Once again, Dr. Rosenthal is required to answer the wrong argument because of the connection between horns and lobes, which even those who are supposed to be experts are wrong about
A few days ago I visited the antelope farm near Moshav Tzoper in the Arava. The place was established following a search and attempts for more than 30 years to bring to Israel a species of wild animal that would be strictly kosher and allow "carnivores" to taste game meat without harming nature.
The searches marked a large Indian deer or alternately kana (island) or kudu, both African species that according to the Halacha are kosher for food. The attempts to establish a farm for the production of kosher game meat failed, but as a result of them the antelope farm was established, which is an important enterprise, the stated goal of which is to grow reproductive nuclei from which it will be possible to release herds into the wild and renew populations that have become extinct or are on the verge of extinction. Herds of zebras, kudu, nyala, kana, wildebeest, deer-giraffe from Africa, most of them graze in an open area and give the feeling of a trip (safari) in the African savannas.
In a separate enclosure, they keep maned sheep from Morocco that are "distributed" to the IDF camps in order to keep the areas free of weeds. In the "comfort box" species of pigeons and parrots are displayed as well as porcupines, meerkats and others. The place allows for an "African experience" (tiny) and that's a good thing.
I wouldn't have needed to tell about the antelope farm if I hadn't heard one of the entrepreneurs and managers (Yossi) tell about "the special properties that deer antlers give to those who consume the powder that is ground from them". Without getting confused, Yossi says that "the male grows his horns before the heat season" (correct) "therefore, in the horns that fall out every year there is a large store of testosterone" (nonsense), and again according to Yossi "a billion Chinese are not wrong".
I might not have addressed things if I hadn't come across them In the next video which describes the killing of rhinos in Africa. The video does not need explanations and interpretations since much has already been written about the continuous killing of wild animals in order to satisfy traditions and rituals that originate from superstitions or in one word - vanity.
However, Yossi's words shed light on the problem and may provide a way to a solution, since reindeer do shed their antlers every year, therefore the use of the antlers (that have fallen off) will be considered sustainable. Elsewhere I suggested that those who feel the need for rhino horn powder can freeze antlers, (rhinoceros horn and antlers, like hair, are made of dead material - carotene). The composition of elk horns is different as they contain considerable amounts of calcium (no testosterone), but for those who believe, elk horns can be a respectable substitute for rhinoceros horns. And so out of and with the help of vanities it may be possible to save the rhinoceros from extinction.
Since we are dealing with the antelope farms, it is worth mentioning the cultivation of the blue crabs that originate in Australia. These are grown for edible purposes, but during the development of the industry, it became clear to the entrepreneurs that before each shell of the exoskeleton, the center of the male crab "golat" nanometric calcium that will later be used to build the new exoskeleton.
It turns out that the "gula" is a medicine for calcium loss (osteoporosis), the phenomenon is being researched and tested by the best doctors who hope to put the medicine into use as soon as possible.
And so I began with the story of a blessed venture, continued with a bit of criticism and ended with a song of praise.
54 תגובות
My uncle
Again - we say the same thing. The meaning of "big soul" is close to what you describe. This includes suffering, but also the subject of empathy - the suffering of others.
And about the pigs. I think like you. And again, you too have reached the "sequence"...
Miracles,
The question of who feels suffering and how much is for me a scientific question. According to what I have read, all vertebrates, especially mammals and birds, can feel pain (although suffering does not mean only pain, but also fear, stress, distress, etc.). As far as I know, fish also feel pain. I've also read that octopuses show high signs of intelligence, and according to some scientists such a level of intelligence indicates an awareness that allows for the ability to feel suffering, so in this case I'll give the octopus the benefit of the doubt. I don't know about crabs. Maybe you should give them the benefit of the doubt too, maybe not.
Regarding dogs, you wrote that they have a "big mind". I am not sure what is meant, is it intelligence or a high awareness of the environment? You mentioned pigs, which as far as I know are perhaps even more intelligent than dogs, so is the practice of eating them immoral in your opinion?
Regarding the pigs and sheep, I will agree that if the pigs are more aware of their environment and therefore suffer more, then it would be more serious to kill, since this is a continuum between completely immoral (humans in general and certain animals) and morally irrelevant (plants, bacteria, etc.) XNUMX that do not feel suffering).
My uncle
You are right about the fact that the point I mentioned has nothing to do with the danger of extinction. Regarding killing a dog, I explained earlier that I have a difference - in the sequence between Ibn and Gandhi - a dog is higher in the sequence (I will say that it has a "great soul") and therefore, in my personal opinion - it is wrong (immoral if you will) to kill a dog, even for food.
And regarding the cutting - I think your point is correct. The line is really related to the theme of suffering. But - it is not a sharp line - for example: do fish feel suffering? Crabs? Is the suffering of birds similar to the suffering of mammals?
I don't see any contradiction.
Stanislav Lem writes, in a book called the seventh sally - that a creature suffers if it appears to us to be suffering. He spoke in a completely different context, but I will give you a small example. Sheep in the slaughterhouse go "as sheep to the slaughter", they have no idea what is going to happen. But - pigs are smarter and look scared.
In short - I think we are in total very much in agreement.
Miracles,
First of all, I already wrote that killing endangered animals is a serious matter. More than that, I am not claiming that there is no difference between killing a rhinoceros and killing a cow. Note, you mentioned two reasons for opposing the killing of rhinos in section 3. I did not refer to the first one because I agree with it. My problem is with the second section:
"I distinguish between killing for food and killing for the sake of money. The killing of the rhinos was done to make a huge fortune from the horns."
There is no reference here to the fact that the rhino is in danger of extinction, and as I understand it, you would write the same section even if it were animals that are not in danger of extinction, right?
If your answer is positive then we will return to the example where a person will kill his dog and sell its organs for high sums of money. Further to that I wrote that in my opinion there is no difference between this case and the case where a person kills his dog because he feels like tasting a new delicacy.
You also wrote that there is a fundamental difference between the things and that each cuts the continuum in a different place. In my opinion there is a contradiction between the two, either the cut is arbitrary and determined according to personal preferences, culture, trends, etc. or there is some essential difference between the parties, some quality that gives the subject the same value, my opinion is that this quality is the ability to feel suffering.
To your question about the plant and the chimpanzee, my answer is that it is below the chimpanzee, and she should not have a baby.
Regarding mosquitoes, insects and bacteria. The question that interests me is can they feel suffering? If the answer is negative, then I don't think there is a problem with killing them (as long as it doesn't cause suffering to someone else, damage to the environment for example).
Uncle
There is a fundamental difference between the things. I look at it this way: there is a continuum between a stone in the garden and Mahatma Gandhi. Call you "the size of the soul" if you want or "the power of life". Everyone cuts this sequence - below the cut line they are ready to kill but not above. This limit is not that simple. For example - is a person without family and friends a plant, with no brain activity at all and no chance of recovery - is she above or below a chimpanzee who has a baby?
For example, I do not eat an animal such as a dog, cat, whale or monkey, but I do eat sheep - although I have kept sheep as pets in the past. I eat a pigeon - which I also raised as a pet, but I don't eat a parrot.
Some vegetarians will ask for eggs and won't touch milk - but Hindus drink milk and don't touch eggs.
And who doesn't think you can kill mosquitoes, or cockroaches? And what about water chlorination - do you know how many bacteria it kills?
And as I said earlier - it is not a "crime" to eat a dog, unless the law prohibits eating dogs.
I'm not directing anything. You don't think killing rhinos for the horn is bad, without talking about cows and vegetarians and domestic animals?
Yotam Yosef
You're talking off the mark.
1. What does it have to do with how much more the West kills than Africa? The problem is the extinction of rhinos because some idiots think their horn will give them an erection. This is the essence of the article. You have a vegetarian agenda that definitely has a place to discuss it. Only that's the topic here.
2. Again, what does the suffering of cows have to do with the topic of the article? It's wrong and it's wrong.
3. Maybe base your statement on the life expectancy of vegetarians? Just know - once you try I'll show you that people who eat a little meat are healthier and live longer than those who don't eat meat at all.
4. "The claim that a rhinoceros is an extinct animal is a statistical claim that does not mean that a cow suffers more or less than a rhinoceros from the moment of death" - what on earth does this have to do with it?
I'm not saying you're stupid. You are a person with an agenda. There are very positive sides to this agenda. But as soon as you immerse her in lies - you are spoiling and no one will listen to you.
Miracles,
I got you. The use of the word "murder" gave me the impression that the author of the article and perhaps also some of the commenters are outraged not only by the killing of endangered animals (which I agree is a serious thing) but also by the fact that Bah was killed for nothing. After all, if it was an endangered plant, no one would call its destruction murder, even though the severity of the destruction of an endangered plant is no less than that of an endangered plant.
In any case, I say again that the separation between killing for food and killing for the sake of money as you wrote is arbitrary in my opinion because in both cases it is a killing that could have been avoided, a "just" killing as already written here. It is easy to demonstrate this with an example involving domestic animals. In the opinion of any of the readers, is there a difference in the severity of the crime between a person who killed his dog because he believed its teeth had medicinal properties and a person who killed his dog and ate its meat because he wanted to taste dog meat?
Bouncer
If I counted correctly, you wasted 163 words calling me an idiot. And I "fill pages with vanity".
Fine.
The only field in which I claimed that I was not knowledgeable and therefore avoided entering was the African economy. You ignored it. Did you "read the script".
Fine.
Those who know how to "read between the lines" or "understand the author's intent" will understand that my bigger claim is that the separation between the different areas you brought up is arbitrary.
Fine.
I brought links that substantiate my main claim, which I repeat over and over again. I will write it for you here without "background noise"
1. The West kills at least seven times more animals than Africa
2. Eating meat causes more grief to the killed animal than hunting rhinos for their horns.
3. Human history is full of vegans and vegetarians who were blessed to live long, healthy and full lives. This is quite an example that eating meat is not a "necessity" but a convenience.
4. The claim that a rhinoceros is an extinct animal is a statistical claim that does not mean that a cow suffers more or less than a rhino from the moment of death.
Of course you'll ignore all of this and just go back to claiming I'm stupid in 150 words...
Since I refrain from responding with my own derogatory epithets, I think it's time I stop commenting on this thread.
At best, what is happening here is deaf talk,
But it turns out that deaf talk doesn't reach the ankles of the vanities that react in ours
(like Yotam Yosef) write here,
On the one hand, a writer who does not know and does not understand anything about the subject on which the article was written and tries
to divert the debate to illusory purposes, in light of the fact that he himself writes that:
"I don't know enough about the African economy or the rhino horn market"....
A person who doesn't need to write that: "I'm not smart enough"...
Because everyone who is a little or intermittently read the script (and unlike the ignorant also understood what was read)
He will notice that Mr. Yotam Yosef presses the keys of the keyboard to fill pages with nonsense,
A person who does not distinguish between nature, environment, morality, justice, etc.
and necessity of life, hunger, superstitions and vanities.
A man who drags others into a senseless argument,
And the others who try to answer are also not subscribed to "Yodei Chen", from the responses to the responses
It turns out that they are also busy and engaged in a topic that, at best, interests them... and nothing more,
Therefore it is not "deaf talk" but the background noise of fools.
Yotam Yosef
I understand that you have no intention or ability to address my points. I will be more polite than you - and I will address your points
A. The war on traffic accidents does not affect the problems I mentioned either. Let's not fight that either.
B. You claimed that these hunters are terribly poor and I'm withholding food from them. This is simply not true. Many villagers from Africa actually live as cattle (much more than rhino poachers). Do you want to deprive them of their entertainment?
third. We didn't touch on the killing of cows for bags... what does this have to do with the issue here? This is a different issue and we have no differences of opinion on it.
d. I claimed that I wanted to see rhinos free in the wild. Regarding your idea of imprisoning them: now you can no longer claim that selling the horns saves hungry people for you. Now it's surrendering to the stupidity of people who believe in nonsense. And I am against stupidity in any form.
Miracles,
A. Killing rhinos also does not affect any of the problems you mentioned, so there is no point in fighting it.
B. The rhino poachers in Africa may not be hungry for bread, but so are the cow killers.
third. We have not yet touched on killing cows for bags, killing geese for feathers, etc. And we did not discuss the killing of cows in favor of meat that was not consumed in the end. That's part of the problem.
d. How about a scenario where I lock up all the rhinos in pens and sell their horns? They will no longer be endangered. After all, that's what cows did.
My uncle
Let me explain myself
1. "Murder" is a legal concept. I don't know a country where it is defined as "murder" to animals, not even India. Therefore, the author of the article made a mistake in using the term "murder".
2. "Rights" is also a legal concept. There are actually rules here. In enlightened Israel there are such laws, but we have a legal system on our face...
3. There are two fundamental differences between killing rhinos and killing cows
1. Rhinos are extremely rare. The extinction of the rhinos harms the diversity of the fauna and I think it is bad for us, as humans. Besides, I am indeed a spoiled westerner and I want to be able to see rhinos living free in the wild.
2. I distinguish between killing for food and killing for money. The killing of the rhinos was done to make a huge fortune from the horns. Those who think that those involved in this are hungry for living bread on another planet and do not know the facts.
4. There are many problems in the world, such as hunger, poverty, AIDS, abuse of women and children, global warming, lack of clean water, etc. The extinction of the rhinos does not help to solve any problem.
Did I clarify myself?
Yotam Yosef
What I meant was that Anonymous was talking off the topic. I have no problem with you.
This is the second anonymous user, I changed the name due to the flood of anonymous users (four?).
Miracles,
All that I (and probably Yotam) were trying to emphasize is the double morality of resenting the killing of kenafs - to the point of calling it murder - compared to the scorned killing of cows, and ironically precisely from the author of the article who was not ready to debate the issue and compared the "protection of cows" to "Protection of the lettuce", and all this despite the fact that the cow suffers much more in her life than the rhinoceros.
Do you agree that there is a problem in calling the killing of a certain creature murder (thus possibly implying that it has a basic right to life) and at the same time stating that another creature does not have such a basic right?
Miracles,
I don't know if your response to Anonymous was serious or disrespectful...
From him I will understand it
not from you…..
And if he calls you a fool?
Yotam Yosef
You don't care if there are no rhinos left, for your own reasons.
I do, for my reasons.
Call me a spoiled westerner.
Note: Until we find an African belonging to a community that hunted rhinos we cannot truly understand their point of view.
My intention, and I've written it several times already, is that as killing, killing a cow and a rhino is bad (or equally good) our perspective is biased because we grew up in a certain society and economy. As far as the cow is concerned, she would rather be the extinct rhino than her superior evolutionary state (1.5 billion cows according to Wikipedia).
So why am I wrong? Why should the Africans learn a lesson from the fact that the West will not have the opportunity to see rhinos in the savannah? I'm pretty sure it's living around rhinos who get as excited when they're a rhino as we get when we see a fire truck.
Yotam Yosef
I gather from what you say that if they killed the rhinoceros without any suffering it is okay?
The hungry African may learn a lesson or may continue to exterminate more species.
I don't understand your argument about "waiting a few more years". I'm not claiming that killing rhinos is okay, I claimed (or rather I supported the claim) that rhinos don't care that they are extinct. The Africans don't care that the rhinos are extinct either. Man has been exterminating animals for 70,000 years and the ecosystem is struggling.
What do you think will happen to the starving Africans when he kills the last rhino?
Yotam Yosef
I agree that eating meat has a problem of animal suffering and environmental damage.
Regarding the second claim. Let's wait a few more years, not many, when there will be no more rhinos. Let's see what those Africans can do. Maybe then you will understand what it is about here.
Miracles,
I say that in my opinion, my problem with the animal food industry is the suffering it causes and the environmental damage it entails.
Regarding "you are wrong" you did not give a real reason. I have already argued before that all the arguments in favor of killing cows and against killing rhinos are from a western point of view a sheba who wants to travel in the savannah. Think of a hungry African who can sell a rhinoceros horn and eat for a month (or a year, I'm not well versed enough in the African economy or the rhino horn market). What does it matter if you killed the rhino to eat it or to finance the eating of cows?
Yotam Yosef
So you're saying that if an animal doesn't suffer then it's okay to eat it?
But you're wrong about the rhinos. Killing an animal for meat is very different from killing an animal for a small part of it - of course it is based on a superstitious belief. If, let's say, there was a substance in the horn with unique relaxing properties then it would be something else (but with many limitations).
Miracles,
First, there is no connection between what I wrote and your response. My argument is that unlike animals, plants do not experience suffering when they are eaten, and many times, plants "want" to be eaten in order to reproduce.
Regarding killing animals, I did not claim that eating meat is bad. I argued that if killing rhinos is murder, the same is true for killing cows. Personally, I don't eat meat because everything a cow/chicken/cancer goes through from insemination to death is too cruel. Kalbotek's publication about Tnuva arrived on time and is true for most slaughterhouses/dairies/pills in the world.
And one last thing, death is an integral part of evolution and food. All animals die in a food-related way, either they became food for another living creature (perhaps bacteria) or they did not have time to catch another living creature to eat it. Death isn't the scary part, it's the way there that bothers me.
Yotam Yosef
You wrote "Furthermore, except for parasites, there are no animals whose reproduction/distribution system depends on being eaten. Something I can't say about plants"
There are many, many animals that eat other animals. This killing is extremely cruel. Are these bad animals in your eyes? If killing an antelope is murder - does that also include the lion?
I haven't heard that the sardines are endangered. On the contrary, any species whose population explodes causes the danger of extinction for the species further down its food chain and its environment.
Oh yes.
I forgot to attach the link about the population explosion of sardines in the Sea of Galilee. Below is the link (including a photo of a beautiful blonde Swede helping a sardine fisherman in Sweden).
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/54/ART2/420/555.html?hp=54&cat=872&loc=13
incidentally. A few years ago it was announced that the blondes are in danger of extinction, meanwhile there are still a few of this species left.
Those who fear the extinction of species will surely be happy to know that the number of sardines in the Sea of Galilee this year is the largest since there is a record of their number. This year there are more than 900 billion sardines in the Sea of Galilee.
The explosion of the population of sardines in the Sea of Galilee is because last year was a blessed rainy year (despite all the scaremongering of the followers of global warming).
This year it looks like this year will also probably be a blessed rainy year in Israel. This will not prevent the followers of global warming from making apocalyptic prophecies about the drying up of Israel by the year 2050.
I don't understand why they stopped fishing for sardines in the Sea of Galilee. If the citizens of Israel do not like to eat. Sardines, it seems that there is a good chance to market sardines to domestic animals (dogs and cats).
By the way, regarding those who lament the extinction of wild animals. The number of dogs and cats in the world more than compensates for the extinction of other animals. There are probably billions of dogs and billions of domestic cats today, also a population explosion.
First anonymous user, killing an endangered species is more terrible for humans. The last individual of a certain species probably has a higher value in the eyes of man than one individual from a species of millions. But in my opinion there is no difference. A cow suffers just like a rhinoceros. In our case the cow suffers much more, because the rhinoceros I assume lived a quiet life in the savannah before being killed while the cow lived a miserable life before being slaughtered.
It is your right to continue eating meat, but in it we will call things as they are. If killing rhinos is murder as the title says so is killing cows.
Anonymous user (third party?)
You are aware that the meat is produced according to estimated demand right? It's not like there is a pool of cows that "must be eliminated" every day.
The first anonymous user, the main point of my criticism is not towards you, you are a victim of the system that considers those who do not eat meat as "unhealthy" or "not a man" when it is activated, as I have shown a Western man today consumes approximately seven times more meat than is considered "healthy". My victim is to people who have the influence on public opinion and abuse it. In addition, I object to the total disregard of the entire process related to raising animals for food that does not kill. If you have the stomach, you are welcome to look up what chickens go through from the chick stage, through the egg coop, to slaughter (which is not intended for meat by the way).
I don't think I'm more moral than you, I don't know what I would do in other cases related to morality, I think my diet is more moral, maybe even more varied, than yours.
I don't think killing extinct animals is universally terrible. The ecosystem will change to a different system, as happens every time there is Katsartorpa (Australia is still here even though man has -probably- exterminated all the large species on the continent except the kangaroo). For us, as humans with-free-time-who-want-to-go-on-a-safari, it is sad to see the rhinoceros become extinct. The rhinos, and the rest of the bar charge, are not particularly excited about it, except at the moment of the hunt itself.
Good, we will continue to eat meat and that these cyfolons will continue to lick creamy things. More meat for us
It may be that you are more moral... your opinions are indeed progressive (no sarcasm).
It's really easy for you to visit me huh?
I still, although I understand your views, will continue to eat meat because it's too hard for me without it.
But I will be careful not to eat animals that are in danger of extinction/almost in danger of extinction... I am also in favor of laws that prevent the killing of such animals.
Of course it's better not to kill at all - if I didn't suffer too much from being a vegetarian - I would do it.
Therefore - if there are superstitions that cause killing for nothing - the killing should probably be stopped. Because just killing is terrible. Killing to eat is less terrible. And killing in order to eat animals that are not in danger of extinction is less terrible... there is still something wrong with it. But it is still allowed to differentiate between the things.
Good Day
Anyone, I second (sort of) what anonymous user (the second) said.
To the anonymous (first) user, it is very easy for you, the white man with the surplus of food and the sources of appropriation, to decide what is allowed and what is not allowed, to punish the rhinoceros hunters in Africa for the consumption of the rich people of the world (I am quite sure that the consumers of rhinoceros horns are not only among the inhabitants of Africa) at the end of Don't punish people who have opinions like yours, they love and enjoy rhino horns.
Other than that, Eran sums up my opinion.
I enjoyed reading the comments. I also think we should cut back on eating meat. And seeing animals as agricultural crops does not feel morally correct to me.
To someone, don't say "there's nothing to do" because it's a fact that there are people who decided to do it and their bodies function properly even without meat.
Animals in the wild not only eat each other, they also rape each other and kill each other unnecessarily, does this justify similar behavior in humans? For some reason when it comes to eating meat people suddenly pretend to draw their morals from nature.
There is nothing to be done, we are meat-eating creatures, even the chimpanzees who are closest to us eat meat and prey on other animals, apparently this is something the body needs. All in all the natural world is based on animals that eat each other, we are no exception here.
I am of course sorry for the very act of killing an animal and I wish that in the future it would be possible to grow "synthetic" meat under laboratory conditions without the need to kill an animal, but at the moment this is not the case.
Trying to explain to a meat eater that there is no difference between killing a rhinoceros for its horn and killing a cow for its meat is like trying to explain to a religious person that there is no difference between believing in fairies and believing in God.
Yotam,
I don't know the views of the site owners here,
But I do eat meat, love meat and enjoy meat.
But I am not ready to eat meat from endangered animals and in my opinion there needs to be laws prohibiting this.
I do want nature not to disappear for me, or for the next generation after me...
Killing cows in breeding for food - it doesn't change nature too much to me and it sounds very natural to me...
This article is important to me, it is very interesting (and important) to know the reasons for the killing of rhinos in the wild, and without some supervision the rhinos will probably again reach a state of danger of extinction...
Short, in your opinion any killing of any animals is forbidden - your right, I disagree with you - my right.
We understood your point, you managed to explain your positions in a wonderful way. Now every person will do as he pleases (within the limits of the law)
Asaf,
A. Except for a general demand to reduce oil consumption, I have not seen any articles talking about reducing consumption in general.
B. I am not asking to "argue" I am asking that people who claim that killing rhinos for personal gain is murder understand that killing crabs for personal gain is also murder. After all, the capture and breeding of those rhinos would have been unthinkable even if their horn had been beneficial to the mighty power (or a cure for AIDS, or a cure for swine flu).
third. We both know that an animal has feelings, and desires, not to mention social structures, while plants, at most, have the ability to feel solid. These abuses have been demonstrated dozens of times, whether it's milk calves that try to lick their pen neighbors before they eat at feeding time or whether it's monkeys that starve themselves if only to avoid causing suffering to another monkey.
d. Moreover, except for parasites, there are no animals whose reproduction/distribution system depends on being eaten. Something I can't say about plants.
Liotam
It's a shame to burst into an open door,
You are probably new to the scene, otherwise you would know
the opinions expressed on the science website,
Opinions generally advocate reducing consumption in general
and the consumption of animal products in particular,
At the same time, those who call for "cow protection" will go a little further
And he will also call for the protection of lettuce,
But since the list does not deal with that and since it seems that
All you want is to "fubble".... Go on alone.
Asaf, I read carefully, did you manage to understand my attempt to show that the distinction between a cow and a rhinoceros is hypocritical to me? I responded to Ron (the response has not been confirmed yet). Regarding the amount of meat consumed, on the other hand, it is essential. The West causes more suffering and damage to the environment/animals than rhino poaching.
In my opinion rhinos have the statistical advantage, there are several hundred rhinos and several million cows. This is because the mass killing of crabs/cows is legitimate (my father already defined killing an animal as "murder").
Alternatively, cows have the disadvantage of history, the cow became extinct in the wild almost 400 years ago, but was domesticated more than 10000 years ago. The rhinos, I haven't come yet (if at all) and they haven't become extinct yet (if at all).
If the horn of the rhinoceros did have substances that improve the strength of the giant (or the same calcium nucleus that the glorified crab has), would it be okay to kill him?
Liot,
First of all, one must understand the difference between the essential need and the preservation of the natural environment,
and love of nature and animals, it's not always the same thing and I've already written about it before,
The essence of the matter is that there is a difference between agriculture that includes raising animals and raising wild animals for the purpose
To return them to nature and I wrote about this before, the crabs are grown like any agricultural crop
Like cows, sheep or pigs, they were all developed in the distant past from wild animals, today they are farmed.
As for rhinos: there are farms where rhinos are raised (as wild animals) and they also suffer from intrusion
of "killers" for the horns, there were attempts to saw off horns to prevent murder
But whoever shoots a rhino first shoots and only then checks (if there is a horn),
My father is not the one who gives licenses to breed rhinos (neither am I), so the reference is not even ridiculous
Just as there are piles of elephant tusks, there are also rhinoceros horns, and there is always a debate as to whether it will be right
sell them
If you had read carefully you would have understood that there is no proposal to "kill antelopes" but there is an idea to collect them
Deer antlers (not antelopes) that fall out,
And what about the foolish belief that whoever does not eat meat is not a "man"? Here is an article from the Telegraph according to which it is not recommended to consume more than 70 grams of meat per day or 500 grams per week
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8336628/Government-advisers-to-recommended-lower-meat-consumption.html
In a restaurant menu, a children's meal is a hamburger of at least 50 grams*. Today, in the West, there is no connection between meat and "killing animals for food and sustenance".
And that's without bringing up the fur coats and leather bags, or the conditions of those animals that, according to my father, "are not in danger of extinction".
*I did not find an online menu with weights, but here is a recipe for a children's hamburger, 5 servings, mcg of meat
http://www.mako.co.il/food-recipes/recipes_column-hospitality/Recipe-485d2e3f51fdb11006.htm.
Therefore, it is possible to understand (and forgive) killing animals for food and sustenance, but it is not possible to accept or understand killing animals simply because of stupid beliefs, for example cruelly cutting off shark fins and throwing them alive into the sea in the foolish belief that eating these fins will give special powers to the person who eats them.
And there are many more examples.
So you allow me to go capture all the rhinos in cages, breed them to my heart's content and sell their horns to the highest bidder? Will they no longer be endangered?
Yes, but after domestication these are not wild animals and are not in danger of extinction. Just as a sheep is raised for its wool, you can raise a crab for the useful substances it produces while shedding its shell.
Father, do you know that if man had not caught the crab (or the crab, the chicken, the pig, the cow, etc.) they too would have been wild animals?
Yes, because the crabs are raised for food, these are not wild animals in the jungle.
Bottom line, killing antelopes and rhinos is not allowed, killing crabs is allowed.