Charles Sutherland Elton, an English zoologist, introduced the concept of “food chain” in 1927. In layman’s terms, the food chain describes who eats whom in the animal world, including plants. For example, a rabbit eats grass, a fox eats rabbit, and a mountain lion eats fox – that’s a food chain. In the natural world, the predators prey on weaker animals for survival. The mountain lion is stronger than the fox and is capable of hunting it, just as the fox is compared to the rabbit. Does this mean that the strong and powerful have more right to live than the weak?
What about us humans? We also need food to keep alive. Of course, we don’t prey and eat. We prepare food with recipes putting in much time and energy. However, for every delicious dish of chicken, mutton, or beef there are slaughtering of living beings. We take the lives of those creatures to make them our food. We take it for granted that we have the right to do so. It is because we are a superior species. Our life is more valuable and important than the inferior species and therefore we have a greater right to live than them.
By inferior species we mean those who have less intelligence, communication capabilities, thinking and imagining capabilities, etc. than us. But does that give us the right to kill them as we may deem necessary? Every year Australia kills millions of kangaroos to control their population and maintain ecological balance. As the Australian Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water posts, “Some states and territories have determined that kangaroos may be culled to reduce the significant impact that over-abundant kangaroo populations have on agriculture and Australia’s natural environment”. In 2021 Australia estimated the kangaroo population as 30.67 million and decided that 4.39 million of them could be allowed to be killed.
Suppose some aliens who are superior species to us invade our planet. They are far more intelligent than us and possess greater capabilities. The aliens decide that 8 billion humans are an “over-abundant population” for the earth’s ecology. They think they know better what is good for us. They calculate that 3 billion is ideal for maintaining ecological balance and decide to “cull” the rest 5 billion people. Would we accept that they have the right to do so?
Alexandar “the Great”, Genghis Khan, and Nadir Shah, killed thousands of unarmed civilians in conquered cities. They decided that the defeated population didn’t have the right to live. In 1971 Pakistan Army killed three million unarmed innocent people in Bangladesh with sophisticated weapons and skills. The Military rulers of Pakistan decided that Bengalis didn’t have the right to live.
When a judge hands out the death penalty to an accused – the judge decides that the accused does not have the right to live anymore. Of course, the judge provides verdicts according to law, and laws are formulated by legislators who are the people’s representatives. Consequently, the laws of a country reflect the resolve of the majority of people. Society determines through legislation who does not have the right to live. In wars, conflicting sides consider each other as enemies with no right to live.
What if some of the human species decide that they are superior to others and only they have the right to live and thrive?
[… … …]
This article was published in the Daily Sun on September 13, 2023. Please read the full article here or here.