Valuing Animal Life over Human Lives

Viani · 2013-11-21 15:53:36

I've met a lot of people who were iffed by the extinction of the Black Rhino. Some people were so iffed that they would mosey the thought of killing poachers to protect them.

I've seen people get homicidal in the defense of abused cats/dogs as well, but it always seemed insane to me since they are nowhere close to becoming extinct soon. Rhinos i understood.

So, valuing animal lives vs. human lives.

When does an animal life become more valuable than a human life to you, heap market?

Tachyon · 2013-11-21 16:02:05

human life is sacred; nothing justifies killing a human being except the defence of other human beings

i'm not sure how much to value animal lives

certainly i don't like to see animals distressed or in pain, but the existence of many animals is dependent on the deaths of other animals anyway

i guess also it's important to me that entire species of plants and animals aren't wiped out, since diversity is important to a healthy ecosystem, and since the loss of an entire species seems tragic

Bee · 2013-11-21 16:09:54

Pretty much the only breed of cases I could justify this would be a) massive poaching markets that are inevitably connected to organized crime which does far worse than poaching, and b) something that would screw up an ecosystem so badly that indigenous people are messed up.

So basically, copping out by measuring it as it indirectly pertains to human life.

Sredni Vashtar · 2013-11-21 16:29:55

A lot of wildlife reserve guards in places like Kenya are trained to kill poachers on sight, not simply because they are killing highly endangered species but because they will murder anyone that tries to stop them or, in some cases, even sees them.

Also worth noting: Despite the fact that the horn of the rhinoceros may be removed from the unconscious animal without pain and grow back (being essentially a huge nail), poachers murder them in huge numbers anyway, mainly because they are too cheap or lazy to, say, buy tranquilliser darts. Vileness aside, the lack of long-term thinking strikes me as pretty dense. But then, the kind of people that kill things to take single parts from them for profit are not known for their great capacities for complex thinking. Or human empathy, as noted above.

While most intelligent animals seem to be capable of excessive violence and insanity, humans have really raised it to an art. And on some visceral level, I do not think that those that exhibit those characteristics and exercise them on innocent living things without compunction and for pleasure or avarice deserve to live. If I saw someone torturing a small animal, I would respond in the same way that I would to someone doing the same to a child: I would probably hurt them until they stopped. Quite possibly rather badly, if it were necessary and within my power.

Aliroz · 2013-11-21 16:47:21

Usually, killing people doesn't actually solve the problem or help the endangered species. Habitat loss, invasive species, pollution, none of those will be fixed by killing people. Once a swamp has been drained and the tens of thousands of species have to leave; and it becomes a city; you can't make it a swamp again; and killing the people of that city won't do any good.

A lot of poachers do so because they have no other means to provide. Killing those who are in that situation won't stop other people from getting in that situation. You can't solve poverty by killing all the poor people. Those who poach endangered species should probably get in trouble for being destructive to something rare and precious; but they are already in trouble. I think the best way to fix the problem of poaching is to improve the situation. Make things so that people don't have to poach to survive another month. Shut down the illegal wildlife trade, too; which funds a lot of poaching; but make sure to improve the poachers' situation so as not to take away their one source of food.

So, killing those in the wildlife trade won't help; any more than killing Wallmart employees, staff, management, CEO, or whoever runs Wallmart would dismantle the Wallmart corporation.

So, really, there's not really any situation where it's either the human life or the animal life; or where killing the human will save the animal.

Both life is sacred, and if enough biodiversity is lost, humans will suffer as well; and hurting humans does not at all help animals. When one is hurt, it does not really, in the long run, help the other.

It's not a dichotomy.

People are animals; and all life is sacred.

Sredni Vashtar · 2013-11-21 16:51:25

Those are excellent points.

I will admit that my post was at least partly an expression of raw anger. I do not like seeing things in pain, let alone from the cruelty of others. It makes me extremely upset and highly irrational.

Yarrun XIX · 2013-11-21 17:10:08

The survival of different species is a boon to humanity, and not just in the sense that all life is sacred.

Every species has a specific genetic makeup, and we've gotten a number of medicines by examining those genetic structures. There's also the fact that many animals have an important role to play in the world's ecosystems. Bees, for example, are important for pollination (which makes their mass deaths kind of worrying).

If we were to get into the intelligence of animals who suffer from poaching, we would have to go into the various domesticated animals who suffer during the day-to-day processes that result in the Big Mac with a Fish-Filet and Chicken Nuggets.

Everybody has the right to life, but if you're so dedicated to doing something wrong that you'll threaten to shoot a guy, you give up that privilege.

Frig, I'm just a bunch of scattered words, aren't I? Forget I said anything.

Sredni Vashtar · 2013-11-21 17:13:49

Yarrun XIX said:
If we were to get into the intelligence of animals who suffer from poaching, we would have to go into the various domesticated animals who suffer during the day-to-day processes that result in the Big Mac with a Fish-Filet and Chicken Nuggets.

I do not disagree. This is one of the reasons that my views on eating meat are... complicated.

Yarrun XIX said:
Frig, I'm just a bunch of scattered words, aren't I? Forget I said anything.

Not at all.

Miss Miko Mayonegg · 2013-11-21 19:03:02

I value dog life as much as human life and also animal testing is always bad.

One-Winged Eagle · 2013-11-21 20:29:15

I wouldn't call for an all-out purge of poachers, but I certainly would advocate legislation allowing wildlife preservers the right to shoot trespassers. Oh, and the provision of better weapons (for whatever value of "better", I'm not an expert) and training in said weapons.

Although like monetization of the trophy-killing of the old and sick endangered animals is a good idea.

Yarrun XIX · 2013-11-22 01:07:12

Animal testing is at times necessary, but only for the sake of scientific purposes. I'd kill a kitten to save a human being, to quote the angry guy. And even then, all effort must go towards making the experiments as humane as humanly possible.

Cosmetics testing is right out.

Miss Miko Mayonegg · 2013-11-22 01:57:21

Animal testing is 100% unnecessary because synthetic tissue is a thing.

Previous Calica · 2013-11-22 02:35:38

Miko said:
Animal testing is 100% unnecessary because synthetic tissue is a thing.

synthetic tissue can only go so far.

Fossilmaiden · 2013-11-22 10:57:55

Synthetic tissue cannot reasonably simulate a living creature in its entirety. As all drugs are required to have an animal testing phase, it's either that, or stop drug research entirely. Which is a wholly terrible idea.

Mr. Darcy · 2013-11-22 12:20:52

Killing is always bad, but living without killing animals is supererogatory. Human life is so sacred that it's obligatory. Of course acts of defense don't count, so I'm all for the relevant authorities (park rangers) shooting poachers.

Beholder · 2013-11-22 12:56:30

Not sure about other animals, but I'd say that anyone who kills a cat (or other type of pet) for fun has it coming.

Mr. Darcy · 2013-11-22 13:05:31

What makes pet lives more valuable than, say, the lives of black rhinos?

Aliroz · 2013-11-22 13:07:59

Sentient creatures can be expected to take care of themselves and thus don't need me to value them nearly as much as nonsentient creatures.

Beholder · 2013-11-22 13:09:15

Relationship to humans, I guess. Pets are the type of creatures humans are expected to take care of. Killing a pet is not just cruelty, it is also a betrayal.

Mr. Darcy · 2013-11-22 13:13:47

So betrayal is worse than murder?

Are you Dante?

Also, Aliroz, most tetrapods at least are sentient.

... except you, derpy giraffe.

Aliroz · 2013-11-22 13:14:49

Alright, creatures sentient enough to create writing. Once you've made writing, you're on your own.

Fossilmaiden · 2013-11-22 13:17:39

Are you implying that most animals are incapable of fending for themselves? Last I checked, that ain't remotely true.

Beholder · 2013-11-22 13:18:26

Yes, it is worse, and no, I'm not Dante last time I've checked.

Correct about sentience/sapience, though. It so happened that the first term is more popular that the second, for some reason.

Anyway, I can't think of any possible redeeming qualities that a person killing a cat for fun can have. None whatsoever.

Aliroz · 2013-11-22 13:25:27

Fossilmaiden said:
Are you implying that most animals are incapable of fending for themselves? Last I checked, that ain't remotely true.

No, the Chinese Alligator is completely capable of fending for itself; but that doesn't stop it from being extremely endangered.

Once you have a sentient industrial species all over the place, it changes the situation entirely. Human beings have the capacity to cause a mass extinction event; in much the same way as an asteroid.

Human-level intelligence is a total game-changer.

Tachyon · 2013-11-22 16:47:29

it is and yet it isn't

i'm not terribly worried about people as a species, but that's quite a bit different from not valuing human lives

Aliroz · 2013-11-22 16:57:28

I value human lives, alright, it's just that I think the animals are more in need right now.

Sredni Vashtar · 2013-11-22 17:08:30

I think what Al is talking about is sapience rather than sentience. Sentience is the capacity to think; sapience is the capacity to think at a human-like or greater level, in simplest terms. Elephants and dolphins may well be sapient; most other animals are simply sentient.

Tachyon · 2013-11-22 17:20:53

even elephants and dolphins can't make a case for themselves verbally, which is all that really counts if you don't want to meet with force

i certainly agree that animals need our protection and concern

Sredni Vashtar · 2013-11-22 17:23:57

Well, not to humans. Dolphins and elephants can certainly communicate quite well with each other. But that is besides the point. We are currently the species with vehicles, guns and writing implements. It is our obligation to use those things with justice and wisdom.

Justice4243 · 2013-11-22 17:35:35

Yes, please include me in all your gun totting, creative writing, road trips.

Sredni Vashtar · 2013-11-22 17:50:35

I will. You have the superior beard; I must comply.

Tachyon · 2013-11-22 17:51:56

Sredni Vashtar said:
Well, not to humans. Dolphins and elephants can certainly communicate quite well with each other. But that is besides the point. We are currently the species with vehicles, guns and writing implements. It is our obligation to use those things with justice and wisdom.

i know that

same goes for whales, apes, monkeys, birds, even many insects can communicate quite sophisticatedly amongst themselves, to a point

but i meant specifically with human beings

animals can't fight us with force, nor can they plead with us verbally

Sredni Vashtar · 2013-11-22 17:57:04

Thus the second part of my statement. I am not disagreeing with the fundamental point.

Miss Miko Mayonegg · 2013-11-22 17:59:32

Inflicting agony on an animal is never, ever okay. u_u Especially if you're not going to eat it! :O Conduct drug research in a humane way and/or use synthetic tissues! :| It makes me want to vomit to know what some people do to animals. :x

The real unforgivable acts are committed by calm men in beautiful green silk rooms, who deal death wholesale, by the shipload, without lust, without anger, or desire, or any redeeming emotion to excuse them but cold fear of some pretended future.

But the crimes they hope to prevent in that future are imaginary. The ones they commit in the present - they are real.

This is the most relevant paragraph ever for moral quandaries.

Also, wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee music video time~! It's Miko's multi-media seminar on being nice to the animals! :D

And finally, see Miko's tumblr post on the subject that no one read. :)

http://kirisamekirigiri.tumblr.com/post/41353044499/a-post-about-animal-testing

Obā-san · 2013-11-22 18:02:29

I have to say not one of the sources you cited there looks even vaguely reputable.

Obā-san · 2013-11-22 18:06:15

First off, the reason you can buy products that say that they are "not tested on animals" is because their active ingredients were already tested on animals by someone else and as such are already known to be safe. Their claim is intellectually disingenuous and distasteful in the extreme.

Secondly, synthetic tissue is not a complete organism, as such it cannot show all of the possible effects of an ingredient on a human being.

Miss Miko Mayonegg · 2013-11-22 18:06:17

herp a derp they dont really torture animals in labs and spray toxic chemicals in their eyes for days

bluh bluh they torture animals humanely so like dont worry

who cares about cruelty my pretty face is more important

nope :o

Also the Catholic church used to experiment on live humans because dead humans were thought to be cursed. :o It's similar logic imo.

Obā-san · 2013-11-22 18:08:13

you are not responding to a single thing I am saying.

Mr. Darcy · 2013-11-22 18:09:53

Miko said:
Also the Catholic church used to experiment on live humans because dead humans were thought to be cursed. :o It's similar logic imo.

... what?

Tachyon · 2013-11-22 18:14:24

Miko said:
herp a derp they dont really torture animals in labs and spray toxic chemicals in their eyes for days
bluh bluh they torture animals humanely so like dont worry
who cares about cruelty my pretty face is more important
nope :o

Also the Catholic church used to experiment on live humans because dead humans were thought to be cursed. :o It's similar logic imo.

you know i'm not all that informed on this so i'd rather sit this argument out

but talking across people, and worse, putting strawman arguments into their mouths and going all herp derp i'm an idiot, is both obnoxious and intellectually dishonest

it doesn't further your argument, it just communicates your utter lack of respect for the person disagreeing with you

Miss Miko Mayonegg · 2013-11-22 18:32:43

what I wasn't talking to him I was monologuing. Sorry... but umm my views are like absolute and un-changeable so I can't really argue about them.

Miss Miko Mayonegg · 2013-11-22 18:33:09

Those quotes were like, generalizations of lots of people.

Tachyon · 2013-11-22 18:49:03

oh ok

Aliroz · 2013-11-22 19:49:51

So, anyways, there are wonderful creatures that are extinct, like Leedsichthys problematicus.

Previous Calica · 2013-11-22 19:54:36

Miko said:
what I wasn't talking to him I was monologuing. Sorry... but umm my views are like absolute and un-changeable so I can't really argue about them.

this seems like a bad attitude to have

Viani · 2013-11-24 11:57:55

Aliroz said:
So, anyways, there are wonderful creatures that are extinct, like Leedsichthys problematicus.

A fish so big they couldn't decide HOW big, just like modern fishermen.

Valuing Animal Life over Human Lives

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories