Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26271766-20150608215432/@comment-109.175.232.192-20150610165213

Fleunapt wrote:

109.175.232.192 wrote: They have a lot of money and must know a lot of lawyers plus since the dinosaurs are cloned if the dinosaur dies from mistreatment then they can create another from the same or very similar DNA coding which could pass it off as the same animal or they may only show the well treated animals on inspection. i was referring to the fact that they feed the carnivores live animals Well Colin Trevorrow said in regards to Jurassic World that the sharks InGen used to feed the mosasaur were also cloned so at least in the updated park they seem to have employed the cloning techniques on present day animals so they could feed the creatures they keep. It may not be ethical that they purposefully clone animals that will be eaten it's no different to how present day livestock we eat today is bred I mean in terms of the animal been raised for slaughter so the fact that the animals are cloned so in theory InGen can make as many as they want as well as the purpose being they are bred for slaughter you can't really bring an action against them for that since they are made for a specific purpose and could rely on say for example a farmer breeding cattle to be butchered and sold for consumption it may be a cause for concern to some groups of people but to society as a whole it wouldn't be anything out of the ordinary if you take away the animals only source of food then you put that animal at risk as well which could be infringing another animals right. Whilst you could make a case of the prey animal being alive being unnecessary for that to occur InGen could just as well turn around and say that the dinosaurs need to be able to hunt and kill their prey and that if they fed them dead animals it would surpress their natural traits which could make them more aggressive amongst themselves as well as to their handlers. All in all if InGen is cloning animals for the dinosaurs to be fed you can't really make much of a case against them since they wouldn't be infringing any rights. If you wanted to pull them up on that sort of thing you would have to find evidence that InGen was mistreating the animals but since there's no evidence of that you couldn't really do anything about it. Having said that one possibility is an animal rights activist could focus on the sickly triceratops and how the growing of toxic plant life just because it looks "pretty" could be a direct result of the triceratops' condition and therefore shows a lack of concern about the animals which could prove mistreatment would probably be the only way that anyone could make a claim against InGen when it comes to animal rights.