• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best places on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! Community members will not see the bottom screen advertisements.

Animal Cruelty

Ragetendo

The Angry Italian
23
Posts
10
Years
True yet this also implies that plants (technically, they are alive) should be given the same respect as those to a human and, by extension, those who abuse, and I use the this term loosely, plants should be punished with the same degree of punishment as a human abuser would receive. That's not entirely plausible now, is it? But let's not delve into that as it is a different topic all in itself.

True, But you call still be respectful, Like when the Natives killed an animal they respected it and honored it by not letting its loss of life go to waste by using every part of it. Since I'm half Sioux i was raised to ALWAYS respect animals because we are all here sharing the planet.I eat meat but I'm very thankful to the cows. There are just some people who have no respect for other forms of life, I've seen people who would purposely run over animals if they were walking across the road. A big example is dog fighting, pitting dogs against each other to the death, because even if the dog doesn't die in the ring he is killed(very brutally) for simply losing. They do it for money but also for the "enjoyment"
 
2,138
Posts
11
Years
We must recognise, as a human species that we share this planet with millions of other types of lifeforms, and each hold their own individual interests. We never lived in a world that was made to formfit to our needs and no animal is inherently made to serve our needs. We are a species that evolved through adaptation, in a world that did not adapt to us. And now, at our heighest point, we've come to discover that we -can- make the world adapt to us, and the consequences have been horrifying. Never before did man eat so much meat, more than even is necessary to live a healthy life. More animals than ever are driven out of their homes, and are forced to adapt to us, a species that has no wish to adapt itself. We have ourselves, and a select group of animals we've deemed acceptable to take into our lives, and all other animals are resources, or eye candy for our zoos. Animals close to 10 billion are slaughtered every year in the USA alone. Meat production in the USA is comparable in size to that of the entirity of Africa. It is neither necessary, nor explicitly healthy to consume meat every day and historically, people didn't eat it everyday. We humans are omnivores, and even as a vegetarian I recognise that, and that my full abstention from meat-eating is purely personal, and should stay that way. However, we devour it like carnivores. Our unsustainable consumption has led to the most unbearable conditions in which our animals are kept. Factory farms are the very essence of what is wrong with the contemporary views on animal rights.

Why is it wrong inherently to cause animals pain when it is necessary for food production. The higher the US output of meat products, the cheaper the prices, and the fewer people who go hungry and more money for other living expenses. Actually, meat consumption to grain consumption is DOWN. More people are getting their calories from grain-based products despite the relatively recent introduction of grains in diet; thus, many people develop diabetes, Alzheimer's (type 3 diabetes) and celiac disease, just to name a few, due to the inefficiency of grain digestion for lack of time in the adaptation of our genes.

Meat, in hunting and gathering societies of the past, constituted 45-65 percent of their daily calories depending on which region we are talking about. It is much more difficult to sustain living on vegetables alone, because of the amount needed in order for sustenance (potatoes and other roots and legumes are not applicable, we only recently began eating those). Therefore, humans have more evolved genetics for meat digestion and plant-based foods health-wise and meat digestion is a viable supplement in a diet for the lack of caloric nutrients from vegetables alone, which is possible, but requires mass consumption and production. Though, not because of animal suffering, we should make reforms in order to prevent antibiotic and hormone use in slaughtered cattle in order to bolster human health and reduce health costs.

Animals eat each other every day. They tear into each others eyes and throat, before moving on to slaughter their victim's family and homes. Are these animals implementing animal cruelty? Yes, they are, but animal cruelty, as far as non-domesticated animals go, is not inherently wrong. Nor is it when a species goes extinct. It is what it is, natural selection; many animals are OVERPOWERED and DEFENSELESS and protecting them is not a necessary discourse, unless it serves man's needs. Man should do whatever is in his power to improve his life and ensure not only his existence but his thriving existence.
 
2,377
Posts
12
Years
  • Seen Aug 25, 2015
Sorry, Fenneking, I see that as cruel.People try and save endangered species because they shouldnt just be allowed to go extinct. I think that attitude is just cruel. Animals should not just be caused pain and suffering, they dont understand. They havent done anything to people. They just want to live as we do. I honestly think most animals ought to be left alone. If they need help, they should be helped as much as we can but honestly unless its absolutely nessesary to harm/kill an animal, it's better to just leave them be. I dont believe in merciless harming of other creatures, that dosent sit right with me.

There is probably a reason why people are eating less meat, and they shouldnt be forced to eat more if they dont wish to. I dont eat much meat, because I dont need to, sometimes I just prefer not to and that is ok. I can eat what I please and so can others.
 
2,138
Posts
11
Years
Sorry, Fenneking, I see that as cruel.People try and save endangered species because they shouldnt just be allowed to go extinct. I think that attitude is just cruel. Animals should not just be caused pain and suffering, they dont understand. They havent done anything to people. They just want to live as we do. I honestly think most animals ought to be left alone. If they need help, they should be helped as much as we can but honestly unless its absolutely nessesary to harm/kill an animal, it's better to just leave them be. I dont believe in merciless harming of other creatures, that dosent sit right with me.

There is probably a reason why people are eating less meat, and they shouldnt be forced to eat more if they dont wish to. I dont eat much meat, because I dont need to, sometimes I just prefer not to and that is ok. I can eat what I please and so can others.

Can you justify why we have a duty to not let a given species go extinct? Extinction is a natural process which has occurred since the beginning of time, long before humans existed. Extinction is necessary for other species to emerge and thrive. Cost to protect one species could is money taken away from the betterment of human society, and therefore diminishes our quality of life, especially to those that are struggling for sustenance.

Animals don't understand pain and suffering? They certainly do. It's a physiological response that motivates them to do that which will aid in their survival, they actually understand pain better than we do in that most primitive sense. Pain, to them, is a necessary defense mechanism.

People should not be forced to eat meat, and I never implied so. People are eating less meat because of consumerism, it's cheaper to produce chemically-altered grain products than it is to supply plant and meat based products, though at a long-term price. Long-term, one is better served to eat meat and plant products than they are to eat grains, which have not fully integrated into our digestion evolution as has meat. Since health care costs for obesity (therefore heart disease and stroke), diabetes (therefore heart disease and stroke), celiac disease, alzheimers are linked to insulin sensitivity and consumption of gluten/grains, people should not be eating chemically processed grains (unless you are of certain Eastern Dissent and have evolved to digest certain non-processed grains). Thus, one does not need meat, simply it is affordable to those who exercise healthy eating of meat and plant based foods, and need a supplement to plants. If you can afford to eat only plant-based food, more power to you. Humans should not eat as they please, since their individual behavior affects all of society in health costs, and early loss of life (taxpayers made an investment in education, etc.) Doing that in which is against the betterment of human life is against our natural order, which is to maintain substance and improve quality of life of mankind.

Our actions and behaviors should not be motivated on mere arbitrary sentiments that have no logical basis, there needs to be a logical basis that demonstrates how a behavior does or does not help the human race and the societies we live in; otherwise, we could be a detriment to mankind - the most ultimate evil acting against a natural order that all species prescribe to.
 
Last edited:

EGKangaroo

Tail-bumps for all 'roolovers!
398
Posts
12
Years
Why is it wrong inherently to cause animals pain when it is necessary for food production. The higher the US output of meat products, the cheaper the prices, and the fewer people who go hungry and more money for other living expenses. Actually, meat consumption to grain consumption is DOWN. More people are getting their calories from grain-based products despite the relatively recent introduction of grains in diet; thus, many people develop diabetes, Alzheimer's (type 3 diabetes) and celiac disease, just to name a few, due to the inefficiency of grain digestion for lack of time in the adaptation of our genes.

Meat, in hunting and gathering societies of the past, constituted 45-65 percent of their daily calories depending on which region we are talking about. It is much more difficult to sustain living on vegetables alone, because of the amount needed in order for sustenance (potatoes and other roots and legumes are not applicable, we only recently began eating those). Therefore, humans have more evolved genetics for meat digestion and plant-based foods health-wise and meat digestion is a viable supplement in a diet for the lack of caloric nutrients from vegetables alone, which is possible, but requires mass consumption and production. Though, not because of animal suffering, we should make reforms in order to prevent antibiotic and hormone use in slaughtered cattle in order to bolster human health and reduce health costs.

Animals eat each other every day. They tear into each others eyes and throat, before moving on to slaughter their victim's family and homes. Are these animals implementing animal cruelty? Yes, they are, but animal cruelty, as far as non-domesticated animals go, is not inherently wrong. Nor is it when a species goes extinct. It is what it is, natural selection; many animals are OVERPOWERED and DEFENSELESS and protecting them is not a necessary discourse, unless it serves man's needs. Man should do whatever is in his power to improve his life and ensure not only his existence but his thriving existence.
Personally, I find the conditions under which animals are killed in nature less abhorrent than the sufferable conditions under which they are kept in factory farms. I don't know how much you've seen of what happens there, but it's unnecessary and cruel. There are animals that are born with a roof over their heads and don't even get to see daylight. The artificial buzzing light is the only sun that exists for many animals that die there, and many of them do die, before even getting to the slaughterhouses, of diseases, of bones that break because they've gone brittle. The average time for a lion to kill a prey is somewhere around 5 minutes, more or less, if I am to believe footage times of documentaries. The average time for a human to kill his prey depends on where you say the killing process begins, which could be more or less debated over. If we say it occurs right from the time we start to hurt the animal, then we can say it happens from birth with a lot of animals, until they're ready to be slaughtered. In any way, it's more cruel than a lion killing a zebra.

While you have said that a high percentage of the paleolithic diet consisted of animal, you've failed to add to this that most of the calories came from seafoods, while the majority of the animals that we see are consumed today in the US are those of mammals and birds, primarily chicken, pork, and beef. Furthermore, the range in percentage of consumption of calories is far more diverse, even in paleolithic times, than you've represented. The Gwi people, who live in Southern Africa consumed only about 25% animal calories in their diet, and some inuit people have a percentage as high as 99% here.

Humans have adapted to their surroundings. People who live in polar regions simply need to eat lots of calories from animals because almost nothing in the form of plant life grows there. The Gwi in Southern Africa had much less animal calories to eat, but the general diet was still healthy. If a European were to have 99% of his calories consist of meat, we'd call him unhealthy, the people up north would disagree.

Meat consumption by itself is alright and natural, but where should we cap it? The Average Chinese used to consume 13 kilogrammes of meat on average in 1982, and the Chinese called beef millionaire's meat, because meat was a luxury product, something for special occasions. Today, it's somewhere up in the 40s, and it's still lower than the USA. Norwegians consume around 55 kilogrammes of meat yearly. Is 90 kilogrammes of meat eating yearly necessary to be healthy as an American? Unlikely. There are many cultures, even today, that do not consume meat in their everyday diet, or people who find their calories from seafood like from clams, shrimp, fish. One diet is not necessarily intrinsically healthier than the other, and it lies deep in the genetic differences between people, and we cannot exactly say that one diet is healthy for all. In fact, you made a very good argument with the grains, and the same argument can be applied for milk drinking, with the majority of the Asian populace being lactose intolerant, but plant-derived works, and there are many ethnic groups that could survive on a healthy diet of "meat once a week is totally fine".
 
2,377
Posts
12
Years
  • Seen Aug 25, 2015
Can you justify why we have a duty to not let a given species go extinct? Extinction is a natural process which has occurred since the beginning of time, long before humans existed. Extinction is necessary for other species to emerge and thrive. Cost to protect one species could is money taken away from the betterment of human society, and therefore diminishes our quality of life, especially to those that are struggling for sustenance.

Animals don't understand pain and suffering? They certainly do. It's a physiological response that motivates them to do that which will aid in their survival, they actually understand pain better than we do in that most primitive sense. Pain, to them, is a necessary defense mechanism.

People should not be forced to eat meat, and I never implied so. People are eating less meat because of consumerism, it's cheaper to produce chemically-altered grain products than it is to supply plant and meat based products, though at a long-term price. Long-term, one is better served to eat meat and plant products than they are to eat grains, which have not fully integrated into our digestion evolution as has meat. Since health care costs for obesity (therefore heart disease and stroke), diabetes (therefore heart disease and stroke), celiac disease, alzheimers are linked to insulin sensitivity and consumption of gluten/grains, people should not be eating chemically processed grains (unless you are of certain Eastern Dissent and have evolved to digest certain non-processed grains). Thus, one does not need meat, simply it is affordable to those who exercise healthy eating of meat and plant based foods, and need a supplement to plants. If you can afford to eat only plant-based food, more power to you. Humans should not eat as they please, since their individual behavior affects all of society in health costs, and early loss of life (taxpayers made an investment in education, etc.) Doing that in which is against the betterment of human life is against our natural order, which is to maintain substance and improve quality of life of mankind.

Our actions and behaviors should not be motivated on mere arbitrary sentiments that have no logical basis, there needs to be a logical basis that demonstrates how a behavior does or does not help the human race and the societies we live in; otherwise, we could be a detriment to mankind - the most ultimate evil acting against a natural order that all species prescribe to.
Many many animal species are on the brink of extinction because of human actions. I dont think they deserve that, when humans bring animals to that brin, it's not natural, I think they shouldnt just deliberately be made extinct. Animals undertsand pain and suffering but they do not understand why they are being caused that pain and suffering that in my opinion is why animal cruelty is wrong. Most animals are not detrimental to our species. They are simply trying to live. I do not think most animals even want to go near a person at all. The animals outside do not harm me nor do they even want to be near me at all. So I see absoluetly no reason to cause any harm to them at all. It dosent benefit me, heck I dont even squash bugs because I dont really feel the need to. Animals are not "evil and detrimental to humans" they are just creatures trying to live in the same world. I dont know where you're getting that from. Im of the opinion that if you do not need to harm an animal, it should just be left alone. I love animals and I think being needlessly cruel to them is wrong. Heck, I want a career where I can do something to help them, so Im certainly not advocating causing them suffering and pain.
 
2,138
Posts
11
Years
Many many animal species are on the brink of extinction because of human actions. I dont think they deserve that, when humans bring animals to that brin, it's not natural, I think they shouldnt just deliberately be made extinct. Animals undertsand pain and suffering but they do not understand why they are being caused that pain and suffering that in my opinion is why animal cruelty is wrong. Most animals are not detrimental to our species. They are simply trying to live. I do not think most animals even want to go near a person at all. The animals outside do not harm me nor do they even want to be near me at all. So I see absoluetly no reason to cause any harm to them at all. It dosent benefit me, heck I dont even squash bugs because I dont really feel the need to. Animals are not "evil and detrimental to humans" they are just creatures trying to live in the same world. I dont know where you're getting that from. Im of the opinion that if you do not need to harm an animal, it should just be left alone. I love animals and I think being needlessly cruel to them is wrong. Heck, I want a career where I can do something to help them, so Im certainly not advocating causing them suffering and pain.

Animals don't deserve to become extinct? What justification? Who's to say if an animal has an inherent right or deserves to be treated on way or the other. Creatures do not deserve anything inherently, the natural order only affords physical and mental attributes to a species, if not afforded certain characteristics and your species is prone to extinction, it will go extinct, other species will prevail. The cognizance, or lack thereof, of the intentions behind one's own suffering does not make an act of predation wrong inherently.

Mere existence of other animals does not in itself cause detriment to society, true, but the mere protection of animals in certain cases is a detriment to the thriving existence of humans. You have taken five words from my post and put them into a completely different context.

For instance, medical research is most efficient with animal testing. Certainly, protecting animals from animal research would hinder the research process of medical advancement and therefore cause loss of human lives if animal testing were otherwise employed. That is just one, of many reason as to why leaving animals alone can be a detriment to society.

It does not matter what the animal's will is, animals have a will to not die, that sometimes does not coalesce with human interests to thrive. Advocacy against the mere suffering and pain along is albeit without a substantive purpose that is not logically based on the betterment of human society. Acting against one's species or society, again is a breach of duty to natural order, ultimately causing pain/suffering to one's own species rather than other species.
 
Last edited:
14,092
Posts
14
Years
Can you justify why we have a duty to not let a given species go extinct?

Many species and plants possess a treasure trove of genetic and medicinal knowledge. Given how many poisonous/venomous animal species there are, would it not be pertinent to keep them around to synthesize antitoxins? I hope you don't go swimming and get stung by a Stonefish or if you come across a Black Mamba or a Rattlesnake. (And while you probably won't, there are millions of people that live in areas of the world populated by such creatures.) Or the hundreds of plant species that we use in medicines? That alone is impetus enough to save them, but there's also intrinsic value in saving biodiversity. I pity the generation that doesn't get to see amazing creatures like Polar Bears, or Tigers, or Rhinoceros in the wild, or at all.
 

Ragetendo

The Angry Italian
23
Posts
10
Years
I pity the generation that doesn't get to see amazing creatures like Polar Bears, or Tigers, or Rhinoceros in the wild, or at all.

Indeed at this rate they said wild tigers will be gone in about 20 years. I honestly love the policy that the game reserves have in africa that if seen in a restricted area its a shoot to kill policy.
 

Pinkie-Dawn

Vampire Waifu
9,528
Posts
11
Years
Indeed at this rate they said wild tigers will be gone in about 20 years. I honestly love the policy that the game reserves have in africa that if seen in a restricted area its a shoot to kill policy.

And if the tigers go extinct, than there will be no top predator to keep the herbivores at bay from overpopulating the area and destroy the vegetation. It's really important to not mess with the ecosystem because of the domino effect; If one is gone, then so will the rest. It will also bring a huge impact on humans, if we didn't have the technology to live in space, which will then lead to our own demise because of our constant abuse to animals.
 
2,138
Posts
11
Years
Many species and plants possess a treasure trove of genetic and medicinal knowledge. Given how many poisonous/venomous animal species there are, would it not be pertinent to keep them around to synthesize antitoxins? I hope you don't go swimming and get stung by a Stonefish or if you come across a Black Mamba or a Rattlesnake. (And while you probably won't, there are millions of people that live in areas of the world populated by such creatures.) Or the hundreds of plant species that we use in medicines? That alone is impetus enough to save them, but there's also intrinsic value in saving biodiversity. I pity the generation that doesn't get to see amazing creatures like Polar Bears, or Tigers, or Rhinoceros in the wild, or at all.

I made the distinction that the only reasons why we should intervene the extinction of a species is when it would negatively affect human life. Like bees for instance.

Though, some wild creatures do not possess any viable resource to mankind, other than sentimentality. Using resources to prevent the extinction of an animal that only poses a sentimental value should not have resources used to prevent its extinction when those resources could go to the prevention of a species that is viable to the betterment of mankind.

And if the tigers go extinct, than there will be no top predator to keep the herbivores at bay from overpopulating the area and destroy the vegetation. It's really important to not mess with the ecosystem because of the domino effect; If one is gone, then so will the rest. It will also bring a huge impact on humans, if we didn't have the technology to live in space, which will then lead to our own demise because of our constant abuse to animals.

Top predators become extinct all the time in history, before mankind existed. Another predator simply emerges. One species extinction, does not always, if ever, mean the extinction of an ecosystem in its entirety, nor the extinction of the human race.

Though poaching, could be considered a breach of duty, in that tigers are a resource, and therefore they do not have the right to shoot them freely.
 
Last edited:

Pinkie-Dawn

Vampire Waifu
9,528
Posts
11
Years
Top predators become extinct all the time in history, before mankind existed. Another predator simply emerges. One species extinction, does not always, if ever, mean the extinction of an ecosystem in its entirety, nor the extinction of the human race.

Though poaching, could be considered a breach of duty, in that tigers are a resource, and therefore they do not have the right to shoot them freely.

But killing off top predators to extinction at an earlier period of time would prevent new predators, who will take their place, from existing, which means overhunting can mess with the evolution process. We will never get another big cat species that descended from tigers if tigers are wiped out by human activity.

This is why alien civilization belittle us humans in movies, shows, and books because of our nature for violence despite our good intentions.
 

EGKangaroo

Tail-bumps for all 'roolovers!
398
Posts
12
Years
To be fair, an alien civilisaton, if they possess the technology to even get here, would have advanced far beyond the carrying capacity of their home planet in a kind of Malthusian catastrophe. Excessive use of energy, such as what would be required for fast enough aircraft for planetary migration to become feasible, without adequate disposal of heat, could make the planet unsuitable for the dominant life forms. They would have drained the planet of all of their resources and live a nomadic life by migrating from planet to planet that possesses carbon-based lifeforms and proteins to literally use as a refuelling station. Think War of the Worlds, except they'll be more likely to send AI-controlled robots first in fear of dying from extraterrestrial microbes making them ill.

The idea of an alien society that belittles humans for their own stupidity and themselves having all of these high ideals that most of us humans look up to as pure and righteous altruism is a shoddy representation of how a civilisation of galactic magnitude would look.

Other than that, cool beans.
 
2,138
Posts
11
Years
But killing off top predators to extinction at an earlier period of time would prevent new predators, who will take their place, from existing, which means overhunting can mess with the evolution process. We will never get another big cat species that descended from tigers if tigers are wiped out by human activity.

This is why alien civilization belittle us humans in movies, shows, and books because of our nature for violence despite our good intentions.

Overhunting, sure, that can be counterproductive, but let's say over-hunting is not prevalent, and a predator is becoming more sparse, a new predator will take its place. Even in the case of poached tigers, they are not the only predator powerful to overcome herbivores, if for whatever reason Tigers were wiped out, another already existing species (perhaps less powerful than the tiger, yet more powerful than herbivores) would have less competition and more availability to the weaker species. I am not advocating pouching at all, simply, if they are to be pouched to extinction, long-term, the ecosystem will quickly adapt at allow other predators to emerge swiftly. Pouching, in this instance, does not serve society, and I would adamantly oppose it on those grounds. So in that regard I agree, just with different reasoning.

Pouching should only be employed if it best serves society, in this case it does not. Again, regardless if we are talking about protectionist or pouching, human intervention should only occur when it best serves human life. Killing of defenseless animals can actually be beneficial, and should only be done so when beneficial to man. For instance, mosquitoes can carry many diseases. Costs of reducing mosquito species may counteract healthcare cost, and could be a good investment. (Though scientists may want to preserve some lab-testing mosquitoes, etc.). Protection and Killing of animals are both important, we need to understand that either way, its not about animal rights, its about human right to better serve our species; it should never be done arbitrarily out of sentimentality alone.
 
2,377
Posts
12
Years
  • Seen Aug 25, 2015
I still am uncomfortable with the belief that animals are just tools to use and not living things like they are. I do not view them that way and am not comfortable with them being viewed that way. I do not want to use them. In my opinion they dont have to serve a purpose for people.
 
2,138
Posts
11
Years
I still am uncomfortable with the belief that animals are just tools to use and not living things like they are. I do not view them that way and am not comfortable with them being viewed that way. I do not want to use them. In my opinion they dont have to serve a purpose for people.

Once we start protecting or not protecting, or killing or not killing animals without consideration of the affects of mankind as the primary reason for either discourse, we are sacrificing resources that could go to helping the lives of people. Yes, sometimes they do not serve a purpose to people, and therefore, depending on the circumstance, we should neither protect or kill them, given that either would waste resources that could be used for humans, so it isn't necessarily true we are using animals in all instance simply our actions need to employ cost/benefit analysis to mankind's above all else, sometimes non-intervention best accomplishes this goal.
 
2,377
Posts
12
Years
  • Seen Aug 25, 2015
People sometimes want to protect animals for the sake of biodiversity,because they like them or are interested, can't that also be viewed as a human interest? I dont see that as a bad thing, but maybe we can agree to dissagree. Helping and protecting animals is an interest of mine, what is your view on people who pursue that as a living, Fenneking? Also many people study animals out of interest or for a career.
 
2,138
Posts
11
Years
People sometimes want to protect animals for the sake of biodiversity,because they like them or are interested, can't that also be viewed as a human interest? I dont see that as a bad thing, but maybe we can agree to dissagree. Helping and protecting animals is an interest of mine, what is your view on people who pursue that as a living, Fenneking? Also many people study animals out of interest or for a career.


Well, since you ask, let me make a distinction. Biodiversity must utilize resources in forms of medicine, research, biologists, etc, all of which could be directed toward certain species that will assist human life, or to human life itself. For every action we take, we are choosing to not take an action elsewhere, therefore, it's all about a cost-benefit analysis. If we protect an animal with little or no regard to an interest to human life/health we are choosing sentimentality over the lives of humans. Actually, my view on those who pursue that career field are mixed. First, there are those who utilize research grants to study bees, cattle health/behavior, etc. There is a clear reason for bettering our society in protecting or studying certain species, and therefore, that money is being invested in bettering human lives, despite the fact that those funds could have gone directly to human medicine science. If you invest thousands or millions in grant money protecting an animal for mere purposes of biodiversity or sentiment, that money is being spent on this research rather than on direct human medical research. Therefore, a researcher's/preservationist's cause must be greater or equal to medical research or something of equal importance to human life, in order to make an adequate cost-benefit analysis. Therefore, you can protect certain animals and serve the humankind as a career, it's all about what you choose to do in the field. I would suggest to consider this when selecting your expertise. If so, I wish you all the best :)
 

Cavalreaper

Pokemon Breeder
53
Posts
10
Years
The entire topic makes me sick to my stomach. I can't really say much else without getting far too emotionally invested. I'd like keep an eye on the topic, though, as it's an interesting conversation.
 
Last edited:

EGKangaroo

Tail-bumps for all 'roolovers!
398
Posts
12
Years
Honestly, with arbitrary inflation or deflation of the us-group vs a them-group, we can make any measure we take beneficial for our selected we-group. As long as we only care about our us-group, we won't feel guilty about what we do to the them-group, and really, the human species is still having difficulties allowing every kind of human in existence into their us-groups. Whether we choose that us-group to be entirely discriminant on human species alone, whether we take dogs, cats, ferrets, goldfish, and other animals we've domesticated and accepted into our society into the equation, or whether we want the best for animals in general, comes down to how much we want to inflate or deflate what our us-group is. In the case of Fenneking, he draws an exact line at where our human species ends. Anything else is a them-group, and their benefits are not part of the benefits of the us-group in many cases. If we can use a them-group to benefit an us-group, only then is it okay to protect. So therefore, we shouldn't be obliged to care about the extinction of pandas, or of some animal that plays a minimal role in the ecosystem. Every line we draw between an us and a them will be arbitrary, even drawing no line will be arbitrary. And you can draw lines within lines. Celebi drew an us-group around not just humans, but around all animal life, and so would I. It's just as arbitrary as any other line to draw. So to establish this, any us-group, whatever you feel personally connected to, be it in essence or in your values, is valid. That's not an arguable point, but a personal question of ethics.

Calling the protection of an animal that does not benefit mankind a waste of resources isn't just logical thinking. It is sheer evangelism of what boundaries we have to set on what we do accept in the us-group and what not. We can be selfish, and say that human survival is our only duty, and the rest can suck it, but that is just as arbitrary as saying we have duty for the survival of our race, language, religion, city, neighbourhood, nation, genus, phylum, family, class, order, individual, whatever, that takes precedence over a them. In most cases, that's what politics like to do to us. We have several animals we are okay with accepting in the us-group. Dogs and cats are a good example. We can't say that the extinction of the chihuahua would damage our chances of survival, but it's acceptable to not want to let the breed die out, because people love them and we've long let them into the us-group, into society.

So why should it be acceptable to protect things we love? Empathy. The trait in human beings to empathise helped glue together society, and has taught us to watch for one another. We long to find something in common with each other, and we want to safeguard what we love. Our altruism has brought people together to strive towards a common goal. Heck, the entire project to keep pandas from going extinct is a classic example of how it brought international co-operation into motion. It binds people to share in their empathy. It has come to symbolise the ideal for why we should care about animals, like we care for each other, and not say "Who cares? It's not our problem." Of course, it doesn't have to be a problem of ours, if you define what you do care to protect and what you don't with a thick border, and say that this is what everyone should follow. But wherever we set boundaries does not matter. We protect because we have passion, and please let's never let an arbitrary choice of boundary get in our ways to live passionately.

To care, or not to care, that is the question.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top