11-26-2012, 08:18 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-26-2012, 08:31 PM by Tenet Nosce.)
(11-26-2012, 07:22 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: I don't think it has anything to do with exalting one species over another, but with understanding the natural lifecycles of the different species.
I wouldn't really attempt to argue anything that you said, as it is a combination of irrefutable facts and some questions that we will probably never know the answer to while in third density.
But where you are looking at the lifecycles of the different species, I am drawing attention to the lifecycle on an ecosystem level. They're not incompatible points of view. But they are different.
The examples you offer feature, almost exclusively, mammals. With the exception of the buzzard. Which sort of illustrates my point. Why should the mammals be a bigger concern to humans than any other group of animals?
What about the fish? What about the amphibians? What about the reptiles? And those are just the vertebrates, which again, are most closely related to humans.
What about the sponges? Or the brachiopods? Or the starfish? Or parasitic worms? Don't they have a right to live too?
Or what about the corals? I could make a fair argument that corals are the most important animal in the ecosystem! Why don't all the animal activists join forces to save the corals, and then figure out what to do about the cows and chickens? Wouldn't that be an even greater service to the planet, and also help out the farm animals, too?
Your points about the suffering of farm animals are valid. And also scientifically proven facts. I wouldn't even bother trying to argue with somebody who would attempt to deny that.
But I think the "visible suffering" angle has some severe limitations. Just because a coral doesn't scream or writhe in pain when it is damaged, does that make its suffering any less important than that of a cow?
I would argue no, it doesn't. Placing more attention and concern on the suffering of those animals who express suffering in a fashion most closely resembling humans is just an extension of the very anthropocentric valuing system that we are questioning here in this thread!
What about the insects? Shall we stand by and do nothing while the locusts devour our crops out of "respect" for their right to life? What about mosquitoes and other vectors of disease which breed in areas that have been flooded out? Just leave them be?
And we have yet to touch on any of the other kingdoms of life. Algae and cyanobacteria are WAY more central to our ecosystem than the cows, or the chickens, or even the humans! And incidentally, if we were to pay more attention to the algae and the cyanobacteria we would probably end up eating a lot less meat.
What about the fungi? Do we let the black mold grow in the basement because we don't want to bring harm to it?
I think I might know your response to this, and it is: Well why not do what we can? Well yes, I happen to agree with that. But I'm not saying we shouldn't do what we can. I'm not saying we shouldn't respect animals. Not at all!
What I am discussing is the philosophical basis behind doing this. For example, I question the value of generalizing the principle of harmlessness as applied to human-human relationships so as to apply to the relationship of humanity to life in general. Life in general, is inclusive of farm animals, but a much wider consideration.