Humuhumunukunukuapua'a:
I'm saying they will or they won't. Those who have a sense of duty to the environment will care about it without having to cage and domesticate animals, contrary to your saying that such caging and domestication is necessary for people to care about the environment.
I never said it was necessary for everyone to care about the environment.
Some people will care no matter what, some people will pretend to care, but won't actually take any steps that help, so will always be actively against environmental protections, and the vast majority simply do not think about it much.
Humuhumunukunukuapua'a:
Those who don't care about the environment won't care whether you cage and domesticate animals or not. It's really quite a simple concept.
You forget the huge group that neither cares nor doesn't care about the environment, they simply do not give it much thought. Your position places these people in the same category as anti-evironmental activists.
Many of this majority can be convinced that the environment needs protecting, but they also need to feel connected to the environment, while some always have felt connected.
Humuhumunukunukuapua'a:
In other words, I don't need to pet a Sperm Whale to care about it...it's just a part of my sensibility to care about the destruction of the environment, whether I see it, touch it, swim with it or not. People like me don't fit into your world view. You say that in order to care about something I must encounter it in a tangible way, which is patently false.
No, you fit into my World view, but what you don't understand is that everyone is not like you. Many will not care about sperm whales until something is done to make them care about sperm whales.
You are a small minority, and hence it is not sound policy to base conservation solely upon your viewpoint. We need to take into account the views and actions of others as well.
Humuhumunukunukuapua'a:
So, Xanthro, since your position is that caged and domesticated animals are necessary to instill environemntal awareness in people
That's not my position. My position is that access to animals, including captive and domesticated animals helps with environmental awareness.
Some people do not require such access, but the majority do. If you want to save these animals and their habitat, you need to appeal to the majority of people.
Humuhumunukunukuapua'a:
(ie that you have to destroy a part of the environment to get people to care about it),
Everything we do, including diving, damages the environment. What we try to do is minimize that damage and create awareness. Animal interaction helps with this awareness.
Humuhumunukunukuapua'a:
how many dolphin encounters do you think we need?
Enough so that a large enough percentage of people have access to dolphins that they become more connected and more environmentally aware.
Humuhumunukunukuapua'a:
Is it just that more caged dolphins around the world = more environmental awareness? So once we have them all caged, we'll have total environmental awareness?
Arguments ad absurdum don't really impress me.
If the goal is to save animals, then some will have to be held in captivity.
As I said before, plenty of people opposed the California Condor program, and these birds would be extinct without the captivity program.
Humuhumunukunukuapua'a:
If not, then where do you draw the line, because you assertions that we need to harm dolphins to help them seems ludicrous to me.
Who said that captivity has to be harmful to dolphins? Some programs allow the dolphin complete access to the sea. There are good and bad dolphin programs. I support those I think are good.
