Animals kill other animals just to feed themselves and nothing else, so why shouldn't we be like them?

Dear Vadim S. Gorshkov ,

The core of the above my question exactly the multiplied cruelty is. I am appreciating such cultures as Inuits or Maasai:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/May_Inuits_be_alike_Maasai_warriors

But I wonder why Innuits (who survived in north becoming a sort of human polar bears) are allowed to hunt only 4 seals a year? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_meat

while Canada could simultaneously become the central world provider of seal meat, killing millions seals just for... nothing?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Could-Canada-become-the-central-world-provider-of-seal-meat

I also wonder if hunting is better than breeding?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_hunting_better_than_breeding

When you breed reindeer it is walking freely. When you breed pigs or birds they are machine-feeding. I would have nothing against hunting minks in nuture where natural needs demand this, either.

And even the later may be acceptable... it depends on form. Maasai leave on breading cattle. However, is it not more human attitude, when they used to drink the blood of their cows mixed with a milk rather, than to kill a cow everyday to provide the protein to whole the village?

And... I only hardly can agree with Aparna Sathya Murthy . I beg your pardon , dear Aparna, but in my opinion the cotton & wool are quite enough natural and allow to keep warm (especially at +10 C...)

Therefore, there is no need to use synthetic stuff in most of areas of our civilisation, especially recently, when to find a bit more cold weather is not simple matter. On contrary, we still less need any clothing in growing number of countries. Do not you think so?

Dear Aparna Sathya Murthy , I agree with you, however, that: "By killing them we are exposing ourselves to unknown germs , wonder if we do understand that !!"

India is a country (a whole land, almost continent), where most humanistic attitude toward animals had been developed.

Yep... Vadim S. Gorshkov - the mosquito is alike the Masai warrior :-)

But we are not alike the mosquitos (as the Maasai are). The situation would be symmetrical if the cow could kill the Masai warrior with her hoof after his attempt to drink her blood.

You most likely assess this picture above as the unhuman and even abominant

680-blood-drinking.jpg (680×534) (skyscanner.pl)

However, in my opinion, it seems to be much more unhuman, when we buying meat just not consider what happended with the sentient being, with flesh of which you was provided.

An interesting protest in Poland under the slogane: "I prefere to be nude"

https://twitter.com/wro_xr/

Climate changes also in Katowice ;-)

It is self-evident that we are the most predatory living species in the world. We are not controlling the growth of our population, we are destroying increasingly many different ecosystems, we are polluting soil, water and air and we kill each other. I do not know of any other animal species doing it…

I think yes.

Dear Vadim S. Gorshkov ,

(1) You most likely have rats or lemmings on your mind. But humans are not lemmings nor rats! The question of overpopulation only hardy can be addressed here. We can freely feed twice as big population with food of plant origin if only we stop to feed with it our cattle, pigs and chickens breeded exclusively for meet.

And, instead, if only we could try (to admit such a thought) to adapt the way of living typical for Maasai or Indians (I mean a native or inhabitant of India in respect to, e.g. cows; but... I also mean South and North American Indians or even Innuits, who are opportunists in replenishment of their diets; especially to preserve their unique cultures; however, even the later example (the case of Canada regulations of daubtful/hypocritical ethical value) demonstrates that the traditional way of feeding (which I personally strongly support in all these cases of very restricted populations of ancient tribes remnants) is not absolutely necessary even in their cases).

(2) And there is another aspect of this question, you simply seem not to try distinguish/differentiate. The hunting. But not just for pleasure and sport, but for true regulatory needs: As we almost entirely removed the true predators from the environment, we need to take their part on ourselves. However, even if we finally accept our superiority as such the most powerful superpredator, this does not explain why we are so eagerly keeping sentient animals in a sort of concentration camps. Even the fact that we were used to keep in similar conditions our kin under different abominant pretexts, and another one that we were used to kill also these our kins often in most terryfying way... all that can not serve ethical justification of similar acts oriented on all other sentient beings. Notice, please, that Nenets, you've mentioned, keep their reindeers in half wild breeding conditions.

(3) You have written: "Any case, cruelty should not be multiplied - the ashes of Marius knock on our hearts ..." So? What the specific measures against "the multiplied cruelty" had you on your mind? And LBNL, who Marius you've mentioned was?

Dear Vadim S. Gorshkov . Thank you. Marcus should not be forgoten. It is just terrifying - the view of these clearly terrified children in front of such a... I simply have no words... :-(

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/marius-giraffe-butchered-front-children-3129390

My country is presently abandoned and left alone (not counting our eternal friends from Hungary) in our fight for preserving the remnants of the true human values in Europe. If euthanasia is considered a superior value, and mass killing of unborn human beings is placed on a pedestial of highest "human" rights, what one young giraffe destined for meat for lions may mean?

:-( :-( :-(

No, we are just a component of ecological cycle.

Yes, unfortunately, modern man has become a predator, contrary to his nature. Society dictates to him new models of behavior, not always humane.

Our dentition shows that we are omnivores and thus predators too. The evolution from hunter-gatherer society to farming resulted in a huge decline in human health and the development of zoonoses, but it also means that we have survived because we evolved the ability to exist and multiply in a variety of situations.

People can exist as vegetarians but the bio-availability of proteins, for example, is higher in red meat than in legumes and some people become really ill when they restrict their diet in this way. It's a pretty joyless way of living too.

We have become increasingly detached from other animals and promoted animals as neotenised, semi-humans, resulting in the ludicrous spectacle of children being "traumatised" by seeing an animal being butchered. The giraffe was butchered as part of a management scheme which, although not benefitting the individual animal, will benefit the population of giraffes as a whole. The carcass was not wasted but was fed to lions, merely replicating something that would have happened in a wild population and thus benefitting the lions.

As has been mentioned, synthetics do not work anywhere near as where as pelts in cold climates otherwise animals no doubt would have evolved to be covered in Gore-tex. Once an animal is killed, it is ethical and sensible to use the whole carcass: eat the inside, wear the outside and use anything left over as a tool.

Ultimately, our populations are supported by some form or other of this process and, in crises when situations of real need kick in, the niceties of not eating animals or using them as beasts or burden or hunting partners soon disappear.

Only a reasonable man can adapt to the various conditions of his existence.

Правда Liudmila?! Surely adaptation is a function of evolution and both under conscious control and not?

I am a metapredator, pursuing my prey in the meat and fish sections of supermarkets.

Dear Charlotte Kasner , I beg your pardon, but I almost entirely could not agree with you. Let us simply look at your args point after point (according to commonly used scientific methodology of analythical considerations ;-)

(1) animals considered as: "semi-humans, resulting in the ludicrous spectacle of children being "traumatised" by seeing an animal being butchered"

- How do you know they are "semi-humans"? and not rather according to their own point of view, these are we who are not even "semi-giraffes" which would most likely in no situation could even think about butchering of any human boy or girl, especially in front of their youngs?

- Do you really think that "traumatised" should be used here in "quotation mark signs"? do not you really see at this photo the glad of yourself adults (just as you also demonstrates to be of yourself) which try to convince their children that everything is OK, here?

(2) "Our dentition shows that we are omnivores and thus predators too." -

You mean the molars or the incisors? Or maybe fangs and tons of pressure to crush the bones of our victims?

(3) "It's a pretty joyless way of living too." - Have you ever tried to eat any meat without salt or spices? And do you need any of them while tasting fruits?

(4) "otherwise animals no doubt would have evolved to be covered in Gore-tex" - are you kidding? they all evolved with much better protection! Why we did not? But on contrary - we'd de-evoluated. Have you ever considered this? We did not because we lost that natural cover when we decided to resign from our roots to find a niche of predators on savannahs and pursuit our victims until theitr death of overwarming. We choose the way of troglodytes and not paniscus, than. From those times on we are killing one another. (And generally not make love, rather, as e.g. Pan paniscus use to do.)

(5) "It's a pretty joyless way of living too." - if it is so high necessity of "higher culture" and "good taste", why do you not opt for eating our deads? Would not this be much more economically justified from the point of view of our diet, also? Why do you not opt for sitting around your grandpa or grandma with his/her grandchilden gathered around, and let them observe how your husband is butchering them in the name of "a pretty joy way of living"?

(1) animals considered as: "semi-humans, resulting in the ludicrous spectacle of children being "traumatised" by seeing an animal being butchered"

I think that perhaps you misunderstood the meaning of “semi-humans” in this context: I was describing the anthropomorphism used in many depictions of animals. Why is it traumatic to see an animal being butchered or eaten? Animals dispatching and eating animals is part of life, so yes, everything is OK here. An explanation of why and how the giraffe was being dispatched is required. Like it or no, we need to manage the population and this giraffe carcass did not go to waste, it sustained the lions, or should they starve instead?

(2) "Our dentition shows that we are omnivores and thus predators too." -

I mean the canines as well as the pre-molars, molars and incisors. We, like omnivore domestic dogs do not need the same type of dentition (“fangs” if you will) or crushing pressure as obligate carnivores such as felines or even omnivorous wolves. If we were herbivores surely we would have the dentition of a lagomorph?

(3) "It's a pretty joyless way of living too." - I eat plenty of meat without salt or spices (in fact mostly) and I’m partial to steak tartare and sushi too. I am not averse to adding dairy products to fruits. One of the delights of being an omnivore.

(4) "otherwise animals no doubt would have evolved to be covered in Gore-tex" - are you kidding? they all evolved with much better protection!

It was precisely my point that a fur coat is much better than Gore-tex for humans too. My understanding of the term “de-evoluton” is reverting to a primitive form - much more meat-eating then as surely that would take us back to pre-farming hunter gatherers? We lost most of our hair when we needed to cool our big brains in our upright bodies.

So, yes, I have considered this. We did not make a conscious decision “to resign from our roots”, we adapted and evolved to take advantage of the environment.

We have always killed one another in various ways and as for “making love”, perhaps that too will decline, at least in terms of reproduction, even without contraception and conscious choice, as there is evidence from other populations (barnacle geese for instance), that populations that become too large decline because fewer pairs have the opportunity to meet and mate. There is also the little matter of viruses and other major health threats that make a few dents in the numbers.

(5) "It's a pretty joyless way of living too." - if it is so high necessity of "higher culture" and "good taste", why do you not opt for eating our deads?

I said nothing about “higher culture” or “good taste”, I merely discussed nutrition and pleasure. Many of us find hunting our food (shooting and fishing) pleasurable too and personally, I think it is far more in touch with the reality of animals than being afraid of a carcass and shopping for vegetables.

I presume by “opt for eating our deads?” you mean cannibalism? Well, aside from the societal taboos, human meat is not very nutritious compared to other red meat and there is a massive risk of spread disease even if the meat is cooked. Prions, for instance, survive the cooking process so we wouldn’t last long if we went down that road. A few people eat placentas - does that count?

Humans are complex creatures emotionally and we have different relationships with different animals. I have no problems per se with eating dogs or horses but, unless in dire circumstances, I would rather not eat those that I choose to be my companions. Food preferences are also cultural, so I personally find the thought of eating grubs and insects repellent even though they have nutritional value. Again, perhaps if I were in dire circumstances, I might not be so picky. It is rather silly to suggest that making a spectacle of butchering one’s relatives has any connection with eating the animals that we have domesticated for the purpose or otherwise slaughter. Very few humans, even the poorest, need to eat simply for nutritional necessity.

By all means don’t eat meat if you don’t want to but don’t stop me or castigate me if I am prepared to kill and prepare my own food either. I think that the world would be a much poorer place without the animals that now only exist because we have domesticated them and reared them for food.

(1) Could you be ready to take your preschool child to a similar spectacle?

(2) Meat of cows or sheep is also prions prone, especially when they are feeding by flesh of their kins. So I understand and highly appreciate this your argument contro i funerali dei nostri cari nel nostro stomaco.

Dear Vadim S. Gorshkov , Did your marvelous friend be actually a predator at least once during whole his life?

;-)

In a similar way as for sure many times the "peaceful" creature on the glass table above was?

Manju M. Gupta: "No, we are just a component of ecological cycle."

Dear Manju M. Gupta . However, some other great guru of West & East (his name was Vladimir Vysotsky) used to repeat (after your folks wisdom):

"Who was swine in this life, also after the life will become a... pig."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nd4CcsrxlU

I don't have children, but I see absolutely no reason why any age child should not witness death or the realities of how animals, including humans live. In fact, I think that it is very healthy. I much prefer it to presenting them with "talking" animals dressed in human clothing.

Yes, it's scandalous and dangerous that herbivorous farm animals were fed animal proteins and many animals and humans have paid the price of BSE and CJD.

Meanwhile, on a different note as companion animals seem to be part of this thread, I add a fuller picture of my companion animal, Vadim, whose face peers at you here. I was planning to have his pelt as a rug when he died, but his liver tumour made that untenable. I gave him to my vet to post mortem as an educational tool and would have attended myself had I been available. That does not make my grief at his loss any the less; I am simply not sentimental about the inevitability of death not afraid to face it.

Prof. Manju M. Gupta could for sure confirm that Siddhartha Gautama learnt what illness and death are, just a moment before he reached.... 15 year.

Siddhartha Gautama become later Buddha :-)

Charlotte Kasner : "I am simply not sentimental about the inevitability of death not afraid to face it."

Nor I. However, it is really important to live as ethical responsible being all humans should be, in my opinion. And our relation to animals, who are (I agree with you) similar more to our infants than to us (adults), is the litmus paper of this our ethics.

Dear Barbara Motyka, predators kill to survive. The predatory - prey relationship is of paramount importance for the balance of wild species in their natural environment. Equally important is the balance between herbivores and plants in the natural environment. In other words, in the natural environment, the balance between species is essentially ensured by the relationship between carnivores, herbivores, and plants. Man with his often fatuous needs such as hunting, defined as a sport (wrong definition and particularly offensive for all sportsmen), or with the useless use of furs (not surprisingly often defined as luxury goods; lust for many religions is a sin, ie, a serious offense to God) cannot be called a predator or the predator par excellence. Man is an extreme perturber of the natural environment as a whole both from the point of view of all living beings and from the geological, geographical, and topological point of view. I would like to point out to Vadim S. Gorshkov that I am not talking about the need to shelter from the cold, in the remote countryside somewhere in the world, even if the researchers who work at the poles do not think they use natural fur, even from non-wild animals. While at @Aparna Sathya Murthy, with which I agree, I would like to say that wool, cotton, hemp, and suitably waxed canvas are not synthetic and are sufficient and suitable to repair from the cold and waterproof. For all these reasons, I don't think a modern man needs to use natural furs or eat seal or whale meat to survive even in the arctic, antarctic, and high mountain areas. See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_Deep_Ecology_be_considered_a_philosophical_basis_for_environmental_conservationism

Yes given the nature and behavioural attitude towards the other species.

Dear Vadim S. Gorshkov , Not only in Russian. Also in Polish (and I suspect that also in all other Slavic languages) animals are treated as persons ('he', 'she', and not only 'it', as it is a rule in all the anglosaxonian languages... notice please that also Slavian were te first nations which had given full human rights to... women. (Poland did it 102 years ago.)

Therefore, you are absolutely right - the giraffe-boy case in Denmark was rather symptomous than exceptional. They still treat their animals as they'd used to in medieval ages. Also the women are treated as a sort of animals there, still. The highest degree of violence against women have place in the "most developed" countries of the West. The men there force their women to kill their unborn children on the economics grounds, only. There are being killed dozens of million people this way there every year, and as a result they need to invite Muslim refugees, to take the place of all those killed by their parents Europeans.

Vadim S. Gorshkov : "By the way, in the Russian language there is a concept of grammatical gender, all nouns, adjectives and verbs are consistent in accordance with the gender of the object. I know what is wrong in English, but nevertheless I write about dogs "he" or "she" - this is illiterate, but in Russian manner."

I do think as did Jeremy Bentham and William Hogarth to name but two (and hw interesting that they were products of the Enlightenment) that our attitude towards and treatment of animals "is the litmus paper of [this] our ethics" but not that animals are "similar more to our infants than to us (adults)".

It is common to hear that animals have a comparative cognitive age of infants at various stages but surely this is not a very useful measure. I was my late dog's owner, not his guardian. Ownership gave me legal rights when purchasing him and legal responsibilities towards his welfare. They pertained throughout his life, not just until he reached adulthood (in fact he was an adult when I got him) when he could function independently.

Equally, children are pretty incapable of functioning independently until adulthood (and some may argue, not even then). Varying degrees of domestication have often removed or exaggerated behavioural traits in dogs but most retain their ability to function without direct intervention from humans and the 80% of the world's dogs that are feral attest. They are capable by their second year of life or so of full adult interactions and emotions, although again, selective breeding has caused variations between dogs.

It is precisely the equating of animals with children to which I take exception and leads to inappropriate and often sentimental approaches.

Dear Leonardo Cannizzaro , I bag your pardon, but I am afraid that actually you are agreeing with me and not Aparna. (Who clearly represents the opposite position here. (Am I not right dear Aparna Sathya Murthy? )

Leonardo Cannizzaro: "While at @Aparna Sathya Murthy, with which I agree, I would like to say that wool, cotton, hemp, and suitably waxed canvas are not synthetic and are sufficient and suitable to repair from the cold and waterproof. For all these reasons, I don't think a modern man needs to use natural furs or eat seal or whale meat to survive even in the arctic, antarctic, and high mountain areas."

Could you explain yourself in a more specific way dear Charlotte Kasner ?

Your last response was full of contradictions. Could you preserve a bit more logical, i.e. more consistent scientific approach? It is almost not possible to respond to your statement. What actually your positions are? Are animals alike infants? Or are infants alike animals? Or are they quite different? What sort of specific differences do you have on your mind? (If only it is the later case.)

Of course apart of property rights to animals as to things or other goods.

I hope that you can see that the later are exclusively artificial (just alike goretex ;-). As these were we who formulated them on the Kaduk law platform.

I think this strays into the philosophical rather than the scientific and my logic is straightforward:

Human infants and adult animals have often been compared by humans as I thought you did Barbara; apologies if I misunderstood. I am afraid my Russian is nowhere near as fluent as your English. It is not uncommon to hear that horses, for instance, have similar cognitive capabilities as a 4 year old child. How does that help us to understand an adult horse who in so many ways, is considerably more capable than a 4 year old child?

I contest that this is not a useful or even meaningful comparison.

Secondly, humans have responsibility towards children and animals but in different ways, although there are some similarities. There is a current aversion to designating humans as companion animal owners for instance and certainly to claim that animals have "rights". I believe that rights are exclusively human in that they are, as you say a human construct that can only be created and maintained by humans. That is not to say that humans do not have legal and moral responsibilities towards animals.

They also have legal responsibilities towards children up until adulthood as parents or guardians, when most humans should capable of living independently. Domestic animals never live independently from humans and therefore humans cannot be considered to be merely their guardians.

I agree with you! This is really sad.

Dear Charlotte Kasner, I beg your pardon but now i just have to state that: Almost everything you've so "clearly and logically" tried to justify is simply not true.

It is now evident for me.

Dear Vadim S. Gorshkov , You are in the same measure predator as your dogs are ;-)

Even Pan paniscus ocassionally become aggressive.Especially toward dangerous for their females males of their own specy. They simply beat such a deliquent with whole pack of adault females until losing by him all his extrêmement agressif sex-appeal (avec les organes ;)

Therefore, if you declare, that you feel you could kill an aggressive oppressor, you are just declaring a right of any living creature to fight for his/her life and her kins. (My husband who - on contrary to me - is yet more peaceful herbivore, fishvore and egg&milk-products-vore ;-) used regularly state the same; and... I believe him).

Barbara Motyka Barbara, I am puzzled that you can assert that "Everything...is not true". Domestic animals do not live independently from man, humans do have moral responsibilities towards minors and animals and, in some jurisdictions, legal responsibilities as well. You might disagree with my conclusions but that is a diferent matter.

Vadim S. Gorshkov Vadim, I agree with your description of the relationship with a domestic dog, but I think that this is about empathy (on your part) and co-evolution between dogs and humans that has enabled us to live in close proximity for millennia. Not quite the same as dogs "humanising" or you needing to behave like a dog. There are plenty of studies that show that dogs do not regard humans as other dogs. That said, I often "play growl" when playing tug with dogs.

Dear Vadim S. Gorshkov

We are just naked and lazy monkeys, clever enough to find animals around us with sharp teeth and powerful enough jaws, able to defend us against other predators and pests. As they are mammals alike we, we have common cooperative instincts and habits. So we are generally friendly and not hostile to others (also of the friends recruiting from other species). It is question of harmonized brains.

Completely on contrary to empty statements of Charlotta, which were good maybe in medieval times. Actually we know that animals are conscious exactly or very similarly as we are. The only differences lie within language abilities. And the later are exactly used as the measure of their brain development in comparison to stadia of development of our own youngs. Of course, Charlotte Kasner is absolutely right that we can not compare the life wisdom and experience of other adult animals with general stupidity of our children ;-)

Reason why we keep cats and dogs rather than hamsters is that the first can be much easily deprived of their freedom. The others are freedom-lovers and they vanish from our life forever in the very moment when we give them a slightest chance to it.

So you are right: "Similar stretches for similar?" Most of us are equally ready to stay a slave of anybody else. (Or even of some abstract imaginary "being".) This is likely the result of abiliy resulting from long millenia of traditions to leave in herds with specific hierarchy.

Notice please, also, that truely independent of their nature people prefere cats

(as true independence is not possible in conditions of enslaving any other creature).

"The poll refers to liking cats which is quite a general description and does not necessarily include cat owners but probably [sic!] does."

UK: Profile of the sort of person who likes cats – PoC (pictures-of-cats.org)

https://pictures-of-cats.org/uk-profile-of-the-sort-of-person-who-likes-cats.html

Dogs and cats self-domesticated - dogs approximately 15,000-30,000 years ago and cats 7,000 years ago and then again 4,000 years ago. To a degree, this was a symbiotic relationship, at least initially, although the benefits to both cats and dogs could be debated in the long-term.

Dogs co-evolved with humans, hence many similar signals. Interestingly, research has shown that, even though emotional signals in dogs and cats often have diametrically opposed meaning, they are able to read the signals from each other when living in the same household.

So, do we choose to keep these predators or did they choose to live with us? I use the word 'choose" advisedly as both feral dogs and cats often live in close proximity to humans. Why not, we are a good food source?

We choose to keep fewer herbivores as companion animals , partly because they are quite demanding in their needs, but also because I suspect, that they have traditionally been regarded as vermin and/or dinner in a way that cats and dogs have not.

Keeping horses is certainly worth consideration as it is practised by a significant number of people, but of course, rarely in the sort of close proximity allowed to cats and dogs for obvious reasons. Ditto the herbivores, which also alters common perceptions.

Vadim S. Gorshkov

I think Vadim, that we have not "abandoned" being predators, but that most humans in the world are distanced from overt predatory behaviours by not needing or choosing to bag their own dinner. In extremes, humans will soon revert, but of course, most of us now lack the skills.

As Bertold Brecht said "Food is the priority, morals follow on".

Dear Charlotte Kasner , you are at least honestly admitting what you are feeling and thinking; Vadim S. Gorshkov on contrary hides behind the wall of jokes ;-)

Behind an old iron curtain people of far Nord, if only were not alkohol-addicted, can still coexist with herds of semi-wild herbivores, and are able to take all the advantages of being free super-predators. They had been able even to take advantages from hated by them "civilised" foreigners, while had been hunting for Polish exiles to Siberia, which tried to escape from archipelag Gulag and readily were solding the pairs of ears of these unfortunates for... salt and pepper to make reindeer meat tasted better. So you, after Bertold Brecht, was right: Food is the priority, spices to make meat eadible - just very next, and morals follow on after all the other "primary" needs.

BTW, a small puzzle concerning the cat above... could you guess what expressed his/her face with bared teeth at the previous shot? (It is very good illustration of Charlotta's suggestions that we are permanent victims of never ending qui pro quos in our relations with animals.)

Barbara Motyka

Ah the famous "double burden" of Russian women. In many ways I dream of living in the far north if it weren't for the people drinking anything with alcohol even if it wasn't designed for engines to drink!

It is always difficult interpreting emotional signals from photographs because they lack context. I would guess that this is perhaps a vocalisation as, if it were a yawn, the cat's eyes would be squinting. The cat doesn't look stressed but I see that it has old wounds on its ears so maybe there have been some territorial disputes? In the second picture, the cat just looks startled by the camera.

I read well the english texts, but I don´t wreite them correctly. So, I prefer to expose my comment in spanish. And I refert to different matters above-mentioned.

1) Los seres humanos somos y tenemos una gran riqueza de elementos constitutivos de nuestra naturaleza que nos permiten vivir de una manera muy distinta de los demás animales; algunos también los tienen otras especies de animales, pero de manera muy diferente: hay animales con cierta inteligencia, sociabilidad, afectividad, etc. pero están muy lejos y son muy distintas de la razón, la sociabilidad y la afectividad de los seres humanos. Nuestro cerebro y nuestro genoma es más complejo y rico y también nuestra vida es enormemente más rica y creamos una cultura que los animales ignoran y no tienen capacidad para crear. Todo esto, dicho brevemente, significa que los seres humanos, como especie, somos superiores a los animales de las demás especies, incluidos los homínidos próximos a los humanos; de igual manera que los chimpancés, por ejemplo, son superiores a otras especies como la de los gatitos.

2) Los seres humanos, por serlo, somos y tenemos otros elementos y cualidades propias de nuestra naturaleza humana y que no tienen las demás especies: nosotros somos personas, personas “humanas”, porque ningún otro animal es persona. No hay personas no humanas.

3) Conclusión de 1) y 2) es que incluso un niño, un baby, es ya un ser humano y es una persona y por eso es también superior, como miembro de la especie humana, a cualquier animal adulto de las demás especies. En este sentido, no son comparables: el niño humano es de un valor biológico y ontológico superior.

4) Los animales inferiores al animal humano no son humanos, no son personas, no son sujetos de derechos como los entendemos en los ámbitos jurídico y moral humanos: ningún animal tiene derechos frente al ser humano, ni frente a los demás animales, ni siquiera frente a los animales inferiores a él. Pero los seres humanos tenemos deberes respecto a los animales, a todos los seres vivos y a toda la naturaleza, y tenemos la obligación de respetarlos, de cuidarlos y de protegerlos.

5) Cada especie animal es todo lo depredadora que necesita, tan depredadora como le exigen sus instintos y como le permite la fortaleza de su organismo, para su supervivencia individual –alimentación y cobijo- y para la supervivencia de la especie –procreación y cuidado de las crías-. Nosotros los humanos también somos, como especie, todo lo depredadores que necesitamos para nuestra supervivencia y tenemos más capacidad que los demás animales. Pero, además, tendemos a ser más depredadores de lo necesario porque necesitamos más comodidad que los animales; y hasta cierto punto todavía está bien. Sin embargo, hay seres humanos que llegan a ser crueles con los animales y con la naturaleza y van más allá de su supervivencia y de cierta comodidad: la superioridad humana de estos hombres es ahora superioridad destructiva, porque la aplican a satisfacer necesidades que, como decía Epicuro, no son naturales ni necesarias. Incluso pueden ser muy destructivo para los seres humanos.

Птицы и звери на опушке леса стояли . Когда в них стреляли, они умирали.

- I start my response with this child old Slavic counting out not by accident.

Dear Pedro Luis Blasco Aznar , I've translated your words (here: in italic) to have chance to respond more properly, clearly and emphatically:

1) (...) Our brain and genome are more complex and rich, and our lives are immeasurably richer and we create a culture that animals ignore and cannot create. All this, in short, means that humans as a species are superior to animals of other species (...)

Indeed, a complex culture (in every conceivable form: from the concentration camps and the Gulag archipelago to gang rape and intoxication of wives and children, to sadistic abuse over animals, especially in the conditions of their industrial breeding and slaughter;

the same culture is a typically human attribute, which takes its own extreme embodiment in the form of extremely intelligent psychopaths, completely detached from their own animal nature, most naturally ethical).

2) Human beings, because we are, we are, and we have other elements and characteristics of our human nature that we do not they have different species: we are humans, "human" people, because no other animal is a person. There are no people other than people.

It is interesting that you think there are, e.g., no divine persons. Human persons become most inhuman exactly then, when no god (not even that in themselves) they afraid.

Personality is not merely a human domain. All the animals that accompanied me in my life had theirs own distinct personality that manifested itself in a very complex and varied character and behaviours. So they WERE persons.

3) The conclusion of points 1) and 2) is that even a child, an infant, is already a human being and is a person, and therefore, as a member of the human species,

he is superior to any adult animal of another species. In that sense, you can't compare them: the human child has a higher biological and ontological value.

For all other species, their offspring have the highest biological and ontological value.

However, I agree with you that for most of them people are like gods - vindictive and unrighteous :-(

4) The animals inferior to the human animal are not humans, they are not humans, they are not rightholders like them we understand in human legal and moral spheres: no animal has rights neither against people nor against others animals, even before animals shorter than him.

I do not know how it is in Spain? But animals im my country have their rights against people. The later are sentenced for many years of prizon for not respecting these rights.

You repeat Charlotte's arguments. What about you Westerners that you are using the soulless system of law we created as an argument against the animals, which all (but one, i.e. our humans' soulless exception) are eternally succeeded in a much higher ethical, because the most... natural law!

What about you Westerners, that you are still stuck in the roots of the Middle Ages, when it was even claimed that animals are not so much persons that they could be able to feel any pain. Only to give to yourselves the "human rights" to torment, kill them without remorse and devour parts of their bodies.

You are saying the same thing today with regard to unborn children. Only to have them mercilessly be aborted (by the split method) for slightest wish in the name of the same sphere of "human rights" of perverted mothers (but no more unborn children!). And then use their parts in cosmetics industry and medicine.

Wonder a bit, man. Where all that had led you? Now Spaniards are protesting en mass against sex education for your youngest, and superior "human rights" of schoolars against parents.

4) But human beings have responsibilities to animals, all living things and all nature, and we have a duty to respect, care for and protect them.

We agree here. (Wo)Man's duties in connection with Her/His almost divine nature are special (of equally divine rank) duties for nature.

Lástima que en general les hagamos pasar un mal rato.

Barbara Motyka

Why concentrate on all the negatives? There are many good things that humans do too. Even atheists like me have morals so there is no need to believe in anything supernatural to be ethical. Does the law in Russia really grant animals equal status with humans? The street dogs might not think so and neither do I.

According to the World Animal Protection organisation (https://api.worldanimalprotection.org/country/russia),

Russia's Penal Code considers animal cruelty as a crime against human health and public morality and prohibits causing injury or death to an animal with malicious or mercenary motives, with sadistic methods or in the presence of minors.

But, there are no animal welfare laws regarding farm animals, animals used in research, companion animals, working animals or those used for recreation.

Russia is ranked as a D on the World Animal Protection Index. By comparison, the UK is ranked as B (along with Austria, Sweden, The Netherlands and Denmark) and Spain as C.

It was of course humans that enacted this legislation, not the animals protected by it, precisely because humans are the only animals that can establish and maintain rights and control the actions of others of those species in order to prevent animal cruelty.

Women also have rights in enlightened countries and that includes the right to control their own bodies and abort foetuses under certain circumstances (no such thing as an unborn child, that is an oxymoron).

Another person in the UK may not want to eat animals or practice abortion but they rightly have no legal ability to force anyone else to do the same.

Dear Barbara Motyka, tengo que decirle, muy brevemente, que sus objeciones a mis comentarios anteriores me hacen pensar que no me he expresado bien, o que usted no me ha entendido correctamente, porque usted pone de manifiesto que no tenemos el mismo concepto del ser humano, ni de lo que es ser persona, ni de lo que son los derechos humanos. No tengo nada contra los animales de otras especies, sino respeto y cuidado hacia ellos. Finalmente, observo que pone en mi pensamiento ideas que no pienso ni he escrito; etc. Hay muchos conceptos que aclarar para poder llegar a algún acuerdo, y esto nos llevaría muchos comentarios y réplicas. Lástima que no tengamos tiempo para ello. Reciba un cordial saludo.

Dear Pedro Luis Blasco Aznar ¿y por qué no? Tenemos todo el tiempo, el universo destinado a nosotros :-)

Dear Charlotte Kasner , and who of us is talking about Russia. Poland is no more orbital Soviet Republic. Just as UK is no longer orbital state of EU. But we are... I mean, we are the EU member country (though, nevermind, treated by old EU as orbital ;-) in which animal rights are taken quite seriously. However, in a different manner: For killing animal (with a particular cruelty) the law foreseen here 3 years of prizon. For killing a man almost 8 times more. For raping a woman (with comparable cruelty) up to 15. Therefore the law is not equal, but never mind, also the animals have their rights here. (Not only women.) This is some progress in a progressive country, in which women have full rights for 102 years, already (and in GB?); especially progressive, in which apparently, outwardly and ostensibly there is no rule of law ;-) At least in opinion of the same EU Commission :-)

Charlotte Kasner : "Another person in the UK may not want to eat animals or practice abortion but they rightly [are you absolutely positive?] have no legal ability to force anyone else to do the same. " Another person in the UK may not want to kill the other or , e.g., practice seduction by force however they rightly have no legal ability to force a priori anyone else to do the same, haven't they?

Charlotte Kasner : "Women also have rights in enlightened countries and that includes the right to control their own bodies and abort foetuses under certain circumstances (no such thing as an unborn child, that is an oxymoron)."

I see: You prefere such a thing as aborted child? As it is no oxymoron anymore?

Therefore, when you abort "that thing" cutting it in pieces without any anesthethics, it is foe-tus (a sort of 'foe' in relation to women?).

But when "that thing" just hurry up a bit, then "it" will be a human being?

Can you indicate that very moment of divine miracle, when that woman's 'deadly foe' becomes her most wanted and beloved 'bone of bone and blood of blood'?

Charlotte Kasner "Why concentrate on all the negatives?"

Maybe just to try to make world a bit better?

And reversely: Why do you prefere to concentrate on all the positives, only?

Unfortunately, this might be a phenomena. Some powerful people or countries do that behavior to attract followers and near benefits. But in fact we should build our civilization and culture on the benefit for our world and environment.

Charlotte Kasner : "It was of course humans that enacted this legislation, not the animals protected by it, precisely because humans are the only animals that can establish and maintain rights and control the actions of others of those species in order to prevent animal cruelty." - - As you properly noticed only people are able to animal cruelty :-(

The natural laws do not demand any additional legislation enacted by monkeys, lions, tigers, elephants, turtles, crocodiles, antilopes, wolfs, polar bears, seals and hares. No these animals act with particular cruelty. Only humans do. Do not say to me about cultural superiority of your own kind over the wild world of other predators never more, please!

You do not know what to do with your unwanted foe-tus ?

International Children's Fair "Men Having Babies" has just started in Brussels. And this is not a metaphor - sellers offer wealthy gays to surrogate and sell children to order. (They will be happy to "adopt" your foe-tus, and will likely know what to do with it in the case when warranty ends. It still will be much better than just kill it.) All of this takes place in the heart of the European Union, under the watchful eye of the Belgian authorities, whose law does not allow for commercial surrogacy.

It is not the only such "event" in the world. In previous months it was already held in Paris and Taipei, and in December it will move to Tel-Aviv.

The cost of such a "service" is from 90 thousand. up to 150 thousand dollars, depending on list price.

https://nczas.com/2020/11/08/targi-dzieciece-dla-homoseksualistow-w-brukseli-mozna-wybrac-rase-plec-kolor-wlosow-lub-oczu/

"Toennies slaughters nearly 20 million pigs annually"

https://www.msn.com/pl-pl/wiadomosci/polska/niemcy-nieludzko-okrutny-biznes/ar-BB1bEQW6?ocid=msedgntp

Dear Charlotte Kasner . Actually the cat's behaviour was very strange. She was just sitting with her lower jaw widely dropped down for a longer time, as if she was deeply astonished by sthg, or simply forgotten to close her mouth. Likely, she had some troubles with her teeth. (It was not a hot day.)

Charlotte Kasner :"It is always difficult interpreting emotional signals from photographs because they lack context. I would guess that this is perhaps a vocalisation as, if it were a yawn, the cat's eyes would be squinting. The cat doesn't look stressed but I see that it has old wounds on its ears so maybe there have been some territorial disputes? In the second picture, the cat just looks startled by the camera."

All 27 monkeys held at Nasa research center killed on single day in 2019

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/22/nasa-killed-all-monkeys-on-single-day

Are animals only exotic source for humans? why we can't use plant matters. Because humans have evolved to hunt another living being, they like to kill another living being and taste. Are we killing only animals, exactly no. because humans are killing each other in wars. Humans like to make conflicts and wars and become heroes.

Mere enablers for microbes is what we are.

Hmm... microbes as the greater predators than we are?

To be predatory means a conscious act of killing. And microbes are not much more than the poisonous (volcanic) gas.

Only because you think that 'predatory' implies consciousness, can I understand why you believe humans are. Let's talk about ontology. Or epistomology. Or theory of mind. Or natural selection.

On the second though, thought: " Drosera, commonly known as the sundews, is one of the largest genera of carnivorous plants, with at least 194 species."

BTW, all the big predators (cats, dogs, cheetahs, polar bears) are very clever, and for sure they are conscious beings. (Sometimes, I have impression that they are more conscious than many people actually are :-)

Evidence: The fact that you are talking does not mean that you are conscious. Otherwise there would not be so many accidents with participation of... smartphones.

Animals kill other animals just to feed themselves and nothing else, so why shouldn't we be like them?

Predatory animals don't figure things out. Only some lay people think so, as they observe (but misunderstand) how successful the behaviour of predators is a function of their prey's.

Can you prove this? Or maybe some lay people only think that the predatory animals don't figure things out, as they observe (but misunderstand) how successful the behaviour of predators seems to be a function of their prey's behaviour only, and not (in much greater measure) of their own intellect and experience.

Nidhal Kamel Taha El-Omari : "Animals kill other animals just to feed themselves and nothing else, so why shouldn't we be like them?" Dear Prof. Nidhal Kamel Taha El-Omari, I agree with you. When we want to feed ourselves on another animal we ought to kill it... ourselves (as the other animals do, i.e. in group or directly ourselves), and teach our youngs to do that equally effectively. We are, on contrary, degenerates: We kill animals per procura (some of us do that, and we even do not want to know anything about their ways ). Also for... other predatory animals (our dogs and cats). It is greatest degree of degeneration of our species, do not you think so? It results in "ethics" of our degenerated specy, in which it does not matter who and how we are killing en mass. So we are killing ourselves mutually (and we can even brag about it as war heroes), and we are killing also (without blenching) even hundreds of millions of infants, before they born.

There is nothing to 'prove'; animals have no psychologists who conceptualize 'intellect' and 'experience' under the pretense of science, to produce a society of manageable individuals.

Buzzards can only discern moving objects. Squirrels respond to the call of buzzards by freezing. This is an example of one species behaviour being a function of the other's. There is no intention, conscience, consciousness, psychology, magic, or whatever. Squirrels that ontogenically mutate this trait out of their phylogenic repertoire will have better chances of survival and procreation in buzzardless territories.

Does it mean that the only 'proof' of humans' intellect' and 'experience' was production of... psychologists who conceptualized these terms under the pretense of science, to produce a society of manageable individuals?

In truth, toxic cane toads cannibalize 95% of their population: we make them look altruistic. We are a global anathema. It is hard to imagine a species that is worse than humans.

How do you know that buzzards can only discern moving objects, and squirrels only respond to the call of buzzards by freezing, and these are general examples of one species behaviour being a function of the other's? Was you ever buzzard or squirrel? How do you know that there is no intention, conscience, consciousness, psychology, magic, or whatever (especially whatever?) there???

Squirrels that ontogenetically (and not phylogenically, still?) mutate this trait out of their phylogenic (onthogenetic?) repertoire will have better chances of survival and procreation in buzzardless territories? Are you kidding or do you seriously trait out of this your onthogenic repertoire only to have better chances of survival as carnivore and for procreation within rapidly increasing territories of human herbivores? Or are you trying to conjure reality? Do not people freeze in bizzare situations? E.g., just before being hit by car, while they cross street on zebra? Instead of jumping high and each time land on mask with making more injury to the car than to themselves? So ask yourself: Are you truly intelligent enough to consciously survive such a situation? And if it is not so, what can your ability to discern also static objects help you in similar situation? May pedestrians that ontogenetically (and not philogenically, still?) mutate this trait out of their phylogenic (onthogenetic?) repertoire will have better chances of survival and procreation in cars territories? Can you see any intention, conscience, consciousness, psychology, magic, or whatever (especially whatever?) there in the pedestrians behaviour (freezing) in such a situation? Behaviour inherited after monkeys who in danger needed to freeze on the trees (otherwise, jumping up, they would fall down onto the ground)?

Scientists have compared the hunting habits of wild mammals, birds and fishes with those of people. Their new study shows that humans are strange predators. Unlike other animals, we target adult prey in large numbers. ... People mainly target — at least among wild mammals and fishes — prey that are old enough to reproduce https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/humans-are-superpredators/amp

Humans are 'unique super-predator'. Humans' status as a unique super-predator is laid bare in a new study published in Science magazine. The analysis of global data details the ruthlessness of our hunting practices and the impacts we have on prey. It shows how humans typically take out adult fish populations at 14 times the rate that marine animals do themselves. And on land, we kill top carnivores, such as bears, wolves and lions, at nine times their own self-predation rate. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34011026

Human 'super predator' more terrifying than bears, wolves and dogs. Bears, wolves and other large carnivores are frightening beasts but the fear they inspire in their prey pales in comparison to that caused by the human 'super predator.' A new study demonstrates that smaller carnivores, like European badgers, that may be prey to large carnivores, actually perceive humans as far more frightening. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160725135357.htm

I'm not a vegetarian and I agree that human beings are predators. But we have gone too far because we are attacking our own basis of existence. Take for example the fish industry. The overfishing causes a collapse of the ecosystem. Since fishermen exploit the population of salmons, orcas find less nurture. So the population of the orcas declines and maybe they will become extinct. Insofar we are destroying the ecosystems through overexploitation, I agree that we are the most predatory species on earth. There are many things we can do to prevent the collapse: eat less salmon, eat less avocados, don't use palm oil etc.

Are humans "ultra-predatory"? Some of us certainly are and that is not necessarily a bad thing. However, in my experience with others of my own species I have over time noticed a trend that has been and will continue (to a point), to dilute the aggregate level of "predatory-ness" inherent in ALL homo sapiens under given circumstances like extreme hunger/starvation.

The reality I see today in "civilized society", is the result of millennia of social and societal evolution and technological development. For example, 500 years ago if one was not just predatory but proficiently so, your life was either very short and you starved to death, or you encountered another human more predatory than you and you were either removed from the gene pool as a form of "prey", or (if you were very lucky), you allowed yourself to be enslaved, essentially trading your time, labor and free will for no longer needing to feed yourself but to be fed (not unlike domesticated farm animals today).

As time has progressed and technology improved farming begat ranching and the need to be predatory to feed oneself was reduced thus allowing more time for other activities that eventually came into conflict with those people whose cultures evolved differently from yours and warfare evolved from tribal skirmishes to 'total warfare'. Warfare being politics through the more expedient means of the ultimate act of predation. Hunting one's own kind to avoid being hunted by same in order to acquire access to finite resources or otherwise conclude a dispute between groups of people that arise for any number of reasons.

Today, people tend to conflate 'predation' and evil out of a false sense of moral superiority that is purely ego/conscience driven, which is subjective thus a psychological luxury to the people who lack the resources that allow one's time to be spent aggrandizing the self instead of one's time being pre-obligated until the most basic physical needs (hunger) is satiated. The wealthy can afford to pay others to do for them the things they find distasteful while still reaping the benefits.

My opinion is that with the improvements in farming and domestication prevents people from experiencing the lack of sustenance that forces the question of whether or not to predate on the individual. In some places the local population of deer is expanding due to a lack of apex predators to control the deer population. Too many deer means vehicle collisions (less safe environment for people) and some fraction of deer slowly dying of starvation (suffering). To cull the deer population through predation by hunting that is today unnecessary for survival, is not a bad thing as it maintains balance in the environment.

My observations indicate to me that the Earth keeps us alive to serve the ship. When the ship has no need for the skills one possesses, one's time on the ship is over and this applies to every living thing as each has a purpose for being here. For some, that purpose is to be the prey of something where hunting is in it's nature. It ain't pretty, but there is a strange beauty within the larger system.

Could it be that you recently overdid your red meat intake a bit?

Gerard van Reekum -- Thanks for your question. I'm not sure I understand what you're asking/implying. Assuming I did overdo the red meat intake, what symptoms should I be careful to watch for?

If I suddenly feel compelled to hunt down and eat cow I guess that means that I'm doomed. ;)

You plural

The reality I see today in "civilized society", is the result of millennia of social and societal evolution and technological development.

Right, but behind this civilization is hiding the collapse of civilization. You are talking of deer. But let's talk e.g. of the Northern bald ibis. This species is nowadays endangered and was once considered, esp. in Germany, as a delicacy. Subsequently, it ceased to exist in Germany due to overhunting. I could list more species that are critically endangered by extinction, esp. our closest relatives: primates like orangutans or gorillas. I wouldn't believe you if you said it were «a false sense of moral superiority that is purely ego/conscience driven» to criticize the predation of these species since when they cease to exist, there will be nothing left to hunt for. Then, your argument turns out to be shallow.

It is very interesting to read the discussion between two predators who bother particularly about the extinction of some especially tasty species due to overhunting, moderated by follower of medieval approach to psychology of animals :-( we've first removed natural predators from environment and now have excuse to take their role as our "duty" )

Intermezzo 2021- World without us? - Yakuro

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld9yf8XF-ho