Someone apparently did the theme of the IWD Ice Museum thing in RealLife (TM) to horrifying results.
Ygramul
Member Posts: 1,060
"Anger as Japanese skating rink freezes thousands of fish into ice as gimmick"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/28/anger-as-japanese-skating-rink-freezes-thousands-of-fish-into-ice-as-gimmick
compare this with the well known IWD scenery:
http://www.sorcerers.net/Games/IWD/Walkthrough/chapter5/museum1.php
At least the visitors were not attacked by Ice Salamanders. Perhaps, that will be the next step.
5
Comments
People is free to do what they want with their money, but probably some people is too rich or bored if they give money to help digging holes in the ground or destroy diamonds just for fun.
About the pool with frozen fishes inside I did not appreciate it as I am a vegetarian. And I am so not only because I think that is more healthy, mainly because I don't like to see animals killed and I don't want to contribute to the massacre. But I find silly that probably most of the people who complained about the pool is not vegetarian, they complain if some fishes are frozen inside a pool but they are quite happy to eat their sushi. Or they waste food because they eat much more than what they really need or buy much more than what they can eat.
In a world where a lot of people is starving.
Nope. No thoughts. I got nothing.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=F4efZIHtiQQ
Well, I eat every month thanks to Japan so I'm going to stop there
We can eventually debate if the place of humans in that circle is to eat animals. If we compare the digestive system or the teeth of humans with the one of the real carnivore species probably not, human is frugivorous. But if we see how humans was so successful competing with other species we must admit that, even if is not the place in the circle of life he was evolved to, the human being is not bad at all as carnivore.
Anyway being vegetarian is my choice, I hope that in the future the human specie will become so, and also that it will find a better role in the circle of life as a whole, now I see it as a cancer that is causing the extinction of many other species, is polluting the planet and is even cruel within is own specie like no other specie in the planet, no other specie uses the systematic mass assassination that we call war. Is my choice, but I don't want to impose it to other people, I only told that I find silly that people who have no problems in eating fishes have problem in seeing them frozen in a pool to the extent to have that pool closed.
*EDIT* You know, I don't think hypocritical is the right word here. For the life of me, I can't figure out how to properly articulate my thought here. Apologies.
I think that there was a misunderstanding, maybe due to my knowledge of English language that is not perfect. I did not want to be not respectful to those who are not vegetarian and eat fish or meat.
However, I am uncomfortable about a large amount of food being wantonly wasted instead of eaten. I therefore find that Japanese ice-rink's stunt rather offensive, even though they actually froze fish which were already dead.
I hope that makes you feel better
Omnivores have more options for eating. While that sounds kind of smarter, it also is not. If a species specialises to a diet then evolutionary it will get by just fine with a simple constant diet. Just... they should not end up like pandas
I respect your right to be a vegetarian, and ask that you respect my right to eat meat. And whale
[to the tune of Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall (part 2)"]
We don't need no conservation,
We don't need no food control,
No dark sarcasm in the forum;
Vegans, leave them kids alone!
Hey, Vegans! Leave them kids alone!
All in all, it's just another fork in the whale;
All in all, you're just another fork in the whale.
I just hope that amusement park's staff and sponsors could take some of that fresh, frozen fish back home. One should never waste good food like that.
About whales my opinion differs from yours, I believe
The border between what should be allowed and what should be forbidden is set by the damage that an action cause. If I want to go naked in the street I cause no damage to anyone so I should be free to do it (but in many places it is forbidden), if I take a gun and I kill you I cause damage, and that should be forbidden. In this modern world we have the power to operate changes in the environment like it was never possible in the past. If I (person, group or nation) cause an environmental damage, like the extinction of species, an irreversible pollution, an irreversible climate change, I damage the environment and damage the future generations. We inherited a relatively clean world, rich of resources, to use those resources is inside our freedom, to deplete them is outside our freedom.
So, and that is just my opinion, if you create a whale breeding farm then to eat those whales is your right, is inside the limits of your freedom. But hunting the few whales that still live free in the oceans is outside your freedom, you create damage to the environment and to the future generations, a damage that when is done can not be recovered.
Using and depleting resources being inside or outside of our freedoms is wholly your construct. We in the west have had centuries were we are free to deplete or otherwise destroy our environment. Our relative affluence is a result of that. There are other parts of the world that had not be as fortunate, and now, as they are about to make that jump in affuence, we are telling them that they are forbidden to do so. That is hardly fair.
As for the whales, it really depends on which whale you are talking about. Certain species are on the endangered list and should be looked at carefully, but the likes of the minke have been taken off that and for good reason. It is like the salties here in Australia. They WERE an endangered species. Nowadays, you had better not go for a swim in the billabong in the north unless you don't want to come home.
What a lot of the activists don't seem to realise or just plain refuse to concede is that animal populations recover, and can recover fairly quickly. Just because an animal was once on the endangered list does not mean they should be there forever.
But I get what you are saying.
In RL the things work differently, you have
We all know that a part of Ukraine is polluted by radioactivity, we also know from what happened in Japan
that is possible that it will happen again, no matter how much care is put in avoiding it, an earthquake or a war, if not an human error, can cause it again. That area is lost for many future generations, it can happen again somewhere else. I can believe that to play with a such dangerous technology is outside the freedom that nations and corporations do with the land and resources, in the potential interest of the future generations, but I have not enough power to defend the interest of the future generation or my nation, that had opt out of nuclear energy production, has not enough power to impose its choice to other nations. Probably if my nation where the world's superpower it will have more power, but maybe even so not enough to do it.
As a single person I can not even defend my freedom to walk naked in the streets, even if I don't damage anyone doing it.
In RL there are not things like freedom and rights, there is only power.
About climate changes and science I must say that science is always an approximation, never a truth. Let's think of atom indivisibility. The fact that climate change is due to human activity has not been proved by science, or better not all scientists agree about it. But is also not proved, or not agreed by all scientists, that is not so. And the consequences of climate change can be devastating and the consequences for the future generations can be really harsh. But we have a whole long topic that debates about that, doing it here is quite OT.
My point is only that changes happen, and is not so relevant if we, or the scientists, agree on the causes.
My opinion is that until there is a wide agreement on the nature of the real causes we don't have the right to act as if human inducted causes are not relevant.
About species extinction often the reason is in the changes in the environment that we do, direct hunting is a far less frequent cause, but it had happened.
We inherited the world from the past generations and is our duty to give it to the future generations at least in the same condition, if not better. I am afraid that we are not doing so.
And again that is just my very personal opinion.
Would keeping things the same really benefit future generations or would it doom them because you removed the stresses and triggers that would cause species to adapt and therefore what is required down the road never existed in the first place? The answer is: we don't know. We cannot as we can't tell the future on that scale. As such, I discard that as an argument straight away.
A clear example of this dichotomy of thoughts is the very question of nuclear power. Nuclear power gives abundant, relatively clean, relative cheap power for all. It can quite literally put the entire fossil-fuel industry out of business, with all of the mining, pollution, CO2 emissions, and everything that the greenie movements have been moaning about for the last 30 years. To me, it is a nobrainer to adopt it, especially in a place like Australia which has abundant deposits of uranium. But, the greenies are also against it. Why? Well, for people like you, perhaps, the feelgood factor. Nuclear is bad, it is Evil, look at Chernobyl! But for those higher up in the greenie movement, widespread adoption of nuclear power would destroy a multi-trillion dollar industry. It would dry up their grants, destroy their jobs, demolish their powerbase. The UN itself would be badly affected if the problem of CO2 pollution is solved.
There is no scientific case for nuclear power being bad in any way, shape or form, at least not on the scale that the greenies claim. Nuclear weapons, yes. Power, no. Look at the stats of Chernobyl: between 100,000-200,000 babies aborted, 1250 suicides, all from the scaremongering of greenies. Actual death attributed to the explosion and subsequent spread of nuclear material over Europe? Less than 50. Let us take the easy number of 50, which is in between the two. In other words, the scaremongering from the activists caused between 2025 to 4025 times the deaths of the actual incident.
THAT, to me is the greater tragedy.
You tell " nuclear power gives abundant, relatively clean, relative cheap power for all. It can quite literally put the entire fossil-fuel industry out of business, with all of the mining, pollution, CO2 emissions", I answer no nuclear power and no fossil power please, at least to the present level of use. Mankind has done well for centuries, without all that power, it give us cars but compels us in using them spending hours of our day driving and polluting instead of walking with our own foots shorter distances. It give us obesity, disease unsatisfaction. I am a granpa, but I remember when I I was teen and my grampa told me how when he was young the people was less rich but much happier. And a lot of time has passed from that moment, now I see that the people is even less happy. in my "civilized" country I don't see people smiling in the streets, in their faces I see only anxiety and unsatisfaction. But I had seen a lot of people smiling and caring of each other in the poor rural india, outside the tourist routes.
You talk about the the feelgood factor, I also talk about it. But not as a way of clean our rotten civilized consciences, as a way to feel really better in as completely different world. And I am not advocating a return to middle age, we can use the knowledge that now we have, we can use it in a completely different way, I don't like the way we use it now, imo material evolution is not real evolution, even if some material evolution is needed to have the real one.
And again this is only my personal opinion, I don't want to impose it to anybody. People who have a completely different opinion impose on me their choices and, as there is freedom only if it is backed with power,
Where did my mackarel popsicles go?