3 ms·

Yes, it painful for me to look at animals in narrow cages where they slowly go mad whith monotony. (next - by the Thanos voice) But in general I can't understan

by Muha_ 7y ago

Yes, it painful for me to look at animals in narrow cages where they slowly go mad whith monotony. (next - by the Thanos voice) But in general I can't understand the logic. In the wild, the animal has hard life. It will sooner or later be injured, sick, starving, and even eaten alive. But these sufferings are considered as normal because they are "natural". In the well-maintained zoo, the animals eat, sleep, and a bit bored, but this sufferings are considered as unacceptable. For billions of years, animals suffered for a reason: it was evolution. Now biological evolution is complete because it is displaced by the evolution of civilization. Why do animals have to suffer in wild nature now? It may happen that our descendants will look at humanism towards animals completely different: allowing animals to live in the wild will be considered a crime (like living children unattended).

stephenitis 7y ago
that's a bit too far fetched for me to believe possible for all Animalia. Then again we sorta treat dogs and cats similarly. That took thousands of years to domesticate though.
uhhhhhhh 7y ago
Animals have spent billions of years evolving to live in and handle the world they naturally inhabit. Taking them out of that, putting them in a small cages where they don't feel safe, they don't understand whats happening. They are surrounded by things that are threats in the wild, noises they aren't familiar with, etc.. Putting a wild animal in a cage isn't "boredom", its torture. > Now biological evolution is complete because it is displaced by the evolution of civilization That's not a true statement. >Why do animals have to suffer in wild nature now? Because animals ARE wild/ARE Nature. You can't remove nature from nature. >allowing animals to live in the wild will be considered a crime (like living children unattended). This is... absurd... Animals are not pets, animals ARE wild, they are dangerous. They are also required for life on this planet to continue. The ecosystem depends on animals at all levels of the energy/food web for it to exist and continue and screwing with this on that level would largely ensure the collapse of the worlds ecosystems.
- dlivingston 7y ago
  You forget that we are wild too; though we have traded real jungles for concrete jungles, our biology has not changed
- Muha_ 7y ago
  > Animals have spent billions of years evolving to live in and handle the world they naturally inhabit. Then what about meerkats as pets, for example? > Because animals ARE wild/ARE Nature. You can't remove nature from nature. Who say this to you? It was God, animals themselves or some voice of Universe? There is no one here, only us. We can do what we think is right. If we see suffering that has no any purpose, we can stop it. What is "purpose" is just our choice too. > They are also required for life on this planet to continue. For what? Now we are life on the planet. Nature has evolved and we are the result and next step. >The ecosystem depends on animals at all levels .. Now we have a new ecology: mankind and Earth.
  - uhhhhhhh 7y ago
    >Then what about meerkats as pets, for example? What about it? >Who say this to you? It was God, animals themselves or some voice of Universe? This is what I learned by studying biology and ecology >There is no one here, only us. We can do what we think is right. You're suggesting interrupting a natural ecosystem that is beyond complex, likely leading to its complete collapse, due to lack of understanding. You may "think" you're right, but anthropogenic projection and a complete lack of understanding of how the world works doesn't make your view right, if anything your an example of someone with good intentions that would utterly fuck up the world if you were given control >If we see suffering that has no any purpose, we can stop it. What is "purpose" is just our choice too. Suffering is a natural state of existence, we all experience it, it's part of life, many philosophers would argue a necessary part of life. >For what? Now we are life on the planet. Nature has evolved and we are the result and next step. We rely on a massively complex ecosystem made up of millions of other living organisms. We are not "the life", we are an example of it on this plane. Nature is continuing to evolve, we're just one point on a long line of changes. >Now we have a new ecology: mankind and Earth. That is absurd and unjustifiable. Earth's ecosystem is made up of billions and billions of living things, humans are just one part of it, and one of the most damaging, destructive, short-sighted living things and we cause significantly more suffering than anything else. I would suggest starting with biology and ecology courses, and some history both geological and human.

by Muha_ 7y ago

stephenitis 7y ago

that's a bit too far fetched for me to believe possible for all Animalia. Then again we sorta treat dogs and cats similarly. That took thousands of years to domesticate though.

uhhhhhhh 7y ago

Animals have spent billions of years evolving to live in and handle the world they naturally inhabit. Taking them out of that, putting them in a small cages where they don't feel safe, they don't understand whats happening. They are surrounded by things that are threats in the wild, noises they aren't familiar with, etc.. Putting a wild animal in a cage isn't "boredom", its torture. > Now biological evolution is complete because it is displaced by the evolution of civilization That's not a true statement. >Why do animals have to suffer in wild nature now? Because animals ARE wild/ARE Nature. You can't remove nature from nature. >allowing animals to live in the wild will be considered a crime (like living children unattended). This is... absurd... Animals are not pets, animals ARE wild, they are dangerous. They are also required for life on this planet to continue. The ecosystem depends on animals at all levels of the energy/food web for it to exist and continue and screwing with this on that level would largely ensure the collapse of the worlds ecosystems.

dlivingston 7y ago
You forget that we are wild too; though we have traded real jungles for concrete jungles, our biology has not changed
Muha_ 7y ago
> Animals have spent billions of years evolving to live in and handle the world they naturally inhabit. Then what about meerkats as pets, for example? > Because animals ARE wild/ARE Nature. You can't remove nature from nature. Who say this to you? It was God, animals themselves or some voice of Universe? There is no one here, only us. We can do what we think is right. If we see suffering that has no any purpose, we can stop it. What is "purpose" is just our choice too. > They are also required for life on this planet to continue. For what? Now we are life on the planet. Nature has evolved and we are the result and next step. >The ecosystem depends on animals at all levels .. Now we have a new ecology: mankind and Earth.
- uhhhhhhh 7y ago
  >Then what about meerkats as pets, for example? What about it? >Who say this to you? It was God, animals themselves or some voice of Universe? This is what I learned by studying biology and ecology >There is no one here, only us. We can do what we think is right. You're suggesting interrupting a natural ecosystem that is beyond complex, likely leading to its complete collapse, due to lack of understanding. You may "think" you're right, but anthropogenic projection and a complete lack of understanding of how the world works doesn't make your view right, if anything your an example of someone with good intentions that would utterly fuck up the world if you were given control >If we see suffering that has no any purpose, we can stop it. What is "purpose" is just our choice too. Suffering is a natural state of existence, we all experience it, it's part of life, many philosophers would argue a necessary part of life. >For what? Now we are life on the planet. Nature has evolved and we are the result and next step. We rely on a massively complex ecosystem made up of millions of other living organisms. We are not "the life", we are an example of it on this plane. Nature is continuing to evolve, we're just one point on a long line of changes. >Now we have a new ecology: mankind and Earth. That is absurd and unjustifiable. Earth's ecosystem is made up of billions and billions of living things, humans are just one part of it, and one of the most damaging, destructive, short-sighted living things and we cause significantly more suffering than anything else. I would suggest starting with biology and ecology courses, and some history both geological and human.