Animal Rights?

[Arsinoe]

From a blog....I personally believe that these activist cause more problems than they cure.

===================


Animal Rights
The issue of animal rights is often closely linked to environmental and human rights issues. Mass extinction, for example, is obviously very bad for the environment, and humans, as well as for other animals. Maintaining a high level of biodiversity is good for species and ecosystems, and it is also beneficial for human health and happiness. In some cases, however, the positions taken by animal rights activists can actually be harmful to the environment and can increase human suffering.

Let me begin by making clear where I agree on animal rights. First, let's consider the experimental use of animals for testing cosmetics. We need to remember that cosmetics are a largely unnecessary product. Their production causes a great deal of pollution, and involves a considerable waste of resources. The energy used to produce them contributes to global warming. Cosmetics are also, in many cases, a vestige of patriarchy. Even without all those reasons, it does not seem morally justifiable to cause the suffering and death of animals for purely decadent and non-functional reasons. Testing for the purposes of curing diseases in a separate issue which I will address below.

For several reasons, which I will also discuss below, I do not see any problem with hunting and eating animals so long as this is done sustainably and without cruelty. Hunting or overfishing to the point of extinction, though, is obviously wrong. We have already lost countless species to over-exploitation. Wiping out species is also simply stupid, since we are destroying the very ecosystems that support human life, as well as our own sources of food. Destroying a unique species for a short-term economic gain is simply unethical.

Hunting for sport is also morally dubious. Killing a creature for no other reason than because one can or because one enjoys killing seems indefensible. Now, hunting for the purposes of eating the animal, and reusing its other body parts in many ways, is different, so long as the species is not in danger. Humans have always done this throughout our evolutionary history. We are no different from any other predator species in this respect.

The issue of zoos and aquariums has been in the news recently. Keeping large animals in small cages can certainly be cruel. A whale that might travel up to a thousand kilometres in the wild, for example, is limited to a pool several times their own length. There is a debate on whether these animals should be released or not, considering factors such as their ability to survive in the wild after living most or all of their lives in captivity. A consensus does seem to be building, however, on putting an end to the capture and captivity of new animals.

The large-scale caging of animals is also not necessary for scientific study, which can often be much more effective and revealing when done in the wild. At most, some animals may be temporarily captured for the purposes of taking samples or tagging. Creatures that die can also be dissected and analyzed without threatening the species. Scientists have recently argued, for example, that it is not necessary to kill whales in order to advance their research.

Now, let's consider the issue of testing animals, such as rats and mice, for the purposes of curing disease. We do need to recognize that a large part of medical research is focused on relatively rare diseases and conditions that primarily affect people in rich nations. Much fewer resources are devoted to research into diseases that kill millions in the third world, such as malaria. However, we are dealing with principles here, so let's put this aside for the moment. If judicious and restrained animal testing can be useful in finding a cure or treatment that can save millions of lives around the world, this cannot and should not be prevented. Mice are not under threat of extinction, and if a small number need to be sacrificed, as humanely as possible, in order to find a cure for AIDS or malaria, then this should be done. If this makes me a "human chauvinist" then so be it.

We must remember that the majority of animal rights activists live in the first world. Even those with low incomes are in the top 15 percent of the richest people on the planet. It is easy to take a naive and black and white position that no animal should be killed, period, when one is not likely to suffer the consequences of such a decision. These people are putting the lives of a small number of non-threatened animals above the lives of millions of non-white people around the world. At the same time, they enjoy cheap products manufactured by sweat shops in the third world, and a standard of life made possible through the extraction of their natural resources. That smacks of racism and reverse-speciesism.

Many animal rights activists also argue that eating meat is wrong, and we should get our food exclusively from agriculture. Never mind that humans have evolved to eat meat, and good health and nutrition depends on it. If the goal is to avoid the death of animals, then we cannot depend on agriculture. Over 40 percent of the planet's surface is now devoted to agriculture. This required deforestation and the destruction of countless natural habitats on a massive scale, pushing many species to extinction. The diverting of water for irrigation also wiped out other ecosystems when they dried up, with more species gone forever. If we continue to expand agriculture, we will accelerate the rate of extinction even further. Hunting and fishing, if done at sustainable levels, can provide food forever. Yes, animals will be killed, but the species will persist. This is the natural cycle of life.

Of course, this doesn't mean we keep the factory farm, which is rightly criticized as being both unhealthy and cruel. Many of the animals, such as cows, are fed grain, which they cannot digest and which causes health problems. Instead these animals can be raised on pasture, eating grass, or within permaculture or other natural habitats. This requires no machinery or fertilizers, meaning no fossil fuels, and it requires no water to be diverted. We can reduce environmental damage, while increasing sustainability and also eliminating cruelty.

Of course, not all animal rights activists take the same position on all issues, as with environmentalists. I think most environmentalists and animal rights people can agree that we need to reduce the destruction of the environment and the loss of ecosystems and biodiversity, and increase conservation efforts. This is necessary both for the future of humanity, and all other species. However, we must not let naive dogma, or an attitude of cultural superiority, prevent us from saving lives or moving towards real sustainability. In the end, we should be on the same side.

[j_h_smith]

Okay, so what's the purpose of your post?

Jim Smith

[Oroborous]

I understand where you're coming from, and agree with you. But I also fail to see the point of this post.

[jfreels]

Don't argue and ask questions. It was a perfect post for her...she hardly said a thing!

[Oroborous]

Don't argue and ask questions. It was a perfect post for her...she hardly said a thing!

I agreed with her, didn't I? And that's the point, she hardly said a thing, I'm just trying to start a discussion about the subject.

[Tim Mead]

Wow, Life on planet earth..

[AlecHolmesReptiles]

hmm so im a bit confused as well...