It's plain silly.
This might have been an outdated issue but i'm reacting anyway. A question was raised on whether a zoo-bred cub be domesticated or left to die.
The story:
a polar bear (Knut) was born in captivity and was cared for by zoo keepers after its mother rejected him. Now, 'animal-rights activists' are suggesting that the cub be euthanized instead of being cared for by human hands.
The argument?
They stipulated that since the mother rejected the cub, Knut would have died anyway as nature took its course. This was the law, 'survival of the fittest', so it's 'unethical' to let the cub live.
Common sense:
But isn't that why zoos are there in the first place? Or should those be limited for our amusement. And, it was not like its mother lived in the wild for that to apply. We opted to place the mom in captivity, are we to decide the infant's fate as well?
The mother rejected it. Big deal. Are we to euthanized every human baby after it was abandoned by its parents? I don't think so. Are we to apply 'survival of the fittest' in that scenario? Because for sure, any infant, be it human or otherwise would not have survived without being cared for. I know what some anthro-centric individuals are muttering now, 'that's different, it's a human life'. How different could it be? Whichever angle you look at it, its the same act of killing for no reason but ending life itself. There's no need for it aside perhaps to gratify some posers protecting an abstract philosophy of how things should be. And if, my dear, you argue on giving human care on an animal as a 'blatant violation of animal-welfare laws', then perhaps it's time we reevaluate the laws we honor. Think about it.
