One other student brought a related point to the discussion: "Maybe it is because this is Oregon, but every other person seems to be a vegan or a vegetarian." Which means a further lowering of demand for beef.
So, given the distinct possibility of industrially produced beef that will not be a result of killing cows, what would happen to those animals?
I have always believed that the instructor is not necessarily someone who has all the answers. Nope. As an instructor, my goal is to provide the context for students to think and raise questions. And, to a large extent, because I am a few steps ahead of them, and on a slightly higher ground, I have even seen and heard those questions before.
Those very questions are tackled by this philosopher, who reminds us that cows as we know them are not products of evolution:
Modern cattle owe their existence to selective breeding by human beings: they are very different animals from the wild oxen from which they are descended.We created the cows.
We are now working on creating beef in the lab.
So, do we have any ethical obligation to make sure that cows will continue to exist, like how we work on protecting the pandas?
There is no correct answer here. We can bring in our own sets of different values and reach different conclusions. The important task here is to ask those questions.
7 comments:
I like the way you present problems. You must be a very good teacher and your students are lucky to have you.
There are, today, too many cows in the world - all eating contentedly and farting away to glory contributing to most of global warming (other than 15 big ships). They will not go away any sooner. The huge increase in bovine populations is a function of the last 50 years, as increasing prosperity is equated to eating bigger and better steaks.
I would not worry about extinction just yet. As long as human beings are around, cows will be around.
Yup. There is no correct answer here. And , as usual, an insightful comment from Ravi which is always the case whenever he chooses to comment.
Tangential question. 99% of the species that ever existed have gone extinct, almost all of them to natural causes. So, is it OK if a few more go extinct due to man made causes ? Since you have given the licence to ask questions without having the responsibility of answering them, I can ask, can't I ?
Ravi, I don't know whether I am good or whether students are lucky to have me ... I know for sure that I am lucky to have them--else, I will be unemployed and have no other skill to make a living ...
It is not tangential, Ramesh. That too is an important question that we need to think about. For instance, think about the millions of dollars that have gone into the Panda project. Again, I have answers, but not *the* answer though ;)
Species domestication is not just the result of Homo Sapiens exerting their superior intellect on animals. If that were the case all sorts of animals would have been domesticated. (Ignore the odd leopard or python). Species domestication is an example of symbiosis or species co-existence. Over millenia certain species chose to live proximate to human settlements, being of use to them in exchange for protection, food and water. This is how we have cattle, horse, dogs, cats, sheep, chickens etc. What is the point? These species exist at the pleasure of man. And it is fitting that man have the ultimate say on these species.
Evolutionary biologists at your Uni will be able to point you to some writings on the subject.
"it is fitting that man have the ultimate say on these species."
Thus begins the slippery slope, my friend ;)
>>Thus begins the slippery slope, my friend ;)
To use the memorable words of Mohammad Ali Jinnah on being questioned on whether or not the Muslim League was right in unleashing violence and death on Direct Action Day 1946: "I am not prepared to talk ethics". :)
hehehe ...
Post a Comment