Sacred cow ambulance service launched in India

[Muloghonto]

9 hours ago, zen said:

One of the biggest flaws of statements such as "humans first, rest second" is that if human upliftment is not a priority, nothing else is. And this probably serves no one 

 

On the other hand, if the smallest, lightest, tenderest, nicest, most helpless, etc. is to be given priority or treated equally, it automatically implies that those considered or perceived to be higher in the value chain would need to be treated nicely. Creating a win/win 

 

To simplify, let's assume that humans = cars and animals = bicycles. Now see the statements below:

• I don't take care of my car (which implies that I would give even less priority to the bicycle)
• I take care of my bicycle (which logically leads to I would take care of my car too, which cost me more than the bicycle) 

 

Therefore to create a genuine movement to uplift humans, one needs to start respecting others forms as well and treat them fairly 

 

 

That is why the western world puts the highest value in human life and has caused the highest upliftment of humanity, over the last 500 years, despite having zero animal rights till 50 years ago, eh ?

 

 

[Muloghonto]

5 hours ago, zen said:

Ofc .... but note that in Ind, humans have option to call taxis, use neighbors, friends, etc. as well, along with having access to doctors who can visit at a short notice

Not good enough. Until there are enough ambulances to care for all the needy people, there should be no ambulances for any animals !!

People's lives are more important than that of an animal.

 

[Muloghonto]

13 hours ago, NareshK said:

How is it any different from what other animal welfare groups are doing. So PETA should also stop saving animals just because kids are also dying ? Saving animals is mullahgiri just because its connected to cows ? Stupid logic.

PETA isn't arguing for ambulances for animals in a country where there are not enough ambulances for people. 
Saving cows, over people, is hindu mullahgiri. Similar to how would rather save honour than the actual people.

 

[zen]

4 hours ago, Brainfade said:

All, eh? At least a million species known to man. Draw the line and tell us why.  

As many as possible 

[Brainfade]

12 hours ago, zen said:

As many as possible 

Badil solliyum sollaama pogappaakkiraya, boss :-).  Very diplomatic.  

 

Let's say only 20 possible.  Which 20 would you pick and why?  Won't bug you if you choose not to answer directly, but do give it a shot.  

 

My contention?  Zero.  While we shouldn't go out of our way to be cruel to animals except if they directly threaten us, there is no reason to go out of our way to protect one species over another.  One religion says cow.  Another says goat.  My child says panda.  Most Americans say dogs and cats (starting with the really cute ones, of course).  With limited resources, society and govts must focus on making life better for the soon-to-be 10 billion humans while protecting forests, wildlife and natural habitats because it is important to maintain the environment for future HUMAN generations.  

[NareshK]

19 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

PETA isn't arguing for ambulances for animals in a country where there are not enough ambulances for people. 
Saving cows, over people, is hindu mullahgiri. Similar to how would rather save honour than the actual people.

 

Its not like they are implementing thousands of ambulances for cows. Its just a few. What an overreaction. I repeat again its like saying animal welfare groups should stop working in India as there are some people who dont have access to ambulances. You have an issue only because its a cow and for you, it represents a religious symbol but for quite a few people in India, its an animal they respect and care about.

Edited May 4, 2017 by NareshK

[Muloghonto]

4 hours ago, NareshK said:

Its not like they are implementing thousands of ambulances for cows. Its just a few. What an overreaction. I repeat again its like saying animal welfare groups should stop working in India as there are some people who dont have access to ambulances. You have an issue only because its a cow and for you, it represents a religious symbol but for quite a few people in India, its an animal they respect and care about.

When we have people in India dying daily on the streets due to lack of ambulances and BBC is running articles about 'super-samaritans' who've saved hundreds of lives by personally delivering road-accident victims to hospitals when there are no ambulances, even 1 ambulance for cows, is 1 too many. 

I don't care if its a cow or a horse or a donkey or a pig. It has no place in an ambulance when people do not have sufficient ones. 

Helping animal welfare in conventional terms, is not directly taking resources away from people. By allocating tiger reserves, rhino reserves, etc. - which are very worthy causes- i am not directly taking resources away from a needy person who could use the same resource.

With an animal ambulance, we are directly taking an ambulance that can serve people, away from them. It is abhorrable and shameful. 

And i'd say the only reason its a cow ambulance and not a dog/horse/pig ambulance is because cow is a religious symbol in India. 

 

[Mariyam]

On 5/3/2017 at 6:57 AM, zen said:

I have two master degrees. Studied in 3 continents. Currently, am reading over 100 books on a variety of subjects. And I am religious

You are currently reading over 100 books?

[zen]

19 hours ago, Brainfade said:

Badil solliyum sollaama pogappaakkiraya, boss :-).  Very diplomatic.  

 

Let's say only 20 possible.  Which 20 would you pick and why?  Won't bug you if you choose not to answer directly, but do give it a shot.  

 

My contention?  Zero.  While we shouldn't go out of our way to be cruel to animals except if they directly threaten us, there is no reason to go out of our way to protect one species over another.  One religion says cow.  Another says goat.  My child says panda.  Most Americans say dogs and cats (starting with the really cute ones, of course).  With limited resources, society and govts must focus on making life better for the soon-to-be 10 billion humans while protecting forests, wildlife and natural habitats because it is important to maintain the environment for future HUMAN generations.  

I agree with the general sentiments of your post. However, one should note that many, esp. in countries like Ind, are alien to the concept of treating animals (or even other humans) for that matter well. The process has to start somewhere. The cow, whatever the reasons behind it, has at least set the ball rolling 

 

If we approach the problem as why animal x should be preferred over animal y, the chances are we could even struggle to make a start. The next step should be asking if there are ambulances for cows, why not add more animals to it (and not why cows get ambulances and animal x does not or humans lack adequate ambulances so why provide them for animals). And that is one of the ways of making a progress towards securing a better (comfortable and cared for) future for the animals 

 

On maintaining the environment for future human generations, I would extend it to not just humans but other living being as well. One has to maintain the ecosystem. And for that another question is - why should humans be 10B in the first place? Why not 5B? And so on ....

 

 

[zen]

4 hours ago, Mariyam said:

You are currently reading over 100 books?

Yes! .... And, I may get more 

 

 

 

Edited May 5, 2017 by zen

[zen]

 

 

http://www.newscrunch.in/2017/03/very-sad-video-baby-monkey-crying-over-mother-killed-accident-karnataka.html

 

 

^ Baby monkey crying after mother killed by a reckless car driver

 

 

[Brainfade]

3 hours ago, zen said:

I agree with the general sentiments of your post. However, one should note that many, esp. in countries like Ind, are alien to the concept of treating animals (or even other humans) for that matter well. The process has to start somewhere. The cow, whatever the reasons behind it, has at least set the ball rolling 

 

If we approach the problem as why animal x should be preferred over animal y, the chances are we could even struggle to make a start. The next step should be asking if there are ambulances for cows, why not add more animals to it (and not why cows get ambulances and animal x does not or humans lack adequate ambulances so why provide them for animals). And that is one of the ways of making a progress towards securing a better (comfortable and cared for) future for the animals 

 

On maintaining the environment for future human generations, I would extend it to not just humans but other living being as well. One has to maintain the ecosystem. And for that another question is - why should humans be 10B in the first place? Why not 5B? And so on ....

 

 

For starters, we will have to kill off 2B to get down to 5B, so unless you are asking for WW III or an epidemic, that is off the table.  As for why 10B, African nations are improving their economies and developing at a fast rate.  Most of the population growth as well as economic growth in the next 80 years is going to occur there.  I am not going to sit here, laptop in front of me, and dictate to them that they cannot develop their nations.  And with more economic development comes more demand for food, including meat.  We must focus on finding sustainable ways to feed the growing population, and supporting growth and development rather than talking about having fewer humans.  Finally, the ultimate goal of maintaining the ecosystem should be simply for human preservation.  To this end, trees and animals are indispensable and must be protected but never at the cost of human life.  

[Brainfade]

27 minutes ago, zen said:

 

 

http://www.newscrunch.in/2017/03/very-sad-video-baby-monkey-crying-over-mother-killed-accident-karnataka.html

 

 

^ Baby monkey crying after mother killed by a reckless car driver

 

 

Truly sad.  But would we feel as sad if it was a mouse or rat?  Probably not.  Why not?

[zen]

24 minutes ago, Brainfade said:

For starters, we will have to kill off 2B to get down to 5B, so unless you are asking for WW III or an epidemic, that is off the table.  As for why 10B, African nations are improving their economies and developing at a fast rate.  Most of the population growth as well as economic growth in the next 80 years is going to occur there.  I am not going to sit here, laptop in front of me, and dictate to them that they cannot develop their nations.  And with more economic development comes more demand for food, including meat.  We must focus on finding sustainable ways to feed the growing population, and supporting growth and development rather than talking about having fewer humans.  Finally, the ultimate goal of maintaining the ecosystem should be simply for human preservation.  To this end, trees and animals are indispensable and must be protected but never at the cost of human life.  

I know the answer to why we are 10B. The question implied that we have grown in numbers without understanding the limitations, resulting in other aspects being marginalized, which is criminal .... The more we do to satisfy the humans, the more the other aspects are likely to suffer .... and at some point, the law of diminishing returns would kick in. Which is why one should be asking reverse questions - do we really have to be 10B? How do we reverse the trend where the population is manageable that it allows breathing space for others as well  

 

 

[zen]

35 minutes ago, Brainfade said:

Truly sad.  But would we feel as sad if it was a mouse or rat?  Probably not.  Why not?

I would 

[Brainfade]

9 minutes ago, zen said:

I know the answer to why we are 10B. The question implied that we have grown in numbers without understanding the limitations, resulting in other aspects being marginalized, which is criminal .... The more we do to satisfy the humans, the more the other aspects are likely to suffer .... and at some point, the law of diminishing returns would kick in. Which is why one should be asking reverse questions - do we really have to be 10B? How do we reverse the trend where the population is manageable that it allows breathing space for others as well  

 

 

I don't see it as a zero-sum game.  With more developed economies and more educated populations, fertility rates will start to come down (the West is a model for this) and it is projected that human population will peak at ~ 10 or 11 B.  You cannot and must not force this, and you certainly can't go back to 5B.  If we use resources and technology carefully, minimize waste and take care of the environment to fulfill our needs, there is enough land for that 11 B people to thrive and be fed.  By diverting current limited resources to fulfill emotional tugs towards other species, we must not shortchange our commitment to our own.  

 

 

 

[Brainfade]

15 minutes ago, zen said:

I would 

How about a weed?  

[zen]

25 minutes ago, Brainfade said:

How about a weed?  

Have to see what is going on with it 

 

26 minutes ago, Brainfade said:

I don't see it as a zero-sum game.  With more developed economies and more educated populations, fertility rates will start to come down (the West is a model for this) and it is projected that human population will peak at ~ 10 or 11 B.  You cannot and must not force this, and you certainly can't go back to 5B.  If we use resources and technology carefully, minimize waste and take care of the environment to fulfill our needs, there is enough land for that 11 B people to thrive and be fed.  By diverting current limited resources to fulfill emotional tugs towards other species, we must not shortchange our commitment to our own.  

I know the data and possible trends.  We need to optimize the resources and also maintain the ecosystem,  showing empathy for others .... The question is when do we start if we keep getting lost in "humans first, others second" line of thinking? Why can't we keep planet first? (or at least equal if it is too hard).  Why can't we say that while we have grown to 10B, which is criminal in the context of current resources, we still need to budget for others who are a part the planet? .... (questions asked to raise points not answers)

 

Edited May 5, 2017 by zen

[Brainfade]

1 hour ago, zen said:

Have to see what is going on with it 

 

I know the data and possible trends.  We need to optimize the resources and also maintain the ecosystem,  showing empathy for others .... The question is when do we start if we keep getting lost in "humans first, others second" line of thinking? Why can't we keep planet first? (or at least equal if it is too hard).  Why can't we say that while we have grown to 10B, which is criminal in the context of current resources, we still need to budget for others who are a part the planet? .... (questions asked to raise points not answers)

 

I think where we fundamentally differ is that you think 10B is criminal.  Considering where the growth will occur and the fact that it is due to economic and agricultural growth, I don't.  If we are smart, rational and not ideological, we can sustainably support that many.

 

Peace.  

[zen]

1 minute ago, Brainfade said:

I think where we fundamentally differ is that you think 10B is criminal.  Considering where the growth will occur and the fact that it is due to economic and agricultural growth, I don't.  If we are smart, rational and not ideological, we can sustainably support that many.

 

Peace.  

Note that human beings are predictably irrational .... the human first (and not planet) displays that irrationality, imo, as if you keep humans first, you could potentially undermine the planet, which supports all life. On the other hand, if you keep planet first, humans automatically have a relatively better environment to make progress