According to the World Wildlife Federation, both Latin America and Asia have lost 40 percent of their respective tropical forests. Similar ecosystems in Africa have been reduced to one-half their former size. On April 23, 1993, CBC Radio News reported that the ozone layer was thinner than ever before and could affect the genetic structure of cells, and that skin cancer was increasing exponentially. While 20 billion tons of exhaust go up into the atmosphere every year, Canadian car emissions are still expected to rise another 30 percent by the turn of the century.
It is admittedly overwhelming to consider the barrage of similar statistics that are despatched daily. One can easily despair of the hopelessness of saving the planet from destruction. For this reason, we must learn to both think critically and act positively. As we can no longer argue that we are unaware of the magnitude of the problem, we must accept the responsibility for finding a solution to it. While none of us can single-handedly change the world, it is within our reach to restore some degree of well- being to our own backyards through specific and consistent action against those practices and products known to be harmful.
One of the greatest contributors to the pollution of the environment in the Western world has been the thoughtless use of the automobile as the main mode of transportation. Not only has this had a significant effect on the atmosphere by raising the carbon-dioxide levels; it also causes noise pollution, creates storage problems, and increases the likelihood of injury or death by accident for motorists and pedestrians alike. Statistics Canada estimates that Canadian car production must be reduced by 75 percent (global production by 50 percent) in order to maintain, not reduce or eliminate, the current levels of air pollution.
The solution to these problems can only be a concerted effort by individuals, governments, and automobile manufacturers to reduce production and ensure implementation of appropriate controls. Specifically, governments should pass legislation requiring automobile manufacturers to produce only small vehicles that consume less gasoline and cause less pollution. Moreover, the manufacturers should refrain from advertising luxury cars, which in the public mind are associated with a certain social status. Individuals, on their part, should use alternative forms of transportation whenever possible. Of course, all this goes against the notion of a free-market society.
In a television interview, a former U.S. Secretary of Transportation argued that the government can do little, because the public is not willing to switch to smaller cars. One would think that governments are elected to lead rather than follow the public. While capitalist society may balk at the thought of imposed restrictions on production, it must be realised that current habits, if continued, will jeopardise the very existence of society as a whole.
Another major problem is the amount of garbage that is accumulated annually. Canadians alone account for 7 million tons of trash that must be collected, transported, and stored somewhere, somehow, by someone. Certainly, efforts have been made through the "green revolution" to create environmentally friendly products, but again, the consumer must take responsibility for what ends up at the foot of the driveway week after week. While producers continue to be guilty of gross overpackaging and wasteful expenditures on product promotion, in this instance consumers have the power to pressure them into changing their practices by boycotting their products. The consequent drop in sales would force the producer to react appropriately.
Consumers should also be more conscious of what they are using to carry their groceries in. Recent surveys of landfill sites have uncovered newspapers from as far back as the 1930s. If it takes some sixty to seventy years for even this low grade of paper to decompose, we cannot afford the luxury of filling our dumps with plastic bags and bottles known to have a shelf life of more than one hundred years. Even some products advertised as being fully biodegradable require certain optimal conditions for their decomposition, which are rarely met in a natural setting. Again, it is wiser to use fewer bags and reuse them as often as possible. Incinerators as an alternative to landfill have been tried but proved to be less effective than anticipated. In actual fact, incinerators are very expensive to construct and maintain and do little more than spread burnt chemicals, toxic metal traces, and carbon dioxide over a larger area.
Hundreds of products that we use every day, such as furnace filters and printer toners, are produced from nonbiodegradable materials. We must recognize that the invention of so-called disposable products has been quite detrimental to the ecosystem and insist on a return to more traditional methods of packaging. For instance, legislation should require that all liquids be kept in glass containers, which can be returned and reused, as opposed to plastic or cardboard cartons, which are usually discarded without a second thought. Efforts to promote recycling through programs such as the "Blue Box" plan have proven very costly and less effective than predicted, causing many municipalities to question the validity of continuing their implementation. A more cost-effective means of glass recycling would be returning containers to stores, where suppliers could pick them up when delivering new stocks. This would also help to cut down on labour costs for garbage collection and at recycling plants.
A further incentive for the reduction of household waste would be to charge reasonable fees according to the amount of garbage collected. This would make people think twice about how much waste they are throwing out.
The Western world, with its focus on economic development and free-market production, has a strong influence on many third-world nations. Take India, for instance, where Western automakers are planning to expand production, giving little or no thought to the impact it will have on the domestic as well as global environment when close to a billion more people become daily commuters. A comparative study conducted in Montréal, Québec, demonstrated that four city busses at an intersection have the same carrying capacity as 250 individually driven motor vehicles. Moreover, it would take these four busses far less time to clear the intersection. The advantages of public transport are easily deduced when considering fuel consumption and pollution.
Underlying all of the environmental problems is the capitalist notion of abundance. The entire system is attuned to, and advocates, a lifestyle of excess and conspicuous consumption, where everything is infinitely available. This attitude must be eradicated and the consumer subjected to some form of control. Governmental bodies should make it more difficult for companies to manufacture products that are harmful to the environment, and restrict supply to reasonable amounts. People should learn to live comfortably, not excessively, and strive for a greater balance in their individual production and consumption habits. Environmental concerns should be high-priority items on political party agendas, and should play a significant role in the election process.
Finally, we must all become more aware that the problem of pollution is not a national concern, but a global one. But some politicians choose not to see it that way. At the time of the UNCED conference in Rio de Janeiro, U.S. president George Bush maintained that the U.S. government was not convinced of the extent and severity of the environmental damage and that lowering the rate of economic growth and the standard of living were, therefore, not justifiable. Such a statement is both irresponsible and inane. Imagine, for instance, two individuals who need to cross a lake; it is early spring and the ice is thin. "What if the ice will break?" says one. "Maybe it won't," says the other. There is little logic in the minds of those who would risk their very survival only to enjoy life for a little longer.
A few years ago, some three hundred top-level scientists, bureaucrats, lawyers, politicians, and environmentalists attended a conference on the environment held in Toronto, Canada. They arrived at the following conclusion (as recorded in the Canadian magazine Alternatives , March/April 1989, p. 54):
"Humanity is conducting an unintended, uncontrolled, globally pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequences could be second only to a global nuclear war. The earth's atmosphere is being changed at an unprecedented rate by pollutants resulting from human activities, inefficient and wasteful fossil fuel use and the effects of rapid population growth in many regions. These changes represent a major threat to international security and are already having harmful consequences over many parts of the globe."6.2 Overpopulation
One of the most horrific, yet least spoken of, problems faced by modern society is that of overpopulation. As is well known, the number of inhabitants on our globe grows exponentially, doubling every thirty years or so. This means that the total population may triple within one lifetime. Here are some more statistics:
If you count yourself amongst those who believe that the planet has an infinite capacity and the laws of economics and production will create a continual balance between supply and demand, regardless of the consequences of waste and pollution, then there is little for you to worry about. In reality, however, the greater the number of people, the greater the need for products. More products mean more waste, more pollution, and more damage to the environment.
In fact, we must begin to consider both production and consumption in light of the amount of waste generated. Through the ideologies of capitalism, creation and production have developed an almost sacred status, with increased production and consumption celebrated as positive trends. Seldom is anything said about the inherent waste factor. Meanwhile:
A further consideration of overpopulation is the density factor. Laboratory tests with rats show a marked increase in death rates, both violent and nonviolent, when their population is allowed to become too dense for its environment. The behaviour of the rats becomes much more erratic as each scrambles to find a space of its own and be one of the survivors.
There is no simple answer to the problem of overpopulation, but again, the approach must be global, starting with clear explanations about the severe consequences of continuing on the current course. Attempts to impose restrictions through the use of birth control have achieved little success. In particular, people in third-world countries rely on large families to provide manual labour and financial support for the elders within the community. While some religions exhort their followers to "go forth and multiply" and prohibit the use of contraceptives, children in poor societies are born already doomed to lifelong suffering and will continue to die from starvation and diseases every day.
Perhaps the solution lies not in averting their death, but in preventing their birth. Concerned governments should offer economic incentives to encourage people not to have children. Such a stimulus may have a broad appeal to those seeking to live the "good life." Some have suggested that scientists should develop some sort of infertility virus. Although this may seem very drastic, radical, and unethical, it is, no doubt, technologically possible, and may in fact be the only viable option, if nothing else works.
Of course, measures such as these would require that society as a whole rethink its attitude towards the family. China has been the first country to demonstrate a pro-active reduction plan limiting couples to having one child and sterilizing those who continue to produce more. Personally, I find such a method too autocratic and would rather support voluntary sterilization.
The problem of overpopulation is linked to the political structure of the world. As long as nations remain separate entities competing with each other territorially and economically, it is not in their interests to reduce the size of their respective populations, because that would mean reducing their military potential and labour force. Only a world government could deal with a problem of this magnitude. It could ensure an equitable distribution of global resources throughout the world and help underdeveloped nations by providing them with minimum necessities of life and, on that basis, educate and enlighten their people to enable them to control their population and become part of the global community.
Here is how a joint statement made in 1991 by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and its British counterpart, the Royal Society of London, sums up the situation: "If current predictions of population growth prove accurate and patterns of human activity on the planet remain unchanged, science and technology may not be able to prevent either irreversible degradation of the environment or continued poverty for much of the world."
6.3 Poverty, Hunger, and Homelessness
These three interwoven issues are a direct result of the injustices inherent in modern society. These problems are not unique to the poorer nations alone. Poverty, homelessness, and hunger create a sharp contrast in the streets of some of the Western world's wealthiest cities.
Even more repugnant is the global inequity of this malady. The fact that some countries are rich in natural resources and others have few or none does not justify the continuing inhuman conditions in poor countries. To say that these countries should learn to fend for themselves, as we have done in the West, is both unfair and unrealistic. We should not forget that the developed nations of today have not necessarily built their economies by using exclusively their own resources. The United States, for example, used slave labour as well as its extensive natural resources to create material wealth. Similarly, the British empire and other colonial powers enriched themselves by exploiting the human and natural resources of their respective colonies.
Meanwhile, those countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America which have little to work with are losing their only resource, the people, to industrial countries of North America and Europe in staggering numbers. Once these refugees arrive in what they believe to be the "new land of wealth and opportunity," they have no choice but to accept the status of second-class citizens and jobs that offer only subsistence wages. Some of them end up living in the streets.
It seems impossible that a country as rich as the United States of America cannot support a section of its population with food and shelter, or perhaps a guaranteed income. It is easy enough to walk past beggars on the street and argue that they should take care of their own needs. We close our eyes in complacency without realising that allowing them to live like this is immoral and belongs only in a barbaric society. By the way, giving alms is not the solution. It is the state that should assume responsibility for solving the problems of poverty, hunger, and homelessness, at least within its own borders.
On the international level, it is obvious that Western assistance to third-world countries does not go far enough. The most conspicuous form of humanitarian aid has been internationally organised concerts with the participation of rock stars who take advantage of worldwide publicity to enhance their own image. It is ironic that some of these stars are the ones who are responsible for the decline of positive art and moral values in modern society. The whole hullabaloo usually amounts to "much ado about nothing": only a small portion of the overall proceeds reaches those truly in need, the remainder going into promotion, advertising, and the pockets of unscrupulous government officials of countries for which the aid is destined. The West, however, can go to bed with an easy conscience, convinced that it has done its sacred duty.
While pontificating about such notions as morality, freedom, rights, and compassion, we, in the West, close our eyes to the fact that millions of people throughout the world are dying of hunger and deprivation. Given the immoral, self-centred position adopted by developed nations and the increasing pressure on the part of their disgruntled populations demanding greater attention to domestic problems, it is hard to imagine that they would or could reach out a helping hand to the countries in need. Only a world government could ensure that humanitarian organisations are sufficiently funded to carry out the necessary work. The West must realise that these problems will, in the end, also reach its own doorstep in the form of mass migration, which will bring with it the additional problems of unemployment and racial tension.
In spite of all the talk about global peace and harmony, we are witnessing a startling increase in the number of armed conflicts throughout the world. What are the main causes of wars and conflicts?
In my opinion, the most important cause is economic competition, which is universally (and erroneously) regarded as the only means to achieving global prosperity. In line with the everyone-for- himself mentality, nations seek to grab the biggest share of the pie, without concern for the needs of other countries. Moreover, depending on their resources, the economy of different countries will always develop at different rates at different times, as has been the case throughout history. This game of "leapfrog" will never stop. Some countries will surge ahead only to slip back after a certain period of time. Germany is a good example. In the long run, the continuing struggle for economic power can only lead to disagreements, disputes, and eventually conflicts and wars. Economic cooperation is one of the prerequisites to achieving peace and economic stability.
Other factors leading to confrontation are religious, ethnic, and cultural differences that are used as tools in the struggle for power. One of the most conspicuous examples is the ongoing war in former Yugoslavia. The major powers, which like to be perceived by the world as "guardians of peace and democracy," are putting up a big show of being concerned and compassionate and of sparing no effort to bring peace to that area. (Some of the politicians go so far in their hypocrisy as to advocate the supply of arms to the Bosnians, allegedly to help them defend themselves. Surely someone is going to make a bundle on that, too.) But most of all, they are afraid of losing their "human face" and of being held responsible if something goes wrong. And what is the cost of this "humaneness"? The cost is measured in human lives. How many innocent children, women, and old people must be killed before the political leaders stop playing this farce of tough words that no one is afraid of any longer?
I would suggest the following plan. The United Nations must be given the necessary powers and means to stop the bloodshed in the Balkans. It must issue a clear warning and an ultimatum to all warring parties to lay down their arms within a specified short period of time. Only after that could the negotiations be allowed to continue. If this condition is not complied with by any of the parties, the UN would invade the area and deploy its troops in key positions. Any party that has not given up its arms would be regarded as an enemy and dealt with according to the rules of war. Such a decision ought to have been made long ago; it would have saved many human lives. No "political implications" can be so important as to allow these barbaric atrocities to go on.
We should also be aware of the potential dangers of Islamic fundamentalism, which has on more than one occasion proclaimed its intent to wage a "holy war" against its enemies. The first condition for preventing religious and ethnic wars is for governments to prohibit the export of arms and for the United Nations to block the supply of weapons to parties at war. But the ultimate solution has to be total disarmament of all member nations of the "world government bloc" (to be described in the next chapter).
Immigration is potentially one of the most serious problems facing industrial countries, as an alarming number of refugees and emigrants fleeing wars, political instability, and deteriorating standards of living leave (or try to leave) their countries for the West, some in search of a dreamland of the kind depicted in American soap operas such as Dynasty and Dallas , which are telecast all over the world, others in the mere hope of survival. The West, with the perceptions it imposes on the rest of the world through movies and television, acts much like a magnet on people who believe that what they see on the screen is what they get in real life.
But when the newcomers finally do arrive, they discover that life in the West is not the paradise they had dreamt of, that they must live and work in often uncertain and miserable conditions. They also soon realise that their relations with the local population are far from idyllic as general uneasiness, open hatred, violence, etc., settle in. For many of the natural citizens, immigrants become the scapegoat for all the problems plaguing their society, and everything from job loss to rising prices is often blamed on them.
The situation is further aggravated by one circumstance that the mainstream media dare not mention. Some of the immigrants are poorly educated and uncultured and don't realise that the traditions and customs they bring with them to a Western country may, if practised too conspicuously, annoy or irritate some of the natives.
In the meantime, instead of sending much-needed help to the countries in need and thereby reducing the immigration flow, our politicians are nonchalantly waiting for the problem to blow up in their faces. It seems ironic that countries such as Canada and the United States, which constantly boast about their democratic and humane ideals, do not help the ailing countries unless, of course, they can gain something from them.
The increasing flow of immigrants presents Western countries with a moral dilemma. On the one hand, they want to appear humane and compassionate. On the other, they cannot simply open their borders to people from backward countries, because that would result in a rapid collapse of their own domestic social order. Nor do they want to share their wealth, having become accustomed to a relatively high standard of living. If Western countries were to seal off their borders completely and let poor nations fare for themselves, they would have to admit to being immoral and barbaric. The widely used policy of quotas and selective immigration is in fact a policy of evading responsibility and staving off the impending crisis. Nor is it always based on moral principles. For instance, anyone having a couple of hundred thousand dollars in his or her pocket would have no problem getting permission to settle in Canada, with no questions asked as to the origin of the money.
Sooner or later, but inevitably, as the resources are further depleted and arable land becomes less available, the situation in countries of the third world would come to a head. People living in subhuman conditions tend to lose their human qualities because they have nothing else to lose. Their behaviour begins to resemble that of animals, and animals, as we know, having no notion of virtue, will use any means to survive. When faced with starvation, they will invade other territories. Then Western countries would have to protect their borders against hordes of hungry, desperate, animallike humanoids and would have no choice but to resort to brute force.
The solution to this problem lies in our realising that we, as human beings, are not only responsible for our own country or continent, but also for the whole planet. Sometimes what happens away from home can have just as serious implications as what happens here at home. To prevent people, for whom it is only natural to live in places and cultures where they have grown up, from leaving their home country, political, economic, demographic, and social conditions in those countries must be improved. This is only possible through a combined and unselfish effort on the part of developed countries that possess the necessary resources to help the less fortunate nations. It is obvious that the poor nations of the globe simply cannot take care of themselves and that the situation, if left in the hands of their often corrupt or inexperienced governments, can only deteriorate.
Developed countries must quickly change their attitudes towards the third world and act responsibly, even if it means giving up certain luxuries of life. By providing education, sharing their resources (some of which could be freed from military programs), and finding means to check the population growth, Western countries could hope to solve the problem of immigration. There is no other way.
In North America, racism, which is an attribute of our barbaric nature, is alive and well, especially in relations between blacks and whites. These relations are potentially explosive. We are still making little progress to solve this problem. On the one hand, black militants aggravate the situation by invoking their racial pride, stressing that the first man on Earth was black, and urging other blacks to look for their roots and identity in old traditions. On the other hand, whites are also doing their own share of harm by sticking to racial prejudices and tolerating the activities of racist groups such as the KKK, skinheads, and other white supremacists.
Stressing racial differences, much as the Canadian researcher Philip Rushdon has done, can have only a negative effect, because these differences could be used by racists as a pretext for action. We must learn to put our differences in the background and accept everybody as having equal rights. People should be judged on the merits of their human qualities and behaviour, not on the colour of their skin or their physical and mental abilities. We should also stop playing, and wasting money on, the silly game of "celebrating the differences," which politicians invented to create cushy jobs for themselves. We must eventually do away with the notion of races altogether and think of ourselves simply as human beings.
Before going into the controversial issue of the rights of gays and lesbians, we should first try to understand what homosexuality is all about. Is it normal? Is it moral? In a nutshell, homosexuality is almost all about sex, whose function, as I have indicated in the previous chapter, is procreation. From what I have watched, read, and heard about homosexual relationships, they are rarely platonic. Is homosexuality normal? Since sex is normally practised by humans for the sake of having fun and, therefore, cannot be considered normal in the biological sense of the word, the question of whether homosexuality is normal or not is academic. Is it moral? This question cannot always be answered by simple yes or no . If the relationships are based on spiritual love, they appear to be the same as those between very close friends. Since such relationships would not bother anyone, they could hardly be called immoral. It is the exhibiting, flaunting, and provoking behaviour of homosexual militants that annoys and upsets a lot of people and, more important, has a detrimental effect on children.
Another fundamental question that needs to be answered is whether homosexuality is determined by the genes or by the environment in which the child is brought up. Most of the research done on this subject seems to support the second view. But let us assume that homosexuality is of genetic origin. Would that automatically make it right and "normal"? We know that scientists today are discovering more and more genes that are responsible for various abnormalities (such as diseases) in the human body. Scientists call these genes defective. So, one might argue that if homosexuality in humans and animals is caused by defective genes, it may be considered a disease. In that case, homosexuals cannot be blamed for having this disease; instead, they should be helped to get rid of it.
Many homosexual Christians attempt to justify their lifestyle by claiming that they are how God created them and meant them to be. This argument rests on pretty shaky ground, especially as the New Testament refers to homosexuals as "perverts" (Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians 6: 9). Also, the same "logic" could be extended to apply to many other deviations and perversions, such as pedophilia and sadism.
Some psychologists believe that homosexuals are denied the benefit of the male-female polarity that, as wrote psychoanalyst Erich Fromm ( The Art of Loving , p. 28), "is also the basis for interpersonal creativity... The homosexual deviation is a failure to attain this polarized union, and thus the homosexual suffers from the pain of never-resolved separateness..."
Long before the issue of homosexuality became an everyday topic, Aldous Huxley (who spent the last twenty-six years of his life in California) had observed in one of his essays ("Do What You Will," Collected Essays , p. 71) that "... whatever may have been its origin, there can be no doubt that this particular fashion in love spread widely among people who were not in the least congenitally disposed to homosexuality." If it has nothing to do with fashion, its incidence should be proportionately the same in all countries of the world. But is it? Are there as many gays and lesbians (say, per million of population) in Japan or in India as there are in Western democratic countries? Or, for instance, in Russia, where they are no longer persecuted and have many publications of their own sold openly on city streets? (I don't mention China for obvious reasons.)
And why is there a large concentration of homosexuals in California? Is it not because morals seem to be much looser there, and many of the males, encouraged by the local climate, can gratify their narcissistic urge to parade their naked torsos in public? I believe that this lifestyle does have a lot to do with loose morals, with addiction to excitement, with boredom, and with sexual promiscuity, which are bound to have serious consequences for society. For instance, few would deny the fact that homosexual promiscuity is largely responsible for the AIDS epidemic, though it's not politically correct to say so. There is still no cure in sight and, what's more, some scientists fear that the AIDS virus may mutate and become transmissible in other ways than only through fluid exchange. Much of the same can be said about heterosexual relationships. Basically, we live in a society that glorifies and propagandises sex. Far too much emphasis is being placed on it in movies, in literature, and on television. Our animal instincts have taken over, as homosexuals and heterosexuals alike flaunt their lifestyles in an often downright obscene way.
As for the notion of gay rights, it makes little sense to me, since there is no such thing as heterosexual rights. Giving gays and lesbians rights to marriage and family privileges is not conducive to the general health of society. In the first place, considering the world overpopulation crisis, there should be no special privileges given to any couples, gay or straight, for "having" children. Second, why shouln't any friends who share living quarters demand the same rights? Thus the whole argument boils down to the definition of family. Until such a definition is established by law, gays and lesbians cannot expect any family privileges.
The solution to gay rights resides in our understanding that sex for its own sake (either homosexual or heterosexual) is not a necessarily normal human activity. We must establish limits and cease to be so tolerant of sexual promiscuity of any kind, if we don't want chaos to set in. Rather than demonstratively emphasising our sexual orientation, we should strive to behave, particularly in public, as responsible and mature human beings.
First of all, inasmuch as animal rights have not yet been enshrined in law, they cannot be considered to exist. For the time being, animal protection would certainly be a better and more accurate term to describe what is implied by animal rights . However, the debate is more than just lexical; it is ethical, and, thus, a particularly difficult and emotional one.
Is it right to kill animals? Different people would give different answers. For instance, the North American Indians, for whom hunting animals has always been a way of life, consider it justifiable. Others find it abhorrent. To me, in what we regard as a civilised society, killing animals for pleasure or monetary gain, and not out of necessity, is a totally barbaric and unacceptable activity.
The meat industry should abandon using any cruel methods to slaughter animals and instead should develop new technology to avoid causing them pain and suffering. Animals should not be bred or caught exclusively for their skin or fur, since there are already enough synthetic materials of equal or superior quality. Condoning animal slaughter to satisfy the whims of the fashion industry is downright immoral.
As for eating animal meat, I can't think of a sound reason to appeal to people to give it up. On the one hand, there is enough evidence that meat is not necessarily good for human health and that the human body can easily do without it. On the other hand, most people have always eaten meat and it would be nearly impossible to expect them to stop doing that. Indeed, we've grown very fond of meat, to the point that, despite immense quantities of alternative nutritious foods, we consume excessive quantities of it, more out of pleasure than out of necessity. Perhaps we would be better off if we tried to eat less meat or none at all. On this issue, everyone has to face his or her own conscience.
Even owning pets can be a form of animal abuse. Many people have dogs and cats, usually for selfish reasons, while unable or unwilling to give them proper attention and care (e.g., leaving a pet locked up and alone in the house when going off to work every day or giving it to strangers while going away for vacation for days and weeks). Some of the more exotic species are tracked down and forced to live in an environment that is not theirs, all for the sake of their owners' pleasure.
Another form of animal cruelty is their use in medical and scientific experiments in which animals are made to suffer and often die. It is generally claimed that this is done in the interests of humanity (while humanity itself hardly reacts nowadays to the suffering of its own kind). But isn't it also done to a great extent in order to gratify scientists' curiosity and the needs of the cosmetics industry? Instead of spending a great deal of money on developing new medications that require testing on animals, we should use this money to help us change our way of life and eliminate the very conditions that cause stress and disease.
In the past, when the human population was relatively small, the animal world lived by its own natural laws. With the rapid growth of human population and industrial production, man took for himself more and more of the territories where animals were once free to roam. This disrupted the natural balance of relationships not only amongst animals but also between animals and man.
If we truly believe that the animal world (and for that matter the plant world as well) is important for man's survival, then we must first stop our own population growth and provide more space for animals to live in. They would then be able to return to their former way of life and become less aggressive. It is time we learnt to respect animal life and not behave like barbarians, senselessly killing and hurting animals.
At the same time, we should not go so far as to make idols of animals,
as often is the case, nor make a tragedy of a situation where a species
becomes extinct as a result of the natural process of evolution. Unfortunately,
even if we succeed in limiting our activities to true sustainable development,
we will still have to continue to exercise a certain amount of control
over animal reproduction, but this we must do in a rational and humane
manner.