What would life be like if everybody obeyed the animal rights extremists and killed no more animals...?

Question

...including insects?

Answer 1

ok, so the ALF and ELF have won; what does this mean to us:
no more healthcare.
no more farm animals, for food or work. hell, no more farming in general--as that is disruptive to natural systems.
no more drilling for fossil fuels--cessation of using machinary relying on fossil fuels...no more plastics, no more electricity, no more water....(as you remember, dams are disruptive to nature).

we would be reduced to a nomadic, gatherer lifestyle (not that there's anything wrong with that) with the caveat that we wouldn't be able to make any shelters--as extremists would like us not to kill animals for "pleasure" nor destroy habitats for animals--no hides nor cloth for tents. nor would we be able to eat our fill--because that's just hording and stealing food away from other animals that might also want to eat the same foods we eat...


not as easy as it would seem to be, saying to stop all our "animal exploitation". should we also be so pompous to say animals should not exploit other animals? roar to a lion and tell her not to hunt that poor, cute, harmless, helpless gazelle? bleat to the gazelle to stop grazing on the grasslands that provide cover for the field mouse? et cetera and so forth.

and then again, who's to say that animals are superior to plants? plants have existed before the development of the first animal cell...plants have more diversity and seem to be better adapted to their environments than most animals--consider the "weed" growing through concrete...just because plants don't communicate in ways we can readily understand doesn't mean they are dumb organisms ready for the eating--broccoli "scream" too.


Nature will not run rampant should we denounce our reign as masters of the universe. Nature will do as Nature has done for the past 4 billion years and our presence or absence will not impact anything when looking at the "big picture"

Answer 2

Sadly Animal Rights extremists want to do FAR more than just ending the killing of animals.

There are groups who want to do with certain breeds of dogs, some who say no pets period... I have even seen some that preach that is wrong for dogs and other animals to be used to help the handicap, yes including the blind.

There are some who want to do away with zoos, and though some zoos in the world are horrid places that need to be shut down... without zoos many of the species we have today would have gone extinct years ago. Not to mention most zoos have turned to a focus on conservation programs that have nothing to do with their own facility. The zoo I work at raised over half a million dollars last year (we are a non-profit zoo) where every penny went to programs and research around the world. Conservation programs to help animals in the wild.... so without the zoos those conservation projects would lose that money.

The list could really go on and on.

Anyway, if the world conformed to the goals of the AR extremists both people and animals would be screwed. There are many things that can be done to better the lives of animals, but taking it to the extreme that they want is nothing but trouble.

Answer 3

On the wildlife side of things - many parts of the United States would have an overabundance of game animals because their natural predators have already been removed from the wild. For example, white-tailed deer in the Eastern United States have very few predators so without hunting they would become extremely overpopulated. Eventually when their densities became high enough, a disease would go through the population and kill many individuals.
Don't get me on my soapbox here - but wildlife biologists work very hard to make sure hunting is compensatory mortality and not additive.

Answer 4

Well, since humans wouldn't eat animals anymore and there's what? 7 billion people in the world. Well the balance would be thrown off, which is not good. Humans are omnivorou, so that would not be good. If poachers stopped killing endangered species, and people stopped cutting down habitats, then that part would be good.

Answer 5

till a balance was achieved, there would be a lot of animals dying of old age and decrepitude. A pal's horse went that way. Skin and bone and could not stand. Pitiful. Euthanasia for all!

Answer 6

Well I guesse that we start eating vegetables and fruits more than the animals could. They would soon starve and life as we know it would end. LOL!!! j/k I really don't know. But maybe.

Answer 7

Third world people would starve. Animal populations would rise, some we need and some we do not.

Answer 8

There'd be a lot of hungry non-vegetarians griping, and we'd all be itchy.

Answer 9

Bill, there would be no room for thee and me.

Answer 10

We'd be up to our eyeballs in critters (and critter doo)