Decide your views: Support should go both ways

By Jon Koepke

Let us step back a moment and take a class in Narrow-mindedness 101 straight from the minds of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, a.k.a.PETA. While at its core PETA is an organization whose intent is admirable and well-guided, its reasoning and actions are not always the most intelligent or well thought-out.

Before people from PETA or the Animal Rights Coalition decide to call out a lynch mob on me, you must first understand that I am not a monster. I believe deeply in environmentalism, as well as animal rights. Cosmetic animal testing is bunk, people who abuse their pets should be locked up and the lives of animals are important no matter how big or small or cute or ugly they are.

Having said this, it also is important to understand that animal rights and protection go only so far. If they are advocating animal rights and protection over other forms of living creatures (which they are), then they have forgotten that in the natural environment, all things are interconnected. Without the protection and preservation and value of plant life and advocating for its protection, their precious animals would have nothing to eat and would die a fearing, painful and miserable death, which they so actively struggle against.

Take, for example, PETA’s argument about how plants do not need to be protected or valued. In their vision of value, the only things we need to worry about are those that can “feel” or that have emotions. Plants do not need to be worried about for a few reasons. First, they have no “highly developed central nervous system.” OK, great, just what kind of nervous system creates emotions, oh wise PETA? Do bugs have feelings? How about things like starfish? Should we institute a “Don’t squash that mosquito!” campaign? Great, tell that to people in Malaysia who suffer from insect-borne diseases such as malaria.

The other problem with plants, according to PETA, is that because they do not “have the ability to locomote,” they cannot experience pain and harmful things and be fearful of them. OK, for one, I think doing the Locomotion went out sometime around the late ’80s. Secondly, how the hell do you know what a plant feels? Maybe it fears idiots parading around in animal costumes harassing people.

What the people of PETA are attempting to promote is the ending of fear, pain and suffering for all kinds of animals. This is a good and noble cause, yet again we are being short-sighted — the same thing that they accuse others of doing. That narrow vision of valuing living creatures that have mental and emotional capabilities above other beings creates the hypocrisy that PETA has never realized it exhibits.

The best example of coming to a more holistic and larger love and value for living creatures comes in the form of a Native American folk tale.

The story begins as a boy coming of age in a village goes on his vision quest — a trial of entering manhood where a boy travels into the wilderness and fasts and meditates for many days before then killing his first animal to be eaten for his own survival. The boy speaks with his grandfather, who is the elder in the tribe, and his grandfather tells him to be mindful of our place in nature.

The boy sets out and fasts and meditates and then waits and ambushes a weak and sickly deer for his first kill. He is so upset by what he did and the fact that he took the life and spirit of such a beautiful animal that he immediately runs back to his village, weeping and grief-stricken.

There he meets with his grandfather and tells him how horrible it was and how he felt so terrible for taking the life of such a beautiful, living creature.

The grandfather then reaches down and pulls a piece of grass from the ground. He then looks at his grandson and says, “When you can feel the same way for this blade of grass as you did for that deer, then truly you are a man.”

This tale exemplifies the point I am trying to make. Being selective in what you value is not a healthy thing. While valuing the lives of animals is a noble and greater understanding than mainstream society, it still is limited. In order to truly value life, you must understand that it cannot be limited in scope and perspective. The life of a plant should be considered just as valuable as the life of an animal.

Also, nature works in ways that necessitate the taking of life for the preservation of others. “Souls feed on souls,” as some have said. Buddhist monks believe all living creatures are sacred and hold life as being the most important thing in the universe. We all should take from the teachings of other cultures and understand that our lives are no more or less valuable than the life of the planet of as a whole, regardless of whether it has a face.