to the outside world.
ReplyDeleteIn reality, how much better is the cat's situation than Shamu's? Like Shamu's, his natural range is much bigger than the small run we can give him inside the house. Unlike Shamu, he is not forced to do daily tricks, but he is constantly scooped up by humans who know he doesn't like it but have no impulse control. Hmmm. I would welcome thoughts on this.
Also, at this link is an interesting story somewhat on this topic:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1340
The first half is about something else entirely,but the second is about Lucy the Chimp, who was raised in captivity and whose human parents came to think of Lucy as their daughter. Everything was well until Lucy couldn't live in the family home anymore - and the story tells what happened after that. Lucy's fate was actually a lot more positive than many of the chimp stories we hear.
But what about my cat, Bernice. She adopted us. I want her out. She wants in. I say, "Go get yourself a mole." She says, "Cat chow, please." I mean, sometimes they do get a choice, and they choose domesticity. Dogs take particular joy in human companionship.
ReplyDeleteAnd what about the intervention that happens for the specific purpose of saving a species from extinction. Survival of the fittest, at the raw definition, means that lower animals have to compete with humans. In the broadest sense, they don't have a chance but for our gracious allowances.
I definitely agree. My pets have NO interest in being wild. And I am very curious as to the role of zoos in the preservation of species.
ReplyDeletehttp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0820/is_n221/ai_17911061/pg_5/
This page comments a bit on this issue. One thing they note is that zoos sort of act as PR connecting people to non-endagered species in an effort to get them to care for endangered species. The article I linked to in my blog post was titled "Monkeys are people too!" I made a comment to that article that no, monkeys are not people too. "People is people" as they say on the muppets. THat is, humans are people. And we are responsible (that is charged by God)to care for this world. But in the end, monkeys are not people. So we don't have to worry about their self-actualization. We also should not anthopomorphize them. They do not conceptualize and feel in the same way we do. But they do have feelings and they certainly can suffer. So humans have a very heavy role in the care and management of this earth. We need to be aware of that fact. And as creatures with higher brain function we have to be able to realize that our survival, as the fittest, is dependant on the survival of even the smallest creature.
I think we need to listen to the animals themselves:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uQ9ybSgnTg
These are not objects in a box, double glaze and so forth, they like meat, they need space, water, to dive to swim!
I think you're right that monkeys aren't people, of course, but listening to that story about chimps and reading some other stuff about chimps recently (and great apes), I don't think it's anthropomorphizing them too much to say that there are some concerns about "self-actualization" for animals with higher brain function. All that may mean, of course, is allowing them to live lives that are stimulating and happy - that are "chimpy," maybe - but it does seem that chimps and some other animals (maybe dolphins?) are able to feel and conceptualize in SOME of the same ways we do, though not all. I guess I don't believe too much in a human/animal divide in the way I used to, but rather that animals and humans are on a continuum together, and that the higher the animal's brain function, the more responsibility we have to not inflict suffering on that animal.
ReplyDeleteI don't know though, in some ways, I think cockroaches and bedbugs are "the fittest." They may be stupid, but heck if we're ever going to be able to kill them off :-)
I love that clip of the big cat who wants Space and to not be a vegetarian! That is so funny.
ReplyDeleteNow the monkey story I found disturbing on SO many levels. But I think that story highlights this very clear divide that happens when we go from monkey species to human. Now, don't get me wrong, I do understand the concept that there is a continuum too. But the monkey in the story never did evil. She reacted and responded as she had been taught. Granted, she was VERY intellegent and so was able to interact on a level few animals can. But it was the HUMANs were horrible in the experiment they did on the animal. They crippled her as a monkey, THEN realized that they could never teach her NOT to be an animal, then abandoned her. And some OTHER woman ended up living in Africa for however long to watch out for her.
But that being said, I see aspects of communication, affection, and socialization in my dogs. So I know that animals with higher intellegence are bound to have that even more so. And I can't stand what is done to dogs in this country, let alone dolphins, chimps, etc. Will humans every do what is right. I guess the short answer is no.
I wish that they would.