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