3 ms·

My point is that they could all be treated better, and it's absurd to draw arbitrary lines between species when you're talking in general terms. A huge variety

My point is that they could all be treated better, and it's absurd to draw arbitrary lines between species when you're talking in general terms. A huge variety of creatures are very trainable when raised by humans from birth, and while selective breeding has made some more 'tame' and useful than others, it doesn't make them all that different from the less shepherded ones in ethics terms. Yes, you can argue that for-profit display is a little different than decorative or companion animals, which is a lot different from utility animals (much fewer of these are necessary in modern environments) or food animals (technically none of these are necessary), but they all have brains similar enough to ours that they think and feel, and the ones with the largest populations which suffer the most (arguably mistreated cats and dogs) deserve every bit as much concern - if not more, due to their sheer numbers - as animals used for profit (some of which are treated better than others, which is a hard thing to categorize).

crpatino 10y ago
You are not listening. It is not absurd. Elephants are wild animals. They probably are smart enough to qualify as minors, - so they can and do adapt to a wide variety of conditions, - but it does not change the fact that to express the fullness of their being they need to roam free with a pack of their own kind. Pets and other domestic animals are different in kind. They have been bred over many generations to form a symbiotic relationship with humans. Their natural environment is a human controled environment, and you would do them a diservice by releasing them in the wild. Again, some of the most intelligent (pigs and dogs come to mind) would probably cope and eventually revert to their predomestication baseline (over several generations, though). But that does not change the fact that they need a human element in their lives in order to express the fullness of their being. I wont argue your ethical points, because it is ultimatelly a matter of personal values. But if you want to start a discusion about that, you need to get the facts straight... and the facts say that different species of animals do have different needs, regardless of their feellings and inteligence.

crpatino 10y ago

You are not listening. It is not absurd. Elephants are wild animals. They probably are smart enough to qualify as minors, - so they can and do adapt to a wide variety of conditions, - but it does not change the fact that to express the fullness of their being they need to roam free with a pack of their own kind. Pets and other domestic animals are different in kind. They have been bred over many generations to form a symbiotic relationship with humans. Their natural environment is a human controled environment, and you would do them a diservice by releasing them in the wild. Again, some of the most intelligent (pigs and dogs come to mind) would probably cope and eventually revert to their predomestication baseline (over several generations, though). But that does not change the fact that they need a human element in their lives in order to express the fullness of their being. I wont argue your ethical points, because it is ultimatelly a matter of personal values. But if you want to start a discusion about that, you need to get the facts straight... and the facts say that different species of animals do have different needs, regardless of their feellings and inteligence.