Animal Protection Is The Most Meaningful Cause

[kaichen]

I have had much compassion for animals since I was a child. When I was growing up, my faith and values changed several times, but my love and compassion for animals never changed. Now I finally realize that animal protection is the really meaningful cause.

Below are my answers to some questions, and a rough description of my animal protection concept.

Why must we protect animals?

Like we human beings, animals have consciousness and feeling, and can experience suffering and happiness.

No one wants suffering, and neither do animals. This is the enough reason why we must protect animals.

Why do we not advocate "protecting plants"?

Plants do not have brain or nerve, so that they do not have any consciousness at all, including any suffering or happiness.

Therefore, in terms of morality, there is no need to protect plants.

Why do we not advocate "protecting mosquitoes"?

All vertebrate animals, including human beings, have advanced nervous systems, and have strong feeling and consciousness. However, most invertebrates, such as insects, only have very simpl e nervous systems, so that most invertebrates' feeling and consciousness are very weak.

We do not say "protect mosquitoes" or "protect mites", because their feeling and consciousness are very weak.

Why we must not kill animals, although animals keep killing each other?

Animals should not be condemned for killing others, because animals have low intelligence, and cannot understand that their behaviors bring suffering to other individuals. It is just as you cannot condemn a child who is three or four years old for killing someone, because it knows nothing; in fact, many animals have the same intelligence level as a child at that age does.

However, adults' intelligence level is high enough for them to know that their behaviors may bring suffering to other individuals. Under the circumstance of knowing that, doing such behaviors is an obvious atrocity.

Why do we not obey the natural law which lets the strong ones prey upon the weak ones?

The natural law that allows the strong ones to prey upon the weak ones runs counter to the human ethics. If not, there would be no need to protect the disadvantaged groups.

The weak ones should be protected. The laws of nature are brutal, but the human ethics are compassionate. We human beings must fight against the brutality and stop the killing, not perform the killing.

Why should we be concerned about animals, rather than people?

People live really well nowadays. Most of the so-call disadvantaged groups and poor people are just have rough or less good living conditions. In addition, the human societies keep offering helps and opportunities to those disadvantaged people; with the development of societies, the helps and opportunities keep increasing.

In comparison, animals’ situations make me feel sorrier – at least those poor people will not be mistreated or killed. However, there is not even any relevant law to punish the murderers who killed animals cruelly. Now there is nothing more urgent than protecting animals.

Moreover, there is a distinction of good and evil in humans, but animals are all innocent and lovely – just as children (many animals have the same intelligence as children do); every single child is lovely.

Nowadays the rich and powerful people, have strong power, but always squander the power and capital on luxurious lives and meaningless faiths. I will be the owner of power, and use the power to make the greatest contribution to animal protection.

Strive for it!

[bunnys]

I agree with your sentiments but disagree with a lot of your premises and logic.

I disagree with not bothering to protect plants simply because they are not sentient. If we don't protect plants it won't be long before there will no longer be tropical rainforests and then we'll all be cooked. Not believing we should protect plants means we should just eliminate the National Parks System. Do you believe in this? Should our government allow us to plow up every acre of wild land in the United States and plant crops? The chestnut blight came into the US at the beginning of the 1900's brought accidentally by an Asian chestnut that had immunity to the blight. Had the US government been protecting native plant species at that point the American chestnut would not have gone nearly extinct as its current conservation status is. Do you really think we shouldn't be protecting plants because they aren't sentient?

In regards to insects, how do you define "weak consciousness?" It sounds like you have arbitrarily drawn the line here. I don't believe insects should be killed unless they are harming me/my family or pets/my property--which is actually a lot of insects but doesn't include the beetle that gets inside during the summer or the spider that spins its web in the corner of my kitchen. Most Jains do not kill insects.

I also disagree on the premise of your last question. I believe we should protect animals and people. I don't spend my time and resources protecting people because there is already a disproportionate percentage of human and financial charitable resources being allocated to alleviate human suffering and very little being allocated to alleviating animal suffering. I choose to direct my efforts to the group where my resources will produce the most tangible good.

I also don't think all animals are lovely (not even close) but I don't think they should pass an attractiveness test to warrant being protected from human exploitation.

I have a problem with you using the descriptors "good" and "evil." This sets up one side to claim the mantle of "good" and so give themselves carte blanche to engage in any activity they want (regardless of the amount of collateral damage to other groups) in the interest of doing their "work" in the name of the "good entity." I believe this is how humanity has justified terribly destructive and hurtful practices over our history.

Additionally, you are kidding yourself if you don't think plenty of people are being mistreated and killed by other humans. It happens everyday in gruesome and malicious ways I'm certain neither you nor I can even imagine. But you seem to have established an either/or choice here. I don't think you can win your argument using that kind of framework.

But most importantly, what concrete actions are you taking to alleviate the suffering of animals?

[puglogic]

Kaichen, I think you'll be better received here if you have conversations with people rather than just drop in to throw down a plate of dogma.

There are many worthy causes - hundreds of thousands of them. Animal protection is one of mine, but we all make our own choices, and that way all the good work necessary to the world's health gets done.

Don't preach. Join the community.

[Tradd]

I used to work in an office where the management was only into animal causes. They repeatedly attempted to get others in the office to donate to their causes. If someone suggested the office putting together a food basket or something similar for a needy family at the holidays, no go! "We don't do humans. We only do animals." Worst management I've ever worked with, too.

Left an extremely bad taste in my mouth with regards to strident animal advocates.

[bunnys]

Left an extremely bad taste in my mouth with regards to strident animal advocates.

Don't let that ruin the idea of supporting animal causes for you. Animals still need to be helped regardless of a strident minority. There are strident zealots advocating for every cause. And most animal advocates I know aren't zealots or strident. When challenged, they will defend their positions but it's not about them. It's about the animals--the same way good advocates for every cause feel.

[fidgiegirl]

Guys, I'm guessing kaichen is going from forum to forum to forum all over the internet posting this very same thing. If kaichen is around and wants to have a discussion, s/he can come back. But I'm guessing his/her post count will be 1 forevermore.

[bunnys]

Kelli:

Are you saying kaichen is trolling?

Did you think kaichen's post was inflammatory? I didn't think that was the intent. Kaichen just appears to be really young and passionate about this topic and so put his/her opinions out in-artfully. Probably bad idea to make first post to this forum as that long diatribe on what some would say is a controversial topic. I don't think if most people were asked if they thought animals should be treated humanely that many would say "no." So I don't really see it as a controversial topic.

Maybe I'm reading this situation differently than most? I guess if we never see kaichen again I'll be proven wrong, big time.

[Suzanne]

Well, people ARE animals - we're mammals with high consciousness, way up in the top 1%. I think that qualifies people for being treated decently.

[bae]

The OP has dropped the same text off on a variety of forums.

Why don't you introduce yourself, Kaichen?

[Gregg]

Kelli and bae are right, its just a stop and drop of that post in several forums around the cyber world. Best to just ignore it or possibly use it as a starting point for a real discussion on animal rights, ethics, etc.