to think that the word 'vermin' is amongst the most mean-spirited self-serving words in the English language.

[OrmIrian]

Tis a thread about a thread - sort of - well a spin-off from the fox-poisoner thread. Sorry.

Human animals dominate the planet. I think that is a given. Other animals have to squeeze into the spaces that we leave. The truly 'wild' bits of the world are getting smaller and smaller. Tigers for example are getting increasingly rare as they have the temerity to attempt to carry on living in their natural habitat where humans are encroaching. I don't need to tell you what is happening to polar bears. Most of the land in the UK is built-up or farmed. What is left is seen as a playground for humans - mountain bikes, motocross, walkers, climbers etc. Not much space left for other species to thrive. And we pollute the water and the air - a problem for other species even more than for our own.

There isn't a single species that hasn't been affected, usually for the worse, by human activities. Apart from those opportunistic enough and 'clever' enough to benefit from us. To fit into the cracks we leave - pigeons, rats, foxes, squirrels for example. They live alongside us, eating our rubbish, finding homes in the little bits of waste ground that we don't want. But as punishment for that adaptability we give them a name, we call them vermin, and declare them fair game - find them disgusting and try to poison them, hunt them or shoot them. Is it really acceptable to only permit the survival of those creatures that we find appealing and that don't impinge on us.

I am not a beleiver in animal rights. I think that is errant nonsense. But a bit of self-knowledge and compassion when dealing with the creatures we share our space with is needed.

I don't think it's contradictory at all.

We accept that as a species we kill other species. That's the nature of omnivores. We don't have to but we do. In the past more of us would have been closer to the fact of the killing, the real 'red in tooth claw' reality of despatching a cow or bleeding a pig. Not nice but something that had to be done. Very few of us are. I think that is a dangerous situation in which living creatures can be seen as much more expendable than in the past. If you don't need to see it breathing and being killed, it's all too easy to forget that it ever was.

Using a de-naturing word such as vermin for animals that inconvenience us is part of that - and it is more dangerous now that we don't get to see the reality of animals' lives and deaths.

madonna - I don't eat much meat. And beleive me I am conscious of the life that has been given for me when I do. I don't regard a piece of cow as merely a commodity.

The compassionate thing is interesting. I think that humans are capable of compassion when there is nothing lost by exercising that compassion.

When it is a survival of the fittest situation compassion is rarely shown - same as any other animal.

I watch the news and see what people are willingly doing to each other around the world and in this country, things too upsetting and depraved and disgusting, cruel and wrong to mention here, and I feel that the human race is not based on compassion, not by a long chalk.

It is a different debate though.

If this has made you think, then you might like to know it's easy to eat vegan these days. There's a lot of modern, easy to cook meals, and they're often cheaper too.

You could even have one meal a week like some people do.

Whay about killing plants ,they are life forms too

My FIL is a farmer. He is of course very well aware where meat comes from. He strongly objects to large commercial shoots where the birds aren't shot for eating, but will bring me game that he has shot himself. He would shoot a fox if he saw one on his land, and would allow a hunt to ride over it, but wouldn't hunt himself. He'd shoot a pigeon if he caught it near his cabbages, and puts food out for the birds in winter.

He certainly categorises animals, and will kill those which negatively affect him and his livelihood. But he certainly thinks about what he is doing, is honest about it, and does not lack compassion.

Good madonna. That is how it should be. But how many of us do that?

Why is it irrelevant what is done with the carcass?

Apropos of nothing, I think this may be my longest thread. Certainly in the shortest time.

And never a mention of WOHM, bfing or nurseries. Hurray!

Survival of the fittest has nothing to do with compassion. It means the survival of those best adapted to their environment. It's not about killing other animals.

Altogther now - a big hand for Orm !

You are right, ImSo- but when you watch the news, are you surrouded by friends? OH? Children? Neighbours? That is a bigger indicator of man's compassion to man than a news report IMO.

But you are also right in that it's a different debate

But Orm - he would use the word vermin. You are arguing that the use of the word word suggests some kind of lazy thinking by people who are removed from the reality of anmials' lives and deaths. He lives it, every day. He would use the word without compunction, and with exactitude, to explain his killing rationale.

"Why is it irrelevant what is done with the carcass?"

Why is it relevant? Killing is killing.

Would it be any more ok to kill another human being because you were going to eat them?

But most of us aren't living that life. That is entirely the point. We live cushioned comfortable safe existences but feel justified in calling creatures that cause us a minor inconvenience 'vermin' so we can bump them off (or more likely get someone else to do it).

Survival of the fittest - in order to survive humans do things which are incompatible with compassion.

In times of drought one family may murder another family with access to a water supply.
In times of famine people will kill for a loaf of bread.

This is writ large when villages or tribes massacre each other, countries go to war over resources.

People do terrible things in order to survive - that is what survival of the fittest is about. Lions kill other males cubs. Men kill children that they suspect of not being theirs. It's all the same difference, and where survival is at stake compassion goes out the window.

Human beings kill animals because they want to. When they find it hard to justify the killing they give them names which mean they are dirty and have to be destroyed. The same principle is applied when one sort of human decides to wipe out another sort of human - first they "dehumanise" the other sort by calling them names and then they feel justified in the killing.

OK, so I'm not sure what you mean now. What minor inconveniences are you thinking about? This is a (very good and completely justified) thread about a thread right? What's the scenario you're thinking about?

I have to go now... shame, really interesting thread. I am curious as to how you envisage a society such as ours working when all meat should be killed by those who eat it, Orm? Or how else do you advocate a sufficient amount of horror is evoked every time we eat an animal or put down a mouse trap?

OK I'mSo..., but that's not a Darwinian reading of survival of the fittest.

'Fittest' in that context means best adapted.

Tethersend yes I watch the news with my loving family. While next door for all I know one neighbour is beating his wife and the other molesting his children.

Look at the relationship boards on here to see how people treat each other.

I think that is a tangent though and will stop now before everyone gets too depressed!

Yes I do think there is an intrinsic difference between killing for a meal and killing for nothing.

Killing people is murder, and highly illegal, cannibalism is a huge tabboo etc. I don't think that applies.

The thought of shooting thousands of pheasant and then just disposing of them makes me feel quite ill.

Oh, and I'mSo- please explain why what is done with the carcass is important?

sorry, Im, x post

My point is that killing a man with the intention of eating him is no better, morally, than killing him for fun. Unless he is your only food source. And that's another thread entirely . Why should it be any better then to kill an animal with the purpose of eating it than to kill it to stop it eating your chickens?

Would it be ok if we ate the foxes, then?

Of course it is a darwinian reading. In evolutionary terms the strongest genes are propogated - in a carnivore this likely means the biggest strongest fastest one with the biggest teeth, and getting rid of the competition is an excellent way of ensuring your genes are the ones passed on.

it's not all about having the lovliest plumage and getting chosen by the females etc. Wiping out the competition is very effective as well. Why do you think so many animals have evolved things which are useful in fighting and killing others of the same species?

I'm not saying the fox shouldn't be killed.

I simply think that people should pay a little more heed. Rather than just "yikes a spider" - stamp; "ugh a rat" - whack; "ooh a pheasant" - bang... To have a little understanding that these animals form a part of our ecosystem, that many of them are here in numbers because of our activities, while the same activities elsewhere kill other animals. That we treat our surroundings and the animals that live in them, and that we want to eat, with such lack of thought and (more often than not) cruelty, without even giving it a second thought. it is not a good way to be.

And I also think that killing for pleasure is rank.

I'm a hippy aren't I