EcoSpheres Inhumane?

[Stacey Whaley]

I was wanting to get some opinions on the EcoSphere, initiated by NASA,
in which tiny creatures live confined in a glass ball with a little bit
of water, oxygen and a dead plant with which to feed on. (They are
definitely eye-catching.)

http://www.eco-sphere.com/home.htm

I don't know how many here remember the AquaBabies market, but many
protested their existence, stating it was inhumane to confine the
little fish to such a tiny living space.

To me, the EcoSphere seems no different. Brine shrimp though they may
be, surely they would like more space?

Some might say it's akin to keeping a dog locked-up in a cage, while
others might think it's a "cool" novelty.

What is your opinion?


-Stacey

[Gfishery]

"Stacey Whaley" > wrote in message oups.com...
> To me, the EcoSphere seems no different. Brine shrimp though they may
> be, surely they would like more space?

Residents of downtown Tokyo would like more space too :)
Nobody seems to feel that their living space is inhumane.

[dfreas]

Well think about it a bit before you decide whether this is inhumane or
not. How much space do these guys actually have? Well according to the
link you provided the smallest available ecosphere is 3.25" now I don't
know exactly how big the creatures inside are but for simplicity lets
say they're 1/2 an inch long. Sound reasonable? Well then that means
that the diameter of their world is 6.5 times longer than they are.

Now lets think about a full grown Oscar in an aquarium. Lets assume
this fish is a foot long - that's reasonable. Now, for it to have as
much living space as these shrimp it will need a 6.5 foot diameter
tank. How many full grown Oscar owners out there have a tank with a
single 6.5 foot dimension - let alone a 6.5 foot diameter sphere's
worth of living space?

We keep fish in much smaller areas than these guys are being kept in,
relatively speaking. It is probably much more humane than many of the
things we do every day and think of as good practice. I think the
spheres are a neat idea.

-Daniel

[[email protected]]

Are you a troll? You are comparing a brine shrimp to a dog? I think
you have the intelligence of a brine shrimp. In the same vein, I am
making yogurt and I am concerned about the tiny plastic jar the all
those bacteria have to live in. I am also worry about how barbaric
that I am ingesting million of lives alive. And don't get me started
on the countless yeast lives I am killing everytime I bake bread.
*sob*

[Ozdude]

"Stacey Whaley" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I was wanting to get some opinions on the EcoSphere, initiated by NASA,
> in which tiny creatures live confined in a glass ball with a little bit
> of water, oxygen and a dead plant with which to feed on. (They are
> definitely eye-catching.)
>
> http://www.eco-sphere.com/home.htm
>
> I don't know how many here remember the AquaBabies market, but many
> protested their existence, stating it was inhumane to confine the
> little fish to such a tiny living space.
>
> To me, the EcoSphere seems no different. Brine shrimp though they may
> be, surely they would like more space?
>
> Some might say it's akin to keeping a dog locked-up in a cage, while
> others might think it's a "cool" novelty.
>
> What is your opinion?

Well, this is similar to the sphere I was mentioning the other day in my
post about BAT's at the LFS.

I've read on various Oz web sites that say these things are illegal in this
country, and that the reason is because they are bad to keep fish in; the
sphere shape messes with the fishes latteral direction snesing lines and
causes undue disorientation and stress.

They mention that gold fish aren't allowed to be kept in them but I can
recall seeing anything mentioned about tropicals or other things.

Still, I am not sure personally whether they are good for fish or an object
that simply looks good.

They seem more designer, than practical to me ;)

Oz

--
My Aquatic web Blog is at http://members.optusnet.com.au/ivan.smith

[Billy]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
| Are you a troll?

....speaking of trolls......

billy

[MarAzul]

"Ozdude" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Stacey Whaley" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>I was wanting to get some opinions on the EcoSphere, initiated by NASA,
>> in which tiny creatures live confined in a glass ball with a little bit
>> of water, oxygen and a dead plant with which to feed on. (They are
>> definitely eye-catching.)
>>
>> http://www.eco-sphere.com/home.htm
>>
>> I don't know how many here remember the AquaBabies market, but many
>> protested their existence, stating it was inhumane to confine the
>> little fish to such a tiny living space.
>>
>> To me, the EcoSphere seems no different. Brine shrimp though they may
>> be, surely they would like more space?
>>
>> Some might say it's akin to keeping a dog locked-up in a cage, while
>> others might think it's a "cool" novelty.
>>
>> What is your opinion?
>
> Well, this is similar to the sphere I was mentioning the other day in my
> post about BAT's at the LFS.
>
> I've read on various Oz web sites that say these things are illegal in
> this
> country, and that the reason is because they are bad to keep fish in; the
> sphere shape messes with the fishes latteral direction snesing lines and
> causes undue disorientation and stress.
>
> They mention that gold fish aren't allowed to be kept in them but I can
> recall seeing anything mentioned about tropicals or other things.
>
> Still, I am not sure personally whether they are good for fish or an
> object
> that simply looks good.
>
> They seem more designer, than practical to me ;)
>
> Oz
>

So, what you're saying is that you didn't look at the link and don't know
what we're talking about?


Mar

[Billy]

"MarAzul" > wrote in message
news:c6bVd.36909$Tt.3527@fed1read05...
|
| So, what you're saying is that you didn't look at the link and
don't know
| what we're talking about?
|


Dangit, Mar, you beat me to it. <g>

[Elaine T]

Stacey Whaley wrote:
> I was wanting to get some opinions on the EcoSphere, initiated by NASA,
> in which tiny creatures live confined in a glass ball with a little bit
> of water, oxygen and a dead plant with which to feed on. (They are
> definitely eye-catching.)
>

I honestly don't think shrimp have enough of a nervous system to
perceive confinement. The shrimp probably notice lack of oxygen or
food, but those are apparantly not lacking or they wouldn't live for
over a year.

Did you see Sagan's writeup? It's a fun read.

--
__ Elaine T __
><__'> http://eethomp.com/fish.html <'__><

[thewes]

wow. sounds like everyone is bashing Stacey for either not thinking
practically enough and being too humane. in my opinion the world needs
more people to ask more questions like this, instead of more nasty
analytical thinkers that discourage these questions. i dont have an
opinion about these ecospheres because i dont know enough about them,
but lets not discourage people like stacey from asking questions like
this.

[Richard Sexton]

In article >,
Elaine T > wrote:
>Stacey Whaley wrote:
>> I was wanting to get some opinions on the EcoSphere, initiated by NASA,
>> in which tiny creatures live confined in a glass ball with a little bit
>> of water, oxygen and a dead plant with which to feed on. (They are
>> definitely eye-catching.)
>>
>
>I honestly don't think shrimp have enough of a nervous system to
>perceive confinement. The shrimp probably notice lack of oxygen or
>food, but those are apparantly not lacking or they wouldn't live for
>over a year.

I wonder if they notice nothing is trying to eat them?

--
Need Mercedes parts ? - http://parts.mbz.org
http://www.mbz.org | Mercedes Mailing lists: http://lists.mbz.org
633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | Killies, killi.net, Crypts, aquaria.net
1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Old wris****ches http://watches.list.mbz.org

[Elaine T]

thewes wrote:
> wow. sounds like everyone is bashing Stacey for either not thinking
> practically enough and being too humane. in my opinion the world needs
> more people to ask more questions like this, instead of more nasty
> analytical thinkers that discourage these questions. i dont have an
> opinion about these ecospheres because i dont know enough about them,
> but lets not discourage people like stacey from asking questions like
> this.
>
Huh? I don't see any nasty responses or bashing on the alt.aquaria side
of this thread. Of course, I have the local troll killfiled so maybe I
missed something. I'm surprised you would call analytical thinkers in
general nasty, though. I'd hazard a guess that you just insulted a
pretty good number of people in both cross-posted newsgroups, me included.

BTW, the website is http://www.eco-sphere.com/home.htm.

--
__ Elaine T __
><__'> http://eethomp.com/fish.html <'__><

[Elaine T]

Richard Sexton wrote:
> In article >,
> Elaine T > wrote:
>
>>Stacey Whaley wrote:
>>
>>>I was wanting to get some opinions on the EcoSphere, initiated by NASA,
>>>in which tiny creatures live confined in a glass ball with a little bit
>>>of water, oxygen and a dead plant with which to feed on. (They are
>>>definitely eye-catching.)
>>>
>>
>>I honestly don't think shrimp have enough of a nervous system to
>>perceive confinement. The shrimp probably notice lack of oxygen or
>>food, but those are apparantly not lacking or they wouldn't live for
>>over a year.
>
>
> I wonder if they notice nothing is trying to eat them?
>
If so, it's gotta be a plus for them. Of course, that assumes they have
enough of a brain to even be capable of remembering from day to day that
nobody tried to eat them the day before. ;-)

--
__ Elaine T __
><__'> http://eethomp.com/fish.html <'__><

[Margolis]

"Gfishery" > wrote in message
...
>
> Residents of downtown Tokyo would like more space too :)
> Nobody seems to feel that their living space is inhumane.
>
>


but they always have the option to leave if they want to, instead they
CHOOSE to live there ;op

--

Margolis
http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
http://www.unrealtower.org/faq

[Margolis]

interesting points ;o)

--

Margolis
http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
http://www.unrealtower.org/faq

[Margolis]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Are you a troll?


pot, kettle, black

--

Margolis
http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
http://www.unrealtower.org/faq

[Margolis]

Only one person is bashing Stacey, thewes was sticking up for her.
Apparently the loudmouthed troll didn't appear in your reader.

--

Margolis
http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
http://www.unrealtower.org/faq

[Ozdude]

"MarAzul" > wrote in message
news:c6bVd.36909$Tt.3527@fed1read05...
> So, what you're saying is that you didn't look at the link and don't know
> what we're talking about?

I followed the link and apart from the fact the orignal message appears to
be troll, the EcoSphere my LFS sells is better than the heap I saw on the
web page. Sorry, but I didn't see any type of filtration or lighting on the
linked sphere.

Doesn't matter any way whether I saw it or not, to be honest, all globe
shaped vessels for fish are bad for them for the reasons I cite in my
previous post. They are cruel IMO. Not much better than those stupid picture
frame tanks that are all the vogue of late - now that's really cruel.

Oz

--
My Aquatic web Blog is at http://members.optusnet.com.au/ivan.smith

[Stacey Whaley]

Ozdude wrote:
> "MarAzul" > wrote in message
> news:c6bVd.36909$Tt.3527@fed1read05...
> > So, what you're saying is that you didn't look at the link and
don't know
> > what we're talking about?
>
> I followed the link and apart from the fact the orignal message
appears to
> be troll, the EcoSphere my LFS sells is better than the heap I saw on
the
> web page. Sorry, but I didn't see any type of filtration or lighting
on the
> linked sphere.
>
> Doesn't matter any way whether I saw it or not, to be honest, all
globe
> shaped vessels for fish are bad for them for the reasons I cite in my

> previous post. They are cruel IMO. Not much better than those stupid
picture
> frame tanks that are all the vogue of late - now that's really cruel.
>
> Oz

Hello,

I am not a troll. I had a serious question to ask. I was honestly
seeking the opinion of people in regards to the EcoSphere. I'm not
quite sure yet how I gave off the impression that I am or was a troll.
There was nothing rude, mean or inconsiderate portrayed in my original
message.

Look at my posting history on Usenet and I think you'll see most of my
postings are serious material. No troll workings, here. :)

-Stacey

[Ozdude]

"Stacey Whaley" > wrote in message
oups.com...

Apologies Stacey. I seem to have the wrong end of a couple of sticks here.

FWIW - those things look good, but that's all IMO. They look worse when they
get dirty. If you're just putting shrimps in them then I guess they would be
okay, but I wouldn't put fish in them - too cruel.

I know you're not a troll, and I apologise. Don't bite me ;)

Oz

--
My Aquatic web Blog is at http://members.optusnet.com.au/ivan.smith

[Mean_Chlorine]

Reality check: Artemia are small, planktonic, crustaceans, relations
of daphnia. They spend their entire existence swimming aimlessly in
predator-free temporary waters, and are often found in enormous
densities. They without doubt have computing power closer to that of
an earthworm than a housefly, and certainly nowhere near that of a
fish.

[Stacey Whaley]

Ozdude wrote:
> "Stacey Whaley" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> Apologies Stacey. I seem to have the wrong end of a couple of sticks
here.

:) That's OK. Just to be sure I went and looked in the mirror. No
warts or unsightly hairs where they shouldn't be. Also, didn't feel
too much like moving from my house to beneath a bridge.

> FWIW - those things look good, but that's all IMO. They look worse
when they
> get dirty. If you're just putting shrimps in them then I guess they
would be
> okay, but I wouldn't put fish in them - too cruel.

I first saw one in a Brookstone store in a local mall. At first I did
a double-take because they are so clever-looking. I thought it would
be nice to have one for my desk. It never occured to me that it might
be inhumane until I started looking at the AquaBabies sites on the
internet and finding protest pages about them. That's when the
lightbulb flickered. (Aquababies actually have fish/frogs/crabs in
them, quite different from the brine shrimp.)

> I know you're not a troll, and I apologise. Don't bite me ;)

I think trolls have big teeth. Mine are a bit smaller and wouldn't
hurt as much. ;)

> Oz

-Stacey


>
> --
> My Aquatic web Blog is at http://members.optusnet.com.au/ivan.smith

[Gfishery]

"Margolis" > wrote in message ...
> "Gfishery" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Residents of downtown Tokyo would like more space too :)
> > Nobody seems to feel that their living space is inhumane.
> >
> >
>
>
> but they always have the option to leave if they want to, instead they
> CHOOSE to live there ;op

I haven't run into any "Live Free Or Die" shrimp lately.

If the brine shrimp could choose between becoming an ingredient of my goldfish food flakes
or living in an ecosphere, I'm sure they would choose the latter :)

But I must say the shrimp served at the last seafood restaurant I dined at were excellent!

[Gill Passman]

"Ozdude" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Stacey Whaley" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> Apologies Stacey. I seem to have the wrong end of a couple of sticks here.
>
> FWIW - those things look good, but that's all IMO. They look worse when
they
> get dirty. If you're just putting shrimps in them then I guess they would
be
> okay, but I wouldn't put fish in them - too cruel.
>
> I know you're not a troll, and I apologise. Don't bite me ;)
>
> Oz
>
> --
> My Aquatic web Blog is at http://members.optusnet.com.au/ivan.smith
>
>
I'm totally with you here Oz....on both the question of trolls and these
EcoSpheres - lol. Saw one when we first started out on this fish experience
back in August trying to chose a tank for my son's birthday. Looked quite
trendy but the poor goldfish they had trapped in there just looked so
unhappy.... :-(

Plus, I thought one of the arguements years ago against round goldfish bowls
is that there was not sufficient surface area at the top....might be wrong
though....

Didn't get one, wouldn't get one....Maybe the situation for the little
shrimps encased in one would be better than their usual fate - maybe not
(sitting on the fence)...but IMO not for fish....

Gill

[MarAzul]

"Ozdude" > wrote in message
u...
> I followed the link and apart from the fact the orignal message appears to
> be troll, the EcoSphere my LFS sells is better than the heap I saw on the
> web page. Sorry, but I didn't see any type of filtration or lighting on
> the linked sphere.
>
> Doesn't matter any way whether I saw it or not, to be honest, all globe
> shaped vessels for fish are bad for them for the reasons I cite in my
> previous post. They are cruel IMO. Not much better than those stupid
> picture frame tanks that are all the vogue of late - now that's really
> cruel.
>
> Oz


First of all, I'm not saying I agree with the practice.... But an Eco-Sphere
isn't a fish bowl. It's a self contained ecosystem. The globe comes
complete with plant, water and shrimp inside and it's sealed. You can't put
fish in them unless you break the glass, in which case you've just ruined
it.


--
Mar

[winddancir]

Well, as far as I can tell (and I've read most of the website, plus info from related sites) it seems to be a fair setup. I don't know how much a shrimp can understand things, but I see food, oxgen, and a nice habitat. That is what we provide for our pets, and as long as you don't mistreat them (ie: shake the crap out of them) I see no problem.
But it is nice to see people are concerned over things like this.
A bad example of something similar is the betta with a plant. Instructions are to not feed the betta because he eats the plant. Very limited ecosystem, as bettas are not herbavores. And the plant can cover the entire top of the water. Big no-no for bettas.

I think the EcoSphere has at least been well thought out, unlike other things. ::cough... betta in a vase... cough::

[Richard Sexton]

Eco-sphere's don't have a brine shrimp they have a Hawaiian shrimp of some
sort. Brine shrimp only live a short timr, the eco-shrimp lives about
a year or more apparantly.

--
Need Mercedes parts ? - http://parts.mbz.org
http://www.mbz.org | Mercedes Mailing lists: http://lists.mbz.org
633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | Killies, killi.net, Crypts, aquaria.net
1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Old wris****ches http://watches.list.mbz.org

[Ozdude]

"Stacey Whaley" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Ozdude wrote:
>> "Stacey Whaley" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>> Apologies Stacey. I seem to have the wrong end of a couple of sticks
> here.
>
> :) That's OK. Just to be sure I went and looked in the mirror. No
> warts or unsightly hairs where they shouldn't be. Also, didn't feel
> too much like moving from my house to beneath a bridge.

LOL! Thanks for your sense of humour.

> I first saw one in a Brookstone store in a local mall. At first I did
> a double-take because they are so clever-looking. I thought it would
> be nice to have one for my desk. It never occured to me that it might
> be inhumane until I started looking at the AquaBabies sites on the
> internet and finding protest pages about them. That's when the
> lightbulb flickered. (Aquababies actually have fish/frogs/crabs in
> them, quite different from the brine shrimp.)
>
>> I know you're not a troll, and I apologise. Don't bite me ;)
>
> I think trolls have big teeth. Mine are a bit smaller and wouldn't
> hurt as much. ;)

LOL. I do think Sea Monkeys would look cool in the sphere though, but for
the price they are I am starting to think they are nothing more than a
glorified water filled lighting fixture ;)

Oz

--
My Aquatic web Blog is at http://members.optusnet.com.au/ivan.smith

[Ozdude]

"MarAzul" > wrote in message
news:_zoVd.38260$Tt.19695@fed1read05...
> First of all, I'm not saying I agree with the practice.... But an
> Eco-Sphere isn't a fish bowl. It's a self contained ecosystem. The globe
> comes complete with plant, water and shrimp inside and it's sealed. You
> can't put fish in them unless you break the glass, in which case you've
> just ruined it.

They aren't allowed to sell those things here in Australia - well I've never
seen one for sale legally, put it that way.

The LFS has a similar product called "Bio-Ball" which has a central air
powered UGF tube with a small halogen light shining down the bubble column.
It looks great lit up and bubbling and it does have the removable top, so I
was basing Eco-Sphere on this.
I wasn't aware it was a shrimp enclosure that was totally sealed ;(

It seems to me that when the life cycle of the shrimp is through you can't
clean these things - so does that mean they have built in obsolescence?

Oz

--
My Aquatic web Blog is at http://members.optusnet.com.au/ivan.smith

[Ozdude]

"Richard Sexton" > wrote in message
...
> Eco-sphere's don't have a brine shrimp they have a Hawaiian shrimp of some
> sort. Brine shrimp only live a short timr, the eco-shrimp lives about
> a year or more apparantly.

What do you do when they eventually expire though? Can you recharge the ball
somehow? Seems a waste to me.

Oz

--
My Aquatic web Blog is at http://members.optusnet.com.au/ivan.smith

[MarAzul]

"Ozdude" > wrote in message
u...

> The LFS has a similar product called "Bio-Ball" which has a central air
> powered UGF tube with a small halogen light shining down the bubble
> column. It looks great lit up and bubbling and it does have the removable
> top, so I was basing Eco-Sphere on this.

That sounds pretty, but I'd agree with you - doesn't seem practicle for
*any* kind of fish.

>
> It seems to me that when the life cycle of the shrimp is through you can't
> clean these things - so does that mean they have built in obsolescence?
>
> Oz

Well, you'll always have a $100(or more) paperweight.. Hehe..


Mar
---------
Vet Tech student

[Eromsnid Flor]

Stacey,

I'm going to answer your question in such a way that it can be applied
to all such similar circumstances... What you 'feel' after that is up
to you...

From a moral viewpoint, the amount of 'sympathy' applied to any
non-human is directly related to the amount of similarity to us
humans. We all (I hope) have a strong sympathy towards newborn
babies, since they are so much like us. We do not have as strong a
sympathy toward fetus's (sp???), dogs, cats, snakes, dolphins, tuna,
pigs, cows, etc, because they are all less "human."

Their lack of "human-ness" allows us to kill, experiment, and eat some
of them. With each of them we have varying levels of sympathy. for
most of us a fetus is closest to human and a snake farthest, so hardly
anyone minds killing and eating snakes, and almost all of us mind
killing and eating a fetus. (Please don't get angry, this is just an
ethical exersize...)

How about rats? Aren't they more human-like than brine shrimp? Yet
we trap, poison, and kill rats.

The U.S. supreme had to rule many years ago about what to do with
people who were no longer "human," like Terry Shiavo. Out of nine
justices, here is how they ruled:

5 justices decided that the States had an interest in keeping
people alive who were no longer human (defined briefly as actively
living and appreciating life), but if a person who had once been
human, had made it known with "clear and convincing evidence" that
they would not want to be kept alive if no longer human, then the
state could allow them to die. The reason for this ruling was that it
was impossible to foresee what the future would hold as far as medical
treatment and miracles of recovery were involved, and that since death
was permanent, with no going back, the States could act in the
non-human's best interest to preserve their life.

3 justices decided that the State was way out of line in
setting such a high standard of proof. They said that only a
preponderance of the evidence should be necessary, because the State
had no right to overrule a person's wishes, even after they were no
longer a person. This would mean that if a person had ever had a
serious conversation and mentioned that they would not want to be kept
alive, that preference should override the State's interest in keeping
them alive.

The last justice said that both the majority decision, and the
group dissent did a great disservice to the concept of life. He
pointed out that a person no longer human, had nothing left to live
for, and if the parents/family wanted to end the life, they should be
allowed to. Setting up burdon of proof arguments about what a person
said while they were human made no difference since a non-human had
nothing to live for.

So I guess you have to make your own decision about morality and
human-ness and life. Do the brine shrimp qualify as human? If so,
then they should be treated morally and released into the environment
so there life can be as brief or as lengthy as chance permits.

If the brine shrimp are not human, then we must decide if they are
close to human, and deserve fair consideration and protection from
inhumane treatment such as we offer cats, dogs, a third trimester
fetus, etc... Once you have made that decision, then you must decide
if the containment is inhumane. Would their life be better if we
released them to live, be eaten, and die in the wild?

If the brine shrimp are not close to human, then they do not benefit
from treatment based on our morals. At that point we only need to
consider the effect of their treatment on ourselves. Does confining
them to an 'eco-sphere' have an effect on our moral growth. Will
owning an eco-sphere lead to other morally questionable activities and
acts, such as you often see with children who torture animals and then
grow up to be sociopaths?

As usual, I have tried to be brief, but failed :)

rolf

p.s. My personal opinion is that brine shrimp are not human, and can
be used in almost any manner. They may be used as entertainment and
enjoyment (such as fish and other animals), therefore confined to a
controlled environment. They may be used as educational teaching
implements and experimental subjects, even up to purposely or
accidentally killing them. I'd much rather spend my energy on real
humans that need our concern, rather than brine shrimp that sound like
a tasty chilled snack ;-)

On 1 Mar 2005 12:19:38 -0800, "Stacey Whaley"
> wrote:

>I was wanting to get some opinions on the EcoSphere, initiated by NASA,
>in which tiny creatures live confined in a glass ball with a little bit
>of water, oxygen and a dead plant with which to feed on. (They are
>definitely eye-catching.)
>
>http://www.eco-sphere.com/home.htm
>
>I don't know how many here remember the AquaBabies market, but many
>protested their existence, stating it was inhumane to confine the
>little fish to such a tiny living space.
>
>To me, the EcoSphere seems no different. Brine shrimp though they may
>be, surely they would like more space?
>
>Some might say it's akin to keeping a dog locked-up in a cage, while
>others might think it's a "cool" novelty.
>
>What is your opinion?
>
>
>-Stacey

[Eromsnid Flor]

"I'm a Liberal. I'm Democrat. I'm Buddhist."

Oh poop! All that brilliant writing and then I remember to google you
(actually a9.com) so that I see who my audience is.

I promise... next time I'll google first and write second.

I am maybe considered liberal (I thought it was insane to go to Iraq,
but now we are there I think we need 300,000 troops to contain the
violence).

I'm more libertarian than democrat (growing up in Alaska does that to
you).

But I am not a Buddhist, and that makes my entire morality argument
invalid. Damn!

So, most of the previous post doesn't apply to you, because Buddhists
cannot use the human/non-human argument. What if my next life is as a
brine shrimp, therefore I must treat the brine shrimp as if I would
live it's life.

The argument then is whether containment in an eco sphere is something
that you would wish upon yourself. I think my answer is still the
same, and that a brief existence protected from predators, "might"
outweigh the loss of freedom.

rolf

p.s. try adding The Duhks to your music collection.

[Richard Sexton]

In article >,
Eromsnid Flor > wrote:
>Stacey,
>
>I'm going to answer your question in such a way that it can be applied
>to all such similar circumstances... What you 'feel' after that is up
>to you...
>
>From a moral viewpoint, the amount of 'sympathy' applied to any
>non-human is directly related to the amount of similarity to us
>humans. We all (I hope) have a strong sympathy towards newborn
>babies, since they are so much like us. We do not have as strong a
>sympathy toward fetus's (sp???), dogs, cats, snakes, dolphins, tuna,
>pigs, cows, etc, because they are all less "human."

This is changing:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1502933,00.html


And they're not brine shrimp which don't live that long, they're a small
marine shrimp that lives about 3-5 years.

--
Need Mercedes parts ? - http://parts.mbz.org
http://www.mbz.org | Mercedes Mailing lists: http://lists.mbz.org
633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | Killies, killi.net, Crypts, aquaria.net
1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Old wris****ches http://watches.list.mbz.org

[Billy]

"Richard Sexton" > wrote in message
...
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1502933,00.html
>
>


Anthropomorphisization. (sp?) The application of human
characteristics to things which are not human. That is not to say
that pigs and chickens do not feel, but to attempt to equate the
workings of their minds to ours is, while natural and inevitable in
our species, pointless and egotistical.

[Elaine T]

Ozdude wrote:
> "Richard Sexton" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Eco-sphere's don't have a brine shrimp they have a Hawaiian shrimp of some
>>sort. Brine shrimp only live a short timr, the eco-shrimp lives about
>>a year or more apparantly.
>
>
> What do you do when they eventually expire though? Can you recharge the ball
> somehow? Seems a waste to me.
>
> Oz
>
Yep, and of course recharging costs money. :-)

--
__ Elaine T __
><__'> http://eethomp.com/fish.html <'__><

[Elaine T]

Eromsnid Flor wrote:

> If the brine shrimp are not close to human, then they do not benefit
> from treatment based on our morals. At that point we only need to
> consider the effect of their treatment on ourselves. Does confining
> them to an 'eco-sphere' have an effect on our moral growth. Will
> owning an eco-sphere lead to other morally questionable activities and
> acts, such as you often see with children who torture animals and then
> grow up to be sociopaths?
>

Now THAT is the heart of the matter - well stated! I would add that
owning an Eco-Sphere could bring positive moral growth. If the shrimp
become pets and the keeper develops a sense of caring for something
alive, that caring can extend to higher animals and even fellow humans.

--
__ Elaine T __
><__'> http://eethomp.com/fish.html <'__><

[Richard Sexton]

In article >,
Elaine T > wrote:
>Ozdude wrote:
>> "Richard Sexton" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Eco-sphere's don't have a brine shrimp they have a Hawaiian shrimp of some
>>>sort. Brine shrimp only live a short timr, the eco-shrimp lives about
>>>a year or more apparantly.
>>
>>
>> What do you do when they eventually expire though? Can you recharge the ball
>> somehow? Seems a waste to me.
>>
>> Oz
>>
>Yep, and of course recharging costs money. :-)

Yup, and it aint cheap, but they're not cheap to buy in
the first place either. I guess if you can afford them at all
the "recharge" cost is of little concern. They last 2-5 years
although 8 is the record.

--
Need Mercedes parts ? - http://parts.mbz.org
http://www.mbz.org | Mercedes Mailing lists: http://lists.mbz.org
633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | Killies, killi.net, Crypts, aquaria.net
1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Old wris****ches http://watches.list.mbz.org

[Richard Sexton]

In article >,
Billy > wrote:
>
>
>"Richard Sexton" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1502933,00.html
>>
>>
>
>
>Anthropomorphisization. (sp?) The application of human
>characteristics to things which are not human. That is not to say
>that pigs and chickens do not feel, but to attempt to equate the
>workings of their minds to ours is, while natural and inevitable in
>our species, pointless and egotistical.

I hope the cows think better of us than we do of them. While
anthropomorphism is an interesting theory, it may or may
nor be fact.

That is, it maybe right or it may be wrong i this case;
the work done in the referenced URL gives support to the
notion it does not apply in this instance.

--
Need Mercedes parts ? - http://parts.mbz.org
http://www.mbz.org | Mercedes Mailing lists: http://lists.mbz.org
633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | Killies, killi.net, Crypts, aquaria.net
1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Old wris****ches http://watches.list.mbz.org

[Nikki Casali]

Elaine T wrote:
> Eromsnid Flor wrote:
>
>> If the brine shrimp are not close to human, then they do not benefit
>> from treatment based on our morals. At that point we only need to
>> consider the effect of their treatment on ourselves. Does confining
>> them to an 'eco-sphere' have an effect on our moral growth. Will
>> owning an eco-sphere lead to other morally questionable activities and
>> acts, such as you often see with children who torture animals and then
>> grow up to be sociopaths?
>>
>
> Now THAT is the heart of the matter - well stated! I would add that
> owning an Eco-Sphere could bring positive moral growth. If the shrimp
> become pets and the keeper develops a sense of caring for something
> alive, that caring can extend to higher animals and even fellow humans.
>

Just go and buy a few shrimp, stick 'em in a jar and have done with it.
Eco-Jar. Cheaper. Doh!

Nikki

[Margolis]

"Nikki Casali" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
>
> Just go and buy a few shrimp, stick 'em in a jar and have done with it.
> Eco-Jar. Cheaper. Doh!
>
> Nikki
>


Not quite. If you stick them in jar you still have to feed them. The idea
of the eco sphere is that it is a completely balanced ecosystem in there.
No outside intervention such as feeding is needed.

--

Margolis
http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
http://www.unrealtower.org/faq

[Nikki Casali]

Margolis wrote:
> "Nikki Casali" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>
>>
>>Just go and buy a few shrimp, stick 'em in a jar and have done with it.
>>Eco-Jar. Cheaper. Doh!
>>
>>Nikki
>>
>
>
>
> Not quite. If you stick them in jar you still have to feed them. The idea
> of the eco sphere is that it is a completely balanced ecosystem in there.
> No outside intervention such as feeding is needed.
>

I thought I'd mention it as I remember a childrens' science programme -
I think BBC's Science Shack - where they housed a few woodlice in a jar
with soil, air and a few plants. The jar was sealed and never opened.
The only thing the ecosystem needed to sustain it was light and heat.

Nikki

[NetMax]

"Nikki Casali" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Margolis wrote:
>> "Nikki Casali" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Just go and buy a few shrimp, stick 'em in a jar and have done with
>>>it. Eco-Jar. Cheaper. Doh!
>>>
>>>Nikki
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Not quite. If you stick them in jar you still have to feed them. The
>> idea of the eco sphere is that it is a completely balanced ecosystem
>> in there. No outside intervention such as feeding is needed.
>>
>
> I thought I'd mention it as I remember a childrens' science programme -
> I think BBC's Science Shack - where they housed a few woodlice in a jar
> with soil, air and a few plants. The jar was sealed and never opened.
> The only thing the ecosystem needed to sustain it was light and heat.
>
> Nikki

Once a year, I used to get a parade of parents (moms) with kids trailing
behind them, ready to buy some fish and plants to put into a sealed jar
for their class science experiment. It was an annual event for us,
talking them out of putting several Guppies into a 1 litre jar. I
usually send them off with a variety of plant cuttings, a newborn fry or
shrimp (which they can return to me after the experiment is over), and
instructions to use a larger container, keep it away from heat sources,
etc etc. For the most part, the parents where quite sympathetic and
willing to follow the instructions, so I'd like to think that the
greatest influence on our moral compass is knowledge :o).
--
www.NetMax.tk

[Richard Sexton]

>Once a year, I used to get a parade of parents (moms) with kids trailing
>behind them, ready to buy some fish and plants to put into a sealed jar
>for their class science experiment. It was an annual event for us,
>talking them out of putting several Guppies into a 1 litre jar. I
>usually send them off with a variety of plant cuttings, a newborn fry or
>shrimp (which they can return to me after the experiment is over), and
>instructions to use a larger container, keep it away from heat sources,
>etc etc. For the most part, the parents where quite sympathetic and
>willing to follow the instructions, so I'd like to think that the
>greatest influence on our moral compass is knowledge :o).

Sure, it's really not hard to do. I once had a tank with a colony
of Aphyosemion bitaeniatum in a 20 gallon tank - I started
with 6 pair and a lot of thread algae. The tank was extremely
tightly covered (they jump!) and evaporation was near or at
zero. For about 18 months I did not feed them. Fish came and went,
occasionally you'r see a dead body (not for long) and occasionally
you'd see fry. There were always about 6 pair, more or less.

The liight (strong) kept the algae going, infusoria and copepods
lived off the algae and the fish ate them. Fish waste kept the
alage growing.

I was away for two weeks, the light had failed and when I got back
everyting in the tank was dead.
--
Need Mercedes parts ? - http://parts.mbz.org
http://www.mbz.org | Mercedes Mailing lists: http://lists.mbz.org
633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | Killies, killi.net, Crypts, aquaria.net
1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Old wris****ches http://watches.list.mbz.org

[Gill Passman]

"winddancir" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Well, as far as I can tell (and I've read most of the website, plus info
> from related sites) it seems to be a fair setup. I don't know how much a
> shrimp can understand things, but I see food, oxgen, and a nice habitat.
> That is what we provide for our pets, and as long as you don't mistreat
> them (ie: shake the crap out of them) I see no problem.
> But it is nice to see people are concerned over things like this.
> A bad example of something similar is the betta with a plant.
> Instructions are to not feed the betta because he eats the plant. Very
> limited ecosystem, as bettas are not herbavores. And the plant can
> cover the entire top of the water. Big no-no for bettas.
>
> I think the EcoSphere has at least been well thought out, unlike other
> things. ::cough... betta in a vase... cough::
>
>
> --
> winddancir

Confession here...got EcoSpheres and BioSpheres a bit mixed up....hate
BioSpheres....not sure about the practicalities of EcoSpheres....

[Nikki Casali]

Gill Passman wrote:
> "winddancir" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>Well, as far as I can tell (and I've read most of the website, plus info
>>from related sites) it seems to be a fair setup. I don't know how much a
>>shrimp can understand things, but I see food, oxgen, and a nice habitat.
>>That is what we provide for our pets, and as long as you don't mistreat
>>them (ie: shake the crap out of them) I see no problem.
>>But it is nice to see people are concerned over things like this.
>>A bad example of something similar is the betta with a plant.
>>Instructions are to not feed the betta because he eats the plant. Very
>>limited ecosystem, as bettas are not herbavores. And the plant can
>>cover the entire top of the water. Big no-no for bettas.
>>
>>I think the EcoSphere has at least been well thought out, unlike other
>>things. ::cough... betta in a vase... cough::
>>
>>
>>--
>>winddancir
>
>
> Confession here...got EcoSpheres and BioSpheres a bit mixed up....hate
> BioSpheres....not sure about the practicalities of EcoSpheres....

RFLMAO. Erm, what's a BioSphere? BioSphere 2? Earth? The only
impracticality to an EcoSphere is how to get rid of the thing when
everything entombed has expired and is festering. Ewww!

Nikki

[Eromsnid Flor]

ET,

I have some trouble with this aspect of children+animals. Owning a
sphere could be good, if the child is mature enough to understand
death and loss. Many children don't understand how to feel when a pet
dies, and a sphere can be thought of as a pet. If they shrug it off,
then you worry. If they cry for two days, you also worry. I say that
this kind of thing should be reserved for teens and mature 9+
children.

Is it wrong? I don't think so. Can it cause harm? Certainly could.
This might be just the thing to use to see if children are ready to
take care of a pet???

rolf

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 06:18:58 GMT, Elaine T >
wrote:

>Eromsnid Flor wrote:
>
>> If the brine shrimp are not close to human, then they do not benefit
>> from treatment based on our morals. At that point we only need to
>> consider the effect of their treatment on ourselves. Does confining
>> them to an 'eco-sphere' have an effect on our moral growth. Will
>> owning an eco-sphere lead to other morally questionable activities and
>> acts, such as you often see with children who torture animals and then
>> grow up to be sociopaths?
>>
>
>Now THAT is the heart of the matter - well stated! I would add that
>owning an Eco-Sphere could bring positive moral growth. If the shrimp
>become pets and the keeper develops a sense of caring for something
>alive, that caring can extend to higher animals and even fellow humans.

[Gill Passman]

"Nikki Casali" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Gill Passman wrote:
> > "winddancir" > wrote in
message
> > . ..
> >
> >>Well, as far as I can tell (and I've read most of the website, plus info
> >>from related sites) it seems to be a fair setup. I don't know how much a
> >>shrimp can understand things, but I see food, oxgen, and a nice habitat.
> >>That is what we provide for our pets, and as long as you don't mistreat
> >>them (ie: shake the crap out of them) I see no problem.
> >>But it is nice to see people are concerned over things like this.
> >>A bad example of something similar is the betta with a plant.
> >>Instructions are to not feed the betta because he eats the plant. Very
> >>limited ecosystem, as bettas are not herbavores. And the plant can
> >>cover the entire top of the water. Big no-no for bettas.
> >>
> >>I think the EcoSphere has at least been well thought out, unlike other
> >>things. ::cough... betta in a vase... cough::
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>winddancir
> >
> >
> > Confession here...got EcoSpheres and BioSpheres a bit mixed up....hate
> > BioSpheres....not sure about the practicalities of EcoSpheres....
>
> RFLMAO. Erm, what's a BioSphere? BioSphere 2? Earth? The only
> impracticality to an EcoSphere is how to get rid of the thing when
> everything entombed has expired and is festering. Ewww!
>
> Nikki
>
Doh....think I'm digging myself a hole here....what I mean is a BioOrb. Not
picking on any stockist at all but this was the first hit on google:-

http://www.theaquariumshop.co.uk/ishop/1029/shopscr368.html

[Nikki Casali]

Gill Passman wrote:
> "Nikki Casali" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Gill Passman wrote:
>>
>>>"winddancir" > wrote in
>
> message
>
. ..
>>>
>>>
>>>>Well, as far as I can tell (and I've read most of the website, plus info
>>>
>>>>from related sites) it seems to be a fair setup. I don't know how much a
>>>
>>>>shrimp can understand things, but I see food, oxgen, and a nice habitat.
>>>>That is what we provide for our pets, and as long as you don't mistreat
>>>>them (ie: shake the crap out of them) I see no problem.
>>>>But it is nice to see people are concerned over things like this.
>>>>A bad example of something similar is the betta with a plant.
>>>>Instructions are to not feed the betta because he eats the plant. Very
>>>>limited ecosystem, as bettas are not herbavores. And the plant can
>>>>cover the entire top of the water. Big no-no for bettas.
>>>>
>>>>I think the EcoSphere has at least been well thought out, unlike other
>>>>things. ::cough... betta in a vase... cough::
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>winddancir
>>>
>>>
>>>Confession here...got EcoSpheres and BioSpheres a bit mixed up....hate
>>>BioSpheres....not sure about the practicalities of EcoSpheres....
>>
>>RFLMAO. Erm, what's a BioSphere? BioSphere 2? Earth? The only
>>impracticality to an EcoSphere is how to get rid of the thing when
>>everything entombed has expired and is festering. Ewww!
>>
>>Nikki
>>
>
> Doh....think I'm digging myself a hole here....what I mean is a BioOrb. Not
> picking on any stockist at all but this was the first hit on google:-
>
> http://www.theaquariumshop.co.uk/ishop/1029/shopscr368.html

Interesting fish bowl. I'd love to see a 100cm diameter version of this.
But where would you put it? In your living room, maybe us it as a coffee
table? Hey, anyone seen a coffee table aquarium? Hmmm, wouldn't want all
those mains wires straggling across the lounge though, lol.

Nikki

[Gill Passman]

"Nikki Casali" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Gill Passman wrote:
> > "Nikki Casali" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>
> >>Gill Passman wrote:
> >>
> >>>"winddancir" > wrote in
> >
> > message
> >
> . ..
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Well, as far as I can tell (and I've read most of the website, plus
info
> >>>
> >>>>from related sites) it seems to be a fair setup. I don't know how much
a
> >>>
> >>>>shrimp can understand things, but I see food, oxgen, and a nice
habitat.
> >>>>That is what we provide for our pets, and as long as you don't
mistreat
> >>>>them (ie: shake the crap out of them) I see no problem.
> >>>>But it is nice to see people are concerned over things like this.
> >>>>A bad example of something similar is the betta with a plant.
> >>>>Instructions are to not feed the betta because he eats the plant. Very
> >>>>limited ecosystem, as bettas are not herbavores. And the plant can
> >>>>cover the entire top of the water. Big no-no for bettas.
> >>>>
> >>>>I think the EcoSphere has at least been well thought out, unlike other
> >>>>things. ::cough... betta in a vase... cough::
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>--
> >>>>winddancir
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Confession here...got EcoSpheres and BioSpheres a bit mixed up....hate
> >>>BioSpheres....not sure about the practicalities of EcoSpheres....
> >>
> >>RFLMAO. Erm, what's a BioSphere? BioSphere 2? Earth? The only
> >>impracticality to an EcoSphere is how to get rid of the thing when
> >>everything entombed has expired and is festering. Ewww!
> >>
> >>Nikki
> >>
> >
> > Doh....think I'm digging myself a hole here....what I mean is a BioOrb.
Not
> > picking on any stockist at all but this was the first hit on google:-
> >
> > http://www.theaquariumshop.co.uk/ishop/1029/shopscr368.html
>
> Interesting fish bowl. I'd love to see a 100cm diameter version of this.
> But where would you put it? In your living room, maybe us it as a coffee
> table? Hey, anyone seen a coffee table aquarium? Hmmm, wouldn't want all
> those mains wires straggling across the lounge though, lol.
>
> Nikki
>
Wouldn't you risk your coffee sliding off the top? lol

IMHO It just reminds me of a Round Goldfish Bowl with a lid and a few other
bits and pieces...

BTW Don't think my living room is large enough for 100cm diameter Coffee
Table with or without the cables.... :-(

[Ozdude]

"Nikki Casali" > wrote in message
...
> Interesting fish bowl. I'd love to see a 100cm diameter version of this.
> But where would you put it? In your living room, maybe us it as a coffee
> table? Hey, anyone seen a coffee table aquarium? Hmmm, wouldn't want all
> those mains wires straggling across the lounge though, lol.

Believe it or not I have stocking experience with this exact "tank".

I spent a fair amount of time in my favourite LFS today helping the lady
change the water and stock in the Bio-Ball for sale in the front of the
shop.

It used to contain a few BATs (Buenos Aires Tetras) but she wanted them out
of there because they are skittish at best and were always going to the far
side of the orb, so she asked me what would be brash enough to put in there,
so I suggested Barbs.

She put 8 Green Tiger Barbs in there and they did exactly the same thing -
went to the far side.

I think you'd have to be very certain that the fish wasn't a timmid species,
in this enclosure. If you see one for real you'll notice that the fish are
magnified when you look into it, and my guess is the reverse happens inside
the tank because of it's shape and freaks any fish out.

In other words I'm starting to think these tanks are very stressful for any
fish that's in them.

Bettas or Gouramis would probably be the best for them, but I think like the
Eco-Sphere things they are little more than water-lamps with fish in them. I
feel sorry for any fish that has to live in them inspite of the lighting and
UGF in them being quite reasonable.

They look great bubbling away fish-less with plants in them ;)

Oz

--
My Aquatic web Blog is at http://members.optusnet.com.au/ivan.smith

[Lisa]

>> They look great bubbling away fish-less with plants in them ;)

I agree! I can easily see them being a high-tone planter for an
underwater garden. VERY soothing and sophisticated-looking, in the
right contemporary setting. Right in line with some Feng-Shui
principles, I would think, although I don't know much about that. But
I wouldn't want fish in there.

- Lisa