gaara
Very Well-Known Member
wow, get over the squid already
Giant Squid Photographed
- Thread starter Hsut77
- Start date
-
- Tags
- aspidites ramsayi
Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:
- Status
I do not think so much that it is the squid but the fact that the needless slaughter of animals and destruction of habitat still seem to be acceptable practice in today's supposedly educated society. I do agree strongly with Sdaji, arguing the point of the solitary squid on aps is not enough, people have to stand up where they will be heard so they can do something about the problem.
For my part I will feel that a very small part of my responsibility as a human being has been fulfilled if just a few people take with them for consideration some of the things I have mentioned in this thread.
For my part I will feel that a very small part of my responsibility as a human being has been fulfilled if just a few people take with them for consideration some of the things I have mentioned in this thread.
slim6y
Almost Legendary
Sdaji - is it the one death of a squid that is upsetting people or the reason behind it? We do need to band together to prevent this from occuring.
I actually find this article http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/oceans/oceans.cfm?ucidparam=20060508175123 to be quite relevant - it does not seem biased or talking about save the squid but it does mention that deep sea fishing is removing large populations of fish which endangers all animals (squid inclusive).
And as you mentioned Sdaji, it's not just the water, it terrestrial aswell! We should do something, but suprisingly enough there's still a world of opposition to doing something as it's in the 'too hard' basket
I actually find this article http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/oceans/oceans.cfm?ucidparam=20060508175123 to be quite relevant - it does not seem biased or talking about save the squid but it does mention that deep sea fishing is removing large populations of fish which endangers all animals (squid inclusive).
And as you mentioned Sdaji, it's not just the water, it terrestrial aswell! We should do something, but suprisingly enough there's still a world of opposition to doing something as it's in the 'too hard' basket
Lucas
Very Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2,328
- Reaction score
- 0
japanese scientific research = what does it taste like
No worries Garra, if you sleep better at night just "getting over" the world problems that's up to you.
I think some people on the thread have taken a far too simplistic view on the purpose of this thread. Comparing farmed animals and salad to the meaningless destruction of one of the worlds most magnificent and secretive creatures is uninformed at best and dangerously arrogant at worst. Do the same attitudes exist about the volunteers who are striving to save the black footed ferret in the states or any other animal around the world; weather it is endangered or not? Tiger and Brown snakes are no way near in danger but as soon as an article appears about some young kids killing one the outcry from this site is deafening.
I by am no means throwing stones in a glass house. As a younger man I have been involved in duck shooting and various hunting so I do not hold a low opinion of anyone who has criticised this thread (on conservation grounds). But, as the importance of conservation issues have brought to the surface over the last few years my attitude has radically changed. I pose a question, what if this article was about a scientist who had found a rare and spectacular species of python? The scientist lures the snake takes a video of it, tries to catch and it ends up dead. Would you be upset because you like snakes or would you be upset because a creature was needlessly killed. The vast majority, imo would only get mad because they have affinity for snakes.
Squid or Python, Panda or Tiger which one is it ok to kill? The slimy one? :shock:
RevDaniel
Very Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2005
- Messages
- 2,906
- Reaction score
- 0
kind of depressing hearing about it actually
ZION
Not so new Member
I don't offer opinions, I'm just discussing.
It's been characteristic of human behaviour for centuries, Hsut77, that we hold some species in esteem, others we disdain, and others still we slaughter en masse for food. Why did the egyptians worship cats and not the asp? Why are we frantically trying to save the panda and not the gremlin-like Aye-Aye from Madagascar, which exists in small numbers? And why did we choose the harmless pig for food over the domestic dog?
Who knows. There are always reasons. Physical appeal, compatability with humans, accessability, etc. It might not be a perfect answer, but it's true to some extent.
*The Madagascar Fauna Group is the only conservation team interested in saving the Aye-Aye.
It's been characteristic of human behaviour for centuries, Hsut77, that we hold some species in esteem, others we disdain, and others still we slaughter en masse for food. Why did the egyptians worship cats and not the asp? Why are we frantically trying to save the panda and not the gremlin-like Aye-Aye from Madagascar, which exists in small numbers? And why did we choose the harmless pig for food over the domestic dog?
Who knows. There are always reasons. Physical appeal, compatability with humans, accessability, etc. It might not be a perfect answer, but it's true to some extent.
*The Madagascar Fauna Group is the only conservation team interested in saving the Aye-Aye.
ZION
Not so new Member
Yeah and those creepy, hypnotic yellow eyes. They're so cool.
Do bleeding hearts go this bezerk when people buy meat, forget to eat it until it goes rotten, then throw it away?
Many of our most respected professional herpetologists (well, all of the ones with any formal biological education) have killed animals (or at the very least, had other people kill animals for them) in the name of science. I've killed hundreds of animals as a science student and while working as a scientist, both in the laboratory and in the field. May lightning strike me down! :lol: For the record, my research has been primarily ecological, focussing more on "helping the world" than "helping people" (I have basically not been involved in medicine, etc etc). I can't speak for the Giant Squid researchers as I have no knowledge of the people involved or their work, but apart from a small percenatage of the people testing on rats, mice, rabbits, etc, people who use animals as part of their research typically adore them. I had an employer who had me kill a couple hundred animals in one day, it was thoroughly depressing for me, both me and my boss absolutely loved the species, but we both knew that those species were benefitting massively from our research, as well as the people who would be able to use the information. From the outside, it is easy for naive people to shudder at what appears horrible and unnecessary, it's a great shame that they don't understand as despite being well intentioned, they are hurting the species they wish to help. Apart from the direct benefits the species get from the research, giving information about those species to the wider community helps to raise awareness. If the wider community doesn't know about a species, they won't be interested in protecting it (if researchers weren't out there playing with Giant Squid, people wouldn't think about them, which would give them one less reason to get upset about damage to the murky depths of our oceans, which most people couldn't give a hoot about). Giant Squid are very common and have a massive distribution, they are a major prey (yes, prey) species, countless individuals are killed every day to be eaten. If one extra individual is taken for science, it does no effective direct damage to the species (in this and most cases) but raises public awareness of and knowledge about it, which is of at least some help. There are two Giant Squid on display in Melbourne at the moment, countless people have visited them and stared in awe (yes, I'm included in that group). If that makes the wider community care just that little bit about protecting the planet, we're going to save a heck of a lot more than one or two individual squid because of it. Those individuals taken for science help their species much more than those countless individuals which get chomped up by whales every day. Even if you ignore the benefits to the species in question, gaining information which Children can read about in books and adults can be fascinated by is a wonderful thing... if you care about people (I know a lot of you don't seem to, but I count myself as part of the group which actually does care about people being happy!).
Melbourne's current heat wave must be caused by the rest of the country aiming their flame-throwers in my direction! :lol:
Enjoy your lamb chops
Many of our most respected professional herpetologists (well, all of the ones with any formal biological education) have killed animals (or at the very least, had other people kill animals for them) in the name of science. I've killed hundreds of animals as a science student and while working as a scientist, both in the laboratory and in the field. May lightning strike me down! :lol: For the record, my research has been primarily ecological, focussing more on "helping the world" than "helping people" (I have basically not been involved in medicine, etc etc). I can't speak for the Giant Squid researchers as I have no knowledge of the people involved or their work, but apart from a small percenatage of the people testing on rats, mice, rabbits, etc, people who use animals as part of their research typically adore them. I had an employer who had me kill a couple hundred animals in one day, it was thoroughly depressing for me, both me and my boss absolutely loved the species, but we both knew that those species were benefitting massively from our research, as well as the people who would be able to use the information. From the outside, it is easy for naive people to shudder at what appears horrible and unnecessary, it's a great shame that they don't understand as despite being well intentioned, they are hurting the species they wish to help. Apart from the direct benefits the species get from the research, giving information about those species to the wider community helps to raise awareness. If the wider community doesn't know about a species, they won't be interested in protecting it (if researchers weren't out there playing with Giant Squid, people wouldn't think about them, which would give them one less reason to get upset about damage to the murky depths of our oceans, which most people couldn't give a hoot about). Giant Squid are very common and have a massive distribution, they are a major prey (yes, prey) species, countless individuals are killed every day to be eaten. If one extra individual is taken for science, it does no effective direct damage to the species (in this and most cases) but raises public awareness of and knowledge about it, which is of at least some help. There are two Giant Squid on display in Melbourne at the moment, countless people have visited them and stared in awe (yes, I'm included in that group). If that makes the wider community care just that little bit about protecting the planet, we're going to save a heck of a lot more than one or two individual squid because of it. Those individuals taken for science help their species much more than those countless individuals which get chomped up by whales every day. Even if you ignore the benefits to the species in question, gaining information which Children can read about in books and adults can be fascinated by is a wonderful thing... if you care about people (I know a lot of you don't seem to, but I count myself as part of the group which actually does care about people being happy!).
Melbourne's current heat wave must be caused by the rest of the country aiming their flame-throwers in my direction! :lol:
Enjoy your lamb chops
slim6y
Almost Legendary
Sdaji, very well written and informative.
I do have a 'but' however.
1) How do you know that the giant squid has 'massive' populations. I tried researching populations via the net, but I couldn't find anything that conclusively said they were in large or massive populations or they were endangered. I am guessing seeing as the latter wasn't discussed that they're not endangered. But I don't see many statistics (whether true or made up) to back your theory.
2) I know we kill many animals to 'help' us and their species in general. In some cases neserscary and in others just down right greed takes over. I can't find what information the Japanese scientists were researching with the squid. But because of their depths etc, they are hard to study. Because of what I have read i am lead to believe there are isolated occurences of the squid and therefore they possibley have a diverse species range (kind of like our carpet python perhaps).
I personally think what you say carries a lot of value, but it doesn't cover the fact that the difference between 'filming' a creature and 'killing' a creature for some 'scientific research' is in fact a large gap.
I don't think they wanted to kill the squid, but it happened.
It does remind me of little kids who always try to catch animals as part of our human experience. Some of these animals die, others loose their wings or body parts in the name of this discovery.
All I am saying in general, is these scientists had choice, and I personally believe, on current facts, they have chosen a bad science over a good one.
My opinion is always open to persuasion if the facts presented meet the guidelines
No flaming required
I do have a 'but' however.
1) How do you know that the giant squid has 'massive' populations. I tried researching populations via the net, but I couldn't find anything that conclusively said they were in large or massive populations or they were endangered. I am guessing seeing as the latter wasn't discussed that they're not endangered. But I don't see many statistics (whether true or made up) to back your theory.
2) I know we kill many animals to 'help' us and their species in general. In some cases neserscary and in others just down right greed takes over. I can't find what information the Japanese scientists were researching with the squid. But because of their depths etc, they are hard to study. Because of what I have read i am lead to believe there are isolated occurences of the squid and therefore they possibley have a diverse species range (kind of like our carpet python perhaps).
I personally think what you say carries a lot of value, but it doesn't cover the fact that the difference between 'filming' a creature and 'killing' a creature for some 'scientific research' is in fact a large gap.
I don't think they wanted to kill the squid, but it happened.
It does remind me of little kids who always try to catch animals as part of our human experience. Some of these animals die, others loose their wings or body parts in the name of this discovery.
All I am saying in general, is these scientists had choice, and I personally believe, on current facts, they have chosen a bad science over a good one.
My opinion is always open to persuasion if the facts presented meet the guidelines
No flaming required
Sdaji im getting sick of your rational approach, this thread is suposed to be about calamari and the emotional loss of an individual squid.
Im sick of all those >insert random race here< ppl killing our innocent wildlife.
How many squid would get eaten by whales? that would be a very slow death caused by whales, all those poor squids
Im sick of all those >insert random race here< ppl killing our innocent wildlife.
How many squid would get eaten by whales? that would be a very slow death caused by whales, all those poor squids
Reptile City
Well-Known Member
I was just wanting to see a pic of the squid jag?
It must have been huge!
It was a yazuri jag wasnt it?
Ja
It must have been huge!
It was a yazuri jag wasnt it?
Ja
slim6y: do a bit more research, there is more information out there than you've found. There is plenty of evidence showing that the Giant Squid has a massive range and that they're common. Because they live in a fairly homogenous environment (cold, open water in the ocean's depths), it's unlikely that they'd have a similar population structure to Carpet Pythons (which live in radically different enviroments and climates, and are obstructed by or restricted to physical barriers and favourable habitats - moutain ranges, rivers, deserts, etc etc etc).
I dare say I know a lot more about this situation than you do, but I don't claim to know anywhere near enough to know whether this particular case was "bad science" or "good science" and without knowing, it's really not a good idea to throw stones. I know from experience that people who are practicing critially needed "good science" face a huge amount of opposition from people, and often it is enough to stop the research from going ahead, with animals often being the big losers (medical research typically gets passed much more easily and is done more quietly, partly because bleeding hearts get upset by it and probably even more because sometimes the companies carrying it out aren't so open about their findings because they want to keep sole posession of their commercially valuable findings) ecological researchers are trying to help the world, they publish their work publicly, they are open to public scrutiny (if the public actually care to investigate before throwing stones). If you really do feel the need to protest, do some research and make sure that what you're throwing doubt around is actually not a good thing, or if there is too little information available, ask for it - people in research are usually only too happy to provide you with a huge amount of information about their research if you ask them directly and politely - this has certainly been the case with everyone I have worked with in science - we've all put our methods on to paper, we've all done public seminars and taken questions from the public, I've never seen anyone in ecolological research refuse to answer such a question out of secrecy. There are plenty of horrendous things taking place in this world and it's a great shame when well meaning people stand in the way of good things, while bad things are allowed to continue unhindered.
I dare say I know a lot more about this situation than you do, but I don't claim to know anywhere near enough to know whether this particular case was "bad science" or "good science" and without knowing, it's really not a good idea to throw stones. I know from experience that people who are practicing critially needed "good science" face a huge amount of opposition from people, and often it is enough to stop the research from going ahead, with animals often being the big losers (medical research typically gets passed much more easily and is done more quietly, partly because bleeding hearts get upset by it and probably even more because sometimes the companies carrying it out aren't so open about their findings because they want to keep sole posession of their commercially valuable findings) ecological researchers are trying to help the world, they publish their work publicly, they are open to public scrutiny (if the public actually care to investigate before throwing stones). If you really do feel the need to protest, do some research and make sure that what you're throwing doubt around is actually not a good thing, or if there is too little information available, ask for it - people in research are usually only too happy to provide you with a huge amount of information about their research if you ask them directly and politely - this has certainly been the case with everyone I have worked with in science - we've all put our methods on to paper, we've all done public seminars and taken questions from the public, I've never seen anyone in ecolological research refuse to answer such a question out of secrecy. There are plenty of horrendous things taking place in this world and it's a great shame when well meaning people stand in the way of good things, while bad things are allowed to continue unhindered.
junglist*
Well-Known Member
Australis, you sir are a fool of the highest order. I didnt say that my level of education was above everyone else, but you have conveniently proved its higher than your own. I didnt say that species weren't becoming extinct before European Australians came, but if you look at the numbers, species extinction has grown exponentially since the arrival of European Australians. The conclusions which can be drawn from this evidence indicate a high responsibility for species extinction which lies upon the shoulders of European Australian immigrants.
Posting uninformed nonsense?? Ridiculous, i have posted things which disagree with your own opinions at times yes, on topics which have debatable outcomes. On topics that have many grey areas due to lack of definition from a legislative body. I am not an expert in many areas, but those in which i do have some expertise, i will continue to post, and those in which i need more knowledge, i will continue to post and seek assistance and knowledge.
Climb back into the hole you came from, because vitriol without substance seems to be all you are capable of.
It's not difficult to put forward a rational case which makes sense when you have logic and ration on your side. Strange and convoluted? Heh. You only need to twist things if you are attempting to prove something which is incorrect, you'd posess much more experience in this area than I do. I'd much rather admit to being wrong than do that. I'm quite happy to admit to something being fact if it clearly is, even if I am not at all happy about it, and quite often I simply have to do that. I prefer to work towards making the world a better place than give in to irrational emotional responses which hurt the world, despite superficially appearing to be "nice". It's impossible to have a rational conversation with an irrational person, so quite frankly, I'd rather drink oil with an ugly monkey.
slim6y
Almost Legendary
Would you not prefer to argue for the unarguable... All I have to do is prove you wrong, or at least discredit your theory to have already won
At present I am working on that strategy...
But so far is - If the public aren't made aware of the research they're doing (on the squid) then surely it isn't something the public will agree on. If the public don't agree on it, then generally, whether informed or not, the public are usually correct - to a certain extent.
If the scientist were so happy to see the squid and were making a better life for it... or the whales that do consume it, then I would like to see this research or at least the abstract that they're trying to achieve.
Somehow, i have huge doubts that these scientist intend on preserving the giant squid, regardless of current populations. Which i am still not convinced are in 'large proportions'.
At present I am working on that strategy...
But so far is - If the public aren't made aware of the research they're doing (on the squid) then surely it isn't something the public will agree on. If the public don't agree on it, then generally, whether informed or not, the public are usually correct - to a certain extent.
If the scientist were so happy to see the squid and were making a better life for it... or the whales that do consume it, then I would like to see this research or at least the abstract that they're trying to achieve.
Somehow, i have huge doubts that these scientist intend on preserving the giant squid, regardless of current populations. Which i am still not convinced are in 'large proportions'.
Australis
Almost Legendary
junglist*
There you go again with your usual claim of higher education, yet when it comes down to it you know stuff all every time.
"Climb back into the hole you came from"
Wow, highly educated...... it shows...lol
There you go again with your usual claim of higher education, yet when it comes down to it you know stuff all every time.
"Climb back into the hole you came from"
Wow, highly educated...... it shows...lol
- Status
Similar threads
