So You Want to Be a Part of the Food Chain?
Published January 08, 2009 @ 08:00AM PT
On Tuesday, when discussing the Florida incident in which a 663-pound hammerhead shark was killed ("A Celebrated Death and Why There's No Seafood in a Shark"), I mentioned that I now wanted to discuss something related here. If you haven't read the first post yet, go do that now, so that we're all on the same page, with the same information, as we move forward.
The MSNBC journalist who brought us this story, after reducing the shark to nothing but fins and "seafood," even went so far as to say what surely many said about this killing--that "it's a good thing that this one's out of the water too; Valusia County leads the country in the number of shark bites per year." Yes, it's best that we went into this animal's habitat and killed him when we didn't need to because there is an ever-so-slight chance that otherwise, when someone else entered into his habitat without killing tools, he might mistake that person for prey. (And the chance that this ever would have happened really is slight, by the way; hammerhead shark attacks are incredibly rare. The shark bites cited aren't results of hammerhead encounters.)
Shark attacks are awful. They are the stuff of nightmares. And my heart aches for every person who has survived one and for every family who has lost a loved one to a shark attack. But do I blame the sharks? No.
We cannot knowingly take the risk of entering the natural habitats of other animals and then demonize the animals who do only what they are naturally supposed to do in those habitats. We cannot put ourselves in such situations and then use the tragedies-for-humans that result as an excuse to go out and kill these animals without need or reason. When nonhuman animals attack humans, they don't do it for sport; they don't do it so that they can have our bodies hung on a tree or an underwater cave wall. They kill for food and in defense of themselves.
So it's interesting that we congratulate our own kind for going out into the waters (or forests or mountains) and killing these animals unnecessarily for fun, profit, and food--and for doing so with killing tools that make the playing field anything but fair--but then we cry foul when one of those same animals does what he or she is intended by nature to do, what he or she must do to survive: hunt and defend.
We justify our killing and eating of all animals with references to the food chain but then want to place ourselves outside of it. A mountain lion attacks and eats a human? Well then, we have the right--nay, the duty!--to kill any suspected mountain lions until the one whose stomach contains human body parts is found. A bear attacks a human? Well then, it's time for a state to open or increase hunting on those damn vicious bears. One rare pig or bull, after great abuse and a time of unbearable confinement and isolation that would make anyone go mad, turns on a human exploiter, and it's just proof once again that we are civilized, and they are not.
We commandeer and invade their habitats because we are humans, and we have decided it is our human right to do whatever we want with land and fellow animal alike. We kill and eat both free and domesticated nonhuman animals because we are humans, and it is our right as members of the food chain to kill and eat whatever and whomever we can. But when we become part of the food chain against our will, we insist we are suddenly outside it, and those animals who would dare try to drag us into it are savage, immoral, evil beasts.
And this thinking makes no sense. If you think you have the right to eat any nonhuman animal you can catch and kill, you must grant that any nonhuman animal who can catch you has the right to kill and eat you too. If your justification for killing and eating animals is that it's all a part of the cycle of life, I must assume that you would accept large free-roaming carnivores coming into your cities and neighborhoods and hunting you too.
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
Because Calves Apparently Aren't as Cute or Worthy as Seals
-
Hunting Mishaps and Odd Omnivorous Objections
-
Updates on Wolves, Whales, and Dolphins: The Hunts Go On
Comments (8)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Stephanie is an independent animal rights advocate, a vegan, a tree-hugging environmentalist, and a freelance editor and writer. She lives in St. Louis with an aging corgi-lab and an adolescent rescued pit bull.
Well, I don't think that meat-eaters-in-denial care about the feelings of the creatures being eaten. They don't care about their lives, simply put. They don't care that the animal being killed or exploited profoundly disapproves of their behavior. They are thinking only of themselves. And so, to justify of consuming animals, they simply refer back to that same selfish way of thinking. If someone wants to use or eat them, they care all of a sudden. It's not the circle of life so much as a circular argument. "Humans eat animals. Life kills. Therefore, we are justified in killing."
Posted by Luella - on 01/08/2009 @ 11:31AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I once saw a report on a sufer who was mauled by a shark. His injuries were pretty bad. The interviewer asked if he was mad at the shark and wanted revenge. He calmly said no, I was in his territory, not the other way around.
Posted by Philosophia and Animal Liberation on 01/08/2009 @ 11:32AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
And anyway, the circle of life is a valid argument, but it can mean anything you want it to mean. It's nothing but a catch phrase in actuality. To me, the circle of life is (I can't stop using this quote): "There is no being; there is only interbeing." Everything is interconnected. What more comprehensive explanation for the circle of life could there be?
Posted by Luella - on 01/08/2009 @ 11:34AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Great stuff, Stephanie!
There was an article in the Orlando (FL) Sentinel a few months ago about a man whose arm was eaten by an alligator. When I found out that he's a fisherman and a hunter who intended to continue this behavior, I saw this "attack" as simply karma letting him off easy and I wrote a letter to the editor, which was published. I'm including it below 'cos I don't think I can say it any better today than I did that day:
Re: 'I lost my arm, but I gained my life,' alligator victim says, October 17, 2008:While I understand that the loss of a limb is tragic and life-altering, I see that this particular loss was not enough to convince Mr. Edwards to cease his "pastimes" of fishing and "shooting a hunting rifle", pastimes that involve the murder of innocent living creatures. I hear gratitude in his words but his actions speak otherwise. Why not show gratitude by adopting a philosophy of Live and Let Live for all beings?As for the "alligator attack", I have always disagreed with this kind of terminology. I've yet to see a headline that reads "Man Attacks Sandwich!" This, and similar occurrences, are not attacks any more than my breakfast today was an attack on my Cheerios. Alligators are animals that eat when they are hungry, and people in South Florida are aware of this. Since I don't want to be anyone's lunch today, I won't swim on the plate.I am glad that Mr. Edwards survived his encounter with the alligator and I wish him a speedy recovery. I also wish him a change of heart when it comes to the killing of other living creatures. He got to keep his life. Maybe now he can allow others the same gift.
Respectfully,Keith Berger
Posted by Keith Berger on 01/08/2009 @ 12:48PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
(yikes, where'd my paragraphs and indents go???) ;-)
Posted by Keith Berger on 01/08/2009 @ 12:52PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Awesome, thanks for commenting on this. You and I think the same! Thank you for your compassion and concern. You are setting a wonderful example to be followed! www.KindnessNotCruelty.org
Posted by Stacey C. on 01/09/2009 @ 08:11PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
For some, any reminder that we ARE animals and that we happen to be animals somewhere in the middle of the food chain is disturbing. They don't want to be reminded of our less-than-lofty position on this planet.
GREAT POST Steph.
Posted by Lisa Smolen on 01/10/2009 @ 08:00AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I am quite aware that I am a link in the food chain which made my African hunt that much more exciting and fulfilling. I particularly enjoyed being in a country that recognized that the best thing for wildlife is that it have economic value. When that happens, wildlife thrives. Look at the countries, for example, that actually have problems with too many elephants. They are the same ones that allow elephant hunting. I personally have no desire to hunt elephant, but look forward to an opportunity to try for Cape buffalo and leopard in the future. The fact that they are dangerous to me makes it even more interesting.
Posted by Thomas Berg on 09/21/2009 @ 03:02PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.