A Few Questions About Animal Rights

animal rights protest

If humans don't eat them, what will?

There’s one question that I’ve never seen adequately answered by any of the animal rights activists with whom I’ve discussed the issue:

What do you think will happen to all those animals when humans stop eating them?

Humans are the only natural predator left for the majority of them. Think about it. Some species will run amok, others will go through mass starvations and die-offs, and others may simply go extinct. At the very least, ecosystems that now have at least some form of balance will become totally unbalanced and spend decades if not centuries re-adjusting to the new circumstances before they reach equilibrium. If you can answer how to deal with this issue without killing animals, I’m all ears. So far, the animal rights folks I have spoken with score a zero with useful responses. All their solutions ultimately end up in mass casualties of animals, which were going to happen anyway, if we just left things as they are. If anyone reading this post has a legitimate and workable response that does not involve killing animals, I’ll be super-impressed.

If we’re going to have to kill the animals in order to manage their populations and keep ecosystems from totally degrading into chaos, what is wrong with eating them?

There are some other questions that seem a bit less practical and a bit more esoteric, and don’t have any practical answers as such, as all answers will be opinions, not facts. Regardless, they are difficult questions for the animal rights folks to answer as well.

What sets animals apart from veggies, shrooms, insects (I presume you do not want to ban killing mosquitos and flies), etc?

Are you aware that many view all of the universe as sacred, and see each individual thing as equal to any other individual thing? What would you say to those who hold this view? That you know better? That your opinion that some life forms are more deserving of life than others is valid, and others’ opinion that no life form is more deserving of life than any other is not? That your opinion that humans are somehow apart from the web of life and our place in the ecosystem means we cannot participate in that web in the same ways as other omnivorous species is the only correct opinion? Why is a differing opinion that omnivores should be omnivores an incorrect opinion, and your opinion that humans should be above our biology the correct opinion? Is it wrong for a chimp to kill an animal and eat it? What about a lion? Why or why not? What sets me apart from that chimp and/or lion?

Native Americans, other aboriginals, and many atheists who believe in science and our place in nature view life this way: we are a part of the web of life, and no thing is more or less deserving of existence than any other. Additionally, we all must eat to live, even plants consume certain types of bacteria and fungi, or form symbiotic relationships with them in order to survive. Why should our view be discounted, when if humans were not present or smart enough to analyze it to death, it would simply be “how things are”?

If you enjoy, please share:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Orkut
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Tumblr
  • RSS
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Leave A Comment...

*