PETA's idea: Call fish 'Sea Kittens'

[Lusankya]

It's too bad they have to be such imbeciles, because there are so much better reasons to crack down on the fishing industry, such as its wanton destruction of fish stocks just outside international boundary lines or its use of drag lines which destroy coral reefs.

They're the reasons why I think twice before eating fish.

Personally I'm not sure how the title "sea kitten" is supposed to be off-putting to people who eat cuddly little lambs. In the end, people will eat what they think is ok to eat, regardless of the name. I even sometimes eat things called jelly BABIES by first ripping of their head. If I don't care that something's labelled a BABY, why would I care if it was just called a kitten?

[Count Chocula]

Sea Kitten Sushi: It's What's for Dinner(TM).

I glanced at the PETA home page, and thankfully it's not all laid out like The Little Mermaid. These bullet points caught my attention:

Why Animal Rights?
Almost all of us grew up eating meat, wearing leather, and going to circuses and zoos. We never considered the impact of these actions on the animals involved. For whatever reason, you are now asking the question: Why should animals have rights? LEARN MORE.

Animals Are Not Ours to Eat
Animals Are Not Ours to Wear
Animals Are Not Ours to Experiment On
Animals Are Not Ours to Use for Entertainment
Animals Are Not Ours to Abuse in Any Way

Guess PETA's founders missed those canine teeth we have in our mouths. And there's nothing on the PETA site that is against humans owning pets, which kinda conflicts with point four above.

Their FAQ page is pretty funny too, if you enjoy appeal to emotion and logical fallacies.

[Shroom Man 777]

I ALWAYS wanted to nom kittens.

But Mr. Wong has a point. If the rate of fishing continues to grow, or is not curbed, how long can we sustain this stuff before the marine ecology collapses?

Do we even know what'll happen when the marine ecology collapses? Climate change, plus unsustainable fishing, goddamn. It'll be like Waterworld, but without fish!

[Darth Wong]

I ALWAYS wanted to nom kittens.

But Mr. Wong has a point. If the rate of fishing continues to grow, or is not curbed, how long can we sustain this stuff before the marine ecology collapses?

Do we even know what'll happen when the marine ecology collapses? Climate change, plus unsustainable fishing, goddamn. It'll be like Waterworld, but without fish!

What most people don't understand about marine ecology is that the deep oceans are like a desert wasteland: there is almost no life in them. Most of the life in the oceans is clustered close to land, where the water is shallower, nutrients are more plentiful, and complex local ecosystems such as coral reefs can develop. But we insist on wiping out all manner of life in that region, and assuming there's plenty more to be had "out there" because the oceans are so vast.

It's like trashing oases at the edge of the Sahara desert and assuming there must be plenty more because the Sahara is so big.

[Zablorg]

Well it might make Shroomy reconsider, at least. (EDIT: I guess not...)

I'm wondering how they plan on spreading the term into popularity. Would they have some magic campaign that would run primarily on the entire States' co-operation, or are they going to mill around their webpage doing nothing and hoping that it just might catch on?

Personally, I'm hoping for the former, if only for the spectacle of the thing. PETA has shown in the past that they're willing to go to some pretty wierd lengths to get a message going, if the dozens of celebrities posing naked in front of horses is anything to go by.

[Darth Wong]

Animals Are Not Ours to Eat
Animals Are Not Ours to Wear
Animals Are Not Ours to Experiment On
Animals Are Not Ours to Use for Entertainment
Animals Are Not Ours to Abuse in Any Way

I suppose it never occurred to them that these are bald assertions rather than arguments. They can't use these to justify the declaratory statement "animals have rights" because they are just more declaratory statements. It's like Bible thumpers who think they can justify the Bible by quoting the parts of it which tell you that it is the Word of God.

[Darth Wong]

Well it might make Shroomy reconsider, at least. (EDIT: I guess not...)

I'm wondering how they plan on spreading the term into popularity. Would they have some magic campaign that would run primarily on the entire States' co-operation, or are they going to mill around their webpage doing nothing and hoping that it just might catch on?

Personally, I'm hoping for the former, if only for the spectacle of the thing. PETA has shown in the past that they're willing to go to some pretty wierd lengths to get a message going, if the dozens of celebrities posing naked in front of horses is anything to go by.

Most likely billboards and posters and calendars etc. Maybe they'll show naked chicks petting fish or something. The babe factor has always been PETA's only real marketing weapon. What they don't seem to understand is that guys only humour pretty girls' opinions if they're hoping to get laid. It doesn't work as a national policy campaign.

[Zablorg]

Now that I think about it, if they're going to go down the "naked chicks with fish cameo" road, some creative photography and editing is going to be required. It's a hell of a lot easier to market this than this.

[Shroom Man 777]

Ah...

I actually think a hot naked chick biting a chunk out of a raw flopping fish Gollum/Penguin style would be rather attractive.

If PETA, or any environmentalist group, wants to do something, then maybe there could be an initiative to build those artificial reefs. Just sink some derelict ships or anything, really, and in a few years you'd see reef life encroaching upon it.

[Coyote]

I looked into the possibility of getting a Fennic Fox as a pet but decided that it would be an incredible amount of work and would not be fair to the Fox and it weighs less than four pounds...

I knew of someone who got a fox from a fur farm. I don't remember his name, he was a music composer in Tennessee, but not Country music, he was into contemporary Clasical-style and Operas.

Said it was like raising a puppy, but since foxes don't have thousands of years of evolution as a "companion animal" to make them instinctively follow humans, it was a 'particularly difficult puppy'.

[Kitsune]

Said it was like raising a puppy, but since foxes don't have thousands of years of evolution as a "companion animal" to make them instinctively follow humans, it was a 'particularly difficult puppy'.

Not in quite those words but those are some of the basic reasons why I decided against it.

That does ask an off topic question...Foxes are fairly social animals. They hunt singly and or in pairs but den together in surprising numbers. Still, they seem to slot well into most human households.

Now why do cats, the only domestic animal which we don't have a master / slave relationship with seem to slot well into most human households?

[Coyote]

Now why do cats, the only domestic animal which we don't have a master / slave relationship with seem to slot well into most human households?

I would describe the cat/human relationship as primarily parasitic in nature, with the cat of course being the parasite that benefits greatly. Natually, cat lovers will disagree as they insist that cats are affectionate... and to a point that is true. Cats are affectionate up to a point, but they are less socially-oriented than dogs.

Cats, to me, appear to be symbiotic with territory, not people-- a farm cat, or a cat that catches mice in a home, is not doing it to help or please a human, but to satisfy their own instincts. A cat that catches no mice is providing only one commodity-- affection for the human, which is subjective from the human's point of view.

Cats work well with humans because they get a lot of the deal-- food, shelter, subsidized health care, sewage services, etc. In return, all they have to do is clock in a few minutes of lap-sitting and purring. Bargain!

[Darth Wong]

Now why do cats, the only domestic animal which we don't have a master / slave relationship with seem to slot well into most human households?

Because they keep to themselves most of the time, so they're unobtrusive. Stuffed animals slot well into a human household too. The more active cats are, the more annoying they are.

[Imperial Overlord]

Cats slot well into human environments because they are cat friendly. When cats started being domesticated our dwelling areas were magnets for rats, mice, and poisonous snakes. They culled the vermin, killed snakes, helped protect our grain supply, and the Egyptians used them as hunting animals when they went after game birds. It was a win-win symbiotic relationship and they've gone from solitary hunting animals to more social creatures who will form colonies and bond with humans. We don't need them for pest control in the First World, but they were damn useful in that role 4000 years ago.

Foxes, on the other hand, tended to raid our farms. It's not rocket science to figure out why we ended up domesticating cats, not foxes.

[Lagmonster]

Now why do cats, the only domestic animal which we don't have a master / slave relationship with seem to slot well into most human households?

There are a lot of people out there with fish tanks, too, often with heavily cultured breeds. Fish are close to being the only animals which occupy the niche of 'furniture/art' in human households.

[Kitsune]

Foxes, on the other hand, tended to raid our farms. It's not rocket science to figure out why we ended up domesticating cats, not foxes.

Foxes are not as likely to attack domestic farm animals and also keep down various pests.

Don't disagree too much with any other parts of the replies

[Kanastrous]

The old fox in the henhouse expression is without merit?

[Kitsune]

The old fox in the henhouse expression is without merit?

Not without merit but much less frequent than you might have been lead to believe and they have a net positive influence. Think about the fact that foxes are fairly small and think about a chicken with a sharp beak and claws. Which would you rather go after, a heavily armed chicken or a small rodent such as mouse, vole, or mole.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Sea Kitten Sushi: It's What's for Dinner(TM).

I glanced at the PETA home page, and thankfully it's not all laid out like The Little Mermaid. These bullet points caught my attention:

Why Animal Rights?
Almost all of us grew up eating meat, wearing leather, and going to circuses and zoos. We never considered the impact of these actions on the animals involved. For whatever reason, you are now asking the question: Why should animals have rights? LEARN MORE.

Animals Are Not Ours to Eat
Animals Are Not Ours to Wear
Animals Are Not Ours to Experiment On
Animals Are Not Ours to Use for Entertainment
Animals Are Not Ours to Abuse in Any Way

Guess PETA's founders missed those canine teeth we have in our mouths. And there's nothing on the PETA site that is against humans owning pets, which kinda conflicts with point four above.

Their FAQ page is pretty funny too, if you enjoy appeal to emotion and logical fallacies.

To play devils advocate for a moment:

Animals are not "Ours" to do with as we please, because to say that they are requires that they exist fundamentally to serve us. For this to be true requires a god to say "I created these animals for you, do with them as you will" and because at the very least we cannot evaluate the truth value of that particular claim, the argument is a wash.

They commit a non-sequitur when they make the leap and say that we are ethically prohibited from eating animals, or doing animal experimentation. We are not, at least not inherently.

The only consistent way to evaluate the question (at least from a utilitarian perspective) is to put the capacity of an organism to suffer on a sliding scale, and weigh the consequences of an action accordingly. Is killing 10,000 mice worth the lives of 100 people, for example? No. Is it worth a thousand? Possibly. Etc.

With the case of fishing, we have to evaluate the entirety of our fishing practices and judge what happens to the entire oceanic ecosystem as a consequence of our overfishing. It is not looking good for our fishing practices.

[Imperial Overlord]

Not without merit but much less frequent than you might have been lead to believe and they have a net positive influence. Think about the fact that foxes are fairly small and think about a chicken with a sharp beak and claws. Which would you rather go after, a heavily armed chicken or a small rodent such as mouse, vole, or mole.

But chicken's have such long, bittable necks . . .

I'm a cat person and I disagree with Mike about that the more active a cat is, the more annoying it is (kitten wrestling in particular is adorable). For the record, I'm rather pro-fox and anti-ocean strip mining.

[Kanastrous]

Somehow it seems to me that his evolutionary position is all the justification a wolf needs, to kill and eat a sheep, regardless of the degree of suffering involved on the sheep's end.

If good enough for wolves (if), then why not good enough, for humans?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Somehow it seems to me that his evolutionary position is all the justification a wolf needs, to kill and eat a sheep, regardless of the degree of suffering involved on the sheep's end.

If good enough for wolves (if), then why not good enough, for humans?

Because Wolves dont despoil everything they touch. The organisms they eat co-evolved with them, and they interact to create a dynamic equilibrium with eachother's populations.

If the populations of our prey become to low, they become more economically valuable, and we create more efficient, and cost effective ways to drive their population even further down the road to oblivion.

[Mayabird]

Foxes can be domesticated and become friendly and adorable, but that's really beside the point.

One problem with fishermen is that they don't understand really how fisheries work. Their gut feelings are totally wrong. Fish tend to congregate around the best habitat and whenever there's a surplus, the excess population is pushed elsewhere. The best fishing places always seem to have lots of fish and so fishermen argue that the populations are healthy and rail against quotas, even though excess population might be moving in to fill the gap. This goes on until there's no more excess population, and then it crashes.

This is a big problem. It will require a lot of work at scientific (determining safe quota levels), governmental (convincing officials that this is a problem and making sure they set and enforce quotas), and local (educating people about it) levels, lots of legwork and teaching oneself about these issues and figuring out how to balance people's desire to survive with making sure the fish survive. PETA, with a big base and lots of money, could actually do a lot of good here if they wanted to, but it's too much thinking and work for the brats, so they release a story about "sea kittens" and think the problem is solved. Or they pose naked and think they've saved the world. Stupid excess population.

[Starglider]

Because Wolves dont despoil everything they touch. The organisms they eat co-evolved with them, and they interact to create a dynamic equilibrium with eachother's populations.

If you mean 'prey population crashes due to over hunting, wolf population crashes due to starvation, prey population boom, wolf population boom, repeat' then sure. In fact predators do go locally extinct from time to time due to over-hunting.

[Kanastrous]

Somehow it seems to me that his evolutionary position is all the justification a wolf needs, to kill and eat a sheep, regardless of the degree of suffering involved on the sheep's end.

If good enough for wolves (if), then why not good enough, for humans?

Because Wolves dont despoil everything they touch. The organisms they eat co-evolved with them, and they interact to create a dynamic equilibrium with eachother's populations.

If the populations of our prey become to low, they become more economically valuable, and we create more efficient, and cost effective ways to drive their population even further down the road to oblivion.

Can ethical considerations based upon suffering therefore be discarded, so long as the eaters don't over-consume the eatees?