Yes and for all we know the octopus prefers to live in a place safe from predators, always has lots of food, and a veterinarian on call when it gets sick.
It’s strange to me that people anthropomorphize animals to make big claims about the animal wanting to live in the wild. If you release that animal into the wild it will likely be eaten or starve but everyone assumes the animal wants that based on absolutely nothing.
Why not anthropomorphize animals under the assumption they would want a life similar to what we’ve built for ourselves? Is the validity of the complete guesses about what an animal wants gain merit based on how holier than thou the people making the guesses are acting about it?
Bottom line, the octopus is safer living in an aquarium with ample food than living in an environment amongst predators where food is scarce. All animals have a strong survival instinct (they’d be extinct if they didn’t) so it’s more likely if an animal could communicate it’s preferences, it would choose the option where it’s most likely to survive for a very long time, so it would choose living in an aquarium.
If a I scream “RELEASING ANIMALS INTO THE WILD IS MURDER!!!” over and over again, does that make it a more compelling argument?
Yes, but it’s even more simplistic (I agree with wider principle you’re using).- The octopus is going to have a much harder time finding a safe environment.
Unless it stays in the fish aquarium - I wonder why it didn’t just stay where the tasty snacks were? (Not wanting to project a humanised, moralistic perspective on its delightfully naughty behaviour…).
Maybe there was nothing good to hide under, perhaps?
Yes and for all we know the octopus prefers to live in a place safe from predators, always has lots of food, and a veterinarian on call when it gets sick.
It’s strange to me that people anthropomorphize animals to make big claims about the animal wanting to live in the wild. If you release that animal into the wild it will likely be eaten or starve but everyone assumes the animal wants that based on absolutely nothing.
Why not anthropomorphize animals under the assumption they would want a life similar to what we’ve built for ourselves? Is the validity of the complete guesses about what an animal wants gain merit based on how holier than thou the people making the guesses are acting about it?
Bottom line, the octopus is safer living in an aquarium with ample food than living in an environment amongst predators where food is scarce. All animals have a strong survival instinct (they’d be extinct if they didn’t) so it’s more likely if an animal could communicate it’s preferences, it would choose the option where it’s most likely to survive for a very long time, so it would choose living in an aquarium.
If a I scream “RELEASING ANIMALS INTO THE WILD IS MURDER!!!” over and over again, does that make it a more compelling argument?
What I said was : they should not be kept in captivity for our amusement.
Where’s the big claim?
Yes, but it’s even more simplistic (I agree with wider principle you’re using).- The octopus is going to have a much harder time finding a safe environment.
Unless it stays in the fish aquarium - I wonder why it didn’t just stay where the tasty snacks were? (Not wanting to project a humanised, moralistic perspective on its delightfully naughty behaviour…).
Maybe there was nothing good to hide under, perhaps?