the imbalance in spending our care and feelings (3/3).

    We talked before about the fact of overstating in our dealing with animals, and in fact what it’s expressing about. Compare that view to the second one now, I watched a document which following the trajectory of the life of elephants, it was interesting to find out about the nature. During the way; one female fell sick when the caravan couldn’t wait it except its son which stayed nearby. Logically I was waiting when I’ll see the help to treat the elephant, but instead to offer that necessary care, they preferred to keep filming the end how it will be for hours to record that dramatic end.

    I don’t mean the situation like to saving a gazelle from a tiger, that’ll be a wrong interference in the nature and breaking the nature’s principal laws, so offering the help when it’s needed (as we said before) doesn’t mean to transgress on the normal process of the nature, also doesn’t mean to overstate in the care, right, but to help a wounded animal is something else and different to the two figures. Here where the animal’s welfare is required, instead of the previous figure that’s definitely legal and lawful.

    I didn’t find an explanation to this doing really, except the personal interest. Of course we have to care about animals –as we do with nature- by the necessary and treat them in proper way with mercy, but we can’t be as good as their lives in nature. We should do that for humans who deserve this kind of care like orphans or refugees of wars –as an example-.

    So when the matter requires care, usually people purely look for their interests without mercy nor care about the things around them. And in the same time they go far in the care and provide all kinds of mercy, whereas the matter can be controlled by keeping the middle distance in the dealing. In my opinion I don’t think it’s the right way to show the suitable care for animals and both are extremists in somehow.

    I my opinion, it’s not more than exaggeration in the two sides to the extremities, and it’s not more than tries to doing changes differently than the usual (when it becomes unbearably boring), and the freedom eased that way to try and be convinced with, maybe certain approbation comes from religious aspects and healthy results that someone get in fact, but not to be in the way that it’s in real life now.

    Recently, I’ve see a report showing some annoyance from animals rights organizations from those who possess animals, because they took them to special saloons, to colour them strangely and apply some weird cut hairs by shaving it. Really it’s not bad to possess animals and to give names to your pet like cat, horse, or dog, of course I don’t see all in black, some studies confirmed that the being with animals is bringing more happiness to elderly, they’ve some advantages surely, like when they give them reasons to move and be active in the life at least on a personal level (while those people are caring about something).

    And what I blamed here is: the dissociation in the social and family ties, furthermore; it’s not bad to care about animals -in reasonable way-, but when we check statistics and see around the world, we can find how many people are in need to help before any exaggeration to do with an animal, just keeping the reason with.

        To care about animals; it’s always necessary of course especially when it’s needed as we see in some governmental programs for protection from the human also (what the strange paradox). But the question for us as individuals; do we do that in the correct way as it should be done? Everyone can find the answer by himself and think about, probably there is something to rectify, don’t you think so?

the imbalance in spending our care and feelings. (1/3)

    I got a question from a friend: why we’ve names? Briefly I said that the name refers to his owner, usually it puts its traces in the personality of the person from the first times when he understands its meanings (name’s meanings) also from knowing stories of great people who got the same name and they play the role of models for him/her, and it effects on feelings towards the name as well.

    “Why we give animals names? Do they understand too the meanings too?” my friend continued so

    “Of course no” I replied, what people do today is a part from the social luxury. That’s from one side, and it's, just an interpretation for the need to live socially in the life. or just a picture of modern life, besides, the human is exaggerating to care about animals (especially pets) because of many reasons like the shortage in the human interactions, and less of social communication between people, social connection (even family ties) became weaker, that’s why people look for a different way to skip the situation, so animals become like a last outlet to cover that shortage in the life, especially when animals don’t demand a lot nor conditions for relations with.

    Regardless to the new life’s challenges and people do getting dogs often for more security, that’s great of course, but that you love animals so not necessary to have into your room on bed or sofa, you can be close to them by your care or going to park, right. They're not toys made for our fun and good mood, ok. So don't make all your interests in something like that and only, right

    And maybe if you’ve the enough social live (familiar life) you won't have time for animals as you do now, because you'll have something more precious to spend time with, because usually that (overstatement in) the interest - in pets- comes from the loneliness that people are living in life, unfortunately. So to trust animals and love them because they also love the human in return without conditions and easier to get them from, that’s what promoted this impression.

    And when you're so interested in what you've at home, you'll be thankful for your life and all graces you've got, animals won’t be for you more than a creature that requires a help and care from you only when it's necessary, maybe we can exclude dogs and cats, but some animals can’t be as pets really and preferably (to this creature) to leave in the nature that it's created in. then it will enjoy and feel the life better than being at homes,

    According to what’s termed by “the positional arms race” in the social life of people, which redefine again what’s “adequate and enough” for the person in his ordinary process of life. It becomes today a part of lifestyle and people exaggerate in that way by more care, and treat them like their kids or maybe more, in this case we can call them humans instead animals, am I right? And I’m sure many people do call their pets like that, because they were failed from society around and couldn’t find the good companionship

    Even about using animals, I make a difference between putting them in parks like nature reserves, in way to protect the type of certain animals from extinction, AND the fact of using animals for fun and impose cruel exercises on them like in circus or home’s cages. They’re created to help you get your purposes but not to be games between your hands.

the imbalance in spending our care and feelings (2/3).

    In the other hand; some people work on animals rights and those vegetarians and vegans who abstain eating fish, meat and poultry –or any of their products- for ethical reason too and compassion of animals which started in first from India. And it’s developed through the Greeks then mixed with religious aspects according to certain old manuscripts to be a lifestyle in world culture today away from any religious commitments.

    I remind you by one truth: the animals and wild fruits were the basic food for the mankind –for hundreds of centuries- before the discovery of the agriculture (in the near east), where people were imposed to relying on migration and traveling life to guarantee their existence.  Secondly the most consummated meal is coming from those 03 kinds of animals, poultry, sheep, and beef respectively-regardless to fish-. But we never heard about the extinction in any kind of them or that they’re endangered species, though the big consummated amount every day, every month and every year.  It’s a part of the food chains that balance the life on the globe.

    And that last (animals) was the main factor to guarantee the continuity of the human race (regardless to plants), it’s a settlement, and its advancement towards the civilization as well. Besides; I can also say that plants are creatures, and then you shouldn’t eat from them or their fruit, at all too, because we can consider that also as a settlement, is it logical? Think about it.
    What about your pets, which kind of food you give them? isn’t made from animals too? And how the chain of food is going in the nature? We’re a part of the nature, aren’t we? but human has a mind to wisely use his environment.

    I’ll quote those verses from what I knew, and the Quran says:

And cattle He has created for you (people): from them ye derive warmth, and numerous benefits, and of their (meat) ye eat. (16-05).

All food was lawful to the Children of Israel except what Israel had made unlawful to himself before the Torah was revealed. Say, [O Muhammad], "So bring the Torah and recite it, if you should be truthful." (93-05).

And for you in them is [the enjoyment of] beauty when you bring them in [for the evening] and when you send them out [to pasture] in the morning. (16-06).

And they carry your heavy loads to lands that ye could not (otherwise) reach except with souls distressed (difficulties): for your Lord is indeed Most Kind, Most Merciful, (16-07).

And it is He who subjected the sea for you to eat from it tender meat and to extract from it ornaments which you wear. And you see the ships plowing through it, and [He subjected it] that you may seek of His bounty; and perhaps you will be grateful. (16-14).

   Those quotations are showing the fact of relationship we should have with all creatures around and especially with animals. It’s clarifying simply how it should be and the way we deal with them also. And instead of the fact of taking the far left and overstated care in animals to be close to the human level; not to be so cruel with them, as we’ll see in next part.