Humans and some other animals can pick up on body language signs and verbal ques that transgress specie boundary lines; for example it is easy to tell when a dog is growling or that when a cat is hissing that they are in a potentially aggressive emotional state. Specie boundary lines are merely arbitrary lines assigned by humans in order to organize our world in a way that we understand; a way that is useful to us. Tracing back our evolutionary lineages we can see that we have common ancestors and share noticeable similarities in these respects. It is within this biological paradigm that we can explore similarities we share which are commensurable.
Since there are so many different varieties of animals, with varying degrees of complexities, the emotional capacities for them are dependent upon the species as well as the individual animal itself. Each animal goes through its own set of experiences in life and has its own brain which can be wired in a variety of ways depending upon its development and its inherited genetic structure. Goldfish may be hard to develop a bond with because they lack complex brains that would allow for complex emotional feelings. Dogs and cats, however, have larger, more complex brains and are capable of a greater number of "higher order" brain functions. In this case the phrase "higher order" means similar in complexity and capacity. Studies have shown that typical house pets like dogs can experience different a variety of different emotional states. They can be traumatized, feel depressed, anxious, experience happiness, et cetera, but again this is rather obvious to anyone who has spent a significant amount of time observing or interacting with such animals.
According to the complexity and capacity of an animal or species of animal it may or may not have the ability or capacity to experience certain states of emotion when compared to others. As a consequence some animals like bugs may lack the capacity for many of the emotional states humans and other larger animals experience. They may feel pain which causes their bodies to take specific uncontrolled and un-understandable reaction in order to avoid the pain. Their behavior may be more driven by something like "instinct" which is simply a rudimentary collection of impulses that directs bodily their actions.
Certainly, beetles don't philosophize or worry about the issue of global warming. This isn't to say that these little robot like critters aren't worth considering, it simply means that it is more likely for a bond to be struck between two entities that share more similar capacities. So, someone's value of them may only extend to the degree that they recognize it is wrong to cause pain to any living thing. It may not be the case that each human agrees to this principle however. As stated before we share similarities in many respects and in many varying degrees but it is also a possibility for an human being to completely lack a certain emotional capacity or to have it over ruled by some other function. Psychopathic persons may be an example of this.
Human beings develop relationships based on similarities, not on differences as the old proverbial statement suggests that "opposites attract". Studies show that it is more likely for people to bond with others in which they share similar interests. The idea is that the more interest are shared the deeper the emotional connection can go. The fact that humans can bond with other species of animals is a profound emotional dilemma.
Human beings have been hunting animals for thousands of years. Sometime along the line we were able to ditch our running shoes and spears and put animals into cages. In every country all over the world and in nearly every culture it is a way of life to kill animals and consume animals. Most people in America and in the rest of the world eat meat on a regular basis. Human beings aren't the only animals that eat other animals either, there are many other animals that are meat eaters as well. Consuming the meat of other animals is an evolutionary adaptation which has allowed some species that feed exclusively on meat to flourish, such as the lion or shark.
Since human beings are typically moral creatures we are placed into this dilemma according to our evolutionary development and our overall disposition toward meat eating. Evolution isn't a guarantee of a flawless operational system for any organism. Evolution is simply a process that describes the way organisms will change and adapt to their local environments in a manner that is "good enough" for their survival. Those that are better at adapting to their environments than others typically do better, but the point is this: there is no guarantee that contradictions and disorder won't arise within the evolutionary system. Though contradictions and disorder are present within the system when their level of occurrence is outweighed by the sum of successes within the system species thrive. An easy way to understand this concept is to think about all the different types of genetic deformities we are familiar with such as the development of persons with missing or extra limbs, clef pallets, blindness, allergies, Down's Syndrome, autism, dwarfism, misshapen or asymmetrical formation of body parts, et cetera. There are many types of mutations to consider and while some can be harmful there are some which are neither detrimental nor beneficial. They are simply benign or harmless. For the organism to survive its environment it must possess more beneficial traits than detrimental traits
So, if human beings enjoy eating meat but are also morally driven creatures then where in lies the justification from a moral standpoint to inflict harm upon other animals that share a degree of their emotional capacities? If we consider just the human species for a moment we can understand from what method we might seek to operate morally at a practical level. Simply because we bond with certain individuals in the human race doesn't mean that we should be able to harm or destroy the individuals we have not yet bonded with or never will. We understand that we each have differences but we also understand that we at least share the capacity to experience complex emotional states to a very a degree and within that understanding there lies the potential for an emotional bond. We may not feel as upset if some tragedy has befallen a person or a community of people with whom we are unfamiliar or unconnected with but that doesn't mean we don't sympathize or pity them in their circumstances to a degree. People all over the world are willing to donate their money, time, and other resources to helping out strangers on the other side of the planet who have been subjected to some level of suffering.
It is hard for most humans to stare at a picture of a starving child, no matter how far removed that child is from their social sphere without feeling some kind empathy toward their suffering. This is possible because we are not only built similarly but because we also experience occurrences in our lives that are similar. It is the misery of an innocent child that strikes a cord in many a philanthropist's heart. Evolutionarily speaking it is easy to understand how the adaptation of social bonding could serve a beneficial role in the success of species. How is it possible that this adaption could have extended beyond the boundary line of species? Why is it that a dog is willing to nurse the offspring of a separate specie of animal and how is it that humans can develop an emotional attachment to their pets if it seems to serve no obvious beneficial purpose for the good Samaritan? It is likely that the adaptation from which animals developed the ability to bond socially, that is to develop an emotional connection with others, was a general mutation that was never restrictive enough to keep the bond from happening outside the realm of genetic compatiblism.
Though we humans do not develop to the exact same degree emotionally we develop to a degree that is similar enough that relationships can form and bonds can occur. To this degree we can also include animals that are outside our own specie. It is also the case that when the degree is highest we find more ability to bond. It is like having more hands to reach out to others with. From this understanding our morality can conflict with our evolutionary appetites. We can both love animals as companions and love the taste of their organic products. The ultimate question is where does this place us? To what degree should we recognize our moral values and to what degree should we limit our actions?
I am not the type that likes to see any amount of suffering. To cause harm to other people and to other things is a constraint I am able to recognize and bare from a moral standpoint. I should say that "if I cannot stand the suffering of a human being then why should I condone the unnecessary suffering of a non-human organism under the same circumstance that suffers at any level". It is well within my ability to live without causing the degree of harm to animals that is present in the meat and dairy industries which provide animal products for humans to consume. So, as to live a life that is conducive to my moral values I elect not to consume animal products in as reasonable a manner as is possible. Until I can reason that there is justification in consuming animal products then I may still enjoy the taste of animal products yet live without satisfying my pallet in that manner.
UPDATE: The day after the initial post of this blog I came across this news article in my daily casual browsing of the news.
Bugs Can Solve Big Problems
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33974286/ns/technology_and_science-science/
