Morally Opposed to Pet Ownership

Preface
--------------
Before beginning, I feel it important to explain what I mean when speaking of morality. I mostly ascribe to the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant. His views on morals are frustrating to most, but I’ll do my best to explain his most basic premise as succinctly as possible.

Kant believed that morals were individual, specific to each person. Only after intense consideration should a person commit to a moral. Once a person sets their moral code, any deviation from it is to be considered an immoral act. Others should not set morals for others.

Taking my leaning toward Kantian ethics into account, this blog post explains why I don’t have pets outside of a couple fish. Fish, ironically, are pets that I don’t mind keeping because the kind I get are generally short-lived when found in their natural habitat. Now, on to the post…

--------------------------
I'm morally opposed to pet ownership.

My moral opposition to pet ownership is a personal thing that I've told almost no one about because it makes me appear like a jerk.

While I do morally oppose pet ownership in general, it's not a morality that I would ever expect others to adopt. I do not criticize those who do not agree with my point of view.

The positive connection that pets of all sorts, even snakes and spiders, grant their owners is undeniable. It's been shown over and over again that humans benefit immensely from the symbiotic relationships they form with many of our fellow Earthly cohabitants.

Pet Ownership Weakens Species
--------------
From an evolutionary standpoint, I'm morally opposed to pet ownership because I feel it's greatly weakened other species.

Most of the genetic health defects that domesticated felines and canines suffer are a direct result of human-propagated breeding practices. We've selected those traits we prefer and bred for them. This is why we have such a wide breadth of physical appearances, or "breeds," of cats and dogs.

Ever notice how most mutts look alike? That's what dogs would look like if we left them to their own devices. In Mexico, there is a class of citizenry that serve as deep evidence of this. Canines that roam through most cities, towns, and villages who will befriend but rarely allow themselves to be turned into pets.

So many of the health issues that pets suffer are human-induced, resultant from everything from breeding practices to what we choose to feed them. Our most prevalent pets, cats and dogs, are not allowed to live as nature intended. They have become dependent upon human beings for their very survival.

Some pet owners go to great lengths to provide a diet that most closely mimics what they would get in nature. Most notable in these efforts is the raw food diet. But just as tanning lamps are okay in the short term for sun-deprived peoples, it's not an authentic long-term solution.

“Buried” Alive
--------------
This section is a little more gruesome and fantastical, but it wouldn’t be the first time a pet was to die because its owner died first.

• What would happen to all the pets of the world if humans were to all drop dead one day?
• Would they have been better off for having been cared for by owners?
• How would they escape the confines of their prisons so that they could hunt?
• Would they have the skills necessary to hunt for food?
• Would they die and wither alongside our unwatered houseplants?

Pet Ownership Is Slavery
--------------
Some believe that pet ownership is an assertion of domination over nature, that it's a form of slavery. From my perspective, I find the claim hard to dispute.

From cats to cows to chickens, we have domesticated creatures to serve us and ousted those too difficult to tame. That's a huge part of the reason that North American bison were almost completely eradicated. They weren't as easy to push around as cows.

Domestication is the very act of destroying a creature's natural birthright. Pet ownership and all its practices deny creatures their natural birthright. In the natural world, we are all born free.

Friendships over Pet Ownership
--------------
Like St. Francis of Assisi, I believe it is possible to form strong bonds with the creatures of the Earth without asserting our dominance. Personally, I have a truly rewarding friendship with the family of scrub jays who live in my neighborhood and all I had to do was talk with them.

Dogs Trip Me Up
--------------
Dogs are a rare exception to my moral opposition to pet ownership. Historical evidence dating back as far as 33,000 years ago reveals a natural companionship formed between man and canine.

Dogs chose to join up with human beings. But they didn't choose to be controlled. That was humanity's doing.

For myself, I occasionally consider seeking canine companionship because I love dogs. They are so personable and fun to be around. They make me feel good, and they are far more considerate than cats.

Too Much Unnecessary Responsibility
--------------
Then I stop myself when I think about what a great responsibility it is to take on a furry companion. There's the obvious need to feed and care for them.

While it makes me feel wrong inside to dominate others without their consent, I cannot tolerate those who do not teach their dogs discipline. I would feel obligated to break my dog’s natural urges because to live in society, cohabitants must follow some base rules.

Like no shitting wherever you please and no destroying others material goods and no willfully inflicting pain on others. If you're going to cohabitate with another species... well, you know the saying "When in Rome..."

A Persistent Stray Would Test My Morality
--------------
That's not to say that compassion wouldn't strike should an animal naturally come to me in search of care or companionship. I would love the creature and probably invite it to join our family.

Going out to seek an animal to blend into our family? That I can't do.

Tolerant of Others Pet Ownership
--------------
I'm not going to hold it against others who choose to engage in pet ownership. The fact is that pets like cats and dogs have been so deeply integrated into our societies that it behooves us to care for our cohabitants.

I could never start a campaign to end pet ownership. The emotional connections that form between pet and owner are so positive and rewarding for both.

As for me, I will be content to be without interspecies companionship.

Searchme.com Assessment — Part IV Conclusion

The following is the fourth and final part of my searchme.com assessment, a distinctly different search engine.

As someone with the right hard/software, I absolutely love searchme.com. The presentation of screenshots, embedded videos, and images in a rolodex style makes for a truly unique searching experience.

Site Screenshots Rock!
In particular, I enjoy seeing screenshots of sites before I visit them. This is a feature I’ve always wanted in a search engine. How often have you Googled a site, the details seem right, but when you visit the site, it’s crap or spam? The downside I see to this feature is that the screenshots work best for sites with less-frequent updates. Blogs might not serve up the most accurate screenshots. Which raises my next concern…

Blogs Rank Low
Very few, if any blogs appear in searchme.com’s results. Perhaps this is part of their approval policy. Blogs change so frequently that their authority is questionable. Google used to prefer static pages, taking the tack that sites that have been around for awhile with no updates and are linked to constitute authoritative sites. Whatever the case, bloggers of all types will probably not run to promote searchme.com, as we are the ugly stepchildren.

Questionable Ethics of Site Reviews
As mentioned in my first post, searchme.com employs a human-review process for all sites submitted to their list of available sites. Although I like that this removes the possibility of bots tricking the system, this raises some ethical concerns for me:

1. What are the criteria for “quality”?
You can spot spam and scams easily enough, but what about sites that offer quality information that is chockfull of typos. A curmudgeon would oust it immediately. But just because an author offers info written in text message format doesn’t mean the info is wrong or not quality. Then there’s the web design aspect. Do all the sites accepted by searchme.com have to adhere to a modern design, dumping any pages created with, say, the lackluster GeoCities software?

2. Where does this leave “adult” sites?
This question has plagued every search engine or social network since they became popular. Filters help in the acceptance of adult sites that don’t violate the more intensely illegal forms of pornography like pedophilia or bestiality sites. But, what of those sites that walk the line? Who makes the call?

3. Do the “giants” automatically get ranked higher?
I know that searchme.com is just getting started. Of course, they would opt to fill their search results with images from the ever-popular Flickr, YouTube, and Wikipedia. But, will searchme.com create an algorithm that produces organic search results that account for other sites besides the giants?

Overall, I give searchme.com highest marks and look forward to seeing how they progress over the next couple years. Check them out!

Wikipedia Has a Poor Privacy Policy?

The Complaint
Lilith eZine posted a list of complaints regarding Wikipedia's Privacy Policy and Practices. Their main issue is with how Wikipedia displays email addresses on contributor profile pages. They have called for as many people as possible to email Wikipedia to ask them to change their privacy policy.

You can read their full article here.

If you even mildly agree with their points, I implore you to join them in their campaign.

Public Info Equals Credibility
Wikipedia is distinctly Web 2.0. This latest evolution of (world) culture is all about opening up, in creating discourse. If you have a problem with a contributor's views, or if you are beefing over what they present as fact, their contact information allows you to speak your mind.

Discourse and the presentation of "knowledge" should never be one-sided.

Public Info Invites Abuse
Of course, as with any website in general, you are bound to be subjected to spam and cons. It's not Wikipedia's fault that outsiders abuse their policy of openness. It is a risk that the contributor takes when they step up and speak their minds.

To use the example of Lilith eZine's organization: They receive so much hate mail that they have dedicated a blog to posting it all. If they didn't post their contact information, they wouldn't receive most of those letters. That was a risk they took in posting their contact info.

I dare say that this is a necessary risk, too. It's all about credibility. Media groups do it all the time - from listing the authors of articles to providing contact info. If you're not willing to step forward and say "I did this!" then you've lost credibility.

Wikipedia's Privacy Policy Is Clear
In regards to posted email addresses, the Wikipedia privacy policy says:

"You may provide your e-mail address in your Preferences and enable other logged-in users to send email to you through the wiki. Your address will not be revealed to them unless you respond, or possibly if the email bounces. [...]You can remove your email address from your preferences at any time to prevent it being used."

So, according to this statement, contributors have the choice of showing their email address or not. In other words; if you correctly create a Wikipedia account, you should understand what you've gotten yourself into.

Does Wikipedia Really Encourage Pedophilia?
I hadn't ever read about the whole pedophile issue until Lilith eZine brought it up. Quite frankly, it didn't seem like it would be an issue. After all, how many minors are actually creating Wikipedia accounts? It didn't seem likely.

I Googled up some news stories and discovered that Wikipedia has indeed been referred to as "pro-pedophilia." A deeper investigation, though, shows that this is actually more of a propaganda war being waged between Perverted Justice and Wikimedia. It's all a bunch of "he-said, she-said" nonsense.

Wikipedia claims that if they receive reports of pedophilia that they investigate, and that they have no qualms in banning the offenders. Perverted Justice claims that Wikipedia protects the pedophilic offenders.

The few articles that I found were unconvincing. Many listed some of the youngster's profiles that contain offending comments. When I clicked on the links, lo and behold, the profiles were no longer in existence. If this isn't a sign of Wikipedia's commitment to stamp out the pedophiles from their system, I don't know what is.

Users Are Ultimately Responsible
It's a tough job trying to monitor tens of thousands of profiles. The beauty about the user-generated model is that it allows members to take action. Thanks to the help of flags, pedophiles have a more and more difficult time staying hidden.

All I have to say about the issue of making basic user info public is...
If you're not willing to step forward, to take responsibility for what you've written, you have no right posting to Wikipedia.

---

Once again, I encourage you to read Lilith eZine's article regarding this issue. If you agree with their argument, consider joining them in their campaign to ask Wikipedia to change their privacy policy.

Imagine thousands of emails all requesting the same thing. That's the power of the masses; that's the power of democracy!

A Follow-Up To: “Self-Created Legitimacy — Is It Ethical?”

Back in May, I wrote about an episode of “The Office” in which the former-temp-gone-executive, Ryan, has ordered the Scranton branch of Dunder-Mifflin to work late to place real-time orders into the newly launched corporate site. The purpose was to make the website appear like a legitimate usage of corporate funds.

In that post, I asked if this was ethical. No one bit and offered their take. I withheld my thoughts, but was glad to see that the writers were in my camp. Is it ethical to self-create legitimacy? The writers said no, as was apparent in their follow up to Ryan’s decision: he was arrested.

Review of the Amazon Kindle

Amazon offers a wireless reader device that they call the Amazon Kindle. This device can download books from Amazon and newspapers/ magazines for reading in under a minute. It weighs a mere 10.3 ounces, which is less than most paperbacks. Supposedly, it has a screen that looks like paper, instead of a computer monitor. It sells for $359.

Now, for the controversy...

The Self-publishing Conspiracy
Earlier this year, Amazon decided to only allow self-published books that use their self-publishing / print-on-demand service, BookSurge, to be sold on the site. (Click here to "sign" a petition to block this move by Amazon.) This, of course, was a major blow to the huge variety of self-publishing services out there. After learning about their reading device, I'm now certain that the Kindle may have had some heavy influence on the decision. It may be less malevolent than appears on the surface though.

Maybe Amazon was more concerned that all the digital books they offer are compatible with the Kindle. You don't have this assurance when using multiple third-party offerings. Yet, I can't shake the suspicion that Amazon's decision is much more profit-oriented. After all, the average price they tout for books is "as little as $9.95." If you've ever shopped for books on Amazon, you know that this price is bit higher than the much lower average.

A Boost to Newspaper Sales?
On the news front, though, perhaps the Kindle may just revive the newsprint industry. The Kindle can subscribe to major newspapers, having your "paper delivered before you wake." In theory, this could prove a major shot in the arm for the newsprint industry, which continues to report plummeting profits, subscriptions, and ad sales. Certainly, material costs are removed with going digital, but news sites without RSS feeds and pay-to-read fees have witnessed drops in their readership also.

So, although this might work in theory, the fact is that people consume their news much differently these days. Those likely to subscribe to "The New York Times" already are not likely to flock to a digital reader, and those who are even remotely tech savvy know how to get their news for free.

Wikipedia Reigns Supreme
And for all you Wikipedia haters out there, the Kindle promises "free wireless connection to Wikipedia." Do you need the controversial nature of this spelled out? Due to the nature of how Wikipedia knowledge is established, via user-contributions, this is sure to stab at the heart of the academic or literati who have dubbed the fluid online encyclopedia "Crapapedia."

I won't debate the qualities and pitfalls of Wikipedia here, but the fact that the world's largest bookseller has included Wikipedia as THE source of reference material is sure to receive some heavy criticism.

The Kindle's Lack-Luster Look
Okay, I'm not sure how well the look of this device will go over with hardcore readers. Despite Amazon's claim that the screen has the look of paper, it is still one flat screen with no pages to fiddle with. It looks like little more than a PalmPilot or Blackberry.

Based on the video that I saw of it in action, the Kindle has chosen to display everything in black and white. Hey, Amazon! It takes more than displaying something monochromatically or choosing to use Times New Roman to make something appear more like printed material. Newspapers don't print in black-and-white because they prefer it; they print black-and-white because of cost. Give the pages some color, for crying out loud. I could, however, see how Trekkies would love this device.

How I Rate the Kindle
Without having used the Kindle, I can't speak first hand for its functionality. However, based on the video I watched, the Kindle is destined never to take off fully. It fails in gapping the tactile difference between printed books and digital ones. The pricing is not competitive with standard Amazon book prices. The lack of color is an unnecessary limitation on a device with so much more potential.

Looking from the outside-in, I give the Kindle a mere 2 out of 5 stars.

Some Questions for Kindle Users

• Have you used the Kindle?
• If so, how would you rate it?
• What merits have I neglected to see in this potentially progressive tool?

Self-Created Legitimacy - Is It Ethical?

A recent episode of "The Office" featured a distraught staff, distraught because they had to come in on a Saturday. The company website, Dunder-Mifflin Infinity, had extremely low sales. Ryan, the one-time temp now the boss, handed down the order for the staff to come in and enter unregistered sales via the website. Why? To create legitimacy for the site, to show it actually produced sales.

For me, this is obviously unethical. Now, forget about the fact that this stripped commissions from those in the office who originally sold the product. Ryan is creating false numbers, in essence, cooking the books.

This got me thinking about websites that launch and create a bunch of "example" profiles. At first, it is a terrific way to set the model for future members. But at what point does the creation of system accounts that pose as actual members become unethical?