Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Last year Leona Helmsley left $12 million to her dog, Trouble, setting off a heated courtroom battle. California just passed a proposition that says farm animals must be humanely caged. The legal line between humans and animals is blurring further everyday. When it comes to "animal rights," should your cocker spaniel be entitled to the same freedoms and protections as your kid?
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
meh
Resources
To say that humans are not facing overpopulation and support it by pointing out all of the available land as seen from an airplane is a very narrow scope. It is also a very problematic interpretation of a biblical passage from Genesis.
Land is only one of several vital resources.
Overpopulation doesn't mean there's simply not enough physical space for us. It means that we are not sustainable. We are destroying unfathomable quantities of all resources and converting them into things that we can no longer use to survive. The rate at which we do this is what determines our state of population. We are currently overpopulated, because in our current state, we are sinking into the red. We are not breaking even by an stretch. This is why we have sewers. There are simply too many of us to expect our feces to cycle through the ecosystem in any sustainable time frame. We are overpopulated
Again, the notion that without our killing animals, they would overrun their own habitat is a completely unfounded one. That includes India. India has 1/3 the world's population of cattle. Their overpopulation is a direct result of human interference. Materialist humans are overbreeding, and Jainist humans are not killing them. Both of these practices end up causing great suffering, but only one is directly causing the overpopulation.
I could show biblically that animals were not made for us to "use" and I could also show that the god of Abraham most certainly had no intention for us to destroy all of his creations. It would be simple enough to show that just because we are a "fallen" people doesn't mean we should not be striving for a return to Eden.
But these points are moot, because in a debate where you can defer to a "because my god says so" answer, there is nothing to be gained. Plus, you could just as easily spin biblical text to support your views. You'd have to first take on a debate titled, "Can the bible be a logical guide within any consistent moral framework?" Then bring those arguments here.
Until then your statements are unfounded, and your arguments are undebatable.
- mike
November 18, 2008 8:30PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.