Knut the Polar Bear

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X66qFgARQUg

During March, through my usual ponderings of Youtube, Wikipedia and BBC News online, I discovered various articles relating to that baby Polar bear which is being looked after at the Berlin Zoo. I was very intrigued and interested by all this, not because of how cuddly and lovely the little bear is, but because of how much hate the situation has elicited from certain members of society.

What I'm talking about is the animal rights activists who have taken it upon themselves to denounce the loving care of zoo keepers, suggesting that instead of caring for this rejected animal, we ought to kill it instead, thus protecting its animal rights. We have been advised to murder this little animal so that it can be saved from the indignity of being loved and cared for by a man.

I can't help but feel slightly confused by this projected logic from an already vitriolic and, as some would say, man-hating leftist group. Animal rights activists have displayed contempt for humans, even children, in the past, leading to a three year old's death. Follow this link to read about a typical violent activist: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6215144.stm). What is amazing is how tortuous their intellectual standpoint can be: on the one hand they campaign for the rights of aniamls to such an extent that a clear froideur toward mankind surfaces, sometimes even deadly hatred; and yet on the other hand they can be so moved by what they percieve as the mal treatment of aniamls that they would recommend the killing of such animals, the rights of which they wish to protect.

I am quite moved by the relationship between Knut and his keeper: In a CNN article it is reported that, 'The head keeper likes to play guitar to Knut, sometimes serenading him with Elvis Presley tunes.' In this article, Ragnar is quoted to have said, "Knut understands some things. When the head keeper calls his name, he comes. Otherwise, he's like a little child. He has his own mind -- he's really a bear."

Everytime I see the bear on the news, I get the feeling that he is very happy and enjoying a kind of treatment he wouldn't have had in the wild. This bear is actually very lucky to be alive. I would argue that life itself is a gift, even when the person who is alive must spend their life in a form of a prison. But I doubt Knut feels imprisoned. I doubt he is subjected to violence from sociopathic inmates; what seems clear is that his level of care is luxury; this is one lucky bear who was rejected by its mother. The mere fact that he has been kept alive is a testament to the intervention of an intellectual human who can rationally examine the state of nature and cirumvent it in the name of love. This is what the animal rights activists don't understand. The act of love is an end in itself. It serves no direct purpose.

The acts of animal rights activists are not ends in themselves; they are calculated, acts of malice which serve to revolutionise society. The cause seems to be a twisted notion that a man shouldn't have the right to utilize the resources of his own planet for his own benefit. If man cultivates pigs and bovines on his farms, he may do with them what he wishes. It is this kind of basic human right that the activists wish to circumvent. It is similar to Ludditism. Only in the fact that these people despise something which serves to further empower humanity. We're facing the same opposition to stem cell research, genetic engineering, and even synthetic meat production (a form of meat farming that will not require any animal to be reared and killed in the process). It seems a trend comes to mind here: the desire to stifle human progression. Much of the growth of human civilisation will require questionable practices like animal testing; but what's important is reaching the heights which we can reach, and not the processes which lead to reaching them.