Culling Invasive Animals Essay

problem in the world that has led to the suffering of animals for thousands of

I am going to argue in support of Peter Singer’s claims against speciesism. It is right to claim that human suffering and animal suffering should be given equal considerations. Both humans and nonhuman species suffer both physically and emotionally and both deserve equal considerations on the basis of morality.

Humans have caused another extinction, one that could possibly take us down in the process, species are exponentially going extinct because of habitat loss, species exportation, and invasive species bullying native species. On the other hand, scientists are trying to safe guard native species, keep animals in captivity whether it be for the animals well-being or for research, and widespread invasion. In this essay I will be comparing and contrasting “What Everglades Pythons and Other Invasive Species are Trying to Tell Us,” by Julia Whitty and “The Sixth Extinction,” by Jeff Corwin.

The idea that all humans are born equal has been something that has been almost installed in our minds. However, in the eyes of Peter Singer, we as humans are constantly violating our own moral code in the way we treat animals. Singer refers to this as speciesism and compares our treatment of animals to the same way sexists and racists treat those who they deem inferior. He also argues that the grounds on which they base their prejudice on are equally fragile. He illustrates this by comparing speciesists to racists. He recalls, “The racists violates the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of his own race…similarly the speciesist allows the interests of his own species to override the greater interests of members of another species” (53.) He initiates this argument by explaining how our willingness to declare all humans as equal when the opposite is fundamentally true. Singer writes, “Like it or not, we must face the fact that humans come in different shapes and sizes; they come with differing moral capacities, differing intellect…if the demand for equality was based on the actual equality of all human beings, we would have to stop demanding equality” (51). Singer seeks to establish that our push for equality ends once the being in question is no longer human. Once he establishes this, he can quickly draw parallels between our unequal treatment of animals and humans. He evolves what initially begins as a far-fetched claim to a nuanced and

However, if the animals were treated well and were killed painlessly, that would not be morally wrong because, in this case, eating meat is only wrong when the animals are not treated as well as they could be. Singer believes that every sentient being should receive equal consideration, but he is aware that humans and non-human animals do not deserve the same rights because different beings have different interests (Singer 149). An example Singer gives is that it would not be wrong to deny dogs the right to vote because dogs are incapable of understanding the significance of voting, so they cannot have the right to vote, but it would be wrong to deny a dog’s interest in not suffering since dogs have a strong interest in avoiding pain (Singer 149).

As humans, we make decisions based on our comfort levels, choosing one thing over another. We prefer to not think about the way animals are killed or tortured, just to eat and enjoy them. We prefer to believe lobsters don't feel pain, and ignore how they cling to containers’ sides as they are being boiled alive. We prefer to choose our lobsters and watch them die, as opposed to choosing our cows and watch them be slaughtered. We choose which creatures to empathize with, and which to neglect. Wallace admits he cant justify these preferences we all have without sounding selfish towards the end of the essay. According to David Wallace, “the whole animal-cruelty-and-eating issue is not just complex, it is also uncomfortable.” This paper presents the moral complications of animal cruelty and the unclarity of it

Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation brings forth topics of animal cruelty and equality. Singer argues that humans have a natural tendency towards speciesism; speciesism “is a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s species against those of members of other species” (Singer, 6). Speciesism is used by Singer to determine a catalyst for the never-ending cycle that is animal cruelty and abuse on a broader stage. Singer essentially argues that just like racism where one has prejudice or an attitude of bias in favor of one’s race as opposed to others and sexism where sexes replace races, species replaces sexes and races. Equality in Singer’s perspective is that every individual should have the opportunity of equal

There are problems with both Tom Regan’s and Carl Cohen’s conceptions of the status of animals in society, but, overall, Regan’s is more consistent and applicable to all situations. Cohen also establishes a double standard regarding the definition of a “moral agent,” consequently weakening his argument for the use of biomedical testing on animals. Although I disagree with many of Regan’s ideas about the value of animals, I will not address these points in this paper. I will instead argue for Regan’s position and, in doing so, prove that his argument is more valid than Cohen’s.

In this essay I will argue that humans should take action of invasive species because invasive species eat our food. For instance, the text states, “Many areas there already do not have enough food” (France-Presse 2017). This is stating that most places are already running out food because of armyworms. This example provides evidence that the text states, “ It travels to a warm tropical place in the fall” (France-Presse 2017). This is stating that some invasive species move to warm places because in the winter it gets cold for them since they don't have any hair on them. In conclusion humans should take action of invasive species, places dont have alot of food, and they move to warm places when it's the winter. In this essay I argue that humans should take action regarding invasive species because many areas don't have enough food as is the

Animals are bread forcibly, then nourished with specific intent of managing fat content, meat flavor, and healthiness, each of which discounts the Utilitarian claim that nature makes our carnivorous methods ethically permissible. Secondly, and perhaps more fundamentally, such a claim is in direct contradiction to the Utilitarian tenet that each individual has equal value regardless of identity or stature. Because humans could be sufficiently nourished without the killing of animals, it cannot be argued that the consequence of causing death to an animal is equivalent or less substantial than that of feeding a man.

Influence on ecosystems range from human causes like the bulldozing of a forest to natural causes like a fire or a flood.  In recent times, the introduction and spread of invasive species has transformed native communities rapidly and, in some cases, created irreversible damages.  In the Earth’s history, changes have often occurred in the ecosystems.  For example, glaciers and the retreat of glaciers cause wide-spread changes.  However, although change is a constant in ecosystems, animals and habitats often cannot adapt to the rapid alterations of non-natural stresses.  Harm to the environment from the introduction of invasive species occurs through changes in the habitat and declines in the native species.  Invasive species

Since they were introduced for recreational hunting in the mid-1800s, foxes have spread across most of Australia. They have played a major role in the decline of a number of species of native animals and they also prey on newborn lambs. In the past, methods have been used to reduce fox numbers in the wild in the hopes to achieve a fox free country, however those techniques such as employing bounty hunters, were rarely effective. Various methods such as hunting seem to have little impact on European Red Fox numbers and thus won't help to cure the damage that the invasive species caused. High priority prevention, such as on islands, which are often refuge to many native species of fauna that no longer exist on mainland.

The biodiversity effects of non-native invasive species have been described as “immense, insidious and usually irreversible” (Veitch and Clout, 2002). There is significant evidence proving that invasive species can cause severe economic, environmental and ecological damage (Mack et al., 2000). A lot of time and research has been devoted to dividing the world into regions with distinctive habitats and species. Numerous pathways, mostly anthropogenic, are breaking down these realms and facilitating the ecological and biological invasion of non-native species.

Wooly mammoth. Atlantic gray whale. Large sloth lemur. Dodo bird. Silver trout. Baiji white dolphin. Saber-toothed tiger. These are just a few of the many extinct species. All extinct species go through a process that leads them to extinction. Endangered species are on the brink of extinction caused by natural causes and humanity. The numbers of these species have increased yearly due to different reasons, and it is because of these reasons they become endangered.

Animal massacre for disease control is an emotional topic for everyone concerned. Large scale depopulation of animals is often considered necessary to prevent further transmission and infection. Some animal conservationists think animal culling is inhumane and may disrupt ecological balance and introduce new viruses. In many occasions, animal culling is inevitable. Like SARS outbreak in China in 2003, among 25 tested samples, 6 samples are SARS positive. Unfortunately, all of them are civets, this result almost convinces everyone include local public health agency that civet is the reservoir of SARS. At that time when there was no vaccination or drugs available, removal of suspect reservoir is the most practical method to impede the transmission