toldailytopic: Why did God create animals?

[CabinetMaker]

Lets not pretend that animals are mindless feelingless robots either. Some have more emotional life than others and should be treated accordingly.

You shouldn't spoil your pets anymore than you should spoil your children. I've no problem eating animals provided they are raised and killed humanely. I don't always have that choice but I prefer it. Often the milk eggs and meat produced is healthier anyway.

To your dog, you are just another dog. He will always treat you like a member of the pack. Ideally, you are the leader of the pack but every now and then you need to call in the Dog Whisperer because you let things get ups die down.

The point is, an animal will always treat you like a member of its "pack". It will try to dominate you and be the leader of the pack. This is a huge problem for people with pet pigs because people treat them like dogs which, in the pig world, makes the pig think it is the leader. It is up to us to understand our animals society and treat them as animals.

 

[Real Sorceror]

Which ones can't be eaten?

Do we hunt down and eat amoebas? Are there box jellyfish farms? Yum, yum, poison dart frogs! Mmmm, krill! My favorite!

The vast majority of animals are either not safe to eat or make a really impractical food source. And there are a lot of them, like bacteria, that just can't be digested at all.

No, I'm trying to argue that humans are natural and that we are a natural part of the environment. Whether our actions are "good" or not is immaterial.

Are fire ants "good" when they strip an area?

Elephants?

Is drought "good"? Flooding?

Whoa, we agree on two things in the same day! Thats crazy, eh?

 

[GuySmiley]

As companions.
As help to work the land.
As transportation.
As works of art.
As dinner.

and

I would add, for His own pleasure.

:thumb:

 

[Alate_One]

No, I'm trying to argue that humans are natural and that we are a natural part of the environment. Whether our actions are "good" or not is immaterial.

Are fire ants "good" when they strip an area?

Elephants?

Animals and nature do what they are "supposed" to do. They're neither good nor bad. Humans are different in that they have a choice in how they interact with nature. We are able understand what the effects of our actions will be. That is what makes the actions of humans subject to moral principles and fundamentally different than purely "natural" processes carried out by animals.

Is drought "good"? Flooding?

Have humans exacerbated the effects of the drought or flood? Or caused either? There are natural cycles that are neither good nor evil, when humans make things worse, the results become evil.

 

[Alate_One]

To your dog, you are just another dog. He will always treat you like a member of the pack. Ideally, you are the leader of the pack but every now and then you need to call in the Dog Whisperer because you let things get ups die down.

The point is, an animal will always treat you like a member of its "pack". It will try to dominate you and be the leader of the pack.

Not necessarily. Animals will fit you into the role that their species uses. Not all animals are about "domination" (I would argue dogs are not). My chickens "think" I am the rooster and submit to me accordingly. If I had a rooster he's probably view me as another rooster and we'd have a dominance issue then. (I'm told if you hold the rooster upside down by the legs they get the idea you're the boss. )

This is a huge problem for people with pet pigs because people treat them like dogs which, in the pig world, makes the pig think it is the leader. It is up to us to understand our animals society and treat them as animals.

I agree but animals too have emotions. Simpler ones than humans but generally predictable if you understand the species you're dealing with and that not all animals are the same you'll have a lot less problems. I think people are just averse to discipline in general since so many *human* children these days are spoiled rotten.

 

[some other dude]

Animals and nature do what they are "supposed" to do.

Interesting. So you see the natural world (minus humans) as a sort of ordered background, running as quiet machinery, doing whatever it is it's supposed to do, and humans as something outside of that?

They're neither good nor bad.

Geomyces destructans, which is decimating bat populations, is neither good nor bad?

Humans are different in that they have a choice in how they interact with nature.

A wolf doesn't have a choice whether or not to attack a human?

 

[Traditio]

Which ones can't be eaten?

POTD! :first:

Edit: Wizard of Oz beat me to it. :noid:

 

[Real Sorceror]

A wolf doesn't have a choice whether or not to attack a human?

Not in the same way we do, no. Wolves and dogs don't have enough higher brain functions to consider all their options.

 

[elohiym]

They exist to propagate themselves, not to please or sustain us.

Does the word ecosystem mean anything to you?

The Garden of Eden was a permaculture system. Contrast permaculture systems with modern agricultural practices (monoculture, pesticides, chemical fertilizers). One system sustains itself, and only needs tending. The other system must be sustained by "the sweat of thy brow," and it's a constant uphill battle. God created animals, insects and plants to function as a self-sustaining ecosystem.

 

[Real Sorceror]

POTD! :first:

.....didn't I just demonstrate that most animals can't be eaten?

 

[Real Sorceror]

Does the word ecosystem mean anything to you?

Contrast permaculture systems with modern agricultural practices (monoculture, pesticides, chemical fertilizers). One system sustains itself, and only needs tending. The other system must be sustained by "the sweat of thy brow," and it's a constant uphill battle. God created animals, insects and plants to function as an self-sustaining ecosystem.

Thats not what I was saying. I meant that animals aren't specifically here just so we can eat them. They do their own thing with or without us.

 

[elohiym]

Thats not what I was saying. I meant that animals aren't specifically here just so we can eat them.

Many are here so some creature can eat them. Ecosystem.

I agree, they are not all here so humans can eat them.

They do their own thing with or without us.

I disagree. They are here to do their thing with us.

 

[Alate_One]

Interesting. So you see the natural world (minus humans) as a sort of ordered background, running as quiet machinery, doing whatever it is it's supposed to do, and humans as something outside of that?

Creatures are interacting with one another which normally does amount to a sort of order. Aside from humans it's usually hard for one to get the upper hand over a great number of other species, so balance is maintained.

Humans can be part of the "order of nature" but when we put in things like superhighways with no crossings for wildlife and concrete barriers in the medians or purse seine nets that can catch nearly every fish within a radius of a few miles we become something altogether different. Everything alters its environment somewhat but with modern technology humans can operate on an unprecedented scale. Plus, we know better.

Geomyces destructans, which is decimating bat populations, is neither good nor bad?

Fire ants and the fungus were moved to the USA by humans. It's bad that they are outside of their natural environment and disrupting the normal workings of nature in this country but in and of themselves they're just "doing what they do".

A wolf doesn't have a choice whether or not to attack a human?

It does but it doesn't make that choice with an understanding of outcomes other than kill=food. It makes choices based on it's own experience and instinct.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Not necessarily. Animals will fit you into the role that their species uses. Not all animals are about "domination" (I would argue dogs are not). My chickens "think" I am the rooster and submit to me accordingly. If I had a rooster he's probably view me as another rooster and we'd have a dominance issue then. (I'm told if you hold the rooster upside down by the legs they get the idea you're the boss. )

Domination is the wrong word. Pecking order or hierarchy is a more appropriate description. The animal wants to know its place in the order of things. If it thinks it can be your boss it will try to do so. If you let it "win" then it will think you are subordinate to it and treat you as such. Remember all the stories in the news over the last couple of years about the sweat loving chimpanzees that suddenly start tearing peoples faces off? They are okay with yo as leader for a while but eventually they want to be leader. It is in their nature to do so.

It is part of our responsibilities towards owning animals. We need to understand them and treat them as animals, not as human.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Geomyces destructans, which is decimating bat populations, is neither good nor bad?

Correct. We perceive it to be good or bad based our own standards.

A wolf doesn't have a choice whether or not to attack a human?

Wolf's don't choose anything, they respond to instinct. If it sees an opportunity it will attack regardless of the species of the prey.

 

[Real Sorceror]

Many are here so some creature can eat them. Ecosystem.

I agree, they are not all here so humans can eat them.

Its not even that. Mosquitoes don't exist to be eaten by bats. Mosquitoes only exist to make more mosquitoes. We can attribute a purpose their existence, but theres nothing saying they have one outside of what we perceive.

I disagree. They are here to do their thing with us.

Which is? I'm pretty sure nature would keep doing its thing if we never existed. Maybe something else would evolve to fill our niche. Maybe not.

 

[some other dude]

Correct. We perceive it to be good or bad based our own standards.

If Geomyces destructans causes bats to go extinct, that's not necessarily bad, but if we cause Condors to go extinct, it's bad?

Wolf's don't choose anything, they respond to instinct. If it sees an opportunity it will attack regardless of the species of the prey.

My dog chooses whether or not to climb on the table and eat my dinner. Why would I expect wolves to be different?

 

[some other dude]

I disagree. They are here to do their thing with us.

Yep. I don't buy into the concept of "humans separate from the natural world". I'm more a "humans part of the natural world" kind of guy.

 

[Persephone66]

That depends, do they taste good with hot sauce?

That's how you get something off the endangered species list. Seriously, think about it. We are not running out of cows, pigs or chickens any time soon.

 

[Lon]

A good point. Lets say as man keeps expanding it's cities and certain species go extinct. Should mankind make effort to not allow this to happen? A great deal of time, effort, and money was put forth to save the California Condor from extinction. In 1987 the remaining 27 wild California Condors were captured and placed in the Los Angeles and San Diego zoos. A captive breeding program was instituted and in 1991 the new young condors were released into the wild. As of today there are 394 California Condors with 181 in the wild. This conservation program was the most expensive conservation program ever. Was this the right thing to do?

Yeah, no problem. We are caretakers of the earth. Is it at the top of our priority list? No, but I'm not worried overtly at which one does which job on the list. The expense spread out to all Californians? Negligible, probably a penny each.