Is it cruel to keep a snake in a 4’x2’x2’ box?

[slim6y]

Ok, here's a little something I conjured up in the last 10 minutes, it's all subjective and completely and 100% totally and utterly my opinion and I have not sat in lectures to understand this - nor have I read articles about. However, I do have some scientific background, just totally unrelated that's all.

Animals - instead of dividing them into back boned and non... Let's divide them by what they eat and size...

Which is more intelligent (opinion only - do not base this on anthropomorphism):

Horse or pig?

Dog or sheep?

Cow or cat?

Giraffe or lion?

Ok - I'll stop there... This is a broad(ish) spectrum... Personally, all the omnivores and predatory animals are far more intelligent...

Why?

Well grass doesn't require upper level thinking... In fact a species of invertebrate (a portia spider) could easily outwit most vegetarian vertebrates - and this was tested by hiding prey items in a 'maze' that the portia spiders had to seek and attack. In all cases the spider had to lose sight of their prey in order to continue to hunt and attack them.

Now - this purely suggests some cognitive thinking.

The more likely an animal was to become hunted, the more intelligent it became. The more intelligent the prey became, the more the hunter had to outsmart them.

Hence, their brains have developed in certain areas, for survival.

Of course these animals must have evolved in many other parts of their brains - and it is not fair to really compare humans to these vertebrates - we all have different goals in life.

But to think a snake lacks intelligence when you base it purely on 'instinct' is surely a mistake. The snake that waits to hunt its food, stealth and speed being two weapons in their arsenal along with heat pits and their vomeronasal organ - just because these adaptations are there, doesn't mean that they just do everything instinctively like breathing or blinking (in humans, snakes don't blink).

We breath - not only because we have to - but our central nervous system (CNS) does it for us - luckily. Some of us are pretty forgetful. But just because their CNS controls some of the snakes system - perhaps you should try stopping breathing... At this very point your brain takes over and forces you to breath - if you can't - panic sets in - and so on... And you can't tell me that a snake wouldn't panic if you were preventing it from breathing.

Instinctive - yes - but take away their very essence of life and you have the forms of 'depression' - and I am afraid some snakes are probably there right now... Not my two big carpets in their huge enclosure with climby things and three nest hides and open spaces that they cruise around all night in... Yes - depression exists in animals!

 

[Earthling]

It will be some time before we will have an answer on this....we dont even understand how the human brain works yet...scientists are baffled by this. I myself am waiting till my death when I will be enlightened with all knowledge. For now i doubt that a snake or lizard has the needs for stimuli or fulfillment that we do. The higher the intelligence , the higher the needs to be kept interested and happy.

According to American Neuroscientist Jaak Panksepp,the core emotions – fear, rage, panic, play, seeking and lust – arise from the deep recesses of our primitive brains, and are believed to have evolved long BEFORE consciousness.

I agree in part to the different depth/needs of stimuli and fulfillment. Same as the differences inbetween humans, some are happy to sit in front of a box all day feeding the overweight body they find themselves in, whilst others need to climb mountains. Same with other species. Some species may have higher feelings in some areas than humans whilst others less. Dare I say, there may be feelings that other species have, that humans do not have.

I take it your one of those people who has been abducted by aliens? Reps are happy when they are warm, fed, or sleeping. I gave my Lacie a new footy the other day, and he totally ignored it. What a waste of money! I'll try a G.I Joe next.

Sorry no anal probing stories to tell, perhaps you could tell us about yours...actually on second thought, lets stop the snide remarks and keep it on topic shall we?

 

[Dannyboi]

Read Pleasurable Kingdom by Jonathon Balcombe.

This is not a new concept. George Romanesin 1884 said “ pleasures and pains must have been evolved as the subjective accompaniment of processes which are respectively beneficial or injurious to the organism, and so evolved for the purpose or to the end that the organism should seek the one and shun the other.”
1884 well if we are going to use terms and study from back then lets use J. J. Thomsons plum pudding theory rather than using the election cloud theory.
'

According to American Neuroscientist Jaak Panksepp,the core emotions – fear, rage, panic, play, seeking and lust – arise from the deep recesses of our primitive brains, and are believed to have evolved long BEFORE consciousness.

If your not conscious of it then it can hardly be called emotions now can it maybe its just how you quote him....... It would be more of a reaction than a emotion without consciousness wouldn't it.

I would like to see some references on this so I myself can read and get a better view on these peoples theories.
Oh and Nathan wasn't talking about the size of the brain but rather the structure.

 

[Defective]

well when i die i'll have it in my will for you all to be told about the structure of the brain...i'm a brain donor to the SA brain bank...bring on cryogenic freezing until my brain is retrieved (rest of my organs are useless coz of anti-epileptic meds so no organ donation)

 

[Dannyboi]

I would just like to add that I don't have an opinion on the matter as most of you who know me know I am a frog keeper. All I was stating was that I don't see any evidence that hasn't been contradicted by another form of evidence.

 

[Nathan_T]

Read Pleasurable Kingdom by Jonathon Balcombe.

This is not a new concept. George Romanesin 1884 said “ pleasures and pains must have been evolved as the subjective accompaniment of processes which are respectively beneficial or injurious to the organism, and so evolved for the purpose or to the end that the organism should seek the one and shun the other.”

Do an experiment yourself and go and pat a vertebrate – say a dog or a cat. Then beat the same animal a few times with apiece of 4x2; observe and report…common sense…something science with its desire for hard facts is lacking in?

Pleasure helps animals maintain a stable state. When we are cold we seek warmth and it feels good. Same with other vertebrates. Nature rewards a cold animal who finds warmth, and visa versa. All an animal needs for this to work is the capacity to experience surroundings as pleasant or unpleasant, and move to a preferred environment. Sensory pleasure induces behaviors that improve homeostatis. Common sense.

What we're discussing here is pretty much a debate on the validity of behaviourism. While I understand your viewpoint, I'm not confident we'll get anywhere. Better minds than I have built careers on this discussion and haven't reached a common consensus. A cursory glance suggest the book is primarily based on anecdotal evidence. Also, common sense is not something you want to rely on. You bring up flat earth theory later. Common sense at the time was that the earth was flat before we invented ships.

Opiate receptors in human brains allow us to perceive stimuli such as sweet tastes. Panksepp has shown that when rats play, their brains release large amounts of dopamine and opiates (I wonder what that does and why it happens if it doesn’t make them feel good?). When both human and rats are given drugs that block these receptors, they rate the sweetness of normally liked foods as less pleasant than normal

Interesting point. However, in rats (and humans), if you lesion (a politically correct term for burn out) a part of the hypothalamus, this removes the feeding response. You can stick a bucketload of food in their cage, and they will not eat it unless you stick it in their mouths and work their jaws for them. If your argument that the rat eats out of pleasure given the dopamine received by the opiate receptors (and is thus pleasurable), the rat should continue eating after the hypothalamus is lesioned. (of course you could argue that the hypothalamus is involved in pleasure, but this highlights the problem of separating emotions and physical response)

Meaningless? What!Remember size is not whats important its what you do with it that counts…do some research and prove to me its meaningless.

Note that I didn't say size, I said structure. For instance, in rats, you'll note that the cerebellum is quite large compared to the frontal lobe, whereas in primates, the mass in the frontal lobe is significantly larger. Thus, comparison of creatures of different species, especially when discussing phenomena generally considered to be based in a vastly different frontal lobe structure is generally a minefield.

Why logically invalid? Just because science barely understands does not mean its not true.

Sorry, my fault for not being more specific. In logic, the word "invalid" refers to an argument that is not supported by its premises. For instance, the argument "the sun has risen every day, therefore it must rise tomorrow" is almost certainly true, however it is not logically valid. What I meant was that even if the argument that animals experience a pleasure response is true (which I actually agree with) it does not mean that they experience "emotion"

Very bad analogy on your part. I am comparing feelings as controlling behavior, not shapes! Feeling hungry, feeling cold….feeling full, feeling warm. Get it?

All of those are physiological responses, however in your post you list "laying in the sun on a beautiful spring day". While science definitely suggests that animals have physiological responses (the opiate receptors and such you quite rightly pointed out) the leap from "my body would operate more efficiently with greater heat" to "it's a nice day, I'm perfectly warm but wouldn't it be nice to sit in the sun anyway" is a cosmic leap. We as a race are starting to scratch the surface of the first one, the second is beyond our understanding at this point. They have the same basic "shape" if you will, but the latter is vastly more complicated.

Its not a belief. The above Scientific studies point the way to facts…and that’s unfortunately the best we can do. Science is NEVER going to be able to tell us CONCLUSIVELY that animals think and feel better or worse then humans do, as we cannot see the world through their eyes. Same as I can never conclusively know whether all of these other humans on the planet feel and think like I do, however, from observing their behaviors and responses to stimuli I can INFER that it is probable that they feel similar reactions to stimuli as I do. Same with other vertebrates, we can infer.

Sure you can infer, but the nature of science is that I can also say "my alternate hypothesis is that nobody else feels emotions except me". If either of us wants to pursue our point, we then gather evidence till one of these theories is shown to be false. I don't particularly care either way aside from mild interest, but then again I'm not attempting to change anyone's mind on the matter, I just enjoy a good debate.

Unfortunately this science proof thing is a rather large hole that society has been led down by science…that something is not true/real unless it can be proved so...you can blame Aristotle for that. After all the world was always round, well before the mere human thought it so.

I agree 100%. Science is flawed, however to quote a great man, "Science is the greatest tool ever devised by man for explaining how the world works". As flawed as anything ever produced by man, but still awesome. For example, common sense used to be that the earth was flat, until Aristotle used reasoning to provide evidence that it wasn't.

I think we're effectively arguing on two wavelengths. I agree 100% that animals experience pleasure. I accept that they could experience what we would describe as emotions, but I don't believe that the evidence is strong enough for me to change my thinking at the current time.

 

[Dannyboi]

Unfortunately, some bad stylistic and logical choices lessen the book’s impact. Balcombe lists far too many anecdotes and adds too little analysis. He also makes presumptuous leaps: the fact that birds have brilliant plumage, and eyes to see other birds’ feathers, does not mean they possess an aesthetic sense. One story of a chimp supposedly watching an African sunset is turned into an epiphany in which the ape is "contented with life." Such unprovable assertions detract from an otherwise well-argued thesis. —Jonathan Beard

Jonathan Balcombe: Pleasurable Kingdom if you read most of it the critic even then says

To the contrary, Balcombe documents the widespread practice of homosexual couplings and masturbation. The only reward for these creatures seems to be pleasure. Because animals — at least mammals — can experience both pleasure and pain, Balcombe concludes that we owe them better treatment.

and he ends the book with

a plea for improving the lives of animals, from battery hens and pigs kept in dark concrete barns to the millions of lab rats consigned to wire cages.

I cannot take anything from this author seriously he has way too much personal agenda and is therefore bias and as stated most of it is anecdotes.

 

[whyme]

According to American Neuroscientist Jaak Panksepp,the core emotions – fear, rage, panic, play, seeking and lust – arise from the deep recesses of our primitive brains, and are believed to have evolved long BEFORE consciousness.

I agree in part to the different depth/needs of stimuli and fulfillment. Same as the differences inbetween humans, some are happy to sit in front of a box all day feeding the overweight body they find themselves in, whilst others need to climb mountains. Same with other species. Some species may have higher feelings in some areas than humans whilst others less. Dare I say, there may be feelings that other species have, that humans do not have.





Sorry no anal probing stories to tell, perhaps you could tell us about yours...actually on second thought, lets stop the snide remarks and keep it on topic shall we?

The human brain is nothing like a reptile brain. They don't grow and socialise for pleasure like a child/hatchy or teen/ juvie. They dont work to better their lives, or have a bigger house or better car. They prefer not to work or socialise, but spend their time alone, emerging to warm up so they can hunt their prey and sleep their next feed off. When the time comes they will find a suitable mate{prefferably one with not too much make up on] and buy them a rat or two, hoping to get lucky. If they can have all this in their enclosure, why would'nt they be happy?

 

[Earthling]

If your not conscious of it then it can hardly be called emotions now can it maybe its just how you quote him....... It would be more of a reaction than a emotion without consciousness wouldn't it.

I would like to see some references on this so I myself can read and get a better view on these peoples theories.
Oh and Nathan wasn't talking about the size of the brain but rather the structure.

Interesting points, an emotion/feeling can still happen without consciousness I believe. After all we do react without thinking all the time. Look at fight/flight reponse. An emotion is most certainly going through our system well before any thinking is taking place.
Regarding referances:
http://www.boomerangbooks.com.au/Pleasurable-Kingdom/Jonathan-Balcombe/book_9781403986016.htm
Request at your library or buy it and have a read if this is a topic of interest. Theres 30 pages of referances to referance your heart out.

 

[Guest]

wow!
cosmic!

 

[Dannyboi]

Emotions are part of thoughts how do you think our behaviors are formed?

Its the ABC's of attitude
Affective: initial thoughts
Behaviour: The response.
Cognition: Processing reasons for thoughts
Although that order should really be put out as ACB. Most of the time the Affective is based off of cognition.

 

[Earthling]

Jonathan Balcombe: Pleasurable Kingdom if you read most of it the critic even then says

and he ends the book with
I cannot take anything from this author seriously he has way too much personal agenda and is therefore bias and as stated most of it is anecdotes.

Actually he ends the review with:
'Such unprovable assertions detract from an otherwise well-argued thesis.'

In any book studying a controversial topic I find I must usually cut through some chaff to get to the oats, however, it does not mean there are no oats to be had, that would be a serious misgiving.

 

[Dannyboi]

Read it through again I said he ends the book with a plea for improving the lives of animals, from battery hens and pigs kept in dark concrete barns to the millions of lab rats consigned to wire cages

 

[Earthling]

Read it through again I said he ends the book with a plea for improving the lives of animals, from battery hens and pigs kept in dark concrete barns to the millions of lab rats consigned to wire cages

Peter Singer a very well known and respected philosopher writes a forward to the book, which he would not have done if he thought it was based on too much personal agenda and bias and full of anecdotes, I believe.
Also Peter Singer argues very well in his own books for the betterment of other species lives that are at our mercy and talks about improving the lives of animals generally, from battery hens and pigs kept in dark concrete barns to the millions of lab rats consigned to wire cages. Perhaps you should tell both Princeton University and Melbourne University where Singer works that he cannot be taken seriously as he talks about improving animals lives and has too high a personal agenda...

 

[Dannyboi]

Peter Singer a very well known and respected philosopher writes a forward to the book, which he would not have done if he thought it was based on too much personal agenda and bias and full of anecdotes, I believe.
Also Peter Singer argues very well in his own books for the betterment of other species lives that are at our mercy and talks about improving the lives of animals, from battery hens and pigs kept in dark concrete barns to the millions of lab rats consigned to wire cages. Perhaps you should tell both Princeton University and Melbourne University where he works that he cannot be taken seriously as he talks about improving animals lives and has too high a personal agenda...

did you ask him? It is a personal agenda because that is his belief.

 

[Earthling]

did you ask him? It is a personal agenda because that is his belief.

Im not sure what your getting at..
Your saying, that because someone has a personal agenda (which your saying is his belief) and writes a book about a subject that he has a belief in, it should not be read becuse he has a belief in it?
Mmmm.......
I wonder how many books are written by people who have no belief in the subject matter?

Oh...and whos Johnathon Beard the guy who wrote the review that you quote? just a guy who writes reviews for a living? Look, by all means its good that you researched the book, however dont believe all that you read on the internet. Personally if i hadnt read the book, I would question too, however upon finding Peter Singer wrote a forward to the book...that man has some serious cred and would overrule any random reviewer.

 

[Dannyboi]

You want to remove as much bias as possible and from what I have read this book is full of bias and little to no reference on reptiles so its irrelevant. Thats what I am getting at.

 

[KaotikJezta]

Ok, here's a little something I conjured up in the last 10 minutes, it's all subjective and completely and 100% totally and utterly my opinion and I have not sat in lectures to understand this - nor have I read articles about. However, I do have some scientific background, just totally unrelated that's all.

Animals - instead of dividing them into back boned and non... Let's divide them by what they eat and size...

Which is more intelligent (opinion only - do not base this on anthropomorphism):

Horse or pig?

Dog or sheep?

Cow or cat?

Giraffe or lion?

Ok - I'll stop there... This is a broad(ish) spectrum... Personally, all the omnivores and predatory animals are far more intelligent...

Why?

Well grass doesn't require upper level thinking... In fact a species of invertebrate (a portia spider) could easily outwit most vegetarian vertebrates - and this was tested by hiding prey items in a 'maze' that the portia spiders had to seek and attack. In all cases the spider had to lose sight of their prey in order to continue to hunt and attack them.

Now - this purely suggests some cognitive thinking.

The more likely an animal was to become hunted, the more intelligent it became. The more intelligent the prey became, the more the hunter had to outsmart them.

Hence, their brains have developed in certain areas, for survival.

Of course these animals must have evolved in many other parts of their brains - and it is not fair to really compare humans to these vertebrates - we all have different goals in life.

But to think a snake lacks intelligence when you base it purely on 'instinct' is surely a mistake. The snake that waits to hunt its food, stealth and speed being two weapons in their arsenal along with heat pits and their vomeronasal organ - just because these adaptations are there, doesn't mean that they just do everything instinctively like breathing or blinking (in humans, snakes don't blink).

We breath - not only because we have to - but our central nervous system (CNS) does it for us - luckily. Some of us are pretty forgetful. But just because their CNS controls some of the snakes system - perhaps you should try stopping breathing... At this very point your brain takes over and forces you to breath - if you can't - panic sets in - and so on... And you can't tell me that a snake wouldn't panic if you were preventing it from breathing.

Instinctive - yes - but take away their very essence of life and you have the forms of 'depression' - and I am afraid some snakes are probably there right now... Not my two big carpets in their huge enclosure with climby things and three nest hides and open spaces that they cruise around all night in... Yes - depression exists in animals!

Pigs are actually quite intelligent, I knew one that barked like a dog when people walked past the house.

 

[slim6y]

Pigs are actually quite intelligent, I knew one that barked like a dog when people walked past the house.

Yes, that was my point - pig vs horse... horses aren't too dumb either - so that's a size vs predator thing. However, a pig is way smarter!

 

[KaotikJezta]

Yes, that was my point - pig vs horse... horses aren't too dumb either - so that's a size vs predator thing. However, a pig is way smarter!

Oh, I get you, I thought you were saying horses were smarter.