From: Lucian Mogosanu Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 10:07:46 +0000 (+0200) Subject: posts: 013 X-Git-Tag: v0.3~7 X-Git-Url: https://git.mogosanu.ro/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=4ca8de7675eaa755774914939dd9d600286cae56;p=thetarpit.git posts: 013 --- diff --git a/posts/y00/013-on-the-rights-of-animals.markdown b/posts/y00/013-on-the-rights-of-animals.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4ff7a56 --- /dev/null +++ b/posts/y00/013-on-the-rights-of-animals.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,139 @@ +--- +postid: 013 +title: On the rights of animals +author: Lucian Mogoșanu +date: December 1, 2013 +tags: cogitatio +--- + +**Ante scriptum**: In the last twenty years there have been numerous brief +yet heated debates on the stray dogs living in Romanian towns. NGOs argue that +euthanasia, a now traditional practice for the "humane" ending of animal life +in the so-called "civilized" countries, is not to be used on dogs which they +claim to be owned by the community, as they have as much a right to live as +anyone; not to mention other rights. There's nothing peculiar about that, as +Romania is a young democracy and has a lot to learn on a variety of matters. +Such a recent event has led me to write this article on the more general +subject of animal rights, although I believe that the subject is or should have +been exhausted decades ago by thinkers. + +That being said, there is a clarification to be made: it is clear that humans +are animals. However, for the purpose of succintness, in this post I will refer +to the set of animals as that of animals excepting humans, since human rights +are a whole different story. + +Thus it has been, and thus it is, and thus it shall be: the rules governing +life on Earth are set by evolution. It is not entirely clear what evolution +means, or rather it's perfectly clear that it is, and we can see it happening +even though we can't, only we have little to no idea what its rules, or its +algorithm, or its mathematical equation is. We -- that is we, humans -- however +have a grasp of its nature, and it is this: life flows through nature, +therefore life exists and grows by consuming life, which in itself also implies +death. Thus it has been, and thus it is, and thus it shall be. + +From this, a variety of concepts emerge, of which those of competition and +[fitness][1] are more relevant to us. It is clear that, given finite resources, +life competes with other life for the propagation through time, or survival, as +they call it[^1]. It is also clear that in an event or series of events that we +describe as a competition, there are always one winner and one or more losers; +by comparing the winner and the loser(s), we say that the winner is "more fit" +than the loser(s), therefore we can start by establishing something such as a +preorder relation on the set of competitors and go as far as describing fitness +as a mathematical function. + +## Beasts, humans and the food chain + +Thus life's (natural) history on Earth has been fraught with killings. Animals +killed plants by eating them[^2]; animals killed other animals by eating them; +microbes killed other life forms by infecting them, and so on and so forth. +Unfortunately, and at the same time fortunately, life could not exist without +such consumption. They could not just live together as one big, happy family. + +From all this, the so-called food chain was established. It is improperly +called a chain, since this is a circular structure which can be represented in +many dimensions. + +At some point in time, somewhere in this food chain arose humans; an atypical +species, since their brains amassed so much complexity that they began focusing +less on adapting themselves to nature and more on adapting nature to their own +liking, and by nature I mean both living and non-living things. We became so +efficient that, for example, we managed to cut entire woods so that we could +build a village, or took a wild plant and genetically engineered it[^3] to make +it edible. + +What's more interesting is that we managed to change more "superior" life too. +We exploited the habits of other animals and, by using our own superior +intelligence and resources, made them non-violent, to use them either for +defending ourselves or for food. And this only helped us pursue our quest for +comfort and intelligence further. I doubt that we ever knew exactly where we +were going; fortunately, we arrived somewhere. + +Dogs can be found among all these domesticated animals. Some human cultures +used them as food, yet most of them used them for defense against other animals +such as dogs' evolutionary ancestors, the wolves. I will take this example +further in the following section, however without sacrificing the generalness +of my argument. + +## Dogs, nowadays + +Nowadays, dogs maintain their status of home defense animals within human +communities, just as cats maintain their status of mouse killers, just as pigs, +cows and chickens maintain their status of good food[^4]. In urban +environments, dogs and cats are also used as "company" animals, which is kind +of natural, since dogs have developed a good sense of empathy towards humans. + +Simple-minded humans have also developed a monstruous sense of empathy towards +their company animals, most probably due to a lack of purely human emotional +intelligence. Of course, there's nothing wrong with empathizing with other +beings, since that's one of the things that makes humans "superior"; however, +it's unethical, immoral, counterproductive and call-it-what-you-like to +empathize with other beings in the detriment of your own. Surely, we like to +own dogs, but we usually put them down when they get old and sick, whether or +not we like it; it is, after all, the "humane" thing to do. + +Thus dogs are, like they have always been, nothing but tools, serving humans +like they always have. To claim otherwise denotes either hypocrisy, or what +Americans like to call a "personality disorder", which automagically +disqualifies the arguing person as an informed debater on the subject. + +Thus dogs have no rights. By extension, animals have no rights. + +## Post scriptum + +It's absurd, no, in fact it's outrageous to claim that "it was the child's own +fault" or "the old lady's fault" for him being killed by stray dogs. I don't +think I'd be able to say such things while on LSD, let alone on a normal day. +In a sane world, the NGOs defending that statement should be expelled from +society. + +Stray dogs are an inconvenience to any so-called "civilized" society. Romanian +folks tolerate them more out of laziness and their own self-imposed inability +to do something[^5] rather than out of their love for these animals. Whether +dead or alive, stray dogs shouldn't exist, for everyone's (including their own) +sake. If euthanasia is a more efficient solution, then I, as a Romanian +citizen, am for it. + +[^1]: And by "life", I mean "life forms" or "living things". The only purpose +of this shortening is to make it easier for me to express myself, not +necessarily for you to understand. But you will, if you take the time and +patience. + +[^2]: That is, fundamentally, why the Buddhist conception of "respecting all +life" doesn't work. They refer in fact to animal life, when plants and fungi +and bacteria and other domains and kingdoms of life deserve as much respect as +any other, right? But they can't get as much respect, because such is the +nature of life and it cannot be changed, lest that change brought by +extinction of all life. + +[^3]: Cross-breeding is a kind of genetical engineering, why wouldn't it be? + +[^4]: Although the "non-civilized" Chinese do eat food made out of dogs, not to +mention the high-quality gloves they can make out of dog skin. Note that if we +look at it from a purely *democratical* point of view, the Chinese are superior +in numbers to all the countries on the globe. Good thing they're not living in +a democracy, eh? + +[^5]: It's a communist thing. It's hard to understand the phenomenon if you +haven't lived through it. + +[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_function