The Most Dominant Animal: Mankind is on Top of the Foodchain

The relationship between human beings and animals is very evident in today's society. It is obvious to tell who the dominant species on the planet is. In the ancient world, humans and animals were free to roam the earth at their leisure seemingly as equals, both depending on each other for things they could not provide for themselves. To experience the new relationship today, one only has to travel to a supermarket and purchase a quarter pound of beef for not much less than five dollars. Man's and animal's relationship is still a dependent one, however. Certain animals depend on us to survive and live a full healthy life, while we depend on other animals for good food and seemingly unnecessary clothing and material objects. The relationship between human beings and animals is still dominated by the humans, but we are beginning to realize that animals might deserve the same rights as we do.

The articles, "Dr. Daedalus"by Lauren Slaterand "An Animal's Place" by Michael Pollan show the relationship men have with animals. Pollan, though research and his own experiences and experiments investigates the radical ways we treat the animals we eat. The article starts out with him reading an animal rights activist book while eating a steak. This foreshadowed his contradicting views throughout the article. By the end, he concludes that as long as the animals lead a happy life before they become our dinner, it is justifiable to eat meat.

Why, though, do we cringe when we hear of a shark attack off the Jersey Shore? If it is justifiable for us to eat animals, further raise animals for the solitary purpose of slaughtering them for food later, why can't animals have us for food? It is justifiable because we are the dominant creature on Earth. With this dominance comes control of the environment and animals are in our environment.

At first glance and without contemplation, it seems that the relationship between humans and animals is one sided, however with careful consideration it is most definitely not. We differ from animals in many ways; the most evident is shown in Slater's article Dr. Daedalus. In this article, Slater dives into the topic of what is essential to be human. In conclusion to this article, in order to be human, one must be able to problem solve and think intricately about those problems. This is the first way we differ from animals.

In An Animal's Place, Pollan describes how we differ by referencing specific sources. When talking to Joel Salatin, the owner of Polyface Farm, where he raises his stock of animals with respect so they can lead a normal life of an animal, Salatin says:

"People have a soul; animals don't. It's a bedrock belief of mine. Unlike us, animals are not created in God's image, so when they die, they just die (An Animal's Place 110)."

I happen to agree with Salatin on this subject. Since I have never actually been an animal, I do not know but I am confident in my belief of this concept.

Humans have a soul that enables us to feel emotion, think freely and not have a one track mind. Animals know only the necessities of their lives, food, shelter, water and sleep. Other things do not matter to these creatures. Technology plays a big part in this concept as well. With our highly advanced technology we have the ability to recognize and come to know far more people than animals know of their own kind. Humans can find out in less than two minutes an action that occurred on the other side of the planet. Humans are more connected to other humans on a personal level and feel stronger emotion. If a shark off the cost of Florida is hunted down, the sharks out in the Indian Ocean will not care, much the less even find out or know who that shark was.

Having a soul and the ability to feel and care for others is the main difference between humans and animals; I do believe, though, that some animals are capable of feeling emotions and growing attached. Household pets, like trained dogs and animals, grow attached to their surroundings and know more than just the necessities of life. We do not call these animals' dogs or cats or birds, we use proper names to create a relationship with them. Unlike ancient times where all animals were viewed as equals to each other and if a dog were to roam through a community, no one would think twice about eating it.

The relationship between men and animals has evolved just as we have over the thousands of years, though. In the beginning humans and animals coexisted and as stated in "An Animal's Place" by Pollan: "Humans provided the animals with food and protection, in exchange for which the animals provided the humans their milk and eggs and ---yes---their flesh. Both parties were transformed by the relationship: animals grew tame and lost their ability to fend for themselves (evolution tends to edit out unneeded traits), and humans gave up their hunter-gathering ways for the settled life of agriculturalists. (Humans changed biologically, too, evolving such new traits as a tolerance for lactose as adults.) From the animals' point of view, the bargain with humanity has been a great success, at least until our own time (64)." This shows how we realized over time that certain animals were also great sources of food and nutrition. How meat from specific animals provide protein and the energy we need each day and other provide vitamins or minerals that decrease health risks and improve the quality of life.

Our relationship with animals seems to have grown further apart, but yet we are still so close. Without one another, who knows, maybe we would have evolved differently. We have depended on each other for so long, and made the ultimate sacrifices for one another (more often than not, it was the animals giving their lives for humans, but there have been certain exceptions) that living without each other seems like an impossibility. Would we have turned to cannibalism if we were the only creatures on the planet? Would it be back to Darwinism and survival of the fittest? Or would we just do what many people want us to turn to today, an all vegetarian diet? Who knows really, this is why the relationship between men and animals is dependent and why, according to humans at least, we coexist so well.

The question of coexistence is brought up from time to time as well. The answer is quite obvious. Of course we can. We have, we do and we will. We need animals for food, comfort, protection and a plethora of other things. Tame animals use us mainly for shelter and protection, and we use them for their company and loyalty. Wild animals look at us as predators, which we obviously are and we look at them as the prey. The way we coexist at the present time seems to benefit us more than the animals, but by our standards, that is okay with us. One day, though, will humans accept animals as equals once again?

Referring back to the article titled "Dr. Daedalus", written by Lauren Slater; Dr. Joe Rosen is fascinated by the fact of adding animal parts to human beings. Essentially, it would change the way we look and maybe we would evolve over time to develop these additions, but it would not change the fact that we are human. Is it possible that in hundreds of year's humans and animals will live as equals? Is it possible that we could coexist so well, that we start to adapt to each other in a way not even fathomable by today's standards? According to Slater's article, when she talks to people about Rosen's ideas she "tells about Rosen and his wings, his fin de siecle mind, widens his or eyes, leans forward and says, 'You're kidding'(Dr. Daedalus 61)." His idea is a type of coexistence that is far-fetched, to say the least, but not far off. Maybe one day we will coexist more than we do today.

The final topic being brought up is the rights of humans and the rights of other animals. If we coexist so well, why don't animals have the same rights as humans? There is an easy answer for that, we have a soul and animals do not. They do not have laws to govern themselves, they do not posses the technology we do and they can not think with a complex mind. Humans can think outside the box and are able to problem solve, which is what is so fundamental about our species and what our brains have evolved into over millions of years of success and failures from tribulations.

Evolution is supposed to give a species more independence and adaptation to the surroundings to make life easier. As man and animal alike evolve, it seems as if we are becoming more dependent on each other. Using animals for food is not barbaric; it is the way we have been taught by our ancestors before us, and it is our instinct. Maybe later on we will develop an organ that does not allow us to eat meat, or synthetically add it on to our bodies as Dr. Rosen would suggest. Until that time though, we as a species will continue to consume meat.

The relationship humans have with animals is of great importance and as we seem to be growing further apart intelligently we are actually becoming closer in the world. No longer are we the equals we were eons ago, but as time carries on we are realizing the growing importance that animals have. We use animals for everything from nutrition to protection and are becoming more dependent on them than ever. Maybe eventually humans and animals will coexist in harmony once again, but until then our relationship seems to be set in stone: Humans are the dominant presence and control the surrounding environment and creatures.