Well, I wasn't sure where exactly to put this, but this seems like the best place, as there are several subjects I want to touch on....
First of all, I think
PETA has
the right ideas at heart. But, I also think that some people need to think a bit harder about
what it means to treat animals ethically. Cause, when you think about it, a lot of the policies advocated by PETA and similar groups, if enacted on a large scale would bring more harm to animals than good.
So, I'll start with my ideas on eating domestic farm animals:
Cows, pigs, chickens and the like. I understand making
a personal moral decision not to eat animals. If that suits you, then that's a good thing.
Advocating that everyone become vegan is dangerous though. This is something to consider:
If we stop eating cows, what do we then do with them?
Let's face it. Cows are
domestic animals. They've been selectively bred by humans to be
big and stupid. They are NOT
wild animals. If there is no meat or milk industry, people will stop taking care of the cows. It's too expensive to do out of altruism. And don't think that you could just let 'em go either. It'd be an
ecological disaster. Either one of two things would happen. The cows would all die, because they were somehow unfit to survive in the non-domestic world, or they would multiply like
rabbits and cause and ecologcial disaster by being too abundant and having no
predators (since we killed them all). Either way
you're killing more animals than you are saving. The same goes for other farm animals and pets. Pets are domestic animals. They've been bred to be domestic, and our ecosystem is not suited for them. If we let them go, it will be like introducing a new species into the environment. Any third year biology student can tell you:
introduced species are almost always
very bad. Look at the problems
Australia has had.
I've heard people say things to the effect that cows would be
better off dead than in the
meat industry, so even if they do all die out it would be better, but that's no more providing the animal with 'rights' than raising them for
food is. You can't argue that animals should be treated as well as humans, and then suggest
euthanasic genocide. Last time I checked nobody had suggested
bombing the starving people in Africa to alleviate their suffering. Regardless of how much people suffer, I doubt that a majority of them would prefer to be wiped out. Does it not seem possible that cows might feel the same way? (on whatever level they might be capable of such things).
I do agree that animals which we raise for meat should be treated well, and shouldn't
suffer any more than any other animal does in the natural course of its life. I think we should put as much as possible of the animals we kill to use. I think we should have
respect for nature. But that doesn't mean not killing things.
Life and death are so inextricable as to be one and the same. Each is neccessary for the other. As intellegent creatures, we have the responsibility to ensure that we do not upset the balance between the two.
I try not to eat wild animals. This includes most seafood. That's because these animals aren't domestic, and hunting them impacts on
the well being of the organism as a species. Deer and other herbivorous land animals I'm a bit more flexible on, as we've killed all their other predators. Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter of
Ethical treatment of animals in regards to food and pets. Scientific experimentation is a bit touchier, and I might discuss it later or somewhere else.
Basically, my point is this:
If you want to help animals you need to understand them first. The rights which we value as
humans might be meaningless to animals, or even harmful to them.
In case no one has noticed, cows aren't people. Neither are dogs or chickens or worms, or even chimpanzees.
Please, if you have a reponse to this, don't just downvote. I'd appreciate a
/msg to go along with the downvotes (which are fine with me), as I'm interested in contrary views and arguments. It's the best way to see flaws in my ideas.