Discussion Snippet on : Animal Ethics Animal Suffering in Nature

Jon Brooks The cause is noble, suffering is everywhere, so how shall we prioritize? The worst wounds are first redressed. Going to the forests looking for wounded animals is a good enough excuse to get ourselves a broader perspective on the severity of urbanity.

I was just writing about a peripheral aspect of this ethical inquiry to a school friend:

Learning of the “cascade effect” of wolves returning to Yellowstone revolutionized my dietary and ecological ethics; I realized there is a generative force of balance and creativity in the presence of predatory animals.

The entire ecosystem supports more biodiversity by the inclusion of wolves; they perform vital functions for ecological land change.

There is a premise belief that
natural systems left intact are more productive and resilient than land-clearing, even for intensive organic agriculture, yet that is within a context of market economics and antiquated technologies.

Ria Del Montana yeah, i’ve seen that film on Yellowstone wolves role in the ecosystem. we modern humans have very little awareness of all the life interconnections. we’ve messed things up so badly that we have a duty to try to undo some of our damage, but we have to proceed very carefully. we’ve proved ourselves to be way too stupid about unintended consequences. i think the safest way is for us to try to facilitate ecosystems taking gentle steps back.
Jon Brooks I always feel the impulse to avoid and escape unsustainable urbanity, even while out in the forest, and I only see a hope of reprieve from its ignorance while in production or pursuit of biological and technical solutions to the major crises of our time. We are so numerous that if everyone adopted a wild vegan diet right now there would be mass starvation in weeks, maybe enough to save the planet 😉
Ria Del Montana ha! even with meat eating, just imagine how modern humans would respond to a large scale collapse. it would be a matter of weeks. but then after…
David Hunt I get a little worried when humans decide to help natural systems. Our species should definitely help other species, but unless you’re out there living with them there’s a danger of bringing civilized viewpoints where they don’t belong.

Also, we could help all species the most by leaving their habitats alone. Leave the trees in the sky, the oil in the ground and let the water flow downhill.

 

Kytko Žrout I totally agree with these:

Adopting orphans –
there is no doubt we are responsible for orphaned wildlife animal little ones because most of them are left alone due to their families were hunted down or mothers were killed in roadkill or eventually poisoned by pesticides or murdered during harvests or large scale grass mowing.

Psychological stress –
especially wildlife animals affected by fucking New year fireworks. No doubt about helping them.

Trapped animals –
yes, we are responsible for trapped animals as well. Elks (cervus elaphus) and other deer trapped in wire fences, foxes and hedgehogs trapped in fucking bottles or cans and many many more situations caused by civilization

Disease and poisoned –
most of roebuck (capreolus capreolus) population is poisoned by leaves of rapeseed. Nearly 1400 of them were poisoned in my region last year.Most of hunters/gamekeepers in my country are former workers of agricultural cooperatives existed during communist era of my country and they had acces to insecticid called Carbofuran. When I was young I could hear their chats during village balls (form of entertaiment, dancing): “Everything what has curved bird bill must be shot down or be eradicated by other ways.”
So I totally agree with this!

Injured –
Again. Our civilized way of life is harming wildlife, causing them injuries. Car hits, high voltage power lines harming and killing buzzards (buteo buteo)

But I am little bit confused and concerned about:

Malnutrition and wildlife feeding –
as there is written “This can be done by administering contraceptives to the animals whose lives have been saved, so no one has to starve in order for their population not to grow.”
I cant agree with this. I know there is a vast destruction of wild habitats providing enough food and water to animals but I think this thing around contraceptives intervention is bad idea. But maybe I am wrong and I am asking for closer explanation.
And I can say, that gamekeepers in my country intensively feed wild boars, elks and roebucks during the winter season so their population grows exponentially. But the hunters and gamekeepers are happy because they can say they have to hunt them or they will destroy their own natural habitats. And the influence of agriculture providing corn and other food attractive for wildlife. Vicious circle.

Vaccination –
there is case with vaccination in my country. There was intensive and large scale vaccination against rabies during 90s so the foxes stopped being naturally reduced by this disease so their population grow and our gamekeepers association decided to take an action and declared fox as year-around hunted vermin. But…
They don’t know nothing about fox ecology, etiology or even about hunter-prey relation.
So they have reduced fox population to the lowest possible numbers but they did not realize that other foxes will come from their territories to occupy new territories and they will have abundant food in increased population of rodents and as we know this increase was made by overhunting of previous fox population.
Or maybe I am wrong again so do not hesitate to correct me.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Discussion Snippet on : Animal Ethics Animal Suffering in Nature

  1. “we could help all species the most by leaving their habitats alone. Leave the trees in the sky, the oil in the ground and let the water flow downhill” Yes to this indeed.
    We don’t really need to save anyone, I think that is part of the whole human supremacist thinking that we *must* save others. Usually when that logic goes far out it ends up with things such as zoos and other horrifying institutions. What we, as a collective, need to do is to stop destroying the planet. If somehow that is stopped the rest will fix itself if we just stay out of the way. Life wants to live.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I think like this a lot but honestly feel in so many places we have gone too far to maintain the current ecosystems. Humans have been destroying ecosystems for thousands of years and to conserve them now would only create areas with very little biodiversity and a higher chance of more damage from future human interaction. As long as we are around we will damage the world, but maybe need to give it the best chance we can? Life wants to live – but currently that life is predominately human.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s