The question of how similar animals are to humans comes up frequently. People on the right think that animals are just our property and we can do anything we like to them. Animal rights people put them on a pedestal, elevating them above people because they're somehow purer and nobler than we callow humans.
A writer to the New York Times recently said:
We’ve known since Darwin that other animals are more like humans than they are unlike us. They are made of flesh, blood and bone, just as we are, and physiologically, they feel pain in the same way and to the same degree.This video of a wild mouse running on a wheel, apparently for fun, is what the writer was talking about. Anyone who has a pet or has worked with animals closely knows that animals have emotions and a certain coarse intelligence.
More and more, we are also learning that they have the same range of emotions and needs, including the need to play, a fact accentuated by the research showing that some mice enjoy running on wheels (“Mice Run for Fun, Not Just Work, Research Shows,” news article, May 21).
As your article rightly notes, each animal is an individual, just as each human is an individual; some will enjoy the wheel, others won’t. As we grow in our understanding of other animals, it is only a matter of time before we stop using them in experiments, for food and for human amusement.
I can agree with the writer up to a point. We're not that different from animals. But his conclusion is just plain wrong. Entire animal species use other animals for food: carnivores such as cats, canines, sharks, bears and so on cannot survive without killing and eating other animals. Cats "play" with their food; whether this is for entertainment or experimentation I cannot venture a guess.
Why should humans be held to a different standard than other animals when it comes to our own survival? Dogs clearly have the capacity to feel empathy for other creatures, yet they must kill in order to survive. We are no different.
If it is a moral imperative to stop killing animals for food, is it not incumbent upon us to prevent other animals from killing? Wouldn't that mean the end of all carnivore species? Clearly it would be immoral to exterminate all carnivores, but we would have to do so to prevent killing. So we must allow carnivores to act according to their nature. By that logic we must allow other humans who consider themselves carnivores to act according to their nature, within the limits of ethics and morality.
Humans do not need to eat other animals to survive; we could find other sources of protein. But we have evolved to be omnivores, and there is nothing inherently immoral about being an omnivore or carnivore.
However, killing and torturing animals solely for pleasure is clearly immoral. People who do this are psychopaths, and they frequently move on to humans. it is in our best interests to prevent sadistic killers from using animals as their training subjects.
Warehousing chickens, pigs and cattle in factory farms is tantamount to torture; these practices should be curtailed not just because they're immoral, but because they create breeding grounds for diseases that will infect humans (SARS and swine flu, for example), and are one of the main causes of antibiotic resistant bacteria that may soon bring an end to modern medicine.
It is in our best interests to make sure our food and dairy animals are fed, housed and butchered in clean and humane circumstances.
So, yes, we need to remember that animals are creatures that live and breathe and have feelings. But we are omnivores just like bears are, and as long as we treat our prey ethically and humanely, we have nothing to be ashamed of.
