16 ms·

This has also been known to happen among African cichlids, a type of fish. I'm sure it's likely other animals are affected as well but I have cichlids myself, s

This has also been known to happen among African cichlids, a type of fish. I'm sure it's likely other animals are affected as well but I have cichlids myself, so I have more context with them specifically. Cichlids tend to be highly territorial and socially competitive. They're constantly vying for some rock or hole to "own". Usually it is recommended to overstock a cichlid tank slightly in order to disperse aggression. With three fish it's easy for the most aggressive alpha to pick on and injure the weakest link. With twelve fish the most aggressive alpha will have that many more others to compete with/take out his aggression on. Sometimes, however, the weakest link still emerges. When this happens multiple fish might pick on the weakling and chase him/her around, disallowing them from entering any kind of territory among the rocks (they like rocks). They drive this weaker fish to stay toward the top reaches of the tank. Eventually the fish just starts hanging out there naturally because it knows it'll get bullied if it comes down. Then, after some time of giving up on fighting for its own territory and competing with the other fish, the weakling just...gives up. Even if the other fish have left them alone by then, and the fish isn't physically injured or lacking food or anything, the fish doesn't even try to reenter "society" anymore and just...dies. I got my cichlids a couple of years ago and have since decided that while I will continue to care for these fish as best I can as I took on that responsibility, I'm not going to be getting any more fish for ethical reasons.

dcow 8y ago
What are the ethical reasons? Do you find it unethical to foster a species that behaves in such a way? Strictly curious.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- drakonka 8y ago
  After getting fish and seeing them in captivity first hand I've decided that I don't think it's ethical to keep fish in captivity in general. As good a home as I try to give them, they're still wild animals in a little box. I think no matter the size of my aquarium or the effort I put into water maintenance, providing suitable rocks, etc, all of my effort and good intentions will never compare to the home they are meant to have in the wild. I just feel bad for them and bad about myself for contributing to an industry that puts animals in these kinds of conditions.
  - snikeris 8y ago
    Do you worry about his sense of purpose or something? Unlimited food, no predators, might not be so bad for a fish.
    - z_open 8y ago
      This isn't your or his decision to make. We don't get to decide if a creature's preference is the cage. There is no way of knowing in the first place.
    - drakonka 8y ago
      I worry about a lot of things, including but not limited to the expression of all the instinctive behaviours that a fish would have in its natural habitat that living in a glass box prevents (no matter how enriching we try to make the captive environment). I could write a lot about this, but I've dwelled on it enough as it is. Suffice to say I have just decided on a personal level after keeping fish that I do not think they are a suitable species for "ethical" captivity in the home.
      - malnourish 8y ago
        Legitimate question, how do you feel about dogs? I find your ethics intriguing (in a positive way, to be clear).
        drakonka 8y ago
        First I'd like to iterate that I am not trying to convince anyone to share or understand my views on this, I'm only posting this because you asked the question. I have some conflicting and sometimes contradictory feelings on animals in captivity in general and tend to lean against captivity in the majority of cases. Personally I feel better about keeping dogs in captivity than fish. Dogs are domesticated and want to be around us. Not only that but they can be around us fully, as opposed to sitting in a box for their entire life. They love and care for us in their own way, are very in tune with our emotions (and we with theirs), and have evolved to live alongside us (if one chooses the appropriate kind of dog for them). Where I live the laws on keeping dogs are more strict than some countries, and dogs enjoy a lot of access with their owners. They can't be left alone for more than a few hours at a time, so if a person is to keep a dog they either take it (almost) everywhere with them or sign up for dog daycare where the dog gets to spend the work day playing with other dogs and humans. I think dogs are in tune with us enough to be legitimately happy, and life alongside humans has become the "natural habitat" for many types of dogs (again assuming one chooses the appropriate dog).
liveoneggs 8y ago
are you Foo the Flowerhorn? :)
- drakonka 8y ago
  Afraid not, but now I'm Googling who that is!
gnarbarian 8y ago
Sounds like highschool.
- ianai 8y ago
  And thus like (modern) human society.
ben_w 8y ago
That sounds like “learned helplessness”. I suspect (but lack time and skill to properly test this hypothesis) that this mechanism is also long term depression-in-the-everyday-sense can lead to depression-in-the-clinical-sense. This study explicitly says this is different from clinical depression. From the examples they chose in the article, I hypothesise the difference is between acute/imposed and chronic/natural psychological states.
- drakonka 8y ago
  I am by no means an expert on learned helplessness, but I'm not sure that's what this is. I could see it if the fish was prevented from eating by the other fish, and even when it is no longer being prevented from eating it chooses not to eat and dies because it doesn't know any better. However, this does not seem to be the case. The fish is not prevented from eating when food is dropped into the tank. In fact it is often one of the first to get a chance at food because it is hanging out at the top of the tank, where the food is dropped. Instead it is prevented from assimilating into the territory and rocky habitat, and gets kicked out of the main social hierarchy of the tank. After enough time it stops trying to assimilate and stops eating as well, even though access to food was never the issue. There are a few ways to try to try and fix such a situation, including quarantine. One example is rearranging the rockscape in the tank to force the rest of the fish to re-establish the territories amongst themselves and take focus off of the weakling for long enough for him to maybe take a spot back.
jscipione 8y ago
As a former owner of African Cichlids I can confirm that Darwin plays a key role in Cichlid society. The strong murdered the weak and buried their body under the castle until there were only a few left. They also manipulated the gravel in the tank creating hills and valleys to their liking.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  Sounds like human society. Makes you wonder whether or not we are just play things in a 'fish tank'?
  - ObsoleteNerd 8y ago
    You could argue that's exactly what we are, unless you're rich enough to be the ones who control the conditions the rest are kept in.

dcow 8y ago

What are the ethical reasons? Do you find it unethical to foster a species that behaves in such a way? Strictly curious.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
drakonka 8y ago
After getting fish and seeing them in captivity first hand I've decided that I don't think it's ethical to keep fish in captivity in general. As good a home as I try to give them, they're still wild animals in a little box. I think no matter the size of my aquarium or the effort I put into water maintenance, providing suitable rocks, etc, all of my effort and good intentions will never compare to the home they are meant to have in the wild. I just feel bad for them and bad about myself for contributing to an industry that puts animals in these kinds of conditions.
- snikeris 8y ago
  Do you worry about his sense of purpose or something? Unlimited food, no predators, might not be so bad for a fish.
  - z_open 8y ago
    This isn't your or his decision to make. We don't get to decide if a creature's preference is the cage. There is no way of knowing in the first place.
  - drakonka 8y ago
    I worry about a lot of things, including but not limited to the expression of all the instinctive behaviours that a fish would have in its natural habitat that living in a glass box prevents (no matter how enriching we try to make the captive environment). I could write a lot about this, but I've dwelled on it enough as it is. Suffice to say I have just decided on a personal level after keeping fish that I do not think they are a suitable species for "ethical" captivity in the home.
    - malnourish 8y ago
      Legitimate question, how do you feel about dogs? I find your ethics intriguing (in a positive way, to be clear).
      - drakonka 8y ago
        First I'd like to iterate that I am not trying to convince anyone to share or understand my views on this, I'm only posting this because you asked the question. I have some conflicting and sometimes contradictory feelings on animals in captivity in general and tend to lean against captivity in the majority of cases. Personally I feel better about keeping dogs in captivity than fish. Dogs are domesticated and want to be around us. Not only that but they can be around us fully, as opposed to sitting in a box for their entire life. They love and care for us in their own way, are very in tune with our emotions (and we with theirs), and have evolved to live alongside us (if one chooses the appropriate kind of dog for them). Where I live the laws on keeping dogs are more strict than some countries, and dogs enjoy a lot of access with their owners. They can't be left alone for more than a few hours at a time, so if a person is to keep a dog they either take it (almost) everywhere with them or sign up for dog daycare where the dog gets to spend the work day playing with other dogs and humans. I think dogs are in tune with us enough to be legitimately happy, and life alongside humans has become the "natural habitat" for many types of dogs (again assuming one chooses the appropriate dog).

liveoneggs 8y ago

are you Foo the Flowerhorn? :)

drakonka 8y ago
Afraid not, but now I'm Googling who that is!

gnarbarian 8y ago

Sounds like highschool.

ianai 8y ago
And thus like (modern) human society.

ben_w 8y ago

That sounds like “learned helplessness”. I suspect (but lack time and skill to properly test this hypothesis) that this mechanism is also long term depression-in-the-everyday-sense can lead to depression-in-the-clinical-sense. This study explicitly says this is different from clinical depression. From the examples they chose in the article, I hypothesise the difference is between acute/imposed and chronic/natural psychological states.

drakonka 8y ago
I am by no means an expert on learned helplessness, but I'm not sure that's what this is. I could see it if the fish was prevented from eating by the other fish, and even when it is no longer being prevented from eating it chooses not to eat and dies because it doesn't know any better. However, this does not seem to be the case. The fish is not prevented from eating when food is dropped into the tank. In fact it is often one of the first to get a chance at food because it is hanging out at the top of the tank, where the food is dropped. Instead it is prevented from assimilating into the territory and rocky habitat, and gets kicked out of the main social hierarchy of the tank. After enough time it stops trying to assimilate and stops eating as well, even though access to food was never the issue. There are a few ways to try to try and fix such a situation, including quarantine. One example is rearranging the rockscape in the tank to force the rest of the fish to re-establish the territories amongst themselves and take focus off of the weakling for long enough for him to maybe take a spot back.

jscipione 8y ago

As a former owner of African Cichlids I can confirm that Darwin plays a key role in Cichlid society. The strong murdered the weak and buried their body under the castle until there were only a few left. They also manipulated the gravel in the tank creating hills and valleys to their liking.

bilbo0s 8y ago
Sounds like human society. Makes you wonder whether or not we are just play things in a 'fish tank'?
- ObsoleteNerd 8y ago
  You could argue that's exactly what we are, unless you're rich enough to be the ones who control the conditions the rest are kept in.