The debate on animal consumption by humans has generated numerous debates, attracting critics and proponents. Michael Pollan’s “An Animal’s Place” addresses the question of whether or not People should eat animals and, more narrowly, whether or not the way animals are bred and butchered shows consideration for their potential to suffer. Some argue that using animals for human purposes abuses their fundamental rights and destroys the ecosystem. However, some argue that animals are meant to be used for human purposes. Hence, the solution to this argument needs to be clarified, but policies need to develop to avoid the adverse effects since people need animals. Despite the argument that animals should be used for human purposes, many people state that it is unacceptable because of violating their rights.
The history of using animals humans is fascinating and complex due to the challenges of taming them. Domestication of animals likely began in western Asia at approximately 8,000 BCE, when people began to rely more on agriculture for their food source (Leonard, 2019). Domesticating goats and sheep likely came first and second, respectively. The process of taming wild animals may be challenging. Domesticated animals formerly used for specific tasks may now be obsolete. For example, humans tamed several dog species to aid in hunting. Nevertheless, in the Indus Valley Civilization, a body of thinking emerged devoted to protecting nonhuman creatures. Animals have played a significant role in propelling these and other changes as main actors in evolutionary biology, the development of agriculture, the rise of zoonotic pathogens, and the working of human-embedded ecosystems. Animals are owed the same respect as humans because of the religious belief that dead ancestors might return to animal form. Thus, the government introduced new policies on the use of animal products.
The main argument is that using animals for human purposes violates their rights. A person who cannot decide independently about good and wrong has no moral standing. No other species is capable of independent moral judgment. As a result, creatures apart from humans have no inherent worth. Pollan (2002) makes many compelling points that support his view on the morality of animal killing. Since humans share a common ancestry with other creatures, Pollan thinks it is only fair that we provide every living thing on Earth the same degree of respect. Michael Pollan expresses his perspective on whether animals should be murdered for food in his article “An Animal’s Place” (Pollan, 2002). Pollan (2002) does more than convey his thoughts as a writer; he also examines them from a reader’s perspective, addressing any concerns the reader could have. Animal cruelty mainly results in the animal experiencing unnecessary suffering. As opposed to popular belief, most incidences of physical mistreatment end horribly, with the afflicted animal either never recovering or being adopted by a caring family.
Another reason why animal uses for human purposes is unacceptable is based on the fact that they are part of the ecosystem. Every known animal species serves a function. As people, such goals may be to make the world a better place. It is also possible that regulation of natural processes is at play, as is the case with many insect species. The role that animals play in maintaining global order is crucial. Animals are crucial to our planet’s health, ecology, and existence (Hussain, 2021). The animals, particularly the tinier mammals, make wonderful pets. The balance of an ecosystem relies on the perpetual cycle of predators and prey. Herbivores like goats are easy food for carnivores like hyenas and wolves. The herbivores consume vegetation and graze on grass. Plants need the carbon dioxide these creatures exhale to develop and create oxygen. Also, animals protect the ecosystem by caring for other species since they supplement each other. For instance, elephants can dig drinking water holes, which helps other animals during droughts.
Religious beliefs object to animal cruelty based on the principles of empathy and compassion. Compassionate conservationists believe empathy should be the cornerstone of all conservation efforts. Killing imported species to restore and maintain ecosystems is a significant issue for individuals who subscribe to the principles of conscientious conservation (Griffin et al., 2020). In the nations and customs where these traditions are observed and animals are respected, animals continue to be exploited for sustenance and slaughtered for religious purposes. God calls Christians to protect His creation by not engaging in activities threatening their existence. Likewise, Judaism has highly valued animals over the years, especially as a component in the conservation of the environment. Many Jews assert that their opposition to animal cruelty is powerfully rooted in Jewish teachings. The principle of tsa’ar ba’alei chaim in Judaism is the duty not to inflict animals suffering. Also, Buddhists make an effort to be compassionate toward all living things. Buddhists are admonished under the theory of proper livelihood not to engage in activities involving animal death. Hindu belief based on the “atman,” a divine spark, is present in every living creature. As a result, students learn to hold animals with high esteem and regard.
However, critics argue that animals should be used for human purposes such as lab testing, hunting, entertainment, and food. The exotic creatures that so captivated the ancients should be put to good use in shows. Archaeological evidence indicates that around 2000 B.C.E., lions were being kept and exhibited in cages in Macedonia (Leonard, 2019). Hunting was a common practice in the classical era as a food source, and it is an entertainment activity in the modern world. Furthermore, laboratory testing is one aspect that uses animals to find treatment for chronic human diseases. Researchers’ knowledge of human biology and health has benefited greatly by using animals in laboratories (Animalresearch.info, 2021). The success and safety of novel therapies may be tested in animal models. Beef is also one of the oldest and most physiologically significant human diets. Some nutrients only found in animal products are absent in plant-based diets. Most people have inherited the culture of eating meat from the fore generation, which is deeply entrenched in their culture.
Contrary, there are some adverse ramifications of using animals for human purposes. For instance, meat consumption is unhealthy, and hunting causes a decline of some precious vital for biodiversity. For example, some type of meats has saturated fat content that is not good for human consumption. High blood cholesterol levels are associated with a diet heavy in saturated fat, increasing the risk of heart failure (Gullone, 2017). Animal slaughter causes ecological disruption. The environment collapses, and the number of certain kinds of animals grows due to hunting. When animals are killed, it throws the ecology out of whack. Overgrazing of grasslands and other plants by animals like deer and rabbits contributes to deforestation, while hunters and poachers who kill carnivores for their pelt and other goods increase their numbers. Using animals in scientific studies also poses a significant threat to people. Inaccurate data from animal experiments endanger human health (Akhtar, 2018). Because of this misplaced faith in the effectiveness and safety of testing employing animals, clinical trial participants are given false hopes and a false feeling of security. Hence, the opportunity cost of giving up on effective treatments due to false positives in animal studies is a significant, if indirect, contributor to human misery.
In conclusion, the debate on using animals for human purposes like food, entertainment, and research is unacceptable since it violates their rights. Besides, the paper discusses the vital role of animals in the ecosystem, which protects humans and other animals. However, critics argue that animals are an essential source of nutrients and entertainment, and their use in lab tests can help humans treat several diseases. Conversely, the ramifications of using animals for the reasons stated by the critics are adverse to the environment and humans. Hence, policies should be placed by the government to protect animals from human exploitation. For instance, more conservation programs for animals and plants are vital steps in achieving sustainability.
References
Akhtar, A. (2018). The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 24(04), 407–419. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0963180115000079
Animalresearch.info. (2021, February 15). Read the four main reasons why animals are used in medical research. Ari.info. https://www.animalresearch.info/en/designing-research/why-animals-are-used/
Griffin, A. S., Callen, A., Klop-Toker, K., Scanlon, R. J., & Hayward, M. W. (2020). Compassionate conservation clashes with conservation biology: Should empathy, compassion, and deontological moral principles drive conservation practice? Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1139.
Gullone, E. (2017). Why Eating Animals is not suitable for us. Journal of Animal Ethics, 7(1), 31–62.
Hussain, G. (2021, November 3). 15 Animals Who Help the Environment and How They Do It. Sentient Media. https://sentientmedia.org/animals-that-help-the-environment/
Leonard, J. (2019, October 21). Cognitive dissonance: Definition, effects, and Examples. Www.medicalnewstoday.com. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326738
Pollan, M. (2002). An animal’s place. New York Times Magazine, pp. 10, 58–111.
write