And it makes me sad. We're not considerate towards animals. We hardly give them a second thought. We eat them, cage them and experiment on them.
Humans need to be better "caretakers" of the planet. We need advances in compassion towards animals and the environment, not more advances in technology.
Suffering is bad. The fact that it occurs in nature is irrelevant.
We may or may not have that responsibility, but we certainly don't meet it. History shows that people are at least as vicious as any animal you can name. This is something one tends to forget between wars, or in a place untouched by war.
> Suffering is bad. The fact that it occurs in nature is irrelevant.
The fact that it occurs everywhere in nature is absolutely relevant. Consider the rules of civilized society -- for example, everyone has the right to the pursuit of happiness. Some pursue happiness by having a lot of children, more than the planet can support. The result is widespread disease, starvation and war (otherwise known as "retroactive abortion").
It seems the high standards we've set for ourselves can result in (is resulting in) an unimaginable disaster, one in which everyone exercises their innate freedom of expression.
But there is a solution -- education. The very thing governments fear the most.
Perhaps more than their country or their own income can support. But with current technology we can farm enough calories every year to keep every body well fed. (Of course, they are not distributed equally at the moment. But the sum comes out right. And we haven't even really started farming the oceans. We are still mostly hunter-gatherers there.)
False. Food growth rate increases arithmetically, based on available land. Population growth increases exponentially, based on reproductive potential. They cannot be compared -- population always increases until starvation limits the process, as modeled by the logistic function:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function
Unequal distribution of food resources is an effect, not a cause. The cause is uncontrolled population increase.
In short, people will aggressively answer an increase in food supply by increasing the supply of hungry people, until starvation halts the process.
Sources? Malthus made the same mistake, if I remember right.
> Sources?
It's called "mathematics." Fields of corn don't spawn little offspring fields of corn on adjacent plots of land, but people do spawn little offspring people. The first is an arithmetic increase (as long as there is still arable land), but the second is exponential.
> Malthus made the same mistake, if I remember right.
Nonsense. He predicted something that hasn't happened yet. If a geologist predicts an earthquake with a probability of 50% within 30 years, and 35 years pass without an earthquake, does that make him wrong?
True, but we have the option of treating the animals we eat well. The problem is that in the pursuit of profit, many animals live miserable lives. In some countries they even skin the animals (dogs, snakes etc.) while they still live. The level of cruelty is beyond my comprehension. I'm a meat eater, but if I knew that the animal had been treated well I wouldn't mind paying a bit extra.
Another example is the fur industry. It is so meaningless that it amazes me that it has not been made illegal.