The domestication of animals is selfish in itself, whether it is to make them work, to eat their meat, to wear their skin, or to make them companions to relieve their loneliness.
From this point of view, keeping a pet has nothing to do with love, just like you eat their meat and wear their skin.get a pet memorial gifts.It is still intrinsically “selfish” to allow animals to providecompanionship for their own loneliness and psychological needs.Many people hear the word “selfish” and feel the need to be defensive.In fact, “selfish” is not wrong, species exist in this world are selfish, all kinds of life for their own interests, more or less have taken other biological resources and even life.Carnivores kill other animals to eat meat, and herbivores eat grass. But grass is also life. Grass must compete with other plants for fertilizer and space in order to grow.If self-interest is at fault, then no species in the world is innocent.So, from beginning to end, I don’t think it’s necessary to raise this behavior to the level of love, because we domesticate animals for selfish purposes, and selfish is not wrong at all.Therefore, there is nothing wrong with eating animals, nothing wrong with wearing animals (there is nothing wrong with raising animals for their fur), nothing wrong with using animals, and nothing wrong with using animals to meet spiritual needs.So people who eat animals don’t have to spray on animals, people who wear animals don’t have to spray on animals, and even people who eat plants don’t have to feel more humane than people who eat animals.It is just that human beings should be careful to balance their relationship with nature, for example, they should domesticate themselves when they want to eat, wear and use, instead of taking from nature without limit.Admitting that you are selfish, and accepting that you are selfish, is the only way you can be rational about it, and even begin to love your pet.Whether it is good for animals to be “domesticated” or not, many people are used to thinking from the perspective of “whether it is comfortable to be kept in captivity
whether it is comfortable to have no freedom, and whether the meaning of living is sad to be eaten”, which is somewhat illusory for human beings.I suggest you to think about this question: from the perspective of biological evolution for millions of years, all kinds of creatures survive the first essence is to breed, in other words, all the existing species, are breeding “priority” the result of this kind of survival strategy, so the existing in most of the species, are inadvertently priority choice for breeding.
Perhaps human domestication of animals does sacrifice the interests of some animals, but in the natural state, the breeding competition of wild animals is not necessarily less cruel than that of human domestication, and the rights that our conscience feels we should give to animals may not be freely available to them in the natural world.For example, you think that horses should run leisurely in the fields and not be kept in captivity, but horses in nature run only to avoid being killed and hunted. You think that cattle and sheep should have a good diet and should not only eat dry food, but cattle and sheep in nature may not even be able to eat dry grass and bark.
Domesticated animals, by contrast, under the protection of human, to “food”, and populations are guaranteed, it is also a kind of symbiotic relationship: both of these species in their own some beneficial to human characteristics, for the guarantee of survival and reproduction, human choice by a human shield that be not a survival strategy.Humans can rapidly increase the size of a population by tens to hundreds of times as long as it is beneficial to them, which is consistent with the “reproductive interests” of the population itself.
宠物纪念 