Live food, what is morally acceptable

If, in some fictional scenario, you had to face off with a lion. Would you prefer to be put in a room with the lion, with no weapons and no escape route or be out in the open with the lion, being able to possibly escape?
A mouse that falls into a river in the wild may be able to swim to shore and escape, a mouse in a tank will just come up against a glass wall... and even if it could escape the person who put it there would just throw it back in.

We might not, but what if we were not top of the food chain, a higher life form might like to do this if we were deemed a lesser life form, whos to say that would not be the case, we as humans will find sucha thing horrid of course. But a higher life form may not, they may find it interesting to watch a lion eat us. But yes this is what I am talking about, how we judge this that it the interesting thing. I just dont have the stomach for such things to be honest, but that is not the same as diagreeing with it, this is my personal experience in life that does gives me this opinion and well, disgust at looking at it, others may find it interesting, and not even consider spectacle or cruelty.

How can you also say that it is ok to farm animals as we do to eat excessively and waste so much, meaning most of whats killed end up in the bin, it is a double standard to criticse such live feeding and then go and have a steak from an animal that has been horribly treated far worse than a live fed mouse. Because thats the way we are, apart from the people that refuse to eat meat, I do eat meat, from those same animals and although I don't contribute physically to their terrible existence and demise I do in a logical way. But thats all fine, is it?

I do not direct questions at you personally regarding wwhat we find attractive to look at, just genrally it people behave in that way, squash a bug, but hold a butterfly sort of thing, why see a difference in them, you may not but that is not the same for everyone.

Facts are proven using the scientific method. Science may be dynamic but there are a huge amount of scientifically proven facts

And just as many that have been proven not to be facts as technology and understanding evolves. As I said, the world was flat and that was a fact at one point because of scientific limitation and understanding.


I gave my opinion, this is a forum, I don't mind being corrected, not that anyone has said that every spider will eat dead food, as they cannot say. Forget spiders anyways not the point, if I am wrong please do correct me, I can only learn from it, I guess its quite easy to be taken wrong on a thread, no worries, maybe I should have realised that:blush:

Mark

Stephen wrote:

If people wish to get into spiders ect, again another thread,

i think you'll find you brought them into this in the first place buddy

im sticking with my point thats its simply cruel and in 9 out of 10 completely unnecessary

The thread is what is moraly acceptable, why some live foods are, why some not, and why we come to these decisions, looking for opinions and have questions mylsef when the opinions are given, I am not pro or con tbh, I just dont like it because it disgusts me, not a moral condition, so I will doubt I will ever be doing it anyways, lucky me:)

But I found it quite easy witrh shrimp, and NOT for scientific reasons of less pain, I just didnt seem bothered by it. Thats what I find interesting, this difference

I am certainly not challenging anyones beliefs on this subject, but expect no judgement of those that do either, which seems to be the case.

Mark

Stephen wrote:

If people wish to get into spiders ect, again another thread,

i think you'll find you brought them into this in the first place buddy

im sticking with my point thats its simply cruel and in 9 out of 10 completely unnecessary

Exactly, and that is why I expanded upon it (for the sake of completeness in a debate).

mark, this is a forum, posting opinions = other people make judgements

Damian_Ireland wrote:

mark, this is a forum, posting opinions = other people make judgements

I did mean judging others actions, thought it wsa clear, but I could be mistaken.

Though with a line like that I'll get you an application form for the "Daily Mail"
Kiddin about.

Seriously, am I annoying readers:) It is just a pain to be meandering off topic or completely nothing to do with the thhread and nitpicking lol, it may be time to register somewhere else, yeah I know, no loss there:)

Mark

Mark. wrote:

We might not, but what if we were not top of the food chain, a higher life form might like to do this if we were deemed a lesser life form, whos to say that would not be the case, we as humans will find sucha thing horrid of course. But a higher life form may not, they may find it interesting to watch a lion eat us. But yes this is what I am talking about, how we judge this that it the interesting thing. I just dont have the stomach for such things to be honest, but that is not the same as diagreeing with it, this is my personal experience in life that does gives me this opinion and well, disgust at looking at it, others may find it interesting, and not even consider spectacle or cruelty.

Well, that's the thing. I don't think that humans are the highest life form at the moment, I would think that all advanced vertebrates stand on pretty equal ground when it comes to being "high" on whatever fictional list we aply to organisms.
I also think that your argument here is a bit of a slippery slope. Surely there have been people who considered themselves superior to other humans (or specific groups of humans) this does not mean that it's okay for them to kill those that they feel superior to.

How can you also say that it is ok to farm animals as we do to eat excessively and waste so much, meaning most of whats killed end up in the bin, it is a double standard to criticse such live feeding and then go and have a steak from an animal that has been horribly treated far worse than a live fed mouse. Because thats the way we are, apart from the people that refuse to eat meat, I do eat meat, from those same animals and although I don't contribute physically to their terrible existence and demise I do in a logical way. But thats all fine, is it?

Well, that has more to do with the morality of how animals used for human consumption are housed and slaughtered. I have no problem with eating non-human animals, but I do have problems eating animals that have been treated inhumanely. Of course this means that I'm pretty much a functional vegetarian even though I don't mind eating other animals...

I do not direct questions at you personally regarding wwhat we find attractive to look at, just genrally it people behave in that way, squash a bug, but hold a butterfly sort of thing, why see a difference in them, you may not but that is not the same for everyone.

Fair enough, I thought that you were addressing me.

And just as many that have been proven not to be facts as technology and understanding evolves. As I said, the world was flat and that was a fact at one point because of scientific limitation and understanding.

Well the world being flat was more an observation by everyone based on what was right in front of them. There was no scientific method involved in the verification of that particular "fact", I don't think that it's a very good example.

Science is Fact? Someone said it here….I can’t find the post now.
Is it fact?

Not as far as I’m concerned when we come to thinking about it in a debate.

Science is about the observation, encapsulation and gathering of information on those observations; and includes trying to explain those observation; and further trying to see if there are ‘rules’ (by convention, induction, deduction or whatever school of thought one if of) upon which to further attempt to realistically make predictions.

As far as ‘facts’ are concerned, the so-called scientific facts are really only a convention by which we go by in terms of what we presently understand or comprehend. As our understanding develops, we may show that ‘facts’ are no longer ‘facts’.

Added to this, if we can prove that someone was wrong 50 years ago, then who is to say that someone in 50 years can’t prove us wrong now.

ian

i feed some of my fish live feeders,i breed most of them,while its not needed to feed live fish to survive i do think that with certain fish they need some simulation,that is my veiw,so for the mental health of the fish i do agree with it but i dont agree with doing it just for the sake of it

very interesting topic and some very good points made which really made me think.
my own view is that cruelty to any creature is unacceptable. but i do feed live brine shrimp, worms and daphnia etc.
i'll have to think a bit more about this before i write any more.

What I meant was that they would derive happiness from similar things that we would. Play, friendly social interaction, eating a favourite food etc

Does satiating a hunger for Food equate to happiness or fulfillment? Aren't all of the senses guided by a will to survive, can we mistake an animal's "happiness" for a state of security and not what we define as happiness.

To enter into the realms of Philosophy and theology, who or what is to say what is or isn't bad or good, we can only go by the inner self that is predisposed to what we consider good or evil, if the general concensus was that it was bad we would all be sickened by it and if all deemed it good, it would be common practise.

It seems that all actions within the Human world are dependent on a concensus of the masses, so numbers rule.

If everyone here fed live animals to other animals as food we would see the ones who disagreed as outsiders to be shunned and vice-versa. So , as we have chosen to cage animals for our entertainment it behoves us to maintain them in such a way as to ensure physical and "mental" health, whatever that may be.

Personally it makes me cringe to see higher animals being used as food where legs etc can be ripped off a living thing, where it thrashes about, partially eaten , being watched by someone that gets a depraved and sickening pleasure from watching the slow and agonizing death of a creature that has nowhere to run to.

Shrimp, small worms and other small live foods are consumed quickly and easily and I have no issue with this.

Innumerable amounts of Krill and other Planktonic lifeforms disappear down the cavernous necks of Blue Whales, no problem there but Some overpaid Twit, scouring a Tank in a Hoighty Toighty Restaurant choosing a live Lobster for Dinner, allowing it to be plopped into boiling Water when there is absolutely no need to do so really gets my Goat.

Kev.

I guess this is one of those debates that just ends up touching on something a lot deeper than the original question/questions. After looking over this thread Ive seen some brilliant insights into what folks here think and believe. Some of the comments by the more learned members here have really suprised me. Ian here is a scientist, Spooky is a Zooligist and its great having educated people like that here. I have a question for you Spooky. You say you dont consider humans to be the highest form of life at the moment. What do you think is? Im not trying to put you on the spot here, Im genuinely interested to know what you think. I know there are life forms out there that have been around for eons and will probably be around long after we go but I would consider us higher life forms because we are self aware. We can plan, change our environment, solve complex problems and learn from our mistakes.
Im going to go out on a limb here and leave myself open to a flogging but I really do consider us to be the highest form of life right now...que the alien invasion . If it came down to it, and I really mean this, I would personally shoot every last Orangutan, River Dolphin, Fur Seal you name it, if it meant saving the life of just one human being. That may seem outrageous, and heres hoping I dont have to, but I value us far more than I do animals. Dont get me wrong though, I love animals, always have and have instilled that in my son who also has a great affection for all animals, even the ugly ones. This, is not in any way a religeous belief either, Im about as atheist as you can get but I stand by it. Ive seen first hand, unbelievable human suffering, most of it unfortunately caused by other people but I think the difference is people can REALLY appreciate just how desperate their situation is.
I know a lot of folks here will probably now consider me an ignorant, callous person, and mabey they are right but Im being honest here and I accept that. Now, wheres my gun?

Jay

ah i dunno about that jay i'd rather save a dolphin than save jedward:laugh:

LMAO , theres exeptions to evey rule I guess.

Jay

Jay,

We are not the highest form of intelligence, we say we are because we is all we know, Ask a dolphin and if it could answer It would say IT is because it isn't depleting the Oceans of all of it's life. In it's realm it IS the highest because they communicate their intentions and support the Pod, we are capable of manipulating our environment but to do so, somewhere in the world suffers, if in Indonesia stripping Hardwoods without any thought for what is left behind, unstable Soils that slide from hills leaving no so called Sponge to stem floodwaters from rushing downhill wreaking havoc on all below.

We are the only species that destroy to create, the closest to us in those stakes are Elephants.

Pandas don't stay in one place long because they eat Graminae and cannot afford to denude an area, they'd starve, their environment is being destroyed, by us, not them. Koalas cannot continually eat the same Species of Eucalypts because Eucalyptus becomes astringent and they must move to other types in order to eat, their environment decides their spread not them.

We have higher Intelligence because of the I think, therefore I am belief butI 'm not sure that that qualifies us as higher than anything else if we are going to destroy ourselves or the Planet we live on.

I know that that all looks all very negative but facts speak for themselves, animals Fight, eat and reproduce to survive, we've gone beyond that struggle and as such have taken our Eye off the Ball.

Kev.

stretnik wrote:

Jay,

We are not the highest form of intelligence, we say we are because we is all we know, Ask a dolphin and if it could answer It would say IT is because it isn't depleting the Oceans of all of it's life. In it's realm it IS the highest because they communicate their intentions and support the Pod, we are capable of manipulating our environment but to do so, somewhere in the world suffers, if in Indonesia stripping Hardwoods without any thought for what is left behind, unstable Soils that slide from hills leaving no so called Sponge to stem floodwaters from rushing downhill wreaking havoc on all below.

We are the only species that destroy to create, the closest to us in those stakes are Elephants.

Pandas don't stay in one place long because they eat Graminae and cannot afford to denude an area, they'd starve, their environment is being destroyed, by us, not them. Koalas cannot continually eat the same Species of Eucalypts because Eucalyptus becomes astringent and they must move to other types in order to eat, their environment decides their spread not them.

We have higher Intelligence because of the I think, therefore I am belief butI 'm not sure that that qualifies us as higher than anything else if we are going to destroy ourselves or the Planet we live on.

I know that that all looks all very negative but facts speak for themselves, animals Fight, eat and reproduce to survive, we've gone beyond that struggle and as such have taken our Eye off the Ball.

Kev.

But isnt that the point? Evolution, survival of the fittest, whatever you call it, this is it in motion. We know longer need to fight, hunt and risk everything for a meal. Our brains won that battle for us tens of thousands of years ago. If you ask the same dolphin, if he would rather bring his pod through shark infested waters to find the next shoal of sardines or dip his beak in a fish farm full of them, what would his answer be? Doubtless we have made huge mistakes and done serious damage on our way to the top but were realising that now, and despite all the fearmongering and sabre rattling from the green groups (who have their own agendas) I believe we can still turn things around for the benefit of everyone and everything. Its just going to mean a lot of people, organisations and countries are going to have to agree on a whole lot of issues before anything happens. It probably wont in our lifetime but eventually it will out of necessity.

Jay

it would be a bit hypocritical to slate people for feeding feeders then throw flake food or your own ready made food etc.. into your tank, how humanely are the millions of fish that are caught each year in order to create these foods treated?

we can only assume that the fish put into flake food are humanely killed and until we find out otherwise have to assume thats the way its done.

putting a live fish in a tank to be eaten by something that doesn't need to be fed live is cruel its as simple as that

and trawling fish from rivers and oceans for your pleasure isn't

Viperbot wrote:

stretnik wrote:

Jay,

We are not the highest form of intelligence, we say we are because we is all we know, Ask a dolphin and if it could answer It would say IT is because it isn't depleting the Oceans of all of it's life. In it's realm it IS the highest because they communicate their intentions and support the Pod, we are capable of manipulating our environment but to do so, somewhere in the world suffers, if in Indonesia stripping Hardwoods without any thought for what is left behind, unstable Soils that slide from hills leaving no so called Sponge to stem floodwaters from rushing downhill wreaking havoc on all below.

We are the only species that destroy to create, the closest to us in those stakes are Elephants.

Pandas don't stay in one place long because they eat Graminae and cannot afford to denude an area, they'd starve, their environment is being destroyed, by us, not them. Koalas cannot continually eat the same Species of Eucalypts because Eucalyptus becomes astringent and they must move to other types in order to eat, their environment decides their spread not them.

We have higher Intelligence because of the I think, therefore I am belief butI 'm not sure that that qualifies us as higher than anything else if we are going to destroy ourselves or the Planet we live on.

I know that that all looks all very negative but facts speak for themselves, animals Fight, eat and reproduce to survive, we've gone beyond that struggle and as such have taken our Eye off the Ball.

Kev.

But isnt that the point? Evolution, survival of the fittest, whatever you call it, this is it in motion. We know longer need to fight, hunt and risk everything for a meal. Our brains won that battle for us tens of thousands of years ago. If you ask the same dolphin, if he would rather bring his pod through shark infested waters to find the next shoal of sardines or dip his beak in a fish farm full of them, what would his answer be? Doubtless we have made huge mistakes and done serious damage on our way to the top but were realising that now, and despite all the fearmongering and sabre rattling from the green groups (who have their own agendas) I believe we can still turn things around for the benefit of everyone and everything. Its just going to mean a lot of people, organisations and countries are going to have to agree on a whole lot of issues before anything happens. It probably wont in our lifetime but eventually it will out of necessity.

Jay

Although many of us accept ‘survival of the fittest’ as a concept…..there is one slight problem……viz: what exactly is the level of fitness that nature is demanding?

It may or may not be weight, height, strength, intelligence (however that is actually determined), colour or whatever we seem to perceive.

And in them various attributes, do we really know if the ‘strongest’ or ‘tallest’ or ‘most colourful’ or ‘least colourful’ or ‘most intelligent at solving maze puzzles’ are the ‘fittest’?

It’s a bit like reading Nostradamus and being able to find ‘good fits’ to any of his prophecies…..we may or may not actually hit the button.

However, and having said that, us humans have evolved to be a somewhat formidable competitor in the evolution race. If we think that something is going to threaten our survival….then we can nuke it from 3000 miles away.

In the whole scope of evolution, there is nothing to say that man’s present intelligence (whether the highest or not) is not going to see the human species turn into an animal that simply cannot react to changes that really need a more ‘earthy’ approach to survival.
Words like ‘Will’ and ‘Survival’ are key drivers for an animal IMO….if they are removed by even a hint that we are not as susceptible as we really are then the drive for survival may simply be as pro-active as reaching for the TV handset.

I am intrigued at the various behaviour of some what are called ‘primitive’ creatures.
Ranging from ancient lungfish (massive DNA genome), through to frogs and salamanders, through to chameleons, and relating parts of their behaviour to traits seen in humans.
I am not yet at the stage to accept that intellect has ‘evolved’ only by gain, but that intellect has been modulated by evolutionary losses and some gains. If the lungfish has the largest genome of all known animals, and it is a pretty ancient animal (almost a living fossil) then maybe…..well…..maybe…..there’s a question……is it easier to lose an attribute or gain an attribute? And what percentage of the human genome is within the lungfish (and not the usual % similarity stats that we often hear)? I don’t actually know, and maybe I should go and have a look at that.

I am, by the way, a full supporter of Darwin’s theories…..and he didn’t say that an animal has to be physically strong to be the fittest.

and trawling fish from rivers and oceans for your pleasure isn't

considering i keep all my animals in the best possible conditions and do not mistreat them then no, i don't think its cruel if they are being looked after

and in terms of them as food for our comsumption then i still dont think its cruel becuase fish in the rivers and sea have at least a chance to escape

a fish in a tank can't

is that fair?

dar wrote:

and trawling fish from rivers and oceans for your pleasure isn't

maybe i should have stated as a food source for feeding your fish, i was continuing from my first post on how the food is made, these fish are mass slaughtered so you can see "your" fishies swimming about entertaining you

yes they have a chance to escape, but a giant net is not a natural predator though is it and limits the possibility of escape, then more than likely they are left to suffocate out of water

maybe i should have stated as a food source for feeding your fish, i was continuing from my first post on how the food is made, these fish are mass slaughtered so you can see "your" fishies swimming about entertaining you

yes they have a chance to escape, but a giant net is not a natural predator though is it and limits the possibility of escape, then more than likely they are left to suffocate out of water

but they still have the chance to escape is my point.

and you can't confrim they are left to suffocate out of water only guess

and i cant confirm they are humanely killed either i can only guess

but what i do know is that a guppy thrown into a tank with a pike cichlid stands no chance and is unnecessary.

which in my opinion is cruel

I feed my fish live feeder fish and worms and other stuff. The reason I do this is because some of the fish only come in eating live foods and have not been weaned on to dead yet.
I try to get all my fish onto dead foods, some I have success with some I don't.
In my opinion its worse to let a fish die slowly of starvation than feed it another fish.

I also give them live foods as a treat every now and then aswell. In my experience any feeder I put in the tank is eaten within 5 seconds of hitting the water. So to me it seems to be eaten before it even realises where it is.

Do I get enjoyment out of watching this? No, but I do find it interesting to watch the fish hunt and feed as they would do naturally.

As well I chop up earthworms to feed to the fish. Is this cruel?
To me it looks like the worms have to be in some sort of pain after being cut in half,
But for some reason I don't have any problem doing this.

Would I feed a live mouse to my fish? No I don't think I would, But many of us put mouse traps down in our homes if we know one is around, I have seen many times mice not killed instantly by these traps but yet a lot of people don't think twice about this.

Dan.

i've only read the last few posts to this so i will reluctatly say this:

some of us breed colonies of live food such as worms and shrimp, or source readily available feeders like guppies, neons or goldfish. this is, in my opinion, like how cows pigs and chickens are farmed for our own consuption. i dont feed too much live foods at the moment, only snails to a puffer and cherry shrimps (when the colony grows) to bala's as a treat and this is how they would survive in the wild so i cannot see anything wrong with rearing live foods purely to be used as foods. if you disagree, fine, just what i think, but if you all talk about "its not fair or natural" then why don't you go hunt and gather your own food in the wilderness?

Stephen wrote:

but they still have the chance to escape is my point.

i agree with wat your saying, but do you agree that being trapped in a net and killed solely for your entertainment is a level of cruelty?

i agree with wat your saying, but do you agree that being trapped in a net and killed solely for your entertainment is a level of cruelty?

explain entertainment

without pellets, flakes and frozen foods my fish would starve so it has done

feeding a fish to another fish that doesn't need to be fed a feeder is unnecessary if said fish will eat pellets, flakes and frozen foods

feeding a feeder to a fish that wont accept processed foods is ok because it has to be done otherwise it will starve which is the lesser of two evils

maybe im contradicting myself in what im saying but it makes sense to me

Stephen wrote:

explain entertainment

why do you keep fish?

do you get joy from your hobby?
do you ever sit and watch your fish?

if so it's entertaining you and fish are dying to keep your fish fed and in doing so keeping you happy and entertained, so whether your killing the fish yourself, your fish is killing it or your paying some one to do it, your still responsible for the death of the fish that gets fed to yours, all are a level of cruelty that comes with the hobby which is cruelty in it's own sense. as for human consumption we have to eat, we don't have to have pets

would i use feeder fish? no
do i feed live food? yes
do i eat fish? yes
would i catch, kill and eat a fish? no

but that's how i feel morally and others are entitled to feel different.

why do you keep fish?

do you get joy from your hobby?
do you ever sit and watch your fish?

if so it's entertaining you and fish are dying to keep your fish fed and in doing so keeping you happy and entertained, so whether your killing the fish yourself, your fish is killing it or your paying some one to do it, your still responsible for the death of the fish that gets fed to yours, all are a level of cruelty that comes with the hobby which is cruelty in it's own sense. as for human consumption we have to eat, we don't have to have pets

would i use feeder fish? no
do i feed live food? yes
do i eat fish? yes
would i catch, kill and eat a fish? no

but that's how i feel morally and others are entitled to feel different.

maybe my point isn't coming across


if your fish eats processed foods than why feed live?

its unnecessary

im not saying you feed live

we are all entitled to our opinions and i, most certainly won't change my opinion on people who feed live for the sake of feeding live

if it has to be done for the sake of a fish starving to death, than so be it

And then Jay, comes the hardest thing of all, if I am to understand what you are saying, being where we are is the pinnacle of our success, our evolution stops right here. I don't see that as a great achievement. To really go off on a tangent and risk some serious rebuttal or worse, we have perpetuated our Species by purposely manipulating Genes and by causing defective Genes to go through the worlds population , unchecked and un-contained, at least animals in the wild adhere to the rules of nature, a three legged Antelope will be killed shortly after birth but a Person with the Gene for having one leg will be cared for, cossetted, Psychologically made to feel as normal as everyone else , to go on, have Children and therefore carry forth the defective gene for one leg into countless Generations, the number of Genetically inherited Genes that now infiltrate the population worldwide is unknown but at some time down the Road will raise it's ugly Head and then what?

We are concentrating a defective Gene pool every time a Medical cure is found, a superficial management of a serious underlying problem.

Please don't accuse me of advocating Euthenasia or anything like that, I am just putting thoughts to Cyber Paper.

Kev.

this has made very interesting reading but the question itself "what is morally acceptible" is always going to create division as we all have different moral standards. morals like everything else can be very personal and each of us has to live with our own conscience.
from what i've read on this thread, my own thoughts would most closely coincide with those expressed by ian, stretnik and spookymuffin, but i also found most of the other offerings interesting and thought provoking.
i have to add that viperbots offer to wipe out all living creatures (non human) if it would save any single one of the earths billions of humans chilled me to the bone. what a prospect, a world without birds and animals and with more and more billions of people.
and instead of fox/stag hunts and hare coursing we could have deprived area tenant hunts and unemployed people coursing.