This is the question I got for an online discussion in my Biology class:
"What about captive sea mammals at places like Sea World? Is it degrading to the animals to have them perform tricks for us? If killer whales and such are caught in the ocean specifically for the purpose of being at Sea World is that OK?
What about animal acts at circuses? Does this show the proper respect for nature?"
Here are two responses:
"I think that animals used for places like Sea World or circuses are fine. Like I said earlier, animals were created for us to enjoy. I think it is fine, and one can tell when the animals performe they feel loved. They wouldn't obey if they didn't. Overall, I think that animals are treated well."
"As for circuses and Sea World, I could see how many people might see this as cruel, but my opion is that these animals most likely enjoy preforming tricks, and that they are more happy if they have a purpose and something to do."
Whoever wrote that must have forgot about the orca that killed a trainer at Seaworld San Diego about a year ago and is incredibly ignorant about how cruelty reigns in circuses.
No doubt all those members of the bovine family that were place here on earth for man's benefit feel the "love" and they are sent to the slaughter to provide me with a nice T-Bone steak. Yummm feel the luv. LOL
weeder Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No doubt all those members of the bovine family > that were place here on earth for man's benefit > feel the "love" and they are sent to the slaughter > to provide me with a nice T-Bone steak. Yummm > feel the luv. LOL
Don't kid yourself. If given the chance that cow would not hesitate to eat you.
.... I didn't have much to do with zoos, animal theme parks and other captive critter operations. Such entities, in my mind, were and still are nothing more than nicely kept prisons that hold innocent inmates with unwarranted life sentences.
Then this really bright guy talked me into becoming a Docent (volunteer teacher) at the local zoo. He mostly agreed with my assessment, but countered by suggesting zoos make excellent teaching platforms. I bit and was hired by the zoo's Education Department in little over a year's time.
That little song & dance lasted roughly ten-years. In the end, despite convincing myself to the contrary, I concluded that zoos, animal theme parks and other captive critter operations are nothing more than nicely kept prisons that hold innocent inmates with unwarranted life sentences. Just couldn't do it anymore.
The other thing I knew yet had to re-learn is that we (humans) are not above nature. We are a part of it. We are also quite vulnerable in that we sit atop the food chain. What that means is all of Mother Nature's creations will flourish should we go the way of the Dodo. The inverse, however, does not hold true.
In the final anlysis, Mother Nature doesn't give a s**t when it comes to who stays and who goes. All she's worried about is balance. A species that would "tip-the-scale" only serves to hasten its own demise.
Locally, in Sacramento CA, we have a zoo that is far too small for the large mammals. I haven't been there for almost two decades, because the place broke my heart. The giraffe cage was a cyclone fenced dirt lot that was higher than it was wide. A giraffe stood in there, leaning its head out over the top of the fence. There was a tree top just out of reach, and the giraffe was pretending to nibble on the leaves. It stuck out its dark tongue and pretended to pull leaves into its mouth. Then it made chewing motions.
The elephant cage was no larger. Two elephants stood within, rocking from side to side, as if on a ship at sea. I've been told that that behavior is a sign of boredom or psychosis.
There were many small African cats nervously pacing their tiny cages. They were about the size of housecats.
I'm not an animal rights activist. I'm not even against captivity. I went with my wife to a preserve in southern Oregon with hundreds of acres where ostriches and emus and antelope and impalas run free.
My experience is similar to the zoo docent's. I've been a history museum docent for nearly 10 years, and have come to the conclusion that most of what they present is white man's history, a celebration of white man's "feats."
In recent years I've changed my focus to almost entirely talking about the Indians, Hispanic history in Oregon, and the history of immigrants.
Also, I've taken on a gig twice a month of docenting at a museum that's all about the Japanese American experience in Oregon.
This feels much better than doing the old Lewis & Clark, Oregon Trail spiel.
What turns my crank is surfing and riding wild roller coasters. After an hour at Sea World I'm ready to go home. I never liked circuses. The best circus I ever watched was living in New York City and just watching the people there.
I think a better way to evaluate whether it's right or wrong would be to watch how animal behavior and health are affected by captivity. Does it harm them? Are they lethargic? Irritable? Energetic? Agressive? And then reintroduce animals to the wild and see if they have been damaged by the experience (can they survive without human help?), and if they readapt and eventually thrive on the outside.
I thought it might be interesting to reword your classmate's explanations. They sounded like they could have been used to justify slavery or any number of unethical things. How about to tell us why people are happier in the church?
" . . . . one can tell when the people [obey their leaders/keep the commandments] they feel [happy]. They wouldn't obey if they didn't. Overall, I think that [Mormons] are treated well."
[No, they've just been conditioned to obey, just as a circus animal, with rewards and punishments].
"As for [time-consuming callings, 10% tithing no matter how poor they are, and cleaning the church] I could see how many people might see this as cruel, but my opinion is that these [people] most likely enjoy [serving the church], and that they are more happy if they have a purpose and something to do."