Reply With Quotesigned.Thanks for the invitation.
http://www.whalesharkpetition.com/
Enough said
colin | The Wilderness and Forest | FTS
Want to learn more so that i can give back...
Can we say No for Arowana, Plecos, Cories and Apistos too?
Barmby, I'm glad you're concerned for the welfare of animals. I also have an interest in nature and conservation. I think it would be difficult for any of us to spend so much time dedicated to this hobby without having at least some environmental awareness. That considered, my experiences in life bring me to a slightly different conclusion. The opinions I am going to voice are most definitely not a judgment of any of the members of this forum, but rather my opinions on the issue and my related experience.
My first reaction when I see logos for Greenpeace and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, is to raise an eyebrow. They sure pick up a cause fast some times, but it seems they often forget reason or intelligent debate.
The Marine Life Park at Sentosa is in compliance with the standards outlined by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). The park is also funding part of WildAid's work in the Galapagos Marine Reserve; a UNESCO world heritage site. This is a very important project in terms of keeping whale sharks alive in the wild. The web site for the park tells you how to apply for your own research or conservation grant through their fund. So far anything I can find in terms of official statements from the operators of the park indicates an interest in conservation and awareness, as is the purpose of any good aquarium.
Besides that, there's the issue of neurology. It's hard to call it cruelty when an animal lacks the capacity to be aware. Without a neocortex, there is no known way for an animal to be aware of its own existence. This part of the brain is unique to mammals. The concept is well supported by this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carew_Eccles
in this paper: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...gi?artid=49701
So while being concerned for the well being of life is good, I think this is a case of the wrong group being attacked. Given the parties involved, I am not surprised. The Sea Shepherds Conservation Society was founded by Paul Watson, who co-founded Green Peace before that. I am from around the area that Green Peace started in, having visited Vancouver, Vancouver Island, and some of the gulf islands throughout my life. Over my years of observation, I have noticed that these groups lack integrity. Their memberships are often filled with people who live outdoors but don't understand nature, biology or ethics. Many of their most active, agressive members that I have seen are hippies with dreadlocked hair who justify their actions and opinions less from science or fact, and more from their own ideas on spirituality gained through consuming the local hallucinogenic plants. Even the more casual members often lack understanding of how nature works as a whole; some will even sign a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide if given a pen. Largely, I think this is because public protest is almost a hobby in Vancouver and similar areas, with many of the participants involved more for the experience of the protest than the cause. This all may sound like a harsh opinion, but I can't think of a more honest description based on the experiences that I have had.
As for PETA, I'd rather not comment. I have even worse opinions of them.
Anyhow, I hope this gives a reasonable, if slightly casual antithesis to the concept. If anyone is willing to pick up a debate on the issue, I would gladly participate. I would do so in an honest endeavor to discuss the issue for greater understanding, rather than to just push my own point of view.
-Philosophos
Last edited by Philosophos; 17th Mar 2009 at 18:15.
Guys, Thanks for the comment. It is nice to read your thoughts.
colin | The Wilderness and Forest | FTS
is underwater world in sentosa planning a bigger tank display? else their tank is a way too small for these whale sharks. in fact it's nothing compared to ocean park in HK.
I believe Resorts World at Sentosa and Underwater world will be under different management totally.Originally Posted by Morgan01
I only know these so call non-profit organizations or NOG, generate a staggering amount of revenue each year by protecting or helping whatever they meant to...
NGO's are just non-profit organizations playing on a scale of some decent importance. Their business habits and revenue vary as much as most other companies as far as I know. I've worked with an NGO before, and the person heading it was a friend of the family. It was not a big business, but they did a lot of good work that got some attention.
-Philosophos
Well said philosophos. I second on your view in this issue.
In fact, on the issues of such petitions, I find that a single short 1-paragraph advertisment such as above is not in anyway enough to logically justify the signing of such a petition.
It is only a sensible move that should one be interested to participate in this issue to at least do some research in this field (the internet has a wealth of information) to gather data from both parties (approving and opposing) before deciding for oneself the stand that one should take.
It is understandable that many of us lead a busy and hectic lifestyle and thus do not have the pleasure of time to do any such research. However, a petition at times can be a very powerful tool, even for a wrong cause, should people just sign if given a pen or succumb to peer pressure. Therefore, I urge everyone to do the relevant research and decide for themselves what is right before picking up a cause. You may just end up signning something which you will regret in the future.
KeIgO86, what you've said is what I think that true academia embodies. Peer review and rational critique should prevail over its appeal to the population. Petition is ultimately an appeal to popular opinion, and is even neatly classified as an, "argumentum ad vericundium" Unfortunately, that's about the pace of humanity. From aquariums to daily roles in work and school, all the way up to politics, philosophy and religion, humanity seems very largely directed through appeals to emotion, popular opinion, and tradition. It seems to know few boundaries between culture, class or country.
Perhaps what needs to happen is a slow process of academic debate about the ethics of keeping animals caught in the wild. Why does a whaleshark matter more than a beta kept in less than a liter of water? Why do we eat mammals that could very well be aware of their owne existence, and contemplate it? These are questions, in my opinion, that should be treated more as rational expressions than as a concensus of desires.
Also, one last thing before I forget to ask. how is it that so many people from singapore manage to make more coherent posts in english than many who have learnt the language from birth?
-Philosophos
With regard to your question, I would attribute the level of our command of the english language to our standardized education system which places the english language as our first language and our respective mother tongues as the second language. Therefore, it is safe to say that most Singaporeans "have learnt the language from birth" too.
As a first language? Is this a left over side effect of the expansion of the British empire? If so, I'd feel a bit angry about the whole thing.
-Philosophos
The language situation in Singapore is unique, which is the result of a multi-racial society, and thus Singapore has four official languages, namely Mandarin, Malay, Tamil and English. This also means Singapore needs proficiency in a common language, where communication will be adequate among different ethics and cultures.
Mandarin, Malay and Tamil languages are so called our mother tongues, where English as our common language is so called first language.
Eh... Can we get back to saving the whale?
colin | The Wilderness and Forest | FTS
Re: Say No to whale sharks in captivity!
Well the first thing that comes to my mind is that, mammals that we consume as food or betta that we keep as pets, are commercially farmed, regardless of whatever methods are used (that is another issue). But a whale shark?
But anyhow, I'm very cynical and skeptical about NOGs... especially those global ones. Even localised NOGs like religious organisations or Medical organisations are able to generate revenues that a sizable corporation does... so I can't imagine how much NOGs like WWF or greenpeace could generate...
Last edited by blackBRUSHalgae; 19th Mar 2009 at 14:26.
The greatness of a nation ... (Gandhi)
I still don't understand this whole thing about being aware of one own's existence. What actually does it mean? And why is it said that only mammals has the ability to be aware of it's own existence??
- Luenny
Because the former faces extinction (I think it's listed as a threatened species) while the latter is not? I have to confess I signed the petition without doing much research but I've known for a long time that species like Killer Whales, Dolphins live far shorter lives when they are in captivity. That is reason enough for me.
As to why we eat mammals that could be aware of its own existence, I don't see why it is an issue. Man is a predator/carnivore and has always been one. Why should we stop at eating an animal just because there's a chance the animal can think?
Loh K L
I remember I saw a documentary that mentioned the average survivors from birth to adulthood of all other fish/mammals/birds are extremely low compared to bred species. Some species have as low as only 1% that would make it to old age in the wild. How do you assume that "species like Killer Whales, Dolphins live far shorter lives when they are in captivity", since maybe most of them do not even make it to adult hood?
Mankind has always enjoy building its own happiness (yes, knowledge gained in the process is some kind of satisfaction/happiness too) on the agonies of others? Don't you feel that "Why should we stop at eating an animal just because there's a chance the animal can think?" is as good as "Why should we not keep a whale shark in a tank just because its facing extinction?"? Moreover, how many whales can Singapore kill by putting a couple into the tank compared to each expedition trip the Japanese make for "research purposes"?
I am neutral to such activities. However, all these NOGs always seems to induce "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others" mentality.
Last edited by Goondoo; 19th Mar 2009 at 18:58.
First of all, I would like to point out that even if what you said is true - that animals in the wild live shorter lives than those bred in captivity - no one or no organisation has ever bred a Whale Shark before. So how do you compare when there's nothing to compare with? Whereas the evidence for Dolphins and Killer Whales living shorter lives in captivity is pretty strong. I googled and there are plenty of evidence on the web that confirms this.
You wrote "all other fish/mammals/birds". Sure, go ahead, capture the animal and breed them in the zoo or aquarium or whatever. I have no quarrel with that so long as the organisation can provide a good environment for the animal. China has a very good breeding programme for the Panda. They put them in zoos and breed them successfully. No one has any quarrel with what the Chinese are doing. They are able to provide a good environment for the Panda and what they do is, in fact, saving the animal from extinction.
But in this case, we are talking about a Whale Shark, a fish that is known to migrate thousands of miles every year and dive to depths of one kilometre. In terms of size, the largest aquarium in the world pales in comparison to the oceans the whale sharks swim in. Who can build a tank that is big enough? The IR has no programme to try and breed this gigantic fish because they know it isn't possible. So the plan is just to take them from the oceans until they are no more.
I don't think it is true we build our happiness on the agonies or miseries of others. Well, some of us do but I don't think you should simply generalise that it's the same for all. In the natural world, predators hunt down prey and eat them to survive. There's nothing immoral or moral about the process. A lion does not ask itself whether it is morally right to kill a deer. Predators eating prey is just part of the natural world and how it is. We are, in a way, predators too, except that now, our prey are mostly bred in farms.Mankind has always enjoy building its own happiness (yes, knowledge gained in the process is some kind of satisfaction/happiness too) on the agonies of others?
No, I don't think so. Because there's a huge difference here. The first has no consequences whereas the second one does. A pig probably can think pretty well but there are lots of pigs around. So eat as much pork as you want. You may feel guilty about it but there are no consequences. The Whale Shark, however, is listed as a vulnerable species. Why do we want to risk driving this majestic creature into extinction just because our ministers think it will bring in the tourists' dollars? Extinction is forever, you know. We owe it to our children not to make the world a worse place than it already is.Don't you feel that "Why should we stop at eating an animal just because there's a chance the animal can think?" is as good as "Why should we not keep a whale shark in a tank just because its facing extinction?"?
Does it mean that when the world cannot stop the Japanese from killing whales, we all do nothing when Whale Sharks are threatened? Wouldn't it be like saying that since we can't catch every criminal so we might as well not bother to try and catch any?Moreover, how many whales can Singapore kill by putting a couple into the tank compared to each expedition trip the Japanese make for "research purposes"?
We do what we can to make the world a better place. If we do nothing, they will probably put in a few Whale Sharks into the tank at the integrated resort. And would they stop with a few? What happens when they die? Don't you think they will simply go and catch more?
In a sense, it's definitely true that some animals are more equal than others, for the simple fact that some are threatened with extinction while others are not. So we have to try and do more for those species that are threatened. Again, I would like to remind you - Extinction is forever.I am neutral to such activities. However, all these NOGs always seems to induce "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others" mentality.
Loh K L
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks