It's been some time since I've really involved myself in any sort of zoophilic community, the only good one I've ever found still being at knotty.me, but one thing I recall people discussing in places is whether it's moral or not, especially as people who prefer the company of animals over people in matters that go beyond mere introversion, to eat meat and consume other animal products.
The argument has been made that we as zoos don't just love certain animals, but all animals, and we understand them better than the general population due to both our interest and our proximity to them that we try to maintain, both physically and emotionally. It's been said that anyone who can do that and still feel that they are not morally in the wrong for consuming animals cannot be doing it right.
I would argue, however, that if we understand our animals the way we say we do, we also understand our own animal nature, which historically has included eating meat as a crucial part of our lifestyle and our development as a species. It may be today that we can exist on certain proteins, synthesized supplements, all from non-animal products, but to me doing this denies some of my basic nature, the same as just giving my cat beef-flavoured supplements would deny hers.
Morality goes beyond floaty pieces of philosophy, though, and it would come down to whether or not I feel a sort of sympathy for the animals I consume. And I do. Ideally, we would live in a world in which animals and humans are free to live their own lives without interfering with one another without consent. Wild horses would never have gone extinct everywhere outside Mongolia. Bears would leave alone campers. Birds wouldn't get sucked into jet intakes. Unfortunately, that isn't a world we live in, and isn't a world we can live in; humans are taking over and I don't believe it will even be a possibility without a literal apocalypse for us to stop it. So to me, there are two options: The first is that we press the philosophy that animals need to be protected, away from humans, and be allowed to live free lives without our meddling. And this has merit, morally; freedom is good, but unfortunately it often is juxtaposed against safety. If animals as a whole were allowed, and made, to live without human interference, that would also necessitate that they're living without our protection. We already of course see this when we compare the lives of animals within human society versus without; despite our consumption of them, cows, pigs, chickens are not in danger of going extinct, because we measure our consumption. Meanwhile, even though consumption of them has been made completely illegal, many endangered species are only dwindling in number, and continue to dwindle apart from within reservations specifically set aside for them. Imagine, for a moment, if rather than insisting they are wild animals, we managed to domesticate the Amur tiger. They're bred, selected for docile behaviour, and sold as pets. Suddenly they're a business, and now the tiger is nowhere near the brink of extinction.
But we're talking about slaughtering animals here, not simply keeping them as pets. Let's disregard for a moment the fact that most of the animals consumed in the United States are kept in pretty horrible conditions, and this, I agree needs to change. And it can change, it has changed in other parts of the world, with greater regulation of animal welfare in farming and a decrease in the immense amount of waste that requires the United States to slaughter so many more animals than they should. Let's pretend that we have done that, because it will happen, and that every hamburger is raised free-range, hormone free, and so on. We're still slaughtering these animals, but in the wild, these animals are naturally prey animals as well. Yes, they may perhaps live longer lives out there, but they more often will actually live shorter ones, riddled not only with the promise of eventually being eaten by a predator but also sickness, injury, accident. It's arguable that the ideal possible artificial habitat for cattle is more humane than the wild that would be the only alternative.
To me, the PETA-style notion of animal liberation is silly. If all animals were free of human influence, we would also be free of theirs, which would be an absolute tragedy, I say not just as a zoophile but as someone who benefits from the fact that dogs were domesticated for hunting, that cats were first used in agriculture, that horses were first bred and raised for not only riding but meat and milk. Cows don't make the best pets in my opinion, having raised them before, but I'm happy nevertheless that they're in it with us, guaranteed survival (at least as their modern, selectively bred incarnation), rather than being bulldozed by the relentless tide of industrialism like the rest of the wilderness. I'd like to see every animal included in human society, humanely, alongside us, and I think if we manage this, we ourselves will become more human in the process, more understanding rather than neglectful or fearful of our nonhuman fellows on this planet.
So as a member of a historically rather carnivorous species, I will continue to eat meat, but I will also be conscious of where that meat comes from, and how I, as a carnivore, might impact the humanity in the raising of that meat. Am I getting chicken from a factory farm, or is it local, free range? Just how far can the dairy cows who produce my milk move? Do you know the answers to these questions? Eat meat or do not, but if you do, be responsible about it.
The argument has been made that we as zoos don't just love certain animals, but all animals, and we understand them better than the general population due to both our interest and our proximity to them that we try to maintain, both physically and emotionally. It's been said that anyone who can do that and still feel that they are not morally in the wrong for consuming animals cannot be doing it right.
I would argue, however, that if we understand our animals the way we say we do, we also understand our own animal nature, which historically has included eating meat as a crucial part of our lifestyle and our development as a species. It may be today that we can exist on certain proteins, synthesized supplements, all from non-animal products, but to me doing this denies some of my basic nature, the same as just giving my cat beef-flavoured supplements would deny hers.
Morality goes beyond floaty pieces of philosophy, though, and it would come down to whether or not I feel a sort of sympathy for the animals I consume. And I do. Ideally, we would live in a world in which animals and humans are free to live their own lives without interfering with one another without consent. Wild horses would never have gone extinct everywhere outside Mongolia. Bears would leave alone campers. Birds wouldn't get sucked into jet intakes. Unfortunately, that isn't a world we live in, and isn't a world we can live in; humans are taking over and I don't believe it will even be a possibility without a literal apocalypse for us to stop it. So to me, there are two options: The first is that we press the philosophy that animals need to be protected, away from humans, and be allowed to live free lives without our meddling. And this has merit, morally; freedom is good, but unfortunately it often is juxtaposed against safety. If animals as a whole were allowed, and made, to live without human interference, that would also necessitate that they're living without our protection. We already of course see this when we compare the lives of animals within human society versus without; despite our consumption of them, cows, pigs, chickens are not in danger of going extinct, because we measure our consumption. Meanwhile, even though consumption of them has been made completely illegal, many endangered species are only dwindling in number, and continue to dwindle apart from within reservations specifically set aside for them. Imagine, for a moment, if rather than insisting they are wild animals, we managed to domesticate the Amur tiger. They're bred, selected for docile behaviour, and sold as pets. Suddenly they're a business, and now the tiger is nowhere near the brink of extinction.
But we're talking about slaughtering animals here, not simply keeping them as pets. Let's disregard for a moment the fact that most of the animals consumed in the United States are kept in pretty horrible conditions, and this, I agree needs to change. And it can change, it has changed in other parts of the world, with greater regulation of animal welfare in farming and a decrease in the immense amount of waste that requires the United States to slaughter so many more animals than they should. Let's pretend that we have done that, because it will happen, and that every hamburger is raised free-range, hormone free, and so on. We're still slaughtering these animals, but in the wild, these animals are naturally prey animals as well. Yes, they may perhaps live longer lives out there, but they more often will actually live shorter ones, riddled not only with the promise of eventually being eaten by a predator but also sickness, injury, accident. It's arguable that the ideal possible artificial habitat for cattle is more humane than the wild that would be the only alternative.
To me, the PETA-style notion of animal liberation is silly. If all animals were free of human influence, we would also be free of theirs, which would be an absolute tragedy, I say not just as a zoophile but as someone who benefits from the fact that dogs were domesticated for hunting, that cats were first used in agriculture, that horses were first bred and raised for not only riding but meat and milk. Cows don't make the best pets in my opinion, having raised them before, but I'm happy nevertheless that they're in it with us, guaranteed survival (at least as their modern, selectively bred incarnation), rather than being bulldozed by the relentless tide of industrialism like the rest of the wilderness. I'd like to see every animal included in human society, humanely, alongside us, and I think if we manage this, we ourselves will become more human in the process, more understanding rather than neglectful or fearful of our nonhuman fellows on this planet.
So as a member of a historically rather carnivorous species, I will continue to eat meat, but I will also be conscious of where that meat comes from, and how I, as a carnivore, might impact the humanity in the raising of that meat. Am I getting chicken from a factory farm, or is it local, free range? Just how far can the dairy cows who produce my milk move? Do you know the answers to these questions? Eat meat or do not, but if you do, be responsible about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment