Humans: Do we really help anyone?
Here is a shloka from the Atharva Veda that emphasizes the sanctity of nature and the interconnectedness of all life forms:
माता भूमिः पुत्रोऽहं पृथिव्याः।
यदपि धारयसे जगत् सर्वं तस्मै ते प्रणमाम्यहम्॥
Translation:
The Earth is my mother, and I am her child. Whatever you (Earth) sustain, the entire world, to that I bow in reverence.
Interpretation:
This shloka reminds us that Earth is not merely a resource but a nurturing mother to all living beings, including animals. It inspires respect and responsibility toward nature, emphasizing that protecting animal habitats and maintaining the natural cycle is integral to honoring the Earth.
Should Humans Intervene in the Cycle of Life of Animals?
The question of whether humans should intervene in the natural cycle of life of animals is one that has sparked debates across environmental, ethical, and scientific communities. Humanity’s relationship with the animal kingdom is complex, marked by both acts of benevolence and unintentional harm. From saving species on the brink of extinction to disrupting ecosystems with invasive policies, our actions have had far-reaching implications. So let’s discuss the pros and cons of human intervention and ponder the broader implications of such involvement.
The Case for Intervention
- Preventing Extinction: One of the strongest arguments for human intervention is the prevention of extinction. Many species face threats due to habitat destruction, climate change, and poaching — all, ironically, caused by human activities. Conservation efforts, such as breeding programs, wildlife sanctuaries, and anti-poaching laws, have saved species like the giant panda and California condor from disappearing forever. But whether these efforts are to “save” animals, or to prevent other humans from causing “more” destruction?
- Mitigating Suffering: Humans often intervene to alleviate suffering caused by natural disasters, disease outbreaks, or environmental degradation. For instance, wildlife rescue operations during floods or droughts provide immediate relief to animals in distress. Rehabilitation centers and veterinary care can restore health to injured or orphaned wildlife, giving them a second chance at life. But often, life and death are considered to be a cycle. By playing god and giving someone a chance to live, are we helping them or are we creating a ripple effect far from what our perception can understand?
- Balancing Ecosystems: In cases where human activities have already disrupted ecosystems, intervention can help restore balance. Reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone National Park is a celebrated example, where their presence helped regulate prey populations and rejuvenate the park’s vegetation and biodiversity. Another example, where we had to save the ecosystem, because WE OURSELVES destroyed it in the first place!
The Case Against Intervention
- Disruption of Natural Processes: Critics argue that nature operates on a delicate balance, and human interference often leads to unintended consequences. For example, introducing non-native species to control pests has sometimes resulted in ecological disasters, as seen with the cane toad in Australia. As humans, we have a limitation in understanding consequences beyond a limited time and space, beyond what our senses can help us grasp. While the intention may be good, but instead of playing god, why not enforce a lifestyle where degradation of natural balance is prevented before need for intervention arise? Or are we too controlled by the rich organizations to make such a move?
- Anthropocentric Bias: Decisions about which species to save or how to intervene are often influenced by human values rather than ecological necessity. Charismatic species like tigers and elephants receive more attention and resources than less appealing but equally important organisms, leading to imbalanced conservation efforts. We save what we believe “deserves” to be saved. We ignore the timid and tiny, we value the beautiful and the useful. In a sense, we only value what is valuable to us.
- Dependency Issues: Prolonged human involvement can create dependency among animals. For example, feeding wildlife in urban areas may lead to habituation, reducing their ability to forage and survive independently. The more we intervene, the more we change the nature doing what is natural.
- Moral Dilemmas: Intervening in the life cycles of animals raises ethical questions about where to draw the line. Should humans let predators hunt their prey or intervene to prevent suffering? Should natural population controls like disease outbreaks be allowed to run their course? These dilemmas often lack clear answers. Sometimes, the only dilemma is why did they make us humans… and if they did, why did they give us this greed to consume everything in our power?
The Impact of Human Presence
Before humans appeared in significant numbers in various regions, animals thrived within well-balanced ecosystems. Nature knew what was best. They lived according to the cycles of nature, with predator-prey relationships, seasonal migrations, and natural population controls maintaining ecological equilibrium. The arrival of humans disrupted these systems in ways we can not truly fathom!
- Habitat Destruction: Human activities such as deforestation, urbanization, and agriculture have decimated animal habitats. Forests that once teemed with life were cleared for timber and farmland. Wetlands, grasslands, and coral reefs — essential ecosystems — have been lost to human greed and expansion.
- Exploitation for Resources: Many species were hunted to extinction for food, fur, or other materials. The dodo and passenger pigeon are stark reminders of human greed’s devastating consequences. Others, like elephants and rhinoceroses, continue to face threats from poaching for ivory and horns.
- Domestication and Utility: Animals that survived had to adapt by becoming useful to humans. Dogs were domesticated for companionship and protection, cows and chickens for food, and horses for labor and transportation. Those unable to provide direct value often found themselves marginalized or endangered.
Without human intervention, the natural lifecycle would have continued largely uninterrupted. Species would have adapted to changing environments through natural selection, and biodiversity would likely have been richer today. So, where exactly do we fall in the ecology on this planet?
Ancient Wisdom on Human and Animal Coexistence
Ancient religions and philosophies often emphasized harmony between humans and animals. The Bhagavad Geeta, a revered Hindu scripture, teaches that all living beings are interconnected and part of a divine cycle. These scriptures and various ancient Indian texts clearly depicts humans living in harmonious ways with the nature. Nature is a part of the culture that these texts preach. It advocates for a life of peace and respect for all creatures. The Geeta’s message suggests that humans should act as stewards of nature rather than exploiters, maintaining balance rather than disrupting it.
Similarly, many indigenous cultures around the world regard animals as sacred and live in symbiosis with their environment. These traditions remind us of the wisdom in coexistence and the dangers of hubris in assuming dominance over nature.
But somewhere in our history, humans forgot about this wisdom and started running for their greed to get more, to consume more, to know more, to be able to do more, to reach far more, to climb more, to expand more, to control more…
Striking a Balance
The challenge lies in finding a balance between helping and harming. A thoughtful approach to intervention considers both the immediate needs of animals and the long-term health of ecosystems. Collaboration among governments, scientists, conservationists, and local communities is crucial to designing strategies that minimize harm while maximizing benefits.
But a true balance in nature can be achieved through a lifestyle change, through following a lifestyle that is so intertwined with nature, that it is hard to differentiate between humans and the rest of the nature. We ought to become a part of the natural cycle, rather than trying to understand and control it.
It reminds me of several movies… recently, the Avatar (another Sanskrit term which means to descent into a physical form), shows how living in peace with the nature and how human greed can cause a habitat, sometimes even a planet, to collapse.
Conclusion
Whether human intervention in the lives of animals is good or bad depends on the context and execution of such actions. While our intentions may often be noble, the complexity of nature demands humility and caution. Intervening with respect, scientific rigor, and ethical clarity can help us navigate this intricate relationship, ensuring that our actions contribute to a healthier coexistence with the animal kingdom. At the same time, revisiting ancient wisdom can guide us to act with greater responsibility and reverence for the natural world.
A shloka from the Mahabharata that reflects on the interconnectedness and duty toward nature:
सर्वभूतहिते रतः सर्वभूतानि चात्मनि।
कामक्रोधविनिर्मुक्तः स सुखी स पण्डितः स्मृतः॥
Translation:
One who is devoted to the welfare of all living beings and sees all creatures in themselves, free from desire and anger, is considered wise and truly happy.
Interpretation:
This shloka highlights the moral duty of humans to care for all living beings, including animals, and recognize their intrinsic connection to all life. It calls for selflessness and a balanced approach, aligning with the idea of preserving animal habitats and respecting the natural cycle of life.
