Any Reason to Preserve Other Animals?

Page 4 of 5 [ 79 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Any reason?

Moral/Animal Rights/sharing the planet	27%	[ 10 ]
Sentimental/entertainment value/beauty etc	5%	[ 2 ]
Ecological balance; please justify in thread	16%	[ 6 ]
All of the above	30%	[ 11 ]
Not sure/don't know	0%	[ 0 ]
None at all	8%	[ 3 ]
Other, please explain in thread	0%	[ 0 ]
For food. ( thanks Fnord! )	14%	[ 5 ]

Total votes : 37

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

23 Dec 2008, 8:29 pm

ouinon wrote:

Is there any reason why we should preserve other animals apart from those which contribute directly to human survival/activities?

Because they're yummy. Cows taste good.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

23 Dec 2008, 8:38 pm

We need cows just as much as they need us. We breed them, raise them, care for their physical needs, and in return they give us their milk and flesh.

pandd
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,430

24 Dec 2008, 5:05 am

ducasse wrote:

We are aware of pain & suffering in ourselves & others in a way that cows aren't.

I cannot personally confirm the truth of this premise as I have never been a cow? I'm somewhat curious as to how you could know the scope of experience cows accessible to cows.

Quote:

I'm outlining the moral distinction between hurting cows & hurting people. Don't you think that distinction exists?

Yes, but only subjectively. Morals are subjective, and I happen to subjectively value humans above and beyond cows.

Sand wrote:

The last time I psychoanalyzed a cow it was quite upset at being determined an inferior being. It had planned on going into astrophysics inspired by that old poem about a cow jumping over the moon but when it applied to NASA the racially prejudiced board chose a dumb human instead.

The true source of mad-cow disease no doubt. :wink:

ouinon
Supporting Member

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

24 Dec 2008, 9:49 am

DentArthurDent wrote:

The earth and its inhabitants exist in symbiosis. The preservation of endangered species in their natural habitat means that we are trying to preserve that symbiosis.

Again for our own benefit.
.

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

24 Dec 2008, 9:53 am

ouinon wrote:

DentArthurDent wrote:

The earth and its inhabitants exist in symbiosis. The preservation of endangered species in their natural habitat means that we are trying to preserve that symbiosis.

Again for our own benefit.
.

No, for the benefit of the whole. Symbiosis.

Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

24 Dec 2008, 10:29 am

Quote:

slowmutant:
We need cows just as much as they need us. We breed them, raise them, care for their physical needs, and in return they give us their milk and flesh.

That reminds me of the book Frankenstein. We have domesticated animals to be ret*d versions of their former wild species.
I wouldn't describe factory farming as caring for their physical needs.

They say you are what you eat. If you are what you eat then what happens to people who eat ret*d animals? If you don't know where your food comes from, does that mean you don't know who you are?

_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.

-Pythagoras

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

24 Dec 2008, 10:44 am

Was there ever such a thing as a wild cow?

Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

24 Dec 2008, 10:58 am

Quote:

Between 13,000 and 2,500 B.C., humans domesticated dogs, cats, cattle, goats, horses, and sheep from their wild counterparts. Although the terms "taming" and "domestication" are often used interchangeably, they are not the same. Individual wild animals can be tamed to behave in a docile manner around humans. By contrast, domestication is a process that takes place with an entire animal species over many generations.

Domesticated animals are not just tamer than their wild ancestors; they are different genetically. Over the ages, desirable qualities, such as size and disposition, were engrained by breeding only those animals that displayed them. This explains some of the physical differences between wild and domesticated animals. For example, most domesticated species are smaller and fatter and have smaller teeth and brains than their wild ancestors. (See Figure 1.2.)

In his article "Evolution, Consequences, and Future of Plant and Animal Domestication" (Nature, August 8, 2002), Jared Diamond described the biological traits and behaviors that wild animals must have to be domesticated. Successful domestication is only possible with species that exhibit these characteristics:

* A diet that can be supplied easily and relatively cheaply by humans
* A relatively fast growth rate with short time intervals between births
* The ability to mate and breed in captivity
* A tendency toward calm, predictable behavior rather than panic
* A lack of viciousness toward humans
* A social structure based on hierarchy and cooperative group living without strong territorialism

If any one of the characteristics is missing, the species cannot be domesticated. According to Diamond, only fourteen of the 148 species of large land-based mammals have been domesticated.
Domestication of Dogs and Cats

Fraya
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,337

25 Dec 2008, 8:04 am

Most animals have a nervous system and can feel pain and suffering most also have a way of communicating this to others of their kind who have an empathic response (human empathy is older than human intelligence and comes from our animal ancestors). This causes the animal receiving the communication to feel anxiety, fear, and general distress (measurable with our scientific tools).

As for getting rid of the animals we "don't need" why don't you name one that doesn't serve a purpose or fill a required niche in nature?

Large mammals keep the smaller animal population in check which keeps the insect population in check which tend to keep each other in check and help decompose matter as well as being required by many plant species which also interact.. basically if you completely remove any one part of the system other parts of it go haywire (crop devastation, disease, overpopulation, die off, etc).

I seem to recall an effort by some group to remove all the large predators from a forest. They succeeded. The small mammals without predators overpopulated and consumed the entire food supply in the forest, then died of starvation and went extinct (within that forest). The insect population then exploded, consuming what was left of the vegetation, then migrated and decimated other areas before finally having their numbers reduced to normal levels by the animals that still lived in those areas. All that was left of the original forest was barren land.

_________________
One pill makes you larger
And one pill makes you small
And the ones that mother gives you
Don't do anything at all
-----------
"White Rabbit" - Jefferson Airplane

ouinon
Supporting Member

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

25 Dec 2008, 9:25 am

Fraya wrote:

As for getting rid of the animals we "don't need" why don't you name one that doesn't serve a purpose or fill a required niche in nature? Large mammals keep the smaller animal population in check; basically if you completely remove any one part of the system other parts of it go haywire (crop devastation, disease, overpopulation, die off, etc).

Absolutely, that is what I found out on reading about the issue after starting this thread. It looks like we will have to "reserve" areas of land around the globe to maintain a minimum number of such biodiverse ecosystems.

But large mammals in the wild/free to move around anywhere around human habitation and agriculture is not realistic, or is at the very least problematic, ( see my post about the difficulties experienced in places were this is still the case, or where recent animal protection laws are causing humans to lose vital food crops etc as a result ).

It seems to me that the only reason this sort of animal protection/preservation is actually happening, receiving funding etc, is because humans have begun to understand that it is crucial for our, human, survival/well being. For instance, the "bleeding hearts"/"woolly-minded"/animal rights approach may have brought poor old pandas, etc, to public attention, but serious work on the issue only started when ecologists had pointed out the importance of etc etc for us.

But what is interesting though is that the "bleeding hearts/woolly minded" and/or the animal rights groups were concerned about all this before this was all understood/proven scientifically. As if morals were pointing the way, in advance of the scientific evidence. Maybe not so woolly minded after all.

.

Last edited by ouinon on 26 Dec 2008, 3:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

25 Dec 2008, 2:03 pm

Magnus wrote:

They say you are what you eat. If you are what you eat then what happens to people who eat ret*d animals?

Probably something not quite as bad as what happens to people who eat vegetables.

Letum
Deinonychus

Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 306

25 Dec 2008, 3:10 pm

slowmutant wrote:

Was there ever such a thing as a wild cow?

Yes. The extinction of the British wild cow (the 'Aurochs') in the bronze age is sorely felt loss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

28 Dec 2008, 1:48 am

Frankly the outrageous stupidity and viciousness and total lack of appreciation and compassion exhibited by some participants in the discussion stimulates a huge revulsion in me for humanity in general who would destroy most life on Earth except their own species and thereby destroy the basis for human life as well. That humanity is enthusiastically carrying out this total destruction is obvious in all current news reports and it is very depressing. For a while there I had hopes that aspies might be better. It seems not.

ouinon
Supporting Member

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

28 Dec 2008, 5:56 am

Sand wrote:

I don't think it is surprising that so many people feel little or no connection with other animals now that most people in the West/industrialised countries live in environments in which almost the only live animal presence is human, or in the highly domesticated form of pets.

Science seems to have taken over the role which previously our daily contact with animals on the land used to do, providing objective/concrete explanations of the role other animals play, proof of why other animals are important to our existence. And this information is leading to political action, however gradual/limited for the moment.

As if science has become a language which speaks to us in lieu of direct physical and emotional reality/experience. As scientists find "scientific" reasons to keep other large mammals in at least some parts of the world governments create laws to protect them. Science gathers physical data, ( sensory info ) which govt transforms into rules/actions.

It's slow, but it doesn't seem to me that the case is as hopeless as you suggest.

.

LePetitPrince
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Mar 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,464

28 Dec 2008, 9:52 am

Lol ouninon, you are so funny (in a negative way).

Every species is important for Ecological balance.

For earth, 1 dolphin's life is more important than 100 humans , maybe 1000.

ouinon, I have realized while ago, that creationists like you don't appreciate the animal life.

You believe that they are created by God just to serve us and you also believe that they are created ,unlike humans,without "divine soul" . That's why you have a lack of sympathy toward animals.

LePetitPrince
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Mar 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,464

28 Dec 2008, 10:01 am

slowmutant wrote:

Was there ever such a thing as a wild cow?

Hahahaha , you are the only one who can beat ouinon .

No, God has created Cow directly with pre-installed farm equipments.

"And so God created for Adam a Cow with an axe and a milk pot" - some bible.

Last edited by LePetitPrince on 28 Dec 2008, 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Page 4 of 5 [ 79 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Jump to:

*Any Reason to Preserve Other Animals?* Post Reply New Topic

Any Reason to Preserve Other Animals?