Ethics and Culling of Animals
Context:
Namibia plans to cull hundreds of its most majestic wild animals, including elephants and hippopotamuses, to supply meat to its 1.4 million people—nearly half the country’s population—who are struggling under the worst drought in a century.
More on news
- The severe drought is largely due to El Niño, which returned in 2023 after seven years and caused above-average temperatures and minimal precipitation.
- El Niño is a climate phenomenon characterised by the periodic warming of sea surface temperatures in the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean.
- A total of 723 animals, including 30 hippopotamuses, 60 buffaloes, 50 impalas, 100 blue wildebeest, 300 zebras, 83 elephants, and 100 elands (a type of antelope), are slated for culling.
- Over 150 animals have already been killed, producing approximately 63 tonnes of meat.
Ethical considerations surrounding the culling of animals for human meat consumption:
- Animal Welfare and Suffering: A major ethical concern is the suffering inflicted on animals in industrial meat production.
- Philosophers like Peter Singer argue this suffering is unethical and that animals have a right not to be harmed unnecessarily.
- Environmental Impact: Meat production has a significant environmental toll, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, land degradation, water scarcity, and biodiversity loss.
- Human Health: While meat can be part of a healthy diet, excessive consumption is linked to health issues like heart disease, cancer, and obesity.
- Alternatives and Necessity: Meat is not strictly necessary for human survival, so some argue killing animals for food is unethical when alternatives exist.
- Moral Status of Animals: Underlying much of the debate is the question of whether animals have moral status and rights. Philosophers disagree on whether animals are mere means for human ends or have intrinsic value.
- Consistency and Speciesism: Critics argue that eating meat while opposing killing dogs or cats is speciesist and inconsistent.
Mahatma Gandhi refused to drink cow or buffalo milk even when his health was severely compromised, adhering strictly to his vow against it. Despite doctors’ advice, he experimented with alternatives but only agreed to drink goat’s milk after persuasion from his wife, Kasturba. His commitment to his principles was unwavering, demonstrating his dedication even at the cost of his well-being.
Arguments against the ethical considerations:
- Nutritional Value and Human Health: Proponents of meat consumption argue that meat provides essential nutrients that are not as bioavailable in plant-based diets.
- They contend that certain populations, particularly in regions where agriculture is limited, rely on meat for adequate nutrition.
- Cultural and Historical Significance: Meat consumption is deeply rooted in many cultures and traditions.
- Ecological Balance and Land Use: Supporters of meat argue that grazing animals contribute to the health of certain ecosystems.
- For instance, well-managed grazing can enhance biodiversity and maintain grassland health by preventing overgrowth and promoting nutrient cycling.
- Economic Considerations: The livestock industry is a significant source of employment and economic activity in many areas.
- Practicality of Plant-Based Diets: Critics of strict vegetarian or vegan diets argue that the vast amount of arable land required to support a fully plant-based diet for the global population may not be practical or sustainable.
- Ethical Treatment of Animals in Agriculture: Some argue that the focus on animal rights and welfare should not lead to the complete abolition of meat consumption but rather to improved practices within the livestock industry.
- Utilitarian Perspectives: From a utilitarian standpoint, some argue that if culling animals can lead to greater overall benefits—such as improved environmental health or reduced human suffering—then it may be ethically justifiable.
Indian Constitution
Article 48: The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.
Article 48-A: The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.
Article 51A(g): It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.
The ethical debate over Namibia’s culling decision balances animal welfare, environmental impact, and cultural traditions. While controversial, it may be seen as a necessary response to human needs if done humanely and sustainably.