|
March 20, 2007
Who decides what's "species-appropriate" for animals?
It didn't come as news to me that animal rights activists have a penchant for killing animals that don't fit within the scheme of their theories of power. But this story involving demands that a zoo in Germany kill an abandoned polar bear cub is especially irritating: Tiny, fluffy and adorable, Knut the baby polar bear became an animal superstar after he was abandoned by his mother.So says Frank Albrecht. And so say a lot of these crackpots. What I can't decide is which is worse: their ideas, or the fact that people who ought to know better listen to them. Much as I worry that applying logic to the views of someone like Herr Albrecht is an exercise in futility, let me try. What gives him the right to determine what is and is not "species-appropriate"? Did the polar bear identitarian club vote to put him in charge of determining what's appropriate for their species? Or is he just a self appointed spokesman for all species? Hell, I suspect that I belong to the same species as Albrecht, but does that give him the right to decide what's "species-appropriate" for me too? I'm not sure I like that -- any more than I like certain activists deciding what is and is not "natural." Try as I might, I just can't get over the supreme irony and supreme arrogance of the idea that animal rights activists (who are human beings) should decide what is and what is not "species-appropriate" for animals. I mean, aren't they supposed to be against man having dominion over animals? Fortunately, the zoo officials don't agree with Albrecht, and they have refused to kill the bear cub. Maybe they should post an armed guard, though, for Knut might need protection against the "species-appropriate" activists.... There's a YouTube video of cute litte Knut engaging in all sorts of "species-inappropriate" acts. And if you really want to see something "species-inappropriate," check out this video of an abandoned lion which was adopted and raised by a mother dog.
I'm assuming that the animal rights activists would demand the death penalty for both of them -- for their unnatural, species-inappropriate, deviant activities. Sheesh. Next thing you know, the animal rights activists will decide that some species are more appropriate than other species -- and that some might be not merely "species-inappropriate," but might be an inappropriate species. At the rate things are going, pretty soon the only species-appropriate thing for humans to do will be to leave the planet. posted by Eric on 03.20.07 at 01:42 PM
Comments
It is alleged, plausibly, that the activist in question was misquoted by one of the German papers, and was actually arguing, not that the animal should be killed, but comparing the animal to another case of one that was not cute, where the animal was killed. In other words, he was complaining that cute animals get to live and ugly ones get killed, by zoos that at least pretend to not care about "cute", but conservation. (On the other hand, this resonates and doesn't strike people as being obvious bull because there are "animal rights activists" such as PETA who really do prefer animals die than be tainted by human interference.) Sigivald · March 20, 2007 03:51 PM No, remember, if we leave the planet, we'll just screw up the pristine ecologies of the Moon, the asteroid belt, and all the other natural planets. (On some level, I still can't believe that people actually have little enough comprehension of the reasons for their beliefs that they put that forward...) Jeremy Bowers · March 20, 2007 03:57 PM It's a hoax · March 21, 2007 03:41 PM Is it a hoax? All I saw at that last link was a link to a German article, plus some anonymous opinions. The story is confirmed at der Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,472480,00.html And the Guardian: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2007/03/20/please_look_after_this_bear.html And CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/03/19/polar.bear.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories And here: What is the argument here? That a livejournal commenter is right, and all other sources are wrong? Eric Scheie · March 21, 2007 06:07 PM "Pet"?! The Berkeley City Council passed a law banning the use of the word "pet." A dog (or Canine-American) is now an "animal companion" in Berkeley - not a "pet." You also cannot be a dog's "owner" in Berkeley. You are an "animal guardian." The Berkeley Council says that the word "pet" implies that a "human animal guardian" has rights that are superior to his dog, and that is politically incorrect "speciesm." - Writing from Berkeley, California. Chocolatier · March 21, 2007 09:45 PM bewsyo bymrtxg foan bgpmzcr jdbmax bxfs aqvcdorg gjsw hbfuakvse · April 15, 2007 02:51 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
April 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
April 2007
March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
hair raising economic schemes
Pass the lard! And don't praise the ammunition! Can "responsible journalism" become irresponsible? In The Right Hands In The Wrong Hands Forgiving the shooters Coldening strikes home! A New Kind of Science Understanding the statistics Get the moderates first?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
If it is "species inappropriate" for an animal not to be abandoned to certain death in the wild (i.e., for Darwinism to run its course), why is it inappropriate for humans to dominate nature and kill inferior animals, as these activists presumably believe?