« Honey, I Shrunk the PC | Main | A Day in My Life »
April 16, 2003
On Animals
I am highly conflicted about animals.
More specifically, I'm utterly at odds with myself regarding humans' dual role as both killer and protector of non-human animals.
On one hand, I eat meat. Like my genetic ancestors and most primates, I am an omnivore. The ability to hunt efficiently enough to engage in a diet rich in meat has been credited with the development of man's enormous and highly developed (by comparison to other animals) brain. Therefore, it seems appropriate to continue to eat meat, for I'd hate to think that an intellectual aversion to doing so would one day mean the reversal of this trend towards higher brain development.
So, in this interest, it seems appropriate that we raise animals for food, such as the beef cattle and other livestock that get sacrificed to feed the ever-growing human organism populating this planet. Part of me really wants to believe that these animals wouldn't have even been conceived without this "need," so the life they enjoy is entirely due to the mortal sacrifice their destinies require of them. However, I know too well that many livestock animals lead lives that are altogether unpleasant -- crammed together in tiny stalls and forced to exist in an environment wholly unlike what an animal's "natural" state would be. Am I sure that an animal raised in industrial farm conditions knows enough to be displeased at its state? No, but I suspect it's true.
This is where the conflict starts. Yet, it's only the start. When I begin thinking about man's overtly negative impact on wild animals of almost every sort, my thoughts turn simultaneously angry, sad, and fearful. It angers me that man has performed, and continues to perform, such stupid acts as hunting animals to extinction, hunting them for fun or sport, and wantonly devastating habitat for the simple sake of convenience or personal profit. I'm sad at the thought that a wild animal suddenly finds its life without support by the environment in which it was raised, ultimately leading to its premature, and often awful, death. I'm fearful that countless animals will be entirely snuffed out without any hope of protection or reinvigoration.
Nature taking its own life does not trouble me. The lion bringing down a gazelle represents the balance that supports life, enables diversity, and fosters the ecological process. In contrast, what man has created in the way of industry, firearms, petrochemicals, and the other products of "civilization," has long since left the realm of "nature." Now, when man kills an animal, it is rarely "natural."
The assassination of a deer with a 30-06 rifle is likely done for sport, regardless of whether the meat is eventually consumed by the hunter or his family. There is rarely a true "need" for this act to happen, for the prevalence of commercially available meat is so widespread as to make hunting for most of the world's populace anything but a necessity.
The industrial destruction of natural habitat is a travesty far worse.
The slaughter of a hundred forest mammals and birds by the felling of a single giant tree under the lumberjack's chainsaw represents an immeasurable loss. The draining or befouling of a wetland, whether intentional or accidental, by a commercial facility can only be compared to the acts of genocide now tried in international court. The continued destruction of natural forestland and wetland is one of the great tragedies of the recent century, and it looks to be continuing with relatively unchecked fervor into the 21st. Not only is the lumberjack or the oil worker making a personal decision to contribute to this destruction, the lumber or oil company, and, in fact, every consumer of virgin wood or petroleum products produced by these firms, are contributing to this devastation. While the trees or waters themselves are not likely to be mourned, the ecosystems and natural environments they support will be sorely missed when they are eventually gone.
Does man have a right to impose his will on the "lower" animals? Does might, or higher intelligence, actually make right? Why does our sense of morality that requires us to help those unable to help themselves, such as through charity, not consistently extend to animals? How is a pheasant supposed to be able to defend itself against a well-armed hunter? How are elephants in Africa supposed to be able to protect their natural habitat from developers or protect themselves from poachers? If a human kills a wild animal, we herald him as a brave hunter, but when a wild animal returns the favor, we see this as a heinous affront and seek its immediate destruction. Why is there such an inconsistency? Why do we do less to ensure wild animals enjoy some form of protection from intentional or incidental harm at our hands than we try to do for our fellow humans when the animals are far less able to protect themselves from us than we are from each other? Why does the protection of dogs and cats in the USA, two classes of animals hardly approaching extinction, generate more financial support every year than the aid of endangered species across the world? These things make no sense to me.
Every time I pass a roadkill, I mourn. Every time I see a hunter, I condemn. Every time I hear of new construction, I fret. But almost every time I order dinner, it contains meat.
I am highly conflicted about animals.
Posted by Craig in Society / Politics
Comments
Sir,
You under-estimate the capacity of mother earth to replenish herself. It takes a concerted effort to permanently damage her.
Posted by: Barry. at April 17, 2003 3:06 PM
Your fretting is misplaced. In fact, you should be worried about the coming animal revolution. We humans have been pretty dang full of ourselves for the last 13,000 years. It's payback time, my friend.
I predict that animals will either exterminate or domesticate us within the next decade. You might say that I'm crazy. Well, I am. But that's another subject. Have you seen "Planet of the Apes?" I have... and I even had the lunchbox when I was a kid. And I tell you, every time I opened that lunchbox I had the queasy feeling that someday some big bare-ass monkey would be reaching inside a lunchbox for a human sandwich with extra mustard. And Fritos.
SARS came from cats. AIDS came from monkeys. Black Death came from rats. Am I the only one who sees a pattern here? They are just softening us up before the big offensive.
Posted by: Kyle at May 23, 2003 9:56 AM