It is moral to use other living creatures as resources.

I also am very glad he decided to stick with the debate. Animal resources To counter my mutualism argument, my opponent states the following: “Other creatures do not benefit (if so, very minimal) from humans using them as resources. Most are tortured, hurt, wounded, etc. in the process of gaining something from them. Also, no relationship is created between the both parties accept for the fact that we greatly rely on these animals now. ” I am not sure if my opponent read my entire argument, as I listed several examples of other organisms depending on humans in the same way we depend on them. As I stated before, the gut bacteria found in the intestines of humans aid in many of our metabolic processes as we assist them in survival. In the case of the gut flora, the “gut bacteria benefit from having a protected, nutrient-rich habitat in which to multiply. ”1 My opponent’s claim that “other creatures do not benefit (if so, very minimal) from humans using them as resources” is thus negated. To reiterate my point about the mutualistic relationship between the Boran people and the Honeyguide, the Honeyguide bird leads the Boran hunters to a beehive, and, in return, “the bird’s reward for leading humans to honey would be a feast of beeswax and bee larvae. ”2 This again negates my opponent’s argument that other creatures do not benefit from our use of them as resources. I feel as if I am repeating myself, but these examples really do refute your point. Moreover, my opponent declares: “most are tortured, hurt, wounded, etc. in the process of gaining something from them. ” Not only did my opponent fail to provide a source showing that “most” are tortured, but I feel the need to contest this statement. Animal control actually creates a better environment for animals and humans. Walter E. Howard of the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries writes: “animal control activities reduce conflicts and create a more harmonious relationship between people and animals. ”3 He argues that when people are present, we alter the environment, but this is not necessarily a negative occurrence because new balances can be made that are tolerable for both man and animal. He agrees that “the infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering should never be tolerated,” but also that “a zealous ‘animal protectionist’ ethic is, under most instances, unsound biologically. ”3 Morality, again, is at the center of this debate. I do not see how any of the instances I have mentioned are immoral. The first two examples – the intestinal bacteria and the Greater Honeyguide – are mutualistic relationships that benefit both parties and strengthen their bond. The last example was to refute the point that “most” are tortured, hurt, or wounded. Thus, it is moral to use other living creatures as resources. Animal equality My opponent at least partially concedes there is no equality in the animal kingdom: “I agree that equality does not commonly exist in the animal kingdom. ” However, he subsequently states: “since humans do not necessarily need other creatures to survive (i. e. meat is not necessary to sustain life, furs are simply for fashion, circuses are unnecessary, etc. ), then we do not need to use them. ” Perhaps meat is not absolutely necessary to sustain life. The fact that we have features built into our body that are utilized in the consumption of meat proves my point – maybe we don’t need it for survival, but nature has given us a dominance over animals; even if we are omnivores, I still freaking love steak. Apparently, we “should strive to change” the inequality in the animal kingdom. This is completely untrue – lions do not strive to make themselves equal to gazelles. Through evolution we have developed an advanced brain and a greater capacity for intelligence, and through this we have become the apex predator of the food web. Unless you have a plan for how to completely restructure the transferal of energy throughout a biome, the natural food web stays. Inequality is absolutely necessary for the animal kingdom in its current form to exist. Circuses and fashion are irrelevant; my case was built around the food web and its inherent inequality. References1. . http://goo.gl... p. 2502. . http://goo.gl...3. . http://goo.gl... p. 31