|Bracing against the wind|
Thursday, May 27, 2004
There are no-kill shelters. These shelters round up animals, spay and neuter them, and then feed and house them in a shelter for their entire lives unless they are adopted. I would say that the best shelter would be one that somehow retrained the animals to survive in the wild, and then released them. But I can't imagine how that would be done.
Another screwy concept is that it's better to neuter a dog than to have lots of starving puppies all over the place. In other words... it's better to never be born than it is to be born and fight for survival in a difficult ecosystem.
Both of these arguments were used by Hitler-era eugenics experts.
We trap, cage, spay and neuter cats and dogs so that we don't have streets full of animals devaluing the real-estate of our septic cities. The landowners who promote these policies use moral reasoning to recruit philisophically naive volunteers. These kids then spend their free time helping to bolster landowner property values while complaining about skyrocketing rents.
People talk about alleviating suffering in the world. But suffering is an integral part of life. So anyone who says that they truly want to end all suffering is, indirectly, talking about an end to all life.
A more reasonable effort, if any, would be to promote the continued existance of life itself ... specifically diverse biota capable of sustaining the progeny, both memetic and genetic, of the interested parties. Diversity is necessary. We need a wide range of lifeforms, organizations and structures in existance to combat the natural degradation of matter into a stable state.
[View/Post Comments] [Digg] [Del.icio.us] [Stumble]
| Bloghop: | Blogarama | Technorati | Blogwise