EcoSpheres Inhumane?
Stacey Whaley
in which tiny creatures live confined in a glass ball with a little bit
of water, oxygen and a dead plant with which to feed on. (They are
definitely eye-catching.)
http://www.eco-sphere.com/home.htm
I don't know how many here remember the AquaBabies market, but many
protested their existence, stating it was inhumane to confine the
little fish to such a tiny living space.
To me, the EcoSphere seems no different. Brine shrimp though they may
be, surely they would like more space?
Some might say it's akin to keeping a dog locked-up in a cage, while
others might think it's a "cool" novelty.
What is your opinion?
-Stacey
internets...@yahoo.com
dfreas
not. How much space do these guys actually have? Well according to the
link you provided the smallest available ecosphere is 3.25" now I don't
know exactly how big the creatures inside are but for simplicity lets
say they're 1/2 an inch long. Sound reasonable? Well then that means
that the diameter of their world is 6.5 times longer than they are.
Now lets think about a full grown Oscar in an aquarium. Lets assume
this fish is a foot long - that's reasonable. Now, for it to have as
much living space as these shrimp it will need a 6.5 foot diameter
tank. How many full grown Oscar owners out there have a tank with a
single 6.5 foot dimension - let alone a 6.5 foot diameter sphere's
worth of living space?
We keep fish in much smaller areas than these guys are being kept in,
relatively speaking. It is probably much more humane than many of the
things we do every day and think of as good practice. I think the
spheres are a neat idea.
-Daniel
ManWo...@hotmail.com
you have the intelligence of a brine shrimp. In the same vein, I am
making yogurt and I am concerned about the tiny plastic jar the all
those bacteria have to live in. I am also worry about how barbaric
that I am ingesting million of lives alive. And don't get me started
on the countless yeast lives I am killing everytime I bake bread.
*sob*
Billy
<ManWo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109721047.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Are you a troll?
...speaking of trolls......
billy
Elaine T
> I was wanting to get some opinions on the EcoSphere, initiated by NASA,
> in which tiny creatures live confined in a glass ball with a little bit
> of water, oxygen and a dead plant with which to feed on. (They are
> definitely eye-catching.)
>
I honestly don't think shrimp have enough of a nervous system to
perceive confinement. The shrimp probably notice lack of oxygen or
food, but those are apparantly not lacking or they wouldn't live for
over a year.
Did you see Sagan's writeup? It's a fun read.
--
__ Elaine T __
><__'> http://eethomp.com/fish.html <'__><
thewes
practically enough and being too humane. in my opinion the world needs
more people to ask more questions like this, instead of more nasty
analytical thinkers that discourage these questions. i dont have an
opinion about these ecospheres because i dont know enough about them,
but lets not discourage people like stacey from asking questions like
this.
Richard Sexton
Elaine T <eetmail...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Stacey Whaley wrote:
>> I was wanting to get some opinions on the EcoSphere, initiated by NASA,
>> in which tiny creatures live confined in a glass ball with a little bit
>> of water, oxygen and a dead plant with which to feed on. (They are
>> definitely eye-catching.)
>>
>
>I honestly don't think shrimp have enough of a nervous system to
>perceive confinement. The shrimp probably notice lack of oxygen or
>food, but those are apparantly not lacking or they wouldn't live for
>over a year.
I wonder if they notice nothing is trying to eat them?
--
Need Mercedes parts ? - http://parts.mbz.org
http://www.mbz.org | Mercedes Mailing lists: http://lists.mbz.org
633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | Killies, killi.net, Crypts, aquaria.net
1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Old wristwatches http://watches.list.mbz.org
Elaine T
of this thread. Of course, I have the local troll killfiled so maybe I
missed something. I'm surprised you would call analytical thinkers in
general nasty, though. I'd hazard a guess that you just insulted a
pretty good number of people in both cross-posted newsgroups, me included.
BTW, the website is http://www.eco-sphere.com/home.htm.
Elaine T
> In article <PjcVd.10606$Pz7....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> Elaine T <eetmail...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Stacey Whaley wrote:
>>
>>>I was wanting to get some opinions on the EcoSphere, initiated by NASA,
>>>in which tiny creatures live confined in a glass ball with a little bit
>>>of water, oxygen and a dead plant with which to feed on. (They are
>>>definitely eye-catching.)
>>>
>>
>>I honestly don't think shrimp have enough of a nervous system to
>>perceive confinement. The shrimp probably notice lack of oxygen or
>>food, but those are apparantly not lacking or they wouldn't live for
>>over a year.
>
>
> I wonder if they notice nothing is trying to eat them?
>
enough of a brain to even be capable of remembering from day to day that
nobody tried to eat them the day before. ;-)
Margolis
--
Margolis
http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
Margolis
news:1109721047.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Are you a troll?
pot, kettle, black
Margolis
Apparently the loudmouthed troll didn't appear in your reader.
Eromsnid Flor
Oh poop! All that brilliant writing and then I remember to google you
(actually a9.com) so that I see who my audience is.
I promise... next time I'll google first and write second.
I am maybe considered liberal (I thought it was insane to go to Iraq,
but now we are there I think we need 300,000 troops to contain the
violence).
I'm more libertarian than democrat (growing up in Alaska does that to
you).
But I am not a Buddhist, and that makes my entire morality argument
invalid. Damn!
So, most of the previous post doesn't apply to you, because Buddhists
cannot use the human/non-human argument. What if my next life is as a
brine shrimp, therefore I must treat the brine shrimp as if I would
live it's life.
The argument then is whether containment in an eco sphere is something
that you would wish upon yourself. I think my answer is still the
same, and that a brief existence protected from predators, "might"
outweigh the loss of freedom.
rolf
p.s. try adding The Duhks to your music collection.
Eromsnid Flor
I'm going to answer your question in such a way that it can be applied
to all such similar circumstances... What you 'feel' after that is up
to you...
From a moral viewpoint, the amount of 'sympathy' applied to any
non-human is directly related to the amount of similarity to us
humans. We all (I hope) have a strong sympathy towards newborn
babies, since they are so much like us. We do not have as strong a
sympathy toward fetus's (sp???), dogs, cats, snakes, dolphins, tuna,
pigs, cows, etc, because they are all less "human."
Their lack of "human-ness" allows us to kill, experiment, and eat some
of them. With each of them we have varying levels of sympathy. for
most of us a fetus is closest to human and a snake farthest, so hardly
anyone minds killing and eating snakes, and almost all of us mind
killing and eating a fetus. (Please don't get angry, this is just an
ethical exersize...)
How about rats? Aren't they more human-like than brine shrimp? Yet
we trap, poison, and kill rats.
The U.S. supreme had to rule many years ago about what to do with
people who were no longer "human," like Terry Shiavo. Out of nine
justices, here is how they ruled:
5 justices decided that the States had an interest in keeping
people alive who were no longer human (defined briefly as actively
living and appreciating life), but if a person who had once been
human, had made it known with "clear and convincing evidence" that
they would not want to be kept alive if no longer human, then the
state could allow them to die. The reason for this ruling was that it
was impossible to foresee what the future would hold as far as medical
treatment and miracles of recovery were involved, and that since death
was permanent, with no going back, the States could act in the
non-human's best interest to preserve their life.
3 justices decided that the State was way out of line in
setting such a high standard of proof. They said that only a
preponderance of the evidence should be necessary, because the State
had no right to overrule a person's wishes, even after they were no
longer a person. This would mean that if a person had ever had a
serious conversation and mentioned that they would not want to be kept
alive, that preference should override the State's interest in keeping
them alive.
The last justice said that both the majority decision, and the
group dissent did a great disservice to the concept of life. He
pointed out that a person no longer human, had nothing left to live
for, and if the parents/family wanted to end the life, they should be
allowed to. Setting up burdon of proof arguments about what a person
said while they were human made no difference since a non-human had
nothing to live for.
So I guess you have to make your own decision about morality and
human-ness and life. Do the brine shrimp qualify as human? If so,
then they should be treated morally and released into the environment
so there life can be as brief or as lengthy as chance permits.
If the brine shrimp are not human, then we must decide if they are
close to human, and deserve fair consideration and protection from
inhumane treatment such as we offer cats, dogs, a third trimester
fetus, etc... Once you have made that decision, then you must decide
if the containment is inhumane. Would their life be better if we
released them to live, be eaten, and die in the wild?
If the brine shrimp are not close to human, then they do not benefit
from treatment based on our morals. At that point we only need to
consider the effect of their treatment on ourselves. Does confining
them to an 'eco-sphere' have an effect on our moral growth. Will
owning an eco-sphere lead to other morally questionable activities and
acts, such as you often see with children who torture animals and then
grow up to be sociopaths?
As usual, I have tried to be brief, but failed :)
rolf
p.s. My personal opinion is that brine shrimp are not human, and can
be used in almost any manner. They may be used as entertainment and
enjoyment (such as fish and other animals), therefore confined to a
controlled environment. They may be used as educational teaching
implements and experimental subjects, even up to purposely or
accidentally killing them. I'd much rather spend my energy on real
humans that need our concern, rather than brine shrimp that sound like
a tasty chilled snack ;-)
On 1 Mar 2005 12:19:38 -0800, "Stacey Whaley"
Richard Sexton
Eromsnid Flor <rdin...@pil.net> wrote:
>Stacey,
>
>I'm going to answer your question in such a way that it can be applied
>to all such similar circumstances... What you 'feel' after that is up
>to you...
>
>From a moral viewpoint, the amount of 'sympathy' applied to any
>non-human is directly related to the amount of similarity to us
>humans. We all (I hope) have a strong sympathy towards newborn
>babies, since they are so much like us. We do not have as strong a
>sympathy toward fetus's (sp???), dogs, cats, snakes, dolphins, tuna,
>pigs, cows, etc, because they are all less "human."
This is changing:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1502933,00.html
And they're not brine shrimp which don't live that long, they're a small
marine shrimp that lives about 3-5 years.
Billy
"Richard Sexton" <ric...@vrx.news> wrote in message
news:ICt7x...@T-FCN.Net...
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1502933,00.html
>
>
Anthropomorphisization. (sp?) The application of human
characteristics to things which are not human. That is not to say
that pigs and chickens do not feel, but to attempt to equate the
workings of their minds to ours is, while natural and inevitable in
our species, pointless and egotistical.
Elaine T
> If the brine shrimp are not close to human, then they do not benefit
> from treatment based on our morals. At that point we only need to
> consider the effect of their treatment on ourselves. Does confining
> them to an 'eco-sphere' have an effect on our moral growth. Will
> owning an eco-sphere lead to other morally questionable activities and
> acts, such as you often see with children who torture animals and then
> grow up to be sociopaths?
>
Now THAT is the heart of the matter - well stated! I would add that
owning an Eco-Sphere could bring positive moral growth. If the shrimp
become pets and the keeper develops a sense of caring for something
alive, that caring can extend to higher animals and even fellow humans.
Richard Sexton
I hope the cows think better of us than we do of them. While
anthropomorphism is an interesting theory, it may or may
nor be fact.
That is, it maybe right or it may be wrong i this case;
the work done in the referenced URL gives support to the
notion it does not apply in this instance.
Nikki Casali
Just go and buy a few shrimp, stick 'em in a jar and have done with it.
Eco-Jar. Cheaper. Doh!
Nikki
Margolis
news:d09mqa$5cb$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>
>
>
> Just go and buy a few shrimp, stick 'em in a jar and have done with it.
> Eco-Jar. Cheaper. Doh!
>
> Nikki
>
Not quite. If you stick them in jar you still have to feed them. The idea
of the eco sphere is that it is a completely balanced ecosystem in there.
No outside intervention such as feeding is needed.
Nikki Casali
Margolis wrote:
> "Nikki Casali" <ni...@ncSasPali.deAmoMn.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:d09mqa$5cb$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>>
>>
>>
>>Just go and buy a few shrimp, stick 'em in a jar and have done with it.
>>Eco-Jar. Cheaper. Doh!
>>
>>Nikki
>>
>
>
>
> Not quite. If you stick them in jar you still have to feed them. The idea
> of the eco sphere is that it is a completely balanced ecosystem in there.
> No outside intervention such as feeding is needed.
>
I thought I'd mention it as I remember a childrens' science programme -
I think BBC's Science Shack - where they housed a few woodlice in a jar
with soil, air and a few plants. The jar was sealed and never opened.
The only thing the ecosystem needed to sustain it was light and heat.
Nikki
NetMax
Once a year, I used to get a parade of parents (moms) with kids trailing
behind them, ready to buy some fish and plants to put into a sealed jar
for their class science experiment. It was an annual event for us,
talking them out of putting several Guppies into a 1 litre jar. I
usually send them off with a variety of plant cuttings, a newborn fry or
shrimp (which they can return to me after the experiment is over), and
instructions to use a larger container, keep it away from heat sources,
etc etc. For the most part, the parents where quite sympathetic and
willing to follow the instructions, so I'd like to think that the
greatest influence on our moral compass is knowledge :o).
--
www.NetMax.tk
Richard Sexton
>behind them, ready to buy some fish and plants to put into a sealed jar
>for their class science experiment. It was an annual event for us,
>talking them out of putting several Guppies into a 1 litre jar. I
>usually send them off with a variety of plant cuttings, a newborn fry or
>shrimp (which they can return to me after the experiment is over), and
>instructions to use a larger container, keep it away from heat sources,
>etc etc. For the most part, the parents where quite sympathetic and
>willing to follow the instructions, so I'd like to think that the
>greatest influence on our moral compass is knowledge :o).
Sure, it's really not hard to do. I once had a tank with a colony
of Aphyosemion bitaeniatum in a 20 gallon tank - I started
with 6 pair and a lot of thread algae. The tank was extremely
tightly covered (they jump!) and evaporation was near or at
zero. For about 18 months I did not feed them. Fish came and went,
occasionally you'r see a dead body (not for long) and occasionally
you'd see fry. There were always about 6 pair, more or less.
The liight (strong) kept the algae going, infusoria and copepods
lived off the algae and the fish ate them. Fish waste kept the
alage growing.
I was away for two weeks, the light had failed and when I got back
everyting in the tank was dead.
Eromsnid Flor
I have some trouble with this aspect of children+animals. Owning a
sphere could be good, if the child is mature enough to understand
death and loss. Many children don't understand how to feel when a pet
dies, and a sphere can be thought of as a pet. If they shrug it off,
then you worry. If they cry for two days, you also worry. I say that
this kind of thing should be reserved for teens and mature 9+
children.
Is it wrong? I don't think so. Can it cause harm? Certainly could.
This might be just the thing to use to see if children are ready to
take care of a pet???
rolf
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 06:18:58 GMT, Elaine T <eetmail...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
laty...@gmail.com
When you take into account that these things only grow to be 1.5 cm, then these little guys actually have more room to swim around than most New Yorkers have room in their apartments. These little shrimp have a giant mansion to swim around if you ask me. Their natural habitat, which are brackish water pools near the sea shore are slightly bigger but it's not like the shrimp need all the room in those pools to survive. Also, the number of shrimp sharing the same small pool in their natural habitat is much greater than the 3 or 4 shrimp you have living in even the smaller sized eco-spheres. If you ask me, these guys have it made. They are not being starved and they have enough space to live.
Jeez, I mean, I'm all for animal rights, but every single post I've read that says that these are inhumane are probably written by people who have not done their research. The shrimp have everything they need in that sphere and feeling bad for them is kind of misplaced. I have 2 of these spheres and my shrimp are doing fine.They're healthy and swim around and graze. That's what they're supposed to do.