Feeding Animals And Humans And Ideas

This was my Tutti Panutti, a Miniature Pinscher.
6.5 pounds of terror to those she didn't like, and a joy to watch
trot around like a horse when she was going about her walk.

Every culture, time, and place in history has had its high opinions of certain animals and low opinions of other animals.

Those opinions are based on very substantial and obvious reasons for the most part.

One people's pet may be another people's provender (meal).

For some peoples, their animals are not only a source of food but also a source of income.

In some places, a pet is a companion that doesn't judge.

Each animal on the face of the earth, and every other living creature and thing, has a set purpose and a role to play.

One man's opinion of any particular animal or creature is irrelevant when exploring that animal's role in life as understood by perhaps another man.

Over time, the regard for certain animals eventually led to the worship and honoring of them... while other animals became despised and abhorred for certain reasons.

Here is a list of animal worship from the ancient world up to today.

The reason for animal worship or vilification is largely due to ignorance, breaching of extremes, and other factors like an idea or suggestion becoming a legend that became a tradition continuing into the current era.

All living things are a good thing, that 'good' not always clearly understood or perceived.

Each living thing serves a viable purpose, what 'purpose' also not always clearly understood or perceived.

Yet the human approach and sensitivity to their relation to any given animal can often times become obscured.

Surely animals are to be treated 'humanely' as that term is usually added to conditions animals are kept in.

The animal doesn't have to come before the human when all things are considered, nor the human before the animal when, again, all things are considered, for there is a lesson in all things in this world.

The point is this: does the human being fully understand their role in the world? and that of all creatures?

Maybe not yet.

Being master of all living things does not mean being irresponsible or nearsighted.

I like fishing.

On this day many years ago, I caught 100+ fish (not kidding).
I stopped counting after I reached 100.
I also released that same amount.

I enjoy the time spent on the water in a boat, or at the shore from a pier or the bank of a lake / river.

I am elated when I have a fish on the line, and those moments of battling the fish and bringing them towards me is a rush.

Yet I feel bad considering the fish may lose its life for the sake of my enjoyment, my past-time.

I feel bad for any damage to the fish from the hook and any stress from me reeling them into the open air.

It would be a very different story if I was starving, or if it was my job to bring home food (in this case fish) for my family.

The catching, filleting, and consumption of the fish would not be a sport as popularly portrayed in this scenario, but instead an effort bound by necessity (my hunger).

The effort would be one of gratitude that a fish would be provided in some way to fill my stomach.

It could be argued that man is able to strictly live off of fruits and vegetables and other plant life, and not animals.

This is a strong argument.

Before choosing a side, what does nature teach us?

Nature shows us that some animals have always consumed other animals.

Some animals are strict carnivores (only eating meat - other animals), others omnivores (meat and vegetation), others herbivores (only vegetation), and here is a list of even more kinds of feeding found in nature.

Mankind can sway between all of these, having been enabled to eat from almost all cross-sections of life.

There is a natural order in the world... and man is atop this order, but not in the way some may perceive 'order' and man being 'atop' such an order.

If a predatory animal is removed, either by hunting or disease, the natural order of all other animals is affected.

Without the predation of one specie of animal, the prey animals may become too populous... and the loosening of such an intricate and fragile order may be the undoing of all other related life forms.

Consider how snakes keep a limit on rodents and other animals which, if grown to large populations, may enable disease and other harms.

This was Sabrina, a Red-Tailed Boa Constrictor.
I would feed her mice and rats, and doing so was not shocking to me personally
since I grew up in a society where rodents were not honored but considered 'problematic'.
For the record, I also had pet mice growing up with spinning wheels and socks as their beds.
I did had a hard time when I tried feeding Sabrina a baby chick.
I couldn't do it after the second time, because of sentiments I had
from being given  chicks as a gift when a child.

My self and my maternal grandfather showing me a chick.

Too much of a particular prey animal in one area may deplete the food that particular animal consumes... leading to other problems... and thus a cascading effect of greater problems may arise.

Although it may be argued that certain insects are a nuisance, every insect serves a purpose.

Some predatory insects keep other insect populations in check... otherwise crops would be devastated or lost, or man may be motivated to come up with synthetic solutions that cause more problems than solutions... and thus a further going away from the natural order.

A Praying Mantis.
This particular mantis is very special to me... which is another story yet to be told.
Predatory insects like this one kept grasshoppers and other insects from
devastating the tomatoes I tended while living in Upland some years ago.

Surely man could be a strict vegetarian... and there have been instances for certain people during certain times when they had no choice (or restricted) to eat only things growing out of the ground and not things living on the ground or flying through the air or swimming in the water.

The eating of meat in some times and cultures has sometimes been an instance of prestige, a show of wealth, a status of achievement... while the eating of only a few things from the ground as a common food for the masses is nothing new in history.

Balance.

Where is the balance between:

- the sentiments of some human beings towards animals? and when does regard for animals go too far and become a psychological departure?

- the needs of others (dietary restrictions or dietary necessities due to poverty or political situations)?

- the consideration of animals raised only for slaughter and not allowed to have some form of existence outside a production line? and are such practices healthy for human consumption?

- the elevation of animal status to that of humans (assuming humans are valued on-par with honored humans)? and how animal rights are either on-par with human rights or have in fact surpassed human rights?

Many more questions.

A few stories from recent news reveal public sentiment and attitudes towards animals in one place, which don't always fit the attitudes and mindsets of people in other places.

Like when a teacher fed a sick puppy to a snapping turtle in front of young students... and ironically that turtle's life was extinguished due to a rule in the law... and that man now faces the possibility of a maximum penalty of six months in jail and / or a $5,000 fine.

That puppy - turtle incident happened in the U.S..

If this incident would have occurred in another country where dogs are readily eaten by people, feeding a sick puppy to a turtle may have not raised any eyebrows or made the news.

Cultures vary, and who can claim their culture is 'better' or 'correct' when every single culture is constantly in flux and changing, adapting, adopting, and removing certain aspects of society?

In the U.S., where dogs and cats are the two most popular domestic pets (and the lines are blurred regarding the evident worship of them), such an act of feeding a puppy to a turtle is near blasphemous for those who consider dogs near and dear to them.

On the other side of the world, the camel is a middle eastern animal similar in utility to a horse.

Consider how camels in Saudi Arabia have their own beauty pageants... and a recent scandal revealing the use of Botox to enhance the camel's 'beauty' was cause for disqualification of some contestants.

There are also horse shows and exhibitions in the U.S. (horse racing, horse jumping, etc.), and although specifics may differ between Arabia and their camels and the U.S. and their horses, the commonality of taking pride in animals beyond their utility can be argued as a human extreme.

It could simply be something to do, a novelty, or perhaps yet another idea sparking a business practice.

There are several billion-dollar industries behind animals (besides the feeding of them for the sale of them for human consumption).

As an example, here is a simple stat of the U.S. horse industry supporting nearly over 1.7 million jobs and redistributing $122 billion dollars into related markets.

Horses are not consumed for food in the U.S. (as in other places on earth).

Me likely exhausted in the hot sun.
A horse whose 'name' I don't know wearing a hat.
Clouds His writing canvas.

Speaking of dogs in America, there are billions of dollars traded for the care of dogs as pets.

It is estimated that Halloween costumes for dogs will soon reach half a billion dollars.

Dressing up a dog arguably humanizes the animal... and whether that is simply novel humor or the reason why someone may now go to jail in one place on earth while the same act is of no public consequence elsewhere on earth, simply speaks to cultural sensitivities and how ideas captivate people.

I know I would have a difficult time if I would have needed to feed my Tutti Panutti to any other animal, and if I was starving and Tutti was my only meal... I am not sure what I would do.

At 6.5 pounds she wouldn't be much of a meal, but all jokes aside... if I had been raised in another part of the world, eating a dog named Tutti Panutti would have been a non-issue.

Elsewhere on earth today, and in another era elsewhere on earth, Tutti would not have been a pet... but another food source... or another utility.

Now, if only mankind can view one another the same way some people today view their pets - with a consideration of their well-being and a desire to protect them from all harm.

But where is the line drawn regarding 'which' animals are for food and which are for comfort / pets / companions?

Mankind can likely make a companion out of any living thing (whether out of necessity or out of a psychological departure of sorts - madness).

Notice that such an idea (the pet) is a construct in a person's mind... not so much a reflection of the natural order.

If mankind could learn to feed on the love that comes from Above, perhaps then will all of life be placed in a clearer perspective.

Perhaps then the natural order can itself clarify man's mistakes and overreaching of his ideas onto the natural order.

Perhaps man can correctly and measurably approach himself and the world according to respect, honor, balance, and honoring God in all things.... whether in the eating of meat or in the abstaining of such.