h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

How far do i go? i would say i go pretty damb far. Though i dont go all the way, not yet. Example , I get manically angry when i see companys coming up with new products like thw "swifer" a new mop thing with a disposable cloth attatched to the end of it. Whatever happeded to using a reall mop, one that can be reused, one that you dont have to throw away every time you use it, one that doesn't contribute to the ever growing mass of trash we keep burying hoping it will disappear. Or how about this new plastic absorbant sheet ziploc or some brand are selling that you cut your meat on so it will absorb the salmanila??? What ever happend to washing your cutting boards are we all really that lazy? I mean i just want to explode. Do i buy recycled products yes, do i buy recycleable products yes, do i recycle, yes. Why is that so hard for people to do. Or how about buying products that arent pterolyum based or toxic or environmentaly friendly! I also have an exotic bird so i couldnt use chemical products if i wanted to which i dont. Its just the little things people. Those few extra moments a day, to wash a mop or a cutting board. Its just a few more seconds of looking in the supermarket to make sure you're not poisoning your own childrens drinking water with detergents that are not environmentally friendly. Its just a little more effort, a little.
As far as the boycotting business's by yourself, well it may not work but i certainly do it. I do not go to McDondals, Buger King, KFC, or Taco Bell. For one, i am a vegetarian and for another they all do things to their meat like A)torture them by keeping them in horible living quarters to B) injecting the animals with all kinds of bodily enhancers, to make them fatter or leaner or whatever.

I hope you'll excuse my somewhat eratic thought processes throughout these paragraphs but just writing about these things gets me worked up, ETHICAL CONSUMERISM is EVERYONE"s responsibility. If we dont stop and think about saving this planet, no one will.

Jeez, you talk about "saving the planet" and you have a friggin' exotic bird??? How many of its kind were killed needlessly just so you could keep a WILD ANIMAL as a PET? (many of these animals die in the process of being captured and/or transported) Sure, sure - maybe it was bred in captivity but I'd be willing to bet that none of its ancestors were kept in very pleasing surroundings either (maybe as bad as the way chickens and turkeys are treated).

Is it wise to encourage locals to sell off their plants and animals for profit? Do we really need to keep animals as pets, training them to do stupid tricks, forcing them to bend to our will? Visit the animal's native habitat, watch a nature show, or hang a picture on your wall for cryin' out loud!

I totally agree with what you said about disposable products etc but I hope you did some research before buying your little pet. I also hope it at least has room to fly around, it is a BIRD after all.

i guess it is bad to keep an exotic bird.
i would rather not use leather as animals are tortured for it.
i use stuff that is not tested on animals
but the question is how far does one go?
personally i can refuse to use medicine as all drugs have been tested on animals but how about people i love and care about -- they should not be using insulin, pencillin and all i guess.
find it difficult to make that choice for them.
and then if the product is not tested on animals, then how is it tested?
i would rather use alternative medicine.
i am a vegetarian but i cannot make my dog vegetarian -- i tried and she was most irritated!
i carry a bag with me everywhere so that i do not have to take the damn plastic bags that are choking up the planet and whales.
it is all so horrid the things we do to our home and the creatures around it.
all awfully depressing especially when one feels that one person cannot make a difference.
but i guess if there are enough people who care and make a noise about it, it would make a difference to the policy makers.

I keep tropical fish, I guess that may be cruel but its a nice big warm tank, they are smiled at often, and I guess they are living fairly happily, or maybe forgetfully.



I know where Minnaks is coming from with the rambling and the anger and the confusing struggle to consume 'ethically' in a skewed and twisted consumerist worldwide economic web.

Individual consumers have little impact, and are seriously constrained by circumstance. Some are limited to the supermarket, others have local markets and indpendent stores available. Some can live without a car, others fuel the evil oil business...

I'd say that as well as consumer boycotts and positive ethical purchasing that anyone interested in making trade and consumption more positive for the human race should get involved in the Trade Justice campaign this Friday (27 June)

http://www.christian-aid.org.uk/campaign/trade/trade.htm

For the record - I shop local (no car) buy Fair Trade tea, coffee, cocoa, compost and recycle the rubbish, and attempt to grow my own veg. I also don't buy useless tat and gadgets and spend most of my disposable income on lovley booze. There's a lovley organic honey beer at my local, £2.50 a pint. I suggest y'all head for the Shakespear, N16, London and ethicly consume a nice beer or three.



Jen

What is evil about keeping an exotic bird if it is well cared for?
Is it torture to kill something without causing it pain, when it only exists for that end?
Is it better to test a potentially dangerous product on humans, which can complain or sue or boycott, or on rats, which do not complain and whose lives will not be significantly shortened if the product is dangerous?


You could not change the nature of your dog. It is the nature of humans to bend their environment to benefit them, such as raising cattle. You are a vegetarian. Ask yourself: how might the cabbage feel about being eaten? It has no brain, but then again, animals do not have as much of a brain as humans do, and flora is just an extreme version of this.

~Gareis

Every bird that I've seen someone keep as a pet is either kept in a small cage or has had its wings clipped somehow so it couldn't fly. I doubt the X brand of mass produced exotic bird feed compares to what it would find in its native habitat. That existence compares favorably to living in the wild? I think not.

It's not necessarily "evil," it's just plain wrong. Animals AND plants should be left in their native habitat. They've evolved to interact with other species in that environment, how can living in a cage on the other side of the planet compare? We've also seen what introducing a new species can do to other species (plant and animal), just look at the rabbit explosion in Australia, Kudzu in the US, and on and on. Plant species in Hawaii are disappearing due to our appetite for "pretty plants" and (I think) because we've introduced non-native species. Each plant or animal removed just brings that species one step closer to extinction (as their natural habitat also disappears - also because of us).

Keeping animals in captivity for food is another argument, I'll steer clear of that one as I, um, ahem, am an omnivore - as humans have evolved to be. I know, I know. Maybe I'm also a hypocrite because of it but I don't have the ability to grow my own cattle or the space to give 'em a nice place to roam around.

What about the dogs, cats, and other animals that are bred to suit our tastes and occasionally have health problems as a result? I have a friend who used to have a dalmation that could barely walk near the end of her rather short life because of hip problems (due to inbreeding I think).

I think the nature of the dog has been changed because the domesticated dog (usually) doesn't hunt in a pack. It's fed bags or cans of stuff that probably couldn't be used for human food production. It still has an alpha leader (the human) but it often has little chance to interact with a "pack" of other dogs, especially due to the increasing number of leash laws. Let your doggie run free these days and it'll probably end up in the pound.

Keeping animals in zoos doesn't seem right either, especially if those animals were forcibly removed from other parts of the world (unless it's a last ditch effort to save the species from extinction caused by humans). A zoo, no matter how well kept, just can't compare to an animal's native habitat.

Gareis, i hope you are joking about testing on animals -- why make "potentially harmful products" in the first place?
and who are we to decided that things only exist to be killed?
i am reminded of douglas adams piece about the puddle thinking that the hole is customised for it.

I'm not kidding at all. Scientists make compounds with effects that they can generally guage, but the human body is very complex with thousands of compounds whizzing about it, altering everything in sight. So it's difficult to judge whether one of those interactions will produce a dangerous or harmful chemical.

Animal testing prevents us from using dangerous medicines and cosmetics on humans. It might sometimes be cruel, but it's nobody I could get to know in any circumstances that's getting hurt. Besides, the rats and dogs that are receiving the tests only exist for that purpose. That's what they were bred for.

i cannot believe this -- rats and dogs are bred to be tested on by who?
this is much too much
the puddle analogy holds

I don't see how the puddle analogy holds. It is more like a solid object with a very odd shape fit into a hole that fits it perfectly--a hole that is also very rigid--and saying that the hole was made for it. The planet has no need of humans, but it still has us. Perhaps the planet is here because humans have need of it--after all, humans are so picky about where they can live (no more than 50 degrees temperature variation, carbon, water, etc). But this is heading toward a religious debate, which I'll happily enter, but it might get uncomfortable if anyone's watching.

Rats and dogs shall be tested on by anyone who owns those rats or dogs. They have no language abilities, so they cannot be intelligent in the same way that humans are. Therefore they are below us, for us to care for and use for our advantage. Still, I wouldn't support the same for dolphins, which may have languages.

God made man in His image, but God is spirit, so that doesn't refer to physical aspects. If it did, then He made apes in His image as well. Perhaps dolphins, too, have spirits.

~Gareis
"I was looking for a pint and a fight, but I'm still sober!"

You said earlier; "Therefore they are below us, for us to care for and use for our advantage."

I disagree, I don't see one animal as being "below" or above another. Even if they are less "intelligent" than us, does that make it ok to squirt chemicals into their eyes (and various other nastiness associated with product testing)? Sure, sure - we've all benefitted from such testing but it makes my skin crawl to think about it. There has to be a better way.

We shouldn't have to "care for" animals at all. If we acted more responsibly we wouldn't have to try to save various species from extinction or mourn the loss of those already killed off. We shouldn't have to reintroduce species to pieces of land that they used to inhabit in the first place.

Humans are picky, maybe TOO picky about where they live, willing to make drastic changes to modify the environment to suit them. What gives us the right to displace animal species and destroy vegetation just so we can house, feed, and breed more humans? Shouldn't they be allowed to live where they want to? After all, humans are relative newcomers to the scene and other animals have been coexisting for millions of years.

I'm not some sort of environmental nut case. It just irks me to hear how wonderful humans are and then see how we treat each other and our planet.

They are less able and intelligent than humans; otherwise they would dominate. Therefore they are below us.

I'm not saying that I am happy if animals get hurt, only that it's better to maim an animal that was created for that purpose and has a short lifespan than to maim a human. There is no better way than animal testing, which is fast, cheap, and accurate. If there were a better way, then I would support it.

What gives ants the right to fight off and kill other ant colonies to improve their chances of survival, to destroy grass and roots that existed before them? What gives termites the right to hollow out and kill trees to live in? Humans are not the only species to kill others and alter the environment. We're just the best at it. And if humans are too picky, what do you call the komoto dragon, which only lives on one island, or penguins, which refuse to go north to Africa or Australia or South America to live? They cannot change their environment, so they are limited to certain places.

Animals have been coexisting for millions of years? Aside from the blatant use of the "theory" of evolution,[1] you seem to think that animals live in peace and harmony. You haven't seen the deer carcasses around here because the coyotes were hungry, or the bits of rodent left by a skilled cat. Life is meant to be dynamic, not a happy little place where nothing changes and everyone gets along. Humans are a better choice for the ruling species because most prey animals couldn't and most predators would not care about preserving endangered species.

How poorly do humans treat the planet?

[1] Evolution is no theory, not even a hypothesis, because it's an implausible historical possibility. I couldn't make a hypothesis that Golda Meir was the prime minister of Israel, since there is no test that would give me that evidence.

"Therefore they are below us."

I simply think statements like that are arrogant. Just because we have the capability of rational thought does not make us superior to other forms of life. (for reasons listed below)

"it's better to maim an animal that was created for that purpose"

Yikes, animals were NOT "created" for us to test chemicals on them. If you mean that they were bred in captivity for that purpose, that's different. That sort of thing bothers me because what kind of existence is that? Being stuck in a small cage, dragged out kicking and screaming every now and then to have stuff injected into you etc. No thanks. Maybe, you might say, since they can't "think" they don't realize how crummy their living conditions are. Wrong. Haven't you ever seen pet birds that start pulling their feathers out or animals that pace back and forth in their cage? If it's so benign, why would most of them try to escape if given the chance?

I am glad to hear that you would support other means of testing. At least we agree on something!

The driving force of all organisms is to eat and breed. They've evolved (or adapted - don't get hung up on one word) over millions of years to INTERACT (maybe a better word than coexist) with other species. I didn't mean to imply "peace and harmony" between animals by using the word "coexist." One definition = "to exist together or at the same time." (Merriam-Webster)

Look, I don't know of any other situation where one species has done so much damage to so many other species. There are numerous examples of plants and animals that depend on each other for food etc. Who the hell are we to decide it's ok to disturb the balance between, say, the giant panda and its bamboo? Now that's a picky eater (along with the Koala) but even so, we shouldn't modify it's habitat so much that it can't find food.

Animals and insects act on instinct and animals sometimes from behavior learned from a parent, they don't actively think about the consequences of their actions. That's what gives an ant colony the "right" to kill off other ants. Maybe they're trying to expand their territory or defend it from others. Even if they're expanding their territory, chances are they'll have a minimal impact on the environment as A WHOLE. People should be aware of what we're doing to the environment when we cut down whole forests to make room for farmland or subdivisions.

As for the Komodo Dragon, you said it yourself. It lives on an island and, therefore, it can't live anywhere else unless humans intervene, they swim somewhere else, or the tectonic plate the island is part of drifts closer to another patch of land so they can walk to other areas. Also, some species of penguin (maybe all of them) migrate as the seasons change. In fact, a lot of birds and animals migrate so they don't need to change their environment. It seems to me that most animals will also move to another area if the food or water supply is running short.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Animals instinctively maintain a balance with their surroundings, either by moving to other areas, lowering the number of young they have, or even delaying birth in some cases. If there isn't enough prey, some of the predators will die off etc etc. Humans, on the other hand, seem willing to kill, burn, or destroy whatever it takes to get more food or make more babies with little regard for the consequences.

"How poorly do humans treat the planet?"
and
"Humans are a better choice for the ruling species..."

How about this: Slash and burn deforestation, oil spills, global warming, nuclear and other toxic waste, the slaughter of endangered animals for crackpot medicinal "cures," depletion of the ozone layer, the slaughter of endangered animals for their fur or other body parts (not even for FOOD), gas-guzzling SUV's and other vehicles that pollute MUCH more than necessary, littering, pollution of streams and rivers with human waste, industrial runoff, and oil leaking from our cars into storm sewers? Humans have wiped out more species than any animal ever could. It would take another asteroid/comet collision with Earth to equal the damage we've done.

I won't get into an evolution vs. creation argument here. It's pointless, we'll never convince each other who's right or wrong.

However, I will say that your blatant dismissal of evolution is troubling. I'm a devout evolutionist but at least I still acknowledge that creation is POSSIBLE. It's possible to be a religious person AND listen to other viewpoints.

super-procrastinator,
totally and completely agree
and i do not want to reply to gareis comments -- will just end up with high bp and ulcers

Thanks minnaks,

I hate to be so negative but it's just so discouraging to see what people are willing to do for money.

Maybe we'll learn before it's too late!

I'll never be able to convince you that I am right unless you want to be convinced, and vice versa. Theoretical situation: you are sitting at home when God shows up. He says, 'I'm going to prove to the world that I exist, with your help. Bring a video camera to your front yard.' You do so, begin to film Him, and He creates out of thin air a thousand sheep; then He leaves. You, naturally, would be amazed and would want to show your friends the video tape. What's the first thing they'll say? 'Whoa, how did you do that?' (meaning, 'What advanced special effects did you use to make it look like sheep appeared in your front yard?', 'Where did you get the money to buy so many sheep?', etc).

You can't convince someone of anything that they're unwilling to believe. I won't try here.

You said: 'However, I will say that your blatant dismissal of evolution is troubling. I'm a devout evolutionist but at least I still acknowledge that creation is POSSIBLE. It's possible to be a religious person AND listen to other viewpoints.'

I can listen full well. I cannot, however, ACCEPT someone else's views when they conflict with my own. There are devout Muslims in the world. They have read the Qu'ran and wish to do as it says--namely, to conquer the world, force all Christians and Jews to submit to the Islamic government on pain of death, and force everyone else to submit to their religion on pain of death. That is their view on how the world should be. I cannot accept that because many people would be killed for what I believe to be a cult that remained past its founder.

Similarly, you ask me to accept evolution as being the truth when I believe that not only is evolution unprovable (as is my theory that I have just finished a glass of milk--that is, the event is in the past, and the only way to prove something is to observe it, and the past cannot be accessed, therefore nothing in the past can be proven or disproven), but it is also foolish. Microevolution--that which does not create a new species, such as the creation of dog breeds--is a proven fact, but to theorize that it could take place severely enough for one species to turn into another would be like hypostulating the existence of the Great Wall of China by viewing ten or twelve bricks from it.

You didn't want to get into this debate, but you asked me to 'listen to' your side, which means that you want to tell your half without giving me a chance for rebuttal or to show my views. I acknowledge that evolution is possible, BUT it requires a system that would increase surrounding entropy by the same process that altered the DNA of the evolving species. Nobody has been able to discover or invent such a scheme. All that creation requires, on the other hand, is God. There have been prophets to tell of God, but no scientist has been able to come up with that entropy scheme.

Evolutionist: 'I just created amino acids in a test tube. Since amino acids are the building blocks of life, I've proven that abiogenesis required no intelligence!'
Onlooker: 'Did you just say that you have no intelligence?'

Back on the main topic, however: you have named ways in which humans are destroying the planet. How much damage have we done? According to evolutionist history, how many species have gone extinct, and how many have humans extinguished? Animals manage to adapt to their environment or adapt their environment to them. Humans do the same, favoring the latter more.

You mentioned global warming. That's a theory that only about 10% of scientists accept. The majority call it a hoax. Look at the charts of average temperatures (extrapolated from ice samples taken from Antarctica and Greenland). The current period has very moderate and stable temperatures compared to most of history.

Slash and burn deforestation: practiced mostly in areas with little technology, such as South America and parts of India. In the United States, for one, humans realize that trees are a crop to be planted and reaped like any other; that's why forests are larger and more numerous there now than there were a hundred years ago.

Oil spills are rare, and we clean up after them.

It is possible that humans are depleting the ozone layer. On the other hand, the ozone layer has been measured only in the past thirty years, which means that we really have no idea how much it should fluctuate without technological interference.

Human vehicles do pollute. I'll grant you that. However, the average volcano pollutes about a hundred times worse than all that humans have ever done, and they go off every few years. The earth has survived, life remains, and humans look weak and ineffectual in comparison (from the view that we're trying to destroy the environment).

Still, you won't believe me, and you won't believe any statistics I could find to support my arguments, as I have already stated. The only way you would turn to reason as I see it is if you yourself collected the data.

By the way, what's your profession? I was wondering if you have a chance of finding out what I have learned.


~Gareis
Evolution requires belief as Christianity, since there is controversy, and as much belief as Communism under Stalin, since it is enforced by the State, and as much belief as the Code of Hammurabi, since it is even further in the past, further than anyone has seen, yet all your friends insist it's true.

let me see, how do i respond to that, um , first of all, im a bit insulted an aggravated at your statement, considering the fact that i study conservation biology and am not at all an advocate of keeping these animals as pets and steeling them from their natural habitat and what not, i wish there were not a market for exotic animals of ALL kinds, however, stupid uneducated people , much like children get facinated with them once and a while and find a way to go and get one, some are easier to get than others but most unfortunatley end up being mistreated and cared for inproperly when they shouldn't have been pets in the first place> However it is important for certain people , like educators and zoo's and aquariums to have certain animals to educate the UNEDUCATED so we can resolved isues like the one you have brought up. Also breading in captivity may be the only hope for some species such as the hyacinth mccaw which is on the endangered species list and is also bred in captivity in the united states and sold. MY idols include, Diane Fossey, and jane Goodall, you should really ask questions instead of assuming things and jumping to conclusions and acussing people.

225131, it would help if you specified exactly what and whom you're replying to. It would also help readability if you proofread your statements. You would seem more intelligent if you used correct spelling and did not appear to be talking into your keyboard, but instead wrote coherently, in a planned and concise manner. For instance, "let me see, how do i respond to that, um , first of all" is a phrase of thirteen useless words that make you sound uncertain of what you're trying to say.

Sorry; I'm pedantic about style.

this has kind of gone beyond ethical consumerism, torturing animals and stuff hasn't it?
now we are into syntax and semantics!
does that mean the dialogue is dead -- how delightfully alliterative!