EcoSpheres Inhumane?

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" 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

"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

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 '__

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

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 '__

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

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...502933,00.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

"Richard Sexton" wrote in message
...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...502933,00.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.

In article ,
Billy wrote:


"Richard Sexton" wrote in message
...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...502933,00.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