is there an obsession on this site for seeing one animal kill another

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes Fish do in fact eat other fish in nature but a home aquarium is so far removed from a natural envirinment that it's silly to use that as an argument for live feeding. I have no real moral objections to using feeders but prefur the known quality and consistancy of a varied frozen diet. Theres simply no way to recreate all of the differant types of live prey that are available in a lake or stream so we end up buying "garbage" fish with little or no nutritional value for feeders.

The 'bragging' issue seems to be less a question of age than it is of maturity. Fortunatly those with this sort of a mentallity also suffer from having the attention span of a gnat so we don't have to tolerate them for long.
 
This is a probably one of the best conducted controversial discussions that I have ever read on an internet forum. I am glad to read this, and I'd like to state my opinion (hoping I don't change the tone for the worse).

We have all committed a grave sin. We have removed an animal from it's natural place and kept it for our viewing pleasure. If these animals were human, this crime would be considered worse than slavery. Worse yet, by their nature, these animals are kept in conditions that can readily become toxic-- possibly leading to a grotesque death that we can't even imagine.

I am a biomedical researcher. I have received substantial training on small animal care, handling, anesthesia, and euthanasia. I am subject to countless regulations and laws and even more non-legal doctrines that are obeyed out of "concern"--even if these doctrines result in the deaths of more animals. Due to unsubstantiated fears, my field is particularly vulnerable to these human fears, and they result in unnecessary (in my opinion) deaths. I am personally responsible for the deaths of many mice. Without the haunting imagery I could put here, it tears me apart every time.

I have only two recourses to deal with this. The first is that my research improves the quality of life for humans. Billions of animals were sacrificed to feed the development of our brains. My contribution is a small as I can possibly make it. The second is most overlooked in both legislation and rhetoric. These animals lack the brain structures necessary to understand.

Like all humans, I assign human qualities to non-human things. It is both a poison to and reason for our humanity. There is a certain sadism in one animal eating another, but it is necessary for survival. I see beauty in a predator filling its niche in the universe, but Nature is the cruelest of all mothers--and this is the sole reason why we are here. The cruelty of humans to other humans pales in comparison to, for example, a large cat killing an herbivore only to eat the partially digested vegetable matter in its lower intestines, but these animals cannot simply eat vegetable matter.

Removing an animal from its home, only to starve it because we find it more convenient if others kill the animals they must eat to survive is wrong, and they must eat other animals. A main ingredient in veggie wafers is still fish meal. But the question of right and wrong is almost invalid here. We humans are the only animal (provably) that can make these choices. Our fish cannot understand why there is no food in their home. They cannot understand that there are many reasons why prepared food is better for their health--they can only understand their two principle instincts--find food and propagate their species. After all, that is why they exist. Accordingly, we cannot arbitrarily decide a limit on the brain development after which we define their life as meaningful, be it a worm or a crustacean or a small herbivore or an advanced carnivore. These animals lack a forebrain. There is no doubt that they are not conscious. They are not aware of their life or death. They do not make calculated decisions, and they do not cause harm unnecessarily. Their loss of life is our responsibility and we must make it worthwhile by ensuring that we minimize what we would anthropomorphize as suffering and that they fulfill their life's mission--eat or be eaten, same as us.

Unfortunately, suffering is necessary for growth, for life. The number of animals I have eaten is incredible compared to the animals I have used in research, and my research animals affect me more--especially as I write this post--despite my conscious effort to justify their use. I do not question my consumption, only the things that I do for what I believe is the good of humanity. Maybe this is an argument for conscious veganism, but these animals do not have this choice. In removing them from their environment, we are bound to simulate their environment as best we can. Even if this includes a respectful loss of life--and it does. Almost all aquarium fish are obligate carnivores.

I hope this isn't offensive or preachy, but it is cathartic for me.

Brandon
 
cbfreder;1000069; said:
This is a probably one of the best conducted controversial discussions that I have ever read on an internet forum. I am glad to read this, and I'd like to state my opinion (hoping I don't change the tone for the worse).

We have all committed a grave sin. We have removed an animal from it's natural place and kept it for our viewing pleasure. If these animals were human, this crime would be considered worse than slavery. Worse yet, by their nature, these animals are kept in conditions that can readily become toxic-- possibly leading to a grotesque death that we can't even imagine.

I am a biomedical researcher. I have received substantial training on small animal care, handling, anesthesia, and euthanasia. I am subject to countless regulations and laws and even more non-legal doctrines that are obeyed out of "concern"--even if these doctrines result in the deaths of more animals. Due to unsubstantiated fears, my field is particularly vulnerable to these human fears, and they result in unnecessary (in my opinion) deaths. I am personally responsible for the deaths of many mice. Without the haunting imagery I could put here, it tears me apart every time.

I have only two recourses to deal with this. The first is that my research improves the quality of life for humans. Billions of animals were sacrificed to feed the development of our brains. My contribution is a small as I can possibly make it. The second is most overlooked in both legislation and rhetoric. These animals lack the brain structures necessary to understand.

Like all humans, I assign human qualities to non-human things. It is both a poison to and reason for our humanity. There is a certain sadism in one animal eating another, but it is necessary for survival. I see beauty in a predator filling its niche in the universe, but Nature is the cruelest of all mothers--and this is the sole reason why we are here. The cruelty of humans to other humans pales in comparison to, for example, a large cat killing an herbivore only to eat the partially digested vegetable matter in its lower intestines, but these animals cannot simply eat vegetable matter.

Removing an animal from its home, only to starve it because we find it more convenient if others kill the animals they must eat to survive is wrong, and they must eat other animals. A main ingredient in veggie wafers is still fish meal. But the question of right and wrong is almost invalid here. We humans are the only animal (provably) that can make these choices. Our fish cannot understand why there is no food in their home. They cannot understand that there are many reasons why prepared food is better for their health--they can only understand their two principle instincts--find food and propagate their species. After all, that is why they exist. Accordingly, we cannot arbitrarily decide a limit on the brain development after which we define their life as meaningful, be it a worm or a crustacean or a small herbivore or an advanced carnivore. These animals lack a forebrain. There is no doubt that they are not conscious. They are not aware of their life or death. They do not make calculated decisions, and they do not cause harm unnecessarily. Their loss of life is our responsibility and we must make it worthwhile by ensuring that we minimize what we would anthropomorphize as suffering and that they fulfill their life's mission--eat or be eaten, same as us.

Unfortunately, suffering is necessary for growth, for life. The number of animals I have eaten is incredible compared to the animals I have used in research, and my research animals affect me more--especially as I write this post--despite my conscious effort to justify their use. I do not question my consumption, only the things that I do for what I believe is the good of humanity. Maybe this is an argument for conscious veganism, but these animals do not have this choice. In removing them from their environment, we are bound to simulate their environment as best we can. Even if this includes a respectful loss of life--and it does. Almost all aquarium fish are obligate carnivores.

I hope this isn't offensive or preachy, but it is cathartic for me.

Brandon

Does this mean I can`t have fish any more?
 
Sure you can still have fish...one of the points that wasn't made clear in that rather long and well thaught out post was the natural attrition rate for fish in the wild. Those in the aquarium trade have a far greater chance of living a long healthy life in spite of all the problems than do thier wild spawned brethern.
 
Wolf3101;1000094; said:
Sure you can still have fish...one of the points that wasn't made clear in that rather long and well thaught out post was the natural attrition rate for fish in the wild. Those in the aquarium trade have a far greater chance of living a long healthy life in spite of all the problems than do thier wild spawned brethern.

Thank you. Exactly right. Depending on perspective, our fish live a good life compared to their wild counterparts. MFKers are, IMO, very responsible. I know very well that they are concerned about their fish's well being. Fish are R strategists, MFKers are K strategists. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-selection)
 
Wolf3101;1000094; said:
Sure you can still have fish...one of the points that wasn't made clear in that rather long and well thaught out post was the natural attrition rate for fish in the wild. Those in the aquarium trade have a far greater chance of living a long healthy life in spite of all the problems than do thier wild spawned brethern.

Oh ok

That part was confusing.
 
What about those of you who keep monster fish in small tanks? A 1 foot fish living in a 500 gallon is like you living in your living room, FOR LIFE. I have some 1" geos and 2-3" convicts in my 60 gallon and feel really guilty, and want a much larger tank. We're all evil in a way, buying more fish for our prisons, er tank, and creating a demand for those poachers to get more fish.
 
Oh, and I do get a rush watching animals killing other animals, in the name of nature. What else would the discovery channel be showing? As for setting up fight/eating that will needlessly torture the feeder fish, that's just wrong and sadistic.
 
What if you let one of you fish kill the other fish while you were sleeping? Because you didn`t know it would happen that is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
MonsterFishKeepers.com