Mantis eats goldfish, again

[nympho]

These were two different arguments. Arguing that life may be more than the sum of its parts (I said no more than this) doesn't imply that insects aren't a subject of ethical concern. It is just that we know more about verts and this should be sufficient to not cause any unnecessary pain to other verts - particularly as they are not usual diet for mantids and any natural occurrence has still to be regarded as rare. We can only badly assess what "pain" means for an insect. I do not argue that they can't feel pain - we simply don't know it. But as usual part of mantid diets I have to accept that they are eaten this way. If not, I couldn't keep mantids. The difference is that as a human, one shouldn't do similar things to insects either, as it simply is not necessary.

I think we more or less agree christian. its just wording and im more of a ruthless materialist in my outlook than you, at least in the way i word things. We have to be careful if people of a woo persuasion are not to jump to the wrong conclusion. Anyway, semantically nothing can be more than the sum of its parts, by shear definition. Something is always only the sum of its parts. I think we are just arguing semantics here because I obviously agree effects generated the sum of the parts can be impressive and be more impressive than the machine that generates it, if thats what you mean by 'more than'. Its still the 'sum of its parts' overall. Where we differ is you favour certain complexity being probably able to generate effects out of proportion to its inherent possibilities, as a more likely scenario than the more prosaic expectation of it being totally in accordance with it. but dont worry about it, im probably misreading you.

Of course selection has no precognition. Preadaptation simply means a trait that evolved as a consequence of some other trait without having an immediate evolutive value. It can become important though if evolution takes another direction. I won't go into human evolution here, as this is too exhaustive. One point should be sufficient in this regard: we (say H. sapiens) don't have the very largest human brains. Some population of H. neanderthalensis had larger ones. Despite this, they were not able to deal with a changing environment as well as with the newly arriving H. sapiens. Nor did they (as far as it is known) have any kind of art. Thus, brain size isn't in every single case a good indicator of intelligence or evolutive success. Of course noone would compare a human with a fish brain.

ok cool, i understand. i forgot what preadaptation meant.

i did read somewhere that some human have smaller but more efficient brains than bigger brained people too. and are more intelligent. Size does not nesessarily equate with complexity. In other words, neanderthaths may have been more inefficiently structured brains which meant they had to be bigger.

No, I don't have to. It is of no importance if a nematode is sophisticated or not. I just pointed out that as an organism, it exhibits traits that are not exhibited by simple organs or organelles of it under lab conditions. Maybe we will some day find out every single aspects of life. However, knowing all the stuff doesn't mean we can reproduce it de novo. As long as we don't succeed in creating life de novo we should be careful with generalizations. And by no means should we imply that we can define life. We can't (yet). We can just define partial aspects of it. This is what I wanted to say. I never talked about stuff like auras or spirit or a universal conciousness or something. This stuff is for philosphs.

ok, we cant define all life everywhere in the universe, but we can now describe cellular activity on earth to an acceptable level of accuracy, as much as its feasable to do so. i was just saying they know just about everything about that worm within bounds of acceptability of making judgments about its capabilities and i disagree we have to make one from scratch to do this. Observations are sufficient. im not saying it wont suprise us with many new discoveries, but so far its known abilities are totally in order with what would be expected from its known complexity. You seemed to be saying they it did things out of proportion to its complexity which couldnt be accounted for. I'm saying everything is accounted for.

what are the 'undefined' aspects of life that science need to look for. is there any evidence there ARE any undefined aspects left. surely science starts with observations and then comes up with theories, not make theories without an observation. please, let there be a problem first before you jump to the conclusion theres any huge issues left unresolved.

 

[rayg]

I agree with you both that Homo sapiens is and always has been a ruthless and self aware top predator, and I am certainly not trying to imply that primitive cultures held some kind of special or secret knowledge that made them inherently better than modern man. I will not defend the notion of the noble savage. I feel the whole concept is romanticized racism.

There is a considerable expanse of time between the wave of extinctions that followed the end of the last ice age and the North American Indian cultures that existed here in the last millennium, and to equate their culture and society with one that existed ten thousand years prior is not a fair assessment. I was wrong to make a sweeping generalization such as “most aboriginal cultures”, but the native people of North America did not pillage at the maximum level their technology would allow. They only took what they needed. That was a fundamental part of their belief systems. Perhaps those beliefs developed because they saw food disappearing, but those were core beliefs. Even after horses and guns came to the continent they did not go on a massive killing spree. It was the white man who shot the passenger pigeons out the sky and packed them into barrels by the millions and shot bison from trains to let them rot in the prairie so the Indians would starve in the winter. The Native Americans existed within their ecosystem, as a part of it, and they were aware of that relationship. I am not trying to glorify their lives, but I am holding them up as an example of a people that found a balance within the environment. That is what we were missing then and now. It is only now with impending catastrophic climate change that modern society as a whole is being forced to come to terms of what is means to exist in balance and not in excess. But now I’m preaching to the choir.

As far as the charges of woo mongering are concerned, if you send me a credit card # I can give you a psychic reading, but I'm not always right.

 

[Christian]

I agree with you both that Homo sapiens is and always has been a ruthless and self aware top predator, and I am certainly not trying to imply that primitive cultures held some kind of special or secret knowledge that made them inherently better than modern man. I will not defend the notion of the noble savage. I feel the whole concept is romanticized racism. There is a considerable expanse of time between the wave of extinctions that followed the end of the last ice age and the North American Indian cultures that existed here in the last millennium, and to equate their culture and society with one that existed ten thousand years prior is not a fair assessment. I was wrong to make a sweeping generalization such as “most aboriginal cultures”, but the native people of North America did not pillage at the maximum level their technology would allow. They only took what they needed. That was a fundamental part of their belief systems. Perhaps those beliefs developed because they saw food disappearing, but those were core beliefs. Even after horses and guns came to the continent they did not go on a massive killing spree. It was the white man who shot the passenger pigeons out the sky and packed them into barrels by the millions and shot bison from trains to let them rot in the prairie so the Indians would starve in the winter. The Native Americans existed within their ecosystem, as a part of it, and they were aware of that relationship. I am not trying to glorify their lives, but I am holding them up as an example of a people that found a balance within the environment. That is what we were missing then and now. It is only now with impending catastrophic climate change that modern society as a whole is being forced to come to terms of what is means to exist in balance and not in excess. But now I’m preaching to the choir.

As far as the charges of woo mongering are concerned, if you send me a credit card # I can give you a psychic reading, but I'm not always right.

Directly before the arrival of so called "civilized" Europeans, most aboriginal cultures had learned to use nature carefully. But this is not due to ethical beliefs, but a relic from past failures, the consequences of which were so severe that they became part of their mythology. There are a lot of good examples of how humans ravaged native environments after settlement. Most animals survived several Ice and Warm Ages, but died after the onset of the last warm phase. This is not consistent with usual evolutive processes. In N-America, Australia, New Zealand and Polynesia there is good fossil and subfossil evidence of the rather drastic decline of native fauna directly after human impact. Some taxa persist longer, other only a short time, nevertheless in the longterm humans caused their extinction.

By the way, most people have a wrong impression on how taxa get extinct. It was certainly not that a blood-thirsty bunch of prehistoric hunters encyrcled the last frightened family of, say, giant sloths, and killed them alltogether. Extinction works at population level, and hunting is only a part of the reasons. Human settlement alone makes a region unfavorable for most megafaunal species, thus diminishing their territories, interrupting travelling routes or destroying food sources. Fire was the worst novel "technology" humans used for hunting or clearing landscapes, and there is evidence that more than half of the plants of large geographical (even tropical) areas died out after charcoal was found in (sub)fossil layers.

All these factors, including direct hunting, caused a substantial population decline, mostly easened by low reproductive abilities, to a level at which the remaining population was sensitive to stochastic extinction factors. Most large animals vanished quietly, and people were aware of it only after a certain time following the last encounter.

 

[MantidLord]

You still haven't understood anything. Considering the stuff written above you don't deserve any creature as pet.

Look. I respect you alot Christian, and I know you have overwhelming knowledgde of not just mantids, but other arthropods as well. But I'm not going to stand by and allow you to say things like I don't deserve any creature as a pet. I understand alot, and realize what you guys are saying. If someone buys a feeder fish and intends to feed it to their mantis, what sense does it make to kill it first? It's there money, and their fish. If the fish's fate is death, then it should come at whatever way possible. i'm not saying torture it, but if it is fed upon just like a FEEDER FISH, then it is fed upon, period. If I want to voice my oppinion, I don't think its right for you or anyone else to undermine it. No matter how much you may know about mantids. People are going to do whatever they want to their mantids, and yelling at them won't make a difference. The point is not to put the sh#t on the web, which ruins all mantid hobbiest's credibility. So stop arguing with each other about stuff that we all agree on, and go tell the idiots posting garbage like this on the web. :angry:

 

[Birdfly]

Mantidlord, everybody has opinions and the right to express them. If you put your opinion to the world the world will read it and voice there opinion back, thats how it works.

Back to feeding fish or any other vertibrate to mantids, my question is this, why is it so appealing to feed a live fish to a mantis ? whats the appeal, it cant be the eating of it as people would happily feed dead fish sooo it must be, imo, that people like to watch them killing some thing, slowly, a kind of torture if you will, to me thats wrong especially when insects (a much better and totally natural food) will give the same results, a full mantis.

The other thing, as you put it was seeing this sort of stuff on the net and ruining "mantid keepers credability" well my friend it could lead to a lot worse than that, it could lead to ruining mantid/exotic pet keeping full stop.

I know we have spoken about insects/fish/other vertibrates feeling pain/discomfort etc and all the different levels of it etc, and discussed if its wrong to feed a live fish its wrong to feed a live insect, ok thats a fair point, in this country its not illegal to feed live verts to other animals but it is to put them through unnessasary suffering (which is what is happening when a live vertibrate or invert is fed to a mantis) but most people, the people that count any way, couldnt give a stuff about a bug getting chomped or its wings pulled off or tortured in any way but they do about seeing a mouse eaten alive or a fish or what ever and eventually they will react, they will get petitions together, they will campaign to relavent governments to put a stop to "these cruel people who feed lovely cute animals to horrible ugly invertibrate monsters" and our hobbie could well be put into great jeopardy!!

This is why some of us have made our opinions, not to insult or ridicule other members but to get the point across so its understood what it could lead too

 

[Christian]

That post was from the 11th.

Wow, that's what I call a quick answer... :lol:

 

[mr nick]

I agree with most of what you say however fish are sold as feeders and most are not killed prior to being fed to herps or another fish.

There is absolutely no point in feeding live 'feeder' fish to reptiles/amphibians,not only is it cruel but the chances of passing disease are high as they are when you feed them to large species of fish such as Cichlids,which will always succumb to a diet of 'frozen' fish such as whitebaits,spratts etc with time and patience.Although their stomach/digestive acids are strong,it is not worth the risk to your 'pet' for the sake of a live meal..It is an absolute mistruth to suggest that these animals have to be fed on live food,as is also the case with snakes. Snakes will always feed on a diet of frozen rodents defrosted at the correct (feeding) temperature,turtles will always accomodate whitebaits and prawns (shells on) and if need be,defrosted pinkie mice.

There's tons of videos on youtube showing the feeding of live mice to spiders,centipedes,frogs and other 'aggressive' feeding animals,all are absolutely unecessary and like Rob says,fuel for the anti's.

 

[Rick]

There is absolutely no point in feeding live 'feeder' fish to reptiles/amphibians,not only is it cruel but the chances of passing disease are high as they are when you feed them to large species of fish such as Cichlids,which will always succumb to a diet of 'frozen' fish such as whitebaits,spratts etc with time and patience.Although their stomach/digestive acids are strong,it is not worth the risk to your 'pet' for the sake of a live meal..It is an absolute mistruth to suggest that these animals have to be fed on live food,as is also the case with snakes. Snakes will always feed on a diet of frozen rodents defrosted at the correct (feeding) temperature,turtles will always accomodate whitebaits and prawns (shells on) and if need be,defrosted pinkie mice.There's tons of videos on youtube showing the feeding of live mice to spiders,centipedes,frogs and other 'aggressive' feeding animals,all are absolutely unecessary and like Rob says,fuel for the anti's.

Yes I know. I am not saying I do this personally but many people do. I was more trying to make the point that these fish are sold as FEEDER fish. I don't see too many getting in an uproar over that fact. Since you say there is no point in feeding live fish or mice to other animals why is it ok for us to feed live insects? One in the same to me.

 

[mr nick]

Yes I know. I am not saying I do this personally but many people do. I was more trying to make the point that these fish are sold as FEEDER fish. I don't see too many getting in an uproar over that fact. Since you say there is no point in feeding live fish or mice to other animals why is it ok for us to feed live insects? One in the same to me.

Ok,i see the point but as we all know,its damn near impossible to feed mantis 'dead' prey,however,it is entirely possilble to do this with fish,reptiles and amphibians..fish and frog species become addicted very easily to certain food-types in captivity and become very difficult to wean off them once hooked. I suppose then we do it because its easier for us to feed a diet we can keep in the freezer but will still offer correct nutrition (with suppliments) without having to go too far for it?

 

[Morpheus uk]

Thats just wrong, why do you want to feed it a fish when a cricket will do unless your gone in the head?

Theres no point to this.

Im seeing too much of this,

USA keepers seem to only keep mantids to see whats the biggest thing they can tackle next for some retarded blood lust

 

[Morpheus uk]

Ooops, doubly

 

[Rob Byatt]

Since you say there is no point in feeding live fish or mice to other animals why is it ok for us to feed live insects? One in the same to me.

Animal rights groups. I'm getting writers cramp with these three words

Im seeing too much of this,USA keepers seem to only keep mantids to see whats the biggest thing they can tackle next for some retarded blood lust

Well said mate.

 

[sidewinder]

Morpheus uk and Rob Byatt,

Let's not color all "USA Keepers" with the same brush. I am sure there are keepers on both sides of the pond that are into blood lust. All these misguided comments can do is lead to anger and hurt feelings.

S-

 

[Morpheus uk]

No no, i now several USA keepers who are great keepers, but i dont know any keeper outside the USA who do this, which is what i was simply pointing out

 

[Morpheus uk]

Oh yeah somthing ive put up on videos like that are

If i had a snake i would feed it feeder mice, albiet pre killed, this is their natural food after all, but if had a mantis, which i do, id feed it other insects which is what its natural food is.

 

[sidewinder]

Morpheus uk,

You wrote:

"USA keepers seem to only keep mantids to see whats the biggest thing they can tackle next for some retarded blood lust"

That statement is not "simply pointing out" that you "dont (sic) know any keeper outside the USA who do this".

That statement generalizes the entire US mantid keeping population. I can guarantee that there are keepers outside the US that do as many bad things with mantids as those inside the US. So don't play the "we are better than the USA" card...

S-

P.S. Some constrictor snakes will not take dead food. So feeding live food is the only option.

 

[Morpheus uk]

Woops i phrased something wrong but then i corrected it <_<

There may be people who do the same thing outside the USA, i just havent heard of anyone, and im not playing "we are better than the USA" card, i save that card for online gaming

 

[idolomantis]

Woops i phrased something wrong but then i corrected it <_< There may be people who do the same thing outside the USA, i just havent heard of anyone, and im not playing "we are better than the USA" card, i save that card for online gaming

Ever heard of japanese?