Question: Animals and birds should never be kept in cages. What are your views? Here is my argumentative essay, Is it up to the English standard required in college?
In the past two centuries, awareness of the rights of animals has been on the rise. The question whether animals belong to the wild or behind iron is often argued upon. I shall analyze the views of both sides and provide my conclusion.
Firstly, why should animals be caged in the first place? They are wild and uncivilized creatures. They have very narrow aims; eat, sleep, breed , die. They are potentially a threat to humans as there are countless recorded incidents of wild bears roaming into human settlements and going on a rampage, killing young children in search of food, one could question this by considering the fact that humans were the first to intrude into their territory, for natural resources or commercial benefits.
Animals are also prone to cause numerous diseases as they often get poisoned by human waste, particularly industrial effluent, The general population which is affected by these diseases would prefer to have these animals slain, rather than caged. The most dominant reason for caging animals or birds is for personal entertainment, whether it is a lion in a circus forced to jump through loops or if it is a macaw kept in a cage as a pet or "companion". Pet owners can argue that they love the pets they keep as a part of their family, they provide them with food and shelter, something far better than that which they could have ever seen in the wild. Medical attention is provided and ample enjoyment to accompany that "perfect" life, The pet technically lives like a king. research also accounts to animals being caged along with education of the youth through zoos, what education could a zoo provide if the animal is far from its natural habitat?, the only knowledge a child could squeeze out of a zoo is that monkeys like to throw things and they also like shout an awful lot at observers.
Why should the animals be allowed to live in the wild? without a cage and unsupervised? simply put, animals are also living creatures with souls, they also feel pain therefore they also deserve to have rights of their own. They may lack wisdom or intellectual resources which allow them to discover at a rate comparable to humans however it is logical to say that animals only attack when they are threatened. They don't Search for human flesh. Consider the following anomaly for the sake of argument, If there was to be an alien invasion and those aliens were more intelligent and sophisticated than humans, do they have the right to capture humans and keep them as pets in their home planet? by feeding humans with what they believe is "better" for them? would a human live as a pet or prefer to be free ? A sane answer would be to protest and a human would probably kill the entire race of aliens if given the opportunity.
Its obvious that nature has a balanced life cycle. If one link in the food chain is reduced rapidly, its prey will start growing uncontrollably. the ecosystem is a delicate and fragile system which is greatly disturbed by humans. For example, if a forest is knocked down and crops are grown in its place, the larger animals may be easily gotten rid of, as they have no home in this location, however the smaller insects and pests which live underground or are able to easily migrate to any nearby place will bloom in the absence of their predators and result in what we consider an infestation.As far as pets are concerned, If humans are so desperate for companions, We have other humans for that purpose.
Hence i conclude that animals are not to be kept caged, if the expansion of human settlement is a necessity then animal sanctuaries are also a necessity. The balance of nature is something which should not be offset by simple ignorant behavior.
In the past two centuries, awareness of the rights of animals has been on the rise. The question whether animals belong to the wild or behind iron is often argued upon. I shall analyze the views of both sides and provide my conclusion.
Firstly, why should animals be caged in the first place? They are wild and uncivilized creatures. They have very narrow aims; eat, sleep, breed , die. They are potentially a threat to humans as there are countless recorded incidents of wild bears roaming into human settlements and going on a rampage, killing young children in search of food, one could question this by considering the fact that humans were the first to intrude into their territory, for natural resources or commercial benefits.
Animals are also prone to cause numerous diseases as they often get poisoned by human waste, particularly industrial effluent, The general population which is affected by these diseases would prefer to have these animals slain, rather than caged. The most dominant reason for caging animals or birds is for personal entertainment, whether it is a lion in a circus forced to jump through loops or if it is a macaw kept in a cage as a pet or "companion". Pet owners can argue that they love the pets they keep as a part of their family, they provide them with food and shelter, something far better than that which they could have ever seen in the wild. Medical attention is provided and ample enjoyment to accompany that "perfect" life, The pet technically lives like a king. research also accounts to animals being caged along with education of the youth through zoos, what education could a zoo provide if the animal is far from its natural habitat?, the only knowledge a child could squeeze out of a zoo is that monkeys like to throw things and they also like shout an awful lot at observers.
Why should the animals be allowed to live in the wild? without a cage and unsupervised? simply put, animals are also living creatures with souls, they also feel pain therefore they also deserve to have rights of their own. They may lack wisdom or intellectual resources which allow them to discover at a rate comparable to humans however it is logical to say that animals only attack when they are threatened. They don't Search for human flesh. Consider the following anomaly for the sake of argument, If there was to be an alien invasion and those aliens were more intelligent and sophisticated than humans, do they have the right to capture humans and keep them as pets in their home planet? by feeding humans with what they believe is "better" for them? would a human live as a pet or prefer to be free ? A sane answer would be to protest and a human would probably kill the entire race of aliens if given the opportunity.
Its obvious that nature has a balanced life cycle. If one link in the food chain is reduced rapidly, its prey will start growing uncontrollably. the ecosystem is a delicate and fragile system which is greatly disturbed by humans. For example, if a forest is knocked down and crops are grown in its place, the larger animals may be easily gotten rid of, as they have no home in this location, however the smaller insects and pests which live underground or are able to easily migrate to any nearby place will bloom in the absence of their predators and result in what we consider an infestation.As far as pets are concerned, If humans are so desperate for companions, We have other humans for that purpose.
Hence i conclude that animals are not to be kept caged, if the expansion of human settlement is a necessity then animal sanctuaries are also a necessity. The balance of nature is something which should not be offset by simple ignorant behavior.