Canada to ban keeping whales, dolphins in captivity • Hacker News Board

Re: Canada to ban keeping whales, dolphins in captivity

#181

Post by Muha_ » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 8:22 AM UTC

uhhhhhhh wrote: post #136

Muha_ wrote: post #87

Yes, it painful for me to look at animals in narrow cages where they slowly go mad whith monotony. (next - by the Thanos voice) But in general I can't understand the logic. In the wild, the animal has hard life. It will sooner or later be injured, sick, starving, and even eaten alive. But these sufferings are considered as normal because they are "natural". In the well-maintained zoo, the animals eat, sleep, and a bi…

Animals have spent billions of years evolving to live in and handle the world they naturally inhabit. Taking them out of that, putting them in a small cages where they don't feel safe, they don't understand whats happening. They are surrounded by things that are threats in the wild, noises they aren't familiar with, etc.. Putting a wild animal in a cage isn't "boredom", its torture. > Now biological evolution is comp…

> Animals have spent billions of years evolving to live in and handle the world they naturally inhabit.

Then what about meerkats as pets, for example?

> Because animals ARE wild/ARE Nature. You can't remove nature from nature.

Who say this to you? It was God, animals themselves or some voice of Universe? There is no one here, only us. We can do what we think is right. If we see suffering that has no any purpose, we can stop it. What is "purpose" is just our choice too.

> They are also required for life on this planet to continue.

For what? Now we are life on the planet. Nature has evolved and we are the result and next step.

>The ecosystem depends on animals at all levels ..

Now we have a new ecology: mankind and Earth.

Re: Canada to ban keeping whales, dolphins in captivity

#182

Post by astura » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 9:51 AM UTC

romellem wrote: post #132

braythwayt wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up with zoos and aquariums, and I have fond memories of them. But of course, I wasn't kept in one. And furthermore... Zoos and aquariums are not nature. They are exhibits in a kind of museum. If we want people to see nature, we have to preserve actual nature and encourage people to visit it. Visiting a zoo is not visiting nature, and I personally worry that equivocating the two is dangerous. I would not want p…

> If we want people to see nature, we have to preserve actual nature and encourage people to visit it. Visiting a zoo is not visiting nature, and I personally worry that equivocating the two is dangerous. I don’t find this compelling, and think that you are missing the point: visiting zoos is a way to inspire people to care about nature such that they will want to preserve it. I was at a zoological society fundraiser…

I don't find the "kids these days" argument compelling in the least.

Re: Canada to ban keeping whales, dolphins in captivity

#183

Post by uhhhhhhh » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 3:52 PM UTC

Muha_ wrote: post #181

uhhhhhhh wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Animals have spent billions of years evolving to live in and handle the world they naturally inhabit. Taking them out of that, putting them in a small cages where they don't feel safe, they don't understand whats happening. They are surrounded by things that are threats in the wild, noises they aren't familiar with, etc.. Putting a wild animal in a cage isn't "boredom", its torture. > Now biological evolution is comp…

> Animals have spent billions of years evolving to live in and handle the world they naturally inhabit. Then what about meerkats as pets, for example? > Because animals ARE wild/ARE Nature. You can't remove nature from nature. Who say this to you? It was God, animals themselves or some voice of Universe? There is no one here, only us. We can do what we think is right. If we see suffering that has no any purpose, we c…

>Then what about meerkats as pets, for example?

What about it?

>Who say this to you? It was God, animals themselves or some voice of Universe?

This is what I learned by studying biology and ecology

>There is no one here, only us. We can do what we think is right.

You're suggesting interrupting a natural ecosystem that is beyond complex, likely leading to its complete collapse, due to lack of understanding.

You may "think" you're right, but anthropogenic projection and a complete lack of understanding of how the world works doesn't make your view right, if anything your an example of someone with good intentions that would utterly fuck up the world if you were given control

>If we see suffering that has no any purpose, we can stop it. What is "purpose" is just our choice too.

Suffering is a natural state of existence, we all experience it, it's part of life, many philosophers would argue a necessary part of life.

>For what? Now we are life on the planet. Nature has evolved and we are the result and next step.

We rely on a massively complex ecosystem made up of millions of other living organisms. We are not "the life", we are an example of it on this plane.

Nature is continuing to evolve, we're just one point on a long line of changes.

>Now we have a new ecology: mankind and Earth.

That is absurd and unjustifiable. Earth's ecosystem is made up of billions and billions of living things, humans are just one part of it, and one of the most damaging, destructive, short-sighted living things and we cause significantly more suffering than anything else.

I would suggest starting with biology and ecology courses, and some history both geological and human.

Re: Canada to ban keeping whales, dolphins in captivity

#184

Post by uhhhhhhh » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 3:55 PM UTC

Tiktaalik wrote: post #148

uhhhhhhh wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gay Marriage was legalized nationally, not limited to 2 provinces, so it was actually significant and they did support it and pushed through the legislation. Same with this bill. To downplay it because companies have already been adjusting to this expected reality quite petty, and they deserve full credit for the legislation of it.

It is not believable that rules restricting gay marriage would be struck down in some provinces but not others in Canada. Legalization was obviously inevitable. A few years prior the Liberal government of the day was opposed to gay marriage and voted to confirm the status quo definition of marriage. The Liberals of course deserve credit for seeing the obvious and not attempting any action to block gay marriage furthe…

>It is not believable that rules restricting gay marriage would be struck down in some provinces but not others in Canada. Legalization was obviously inevitable.

Long term the supreme court of Canada would have struck down provincial bans on gay marriage, but not all of the provincial courts would have. Inevitable could take 10 years, or 50.

Doing it nationally and at once reduced years of suffering and human rights issues, and thus was significant.

>The Liberals of course deserve credit for seeing the obvious and not attempting any action to block gay marriage further, but they did not lift a finger to support gay marriage until the courts weighed in and forced the issue upon them.

That's simply not true.

Re: Canada to ban keeping whales, dolphins in captivity

#185

Post by Muha_ » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 7:10 PM UTC

uhhhhhhh wrote: post #183

Muha_ wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Animals have spent billions of years evolving to live in and handle the world they naturally inhabit. Then what about meerkats as pets, for example? > Because animals ARE wild/ARE Nature. You can't remove nature from nature. Who say this to you? It was God, animals themselves or some voice of Universe? There is no one here, only us. We can do what we think is right. If we see suffering that has no any purpose, we c…

>Then what about meerkats as pets, for example? What about it? >Who say this to you? It was God, animals themselves or some voice of Universe? This is what I learned by studying biology and ecology >There is no one here, only us. We can do what we think is right. You're suggesting interrupting a natural ecosystem that is beyond complex, likely leading to its complete collapse, due to lack of understanding. You may "t…

> You're suggesting interrupting a natural ecosystem that is beyond complex..

No.We did not understand each other. I'm talking about what we will do when we completely destroy this ecosystem. May be it will take about hundred years.

> Suffering is a natural state of existence..

Then why do we worry about animals in zoos? We are part of nature too. Then why do we separate natural and non-natural suffering?

> Nature is continuing to evolve, we're just one point on a long line of changes.

Wild nature has no time for this. Evolution requires millions of years. We will destroy it before anyway. And even if we disappear and let it to evolve farther, then for what? It has produced conscious cpecies already.

> Earth's ecosystem is made up of billions and billions of living things, humans are just one part of it.

Ok. Another point of view: what do you think about the anthropic principle?

I think you equate humans with animals. But that is absurd, because it is the judgment of man. Animal cannot judge at all. You separate nature and mankind and then say that it just part of nature. I do'n understand a point.

> I would suggest starting with biology and ecology courses, and some history both geological and human.

I think I studied it at school 30 years ago :). Last years I finished with quantum mechanics and switched to English language (sorry, the hardest subject for me).