Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Wildlife Suffering

Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 1:49:33 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
I am getting extremely interested in animal rights recently. I read a 100 page report on the animal rights debate, and look forward to reading Peter Singer"s "Animal Liberation", Tom Regan"s "Case for Animal Rights", as well as writings by Kant. I am still in the preliminary stages of my research, but so far I am leaning Pro animal rights. I would like to read Carl Cohen"s "Case Against Animal Rights", among other books before I can make a full decision. But while I was researching I found an interesting case against animal rights that interested me.

The suffering in wildlife is enormous. Richard Dawkins writes, "The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease."

This comes from numerous predation techniques, that involve eating the prey alive, suffocation, internal bleeding, drowning, etc. It can also come from parasites, wherein the animal endures weeks of agony until it finally dies. Not only does death inact enormous suffering on animals, but so does day-to-day life. The constant hunger, search for shelter and water sources, and escaping from predators entails a stressful and painful life.

If removing animals from the wild and domesticating them reduced suffering, domesticating and killing animals for the food industry might be justified. For example, (usually) animals are taken from the wild, given ample food so that they don"t starve, protected from predators, given shelter, and then given a relatively painless death. If this life entails less suffering than the alternative (the wild), then killing/eating animals for domestication would be justified. Thoughts?

For more on wildlife suffering see
http://foundational-research.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 2:02:18 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 1:49:33 AM, Hayd wrote:
I am getting extremely interested in animal rights recently. I read a 100 page report on the animal rights debate, and look forward to reading Peter Singer"s "Animal Liberation", Tom Regan"s "Case for Animal Rights", as well as writings by Kant. I am still in the preliminary stages of my research, but so far I am leaning Pro animal rights. I would like to read Carl Cohen"s "Case Against Animal Rights", among other books before I can make a full decision. But while I was researching I found an interesting case against animal rights that interested me.

The suffering in wildlife is enormous. Richard Dawkins writes, "The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease."

This comes from numerous predation techniques, that involve eating the prey alive, suffocation, internal bleeding, drowning, etc. It can also come from parasites, wherein the animal endures weeks of agony until it finally dies. Not only does death inact enormous suffering on animals, but so does day-to-day life. The constant hunger, search for shelter and water sources, and escaping from predators entails a stressful and painful life.

If removing animals from the wild and domesticating them reduced suffering, domesticating and killing animals for the food industry might be justified. For example, (usually) animals are taken from the wild, given ample food so that they don"t starve, protected from predators, given shelter, and then given a relatively painless death. If this life entails less suffering than the alternative (the wild), then killing/eating animals for domestication would be justified. Thoughts?

For more on wildlife suffering see
http://foundational-research.org...

Nature is brutal; that's really all that their is to it. No pity or mercy, just cold reality and continuous struggle.

This argument is also disturbingly similar to those used to justify the enslavement of 'savage' people.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 2:05:09 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 2:02:18 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/29/2016 1:49:33 AM, Hayd wrote:
I am getting extremely interested in animal rights recently. I read a 100 page report on the animal rights debate, and look forward to reading Peter Singer"s "Animal Liberation", Tom Regan"s "Case for Animal Rights", as well as writings by Kant. I am still in the preliminary stages of my research, but so far I am leaning Pro animal rights. I would like to read Carl Cohen"s "Case Against Animal Rights", among other books before I can make a full decision. But while I was researching I found an interesting case against animal rights that interested me.

The suffering in wildlife is enormous. Richard Dawkins writes, "The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease."

This comes from numerous predation techniques, that involve eating the prey alive, suffocation, internal bleeding, drowning, etc. It can also come from parasites, wherein the animal endures weeks of agony until it finally dies. Not only does death inact enormous suffering on animals, but so does day-to-day life. The constant hunger, search for shelter and water sources, and escaping from predators entails a stressful and painful life.

If removing animals from the wild and domesticating them reduced suffering, domesticating and killing animals for the food industry might be justified. For example, (usually) animals are taken from the wild, given ample food so that they don"t starve, protected from predators, given shelter, and then given a relatively painless death. If this life entails less suffering than the alternative (the wild), then killing/eating animals for domestication would be justified. Thoughts?

For more on wildlife suffering see
http://foundational-research.org...

Nature is brutal; that's really all that their is to it. No pity or mercy, just cold reality and continuous struggle.

This argument is also disturbingly similar to those used to justify the enslavement of 'savage' people.

Thats interesting. Kind of; maybe. That was more social darwinism but is this social darwinism? Kind of
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 2:12:09 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 2:05:09 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:02:18 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Nature is brutal; that's really all that their is to it. No pity or mercy, just cold reality and continuous struggle.

This argument is also disturbingly similar to those used to justify the enslavement of 'savage' people.

Thats interesting. Kind of; maybe. That was more social darwinism but is this social darwinism? Kind of

Not really social Darwinism. More of a 'deprivation of freedom for their own good' argument. John C. Calhoun famously made a similar one:

'But let me not be understood as admitting, even by implication, that the existing relations between the two races in the slaveholding States is an evil:"far otherwise; I hold it to be a good, as it has thus far proved itself to be to both, and will continue to prove so if not disturbed by the fell spirit of abolition. I appeal to facts. Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually.'
http://teachingamericanhistory.org...
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 2:28:48 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 2:12:09 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:05:09 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:02:18 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Nature is brutal; that's really all that their is to it. No pity or mercy, just cold reality and continuous struggle.

This argument is also disturbingly similar to those used to justify the enslavement of 'savage' people.

Thats interesting. Kind of; maybe. That was more social darwinism but is this social darwinism? Kind of

Not really social Darwinism. More of a 'deprivation of freedom for their own good' argument. John C. Calhoun famously made a similar one:

'But let me not be understood as admitting, even by implication, that the existing relations between the two races in the slaveholding States is an evil:"far otherwise; I hold it to be a good, as it has thus far proved itself to be to both, and will continue to prove so if not disturbed by the fell spirit of abolition. I appeal to facts. Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually.'
http://teachingamericanhistory.org...

Thats very interesting. Thanks for bringing it up skep <3

Is it moral to reduce suffering by taking away freedom...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 1:51:02 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
If removing animals from the wild and domesticating them reduced suffering, domesticating and killing animals for the food industry might be justified. For example, (usually) animals are taken from the wild, given ample food so that they don"t starve, protected from predators, given shelter, and then given a relatively painless death. If this life entails less suffering than the alternative (the wild), then killing/eating animals for domestication would be justified. Thoughts?

I'd oppose that for basically the same reason Skepsikyma stated.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Vaarka
Posts: 7,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 2:32:25 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 1:49:33 AM, Hayd wrote:
I am getting extremely interested in animal rights recently. I read a 100 page report on the animal rights debate, and look forward to reading Peter Singer"s "Animal Liberation", Tom Regan"s "Case for Animal Rights", as well as writings by Kant. I am still in the preliminary stages of my research, but so far I am leaning Pro animal rights. I would like to read Carl Cohen"s "Case Against Animal Rights", among other books before I can make a full decision. But while I was researching I found an interesting case against animal rights that interested me.

The suffering in wildlife is enormous. Richard Dawkins writes, "The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease."

This comes from numerous predation techniques, that involve eating the prey alive, suffocation, internal bleeding, drowning, etc. It can also come from parasites, wherein the animal endures weeks of agony until it finally dies. Not only does death inact enormous suffering on animals, but so does day-to-day life. The constant hunger, search for shelter and water sources, and escaping from predators entails a stressful and painful life.

If removing animals from the wild and domesticating them reduced suffering, domesticating and killing animals for the food industry might be justified. For example, (usually) animals are taken from the wild, given ample food so that they don"t starve, protected from predators, given shelter, and then given a relatively painless death. If this life entails less suffering than the alternative (the wild), then killing/eating animals for domestication would be justified. Thoughts?

For more on wildlife suffering see
http://foundational-research.org...

I think there's a lot more to it than just simply domesticating them. Now, before I continue, I'm not an expert or anything on animals, so this is just what I think, not some official, spent 3 weeks researching, know everything about animal rights view.

First off, what you mentioned above is normal. Animals die, like people. How they die, while sometimes seemingly horrific and gory, isn't something that requires domestication. It's just how they live. The predators need to eat, so they find prey. The prey either learn how to hide, run, or escape to survive, or they get eaten. I don't want to sound like a "natural selection" kind of person when I say that, but that's just how it is.

Second, domesticating all of the wildlife wouldn't help them very much. Sure, they get fed and some protection from predators, but in the end, they still get killed by predators (in this case, us, though we have tools and whatnot to make it quick). Along with that, domesticating animals, while not seemingly a bad idea, has a more "later on" effect. These animals, which were used to hiding or blending in or running away, now have no need to, and so they stop doing so. Sure, they can still do it if needed, but if they breed, the offspring probably won't learn how to blend in or hide, as the mother doesn't have to anymore. So, they never really learn...and after a while, I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.

And again, if we domesticate these animals being preyed on, what happens to the predators? They need to eat too. Sure, we could domesticate them too, but they still have to eat something, which would turn out to still be their prey, just maybe in a different process. Not to mention, these predators do help keep animals from overpopulating.

Let's also not forget that some animals, no matter what video games let you do, just aren't meant to be domesticated. Deer are probably a good example of that. Sure, you can have property where you "breed the deer", but you can't exactly domesticate them.
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 10:46:22 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 1:49:33 AM, Hayd wrote:
I am getting extremely interested in animal rights recently. I read a 100 page report on the animal rights debate, and look forward to reading Peter Singer"s "Animal Liberation", Tom Regan"s "Case for Animal Rights", as well as writings by Kant. I am still in the preliminary stages of my research, but so far I am leaning Pro animal rights. I would like to read Carl Cohen"s "Case Against Animal Rights", among other books before I can make a full decision. But while I was researching I found an interesting case against animal rights that interested me.

The suffering in wildlife is enormous. Richard Dawkins writes, "The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease."

This comes from numerous predation techniques, that involve eating the prey alive, suffocation, internal bleeding, drowning, etc. It can also come from parasites, wherein the animal endures weeks of agony until it finally dies. Not only does death inact enormous suffering on animals, but so does day-to-day life. The constant hunger, search for shelter and water sources, and escaping from predators entails a stressful and painful life.

If removing animals from the wild and domesticating them reduced suffering, domesticating and killing animals for the food industry might be justified. For example, (usually) animals are taken from the wild, given ample food so that they don"t starve, protected from predators, given shelter, and then given a relatively painless death. If this life entails less suffering than the alternative (the wild), then killing/eating animals for domestication would be justified. Thoughts?

For more on wildlife suffering see
http://foundational-research.org...
The animal kingdom has yet to offer a referendum on stopping cruelty among themselves. I'm thinking the animals don't give a dam.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 7:35:45 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 1:49:33 AM, Hayd wrote:
I am getting extremely interested in animal rights recently. I read a 100 page report on the animal rights debate, and look forward to reading Peter Singer"s "Animal Liberation", Tom Regan"s "Case for Animal Rights", as well as writings by Kant. I am still in the preliminary stages of my research, but so far I am leaning Pro animal rights. I would like to read Carl Cohen"s "Case Against Animal Rights", among other books before I can make a full decision. But while I was researching I found an interesting case against animal rights that interested me.

The suffering in wildlife is enormous. Richard Dawkins writes, "The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease."

This comes from numerous predation techniques, that involve eating the prey alive, suffocation, internal bleeding, drowning, etc. It can also come from parasites, wherein the animal endures weeks of agony until it finally dies. Not only does death inact enormous suffering on animals, but so does day-to-day life. The constant hunger, search for shelter and water sources, and escaping from predators entails a stressful and painful life.

If removing animals from the wild and domesticating them reduced suffering, domesticating and killing animals for the food industry might be justified. For example, (usually) animals are taken from the wild, given ample food so that they don"t starve, protected from predators, given shelter, and then given a relatively painless death. If this life entails less suffering than the alternative (the wild), then killing/eating animals for domestication would be justified. Thoughts?

For more on wildlife suffering see
http://foundational-research.org...

Agree. Animals in the wild live stressful and dangerous lives where they are threatened by all of the things you mentioned. Animals that are domesticated are given optimal nutrition, shelter, protection from predators and veterinary treatment for health problems. In general domesticated animals enjoy their lives. The humane methods used to slaughter these animals are relatively painless in vast contrast to the cruel painful death animals experience in the wild.

So yes in my view farming animals and then slaughtering and eating them is justifiable morally.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 1:53:04 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 2/29/2016 1:49:33 AM, Hayd wrote:
I am getting extremely interested in animal rights recently. I read a 100 page report on the animal rights debate, and look forward to reading Peter Singer"s "Animal Liberation", Tom Regan"s "Case for Animal Rights", as well as writings by Kant. I am still in the preliminary stages of my research, but so far I am leaning Pro animal rights. I would like to read Carl Cohen"s "Case Against Animal Rights", among other books before I can make a full decision. But while I was researching I found an interesting case against animal rights that interested me.

The suffering in wildlife is enormous. Richard Dawkins writes, "The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease."

This comes from numerous predation techniques, that involve eating the prey alive, suffocation, internal bleeding, drowning, etc. It can also come from parasites, wherein the animal endures weeks of agony until it finally dies. Not only does death inact enormous suffering on animals, but so does day-to-day life. The constant hunger, search for shelter and water sources, and escaping from predators entails a stressful and painful life.

If removing animals from the wild and domesticating them reduced suffering, domesticating and killing animals for the food industry might be justified. For example, (usually) animals are taken from the wild, given ample food so that they don"t starve, protected from predators, given shelter, and then given a relatively painless death. If this life entails less suffering than the alternative (the wild), then killing/eating animals for domestication would be justified. Thoughts?

For more on wildlife suffering see
http://foundational-research.org...

Which is worse, suffering or freedom?

Why do you consider feeling pain a negative experience? Is that an emotional opinion?