Lynden
a "fish hater"
When I take a glance at the tremendous amount of topics on Tropical Chit Chat, as well as on the other subforums, it is difficult to comprehend the amount of cumulative research done to figure this all out. Some of the things done to find this information in the first place invokes thoughts of extreme cruelty to animals, of which I would never even consider doing - such as injecting bee venom into trouts to find out if they can feel pain. They can. 
But many of these horrendous acts would prove to help many fish in the years to come. So, it makes me think, is it worth torturing an animal knowingly to see how much it can withstand? Of course this would add to man's vast bank of information. Or, is it far better to not take chances, and remain ignorant to the animal's endurance level? The drawback to this decision is of course that it could impede scientific developement, such as medical advances. But considering how far man has already progressed past nature's intended level, could this be so bad? Man already lives for three or four times the length he did before industrialization. Must we still harm our lessers so we can advance even farther?
And then there is the ethic of aquarium keeping at its core. The animals we keep are not meant to be taken from the wild. Of course, if the tank is done right, the individual can still be happy, and even accomplish it's purpose - to breed. We can then release these animals back to the wild, sometimes increasing the wild population of an endangered animal. But it is important to remember; these animals, with few exceptions, would not be endangered if man had not dominated the Earth. Planet Earth has reached a point of mass extinction unmatched by any other period of time. Man has changed the planet so vastly that few living things are unaffected. Aquarium keeping has not damaged wild populations any more than the destruction of tropical rain forests / coral reefs has.
So, is what we do the right thing, or not?
-Lynden
But many of these horrendous acts would prove to help many fish in the years to come. So, it makes me think, is it worth torturing an animal knowingly to see how much it can withstand? Of course this would add to man's vast bank of information. Or, is it far better to not take chances, and remain ignorant to the animal's endurance level? The drawback to this decision is of course that it could impede scientific developement, such as medical advances. But considering how far man has already progressed past nature's intended level, could this be so bad? Man already lives for three or four times the length he did before industrialization. Must we still harm our lessers so we can advance even farther?
And then there is the ethic of aquarium keeping at its core. The animals we keep are not meant to be taken from the wild. Of course, if the tank is done right, the individual can still be happy, and even accomplish it's purpose - to breed. We can then release these animals back to the wild, sometimes increasing the wild population of an endangered animal. But it is important to remember; these animals, with few exceptions, would not be endangered if man had not dominated the Earth. Planet Earth has reached a point of mass extinction unmatched by any other period of time. Man has changed the planet so vastly that few living things are unaffected. Aquarium keeping has not damaged wild populations any more than the destruction of tropical rain forests / coral reefs has.
So, is what we do the right thing, or not?
-Lynden
but he is confined, most of the time to a cage 
