33 replies to this topic

[11.11.00]

Trigger warning: Animal Cruelty, do not click the links if you do not want to see animal cruelty. However, I included them because the creator of these videos is a prominent figure in our hobby

 

Recently I saw the tiktok of a popular US based ant dealer who had videos of his ants live feeding a scorpion and attempting to live feed a tarantula (probably purchased from a pet store). I do think that this is wrong and unnecessary cruel but where should the hobby draw the line between providing protein for our pets and killing another life? 

 

Personally, I believe that feeders should be prekilled and only insects bred as feeders should be used as such. 

Edited by 11.11.00, January 3 2022 - 6:55 PM.

[ReignofRage]

This seems like a nice species journal.

[Manitobant]

Attagarrett is already quite a controversial figure in the hobby, having been accused of scamming as well as potentially forging permits. It honestly doesn’t surprise me that he would do this.

[KadinB]

Great..... more drama......

[Zeiss]

Oh no, feeding ant colonies living things they could come across in the wild, what a terrible thing.

 

I get the same stuff from some people when they figure out I feed my snake live mice.

Edited by Zeiss, January 3 2022 - 6:33 PM.

[11.11.00]

Oh no, feeding ant colonies living things they could come across in the wild, what a terrible thing.

 

I get the same stuff from some people when they figure out I feed my snake live mice.

is that a flex or something?

[Zeiss]

 

Oh no, feeding ant colonies living things they could come across in the wild, what a terrible thing.

 

I get the same stuff from some people when they figure out I feed my snake live mice.

is that a flex or something?

Yes.  Absolutely.

[PaigeX]

Oh no, feeding ant colonies living things they could come across in the wild, what a terrible thing.

 

I get the same stuff from some people when they figure out I feed my snake live mice.

I know at least some snakes won't eat dead/thawed out mice so I understand that one. but with ants... it takes a long time for the feeder bugs to die, mice die way faster.

Edited by PaigeX, January 3 2022 - 7:03 PM.

[eea]

there's also this video of this guy feeding his pet wasp to his ants

Edited by eea, January 3 2022 - 7:05 PM.

[11.11.00]

 

Oh no, feeding ant colonies living things they could come across in the wild, what a terrible thing.

 

I get the same stuff from some people when they figure out I feed my snake live mice.

I know at least some snakes won't eat dead/thawed out mice so I understand that one. but with ants... it takes a long time for the feeder bugs to die, mice die way faster.

 

I understand feeding live mice to snakes such that they won't starve, but otherwise, it is pretty looked down upon in the reptile hobby. Not only because of a more painful death, but because of the dangers of a live struggling prey and it is far from natural as the mouse or tarantula/scorpion does not have a route to escape its respective predators which refutes the wild argument. 

Edited by 11.11.00, January 3 2022 - 7:36 PM.

[ANTdrew]

I’ve spoken against live feeding ants on this forum for years. It is unnecessary, borderline cruel, and a good way to get mites into your colony. Don’t do it.

[11.11.00]

I’ve spoken against live feeding ants on this forum for years. It is unnecessary, borderline cruel, and a good way to get mites into your colony. Don’t do it.

Yep, couldn't have been better said

[SleepyAsianAnter]

Personally I feel like this is a non-issue, bugs are bugs. It's holds much less weight than live-feeding mice to snakes or feeding feeder-fish to turtles. In the end, do as you like, if you feel it's cruel, then don't do it.

 

It's up to you how you feed your ants. 

[11.11.00]

Personally I feel like this is a non-issue, bugs are bugs. It's holds much less weight than live-feeding mice to snakes or feeding feeder-fish to turtles. In the end, do as you like, if you feel it's cruel, then don't do it.

 

It's up to you how you feed your ants. 

Why would you think it holds less weight? Just curious. 

Especially given that like vertebrates, bugs can also feel pain

[SleepyAsianAnter]

 

Personally I feel like this is a non-issue, bugs are bugs. It's holds much less weight than live-feeding mice to snakes or feeding feeder-fish to turtles. In the end, do as you like, if you feel it's cruel, then don't do it.

 

It's up to you how you feed your ants. 

Why would you think it holds less weight? Just curious. 

Especially given that like vertebrates, bugs can also feel pain

 

For one, mice and fish are much more evolutionarily developed than the drosophila experimented on in the article you quoted, their nervous systems are far more complex. This of course means that the "pain" drosophila feel when "wounded" is likely extremely different from the sensation of pain that you and I would feel. The average fruit fly has 200,000 brain cells, the average human has 86 billion. 

 

Secondly, they are literally bugs, what you would classify as pain is likely nociception, the avoidance of harmful factors. This is a reflex, not a feeling.

 

Lastly, at the risk of sounding speciest, to me (I can't speak for everyone), I literally do not care if a fruit fly suffers for 20 seconds while being hunted, it happens billions of times per day all around the world. I eat meat, I acknowledge that in order to eat meat, an animal is executed (quite painfully) in a slaughterhouse somewhere.

 

[sirjordanncurtis]

In order to arbitrate the debate proposed in this thread, we have to first concretely define what it means to be aware in our infinitely complex universe. From a monist perspective, human sentience is the emergent property of the composite minute chemical interactions within our brains.

 

Bruno Latour proposed viewing the world as a network of infinite actors, all exerting influence on one another. His theory echoes Einstein’s model of a causal web connecting every object in the universe. If human consciousness is the result of our interactions, then what makes a fruit fly or a cockroach, or even a rock or a UV ray any less conscious than we are?  They are created by forces that, on a universal scale, are just as numerous as the ones that shape us. Panpsychism, the concept that consciousness is an inherent property of matter, has recently gained traction within scientific communities, and highlights the importance of how we should evaluate significance within the situation of live-feeding.

 

Because all matter is universally conscious, it doesn't make sense for us to take part in any disturbance of nature at all. We should never feed ants anything because we'd be disturbing the inherent consciousness of the universe. It's pretty clear that ANY FEEDING of any kind has great negative consequences and should be abolished within the ant-keeping community.

Edited by sirjordanncurtis, January 3 2022 - 8:35 PM.

[11.11.00]

 

 

Personally I feel like this is a non-issue, bugs are bugs. It's holds much less weight than live-feeding mice to snakes or feeding feeder-fish to turtles. In the end, do as you like, if you feel it's cruel, then don't do it.

 

It's up to you how you feed your ants. 

Why would you think it holds less weight? Just curious. 

Especially given that like vertebrates, bugs can also feel pain

 

For one, mice and fish are much more evolutionarily developed than the drosophila experimented on in the article you quoted, their nervous systems are far more complex. This of course means that the "pain" drosophila feel when "wounded" is likely extremely different from the sensation of pain that you and I would feel. The average fruit fly has 200,000 brain cells, the average human has 86 billion. 

 

Secondly, they are literally bugs, what you would classify as pain is likely nociception, the avoidance of harmful factors. This is a reflex, not a feeling.

 

Lastly, at the risk of sounding speciest, to me (I can't speak for everyone), I literally do not care if a fruit fly suffers for 20 seconds while being hunted, it happens billions of times per day all around the world. I eat meat, I acknowledge that in order to eat meat, an animal is executed (quite painfully) in a slaughterhouse somewhere.

 

 

Thanks you for your thoughts. I respect your opinion 100%, I just wanted to correct you about the second point. The study's significance was that the study proved that the pain the fruit flies felt was beyond nociception - the reflex of avoiding painful stimuli. The pain the fruit flies felt was long lasting which differs from reflex which is instantaneous.

Edited by 11.11.00, January 3 2022 - 8:44 PM.

[DDD101DDD]

 

In order to arbitrate the debate proposed in this thread, we have to first concretely define what it means to be aware in our infinitely complex universe. From a monist perspective, human sentience is the emergent property of the composite minute chemical interactions within our brains.

 

Bruno Latour proposed viewing the world as a network of infinite actors, all exerting influence on one another. His theory echoes Einstein’s model of a causal web connecting every object in the universe. If human consciousness is the result of our interactions, then what makes a fruit fly or a cockroach, or even a rock or a UV ray any less conscious than we are?  They are created by forces that, on a universal scale, are just as numerous as the ones that shape us. Panpsychism, the concept that consciousness is an inherent property of matter, has recently gained traction within scientific communities, and highlights the importance of how we should evaluate significance within the situation of live-feeding.

 

Because all matter is universally conscious, it doesn't make sense for us to take part in any disturbance of nature at all. We should never feed ants anything because we'd be disturbing the inherent consciousness of the universe. It's pretty clear that ANY FEEDING of any kind has great negative consequences and should be abolished within the ant-keeping community.

 

 

Would you consider human activities(ex: building cities, blowing up stuff) to be part of that natural setting? Why or why not? 

[Leptomyrmx]

I usually wouldn't feed live food to my ants, perhaps with something like Myrmecia I might, since they're very large, have a stinger, and generally kill their food quite quickly. I'd only really do that as a last resort if they get fussy though.

There are also some ant species that kind of 'dislike pre-killed food'. I'd probably give species like that smaller things like fruit flies.

[sirjordanncurtis]

 

 

In order to arbitrate the debate proposed in this thread, we have to first concretely define what it means to be aware in our infinitely complex universe. From a monist perspective, human sentience is the emergent property of the composite minute chemical interactions within our brains.

 

Bruno Latour proposed viewing the world as a network of infinite actors, all exerting influence on one another. His theory echoes Einstein’s model of a causal web connecting every object in the universe. If human consciousness is the result of our interactions, then what makes a fruit fly or a cockroach, or even a rock or a UV ray any less conscious than we are?  They are created by forces that, on a universal scale, are just as numerous as the ones that shape us. Panpsychism, the concept that consciousness is an inherent property of matter, has recently gained traction within scientific communities, and highlights the importance of how we should evaluate significance within the situation of live-feeding.

 

Because all matter is universally conscious, it doesn't make sense for us to take part in any disturbance of nature at all. We should never feed ants anything because we'd be disturbing the inherent consciousness of the universe. It's pretty clear that ANY FEEDING of any kind has great negative consequences and should be abolished within the ant-keeping community.

 

 

Would you consider human activities(ex: building cities, blowing up stuff) to be part of that natural setting? Why or why not? 

 

 

I was mostly being satirical. My point was that it doesn't make sense for us to be attempting to use the scientific conclusions like the ones mentioned above to form ethical arguments or call someone out for acting, in your own opinion, morally ambiguous. Sure, it still makes sense to be discussing the implications of science, but not in a manner where we're certain to never reach any actual agreement or change anyone's opinions.