EnviroLink Forum

I have had much compassion for animals since I was a child. When I was growing up, my faith and values changed several times, but my love and compassion for animals never changed. Now I finally realize that animal protection is the really meaningful cause.

Below are my answers to some questions, and a rough description of my animal protection concept.

Why must we protect animals?

Like we human beings, animals have consciousness and feeling, and can experience suffering and happiness.

No one wants suffering, and neither do animals. This is the enough reason why we must protect animals.

Why do we not advocate "protecting plants"?

Plants do not have brain or nerve, so that they do not have any consciousness at all, including any suffering or happiness.

Therefore, in terms of morality, there is no need to protect plants.

Why do we not advocate "protecting mosquitoes"?

All vertebrate animals, including human beings, have advanced nervous systems, and have strong feeling and consciousness. However, most invertebrates, such as insects, only have very simpl e nervous systems, so that most invertebrates' feeling and consciousness are very weak.

We do not say "protect mosquitoes" or "protect mites", because their feeling and consciousness are very weak.

Why we must not kill animals, although animals keep killing each other?

Animals should not be condemned for killing others, because animals have low intelligence, and cannot understand that their behaviors bring suffering to other individuals. It is just as you cannot condemn a child who is three or four years old for killing someone, because it knows nothing; in fact, many animals have the same intelligence level as a child at that age does.

However, adults' intelligence level is high enough for them to know that their behaviors may bring suffering to other individuals. Under the circumstance of knowing that, doing such behaviors is an obvious atrocity.

Why do we not obey the natural law which lets the strong ones prey upon the weak ones?

The natural law that allows the strong ones to prey upon the weak ones runs counter to the human ethics. If not, there would be no need to protect the disadvantaged groups.

The weak ones should be protected. The laws of nature are brutal, but the human ethics are compassionate. We human beings must fight against the brutality and stop the killing, not perform the killing.

Why should we be concerned about animals, rather than people?

People live really well nowadays. Most of the so-call disadvantaged groups and poor people are just have rough or less good living conditions. In addition, the human societies keep offering helps and opportunities to those disadvantaged people; with the development of societies, the helps and opportunities keep increasing.

In comparison, animals’ situations make me feel sorrier – at least those poor people will not be mistreated or killed. However, there is not even any relevant law to punish the murderers who killed animals cruelly. Now there is nothing more urgent than protecting animals.

Moreover, there is a distinction of good and evil in humans, but animals are all innocent and lovely – just as children (many animals have the same intelligence as children do); every single child is lovely.

Nowadays the rich and powerful people, have strong power, but always squander the power and capital on luxurious lives and meaningless faiths. I will be the owner of power, and use the power to make the greatest contribution to animal protection.

Strive for it!

Hiya, Kaichen welcome aboard....


A few observations.....

So it's acceptable for the dim-witted to kill one another but not for someone bright and in the know? A cougar that rips the throut out of a calfing Elk-cow is acceptable but a bushman in Africa that kills a Kudu to feed his starving family is at fault?


And everyone who is rich and powerful are so banal and vermin? Really?
At one income level do we start being nice and helpful?

Useless faiths?
Define what a useless faith is. And what a useful one is....

In any case, welcome.
You sound forthright and that's a good thing.

Are you vegan?

I understand what you're saying and I think I know why you're saying it. However, as opposed to simply touting how we and higher animals are similar in terms of responding to external stimuli, you'll have to demonstrate how the particular response of one is more deserving of consideration than the other. What you're saying amounts to one being more profound due simply to it being what it is and it happening to be like that of humans.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Kaichen, are you pro-life?




Um who gives oxygen? Who stops erosion and puts nutrients into the soil?

I think there is a very good reason to protect plants thank you very much.

Also: think of the dryads.



I don't know many people who eat chimp and parrot.



We do have those laws, they're just never enforced.



And they are corrupted with a lot of corruption.



Join Occupy Wall Street and make sure they succeed. Before HR HR 347 is passed anyways.

You should advocate for locally grown produce. The animals are treated will before they die, and it's not full of the garbage that factory farming does. And invest into petri dish meat.

_________________
"In My view, all that is necessary for faith is the belief that by doing our best we shall come nearer to success and that success in our aims (the improvement of the lot of mankind, present and future) is worth attaining."- ROSALIND FRANKLIN

But the act of saving one animal can cause suffering in another .... Save the rabbit and the fox or hawk starves. If we do not consider the need to save one animal from another then from what do we save them?



None like us, but the science has shown how plants communicate, how they react to negative stimuli, and how they react to positive stimuli. We call negative stimuli suffering and positive stimuli happiness. What animals feel is different from what humans feel and what plants "feel" is different from both. Where does the line matter and why is that the better choice?



The feeling of humans is also impacted by the ability to understand when pain is probably going to be felt, which can amplify that feeling. Why is one weaker feeling less important than another weaker feeling?



But we take precautions to prevent the children from harming themselves and/or others, so we should take those same precautions for animals too? If not, where is the line drawn and why?



Except some human ethics agree with the stronger preying on the weaker. There is no uniform code of ethics for any group.



Why would your feelings be the key point of decision? How about those who feel sorrier for the plight of poor children who are exposed to disease without the access to medical treatment and as a result die?



Not really. Have you ever encountered a predator? The are not all innocent and lovely if they view you as lunch or a threat to their lunch.



Great, then we can save our power and capital to use as we see fit as you do not need it.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Because plants can't have rational thoughts. They are like a computer or iPhone where humans and other animals are more complex.



You answered your question. The ability to understand those feelings.



Animals need to eat protein, and they're too stupid to be trained to eat something that doesn't move or fits their taste. It took centuries to domesticate dogs and they're still ripping squirrels up. Children can be taught. Most of the time anyways.



But they sure are stupid.

_________________
"In My view, all that is necessary for faith is the belief that by doing our best we shall come nearer to success and that success in our aims (the improvement of the lot of mankind, present and future) is worth attaining."- ROSALIND FRANKLIN

I see "animal protection" from a different perspective. The animals needing protection the most are the large carnivores who need their prey which need land to grow into the health lunches of the large carnivores. The only way for us to give all those prey species a nice home to live in is to stop agriculture from converting all those natural areas into sterile cropland. The only way to do that is to raise your own food at home. This is actually quite possible but it really helps if you have some small herbivore species to convert the inedible plant parts into meat. If you raise the animal yourself, you can be sure it will have a happy life and painless death. If you don't have a large greenhouse or garden, you are causing countless animals to suffer and many species to go extinct (extinction to me is like killing an infinite number of unborn animals). This brings another aspect that I feel strongly about... Domesticated animals are really a unique species that fit a particular niche that saves wildlife from being on human menus. I feel therefore that we must protect these domestic species from going extinct too. I will qualify that by saying that reducing meat consumption is always good for the efficiency of the human food industry (less land needed to feed more people) but some meat production, when integrated properly, can be very beneficial to wildlife populations and maximize the efficiency of the human food industry.

We do not know if they can have rational thoughts or not. We do not know if other animals have rational thoughts or not either. We do know the nervous systems of animals are similar to each other and different from those of plants. Beyond that we do not know.



So humans are included and animals are not if they cannot understand the feelings?



So animals are NOT similar in intelligence to children and that comparison is moot. Now why do we have to give them protection if not from all suffering?



Like all other animals? There is a dichotomy in presentation here.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Yes, we can. We can measure neurological activity and but them to the tests.




Yes. That's why sponges and ants aren't included.




Because although they're not as intelligence, they have intelligence nonetheless

_________________
"In My view, all that is necessary for faith is the belief that by doing our best we shall come nearer to success and that success in our aims (the improvement of the lot of mankind, present and future) is worth attaining."- ROSALIND FRANKLIN

How does neurological activity equate to rational thoughts? There is neurological activity with irrational thoughts too.




You assume the other animals understand feelings why? Other than they may have neurological activity .....



Ahh, the claim they were as intelligent as children was literary license?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

1. Children gain intelligence as they grow older

2. There are many different types of intelligence.

_________________
"In My view, all that is necessary for faith is the belief that by doing our best we shall come nearer to success and that success in our aims (the improvement of the lot of mankind, present and future) is worth attaining."- ROSALIND FRANKLIN

Some do and some do not.



That smacks of literary license again.

It does not matter that you wish to believe in the cause, but the reasons you give do not tend to give much independent support.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

I'll wait for kaichen to respond.

_________________
"In My view, all that is necessary for faith is the belief that by doing our best we shall come nearer to success and that success in our aims (the improvement of the lot of mankind, present and future) is worth attaining."- ROSALIND FRANKLIN

There is not any research showing that plants have feeling, to say nothing of thoughts.

Most invertebrates do not have the same level of feeling as vertibrates. For example the coelenterates; they do not have brain; how can they have the feeling

As GoGreenCO said, animals are stupid, just like children. so they are innocent no matter what they do - same as children.

Actually, there is research showing plants have feelings, just not the same as animals.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/19 ... 090010.htm

Plants may not feel the pain of an injury as animals do, but they do have their own "alarm" reaction to tissue damage and, in an effect curiously similar to that in animals, this reaction can be short-circuited by aspirin and other similar drugs, according to a study recently published in The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

The study was authored by plant biologists Zhiqiang Pan of Arizona State University; Bilal Camara of the Institut de Biologie Moleculaire des Plantes, Strasbourg, France; Harold W. Gardner of the United States Department of Agriculture; and Ralph A. Backhaus of Arizona State University and appeared in JBC's July 17 issue.




Plants do not have a brain and they respond to negative stimuli, which we call "feeling". The levels may not be the same, but that leaves the problem of quantification of the feeling and drawing some arbitrary line. Two humans will not feel pain in the same manner, so we know just how difficult this exercise would be.



If that were the case there would be no juvenille courts .... but we know there are courts to try children.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein