In a message board I frequent, we've been having a discussion about horse racing since this weekend was the running of the Kentucky Derby. It brought up this discussion about zoos.
I am not a big fan of zoos. I've been to a few, and most are awful. The worst I remember was the Indianapolis Zoo. I went when I was a kid living in Indianapolis. Even though I was a kid, I still remember how dirty the place was including the cages. And the cages were tiny. I have heard they made improvements, but I'm sure it hasn't improved much. The best I've ever been to is the National Zoo in D.C. Big, clean cages and very big place.
But, all this zoo talk made me think about my objections to a zoo. The biggest one is the fact that the animals are all in cages. I realize most of the animals were born in captivity. But, that doesn't take away from the fact that they are and should be wild animals fending for themselves. I just really don't like seeing these poor animals caged.
This also got me thinking a bit more philosophically and about humanity's place in nature. I've always felt that no matter how technologically advanced we have gotten with all the gadgets to entertain us and make us feel good about ourselves, that we are still animals and we are still part of nature. This is one of the reasons I am not such a big believer in this whole Global Warming nonsense. If you take humanity as just a collection of animals, then the fact that we pollute the planet is just a fact of nature. Yes, I know, we are thinking animals capable of changing our environment on a massive level. Yes, I know we have an impact on nature. But, again, we ARE a PART of nature.
Anyway, if you want to you may respond.
Disclaimer: This post was written by Mitch Brown and reflect his views. If you don't like them, that's OK. Just don't be a douche about it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
To take your argument a bit further, is genocide "just a fact of nature"? I think we get ourselves into trouble when we simplify things this way. To take just one example, some say it's natural for people to eat meat. I would argue that the meat most people eat comes from factory farms, which are institutionalized abusers. And as for global warming, aka global climate change, being nonsense, please pick up a major newspaper or tune into public radio or see any scientfic journal. Its existence is confirmed by worldwide consensus in the scientific community. Also, I encourage you to read Bill McKibben's The End of Nature. It's a fantastic eye-opener.
No, genocide is not a "fact of nature." I know I simplified this a bit and as I said, humans are thinking animals. This fact makes us responsible for the acts we take against/on others.
As for your meat argument, as a meat-eater, I frankly don't care about where the meat I eat comes from or what the people who produce it do to the animals. There are only a couple requirements. 1. That is is safe to eat. 2. That it tastes good. The animals we eat in the U.S. are bred, born and dies in order for us to eat them. This is their purpose.
Global climate change, another term that I actually agree with. Of course Earth's climate changes. I never said that it or Global warming are nonsense. I question the motivation of those who promote it as if it is a religion. I question where the scientists get their money to do their research. I question the motivation of the media that hypes this situation. BTW, not all scientists agree on the human impact of global warming or global climate change. And not all of these scientists are kooks (a comment I'm sure you will throw at me next).
I like burritos stuffed with animals...ummmm good!
You would!!!!
What scientists don't agree with the human impact of global warming? I question there sources and where their money comes from, although I have yet to see any scientists with any real credentials argue that humans have little or nothing to do with human impact on global warming.
You sound like the Holocaust deniers and revisionists who say that Jews and Jew-loving historians view the Holocaust as a religion that can't be questioned. Sure we can question aspects of it, but like factual history the Holocaust, credible scientists do not deny the reality of global warming and our impact on it. Only those with political agendas deny that it is happening.
woops. I meant "their" and the bottom paragraph should read "but like the factual history of the Holocaust,"
I guess I was typing too fast.
A LOT of scientists have an agenda. It is not necessarily political. A lot of times it is financial. This is what I question. Where is the money coming from and what is the agenda of the organization that thier money comes from.
So I guess that means there is an agenda behind those that don't believe it is happening either. It is interesting however, that I have seen no reputable scientist that says it does not exist, while those that do all turn out to be quacks paid off by oil interests and the like or not scientists at all. I guess every scientist in every field that has studied global warming and produced research papers and books on it all had the same agenda. I guess all the hard facts and evidence that points to global warming all have agendas too.
With that argument, then I guess you can't believe any history book ever written either, because historians all have agendas too.
Even if we didn't have all the overwhelming evidence that this was happening, how can you not think that consuming the earth's resources at the pace we have and spewing pollution into the air for the last 100 years or so would not do any damage to the environment? Talk about denial!
Even that retard Bush recently admitted that he thinks global warming is very real.
"As for your meat argument, as a meat-eater, I frankly don't care about where the meat I eat comes from or what the people who produce it do to the animals. There are only a couple requirements. 1. That is is safe to eat. 2. That it tastes good. The animals we eat in the U.S. are bred, born and dies in order for us to eat them. This is their purpose."
seems a little self-centered to me. do you really not care about animals? contradicts what you said about zoos...
plus most of the animals you eat don't come from the US. also the FDA is in bed with pharma companies and GMO manufacturing companies, so how do you know for sure that your food is safe to eat?
"seems a little self-centered to me. do you really not care about animals? contradicts what you said about zoos...
plus most of the animals you eat don't come from the US. also the FDA is in bed with pharma companies and GMO manufacturing companies, so how do you know for sure that your food is safe to eat?"
No, I do not see what I said as a contradiction. Cows, pigs and chickens are BREAD to be on my plate (eventually). The animals in the zoos are not bread to be eaten. Maybe I have should have made this more clear. I do not care much for how an animal that is BREAD to be eaten is treated.
As to your comment about the FDA, yes I know most meat does not come from the US. However, it all has to be inspected before it ends up on my dinner table. As to the FDA being in "bed" with corporations, that is the case with just about EVERY government entity. There are just some things that I have to choose to accept. Food safety is one of them. BTW, the FDA also controls the quality of grown food (such as corn, grapes, etc...). Do you not choose to believe that they are safe as well?
Hey Mitch
First of all, BREAD is made from wheat, not chickens. I believe you're talking about farm BRED chickens.
Secondly, why wouldn't you be worried about how an animal that is to be BREAD [sic] is treated? If you aren't going to be convinced by the ethics of animal rights, then at least be selfish enough to consider your own health. Mad cow, "foot and mouth" disease, and e.coli contamination all come from the squalid conditions in which these animals are raised. The nutritional value of animals and their by-products (such as milk and eggs) go down when the animals are stuck into little cages or feeding pens, unable to obtain vitamins that they would normally get from sunshine and fresh air.
I know for certain that vegetables and fruits are "safer" than meats, since meats are more likely to carry deadly bacteria and viruses, as well as having been treated with antibiotics and hormones. All I'd have to worry about with veggies and fruits are pesticides and GMOs! Not that you seem to worry about these sorts of things.
But anyway, you don't seem to be a vegan type of guy, so you can go on eating your hormone-pumped burgers. Keeps the American economy going and does wonders for the FDA!
That's "bred" not "bread." If you are going to yell about something, you might want to spell it right. LOL!
I'm still waiting for you to tell us who these scientists are that say that global warming is false.
"First of all, BREAD is made from wheat, not chickens. I believe you're talking about farm BRED chickens."
OK, sorry for being imperfect and making a mistake. Yes, I mean bred.
"Secondly, why wouldn't you be worried about how an animal that is to be BREAD [sic] is treated? If you aren't going to be convinced by the ethics of animal rights,"
Animals have no rights. The only "rights" they have are the ones WE give them. But, a dog in and of itself has no rights.
"then at least be selfish enough to consider your own health. Mad cow, "foot and mouth" disease, and e.coli contamination all come from the squalid conditions in which these animals are raised. The nutritional value of animals and their by-products (such as milk and eggs) go down when the animals are stuck into little cages or feeding pens, unable to obtain vitamins that they would normally get from sunshine and fresh air."
All of those diseases are bad yes, but when meat it tainted, very few (if any) people in this country get sick and the contamination is usually contained fairly well. I know that in order to eat meat and other foods that I have to trust a government agency to make sure it is safe. That is usually not something I like to do. However, in this case, I have NO CHOICE. Either I eat meat, fish, milk and other products and trust that the food I'm eating is safe or I become a vegan and only eat fruits and nuts. I'm not willing to become a vegan, so I will go with the other option.
"I know for certain that vegetables and fruits are "safer" than meats, since meats are more likely to carry deadly bacteria and viruses, as well as having been treated with antibiotics and hormones. All I'd have to worry about with veggies and fruits are pesticides and GMOs! Not that you seem to worry about these sorts of things."
Actually, I don't worry about any of those things. Again, just as with animal products, I either have to eat what the FDA says is safe, or not. And fruits and vegetables are not always safe. Maybe "safer" but not completely.
I like flour tortillas filled with bread and chicken...ummm...breaded chicken burritos.
Did somebody say burritos? UMMMMM
I like rubbing burritos all over my naked body.
Post a Comment