|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.25.11.220
In Reply to: RE: Ivory Affidavit of Origin posted by Vinyl Valet on May 08, 2015 at 14:55:48
It doesn't matter to me how old the ivory is. It came from an elephant, and an elephant died because it had tusks. I find that repulsive.I have done a great deal in support of elephants and the fact they they are, along with all large herbivores, on the way to extinction greatly saddens me. I have also investigated considerably their cognitive abilities and the neural underpinnings of those abilities.
In terms of intelligence, I very much question your statement about pigs. On what evidence do you base your claims about pigs?. I teach a cognitive neuroethology course and, although pigs are, indeed, quite intelligent, their cognitive ability is unlikely at the level of that exhibited by elephant.....though they may compete with dogs. Yes, domestic pigs are terribly mistreated, but the biological, psychological, and social devastation heaped on elephants because of poaching is a very different matter.
The piano in question is remarkable, and clearly a remarkable work of love. I appreciate that. But, regardless of its aesthetic or economic worth, to me, I'd rather see the ivory alive and well and wandering the savannas of Africa.
Edits: 05/08/15 05/08/15Follow Ups:
I appreciate what you are saying and respect you as a person. At least, unlike some others, you put your money where your mouth is and are speaking from experience. Seeing one species after another go extinct over the course of my life greatly saddens me as well.I did a quick internet search and found a variety of results (there is still much debate among scientists, some that would disagree with you) but in most cases pigs, elephants and dogs are near the top under the obvious chimps, orangutans, etc and dolphins. This is obviously more than a passing interest for you, so I will defer to your knowledge and stand corrected. I also strongly agree with you; any endangered species should never be compromised under any circumstances. I believe we are both on the same page here. We both do whatever we can do and hope our actions are making an impact.
With that said, Glen took great pains to obtain legal ivory from animals killed many decades ago, prior to environmentalism and when elephants were relatively abundant, and used it for what I consider a noble cause. And I want to make it crystal clear; the restoration of this piano had zero impact on elephants currently living on the savannas of Africa.
Now here's the realist rather than the idealist speaking. I'm guessing if you had your way, you would collect and destroy, if possible, what I'm guessing is a fairly large inventory of old, legal ivory. I hope you realize that if this would occur, a certain demand for ivory would continue exist, right or wrong. Now with the old ivory inventories gone, the price of ivory would skyrocket and the slaughter of remaining elephants would go up proportionately. Basic supply and demand. Basic capitalism. Hopefully, since ivory is no longer pc in much of the world, this remaining old inventory of ivory will be here for a long time, reducing the demand for illegal, live ivory. This isn't my area of expertise, so if I'm wrong on this, please correct me.
What I don't understand though, are those that will pick one animal to protect and ignore, through their actions, other animals of roughly equal intelligence or even dumb animals that are suffering even more and at a much greater scale. In my post above, I just mentioned the suffering of pigs. What I didn't mention is the enormous environmental impact of these giant US corporate pig operations as well as the human health impact from the massive amounts of drugs required to keep these animals alive in such horrible conditions, resulting in all kinds of problems for humans. These two other factors don't exist with elephants, so I think the corporate animal industry is a much bigger issue. By reducing our consumption of these animals or eliminating it all together, we can all make a difference. What I'm talking about here is the big picture.
BTW, the level of poaching and abuse of animals in Costa Rica really shocked and saddened me, not at all what I expected. I learned a lot during our five years there and I could probably write a book about it. It's a very complicated issue, not at all black and white. So many variables. This experience really changed me especially what I experienced with NGOs and various "environmental" organizations, responsible directly or indirectly in many of these abuses.
Again, what I thought would be a fun discussion of a very interesting musical instrument has turned into something completely different, something that really took me by surprise. I am a silver lining guy though and on the bright side, I am getting a good eduction in the process. I really appreciate and admire folks like you; making sacrifices to do the right thing and educating others. I hope I am a better person for it.
Thank you.
Edits: 05/08/15 05/08/15
Well, given that I conduct neuroethology and comparative neuroanatomical research and know most of the other scientists that do this research as well, I feel safe in saying that most scientists I know would share my opinions about the cognitive abilities of elephants. Much less has been done on the neurocognitive abilities of pigs because, well, most neurocognitive research has been done on rodent and primates models. Rodents because they are easy to investigate, and primates because we are primates and are inherently anthropocentric. One can find anything one wants on the internet.
Comparing the plight of so-called wild (i.e., free) animals and a domesticated animal is a bit of a false comparison, and just because one is mistreated doesn't mean it is acceptable to mistreat another. Bottom line: humans, as a species, just don't care about any species, including their own--and that's the big picture, dire as it is.
Of course, all of this has nothing to do with music or being an audiophile. I don't object to the existence of the piano in question, and I do appreciate its restoration--such musical instruments are, in my mind, incredible inventions and are, indeed, remarkable testaments to the importance of music in human society. But, I want nothing to do with anything that has part of an elephant body in it. That's a personal decision. But that decision is independent of other environmental perspectives I might have, or other hypocritical decisions I might make. Each of us chooses particular causes and does what we can and not everyone is going to agree--indeed, look at how "normal" people view audiophiles! We're an odd group with odd values, but we do tend to very much appreciate music (or at least some kinds of music).
I don't have a problem that you picked a single species to make a difference. At least you are doing something rather than talking about it. My approach is more broad. To each his own.I'd like to point out that most scientists agree on the benefits of psychotropic drugs. The public has accepted this, in part, because the experts told them so. The scientists point to their studies as proof. But it turns out the studies are designed to skew the data in their favor. Who are paying these scientists? What would happen to their careers if the opposite were true? Then the doctors (psychiatrists) tell their patients they have a pill(s) that will cure what ails them. The patient accepts this without question. The doctors are the experts and the pill(s) are an easy solution requiring no more effort on the patients part to get well. These doctors spent a lot of time (12 years or so) and money getting their degrees and they always point to that when challenged. How could a lowly engineer like myself (we all know how to lie with statistics) know more than they do? Anyway, see the link below. You might find it interesting. I think it is one of the most important books, especially for parents, that most people will ever read. BTW, I spent months doing my own research in an attempt to refute the information in the book. I could not find anything significant.
I'm not implying that you or your colleges fall into this category. Just saying I don't automatically trust information from scientists and doctors anymore than you trust information on the internet.
Just one more thing. In Costa Rica we lived on a two kilometer white sand beach with incredible waves for surfing, one of my passions. This beach is also one of the main nesting beaches in Central America for the giant leatherback turtle, also quickly and sadly on it's way to extinction. Not as smart as the other animals we are discussing but still an incredible creature. We helped the rangers patrol the beaches at night and early morning to keep the egg poachers away. Being on this beautiful beach at night under a full moon watching these turtles, about the size of small car, come out of the water, dig their nests, lay their eggs, and return to the water is one of the most amazing things I have ever witnessed. Many well meaning people like yourself, with a passion just for this species, pour tens of millions of dollars into two US non-profit organizations that claim to be protectors of this turtle. In an attempt to keep a book size description of what is really going on down to a few sentences, all I will say is almost no money ever actually goes to the turtles. For example, an extra $100k a year would add enough additional rangers and provide maintenance and gas for the patrol boat they already have but has been sitting unused for years due to lack of funds and solve the poaching problem. Not a cent, during our five years there, went to this. Most of the money goes to their lawyers to keep people like me quiet. Notice, I didn't mention names; they have come after me in the past and I simply don't don't have enough money to fight them. Long story short, it's a land grab to one day build a giant, highly profitable eco resort. You dig deeper and see the huge salaries that go the the founders and administrators. My point is, be very careful if you are sending money to Africa. I've learned through this experience and others that what you see is usually not what you get. Hence leaving the US as an idealist and returning a realist.
Bottom line: in all the examples above, to get to the truth, just follow the money.
Thanks for taking the time to post and your patience in reading my replies.
Edits: 05/09/15 05/09/15
I am familiar with the issues you raise. I agree with most of what you said, but don't accept the argument that scientist are corrupt. There is overlap between pharmaceutical companies and scientific pursuits, but they are not the same thing. Staff scientists are not the same as academic scientists. Scientists also know what studies don't "prove" anything, unless one is talking about mathematical "proofs." Science works on the preponderance of evidence. Are there scientists that are swayed by their funding? Sure. But, in the end, faulty science will not prevail. To dismiss all of science, as some do (I'm not saying you do, just to be clear), because of flaws in the system is convenient.
That being said, however, these days, facts don't matter. See attached web page. Thus, despite the fact that the preponderance of evidence suggests that humans are adversely affecting the environment, these data will never change the minds of the climate deniers. So, what's the point of tying to convince someone--s/he will just become more entrenched in his/her mythology.
Poachers with helicopters and modern technology are a different type of breed than the single poacher trying to feed his/her family. The first is the result of capitalism and the greed of wealth, as you note. The other problem, perhaps even larger is human overpopulation--and this may be the root of all of the planet's problems, including those plaguing humans themselves. Humans have continually destroyed the habitat of different species so that they have nowhere to go. There are a couple of exceptions: cockroaches and corvids do quite well in human environments. But, most species don't fair so well.
Not sure what any of this has to do with audio.....and my apologies to those who have bothered to read this far.
First, I want to make it clear that no where did I say that all "scientist are corrupt".You did make an awesome point. The beginning of the end for the legitimacy of the current generation of psychotropics came about 35 years ago when clinical trial design and execution moved from the hands of academic scientists and universities to the hands of corporate scientists and for profit businesses and their minions, the paid psychiatrists (oh boy, here I go again, let the next onslaught begin). At that point, science went right out the window.
For the most part, I have the utmost respect for academic scientists but am always suspicious of corporate scientists and despise most psychiatrists (there are exceptions but they are very hard to find these days). Believe me, I know. I spent my entire career in the implantable medical device industry. I almost got fired on numerous occasions taking an uncompromising stand for quality against the managers, bean counters and corporate. For God's sake, we're dealing with lives here!
With that said, I am a firm believer in psychologists, therapists, counselors and alternative healers (at times I must suspend my logical mind) and the various modern talk therapies. Two of my all time favorite people and the reason I am alive today, are two very fine psychologists.
So thank you for pointing out that difference for others who may not be as knowledgable.
Edits: 05/09/15 05/09/15
I never claim you had said that "all scientists are corrupt"; in fact, I said the following: "To dismiss all of science, as some do (I'm not saying you do, just to be clear), because of flaws in the system is convenient. "
Now, once we solve all of the worlds problems, you think we can get to the difficult stuff, like how to improve a soundstage? Or, actually, back to the original post: how does the restored piano sound, especially compared to modern pianos?
"I am familiar with the issues you raise. I agree with most of what you said, but don't accept the argument that scientist are corrupt."
LOL, you are a good man. Yes, see other parts of this thread to feel my frustration.
It's not often I get to have a discussion like this with someone as intelligent as you and I'm enjoying myself. I don't care what anyone else thinks.
But yes, let's give it a rest. I've got to go anyway.
Thank you again from taking the time out of your busy schedule to have this conversation with me. I've learned a lot.
No need to lecture me about science and scientists. You are preaching to the choir. And I would never dismiss science and logic; it is the root of all my beliefs and arguments. But I do strongly disagree with you on one point.
"But, in the end, faulty science will not prevail." If we had the time and desire, using the psycho-pharmaceutical industry as an example and mental health treatments through the centuries in general, I could without a doubt, prove your statement wrong. As a matter of fact, faulty science has prevailed, time and time again, throughout the history of mental health treatment. You may enjoy another book linked below. I also have much personal experience to back up what I'm saying. But you're right, this isn't a scientific forum although I'm really enjoying this conversation with you. I love to be challenged by highly intelligent people like yourself. It's the only way for intellectual growth.
I agree 100% with your other comments. Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.
Is the the science that prevailed the the false application of the science? Those are two different things. If one only looks a short time periods, then one might think faulty science has prevailed, but if you look at science over hundreds of years, I think you will find that science marches along slowly and that many of the "trends", "faulty applications of science", etc. will fall by the wayside. I mean, we don't really do trephening or prefrontal lobotomies anymore. Many academic scientists are now questioning and exploring what effects different pharmaceuticals actually have. Time will decide what remains as true science. Where we are now in pharmaceuticals is different from where we will be 200 years from now, and that future destination will be the result of science over time, including overcoming numerous theories that fell by the wayside along the way.
Obviously, in most cases good science will prevail. Electrical engineering is a great example.
"I mean, we don't really do trephening or prefrontal lobotomies anymore." Wrong about lobotomies. The only difference is that we now do them chemically rather than surgically. Been there, done that.
"Many academic scientists are now questioning and exploring what effects different pharmaceuticals actually have." Thank God, that's why I love you guys!!! Europe is a great example. All their trials, say for SSRIs, were done by academic scientists, not paid corporate pharma scientists. That's why that class of drugs has not been approved in most of Europe. But they are handing them out like candy in the US and Russia and destroying countless lives. Especially horrifying to me is what we are doing to our children.
"Time will decide what remains as true science." That hasn't happened yet with mental health science, for several centuries (with one interesting exception that has nothing to do with science) to this very minute.
"Where we are now in pharmaceuticals is different from where we will be 200 years from now, and that future destination will be the result of science over time, including overcoming numerous theories that fell by the wayside along the way." Yeah, based on the trends from several hundred years to the present, that really scares me. Brave New World anyone...
Mental health science, and the field of neuroscience as a whole are very young. The Society for Neuroscience, for example, has only been around since 1969. And the brain is a rather complex thing to investigate--it's going to take a long while to try to figure out exactly how it works. We have come a long way, especially in the last 50 years, but there is a long way to go. And this is what makes neuroscience an interesting field of study.
Lobotomies (leucotomies) are surgical procedures, and were irreversible. Pharmacological treatment, of course, is not a surgical procedure, and is, for the most part reversible.
First paragraph: You guys are one of my only hopes in turning this mess around. Please carry on.
"Lobotomies (leucotomies) are surgical procedures, and were irreversible. Pharmacological treatment, of course, is not a surgical procedure, and is, for the most part reversible." Wrong. You are making the same mistake I made earlier regarding elephant intelligence; wrong assumptions without doing the proper research. It happens to the best of us. The neuroleptics and the newer class that suppresses both dopamine and serotonin (even worse), result in a whole host of permanent brain damage, all well documented with fancy scientific names but somewhat suppressed for obvious reasons. Unless you are doing the research yourself, I would strongly advise you to question all "conventional wisdom" on this topic. If you really want to dig in, try tracing any documentation you see back to the source, if it's possible. Almost all of it leads you to one place. If a "respected" physician (psychiatrist) is the author, the article was most likely ghostwritten by a phara and the physician paid a nice fee to put his name on it.
Well, the mistake here, that both of us are making is painting with broad strokes: we have not defined "pharmaceuticals" or "pharmacological treatments". That being said, no pharmaceuticals that I know of severe the corticothalamic and thalamocortical axons between the prefrontal cortex and the dorsomedial thalamus, which is the primary goal of leucotomies.
"Well, the mistake here, that both of us are making is painting with broad strokes: we have not defined "pharmaceuticals" or "pharmacological treatments".Wrong. I was specifically speaking of psychotropics in general and more specifically mainly neuroleptics, all of which I clearly mentioned earlier.
"That being said, no pharmaceuticals that I know of severe the corticothalamic and thalamocortical axons between the prefrontal cortex and the dorsomedial thalamus, which is the primary goal of leucotomies."
Trying to increase your credibility or confuse me with fancy scientific terms won't work. Of course the neuroleptics aren't physically severing anything. But you can achieve the same permanent damage chemically. The good scientists, like you, have in recent years done MRI studies on folks heavily dosed on neuroleoptics showing, over time, permanent shrinkage of the frontal lobes and swelling of the basal ganglia resulting in more psychosis, rather than less. Physical changes to the brain. These changes are permanent. They now have new medical names for the new conditions (permanent damage) caused by these drugs. For example neuroleptic-induced acute dystonia and neuroleptic malignant syndrome. Symptoms include akathisia, parkinsonism and tardive dyskinesia. I believe the last symptom was coined after the side-effects of the first generation neuroleptics were studied. There are other conditions and symptoms but I don't have the time or desire to list them all. And we're just talking about the neuroleptics and atypical anti-psychotics. We could have similar discussions regarding the SRRIs and newer class SRRNIs (anti-depressant class) among others.
Most disturbing to me, based on recent Medicare Part D data, of the top prescribed drugs, number four is Abilify (atypical anti-psychotic) and five is Cymbalta (SRRNI, latest generation anti-depressant). In addition, compare the cost of Abilfy to the surrounding medical drugs; the profits are over twice that of the others.
If you ask most people today to describe a schizophrenic, most will describe a zombie like person: shuffling around, swollen tongue hanging out, drooling, twitching and jerking, etc. Just watch any TV show or movie depicting the severely mentally ill and you'll see this The use of these drugs have been so prevalent in our society since the 1950s, what people are now describing are the effects of neuroleptics and second generation atypical anti-psychotics and have nothing to do with schizophrenia.
For brief time, the mid-80s, neuroleptics went out of favor when writings of Soviet dissidents and political prisoners started to leak out (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is probably the best known). Long story short: the Soviets were using the same drugs to torture their political prisoners that we were using to treat our mentally ill. In many cases we were using the higher dosages.
Also keep in mind that many of the severely mentally ill (many of which were, when they first entered the hospital, just mildly neurotic) got that way from the treatment, not the initial symptoms.
Now you may say that newer, superior, atypical anti-psychotics have now replaced the first generation neuroleptics. Just to save time, I would counter that this newer generation is even worse and will cite other scientific studies to prove my point. Also, it will be helpful to all reading this to understand the main reason most of the newer psychotropics are developed. With all pharmaceuticals, patents eventually expire and so do the obscene profits as the generics take their place. So to keep the shareholders happy, slight or major changes are made (as I stated earlier, the first generation neuroleptics only blocked dopamine, the new generation atypical anti-psychotics block both dopamine and serotonin), new patents are obtained and ka-ching. Helping the mentally ill live better lives is at the bottom of the list of objectives, if there at all. So now they discredit their previous "medical miracle" in order to sell the latest "medical miracle". And so on.
As long as you continue to make false or misleading statements, I will be compelled to call you out on it. I hope you are not as sloppy or biased in your research.
Really, like you suggested earlier, let's give this a rest. Although mentally exhausted, I always enjoy to be challenged intellectually and you have certainly done a good job there unlike a couple of the other respondees. For that I thank you and keep up the good work.
Edits: 05/13/15 05/13/15 05/13/15 05/13/15
"I thought the post would be interesting to most music lovers whether they play or not. Didn't think this would start a pissing contest. But then it is AA."
Yet, you're doing a pretty good job of turning your own thread into an off-topic pissing contest with Slapshot.
First, I consider my discussion with slapshot an intelligent discussion, unlike some of the other sub-threads which I was referring to. Of course, one would have to be intelligent to get that.
Second, no one is forcing anyone to read this. What's your problem? Don't like the content of this sub-thread?
Finally, I stand by what I originally said. I certainly did not start the hypocritical eco criticisms.
It's all so complicated. For example, it's easy for us to sit in our comfortable homes and point fingers at poachers. But I will tell you this with absolute certainty; if my wife and sons were starving and near death and my only means of saving them would be to shoot an elephant, I wouldn't hesitate, not for second. Unless we solve these underlying issues, the slaughter will continue. Yes, I know that many poachers are simply profiteers, no different than war profiteers; selfish, greedy people. And if we don't solve the underlying issues leading to their motives (unregulated capitalism), the slaughter will continue. I know this saddens both of us greatly, but it's reality.With that said, one of my main life philosophies is this: accept the things you can not change, change the things you can and have the wisdom to know the difference.
Current trends have the world, at least several of the most powerful countries, moving in the direction of a purer, unregulated capitalism where profit is king. In addition, we have a long way to go before we make a significant dent in world poverty. Being a realist, and believe me it breaks my heart, the endangered species are goners and more animals will find their way on to that list as time goes on. To me, that is the reality of it and I feel there is nothing I can do to change that. Now, I still admire folks like you that continue to try. But based on my philosophy above, I believe the thing I can change is the current corporate abuse of farm animals in the US. How? By what I put in my body and how I spend my money. This is the real power we all have. Forget about elections at the federal and state level. With the passage of Citizen's United, that's now a rigged game with the winner going to the highest bidder (another reason I am loosing hope).
You are good person trying to do all you can do. I believe I am the same. We have different philosophies and that is okay. There is no right or wrong here. The main thing is we are men of action, not just words.
I believe we can solve all the worlds problems with education. But there are forces much great than us, suppressing the truth and creating faulty education to suit their needs. I'm afraid they will win in the end as long as profit is the main motive.
And no, I'm not a socialist.
Edits: 05/09/15
BTW, for the record, I have never purchased nor do I own anything made of ivory.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: