You Can't Hunt AND Be Against Abortion
Animals think and feel too
Killing is killing; humans aren't more important
For a long time now I have been bothered by the painfully obvious truth that humans deem their lives as much more important and meaningful than any other animal on this planet. If this were not so, right-wing religious groups would be just as incensed over hunters killing game as they become over the existence of abortion. Hunting would simply be illegal; if non-human animal life were just as respected as human life, anyone who purposefully murdered game would spend 25 to life in jail just as they do for human murder. But humans don't care nearly as much about non-human animal life as they do about human life. Human life isn't more important than the life of any other species--humans simply found a way to take over.
For a while I wondered if I perhaps was one of the only humans not so into myself to have the presence to realize human life is no more or less precious than the life of any other of Earth's species. Upon doing a quick Google search, I found that there is a very large controversy over whether human life is better/more substantial/more important than the life of any other species on this planet. The answer, to me, is obvious: humans are definitely no better, no more important, and have no substantive reason to regard their lives as a higher priority over the lives of any other species on this planet. Humans, simply, are just one more species on this planet who came to exist with all the other animal life on Earth. There aren't "humans" and "animals"; humans are animals.....sadly, simply extremely selfish, narcissistic animals.
It seems beyond bizarre to me that humans regard themselves as so incredibly amazing. Well, not so surprising, considering humans are beyond incredibly selfish; the thought of being altruistic, even for a moment, sadly doesn't even occur to most people most days. Non-human species also of course demonstrate selfishness, but not anywhere near to the extent the human species has. And I can't scientifically prove this, but I like to think that if any other animal species had the ability to create the infrastructure (roads, buildings, mine minerals from the ground to morph them into other things, etc.) they simply wouldn't. I like to think non-human animals would be smart enough to realize the propagation of millions and billions of any one species isn't worth the complete destruction of all else.
Whenever human animals are asked, "What makes humans better than animals?" (because it's correct to assume most humans do think this) the answer generally is about humans' supposed amazing, "superior" intelligence. "Humans make roads, and treat cancer, and make people live longer and have distinct language!" someone might claim. While it's true human animals do possess some sort of intelligence that sets human animals apart from other animals, that by no means inherently implies human intelligence is in any way superior to any other animal intelligence. It's different, but different is in no way definitely better.
As I have pondered how awful humans have been to this planet, how they have viciously taken over, at the detriment of who knows how many non-human animals, it's become painfully clear to me that human "intelligence" is clearly their greatest downfall, the one thing that caused human animals to do so much harm and evil to this planet. I said earlier that I would hope that if any other animal species had the ability to build infrastructure as humans do, that they simply wouldn't, because they would care about the earth too much. But perhaps it's due to non-human species lack of knowledge of how to build infrastructure and mine the world's resources into oblivion that make them all much better candidates to propagate the planet and outnumber human animals.
Whenever I think (and in doing become very angry) about how human animals came to be in the state we are today, I think about how no other species on this planet actively destroys their environment the way humans do. It seems to me many humans think human life is somehow so much better than non-human life because of some supposed intelligence humans have that every other animal species lacks. But if humans really were so incredibly intelligent, we wouldn't have allowed ourselves to get the the place we are today.
If humans truly did possess some incredible intelligence that no other species had, we should have been intelligent enough to not allow the size of our population to massively surpass the tipping point it is at today, of over 8 billion. Despite humans by no means having the highest population on the planet, no other species has the ecological footprint that today's human species has. So it's not so much an issue of there being too many humans; it's an issue of the amount of the planet's resources that so many humans insist on using. If all humans lived in small huts, lived more rudimentary lives--hunting and gathering or only creating only small family farms, using basic tools, if cars didn't exist, humans didn't create billions of gallons of unnatural chemicals every year, if humans didn't exploit other humans or other species for their own personal gain, if humans only used the very basics and didn't take more than they needed--if so many members of the human species didn't live so wildly out of their means and take so much more than what they realistically need, then it would be fine for there to be so many members of the human species on this planet. But because humans are way WAY too stupid to have had the foresight to realize that too many of them taking too much from the planet equals death to humans--since the planet's health and vitality directly affects human health and vitality--humans have become beyond too many due to their overwhelming ecological footprint. As an aside, you can look up your own ecological footprint by going to www.footprintnetwork.org and clicking "calculate your footprint" in the upper right-hand corner. It calculates how many Earths it would take to sustain your lifestyle if every member of the human species lived at the same level you do.
So there are too many humans doing too much destruction to Earth. Conversely, humans could instead have realized that they could live at a really high level, but only if there were a sustainable number of humans to do so. Instead of there being an overwhelming number of humans living at a minimal level, there could have been very few humans living at a much higher level. If humans truly had some high-level intelligence above any other animal species, they should have had the foresight to know that too many taking too much was going to quickly kill the planet.
But humans either didn't have the foresight to realize Earth has quantifiable and limited resources, or they simply just didn't give a crap. I personally think that both are probably true. I know for sure the latter is true, because humans have a very hard time projecting the outcome of their current habits for future gain. Humans generally simply live in the "here and now" and don't consciously care how what they do now will affect them 20, 30, 40 years from now, which is why so many humans have such a hard time saving money for the future. I suspect the same not-so intelligent brain function that makes humans bad money-savers is the exact same brain function that stops most humans from caring that their intake of the Earth's resources now will negatively impact their lives and the lives of their offspring in the years to come.
As I thought about the deeply inherently selfish nature of the human species, I couldn't help notice that humans freak the hell out whenever any other species on the planet becomes massively, horrendously out of balance, yet it is somehow completely acceptable for humans to be so overwhelmingly out of balance. On the west coast humans hunt deer because there are perpetually "too many" of them and we can't possibly allow the deer population to run amok (because the overabundance of deer would surely inconvenience the "more important" human species in the northwest US). Clearly it would be to the benefit of humans for there to be many MANY less of them, because the more humans that exist on the planet, the lesser quality of life all of the humans have. But ironically, because humans idiotically think their lives are worth SO MUCH MORE than the lives of any other species on this planet, humans absolutely refuse to take any logical steps to ensure the human population doesn't get out of hand.
The issue with humans, the thing that makes them seem really not so bright comparatively to pretty much all other species on the planet, is almost all humans have completely lost the ability to live in balance with nature. Any human living in a first or second-world country has devised a way to barricade themselves from nature, through the shelter they build themselves (and indoor pluming and electricity and such). And hunter-gatherer societies are few and far between in most places in the world (a human hunter-gatherer society is one which lives among and sustains itself through nature). Humans have purposefully created societies simply so that they no longer must comply with the outside environment. However, because humans have done this, whenever nature does what nature does (hurricanes, ice storms, earthquakes, floods, droughts etc.) humans freak out and all of functioning society shuts down. If humans lived with nature i.e. outside, didn't rely massively on electricity, formed shelters that easily recovered from "natural disasters" or that were easy to rebuild quickly, these so-called natural disasters would cause any sort of disaster at all because one ice storm or one flood or one earthquake wouldn't devastate an entire region because the current infrastructure wouldn't exist and therefore couldn't be mangled and destroyed. Humans have used their supposed "higher intelligence" to "protect" themselves from the outside environment. But the more complex humans make their shelters, the more technology humans depend on, the more screwed over they become whenever some environmental "catastrophe" occurs. If humans all simply lived within the bounds of nature and didn't screw with it continuously to "improve" their lives, they wouldn't be so damn vulnerable whenever their precious meticulously built shelters were negatively affected by fires, earthquakes, floods, volcanoes (if applicable), hurricanes, or wind or ice storms. Seems to me the less vulnerable humans make themselves the better. And the less complex the societal systems are, the less vulnerable human societies would be. But humans, at least ones in richer countries, are just too shortsighted to see any of that, or too dimwitted...smart enough to build a "smart" house but too dumb to see that relying too much on technology makes us all too vulnerable when something simple happens, like the electricity going out.
The title of this hub probably seems disjointed from the content of it, but it still gets to the same point I have attempted to make in this hub: humans are no better, no more intelligent, no more or less worthy of life than any other species on this planet. A human in modern society who hunts, aka any human who murders members of other species unnecessarily (no human in any modern society must kill other animals to survive) who is also against abortion is qualifying the importance of human life and deeming human life more important, more worthy than the life of any other species.
Humans aren't special. Sure there are lots of things humans can do that other species cannot. There are also a million things other species can do that humans cannot. Dogs can hear sounds and smell scents that humans cannot. Ants can lift many more times their body weight than any human can. Camels can go for months without water and humans cannot. Birds can fly; humans cannot. Sperm whales can hold their breath underwater for up to 90 minutes. Salmon go from being able to live in fresh water to salt water and back to fresh water again. Cheetahs can run highway speeds. Most of the things humans can do that other animals cannot are unnecessary to basic survival anyway. I'd much rather be able to fly or run really fast over being able to type this article on this computer. The long and short of it is humans aren't better than all other species, aren't more worthy of life than other species. Humans generally seem to do some pretty crap things using their "higher" intelligence. No other species has done anywhere near the extent of harm to the planet that humans have. If anything, humans' "higher" intelligence has hurt them more than helped them, in the long run. No other species relies on technology to live. That humans do makes them more vulnerable to issues no animal was meant to be vulnerable to in the first place. Humans' lifestyle choices have only hurt them overall. No other animal's lifestyle choices (because other animals don't choose to live one way or another; they simply live by their instincts) have inadvertently caused them to become more vulnerable over time.
Humans need to learn from all other species that living more simply, not more and more complexly, is the only way they can hope to survive, in the long run. The more resources humans use the worse off they will be, since they can't get over the notion that all human life is precious (it isn't. Life just happens, then death happens). Since there will never be less humans on this planet (and finding some other planet to live on and hence destroy, because they already completely ruined Earth and didn't learn from that experience is certainly not the answer) humans are going to have to one day learn to live more with nature and less inside four walls of overly complex technology...or else die, and kill this planet with them. This will probably only be possible if humans ever learn to get the heck over themselves, and realize how not more amazing than every other species they are.