> qualitative example, not something that can be directly compared enough to calculate some exact number
> like putting a human in a small 3'x3' box
Good thing you provided a number then? If you want to make a qualitative example, say "it would be like if a human lived in a heated swimming pool for the rest of its life" which is more accurate. Instead, you (and I think it's obvious you know what you're doing) throw out a number, then when you're demonstrated wrong, backpedal and say it was supposed to be qualitative.
> the orcas experience strong chemicals in the water
Do you think there aren't strong chemicals in the ocean? Salt is pretty corrosive. The ocean isn't exactly a homogeneous solution. There are a ton of pathogens as well, in fact most of them on earth live in the ocean.
> you do know that SeaWorld loans and sells orcas to places that often have far worse conditions than SeaWorld's
Yes, and that's a ringing endorsement for SeaWorld in my book. It means they are a leader in the care of these mammals. They actually have to participate in loan programs in order to be AZA accredited, which they are.
> I have no idea how one can do any research into the lives orcas live in captivity and feel anything remotely close to okay with it.
This is common among people who just haven't done much research on it. Marine mammal captivity is an important activity humans do in order to promote education, not to mention conservation (for species reintroduction or rehab in case of a catastrophe). It's a little unintuitive the same way that hunting (killing animals) supports wildlife preserves is unintuitive, but nevertheless there are good reasons we have these institutions and getting rid of them would be a huge mistake.
1. Then that should provide credence to their stances in your book. And yet they still supported SeaWorld?
2. That’s a statement that would hold true for any species and for conservation as a whole. In essence, denying the need for conservation in the first place. Ignorant of the daily catastrophe that’s happening in the wild.
The ocean is rapidly becoming uninhabitable for all kinds of life, orcas included. While we would previously expect a calf to live 60 years, that number is slowly dwindling and may accelerate in a downward direction. Contaminants like BPAs and BFRs are a big deal and already starting to have an effect in New Zealand on the orca population’s food supply.
I don’t know how you expect injured and rejected juveniles to survive outside of an artificial environment. Orcas are social animals, and they need a pod.
As far as stupid/evil, well believe what you like but I just believe in resilience. The same way we should have an arctic seed vault backing up seeds we should have a backup for different kinds of sea life.
> like putting a human in a small 3'x3' box
Good thing you provided a number then? If you want to make a qualitative example, say "it would be like if a human lived in a heated swimming pool for the rest of its life" which is more accurate. Instead, you (and I think it's obvious you know what you're doing) throw out a number, then when you're demonstrated wrong, backpedal and say it was supposed to be qualitative.
> the orcas experience strong chemicals in the water
Do you think there aren't strong chemicals in the ocean? Salt is pretty corrosive. The ocean isn't exactly a homogeneous solution. There are a ton of pathogens as well, in fact most of them on earth live in the ocean.
> you do know that SeaWorld loans and sells orcas to places that often have far worse conditions than SeaWorld's
Yes, and that's a ringing endorsement for SeaWorld in my book. It means they are a leader in the care of these mammals. They actually have to participate in loan programs in order to be AZA accredited, which they are.
> I have no idea how one can do any research into the lives orcas live in captivity and feel anything remotely close to okay with it.
This is common among people who just haven't done much research on it. Marine mammal captivity is an important activity humans do in order to promote education, not to mention conservation (for species reintroduction or rehab in case of a catastrophe). It's a little unintuitive the same way that hunting (killing animals) supports wildlife preserves is unintuitive, but nevertheless there are good reasons we have these institutions and getting rid of them would be a huge mistake.