write an article on is it justify to kill a bird or an animal
Answers
Answer:
You could say that if you kill a cow you're depriving it of the rest of its existence, which could also have been a happy, good existence, so why deprive it of that just because you want to eat some meat when you've got other healthy, nutritious, delicious things that you could also eat?
"The counter-argument is this cow would not have existed if we had not already planned in advance that at some point we would kill it and we would sell the meat, because obviously it costs something to rear a cow, and we can only meet that cost if we are going to kill it.
"So in a sense the cow could thank us for her existence - at least she has some existence rather than none.
"If a cow is killed that will make it possible for another cow to come into existence who will have a good life, and if the first cow were not killed it would not be possible for the other cow to come into existence.
"So yes, this cow standing in front of us will lose the rest of her life, but that loss is replaced by bringing the other cow into existence and the other cow will also have that happy life.
"In theory - other things being equal - I do buy that argument. I say in theory because I think it's very hard to produce circumstances where that actually occurs and there aren't other undesirable side effects. Given the animals in our food supply are mostly cattle and sheep, and they are major producers of greenhouse gases, I think on balance, it would be better if they didn't exist.
"I think we'll come to view [eating meat] in the way we now look back on the Roman games; having crowds of enthusiastic people cheering on the lions as they slaughtered the Christians or gladiators fighting each other to the death.
"The last time I intentionally ate meat was 1971. I grew up eating a lot of meat in Australia and I liked it, but I really haven't missed it for a long time."
The RSPB has admitted killing hundreds of birds on its reserves, prompting an accusation of "extraordinary hypocrisy" from the Countryside Alliance.
The RSPB recently criticised the licenced destruction of buzzard eggs and nests to protect a pheasant shoot and said a cull of lesser black-backed gulls should be halted. But on Thursday the charity revealed it too had destroyed lesser black backed gulls and other birds that were harming native species.
Tim Bonner, the Countryside Alliance director of campaigns, said: "The RSPB's use of the licence system seems to be perfectly legitimate and justified but looks extraordinarily hypocritical in light of its recent comments about other licence applications. If the licence system is correct when used by the RSPB, then it must also be correct when used by other applicants."
The RSPB said the use of licences to destroy birds to protect struggling native species was different to killing birds to protect game shoots populated by non-native species.
Martin Harper, the RSPB conservation director, said lethal control was a last resort and only used when all other methods had been tried unsuccessfully. "In most cases, this is to recover the numbers of threatened wild birds," he said.
The RSPB said that in 2011-12, it had destroyed 76 large gull nests – mostly of lesser black-backed gulls – and shot three adult lesser black-backed gulls to protect breeding terns from predation. It also prevented 73 greylag goose eggs and 25 Canada goose eggs from hatching – by oiling them – to prevent collisions with aircraft. Almost 200 eggs of barnacle geese were destroyed elsewhere to protect other birds. All the geese were introduced species, Harper said. Almost 300 carrion crows were also killed to protect breeding wading birds, such as black-tailed godwit or lapwing.
Harper said the RSPB was making the information public in the "interests of openness". He said: "We're not obliged to submit records on the number of birds killed, which we think is wrong, but we keep the records anyway."
The Countryside Alliance said the release was in response to freedom of information requests it had made about the licences to Natural England. Bonner said: "They used highly emotive language to decry these activities, but now we find out that they have been carrying out exactly the same sort of actions."
In May, it was revealed that Natural England had licensed the destruction of the eggs and nests of buzzards to protect a pheasant shoot. At the time, Harper said: "Most people would prefer to see buzzards soaring in the sky. They are big, majestic creatures in the wild and we don't have many of them in the UK."
In the same month, the RSPB called for a halt to the killing of tens of thousands of lesser black-backed gulls on one of England's largest shooting estates. It said while the original purpose had been to protect water quality, it now appeared to be being carried out to protect a grouse shoot.
Article on is it justified to kill a bird or an animal.
Killing an animal, is it justified or not?
The Killing of animals is a common day occurrence that happens quite often in some cases it is justified as food or reducing the overpopulation of certain species that said how would we as humans feel if our situation was to be reversed and instead of the hunters we were to become the hunted, would we then atone for our sins and ask for forgiveness from God or would we simply accept our fate.
Humans being the dominant species on Earth do dominate and decide upon the lives of other species as well, if we wanted a species as terminated it is not impossible at the very least, however, it does bring up the question that is power the sole justificator for a cause that at times might be rooted in malice?
We as the dominant species on the planet we have a responsibility towards the maintenance of this planet we cannot be blind sighted and reckless in our actions we should care about our fellow species whether a bird or an animal and we should avoid irresponsible killings as much as possible. All the species have a right to live and we mustn't take it away from them.