Animal welfare and animal rights

[Roxy]

What if we talk about natural instinct, like what Mahk brought up.

If I saw a crocodile dragging one of my family members into a river, chewing on their body parts as it went, I wouldn't hesitate to try and rescue that family member. I'd have to hurt the croc to be successful at the rescue, I'm sure - maybe even kill it (I feel so awful even saying that). But I could certainly not stand there and watch my defenseless family memeber being dragged off screaming to their death. I know that I would feel very guilty later about hurting the crocodile.

It would be the same if I saw some kind of Jack the Ripper jump out of a dark alley and try to drag my family member away, hacking at them as he went. I wouldn't hesitate to rescue my family memember, even if that meant hurting (or possibly even killing) Jack the Ripper.

Does any of that even make sense? I should probably keep out of hypothetical conversations too

[fiver]

Sorry if it is considered bad form to revive old threads, but I just wanted to say...

I have recently seen the film 'Earthlings' and along with Mahk's posts (and some of the writings of Gary Francione - which I was not aware of) this has clarified the above issues for me. It is now plain that absolute liberation should be the ultimate objective. Welfare is something which must only be considered in the interim. I feel like I've been staring at something for a long time and it's only now that things have come into focus.

[Mr Flibble]

Reviving old threads is in all instances far better than creating a new one

[Mahk]

Does any of that even make sense?

Yes, it all made sense. I think all animals, homo sapiens included, have an natural instinct for self survival, family survival, species survival, and even animal kingdom survival. I think if a Jack the ripper type or a shark/croc started attacking your friend or even just a coworker , an instinct would kick in making you come to their aid as well. That would be an example of species survival.

In terms of animal kingdom survival I doubt I'm the only one who would risk life and limb to aid a crippled mammal in peril (like a dog or a rabbit) over a mollusk or an insect like a clam or an ant. This would be true even if the dog or rabbit were complete strangers to me. [sorry Mr. clam/ant]

Would this be speciesism and "kingdomism" in action? Yes, I guess so. Unlike many vegans here I'm not afraid to admit I have some of these traits. To those of you who insist you would need to flip a coin to determine if you should save the dog or save the clam (if you could only save one) I say bull crap! You are not being honest with yourself.

[ElaineVigneault]

Impossible hypothetical scenarios are rarely a good time. In my opinion, the best response to an omni who asks a question like that is "That's highly unlikely so let's just stick to whether or not you should eat animals."

Now, to your question: In my ideal world the problem of converting from carnism to veganism would be "solved" by a combination of legislation and education. Meat production and consumption would be banned, as would hunting, zoos, and various other animal exploitations. The farm animals currently in existence would continue to live out their lives in sanctuaries or private, vegan residences, paid for by the government and/or generous donors. The same would go for circus animals, zoo animals, lab animals, and companion animals.

That said, I am not a psychic and I can't see the future. My ideal world is limited by my current knowledge and experience. It's more likely that the actual ideal vegan world that WILL happen (like my optimism?) will be very different from the one I imagine.

[RationalVegan74]

I'm probably putting myself in a position to get some bricks thrown at my head for what I'm about to say, but I feel I have to say it: While I certainly do not enjoy watching animals suffer, my problem with humans interfering with animals is not simply the animal suffering, it's the interference. I believe we should leave nature alone and let it do its own thing.

It is human arrogance to presume we should prevent the lions from killing gazelles on the Serengeti just because I feel it would be wrong for me to kill gazelles. The lions are performing a herd health and evolution function that is absolutely none of my business.

At some level (and I know this sounds like some anti-vegan argument for a carcass-cruncher) we all let some forms of killing go on either because we approve or because we lack the power or understanding to prevent it. For instance, on the average day, your body probably develops cancer at least once or twice. Your white blood cells come and kill the cancerous cells, and you never even know about it. I really don't have a problem with this extinguishment of life because I am not pro-cancer.

In nature, I could not possibly clean every blackberry well enough to ensure I was not eating some bacteria and insect eggs. They will probably die in my stomach acid, and I'm OK with that. I'll make an honest effort to avoid eating fully-functioning spiders and large colonies of mold (for numerous reasons).

So some would jump up and say, "You only care about animal slaughter because they are so similar to you." Perhaps this will be amazing to you all, but I would respond, "Yes, you're absolutely right; their similarity to me makes it obvious that they are suffering, and when it is for arbitrary and illogical human reasons I find it unendurable." When, however, it is just nature maintaining balance, I find it best to tend to my own issues until such time that I'm appointed to the position of flawless, omniscient deity. (I'll be waiting up nights for that call, I can tell you.)

Alright, if there aren't any bricks already on the way to my cranium, here come some: I personally find it illogical and repulsive for humans to keep pets. I like animals and I often find them cute, but to force them into an artificial, confined, and controlled existence to satisfy human whims, even if it lengthens the lifespan of both the owner and the owned, seems repellent to me. Feel free to call me a "bad vegan" for not having any animals as my slaves or my toys for idle entertainment.

I think we should let the cows out, and let nature do its thing. I'm perfectly aware that their mortality rate in the following few years will be devastating; we've deformed them and made them monstrous for our own selfish purposes to the point where most of them simply cannot survive on their own, and predation and disease will abound at first. It will be horrible, and at the end they will return to what nature needs them to be, rather than the hell humans have consigned them to "for their own best interests."

Proper humility for beings in the process of learning such as we includes the admission that we really don't know what is best for other entities (we do badly enough for ourselves) and we should let them regulate themselves as they did before we ever existed.

[Mahk]

*throws Nerf brick* just kidding. I agree with much of what you wrote. I don't see why people-kind has any right to step in and "cull" etc. however if there is an over population/ under population due to our actions [say building a dam or hydroelectric plant] then I see the logic in it. I don't feel ecologically knowledgeable enough to know what to do.

Say we build a hydroelectric turbine in a river. It kills 80% of a certain sized fish that passes through. That fish then stops eating a certain algae and the the river turns green and kills off yet another few species. Small things can have a ripple effect that is hard even for the experts to conceive until the damage is done.

You may want to redirect your keeping pet thoughts to the "what do you think about keeping pets thread".

[fiver]

Great post RationalVegan74!

I've only just started thinking the same way. Animal suffering is appalling (and should be lessened - which is why I have asked and deliberated about welfare), but we should not assume that exploitation which involves little or even no suffering is acceptable...The fact that a being is sentient and can suffer at all means that it has interests and preferences (a will), and it should be free to pursue its own course without interference, without someone else presuming to know what is best.

So...no bricks for you!