esmithiii":1terpt7w said:
I do feel that the hobbyist should respect the Creating a little piece of the ocean with some of its diversity is fascinating.
tank/cage to match a decor and keeping them because they are fascinating? Either way we are keeping them for our pleasure. I don't
Ok, here's a novel for you...
I think "facinating" is a good way to describe it, but I don't think that's all there is to it.
I agree that if it were *just* facinating, then I'd think that most of us would loose interest just like the 90% of the wannabees out there that only keep something because its "cool" or "facinating." But I think the words are really meant to explain something that's hard to express. If you believe in God, then you're probably trying to do what is almost impossible. IE: to try to emulate an environment he created. When kids emulate their fathers, its a way of learning and understanding. I think that's really what we're trying to do. If you don't believe in God, well same concept applies. Its a way of fitting into the world around you. A way of learning and touching a little on the things that exist that we never see. It is "facinating" because we could never create the same thing ourselves. Its also offensive to willfully disreguard something that someone else holds in high esteem. If someone spit on your mother, you'd probably not take it well...etc. Those are the same kinds of things we feel when we keep any family pet. But how we TREAT the pet is really the show of respect isn't it? How much we take care of it to the degree that it should be, in a near perfect (not necessarily a wild) environment. Now, all high and mighty words aside, I think those reasons are the extreem of a person's "facination" with reefkeeping. A lot of us probably just want to learn more about it. But that too, shows respect for the environment around you. To ignore it would be a disreguard of something that someone else holds in esteem, after all.
think anyone on this board can criticize owning animals for our pleasure without being hypocritical, IMO. Is one person's pleasure more moral than another in this example?
Its not for our pleasure is it? Its for the conservation and pleasure of the animals we keep blended with our desire to learn about them and learn how to preserve them. And companionship. Corals are much more able to take care of themselves than a dog, but once again if we ignore the world around us (believing it essentially only to be here for our pleasure and sustaining)...{see above}
I also think that you need to define what it means to "respect the life of better?" Do you mean keeping the livestock alive longer in captivity than they would live in the wild?
Do we provide predators for our dogs? Maybe our cats...well, at least in my house when our dogs are around. We show them respect by providing them not just a livable or natural environment, but an IDEAL environment. The same as anything else that crossed our doorstep. That probably does extend their life. That's usually the intent. We'd do the same for a sister, brother, mother. Because we elevate a little tiny bit the price of a living thing. And I'm sensing a theme here. Its more about not just thinking about ourselves and being self-centered.
If you plan on using the term "stress" in your definition, make sure you define it too since it seems to be quite a subjective measure.
Ernie
I didn't use it, but how about if I define stress as being the one thing that I learn more and more about every day!
Its not that difficult really. Its basically about thinking about the world around us instead of it all having to be about me, ya know. :wink:
