NationStates Jolt Archive

I am trying to submit this to the WA right now, but it telling me my name is too short, trying to work that out in the tech forum, by while that is worked out, I figured I'd post it here to see what people think, debate on, what not.

First a bit about my nation, it seems to focus on education and there is little crime. I messed up at first by almost causing my Hyenas to go instinct, but I cloned them and gave them more rights than my citizens, so they got back up. I am big on saving the environment for my nation, and the animals, so here is my proposal;

Ban the Zoos:
I would like to purpose that all zoos become banned. We've seen some of the horrible low budget zoos in various countries, and we've seen really good ones. But either way, the animals are being removed from their natural habitat, taken into false ones, and are forced to be looked upon by gawking fools. If the people want to see these animals, they can do 3 things.

1) Watch a documentary.
2) Go visit the wild on some trip or safari type thing.
3) Go live in the wild and go back to the animalistic roots of the human genes, in other words, be an ape man. Be a shaman like the native Americans, or rather, a simple native, one with the land.

Keep the animal rescue centers and what not that help an animal become healed and then released back into the wild, but ban the zoos, there's just no reason for it.

You wouldn't want to one day, be awoken by men with nets and guns, be shot down, and wake up across the world in a cage or false area where rocks are plastic and caves have bars. Away from your family, friends, and life.

First, it's pretty insensitive to refer to indigenous people as 'simple native[s]'. Do we need to confine them to reservations for their own good, too?

Second, I would indeed not like the scenario you posit. But then I wouldn't like to be eaten, either: it's not going to stop me tucking into the occasional steak dinner. We don't treat animals like humans because they're not humans.

Let's worry about slums first: once we've fixed that, once we've housed actual people, maybe we'll have time to worry about the aesthetic integrity of rocks.

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Samantha Benson, thank you. I totally agree with you.
If we cannot give sentients or sapients rights, why banning zoos. Ok, the bad ones should be closed. But what about normal farms where they have pigs growing for meat. Give them the freedom to not being on a farm? I do not think so, and I am vegetarian.

I think zoo banning is micro managing. A bill on animal treatment I would like to have first.
And of course the WA better to focus on the rights of people.
All nations have enough freedom to improve rights of animals.

Regards, Cocoamok

Not to mention that some species are only sustained in captivity, for one reason or another. As for humanity's "animalistic roots", one need not forsake the benefits of civilization to express one's more primal drives. As for being native to one's homeland, a great majority of Kriovallers are native to the Great Chiefdom, and we are quite often complicated individuals.

Ambassador Darvek Tyvok-kan
Great Chiefdom of Krioval

I was just using those as examples on what people can do, I wasn't stating them as laws.

I just think the cruelty of how the animals are taken out of their home,a nd how they are treated, will improve if zoos and those farms to raise animals for meat be banned, or at least keep the good zoos, and the farming plants needed to actually feed people. I just hate seeing animals packed into cages, fed, and then chopped up, at least have the animals (food) eat and be raised in a well enviornment, then eat them, but kill them humanly. Eating meat is not a problem. Other than farming, I was more so referring to the wildlife you see in a zoo, like apes, monkeys, rhinos, act. Pigs, horses, cats, dogs, and whatever have you that are rather common amongst the society and for survival of food, can stay where they are. Dogs and cat aren't really food (depends where you live) but, they have hard times surviving in the wild, they'd all basically be food.

As for, "We don't treat animals like humans because they're not humans."

Humans, are warm blooded, thus they are mammals, the skeletal structure of a human is similar to apes, so apes are the very distant cousins. Other animals time and time again have shown minor human intelligence, for example; dolphins and apes.

All animals have a mind, and an intellectual ability that suits to their survival, as you can see humans are physically weak, and would have a hard time surviving out in the jungle and gain food unless tools are provided. The cities are basic concrete jungles made by man, but our forests of stone spread to wide, and swallow up the rest of the other animal's rightful places of life. So we tear up the land, and then make fake spots, and stick those animals we screwed in the false vision of their home? Kind of liek you, as a person, being abducted by aliens, and thrown into a small room, with a chair, tv, and fed random food everyday, while you sit behind a glass shield and stare at people staring at you. Think of that movie, Happy Feet, and how the humans watched that Penguin, and how that Penguin felt. I know using that movie is poor.

In other words, humans are animals, so they should be treated equally to humans. Humans gave up their physical survival senses (smell, earing, sight,claws, act) and traded it for advanced minds. We survive with the sharp minds and wit, other animals not only survive on their brains, but on their bodies more so than we do, at least when it comes to food and avoiding the ones that hunt them. People are a basic over grown parasite, when any organism grows too big, and too many, it eats the land and all around it.

I say basically, shut down the bad zoos, release the animals back into the wild, and if possible, shut down all zoos, once the animals from poor zoos are proven to live in the wild successfully. Also, rescue centers and the reservations for injured animals are fine by me, so long as they are healthy for the animal and they aren't shown for sport.

I didn't mean for people to actually become natives, haha, i just said if the people want to see them that badly, either do a safari trip, or live with them in their habitat, see how well a human survives on his wits alone in the deep jungles of the East.

So, in other words, the WA focuses in human stuff, and not animals? Well, then why is environmental a subject then? We as humans, with the gift of the intelligence, should do all we can to help the other animals, and plant life.

I guess people here aren't as concerned as I thought, I guess to gain interest I have to think of something that effects humans alone, but wait.......doesn't the environment status and the health of all other animals, concern humans? Yes, I think so! And putting everything besides humans in areas where they are gawked at is demeaning and cruel. No matter how much the habitat looks like their home or how well they're fed.

Animals will be treated like people when they pay taxes like people. As even chimpanzees trained to use their minds can't exceed the mental capacity of a two-year-old child, this will take a while. And domestic animals are stupider than the wild species they were bred from. Can they suffer? Yes. Can they perform abstract reasoning? No.

Yes, the difference between humans and chimpanzees (and to a lesser extent orangutans and dolphins and possibly blue whales and African grey parrots and probably orcas too) is one of degree and not of kind. You cannot rationally say that they are equivalent in terms of mind. It's our capacity for abstract reasoning, at a level far beyond any other species on Earth (except possibly some cetaceans, but we don't know how to talk to them) that sets us apart from the animals. That's how humans are different.

Zoos perform a vital role in educating the public about rare and endangered animals, and as Krioval said, many species now survive only in captivity. Freeing them would be an extinction sentence. Actually, freeing any animals raised in captivity would be a death sentence, since animals raised in captivity don't know how to survive in the wild.

It sounds like what you ought to be writing is a resolution for the ethical treatment of animals. Zoo liberation is rather too radical to get anywhere, and counterproductive to boot.

I guess people here aren't as concerned as I thoughtTry waiting more than 6 minutes before saying nobody cares.

Humans, are warm blooded, thus they are mammals, the skeletal structure of a human is similar to apes, so apes are the very distant cousins.Watermelons are 92% water. Clouds are 99% water. Therefore, watermelons are distant cousins of clouds.

So you say the main reasons other animals can't be equal to humans is because they don't pay taxes? So it all comes down to money? What greed.

Secondly, if people want to be informed on endangered species, they can be taught in school, make it mandatory, or better yet, watch a documentary. People choose to go to the zoo, so they can choose to watch the documentary, or we force them to learn it in in grade school, like say, 5th or 6th grade. Classes do that you know, teach about other animals. My 3rd grade teacher did this whole half semester on the rainforest and the animals and plant life and natives within. I don't see why everyone is taking my native example (it was more of a joke) so serious. No harm is meant here, this is meant to be an argument I understand, but I'd something other than, "money" and "animals aren't people." when people are infact animals.

If people who don't pay taxes aren't equal to humans what does that make religious people (in those nations where such people are exempt)? On second thought don't answer that question.

First, it's pretty insensitive to refer to indigenous people as 'simple native[s]'. Do we need to confine them to reservations for their own good, too?

Second, I would indeed not like the scenario you posit. But then I wouldn't like to be eaten, either: it's not going to stop me tucking into the occasional steak dinner. We don't treat animals like humans because they're not humans.

Let's worry about slums first: once we've fixed that, once we've housed actual people, maybe we'll have time to worry about the aesthetic integrity of rocks.

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

It would appear we actually agree on something. Bravo. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Also, some zoos ARE animal rescue centers, last I heard. Could be wrong however.

Indeed. The logic employed in support of this resolution is deeply flawed. Not to mention that some animals are extinct or nearly so outside of captivity; zoos are their only hope of survival.

All that aside, I don't see any reason to tell WA members they can't have zoos because some zoos are inadequate to the animals' needs, and some animals may have some sort of diminished quality of life as a result of their captivity. Overall I agree with the statement of the representative from Wierd Anarchists; if the WA is to address animal rights, let it do so in a sweeping resolution that applies everywhere, not by banning a particular type of facility where animals might be mistreated.

Riley Fluffer
Representing the Federated Democratic States of Xanthal
Designated Agent of the Delegacy of SPACE

I already mentioned that rescue centers are fine, but there are some rescue centers that allow people to visit the animals, but they are not specifically zoos. I don't know people freak out still about the native thing, that was a sarcastic joke, apparently whenever I use sarcasm I have to put a note I am doing so.

I think if people are just educated by museums, documentaries, and mandatory schooling, its fine, and safaris can give them experience and they can say, "I learned about that rhino in 3rd grade, now I can see it up close where it is not behind and is out of place."

Yes the animals now can't survive, if you took a rhino that was raised and born in a zoo, and release in the wild, it will have a hard time, but all animals do adjust.

Cats and dogs live just fine without humans. Cats are on the street all the time, they are just more common to prey, but look at bob cats an lynxes. Then you got dogs, there are stray dogs that travel in packs and survive, they even go into the forests and are called, "Wild Dogs."

Saying that people are not animals is stupid, saying animals are equal to humans when they pay taxes is dumb, cause what about the people that don't pay taxes, they aren't human?

And I can post as many times as I want after other posts, it doesn't make me annoying, rude, or a noob. And the rules of the board say nothing of me not being able to do so.

I agree with you about the taxes thing; that was kind of out of left field, and I'd say it's likely that was said just as sarcastically as you spoke of simple natives. Many animals can't survive in the wild effectively once raised in captivity. Even knowing some can, it still doesn't follow that they should be released. A lot of things are possible; that doesn't mean they're done, or ought to be. And I haven't heard anyone say that people aren't animals. Rather, the point has been made that animals (most of them anyway) aren't people, which is, I think you will accept, true.

Even placing aside those arguments, the representative from Altierra is right: there's no way you'll ever get this proposal to quorum. I suggest a change of tack if these issues are truly important to you.

Riley Fluffer
Representing the Federated Democratic States of Xanthal
Designated Agent of the Delegacy of SPACE

Well, several posts said that animals weren't human, thus I assumed it was meant that humans were not animals. Which they are. And apes are as close to humans as we are, since humans are technically, warm blooded=mammal=us in the ape family. An yeah, the taxes thing I hope was meant sarcastically, if not, then well...I feel sorry for that person's nation.:p

Other animals have societies, look at lions and prides, a pack of wolves, ants and their queen, bees and their hives. They leave us alone, why can't we leave them alone?

Plus, the only "other" reason animals are becoming extinct (well one of the main reasons) is that we, as humans, are taking up the land, cause there are too many of us. :eek:

It's also proven that Chimps have the mental capacity of a 3 yr old child, while the orangutan has the mental capacity of a 5 yr old. orangutan are the top of the line, they are smarter and more flexible, and stronger than chimps, not as strong as gorillas, but more maneuverable. FYI.

I say we stick to our own little areas, stop taking up the land, leave other animals to their space, all peace.An don't give me crap about humans are not peaceful cause of wars. Other animals have wars, packs fight each other, lion prides duel, tigers fight for territory, and chimp groups fight as well. Humans fight for money, or land. Either way, its for survival. Other animals do so for survival, ect.

You people, the way you go on about money and animals not being equal to humans (manimals), well; you're ALL ANIMALS! :hail:

If your argument is honestly based on the assertion that there is no significant distinction between humans and apes, lions, tigers, wolves, and bees, I believe you are entirely misinformed both about the nature of sapience and the popular sentiment of the representatives whose support you will require to pass your resolution.

Riley Fluffer
Representing the Federated Democratic States of Xanthal
Designated Agent of the Delegacy of SPACE

Well, several posts said that animals weren't human, thus I assumed it was meant that humans were not animals.That does not logically follow. Not all rectangles are squares, but all squares are rectangles.

Rather than speak in riddles, i'll just think of a new issue and hopefully people like it. Sadly this doesn't seem to be a hit.

No offense, but if simple logic is a riddle to you, you might want to educate yourself a bit before trying again.

Riley Fluffer
Representing the Federated Democratic States of Xanthal
Designated Agent of the Delegacy of SPACE

See, just by saying that, how that not be offensive?

To: Them Bones

I am sorry to say that my nation will not support your proposal in the WA. I think it is not the WA that should be policing zoos for the bad treatment of animals. It is that nations responsibility to see to it that the animals in the zoos are getting the proper treatment if they have their own laws set into place. If you disagree with a nations treatment of animals, then sit down with that nation and talk to them about it. If they don't want to play your bargaining game, then put laws into affect in your nation where your people can not trade or go their.
As I stated before, I would rather the WA turn its attention to more pressing worldly issues. I do want to add one last statement and that is good luck with your proposal in the WA.

Office of WA Delegate
Neo Mithral Hall

See, just by saying that, how that not be offensive?
It's a rhetorical device that provides me with a measure of deniability when I make thinly veiled jabs at a person's intelligence. Quite convenient, really. And before you ask; no, I have no idea how I got this job with an attitude like that. It certainly had nothing to do with bribes or official incompetence, so I'm going to guess it was my dashing good looks and witty banter.

Sorry to cut this short, but since it appears we've reached a conclusion regarding the issue at hand, I'm going to grab some lunch. Pleasure meeting you and all that.

Riley Fluffer
Not representing the Federated Democratic States of Xanthal
Not acting as Designated Agent of the Delegacy of SPACE

See, just by saying that, how that not be offensive?

If you find that offensive, I suggest you grow some thicker skin.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Right then... no, zoos should not be banned. After all, a breeding program in zoos could save a species. However, a resolution regarding the treatment of animals in zoos might not be amiss.

You know what else could help save species? Not taking their lands, or killing them for sport, or poisoning them with waste and chemicals.

Flibbleites: I am not sensitive to what he said, it's just that he said no offense before saying something offensive, people think when they say "no offense" it is a protection from having people get offended.

I could care less how witty someone is, or how rich is their nation, i just wish one of you saw it my way, pity. :(

i just wish one of you saw it my way, pity.

thats just it, it isn't about seeing it your way. It is about seeing it the whole WA's way. As of now, every one is agreeing to not ban zoos.

You know what else could help save species? Not taking their lands, or killing them for sport, or poisoning them with waste and chemicals.

There you go, that's three sensible ideas for proposals you could start working on instead.

Yes, I have some separate ideas now, hopefully people like it.