Higher empathy for animals?

[Varzar]

I guess I'm a little farther afield here...

I do empathize towards animals, but also plants.. I believe plants, despite changing, growing, and moving imperceptibly slowly to us, are still acting and reacting based on their surroundings.. There are some documentaries out there that support this idea too. I don't think we know what, if anything a plant feels. But I think it is very presumptuous of us to assume they don't feel anything when we rip them out of the ground, or cut through them with a chainsaw.

Based on that idea, it is only realistic and logical that we must kill nearly anything we eat, unless we are to survive solely on dairy and salt (maybe eggs, depending on your views of when life becomes life).
I don't particularly see any difference between killing an animal for food vs. killing a carrot.
Life is life, it is all precious, and I believe in appreciating all of it in its sacrifice to keep me alive.

 

[Debrah]

I guess I'm a little farther afield here...

I do empathize towards animals, but also plants.. I believe plants, despite changing, growing, and moving imperceptibly slowly to us, are still acting and reacting based on their surroundings.. There are some documentaries out there that support this idea too. I don't think we know what, if anything a plant feels. But I think it is very presumptuous of us to assume they don't feel anything when we rip them out of the ground, or cut through them with a chainsaw.

Based on that idea, it is only realistic and logical that we must kill nearly anything we eat, unless we are to survive solely on dairy and salt (maybe eggs, depending on your views of when life becomes life).
I don't particularly see any difference between killing an animal for food vs. killing a carrot.
Life is life, it is all precious, and I believe in appreciating all of it in its sacrifice to keep me alive.

Plants didn't evolve with the means to see danger coming or legs, fins or wings with which to escape danger and destruction. Most of them also can regenerate if they are harvested and the roots left in the ground.

Animals on the other hand evolved with real escape mechanisms. Noses to smell enemies, eyes that can see better than us and ears that can hear a mouse rustling in the straw. And they all have either legs, fins or wings so that they can escape.

Plants have the job of taking the energy from the sun and the CO2 that is in the air, convert it to tissue and feed those animals. That's their job. And even the Bible points us towards eating only plants in those first moments of the Biblical creation story. Gen.1:29,30.

Our entire physiology, from the design of our teeth and jaws and the digestive system from stem to stern is suitable for eating plants. Even the acids in our stomachs are not strong enough to kill the bacteria that is inherent in meat, which is why true carnivores and omnivores (like bears and pigs) can eat road kill that's been laying there in the sun for a couple of days, and not get sick. Whereas we would die from the buildup of toxins and bacteria.

Animals are beings with sensibilities no different than ours. They love, they fear, they feel pain, they bleed, they suffer and they die....just like we do. They are not here for us, they are here for them.

 

[Rasputin]

Am I the only one?

I almost feel uncomfortable admitting it haha. I DO have empathy and care a lot for humans too, especially innocent ones like children. My empathy for animals though can be nearly unbearable. I would be full of **** if I tried to say that my empathy for animals is much, much stronger. I can logically understand why it should be higher for humans but it just isn't. Part of this could be desensitization? Although I've seen and known a lot of terrible things happening to animals and can barely handle it. I can see on a TV show a human being suffering and it's awful (although if it was a REAL human and not just fiction it would bother me A LOT more) but I can't even see fake depictions of animals hurt or sad. I struggled watching Temple Grandin's movie and watching the cows be stressed out. I definitely have a lot of empathy for humans too but my empathy for animals is a lot stronger and more intense. I have no idea why. It's always been this way. I've loved animals since I can even remember and grew up with animals around my whole life.

Can anyone else relate?

The way you relate and feel empathy for animals is normal in my opinion, as I am the same way. I lost a Shetland Sheepdog about 10 years ago after he lost a fight with cancer, and I haven't gotten over it yet. Animals do not betray your trust and they are often more faithful than people. When this dog died he was in a lot of pain and I blamed myself for allowing him to experience that pain. I cried uncontrollably and for a long time afterwards I imagined he was present. In contrast, I do not usually feel anything when friends or family become gravely ill or pass. I accept death as an inevitable reality, and just deal with it unless the person was very close to me. The exception was when my best friend suffered a stroke and died suddenly a few years ago. This friend was someone I trusted completely, and he trusted me completely. I think trust might be a necessity for me to feel empathy. Maybe autistic people find it more difficult to trust because we have often been betrayed?

 

[Varzar]

Plants didn't evolve with the means to see danger coming or legs, fins or wings with which to escape danger and destruction. Most of them also can regenerate if they are harvested and the roots left in the ground.

Animals on the other hand evolved with real escape mechanisms. Noses to smell enemies, eyes that can see better than us and ears that can hear a mouse rustling in the straw. And they all have either legs, fins or wings so that they can escape.

Plants have the job of taking the energy from the sun and the CO2 that is in the air, convert it to tissue and feed those animals. That's their job. And even the Bible points us towards eating only plants in those first moments of the Biblical creation story. Gen.1:29,30.

Our entire physiology, from the design of our teeth and jaws and the digestive system from stem to stern is suitable for eating plants. Even the acids in our stomachs are not strong enough to kill the bacteria that is inherent in meat, which is why true carnivores and omnivores (like bears and pigs) can eat road kill that's been laying there in the sun for a couple of days, and not get sick. Whereas we would die from the buildup of toxins and bacteria.

Animals are beings with sensibilities no different than ours. They love, they fear, they feel pain, they bleed, they suffer and they die....just like we do. They are not here for us, they are here for them.

I'll just address each of your points in order:
1) Plants may not have all the same senses as animals, but that doesn't mean they don't sense. Scientists have proven they can at least smell. Plants can smell, now researchers know how: First steps to understanding biochemistry of how plants detect odors
2) They may not be able to escape danger, but that doesn't mean they don't try to defend themselves against being eaten with bark, shells, spines, thorns, and even toxins.
3) Re: most can regenerate if roots are left.. So, are you suggesting we should not eat root vegetables (carrots, potatoes, onions, garlic, beets, etc) because that would be murder, but berries and seeds are ok? Are you saying it would be ok to eat parts of animals that regenerate (e.g. lizard tails, spider legs, starfish arms)? If berries and seeds are ok, does than mean animal eggs are ok, since these are both just a means of reproduction?
4) Plants do convert CO2 to O2 and create growth with the Carbon part.. Doesn't have anything to do with "for the consumption of animals". And does that mean an antelope eats the grass to grow for the lion to consume it too? Are you not just describing the food chain here?
5) The bible is a completely irrelevant argument. It was written by man. Has about as much relevance on what we should eat as a book written by a vegan. If you believe in supernatural beings, that's an opinion, and there are plenty of varying opinions on that subject alone (e.g. the Qu'ran does allow for eating meat, but that's just another book written by man, and should be take with equal weight).
6) Our physiology is designed to be an omnivore. Our teeth for example, we have molars and incisors (like cows or rabbits) for cutting and grinding plant material, yes. We also have canines (like dogs and cats) designed for tearing apart meat.
7) I know people who eat raw meat (including ground beef), and have done so for their entire lives (60+ years) without getting sick. How our bodies handle bacteria is more dependent on our gut flora. Our sterile lifestyle and use of preservatives in food, chlorine in water, and antibiotics all contribute to killing our gut flora, making us less able to handle things that our wild omnivore brethren can still handle. But people who have re-adapted themselves to raw meat diets still exist today and do not get sick and die.
8) Animals may be more similar to us than plants. But that doesn't say anything about what plants can/can't sense. Until recently, we didn't know plants could smell, or how that worked. Many plants effectively bleed if you cut them, though it may not look like our blood. And they die if we rip them up, and we really don't know if they suffer or not. We just don't care cause they don't have cute little eyes like us.
9) "They are not here for us..." is an opinion.

The underlying fact remains the same.. We kill virtually everything we eat.
If only killing plants to eat makes you feel better about yourself (for whatever reasons), then go for it. I'm not going to tell you what you should/shouldn't eat. But I do expect the same courtesy in return.

 

[DuckRabbit]

Plants didn't evolve with the means to see danger coming or legs, fins or wings with which to escape danger and destruction. Most of them also can regenerate if they are harvested and the roots left in the ground.

Animals on the other hand evolved with real escape mechanisms. Noses to smell enemies, eyes that can see better than us and ears that can hear a mouse rustling in the straw. And they all have either legs, fins or wings so that they can escape.

Plants have the job of taking the energy from the sun and the CO2 that is in the air, convert it to tissue and feed those animals. That's their job. And even the Bible points us towards eating only plants in those first moments of the Biblical creation story. Gen.1:29,30.

Our entire physiology, from the design of our teeth and jaws and the digestive system from stem to stern is suitable for eating plants. Even the acids in our stomachs are not strong enough to kill the bacteria that is inherent in meat, which is why true carnivores and omnivores (like bears and pigs) can eat road kill that's been laying there in the sun for a couple of days, and not get sick. Whereas we would die from the buildup of toxins and bacteria.

Animals are beings with sensibilities no different than ours. They love, they fear, they feel pain, they bleed, they suffer and they die....just like we do. They are not here for us, they are here for them.

I agree Debrah (although the bible can be cited to support the opposite view of well, so I wouldn't necessarily regard it as any particular authority). I believe the research about trees communicating with each other. We should revere trees and still respect all plants but I agree it's a lot less bloody plucking a carrot out of the ground to eat than trying to take the life of a sentient animal with eyes, ears, brain etc - every sensory ability designed to preseve its life, just like ours, not to mention emotions.

It seems the solution to a lot of our mental or psychological ailments is relating better to the natural world - both plants and animals. Conversely, the bad state of the planet - with its fires and polluted air and polluted oceans and species going extinct daily - likely reflects the disortions we have allowed in our psyches - carving out too great a space for minute and obsessive focus on ourselves, whereas a lot of our healing could in fact come from focusing more outwardly towards nature - looking after animals' mental health for example, planting a tree, or nurturing a piece of green space. From 'Ecopsychology: Restoring the Earth/Healing the Mind' (Sierra Club Books Publication) Roszak, Theodore,Gomes, Mary E.,Kanner, Allen D.,Brown, Lester R.,Hillman, James [my emphasis]:

[...] "psychology is bound to encourage us to take human emotions, relationships, wishes and grievances utterly out of proportion in view of the vast disasters now being suffered by the world.
The subjectivist exaggeration that psychology has fostered is coming home to roost, because the symptoms that are coming back to the consulting room are precisely those its theory engenders: borderline disorders in which the personality does not conform to the limits set by psychology; preoccupation with subjective moods called “addictions” and “recovery”; inability to let the world into one’s perceptual field, called “attention deficit disorders” or “narcissism”; and a vague depressed exhaustion from trying so hard to cope with the enlarged expectations of private self-actualisation apart from the actual world.
One could accuse therapeutic psychology’s exaggeration of the personal interior, and aggrandizing of its importance, of being a systematic denial of the world out there, a kind of compensation for the true grandness its theory has refused to include and has defended against.
In brief, if psychology is the study of the subject, and if the limits of this subject cannot be set, then psychology merges willy-nilly with ecology.
For depth psychology this merger implies that alterations in the “external world” may be as therapeutic as alterations in my subjective feelings. The “bad” place I am “in” may not refer only to a depressed mood or an anxious state of mind; it may refer to a sealed-up office tower where I work, a set-apart suburban subdivision where I sleep, or the jammed freeway on which I commute between the two."
~ James Hillman, A Psyche the Size of the Earth, in Ecopsychology: Restoring the earth, healing the mind (1995).

"I have even, upon occasion, interrupted a client’s self-absorbed soliloquy by asking, “Are you aware that the planet is dying?”"
~ Terrance O’Connor – Therapy for a Dying Planet, in Ecopsychology: Restoring the earth, healing the mind (1995).

 

[Ken]

I guess I'm a little farther afield here...

I do empathize towards animals, but also plants.. I believe plants, despite changing, growing, and moving imperceptibly slowly to us, are still acting and reacting based on their surroundings.. There are some documentaries out there that support this idea too. I don't think we know what, if anything a plant feels. But I think it is very presumptuous of us to assume they don't feel anything when we rip them out of the ground, or cut through them with a chainsaw.

Based on that idea, it is only realistic and logical that we must kill nearly anything we eat, unless we are to survive solely on dairy and salt (maybe eggs, depending on your views of when life becomes life).
I don't particularly see any difference between killing an animal for food vs. killing a carrot.
Life is life, it is all precious, and I believe in appreciating all of it in its sacrifice to keep me alive.

With years of interest, study and observation of plants and their role in life on Earth, I believe that plant are indeed conscious. However, I believe plant consciousness is very different (though not less) than animal (including human) consciousness. I believe that consciousness is even different between individual animals and even different within species – such as humans. For example, it is obvious to me that the perception of the world (a major element of consciousness) is different between autistics and NT’s – in general, or at least me. (One of the frustrations in my life.)

We all know that plants respond to stimuli and the environment around them. Just one example is the Mimosa pudica which closes its leaves upon touch. One of my favorite examples is the giant sequoia trees. The sequoia species, while incredibly massive giants have a surprisingly shallow root system. Remaining upright is a balancing act. If a sequoia begins to tilt, it will drop a limb of the appropriate mass and position to maintain upright balance. It is not a random act. I witnessed this during a visit to the Sequoia National Park in California. This action implies intelligence that many people want to deny or associate some other mechanism. I believe it is intelligence, but it is a very different intelligence to animal intelligence. Plants, including sequoia trees, have a very different anatomy than animals. Animals have a central nervous system called a brain. Plant intelligence is not confined to a dedicated organ, its intelligence appears to involve the whole of its anatomy as opposed to limited to one single organ. Plants do not have a nervous system like animals. They do have sense “organs”, but it is fundamentally different from that of animals. This means their perspective on life is very different. I believe understanding that difference is beyond the capacity of human imagination.

I believe that many plants have evolved to use animals for their proliferation. A good example is fruit. Many plants produce fruit that is of no direct benefit to the plant. An apple, for example, has seeds embedded in the middle of the apple. The “meat” of the apple is not beneficial to the germination or growth of the seeds. The benefit is that an animal will pick the apple and eat it. The seeds are then freed from the apple and distributed by the mobile animal. While the “meat” of the apple is of no benefit to the apple tree, it is very beneficial to the animal. The chemical and biological makeup of the apple is very nutritious for many animals. All the elements of the biology and life of an apple tree fits the logic that the apple tree expects an animal to eat its fruit. This is likewise of almost all fruit bearing plants. By the way, the mushrooms that are picked and eaten is the fruit of the mushroom, not the actual mushroom itself, which grows only underground and can be extremely huge. In fact, the largest organism on Earth is a mushroom – living in Oregon.

Sequoia tree reproduction is dependent on either fire or animals to eat their seed pods. The adult trees have a fire retardant in their bark and the seed pods or cones require the extreme heat of a forest fire to release the seeds. The only other option is for an animal to eat the pods, which then release the seeds that are not digestible by the animal. Animals add another benefit to procreation of the trees by distributing the seeds further distances than fire provides as they poop them throughout their habitat. So; no fire or no animals and the sequoia species would become extinct.

I do not believe that plants, or at least fruit bearing plants consider it a “sacrifice” for an animal (including humans) to eat its fruit. I also don’t believe that plants consider it a sacrifice for animals to eat the plant itself, at least by the same perception of sacrifice an animal would feel. Especially when the eating of the plant results in further procreation of the plant. I suspect that plants consciousness extends beyond individual plants, somewhat like Monarch butterflies memory extends at least three generations beyond the individual butterflies learning.

Life is astoundingly, unimaginably complex and human perception, viewpoint and understanding is but a very tiny, thin, microscopic slice of reality.

 

[Varzar]

Thanks @Ken! Very interesting and informative.
For a university writing course 20 years ago I wrote a "Definition of Consciousness". I included plants as being conscious. I believe they are too.

But you also raise a very valid point about plants not considering giving up fruit as a sacrifice. I suppose that is me putting a very human perspective on something that probably would not fit the perspective of the plant. Of course, the plant doesn't know we plan on depositing any undigested seeds in a sewage system where it'll never propagate..

As for eating the plant itself.. I dunno.. I guess you're right that it's probably unimaginable for the human mind to "think like a plant". I guess either way though, I still feel that all life is precious. I still don't think I can put more weight on animal life than plant life as being somehow "more precious".

 

[whalewhalewhale]

One of my mentors has a dog and we had to adapt my emotion chart and have a long talk because I love her dog so much I don't know how to explain it so sometimes I just cry.

I loooooove animals, I work on a farm and all the animals (except a goat and a lamb that were accidents ) are rescues so I spent a lot of time trying to get them to trust me and it broke my heart.

 

[The Millenial Millipede]

I also have a lot of empathy for animals and have been a vegetarian since 1996 because we can stay healthy without meat. I don't believe in causing animals unnecessary suffering that can be avoided, sadly however nature itself is extremely cruel and there's a huge amount of suffering with survival of the fittest and the food chain. I love my cat, however all cats including big cats are born carnivores which means they need to eat meat to stay healthy and survive, this means that in nature they have to hunt and kill other animals and they therefore cause suffering. For instance a lion kills and eats the calf of a mother that has done everything to protect it and then feels grief, they also constantly live in fear of predators like lions. Many people see nature as beautiful and perfect, but the suffering in nature is something I simply I can't get my head around, in many ways it's design is evil in itself.

I know this is an old comment but I honestly disagree to a certain extent. Many animals are not living in *constant* fear over predators killing them. I think this is something we humans have invented as a way of making nature seem evil in hopes of propelling the narrative pf perpetual progress after the invention of agriculture. I used to believe that nature was such a horrible and nasty place and yes while it is unfair at times in reality nature is not as cruel as so-called nature documentaries would have us believe. I mean it's much worse in an animal testing facility. In nature animals have a way to escape predators but in captivity they don't. That's just one of the perks of being born in nature. This video helped me realize that much of my own conceived notions about nature are vastly skewed.

Though i could say that nature is cruel for inventing a species that has the ability to do such cruel things to it's own and others while believing that nature is cruel even though providing natural mechanisms like pain killing endorphins all the while humans are blocking them with "medications" to test pain in animals for OUR OWN selfish benefit.........kind of an ironic thing huh? We do not live in nature as hunter-gatherers anymore so we might fall blind-sighted by all of the nature-is-cruel propaganda that gets pumped down our throats. A majority of nature is actually forgiving. It's humans that are the exception-and even within the human species-there are exceptions to that exception.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

I was woken up last night by some unusual screaming noises, looked out my bedroom window a racoon was in process of killing some other unfortunate animal. The moaning of the dying creature was some what disturbing but my cat was sleeping at the end of the bed, so I simply went back to sleep following my cat's lead, then dreamt of the racoon. Nothing I could do short of getting up climbing neighbour's tree in dark and then getting mauled by a racoon family.

 

[watersprite]

I was woken up last night by some unusual screaming noises, looked out my bedroom window a racoon was in process of killing some other unfortunate animal. The moaning of the dying creature was some what disturbing but my cat was sleeping at the end of the bed, so I simply went back to sleep following my cat's lead, then dreamt of the racoon. Nothing I could do short of getting up climbing neighbour's tree in dark and then getting mauled by a racoon family.

Is your cat deaf? If my cats had heard that he’d of been screaming back at the racoon
with their fur standing oh end.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

we have two cats one male likes to go outside , and sometime stays out past curfew, we let him stay out all night when he does this , found out the hard way a few times other creatures racoons ang skunks like the night and they are territorial. I think the raccoon and him tangled a few weeks ago. not sure who is dominant now. he knows no one will touch him in the house he has our protection.

 

[maisiecupcake]

Animals for sure

 

[Dadamen]

I have empathy for animals except for annoying ones, but have no problem killing a lot of mosquitoes.

 

[Captain Jigglypuff]

I wouldn’t say I have higher empathy for animals but I do feel emotions for them at times that might be more than most people at times. I feel especially bad for my abuser’s Yorkie whenever I think about him and the signs that he was unhappy being with her and that he did love and prefer me so much more mostly because I spent more time with him and actually played with him. My abuser would leave him for a large portion of the day and if she couldn’t come back to her apartment to let him relieve himself during that time, she’d leave him with her mom or have me watch him. She just fed him and expected him to be perfectly quiet and to snuggle with her whenever she wanted him to be with her. She was extremely rough on him whenever she brushed him as she would pull hard on the brush whenever she got stuck in a tangle and he would actually scream in pain as she yanked it out. I tried brushing him before and I was trying to be more gentle and not hurt him and she complained that I wasn’t doing it “right.” He was actually afraid of the brush and he would try to run and hide whenever she pulled it out. Sometimes it was obvious that he didn’t want to be near her and my abuser would grab him as he tried to run away and his little feet would be kicking in the air like he was swimming. At the time I thought it looked cute but now I know that was a sign of fear for the dog. She wasn’t abusing him and was trying to be a good dog owner but I don’t think she even understood what that meant and that she had to do more than feed him, give him water, and take him outside to do his business on a regular basis.

 

[Owliet]

I feel more in-tune with animals that people but i would not say that I lack empathy for people. It is very much empathy for people but for animals I feel it more. For example, when my grandparents died. I have never cried about them dying, and when my grandfather died, my aunt made me feel like i was a monster for not crying or showing any grief. In contrast, I have been extremely emotionally devastated whenever one of my pets have died. One cat even made me feel so sad that I didnt really full recover from his loss. I still miss him and still get sad. When my rabbit died Last month, my dad and mom thought that I had hurt myself because of how grief stricken I was with my nouse. I have a good relationship with my pets: my cats are my best friends. I even took care of the younger tortoise when she (I think she is a she..I dont know) had pneumonia. She’s survived and thriving now even when the tortoises are not really my tortoiseS. I am the type of person who will cross the road when I dont need to cross to let a cat cross it. If they hit the cat, they have to hit me first.

 

[Polchinski]

I do have higher empathy for animals. I am against them being killed at the shelters and I am also against them being fixed, as well.

Its not just animals I have empathy for, but flowers as well. When I see a flower on the road I take it off the road so that the car doesn't drive over it. I also don't like that they cut flowers. I prefer for flowers to be in sold in the soil so that they don't die. I likewise don't like Christmas tree being cut. One of my moms friends gave us Christmas tree in a soil, and I am glad! Also one day my mom bought a salad in a little bit of soil, just to help preserve it for a couple of days while its being eaten. I argued her not to eat it but plant it instead. Eventually she gave in. But then when i went back to the other state I am going to school for, she forgot to take care of it and it withered.

I also have empathy for toys as well. For example, my mom was keeping the soap in one duck-like thing and the other monkey-like thing, both basically a face with eyes. I felt bad that they have their soap in their eyes. So when I went back to the state I am going to school for, I sneaked both of those things out of her house, washed soap out of them really carefully, and hid them in the storage. For the same reason, I don't like eating gingerbread men, or chocolate santa claus or anything else of that manner. Once, my mom's neighbors gave her gingerbread men as a present. I sneaked it out and took it with me when I went back to school. Unfortunately, they got crushed on the way, so saving them didn't quite work.

However, despite all of what I just said, I am not vegiterian. Here is why. In every example given above, the behavior has direct impact on something. Whether it is being a "specific" animal that is either killed or fixed in a shelter, or a specific flower that withers, or a specific toy that is being tortured. But in case of eating meat its not like that. The meat that I eat, doesn't look like an animal any more, so I am not killing anything specific. What I am doing is that I am encouraging people to kill other animals by the act of "buying" meat at the store (by the way its the act of buying rather than the act of eating). Now, since I live in the large city, my meat purchases don't alter overall statistics by any notable degree, hence they have no effect on how many animals would be slaughtered. If I were to live in a very small village consisting of just a dozen of people where they are deciding how many local animals to kill based on eating habbits of just that dozen of people, then I would be vegeterian, yes. But I haven't been living in such small village up till now thats why I weren't.

In general, I tend to sympathize with causes that nobody else sympathizes with. That is true both when it comes to empathy as well as science. So in my math or physics research, I tend to come up with my own problems that nobody can relate to. And in case of empathy, I have the most empathy towards things that nobody else has empathy towards. Kind of like "who else will help this poor thing, but me".

 

[Captain Jigglypuff]

I also am not a vegetarian but it doesn’t mean that I condone animal cruelty. I had one vegan basically yell at me once online just because I said that being a vegetarian or vegan should be a personal choice and not be forced onto others. This vegan then had the nerve to say that I enjoyed abusing animals which is just crossing the line big time. I do not support animal testing unless it is for products that animals would use themselves such as shampoo or medication because then it makes sense and not cruel. There’s no need to put makeup on a dog to see if it’s safe but a nice bath to test a new shampoo won’t necessarily hurt the dog if the shampoo is chemically safe. I am not a vegetarian because it would be too expensive for me to buy meat free foods and fruits and vegetables and I do like fish and chicken and beef and all the different things I can cook with them.

I also understand fixing animals to prevent overpopulation should a indoor pet cat or dog get outside of their home and lost. Feral cats breed like crazy and have actually hurt local ecosystems by killing birds and other small animals and have actually caused some species to either become endangered or even extinct. Australia has suffered the most from housecats escaping into the wild. So fixing as many feral cats as possible is a necessity if we don’t want to lose any more native species.

 

[Luca]

I do have higher empathy for animals. I am against them being killed at the shelters and I am also against them being fixed, as well.

Its not just animals I have empathy for, but flowers as well. When I see a flower on the road I take it off the road so that the car doesn't drive over it. I also don't like that they cut flowers. I prefer for flowers to be in sold in the soil so that they don't die. I likewise don't like Christmas tree being cut. One of my moms friends gave us Christmas tree in a soil, and I am glad! Also one day my mom bought a salad in a little bit of soil, just to help preserve it for a couple of days while its being eaten. I argued her not to eat it but plant it instead. Eventually she gave in. But then when i went back to the other state I am going to school for, she forgot to take care of it and it withered.

I also have empathy for toys as well. For example, my mom was keeping the soap in one duck-like thing and the other monkey-like thing, both basically a face with eyes. I felt bad that they have their soap in their eyes. So when I went back to the state I am going to school for, I sneaked both of those things out of her house, washed soap out of them really carefully, and hid them in the storage. For the same reason, I don't like eating gingerbread men, or chocolate santa claus or anything else of that manner. Once, my mom's neighbors gave her gingerbread men as a present. I sneaked it out and took it with me when I went back to school. Unfortunately, they got crushed on the way, so saving them didn't quite work.

However, despite all of what I just said, I am not vegiterian. Here is why. In every example given above, the behavior has direct impact on something. Whether it is being a "specific" animal that is either killed or fixed in a shelter, or a specific flower that withers, or a specific toy that is being tortured. But in case of eating meat its not like that. The meat that I eat, doesn't look like an animal any more, so I am not killing anything specific. What I am doing is that I am encouraging people to kill other animals by the act of "buying" meat at the store (by the way its the act of buying rather than the act of eating). Now, since I live in the large city, my meat purchases don't alter overall statistics by any notable degree, hence they have no effect on how many animals would be slaughtered. If I were to live in a very small village consisting of just a dozen of people where they are deciding how many local animals to kill based on eating habbits of just that dozen of people, then I would be vegeterian, yes. But I haven't been living in such small village up till now thats why I weren't.

In general, I tend to sympathize with causes that nobody else sympathizes with. That is true both when it comes to empathy as well as science. So in my math or physics research, I tend to come up with my own problems that nobody can relate to. And in case of empathy, I have the most empathy towards things that nobody else has empathy towards. Kind of like "who else will help this poor thing, but me".

I'm glad I'm not the only one who is like this. I am also against shelters euthanizing animals and I do not "fix" or spay/neuter my dogs.

 

[Polchinski]

being a vegetarian or vegan should be a personal choice and not be forced onto others.

Interestingly, I hold the opposite opinion. My personal choice, is just one person. My ability to force others to do something is about masses of people. In order for less animals to be killed, it is important to stop masses of people from buying meat, but its not important to stop one single individual, such as myself, from doing so. Therefore, the most logical thing to do for someone who is concerned about animals, is to continue to eat meat themselves, while trying to force everyone else to become vegitarian.

Of course, the counter-argument to this is that if everyone were to think this way, then the masses "won't" be vegeterian. But I guess to counter that counter-argument, I can point to the fact that, as illogical as it is, masses don't think that way. The only person who thinks that way is me. My thinking along those lines won't make masses do the same. And, therefore, I can still influence the masses not to eat meat, even if I myself eat meat.

By the way, all of the above is hypothetical. I don't have either social skills or time to actually try to convince people to stop eating meat. All I am saying is that IF there is anybody who does it, its not necessarely hypocritical. Instead, it is the most logical way of actually accomplishing the goal of saving animals.

In any case, regardless of whether one is vegeterian or not, influencing others should be the main goal. After all, that is the only thing that would actually save animals. The only logical reason to be vegeterian that I can see, is that hopefully others will be influenced by watching, or something like that. But if someone is vegeterian "without" influencing others as a goal, then I don't see how that could possibly save animals.