Philosophical Vegan Forum

DylanTK wrote: I have been on numerous allergy and asthma medications throughout my lifetime. I have also tried air purifiers in my bedroom. The best option has been to avoid the offending stimulus.

Have you tried allergy shots?

brimstoneSalad wrote:

DylanTK wrote: I have been on numerous allergy and asthma medications throughout my lifetime. I have also tried air purifiers in my bedroom. The best option has been to avoid the offending stimulus.

Have you tried allergy shots?

No, I have not tried that yet. I have considered trying them.

After a lot of consideration, I decided I am going to get a leopard gecko. As vegans, we contribute to even more bug deaths than omnivores through agriculture. It's a bit of an unavoidable fact of life. I would never kill an insect "for no reason". I do kill parasitic insects, or insects who pose a health risk in my home (small roaches. I relocate large ones outside.) Owning an insectivore would mean deliberately contributing to bug deaths, yes, but their deaths wouldn't be meaningless. Their sentience level is low enough that I do not feel this is causing suffering, and the impact of one leopard gecko is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. The gecko will have a great life under my care, and having an animal companion will increase my quality of life.

You kept bringing up dogs: I am allergic to dogs, I do not want dogs, and dogs are not a good fit for my lifestyle. Bird feeders don't meet companionship needs. I don't want to merely look at animals. I do that a lot already. So that's not a viable choice either. I've been doung a lot of research, and a leopard gecko would be a good fit.

DylanTK wrote:As vegans, we contribute to even more bug deaths than omnivores through agriculture.

That's a myth, there's no reason to believe that's true, and it's probably the opposite by a wide margin.
Remember, animals are fed plants. Thanks to thermodynamics, it will always take significantly more plant calories (fed to animals) to create a certain number of calories for human food than eating plants directly. Some plant types have a larger pesticide footprint than others, but when we're talking about efficient crops like cereal grains, beans (which is what meat is appropriately replaced by), and oilseeds, a vegan's diet is superior on every metric of animal suffering, from small to large.

DylanTK wrote:Owning an insectivore would mean deliberately contributing to bug deaths, yes, but their deaths wouldn't be meaningless.

Carnists say the same thing about the cows and pigs killed for a double bacon burger. To them, it provides so much hedonistic pleasure that the animals have served some greater purpose, and should even feel honored to sacrifice themselves for this great cause of pleasing them.

DylanTK wrote:Their sentience level is low enough that I do not feel this is causing suffering, and the impact of one leopard gecko is insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

People assume their own impacts are insignificant in the "grand scheme" of billions of people. They also tend to be ready to dismiss the lower than humans sentience levels of cows, pigs, chickens, fish.

Insects aren't very smart, but many of them are sentient -- they can engage in operant conditioning -- and they are "conscious" of the world around them. They have wants and interests, although primitive, and violation of those is of course wrong if you subscribe to a non-hedonic metric of value. Saying it isn't causing any "suffering" (I'm not sure how you're defining that) is, I suspect, wishful thinking.

When there appears to be a selfish reason to do something, we have to be keenly aware of our own biases to downplay the value of those we are harming. It's far too easy to do.

Eating healthy food and keeping our homes clean is relatively much more necessary than keeping a lizard in a glass box.

DylanTK wrote:The gecko will have a great life under my care,

People think cows and chickens and pigs have great lives, but do they? Because they're kept contained and fed? They're bored out of their minds and they self mutilate.
How do we know the gecko is so happy? Is our standard "physically healthy"? Is our standard that it isn't miserable enough to show obvious external symptoms like self mutilation?

How large is the cage? Does it have no drive to roam and explore? Have you ever witnessed a lizard testing the boundaries of an enclosure?

There are animals who don't roam. Clownfish, for example: they stay by an anemone their entire lives. There may be animals that live in small ponds, too, that are well suited to small enclosures. Is there evidence that a gecko fits into this archetype?

The argument for dogs is much stronger than for other animals not just on the basis of diet, but on the basis of pack psychology and the thousands of years they have lived with human families in relatively small ranges.

I don't doubt that an adequate enclosure could be built for a gecko or other pet reptile, but I feel like it would look more like an atrium than a several gallon glass tank.
http://www.gardenatriums.com/pictures/Atrium-01.jpg

A safe enclosed area with many plants, and stimulation from hunting insects on its own, and importantly, places to hide and feel safe, and the ability to avoid you if it wants to.
Why do we assume these animals enjoy human interaction? For dogs, this is known because they seek it out, and there are extensive studies on it. Has a gecko ever come up to somebody to interact when not compelled to by promise of food or simply to get out of the enclosure? I don't know. I don't think we know enough about what's going on in their heads.

I'm not convinced a gecko would have a great life in a small glass tank. Do I think it will survive and you will keep it healthy? Yes. But surviving isn't having a great life. I think you're convincing yourself of this because you want a gecko.

DylanTK wrote:and having an animal companion will increase my quality of life.

People say this about eating meat too. Is it OK to breed and confine an animal, likely giving it a poor quality of life, so we can experience some amusement and (likely) illusion of companionship from it?

Eisel Mazard has claimed that pets hate their owners. When it comes to cats and dogs, he's a moron. When it comes to non-social reptiles that have merely learned to tolerate handling because they don't have a choice, this may be true on some level.

While there may be reptiles that enjoy the engagement (particularly if they're otherwise bored out of their minds in the small enclosure), I think our strong bias to believe so makes such an estimation highly suspect without hard evidence.

From looking around a bit, Iguanas or Uromastyx seem like the best bet. They're primarily herbivorous (pretty much entirely as adults, only eating insects when other food is not available), and are reported to be pretty social; which makes more sense for an herbivore than a carnivore/insectivore due to natural behavior (unless it's a pack hunter). Of the two, Iguanas seem easier.

https://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/ReptilesAmphibians/Facts/FactSheets/Greeniguana.cfm

The green iguana is a social species; groups can be found basking and foraging together in trees. The male iguana is typically more aggressive and territorial than the female. They exhibit male-male aggression and a male may injure another iguana in attempts for the alpha position, the best basking perch, the biggest territory, or access to females. Young males who are not yet ready to challenge mature males for territories may hang out with dominant males but are always watchful for signs of aggression.

http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2007/07/12/amazing-social-life-of-the-gre/

Juveniles form pods, usually consisting of about four individuals. They indulge in a tremendous amount of social behaviour of the sort typically regarded as unique to mammals and birds, rubbing their bodies and heads against one another, displaying their dewlaps, nodding their heads and wagging their tails at each other. They engage in allogrooming (grooming other members of the social group). [...]
Prior to departing, the juveniles were seen to engage in lots of head-rubbing and other physical contact, and the individual that appeared to lead the group was the one that engaged in the greatest amount of these activities. Invariably this was the first animal to enter the water and start swimming. If its companions failed to follow, it would return to shore.[...]
In Green iguanas, the idea that individuals really do ‘look out’ for siblings has received robust experimental support from studies of anti-predator behaviour. Noting that male and female young Green iguanas exhibited quite different types of anti-predator behaviour, Rivas & Lev�n (2004) flew model hawks at both lab-based and wild groups of Green iguana siblings. They showed that, while females tended to hide, stay motionless, or run away from the potential predator, males exhibited far more interesting and unusual behaviours: they ran in front of the model hawk, appeared from beneath cover (rather than hiding within it), and – most interestingly – covered their smaller female siblings with their own bodies, thereby concealing them from view.

It is at least far more conceivable that a human could form a legitimate social bond with a more social reptile like an iguana; something that isn't just wishful thinking and anthropomorphizing.

Apologies about the statement of vegan-caused bug deaths vs. omnivore-caused bug deaths. I wasn't really thinking about the more indirect paths this morning. That was a big derp on my part. Regardless, my point that vegans cause countless bug deaths still holds. Most vegans don't avoid foods (like wheat) to spare all the bugs and small animals caught up in the harvesters. Most vegans kill parasites and disease vectors. Insects have always been a grey zone.

Beyond that though, I do think you are approaching vegan-police status. I'm not sure about uromastyx beyond the fact they are more difficult to care for, but I do know iguanas are a bad idea. Do you realize how prone to aggression they are? An iguana is less likely to enjoy your company than a docile leopard gecko.

Leopard geckos do approach familiar humans even when not hungry. They do learn to associate us with positive stimuli. Food, warmth, exploration. An unhappy leopard gecko shows it with their behavior. Most notably by screaming, or lifting their tail high and waving it.

Aside from eusocial insects, insects are just barely sentient. Believing they cannot suffer is based on science, not wishful thinking. They have an imperative not to die, but so do plants (using thorns, chemicals, and antinutrients to discourage consumption), and so do bacteria (avoiding certain noxious stimuli).

Obviously insects are more complex than plants and bacteria, and I don't condone killing them needlessly, but really now. Where's the wealth of scientific evidence showing they are consciously aware of pain on an emotional level? Reacting to stimulus does not equal consciousness or feeling. It certainly doesn't equal the capacity to suffer.

If insects can suffer, we have much larger issues on our hands as vegans than what a gecko needs to survive.

DylanTK wrote:Apologies about the statement of vegan-caused bug deaths vs. omnivore-caused bug deaths. I wasn't really thinking about the more indirect paths this morning. That was a big derp on my part.

No problem, we all derp sometimes.

DylanTK wrote:Regardless, my point that vegans cause countless bug deaths still holds.

It's important to avoid words like "countless", that's not literally the case, and the numbers could be fairly easily estimated with a little leg work. Much pesticide, however, actually prevents eggs from developing properly rather than killing.

Countless suggest some absurdly large number that is unlikely to be true.

DylanTK wrote:Most vegans don't avoid foods (like wheat) to spare all the bugs and small animals caught up in the harvesters. Most vegans kill parasites and disease vectors. Insects have always been a grey zone.

Wheat is an efficient and nutritious food crop which is easily stored and distributed. There are sound reasons of practicability to consume it, and there's not another apparent option that offers superior moral status.
Again, we kill parasites and disease vectors out of necessity. In the right (terrible) circumstances of a growing infestation, I'd be forced to kill mice and rats too. I could even be forced to kill a human home intruder.

None of these are special grey zones reserved for insects.

DylanTK wrote:I do know iguanas are a bad idea. Do you realize how prone to aggression they are?

Iguanas only become aggressive if not regularly handled, or if mistreated. You suggested that you would be handling the animal regularly. They're easy to care for, and they eat a lot of the same things you do. No need to go buying crickets etc.

DylanTK wrote:An iguana is less likely to enjoy your company than a docile leopard gecko.

If you let it get aggressive, you'd be the one enjoying it less. An untame leopard gecko would probably enjoy your company even less than the iguana, being far more terrified of you.

It's kind of irrelevant, if you're handling them regularly.

Tame iguana:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijezC6DOnHI

It seems like the reason you want to choose a gecko over an iguana probably isn't relevant to your situation.
And what about tortoises? They have very minimal aggression. Just convenience issues?

DylanTK wrote:An unhappy leopard gecko shows it with their behavior. Most notably by screaming, or lifting their tail high and waving it.

That's frightened/angry (trying to scare something away), not bored and depressed. Come on, you should know you can't use lack of aggressive behavioral cues to prove an animal is actually happy. Happy is not simply the state of lacking imminent mortal terror.

An iguana you can pretty much give free range over your apartment like a cat, so there's less concern for enclosure size. They can even be potty trained: http://www.iguanaresource.org/pottytraining.html Although if you just give them a place to bathe (which they should have) they'll probably just poop in that.

DylanTK wrote: Aside from eusocial insects, insects are just barely sentient. Believing they cannot suffer is based on science, not wishful thinking.

Where are you getting this from? Why do you think eusocial insects are more sentient?

Insects have brains and are capable of learning and proving interests through operant conditioning.

Here's the first link that came up. There are a few studies on insects, including antennae movement based IIRC. This is "teach the fly to go in the hole" based.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2801537/

The vast majority of articles concern birds (97.4% of these were pigeons), rodents (97% were rats), humans, and various primates. These species make up 97.9% of the total published articles. Mammals such as horses, cats, dogs or porpoises comprise 1.42% of the total articles, fishes and reptiles 0.5% of the total articles, and finally invertebrates 0.13% of the total articles. Despite the importance of insects in the animal kingdom and what they can tell us about the evolution of learning, we found only two articles with insects, one with the honey bee (Grossman, 1973) and the other with cockroaches (Rubadeau & Conrad, 1963). The cockroach article contained no data on which to evaluate its effectiveness.

Despite being so little studied, studies done on insects demonstrate some level of intelligence and will.

It's an uncomfortable feeling to know that so many things that we crush under our feet are self-aware in some sense.

Another member brought my attention to another recent study here: http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2035&p=20745#p20736

DylanTK wrote: They have an imperative not to die, but so do plants (using thorns, chemicals, and antinutrients to discourage consumption), and so do bacteria (avoiding certain noxious stimuli).

There is a difference between automatic, programmed, reflexive evolved behavior, sensitization/classical conditioning, and true learning as crudely demonstrated through operant conditioning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning#Associative_learning

In order to distinguish simple organisms from each other, we have to be willing to understand much more about the core of what interests and motivations are. In order to say beings of higher intelligence have value, we have to understand what intelligence is.

You may also be interested in looking up Dennett's creatures.

DylanTK wrote: Obviously insects are more complex than plants and bacteria, and I don't condone killing them needlessly,

What's need?

DylanTK wrote: Where's the wealth of scientific evidence showing they are consciously aware of pain on an emotional level?

I already talked about pain. There are people who are insensitive to pain. It's not relevant. What matter are interests.
What do you think emotions are, exactly? What is intelligence, to you? What is sentience? What is consciousness?

DylanTK wrote: If insects can suffer, we have much larger issues on our hands as vegans than what a gecko needs to survive.

A red herring. "There are so many wars and people starving in the world. We have bigger issues than factory farming!"
Maybe, but there's what's at issue, and what we can do things about, and what we are actively contributing to.

I wouldn't blink at feeding a rescued cat insects. It's the bugs or the cat's life. I also wouldn't blink at buying and releasing lizards into your garden to eat problematic bugs. But breeding a relatively simple animal to be a play thing, spending most of its life in a small glass box, and feeding it insects that were bred into existence doesn't seem necessary. Particularly given other options. I think you had an idea of the ethical dubiousness of the whole endeavor, which is why you asked.

DylanTK wrote:Beyond that though, I do think you are approaching vegan-police status.

There's no need for that.
If you didn't want to have this conversation, why ask?

I'm not the vegan police. Do whatever you want.

Well, it felt like vegan policing (an unfortunate choice of words springing from frustration) for the fact that you keep recommending reptiles on the sole basis of their diet regardless of how hard it is to provide a proper environment/care for them, as though their status as plant-eaters is the be all end all. At the same time that you recommend these difficult to provide for reptiles, you consistently refer to leopard geckos/similar animals (?) as a plaything, a source of amusement, and a likely illusory source of companionship. I don't know where this attitude is coming from/based on. A gecko is not a toy, and I find it a bit disturbing that you keep talking about them as if they are. What makes an appropriately sized tank with opportunities to come out and explore any different from keeping a dog in an apartment with opportunities to go out for a walk? Is it better to provide excellent quality of care to a leopard gecko, or to struggle to meet the needs of a much larger herbivorous/mostly herbivorous reptile (uromastyx apparently still needs insects occasionally to meet their nutritional needs)? Iguanas can be difficult and highly territorial regardless of how much you handle them. The difference would be that an untamed iguana would rip you a new one, and a tame one will be surly and require experienced handling.

Here, this will do a better job of explaining the issues with turtles/tortoises and iguanas than I can: http://scalestails.tumblr.com/post/57889510407/5-worst-beginner-reptiles

Also, there is no way to truly determine that a reptile is happy as far as I know. Can we even be sure they feel happiness specifically? It might be more of a gradient of discontent-contentment. We certainly know when they are not happy. It is easy to see when a leopard gecko is interested/inquisitive because they explore and look at things in their environment very intently. This is why I'm setting I'm setting up a bioactive tank. It encourages them to burrow, and they have harmless insects in their enclosure to watch and hunt if they so choose. I did watch a video of someone gently stroking their leopard gecko's cheek. They were not holding it and preventing it from escaping, it was freely sitting on her hand or lap (I don't remember which). Leopard geckos have eyelids which they can and do close independently. If something is in their eye or grazes too near it, they will close that eye. While being stroked, the leopard gecko slowly shut *both* eyes, and made zero effort to avoid the stimulus. That's really as close as we're going to get to knowing that a reptile is happy or content/enjoys human contact.

DylanTK wrote: After a lot of consideration, I decided I am going to get a leopard gecko.

Cool!

I see you and Brimstone have been debating this topic, and I'm not going to address any points, but when I was a teenager (once upon a time), I had several reptiles and arachnids at one point, and it did help my personal overall well-being.

I learned a lot about different animal behaviors, and this interest may be why I feel more compassionate about all animals now. I wouldn't own them now, but you seem to have done your research so I think the gecko will be happy. (And side note, I had an iguana that was about 4-ft long, and I often let her roam around my room, and her face when she was sitting in the window with the sun coming in sure seemed to imply reptiles could be happy! )

PsYcHo wrote:

DylanTK wrote: After a lot of consideration, I decided I am going to get a leopard gecko.

Cool!

I see you and Brimstone have been debating this topic, and I'm not going to address any points, but when I was a teenager (once upon a time), I had several reptiles and arachnids at one point, and it did help my personal overall well-being.

I learned a lot about different animal behaviors, and this interest may be why I feel more compassionate about all animals now. I wouldn't own them now, but you seem to have done your research so I think the gecko will be happy. (And side note, I had an iguana that was about 4-ft long, and I often let her roam around my room, and her face when she was sitting in the window with the sun coming in sure seemed to imply reptiles could be happy! )

It's certainly quite possible for them to feel happy, but it's a lot trickier to tell than with a cat or dog, you know. I mean, on a scientific level, it would be hard to prove a reptile was in that state of mind. However, I think people with a lot of experience with animals are generally pretty good at picking up on how their pet generally feels. I'd be inclined to believe your iguana was happy basking in the sun and looking out the window, but I couldn't prove it!

Thank you for the vote of confidence, by the way. I have been doing a lot of research, and I am waiting 3-4 weeks to allow for more research before getting a leo. I want to be sure I'm as prepared as I can reasonably be without firsthand experience.

Might I ask, why do you no longer own reptiles or arachnids?

DylanTK wrote: I have been doing a lot of research, and I am waiting 3-4 weeks to allow for more research before getting a leo. I want to be sure I'm as prepared as I can reasonably be without firsthand experience.

Might I ask, why do you no longer own reptiles or arachnids?

That's good, the more you know the better. I ended up taking in two neglected iguanas from people who didn't realize how much work they were, and nursed them back to health. It was a rewarding experience. The one couldn't even walk properly, he was fed a diet of mainly iceberg lettuce which has no nutritional value. I fed mine varying vegetables with a nutrient powder, so they did't eat crickets. (I tried feeding one crickets, and it seemed upon learning meat was a food, found my fingers to be appetizing... )

I no longer own any because I travel for work a lot, and would be unable to care for them. Although a few weeks back I was in Texas, and encountered a Mexican brown tarantula that was in the road at the rest area heading for the interstate. Because I was knowledgeable about this species, I knew it was mainly harmless, and how to pick it up without getting bit, so it was awesome to be able to take it to a better area that had vegetation so it didn't get ran over. (My partner was only mildly surprised. To her father- "he leaves to go to the bathroom, and comes walking back holding a tarantula....glad it wasn't a scorpion! )

PsYcHo wrote:

DylanTK wrote: I have been doing a lot of research, and I am waiting 3-4 weeks to allow for more research before getting a leo. I want to be sure I'm as prepared as I can reasonably be without firsthand experience.

Might I ask, why do you no longer own reptiles or arachnids?

That's good, the more you know the better. I ended up taking in two neglected iguanas from people who didn't realize how much work they were, and nursed them back to health. It was a rewarding experience. The one couldn't even walk properly, he was fed a diet of mainly iceberg lettuce which has no nutritional value. I fed mine varying vegetables with a nutrient powder, so they did't eat crickets. (I tried feeding one crickets, and it seemed upon learning meat was a food, found my fingers to be appetizing... )

I no longer own any because I travel for work a lot, and would be unable to care for them. Although a few weeks back I was in Texas, and encountered a Mexican brown tarantula that was in the road at the rest area heading for the interstate. Because I was knowledgeable about this species, I knew it was mainly harmless, and how to pick it up without getting bit, so it was awesome to be able to take it to a better area that had vegetation so it didn't get ran over. (My partner was only mildly surprised. To her father- "he leaves to go to the bathroom, and comes walking back holding a tarantula....glad it wasn't a scorpion! )

Ah, I see. That's a shame that your work prevents you from keeping them, but very responsible of you to realize that you can't do both. The story about the tarantula sounds so much like something I would do. I have done that sort of thing, though not with tarantulas because they don't live here. I've rescued turtles and toads from the road more than anything else.

Uneducated people getting animals they can't care for is a big problem. Pet stores contribute to that problem greatly. During my research, I've heard a lot of horror stories about people getting leos from a pet store and are told they need a heat lamp (even though leos need under tank heaters as nocturnal/non-basking reptiles), told to put them on sand because they are a "desert species" (Arid climate does not equal sandy desert!) which carries a significant risk of impaction, and not educated properly on the nutrient powders they need (metabolic bone disease anyone?). It's so sad.