EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:26 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Do species have rights?
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 6:57 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1649
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
The general line between animals that should be protected from suffering (mammals) and animals that do not (mosquitoes) generally is connected the level of conscience and their desire to live. "Gaea" is sometimes interpreted as affording the whole earth a sense of being and a sort of collective conscience. Genes within a genome of a species of animal or plant (or other life-form) has a form of intelligence where genes that result in increased survival and ultimately the successful reproduction of individuals who have such a gene being active, are selectively increased in percentage among the population of that genome. Because of this, the genome of the population can be seen as a being that strives to survive and adapts accordingly. I feel a moral urge to respect this desire to live among genomes of different species. This respect for genomes comes into conflict at times of respect for the desire to live among individuals within that genome's species. I will use an extreme example to illustrate this: Too many humans on this plant could result in mass extinctions and possibly including the extinction of humans too. Should we plan to kill a few million humans to save the human race and countless other species living on Earth? If Gaea had it's say, I would think it would vote yes on that idea. Here is a more realistic example: Many winters, deer starve to death and their population plummets so wildlife management controls deer populations with hunting quotas. Lately though, hunting was not sufficient and many deer were rounded up by the government and certain individuals killed based on how likely they were to die of starvation the following winter. Obviously these individuals would not vote to lose their life early but the resulting steady population though tough winters makes for a healthy deer population and also prevents wolves and coyotes from booming with all those weak deer then starving from the following year's low deer numbers. The real question I am asking is about domestic species. Many breeds of cattle are becoming extinct because farmers are concentrating on the breeds that provide the best profit (which includes which ones taste the best). Horses have declined in number due to the use of motorized vehicles and equipment and also have lost several breeds lately. If many vegans and animal rights people have their way, most or all domestic animals will no longer exist. Is that a bad thing or should these species be saved somehow? Another angle is animal species that no longer have natural habitat suitable for them such as large carnivores like tigers. Is keeping tigers in zoos and preservation areas a morally correct thing to do even if individuals lose freedoms they are no longer afforded in our current world... or should tigers be allowed to go extinct as the world's last wild spaces are farmed to feed the world?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:15 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20474
Location: Southeastern US
The concept of "rights" is muddled in this part of the discussion. The protection of animals from human induced suffering is just that, a protection, and not a right. We clearly decide on a subjective basis which animals are due protection and which are not. Even the human right of "life" is not universally accepted, which is why many will point out that without a mechanism to protect a "right", it does not actually exist just like any other human law.

Rights are subjective and can be changed at any time given sufficient support for the change.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 5:29 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1329
[quote="Ann Vole"]The general line between animals that should be protected from suffering (mammals) and animals that do not (mosquitoes) generally is connected the level of conscience and their desire to live. "Gaea" is sometimes interpreted as affording the whole earth a sense of being and a sort of collective conscience.

This is both an idea, concept, or belief .... or an actual experience. It matters which. Either one has a direct experience of this, or one apes someone who has.

The entire scenario is absolutely connected and inteconnected. The collective conscience is all of us plus the Earth herself. ... not to mention the entire cosmos.


Genes within a genome of a species of animal or plant (or other life-form) has a form of intelligence where genes that result in increased survival and ultimately the successful reproduction of individuals who have such a gene being active, are selectively increased in percentage among the population of that genome.

That form of intelligence is, ultimately, a mystery.


Because of this, the genome of the population can be seen as a being that strives to survive and adapts accordingly. I feel a moral urge to respect this desire to live among genomes of different species.

Yes, because they have their own reason for being; their own evolutionary path. When that is seen there is no need for 'morals'. What should be done is simply done.

This respect for genomes comes into conflict at times of respect for the desire to live among individuals within that genome's species. I will use an extreme example to illustrate this: Too many humans ....

Humans are the obvious example ..... how is this an extreme example?

... on this planet could result in mass extinctions and possibly including the extinction of humans too. Should we plan to kill a few million humans to save the human race and countless other species living on Earth?

War has already been waging and continues to wage. Millions have already died in the 1st and 2nd world wars and countless others continue to be lost. Have these genocides and bombings helped to control the escalating population problem we have now?

Should we plan to kill a few million humans to save the human race and countless other species living on Earth?

This is what folks like Electroglide would like to see .... a kind of culling ... of those whom someone would deem less valuable.

If Gaea had it's say, I would think it would vote yes on that idea.

Gaia will survive anyways. She is both loving and indifferent. If we cannot get it together, she will spit us off and she won`t care because she IS. We are just visitors trying to rearrange the furniture. Gaia will be, regardless.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2012 5:09 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2243
Location: Central Colorado
animal-friendly wrote:
Ann Vole wrote:
The general line between animals that should be protected from suffering (mammals) and animals that do not (mosquitoes) generally is connected the level of conscience and their desire to live. "Gaea" is sometimes interpreted as affording the whole earth a sense of being and a sort of collective conscience.

This is both an idea, concept, or belief .... or an actual experience. It matters which. Either one has a direct experience of this, or one apes someone who has.

The entire scenario is absolutely connected and inteconnected. The collective conscience is all of us plus the Earth herself. ... not to mention the entire cosmos.


Genes within a genome of a species of animal or plant (or other life-form) has a form of intelligence where genes that result in increased survival and ultimately the successful reproduction of individuals who have such a gene being active, are selectively increased in percentage among the population of that genome.

That form of intelligence is, ultimately, a mystery.


Because of this, the genome of the population can be seen as a being that strives to survive and adapts accordingly. I feel a moral urge to respect this desire to live among genomes of different species.

Yes, because they have their own reason for being; their own evolutionary path. When that is seen there is no need for 'morals'. What should be done is simply done.

This respect for genomes comes into conflict at times of respect for the desire to live among individuals within that genome's species. I will use an extreme example to illustrate this: Too many humans ....

Humans are the obvious example ..... how is this an extreme example?

... on this planet could result in mass extinctions and possibly including the extinction of humans too. Should we plan to kill a few million humans to save the human race and countless other species living on Earth?

War has already been waging and continues to wage. Millions have already died in the 1st and 2nd world wars and countless others continue to be lost. Have these genocides and bombings helped to control the escalating population problem we have now?

JE}}}No, wars became less selective and eventually negatively selective, in addition to not being big enough to stop the geometric juggernaut of population growth{{{>>>)))Previous wars and battles WERE big enough to keep the population in check with self-predation. After fossil fuels began the stimulus for geometric population growth, people should have changed their reproductive ways and had bigger wars, too, to keep self predation to sustainability((((>!!!! =D> =D> =D> =D>

Should we plan to kill a few million humans to save the human race and countless other species living on Earth?

JE}}}It would take a population reduction of around 4 BILLION now to stop the natural die-off of 8 billion later, along with the inability of countless generations to live who could have.{{{>)))Obviously not likely or wanted by the majority((( =D> =D> =D>

This is what folks like Electroglide would like to see .... a kind of culling ... of those whom someone would deem less valuable.

JE}}}Not really, just a return to the way nature was, with the most intelligent, best looking, and strongest, having the tendency to survive and reproduce, and also understand their natural world and its limits, staying sustainable in all ways.{{{>)))Nature DID exactly that, otherwise we would be much more ape-like in appearance. Foolishly call it Hitlerian, but it was Nature.(((>!! =D> =D> =D> =D>

If Gaea had it's say, I would think it would vote yes on that idea.

Gaea will survive anyways. She is both loving and indifferent. If we cannot get it together, she will spit us off and she won`t care because she IS. We are just visitors trying to rearrange the furniture. Gaea will be, regardless.

I suppose if you think Gaea wouldn't mind a 90% species reduction and 3 million years to a repaired diverse biosphere. Gaea being the biosphere itself, including life at deep oceanic volcanic vents and bacteria deep in the Earth. Gaea will die when Sol goes nova in 4.5 billion years or so. Gaea exists on other planets, all with their own peculiarities and lifespans until cosmic calamity. The laws of biology, chemistry, ecology, evolution, and physics which have allowed the formation of planets amenable to life and life itself are God's Laws. (It appears that only the most intelligent come close to understanding those laws, and keep trying to understand them better) =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Last edited by Johhny Electriglide on Mon May 28, 2012 6:39 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 6:35 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1329
War has already been waging and continues to wage. Millions have already died in the 1st and 2nd world wars and countless others continue to be lost. Have these genocides and bombings helped to control the escalating population problem we have now?

Quote:
JE}}}No, wars became less selective and eventually negatively selective, in addition to not being big enough to stop the geometric juggernaut of population growth{{{


I don't care about their size or strategy. They've not proven to ever stop the jaggernaut anyway ... they are likely to fuel the very condition they think they are controlling or stopping. They are the juggernaut.

Should we plan to kill a few million humans to save the human race and countless other species living on Earth?

JE}}}It would take a population reduction of around 4 BILLION now to stop the natural die-off of 8 billion later, along with the inability of countless generations to live who could have.{{{

This is what folks like Electroglide would like to see .... a kind of culling ... of those whom someone would deem less valuable.

Quote:
JE}}}Not really, just a return to the way nature was, with the most intelligent, best looking, and strongest, having the tendency to survive and reproduce, and also understand their natural world and its limits, staying sustainable in all ways.{{{


Most intelligent and best looking? Didn't Hitler already try this? Who was he to decide? Who are you to decide?

If Gaea had it's say, I would think it would vote yes on that idea.

Gaea will survive anyways. She is both loving and indifferent. If we cannot get it together, she will spit us off and she won`t care because she IS. We are just visitors trying to rearrange the furniture. Gaea will be, regardless.[/quote][/quote]

Quote:
I suppose if you think Gaea wouldn't mind a 90% species reduction and 3 million years to a repaired diverse biosphere.


Gaea will survive regardless of whether we do.

Quote:
Gaea being the biosphere itself, including life at deep oceanic volcanic vents and bacteria deep in the Earth. Gaea will die when Sol goes nova in 4.5 billion years or so. Gaea exists on other planets, all with their own peculiarities and lifespans until cosmic calamity. The laws of biology, chemistry, ecology, evolution, and physics which have allowed the formation of planets amenable to life and life itself are God's Laws.


They are laws. Call them God, call them science .... call them religion ..... whatever ... they are ours to work with.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 5:03 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2243
Location: Central Colorado
People are causing the Sixth Mass Extinction in Earth's geologic history. How many species can we cause to go extinct before we cause our own extinction??? CAGW is headed toward the Anthropocene Thermal Maximum and with it an ELE completion worse than most, even well after human overpopulation causes their own crash to 5-10% of the population. The tipping points----oh, yeah!!! Forgot them!! Their own selfish greed, lust, and stupidity, they ruin it for themselves then most other life, too.
Other species had the right to exist in a balanced biosphere. [-o< :-#
http://dieoff.org/

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Last edited by Johhny Electriglide on Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 4:52 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1329
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
People are causing the Sixth Mass Extinction in Earth's geologic history. How many species can we cause to go extinct before we cause our own extinction??? CAGW is headed toward the Anthropocene Thermal Maximum and with it an ELE completion worse than most, even well after human overpopulation causes their own crash to 5-10% of the population. The tipping points----oh, yeah!!! Forgot them!! Their own selfish greed, lust, and stupidity, they ruin it for themselves then most other life, too.
Other species had the right to exist in a balanced biosphere. [-o< :-#


Well, at least there is some agreement with your last sentence. Other species have a right to live in a balanced biosphere ... as do ours. We are all in this soup together. In fact, we all started in a kind of soup together didn't we? Do we now have to take IQ tests to stay? Who will give the test and who will take it?

Of course, we can blame it on all those "others" who were and are not educated enough to know better. Hitler called them "Jews". Is this provocative? I meant to be so, did you?
Who are these people who are ruining the world for you? Do they have a name, a character, a color?

Johnny ..... there is nobody to cast your shadow ..... To blame on others is way too convenient.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 5:03 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1329
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
People are causing the Sixth Mass Extinction in Earth's geologic history. How many species can we cause to go extinct before we cause our own extinction??? CAGW is headed toward the Anthropocene Thermal Maximum and with it an ELE completion worse than most, even well after human overpopulation causes their own crash to 5-10% of the population. The tipping points----oh, yeah!!! Forgot them!! Their own selfish greed, lust, and stupidity, they ruin it for themselves then most other life, too.
Other species had the right to exist in a balanced biosphere. [-o< :-#


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 5:03 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1329
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
People are causing the Sixth Mass Extinction in Earth's geologic history. How many species can we cause to go extinct before we cause our own extinction??? CAGW is headed toward the Anthropocene Thermal Maximum and with it an ELE completion worse than most, even well after human overpopulation causes their own crash to 5-10% of the population. The tipping points----oh, yeah!!! Forgot them!! Their own selfish greed, lust, and stupidity, they ruin it for themselves then most other life, too.
Other species had the right to exist in a balanced biosphere. [-o< :-#


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 6:22 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1329
The tipping points----oh, yeah!!! Forgot them!! Their own selfish greed, lust, and stupidity, they ruin it for themselves then most other life, too.
Other species had the right to exist in a balanced biosphere. [-o< :-#[/quote][/quote]

At least there can be some agreement on your last sentence. I mean, wouldn't we all like other species to live in a balanced biosphere? Not much chance of cows not being if we also do not have the chance of being. Dare I say that this constant insistance on eating steak amounts to a kind of cannibalism?

As for those stupid folk, may as well call 'em intellectuals or jews or blacks or breeders or catholics or gays or something. Whatever it is, call them folk something or other. Cuz they ain't us! Whoever they are .... those folks .... are just plain wrong! Let's nuke 'em, or put them all in concentration camps. aka the killiing fields, aushwitz, deep south, etc.

I know this is not what you really mean. Could you get clear, please?
Have people accused you of being racist, for instance?
Would you like to get rid of entire groups of society? From your posts, seems so.
How do you reconcile your attitude with movements in history that have envisioned the same as you but have ultimately failed in solving the problems of humankind?
Would you like to do what Hitler attempted to do?
He wanted to get rid of Jews ...
Would you like to get rid of uneducated people ..... the ones who make too many babies?

So far, you have been quite honest .... and I have been astonished, especially as Josh has allowed you to vent .... to talk about killing people who you don't like .... about nuking entire populations of people in order to "save" the "greater good", reduce population, etc.

And yet, I know your head is in the right place ..... it's just that you heart needs to catch up.(In my humble opinion).

Something other than rationality is needed here .... the world needs it! You are a "one-trick" pony. It's always the same old story .... over and over again. And it's not very creative .... as Mao and Hitler have already thought what you seem to be thinking .....

Your solutions are of the mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 2:42 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 7957
Location: Cape Breton Npva Scotia
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
People are causing the Sixth Mass Extinction in Earth's geologic history. How many species can we cause to go extinct before we cause our own extinction??? CAGW is headed toward the Anthropocene Thermal Maximum and with it an ELE completion worse than most, even well after human overpopulation causes their own crash to 5-10% of the population. The tipping points----oh, yeah!!! Forgot them!! Their own selfish greed, lust, and stupidity, they ruin it for themselves then most other life, too.
Other species had the right to exist in a balanced biosphere. [-o< :-#



If it were a right to exist than the dinosaurs would still be here along with 95% of the other species recorded in earths history which disappeared because nature wrote them off. No animal including man has a right to exist as a species or as an individual. It is also noteworthy that every species exists because other species are meant to support life through their existence even if they seem to be in conflict with our lifestyles. As for wars some of the worse conflicts were enacted by Marist type of death panels who stripped individuals of their rights so they could gain the all-powerful right to rule over the proletariat while pretending they were giving more rights than were given before Stalin or Mao took over . Rusty the Rooster nor Babe the Ox could ever debate such privileges or rights.

_________________
I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

Life is a time capsule we strive to fill with precious memories.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 5:55 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2243
Location: Central Colorado
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
People, yeah!!! Their own selfish greed, lust, and stupidity, they ruin it for themselves then most other life, too.
Other species had the right to exist in a balanced biosphere. [-o< :-#

Maybe it was too complicated for you AF.
The dinosaurs had a good 140 million year run, and got it, not from themselves, but from an asteroid strike of large enough size. It happened 4 times before, at least. The cyanobacteria that were the first global overbreeders, giving us our oxygen atmosphere, mostly died off from their own waste products. Much like yeast does making alcohol. Humans, on the whole, are acting much like those two single celled creatures.
Of course, not all people are to blame. There are a minority who live green like I do, and that doesn't necessarily mean not eating animals. Just not eating as much, and growing a lot ourselves. Our carbon footprint is 1/20th the average American's, and we do the 3 Rs. The main thing we did was have only one child, so the geometric future multiplier isn't there. I understand ecology, but how many really do in this world?
I think other species have the right to live without humans destroying their habitats one way or another. I think humans have the right to live within ecological limits, too. Unfortunately, instead, they are depleting and polluting the biosphere to the point of it causing a very high extinction rate, accelerating, that will eventually include themselves.
The time to stop the seeming madness has mostly been pissed away in inaction or insufficient action. Radical ideas that would have worked are as bad as what is to come, and like I said before, most likely will not happen. The crash is coming, the ELE is happening and will get much worse before a long, long recovery. Some, a few, can see it. Most are in denial or blindness.
Rights are a construct of humans, and will not be here when they are gone.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 7:57 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1649
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
This thread never touched on the point I was trying to discuss so I will repeat it
Ann Vole wrote:
The real question I am asking is about domestic species... If many vegans and animal rights people have their way, most or all domestic animals will no longer exist. Is that a bad thing or should these species be saved somehow? Another angle is animal species that no longer have natural habitat suitable for them such as large carnivores like tigers. Is keeping tigers in zoos and preservation areas a morally correct thing to do even if individuals lose freedoms they are no longer afforded in our current world... or should tigers be allowed to go extinct as the world's last wild spaces are farmed to feed the world?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 9:51 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1329
Ann Vole wrote:
This thread never touched on the point I was trying to discuss so I will repeat it
Ann Vole wrote:
The real question I am asking is about domestic species... If many vegans and animal rights people have their way, most or all domestic animals will no longer exist. Is that a bad thing or should these species be saved somehow? Another angle is animal species that no longer have natural habitat suitable for them such as large carnivores like tigers. Is keeping tigers in zoos and preservation areas a morally correct thing to do even if individuals lose freedoms they are no longer afforded in our current world... or should tigers be allowed to go extinct as the world's last wild spaces are farmed to feed the world?


Okay Ann. To start, I don't get your basic premise which is, I think, that if vegans and animal rights people have their way, most or all domestic animals will no longer be. I simply don't see that.

I think the question to be addressed is why/how the environment is being denuded in the first place. In the meantime, if it's a question of either zoos or preservation areas .... which would you prefer? What would you like to see happen? I don't think anyone in their right minds would like to see tigers die off.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:28 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1329
quote="Johhny Electriglide"]People, yeah!!! Their own selfish greed, lust, and stupidity, they ruin it for themselves then most other life, too.
Other species had the right to exist in a balanced biosphere. [-o< :-#[/quote]
Maybe it was too complicated for you AF.
The dinosaurs had a good 140 million year run, and got it, not from themselves, but from an asteroid strike of large enough size. It happened 4 times before, at least. The cyanobacteria that were the first global overbreeders, giving us our oxygen atmosphere, mostly died off from their own waste products. Much like yeast does making alcohol. Humans, on the whole, are acting much like those two single celled creatures.
Of course, not all people are to blame. There are a minority who live green like I do, and that doesn't necessarily mean not eating animals. Just not eating as much, and growing a lot ourselves. Our carbon footprint is 1/20th the average American's, and we do the 3 Rs. The main thing we did was have only one child, so the geometric future multiplier isn't there. I understand ecology, but how many really do in this world?
I think other species have the right to live without humans destroying their habitats one way or another. I think humans have the right to live within ecological limits, too. Unfortunately, instead, they are depleting and polluting the biosphere to the point of it causing a very high extinction rate, accelerating, that will eventually include themselves.
The time to stop the seeming madness has mostly been pissed away in inaction or insufficient action. Radical ideas that would have worked are as bad as what is to come, and like I said before, most likely will not happen. The crash is coming, the ELE is happening and will get much worse before a long, long recovery. Some, a few, can see it. Most are in denial or blindness.
Rights are a construct of humans, and will not be here when they are gone.[/quote]

Yes, rights are indeed a construct. Why did we need to construct them in the first place? This is simply a question to muse, to consider. Did we need to legislate "treating others as we would ourselves" because we weren't, becuase we aren't? We are on the brink of not being here .... it's actually not that complicated, even for me.

I do realize that people the world over, depending on geographics, climate, and other particular situations, do and will continue to need animals for sustenance. There is a relationship with animals that often and necessarily involves eating them and using their skins, fur, etc. When that relationship deteriorates, and it has, the idea of steak for dinner amounts to a kind of cannibalism. We have created an economic system which has turned animals into a commodity. In our inclusion of animals in the competetive nature of our economy, we have effectively lost and BROKEN our relationship with animals ... and with the environment. They are not separate. When you can buy two burgers for the price of one .....

I am probably "preaching to the converted", so I will not push this point any further. I'm sure you see what I mean.

Seems we might just have a different perspective even though our understanding of the massive hurdle we face is understood by both you and I. Yet our treatment of animals is indicative of our broken relationship with each other. Our treatment of each other is indicative of our our broken relationship with animals ..... and both are indicative of our broken relationship with the whole. We act and speak as if we are not a whole and this is why I say our perspectives may differ inspite of the fact that we share an understanding of the grave nature of our current situation.

Hitler and Mao may have shared some of our concerns ..... but look at where that got them and us. You can do little for those who are less educated than you, who are caught up in this trance of consumerism, but you can be a force for change in your community. "Think globally;act locally"

The US and Canada and some parts of Europe, while not being as population-dense as most of Asia and Africa, are the biggest consumers of the world's resources! So, yes .... population is a very real concern but life-style is perhaps of greater concern.

We are in this together. I simply do not see the value in blaming the less educated amongst us. And bombing or otherwise eradicating certain portions of the population is a tried and failed solution. It is no solution at all.

Linear solutions just don't cut it. We need to dig much deeper .... as yet unchartered territory? A new paradigm and possibly a radical shift in consciousness ... a mutation of sorts.

We must start where we are ... with fact rather than ideology. Life is nothing BUT relationship in every single facet. We cannot ignore our relationships with animals (just for instance) without considering our relationships with one another and vice-versa.

Engage your heart .... a place where the linear. logical mind cannot go. Hitler was logical to a point. Mao was too.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group