#I do think we should have more humane ways to treat our domesticated livestock

[kvotheunkvothe]

was talking to my brother and saying that for years now I hadn't felt I could, ethically, eat squid or octopus because of their intelligence (which is sad because calamari is delicious, but it's a personal choice) and because we had no "social contract" with them like we have with some smarter barnyard animals that let them proliferate and be protected from predators in exchange for their flesh (get domesticated, idiot). I noted that, given the opportunity, I also wouldn't eat monkey or elephant or dolphin for similar reasons.

"or humans," I added, as an afterthought. "...but only generally. there are some people whose hearts I would eat in the marketplace."

"what about squid-people?" my brother asked. "like Zoidberg, maybe?"

"oh I'd eat Dr. Zoidberg," I answered immediately. "...he knows what he did."

[vegance]

I’m, not saying torture animals that aren’t human. But simply that they should have different things considered than humans. And if any other homo species was still around, then yeah the whole genus would probably require the same protections. As for aliens, if they manage to come visit us they’re clearly at least on the same level as humans, if they’re found on another planet we should leave them the fuck alone we have our own planet.

Other primates definitely shouldn’t be treated the same as humans either because they arent, but they should have different rules from livestock for many reasons. Just, dont keep primates as pets, dont eat primates (even if the person doesn’t think it’s weird to eat our cousins, it’s still a huge risk of disease because of how closely related we are). Just, let primates live their own lives and keep their habitats safe.

And if any of that was directed at cattle in wheelchairs, that is not an animal that can live a good life in a wheelchair. Dogs could, but cattle have social fights and get way too heavy for a wheelchair to not cause harm.

Also remember, death isn’t a horrible thing. It’s the one thing that truly connects all living creatures. And all we can truly ask for is a peaceful death. Which, idk how poultry and such is killed but yes cattle are killed in a peaceful way. Any twitching that happens after the bolt is from leftover electrical energy.

Slaughterhouses just need more unions, more osha type regulations. Yeah things can be bloody but that doesn’t mean it’s horrible. Everything dies to feed something else. One day I’ll be gone and will feed the worms and plants.

Just because a human can be fine on a vegan diet doesn’t mean they all can do one or that people should all switch to a vegan diet. And yeah people tend to take supplements, because our diets tend to be less varied than they should be. There’s a difference between going paleo and just, understanding that as an omnivore you are built to require animal products. Not everyone can even properly process supplements.

Vegan baby formula also has the downsides of, its soy. Most of the time it’s just soy which is one of the worst monocultures there is and is a rather common allergen. Only one vegan formula is even approved by the fda (in the us ofc, idk anything about food safety regulators in other countries). We need to grow less soy, not more (and no, most of the soy isnt being grown for feeding livestock. That’s just where the beans that have been processed for oil and all the inedible parts go, as it is with most food given to livestock)

“What do orphaned baby lions have to do with people eating a cheeseburger”

Nothing. I wasnt talking lions. I was talking kittens. And the connection is, they’re domestics that need meat and (for formula) dairy. Not to mention Wildlife rehabs also often have to raise orphaned animals until they’re old enough to release.

I’m kinda done talking to a brick wall tho.

"I’m, not saying torture animals that aren’t human. But simply that they should have different things considered than humans." we are torturing them, though. that's the whole point.

i'm not saying we should treat all animals the same as humans, i am saying that they deserve the most basic moral consideration.

cattle often do not die a peaceful death, as the source i provided showed. it's easy to be all zen about death when you are not the one being killed. vegans are literally just arguing that we should not inflict suffering and death on animals when we can avoid it.

you are just making a lot of blanket statements with no proof (cattles lives in wheelchairs cant be good, but dogs can) or bring up super specific cases, which are no argument against veganism. i'm just not sure what you are trying to do here, or why you messaged me in the first place. if it was just a general discussion about veganism, why all these weirdly specific situations, that have nothing to do with animal ag at large?

soybean meal actually is edible for humans, and still 98% of it is fed to animals. about 70% of the worlds soy is made into soybean cakes for animal feed. as far as i understand, these are made of soybean meal.

yes, soy is a major allergen. so is dairy :D

ok, then you're not talking about lions, you are talking about kittens. but you are also not a kitten?? (unless...?) again, these small, super specific examples have nothing to do with whether or not the average person should go as vegan as they can? milk replacements for wildlife rehabilitation is not a major driver in animal ag.

"I’m kinda done talking to a brick wall tho." samsies. have a great night

[dredshirtroberts]

The Elves of Dragon Age

More specifically: their damn faces.

This is gonna probably be long because none of my thoughts are concise. If it is concise it is mostly just screeching, and even then I do go on a bit sometimes.

Also: Trigger warnings are important. I briefly go into some stuff related to in-game lore with regards to the slavery of the elves, as well as some not chill topics i think would be related regarding genetics and reproduction during that time of slavery. These things may trigger or squick and I get that SO MUCH. I think I do a pretty good job of being clear when it���s about to go into way too much detail on these topics so you can literally just stop reading there and pretend it doesn’t go there, I’m not offended.

ANYWAY.

Elves. Dragon Age. I have Thoughts and Feelings about their faces and bone structure.

Even from Dragon Age: Origins, we see that Elves are distinctly Different from the other races. I mean clearly there’s the ears but they’re also smaller than humans, and more...lithe? Lithe. It’s a good word, we’ll keep it. But as far as faces go, not a whole lot different from the humans. 

I’m going to skip Dragon Age II because that’s where my Thoughts and Feelings get a little bit more...uh...more. 

Dragon Age: Inquisition - confession time, Inquisition was my first Dragon Age game and it will always hold a soft spot for me. I looooved the character creation sliders and i liked how different the elves were - not a lot more than Origins I later learned, but enough that even with the most careful manipulations there were still some differences in the facial structures. This is also, I think, where the differences in body-type and bone structure became most apparent and where I think my first inclination to describe elves of the DA universe as being “bird-like”. 

Then there was Dragon Age II. WOW I thought when I played and ran into my first elf character (the one from the Blooming Rose whose name has escaped me as of just now but it’s okay i’ll think of it at 3am and be really annoyed by it, it’s fine). WOW I thought, that is a Different Race in a way that was so much more than the way Dwarves are different from Humans. 

In Inquisition I was taken by the modern elves’ lack of brow ridge definition - or maybe it’s their lack of nose bridge indent. I don’t know anatomical terms for faces and frankly if I go look it up now i’ll lose my train of thought so we’re gonna skip it and maybe one day I’ll care enough to figure it out. - their profiles were so INTERESTING because they were very Grecian - like ancient pottery from Athens or something and I’ve always liked a strong profile. The fact that I’m so jealous of my sister’s facial features is definitely testament to this. I was intrigued by trying to make a super strong nose and keep the lack of brow ridge. 

In DA2 I was absolutely enamoured with elf eyes. They were Big and Alien and coupled with the more pronounced lack of brow ridge definitely became my favorite fantasy-style portrayal of a non-human race. It made them seem more bird like and it almost was...I want to say ugly but in a beautiful way? It made the observations of other characters from Origins and Inquisition more important somehow - that elves were considered beautiful and (ugh I hate this term please forgive me) exotic, that there were many people who prefer the way elves look to the way other humans look. If it were just that they were Pretty, Petit, pointy-eared humans, eh, i guess? but how boring! Now that they are Strange and Alien and have Large Eyes and Different Facial Structure, with practically fragile looking frames? Oh Yes this is Good because they are Weird and we humans do enjoy a good Weird.

And once I thought about how humans (or people) of Thedas in general considered these Weird Elves to be attractive - even more so than conventionally attractive humans, in fact - oh man that started some gears turning. Because then I looked at Inquisition (and okay I’ll drag Origins back into the light a little) and saw how Ancient Elves seemed more human-like, more standard bone structures, taller, less spindly of limb - robust I think is a good word - well. I couldn’t help but think maybe the modern elves of Thedas are a product of their environments - and perhaps of a little selective breeding. 

It’s difficult for me to bring these things up because in our world these are Super Bad Things that definitely should not happen. And I am Very against eugenics and talking about people like they’re animals and the whole big Slavery thing that is a HUGE bad. I acknowledge these points and I want to make sure I am very clear that I do not support them. I am fascinated by the implication that the obvious differences between two distinct time periods of elves brings about with regards to these specific topics, at least one of which is openly admitted to in the universe.

That being said, allow me to move forward. 

It is stated multiple times throughout the series (mind, I’ve only ever played the games and perused the wiki so my knowledge is limited to these sources) that the elves of Arlathan (and prior) were, essentially, immortal. Unaging, never dying. Only to sleep for thousands of years when they were tired of continuing on (#mood, tho). At some point, when humans came about, their lives started to become shorter - especially the more time they spent near humans. But I imagine they kept the same features as the ancient elves had. #everythingchangedwhenthetevinterimeriumattacked

But really though, after becoming, uh, mortal for lack of a better term, it was not long before the Tevinter Imperium enslaved the elves (the timeline on this for me is a little unclear so I’m not sure how long between the two things it was - afaik Arlathan properly fell to the Imperium, but idk when elves started losing their long-lives in relation to that).

Slavery is a fucking nightmare. I know I don’t need to harp on about that, but the reality is that people who own slaves do some really fucked up things. Potentially things like selective breeding to create the prettiest or hardiest or most unique looking of their slaves. Considering the “modern” attitude towards elves in Thedas, I don’t imagine that the slaves of the Tevinter Imperium were looked at as more than livestock, to be perfected for the purposes they were forced to serve. Over time, selected features that were good for x purpose might have also led to recessive traits being favored - like piebalding in domesticated animals (ugh this is so uncomfy i’m so sorry). Or say, they really liked that a major feature of elves were their relatively smooth profiles, so let’s try for the smoothest profile until you get the bull terrier face of modern elves. Elves have excellent eyesight (i read somewhere that they have really great night vision and their eyes reflect lights back like cats or something? idk if that was a real thing or a headcanon thing but i’m down with it) - let’s make their eyes bigger for night watches, or just because big eyes are cool idk. It’s the Tevinter Imperium they’re pretty fucked up people who knows why they chose which things they did.

I’d say even the relative frailty of the elves’ bodies might be a part of this. They can do labor in and around the property, but they won’t be able to run far or for long, and if they’re so light-boned they are more at risk of injury that would hobble them and keep them from running away. Coupled with several thousand years of slave-diets and/or being on the move (just not seeing the Dalish having time for 3 squares, you know?) and you get the bird-like figures we see in the games. Thin, spindly, looks like a stiff breeze’d blow ‘em into the next town. 

They were attractive because they were pretty, but now they’re attractive because they are other. They were lithe because they were active, now they are thin because they are malnourished and bred to be breakable. They were fine-featured and now they have too-large eyes and too-smooth profiles and they are strange and how odd and it’s easier to hate someone who looks different from you, especially when it is so different. 

And maybe that was a motivation of the slave owners of the imperium and beyond, too. Make them strange, make them other, and then it will not be like we are treating people as chattel but now they will be animals because we make them so. They are birds, rabbits, and we can treat them as lower than us because birds and rabbits are not people. 

And if recessive traits are all that are bred into a people, when those people reproduce with, say, I don’t know, humans, those recessive traits will hide behind the dominant ones. Maybe the facial structure will be strange - that depends on how strong genes the human parent has for brow ridge and body type. Perhaps their eyes will be slightly too large. Perhaps this is why elf-blood children resemble their human parent, because humans haven’t had their dominant traits erased from their blood. Perhaps some human and elf couples have a higher chance of having a more elf-y looking kid. Maybe that chance is because the human side of the couple has elf-genes in them already, or maybe that human just has a lot of their own recessive traits that are dominated by the recessives of the elven parents. Genetics are weird. 

So - Elves looking strangely - was it a late stage decision on the developers’ part? Yeah almost certainly. Did it accidentally create some cool possibilities about the world building? I think so. Do I think they’re cowards for making the elves look more “normal” in Inquisition? FUCK YES I do. 

That being said, what the FUCK did they do to Zevran’s face???? You RUINED his handsome face!!!!

[camelsandfriends]

This comment may be helpful to some. Read my reply closely. You can view it here or on the original video page, where you can comment on your thoughts as well. A more in depth look into this video and the mistake of thinking that errors in handling animals of any sort should be hidden and shame placed upon the human that made them. Instead of creating a positive environment where everyone can learn together and help create better lives for captive animals and reduce the risk of injury or death at any moment. A fact of normal life-- when you work with wildlife for a living. If you cannot accept that. And accept that you are not perfect.  You are setting yourself up for a disaster. ---------------------------------- Epiicfaiilable Well deserved. Throwing rocks at an animal however is disgusting. You had it coming lady. camelsandfriends Indeed. It is never the animal's fault-- especially when dealing with wild animals. So dramatic though-- throwing 'rocks'? I tossed a single pebble at him of grainy sandstone about the size of a penny. It landed near him and did not disturb him as you can see. He would not relate the object as it were-- coming toward him threw a quick move of air and sound as anything to do with me. He would only act on instinct and if he were in the mood to feel possessive or dominate over a high prized value piece of meat-- he would have quickly snapped at the air in the direction that the rock fell or near his body when it had invaded his personal space. I test him when I feel that it is appropriate, too. If he had done that, then we need to work on certain areas. Wolves test you all the time, it is a good thing to gauge their reactions in small ways that are in no way a bother to a 110 pound wolf with a big slab of meat at his chest. If you find that disgusting, you simply have no real knowledge of animals and especially not of wolves. I cannot teach you from the ground up, but I would forget everything you've made up in your head about them. You seem to be thinking of them as a person and they are not. They act quickly on instinct and if something starts with a wolf-- unlike with a human-- it will always escalate. It will not be a, "See you in the morning," argument. It will be one that you need to be ready to response to with compassion, calmness and with the understanding that it was your fault and there shouldn't be any anger toward the animal. It was my mistake that this happened. As stated in the video description and many times in comments. Lorne reacted appropriately to the situation. I acted appropriately back, therefore I was not seriously injured and neither was Lorne. Therefore, I walked out of his enclosure and was not killed. You must realize that no one forced me to upload this video to the internet-- exposed to potentially millions of people like you who are going to point at someone making a mistake and just ridicule something you don't even understand. I am willing to admit that I make mistakes. Everyone does. I filmed this. I uploaded it. And you are only watching it because I care more about animals and showing the truth-- than I care about you and anyone elses' opinions about my mistake reflecting bad on me as an animal behaviorist. Guess what. People make mistakes. No one is perfect and I am perfectly willing to continue to upload mine, so that others may learn from them. My mistake in this video was staying in the enclosure far too long and for not noticing the invasive red fire ants sooner. I should probably not have given him that meat at all and when he dragged it near the ants.. I made the mistake of thinking I needed to move it away from him first or risk Lorne getting bit up by these ants. I should have walked away and out a long time ago, but I did not. Therefore, it is my fault. And it will always be in any sort of negative situation with Lorne or any animal. Humans make mistakes. Animals can only react to ours. The ants are known to swarm and it is not uncommon that they kill livestock-- cattle and horses. They carry the undisputed most painful insect bite of any other species on the planet. I have been bit. It is agony. I could not imagine handling another bite or too. Again, my mistake. Lorne is a 110 pound wolf-- not bothered by a rock tossed toward him. I should have left and he could deal with the ants himself. A few bites aren't going to do anything, but cause him pain that would wear off within 48 hours and this situation would not have happened. But I stayed. Because I thought I could move him away and I could not-- before he was bit. It is so painful he was blinded with redirecting this sudden charge of adrenaline at me. He did not understand who else could be causing it and was trying to protect the meat. The video is here because I am showing that no matter what decisions you think are best for wild animals (such as I thought it was better to have him not be bit and try to help in a very risky situation rather than just go inside and let a wild animal deal with some ants)-- you can still get injured. Handling wildlife is risky. Every day. This is something that could happen to me with Lorne or any one of my animals. That is my choice to make and you have no real right to tell me what to do in the matter. As you are not being put at risk at all and I would not allow you to do so with this animal because you clearly do not know how to handle a wolf. Which brings me back to why I uploaded this video the most: I wanted to show those with wolfdogs, wolves, or many other exotic/wild or even domesticated animals that the best way to handle the situation is as I did here. It does not matter if it was your mistake or fault. There is only one thing to know: Remain calm. I cared about helping someone else one day who may remember this and not get taken to the emergency room or be killed. And then the animal face being euthanized by the police afterwards. You have missed the point entirely. I know I am to blame and it is not Lorne. That is why I show no anger or resentment toward him. That is why I am not mad or screaming at him. It is why I am calm and understanding of what he is doing. He is the wolf. I am a human and I see things differently that he cannot comprehend. It is my responsibility to take this risk and be understanding. Calmness can only be achieved if you really truly understand that is your fault and not the wild animal you are working with. You cannot lie and feel resentment. Especially during the attack. It will escalate and you may be killed. That is why I uploaded this. You focused on a small rock I threw toward him to test his state of mind, of which I got a very positive response from. Again, you missed the point entirely. Do you have any first hand experience working with wolves or any wild canine yourself? I really hope that you don't or else you need to-learn from the ground up. Stop humanizing wildlife and treat them with respect. Realize people make mistakes and that those that are fully willing to upload them to a large unknown and general public online and be honest and truthful have the animals best interest in mind and the ones that view this video. Otherwise? Delete the video. I was alone. No one would ever have to know.... that I am not perfect. Sorry, but I'm not like that. You can be like however you want. I do suggest though that you seek help. Your comment that I deserved to be attacked and possibly killed on camera by an animal because of mistakes I made are disturbing and not normal. Thank you for watching. I only wish that you gained something from it, instead of criticizing a situation you cannot even understand. 

[patricktiu1205-blog]

Why are animals important?

As a human being, we rarely think about the importance of animals. We mostly take it for granted. We have it as a worker, a companion, and a food resource.

Other than that, It makes a perfect food chain that maintaining series of lives. It matters to all of us, even to plants and natural resources. Food, is a critical element for all lives, provides energy to all lives and preserve all lives. Long times ago, people started farming to get food and to trade other livestock as an important resource. Gradually, they began using animals as domestic fowls and domestic animals, such as cattle, chickens, pigs, horses, sheep, ducks, turkeys, geese, and dairy cattle. These became mainly the whole food resources and labors that help to farm until now. They feed us a lot. I mean most of our meals are meat from livestock, even those vegetarians are eating the crops that are produced by animals. The USDA showed that the consumption of beef was so high that contributed $5.7 billion to the economy. It was just about 25.5 millions of beef. So when you add all the livestock together and look at the consumption rate, you will find it quite a remarkable amount.

When we go deeper into farming, we will see that animals do a lot of things. We have dairy cattle, and they produce milk, which is the largest source of calcium. We almost drink it every day as we need calcium to strengthen, rebuild, and grow our bones. Animals can also be a transportation that transports crops and humans like horses and cattle. Their manure can enrich the farmland to make plants into a better quality and quantity.

Animals can also play a significant role in our social life. A lot of people have a pet. It means a lot than just a cute little animal. To the pet owners, they consider their pets as a lifelong companion, a family member, the only one they trust, and their loyal friend. Although some people might want to get a pet for fulfilling the scarcity or just because of its cuteness, they have to take the responsibility to take care of their pets during its whole lives. That responsibility is just like having a baby as pets are also lives. That is why so many people treat their pets as a family member. Other than that, whenever people are isolated or bullied, their pets are so loyal that they never leave their owners, and they are always there for you. Then, they will be the only one that you can trust because they would never betray their owner. People often share their lives with their pets for releasing the stress of life. People talk to their pets, play with their pets, and live with their pets for reasons, and it is to make their lives more fruitful and happier.

In biological perspective, whenever one of all animals extinct, it affects the others that involved in one food chain. For example, if cattle are extinct, some kinds of crops will also be extinct, and some top consumers who eat cattle for life will also become extinct. Sometimes, it also affects human’s lives. We might lose few kinds of livestock, and it would bring a significant impact on the economy. Although it is not humane to do, people who live in a cold environment need fur clothes to keep them warm as its ability to resist the heat is way much better than regular clothes. So if one animal is extinct, it affects both the food chains and human.

Besides, scientists study animals for a better life. There are so many environmental problems that could not be solved without coping like the other animals. We can learn a lot of instinct from animals, such as migration, sex, distribution, and behavioral pattern. We are living in a world of uncertainty and imperfection. We do not even know about our body very well, so we have to study various animals to compare to know the amazingness and secrets of lives.

As we live in a world of uncertainty, many diseases are still incurable. Therefore, we need to develop new drugs and preventions. In scientific perspective, we do not suggest use infected human as a test subject for a safety reason. Therefore, they use rats to do so many tests like drug tests and infection tests to know more about the diseases, and all the rats are bred with an enormous amount by scientists. Without them, a lot of diseases are still killing people.

There is one reason of that we might never think. Animals is a part of education, especially for biology. Scientists study animals, and students have to know that basis of animal science, such as human body and lifestyle. When we are studying different organ system in the human body, we might not be able to do anatomy with a human. Therefore, we dissect rats, frog, or some other animals to get to know the structure of an organ system, and we can learn more about our human body through this way.

Economically, a portion of industries is animal-based, such as dairy, horse or dog races, meats, and production that use animals as labor. Other than that, when we buy or sell a pet, it already contributes to the economy. Besides, we need to buy pet foods, pet houses, and pet toys. Even for riding a horse, you need to at least purchase a saddle, a bridle, a helmet, and a riding boot. These are some other industries that are also related to animals. So we have animal products, pet stores, foods, and entertainments which contribute quite a part of the economy throughout the world.

In conclusion, animals are essential in the world. We need animals as workers, companions, resources, test subjects, study subjects, economic factors, and roles of food chains that maintain the whole system. So we should not take it for granted anymore. We should appreciate them for helping us a lot and being different roles in all aspects.

[deanmullenfilms]

The Limitations of The Human Experience

The human experience is richly diverse in its nature. It offers beings whom were born in to the homo sapiens species, a wonderful scope and a vast array of abilities shared throughout the animal kingdom but also unique sensations, at the very least to the degree and complexity that is at the disposal of the human capacity. The average human being can enjoy music, films, art, think about history and science and comprehend basic mathematics as well as enjoying or/and taking part in various forms of sport, entertainment and events regarding politics (whether voting or taking part in political rallies for example). Setting aside an anti-human cynicism that can often appear amongst analyses of the human species especially in relation to what we are currently responsible for on this planet, from an alien’s point of view, we are as far as planet Earth goes, an incredible species which obviously stands out from the rest. That does not infer anything overly superior about our moral value it should be stated. In terms of intelligence, dolphins, elephants, octopus’ and chimpanzees are among those who trail not too far behind ours, at least in the scheme of things. Intelligence of course can be difficult to define and can come in various forms. There are even arguments to make that cetaceans for example may be as, if not more intelligent than us in an overall sense (if we focus on wit, memory and various other examples of what we could classify as intellectual abilities) with our physiology helping us to build civilization with our very intelligence. This angle of thinking would of course suggest that had dolphins evolved different bodies with disposable thumbs then they may very well have built a civilization just like us but beneath the ocean. The fact we have built a civilization though does add to the uniqueness of our experience.

Nature is one of the core elements in how our personality and mental range of thought forms. Yet it has been in recent years that there has been a greater recognition of the importance that the role of nurture plays, meaning especially the world we grow up in. The human brain as existing in its current societal context has pushed the capacity of animal thought (as of course we too are animals) to new levels, particularly due to the nurture aspect of our minds. To contemplate the origins of the universe, to think of about supernovas or the existence of exoplanets is on this planet, to the best of our knowledge, an awareness distinct to our species. For all that we can experience as individual human beings and for all that we are capable of as a collective of billions, there is still a vast array, indeed perhaps an infinite array of limitations to our experience of life and reality itself. On the one hand, there are the capabilities which non-human animals have that we lack; many birds for example can navigate exceptionally large distances due to internal navigation senses, the Meerkat has the equivalent of ‘biological sun-glasses’ around their eyes allowing them to look directly at the sun to watch out for predator animals and dolphins, evidence suggests, can send ‘mental holograms’ by sonar message to one another so that they display in three dimensions an image of what they are seeing, to their fellow cetaceans. On the other hand however, the limitations of the human experience are also in relation to those abilities and understandings of reality that fail to present themselves naturally to us or to any species in this world. This is not a specific criticism of human beings per se (although it can be seen as constructive criticism perhaps) but rather a means to analyze ways in which we fall short of being so much more than we are, in relation to appreciating reality in a fuller sense. So what exactly does that mean? Here’s a commonly used term by our species; people. People is the word we use to describe one another but its initial use has implications far beyond this. We consequently separate the conscious beings of our world in to two categories or at least it is generally true in practice; people and animals. While individuals such as myself will use the term ‘non-human animals’ to refer to the latter, the distinction made in the sentence prior is clearly far more common in our world to date. And as a result, this shapes the thinking of most humans. Language influences the ways, in which we think about the world and beyond that, our species does arguably think about itself in an unjustly biased way (that is meant in terms of logical justification but could also apply to moral justification too). That is to infer that while there is a proper rationale to see our species as unique and indeed ‘uniquely unique’ on Earth because we are, the way in which we actually perceive ourselves in general goes far beyond that and turns room for limited pride in to highly excessive pro-human bias and in turn a far less accurate perspective of how non-human animals should be perceived. It is almost as if our uniquely unique abilities (that which allow us to imagine the future, think about our life and empathize in ways different to non-humans or perhaps our intellectual capacities that make us capable of being educated or voting for that matter) is seen by our species as if it is infinitely greater than that of other species. We treat our extended capacities as if they justify establishing an absurdly large gulf between how we should treat members of our species and how for example we should treat chickens. Yet, taking a step back and looking at this matter objectively, this is an irrational conclusion to come to.

Indeed, it makes perfect sense that the difference in how we treat members of the homo sapiens species should be proportionately distinct to members of other species, proportionate on the basis of the degree of variation in our experience/capabilities. So for example, that which gives us the ability to vote or drive makes us fair candidates to be attributed these rights (at least after a certain age – a general marker for a point of mental maturity within the species as a whole) while it makes no sense to give these rights to members of other species. However, this says nothing about the ability to suffer which is shared between us and countless other species alike and for which there is no reason to treat these capabilities as different, certainly as far as physical suffering goes. The lack of accuracy in our perspective of course has huge ramifications for the legal status and protections offered to nonhumans by and within our civilization. I do believe however that even setting aside the implications of our linguistic bias, an internal bias that is both natural and nurtured by other means than just words alone but by culture and tradition for example also has a massive effect on how we view other animals. That for one is a clear example of how the human experience is dramatically limited. We are far from seeing the reality as it actually is despite feeling as if we do, especially in this day in age. Yet, how we perceive farmed animals for example is incredibly misleading and just not accurate. I would criticize this perspective as almost being like that of a fundamentalist religion, it is a perspective for which the evidence does not match up (meaning how we treat humans or even dogs and cats for that matter relative to how we treat pigs, cows and chickens is not based on any factual reasoning. There is no rational justification to treat pigs with such enormously little regard in comparison to our species or dogs and cats for that matter) and yet is followed as truth so easily and with little scepticism. It is a view of reality which is not based on reasoning or fact and yet the vast majority of the world follows this perspective to the point that those who question these assumptions are mocked, much like the radicals who questioned religious assumptions of the past such as the claim that we are at the centre of the universe. That is how far we are limited from seeing accurately, even now in the 21st century.

(We once foolishly thought we were at the centre of the physical universe, in many ways, we still do think we are at the centre of the moral universe).

This general overview that both language and culture (as just two examples of ‘nurtured biases’ against non-human animals) have a major impact on how we see other species goes far deeper than it may initially seem. It is arguable that how we imagine the experience of other species; such as pigs, cows and chickens are grossly misrepresentative of reality. Indeed, empathy is defined as the ability to imagine the suffering of others and when it comes to our limited experience (or indeed abilities for that matter), our culture drastically limits most humans from more accurately envisioning the suffering and pain of these specific others; farmed animals. It’s not black and white. It isn’t the case that humans see all non-humans in the same boat, it is quite mixed and depends on where the humans come from and of course it has and will continue to depend on when the humans come from. Domesticated dogs and cats are evaluated as being far more deserving of respect, empathy and legal protection in most countries in the world relative to farmed animals and indeed many other species such as bears or dingos. This is mostly seamless and not discussed or critiqued nearly as much as it ought to be, especially when we consider the gulf in how most countries treat pigs compared to dogs. And it is also very notable when one considers the scale of the modern livestock industry; the scale of how we use pigs, cows and chickens as a means to an end. If we were to remove such biased tendencies within the cultures of human civilization, we would find that how we feel about the life that pigs find themselves in is abhorrent. We would feel deep empathy for their pain, which undeniably they are experiencing. We would imagine what it would be like to be in their place; to be stuck bound to a gestation crate or pen and held indoors, day after day without little to no access to the outdoors, to fresh air, sunlight or grass when that is what our nature asks of us. We picture that we would be miserable, bored and empty, even if the intellectual advantages that the human species hold over pigs were to vanish too. More importantly, any empathy that exists would not be limited to just ‘that’s terrible... but now I have to move on with life’. It would be something to stop us in our tracks and say firmly and unequivocally that ‘This is wrong.’

I could write all day about how language, culture and other aspects of our civilization greatly limits us but in many ways it would be variations of the example used above, whether it is in regards to our treatment of non-humans, how we think about ourselves and our place on this world or otherwise. Of course our limitations are also bound in our nature. While I believe we can keep our nature in check and under our control enough to someday without yet changing the human condition (through transhumanism for example; the idea of merging our biological state with technology) to create a world whereby non-human animals are not exploited, killed or indeed treated as property whatsoever by our species, at least in the vast majority of territories around the globe.  With that said, our natural biases will still remain at least until we become posthuman, if we ever do. That brings us on to the final part of my article, the natural limitations of the human experience. Nature has granted us inherent speciesism as part of our make-up, as it has granted the same for all species. A bias toward our own species is an inescapable aspect of our biology and even the most ardent animal rights activist (such as myself) cannot truly escape partiality toward human beings. We can, as I hope the world as a whole will in the future, overcome our nature to the degree of saying ‘It is wrong to treat other species as property or/and as a means to an end’ and of course to then act upon that belief yet a bias towards humans will remain and it will continue to have consequences in terms of how we treat other species but also in terms of how we think about other species. Realistically, the only way to overcome these limitations on a long-term basis (which of course speciesism is just one aspect of with countless, countless other bounds to our thinking because of our own nature) would be through technologically upgrading our species, to become a transhuman/posthuman species, evolving to a new level. If we were to throw off the shackles of where evolution left us off about 100,000 years ago, we could possibly see the world with no bias towards human beings whatsoever. Perhaps there is a case to be made that those who experience psychedelic trips can in the short-term escape such a bias but generally it is through immense depersonalization to the point of experiencing ego-death. This does not it would seem allow for an evaporation of species bias entirely while holding on to a sense of individual identity. That would be something achievable permanently through technologically altering our species and evolving in to a new one entirely for that matter. What we would see, learn, realize and perceive in such a state of mind is beyond my understanding as of course I, like anyone else am limited to being a human being. Here’s a way of looking at our limitations; we cannot help but find the look of spiders unappealing and yet spider themselves can experience in their own minds, looking at another spider and feeling attraction, in the same way that we feel when we look at a human being whom we are attracted to. That idea of finding a spider attractive is an alien concept, surely to all human beings, I would certainly hope anyway and yet the fact that that mental state exists in another being emphasizes how limited our scope of experience is. I am not of course suggesting that it would be a development for us to find spiders attractive! The point I am making however is that if our attraction capacity is immensely limited and there are countless states of mind that other species experience that we are completely incapable of having and vice versa when it comes to attraction, then there is far more limitations when it comes to every other aspect of our life and thoughts. Whether that is in what we find aesthetic or what we fear. Going beyond that, the very sensations and emotions we have are limited to what evolution has given us. There is perhaps so much more to experience in members of other species but importantly, that which nature never reached as either it had been too difficult to evolve or it had no incentivize to evolve. Again, these are all limitations, most, if not all of which we simply cannot comprehend. Perhaps in the far future, posthuman civilization will see the human mind of the early 3rd millennium as having still been bound to a tiny fraction of all possible experiences, bound to a tiny segment of what it was possible to understand, sense and feel.