Animal Protection Is The Most Meaningful Cause

I have had much compassion for animals since I was a child. When I was growing up, my faith and values changed several times, but my love and compassion for animals never changed. Now I finally realize that animal protection is the really meaningful cause.

Below are my answers to some questions, and a rough description of my animal protection concept.

Why must we protect animals?

Like we human beings, animals have consciousness and feeling, and can experience suffering and happiness.

No one wants suffering, and neither do animals. This is the enough reason why we must protect animals.

Why do we not advocate “protecting plants”?

Plants do not have brain or nerve, so that they do not have any consciousness at all, including any suffering or happiness.

Therefore, in terms of morality, there is no need to protect plants.

Why do we not advocate “protecting mosquitoes”?

All vertebrate animals, including human beings, have advanced nervous systems, and have strong feeling and consciousness. However, most invertebrates, such as insects, only have very simple nervous systems, so that most invertebrates’ feeling and consciousness are very weak.

We do not say “protect mosquitoes” or “protect mites”, because their feeling and consciousness are very weak.

Why we must not kill animals, although animals keep killing each other?

Animals should not be condemned for killing others, because animals have low intelligence, and cannot understand that their behaviors bring suffering to other individuals. It is just as you cannot condemn a child who is three or four years old for killing someone, because it knows nothing; in fact, many animals have the same intelligence level as a child at that age does.

However, adults’ intelligence level is high enough for them to know that their behaviors may bring suffering to other individuals. Under the circumstance of knowing that, doing such behaviors is an obvious atrocity.

Why do we not obey the natural law which lets the strong ones prey upon the weak ones?

The natural law that allows the strong ones to prey upon the weak ones runs counter to the human ethics. If not, there would be no need to protect the disadvantaged groups.

The weak ones should be protected. The laws of nature are brutal, but the human ethics are compassionate. We human beings must fight against the brutality and stop the killing, not perform the killing.

Why should we be concerned about animals, rather than people?

People live really well nowadays. Most of the so-call disadvantaged groups and poor people are just have rough or less good living conditions. In addition, the human societies keep offering helps and opportunities to those disadvantaged people; with the development of societies, the helps and opportunities keep increasing.

In comparison, animals’ situations make me feel sorrier – at least those poor people will not be mistreated or killed. However, there is not even any relevant law to punish the murderers who killed animals cruelly. Now there is nothing more urgent than protecting animals.

Moreover, there is a distinction of good and evil in humans, but animals are all innocent and lovely – just as children (many animals have the same intelligence as children do); every single child is lovely.

Nowadays the rich and powerful people, have strong power, but always squander the power and capital on luxurious lives and meaningless faiths. I will be the owner of power, and use the power to make the greatest contribution to animal protection.

Strive for it!

I agree completely.

I am for the protection and dignity of all sealife. I am a Oceanic Vegetarian, meaning I won’t eat seafood.

Why? Cause it all tastes like pee, and the fish have freaky faces in the China town fish markets:

Eating meat that tastes like piss is stupid, but to see their faces while doing it… in utter horror, that’s fucked up.

Its why I only eat red meat, and chicken, and sometimes Spam and vegetables.

By that argument, we need not make any effort to save dogs and such from natural disasters, since the natural disaster doesn’t have any intelligence either. If we save animals from storms and from human cruelty because the animals experience suffering, it seems like protecting animals from each other would be just as much a moral obligation.

Of course, we can’t without obliterating the environment.

Nature isn’t nature when it’s policed. So protecting animals is against what they are, and against what built them.

On the other hand; mankind has moved somewhat beyond nature, and so behaving as animals would is to them unnatural, ergo animal protection is meaningful for humans.

What mankind is and will become is for it the most important/meaningful thing, to it. The way we treat each other and other creatures [nature generally] is meaningful to us and what we affect, which makes “Animal Protection Is The Most Meaningful Cause” into one aspect of that, which means it is not THE most meaningful cause.

 I agree. But a consequence of that is that there are things that trump the importance of the suffering of animals.  Tons of animals are suffering in Africa right now (being eaten and so on) but we just let it happen, because 'nature being nature' is more important to us than individual animal welfare.

Yeah, that’s the important thing- animal welfare has to be put in terms of it mattering to humans. They don’t have rights in themselves, but we have an interest in preserving nature, not promoting cruelty in society, and so on.


So should we stop nature happening? …a bit like we are with humans.

Perhaps there is some ‘drive’ in the world which is taking us to a world beyond nature, but where and what would that be…

I can envision a future where nature is policed, and we stop things like e.g. A Lion fucking another’s asshole because its stronger and it gets a power trip off it, and of course we would have to feed them too. The world would be a zoo, no?!

That tells us something about what we should be like, or what we are doing wrong.


I’m just gonna ask the obvious question here…what about people?