Shouldn't we be asking what we can do for animals, not what they can do for us?
Shouldn't we be asking what we can do for animals, not what they can do for us?
If one thing they can do for us is help change the mindset that makes us abuse them and nature, maybe there's potential for a positive two-way flow? (And of course we are animals too...)
I hear what you are saying. We owe them, they owe us nothing. We should be mindful that we don't project a human perspective onto that "two way flow". We know very little about non-human culture, expression and communication. It's so easy to see their world through our eyes, less so from theirs
I agree overall but look forward to hearing what Jay will say. To shrink anthropocentrism a key step is to acknowledge that we too are animals. Their world is also ours if we open all our senses, our receptivity, our heart, our grief, our longing for healing, our feeling of kinship over separation..
If you haven't come across it yet, this is a really readable insight into researching and understanding animal cognition & different forms of intelligence. wwnorton.co.uk/books/978039...
I have it.
I think humans have spent millennia seeing themselves as the agents. It's more powerful and true to see yourself as an equal contemporary. To ask what other creatures can do for you, is to flip the agency, maybe in a way they haven't before, for some people.
That is a fair point. My concern is that we may only be able to interpret their world view from a human perspective. We are only just scratching the surface of other species' culture, communication and expression.