I think the specification on environment and animals in the constitution is too much. A veterinarian put it?

Extensive timing The environment became part of the established values ​​of the constitutionIn Article 9a. I talked about it in another post referring to the senator’s constitutional bill MaritatiWhere it is said to insert the principle that the Republic protects the integrity and health of the environment Biodiversity And natural habitat guarantees the proper functioning of the ecosystem and works to maintain the ecological balance as a necessary condition for the welfare of humanity. On the other hand, the recently approved amendment to section 9 is the result of a proposal which states that “The Republic protects the environment, biodiversity and ecosystem for the benefit of future generations. “. The sentence is drier than the previous one, but the change continues with: “State laws regulate forms and forms of animal protection”. What was the requirement for this specification?

Animals are part of biodiversity and are protected by the constitution and state laws that govern it, such as the ecosystem and the environment in general. It states that the state protects animals in the manner and form prescribed by law A high importance To the rest of the biodiversity. Despite being a zoologist, and an animal, I find Too much This clarification, especially if inserted in the Constitution.

And here it is worth explaining the difference between a zoologist (a researcher who studies animals) and an animal rights activist (a man who wants to protect animals). The difference is similar between an ecologist (a researcher who studies the structure and function of ecosystems) and an ecologist (a person who wants to protect the environment).

Zoology and ecology is science, zoology and ecology were temperaments determined by love of animals and the environment, not necessarily based on strong scientific knowledge.

Love is often blind. For a (standard) man who loves his dog mate, if his pet bites someone, it is his fault that he was bitten. Certainly not his dog! Which is true. The dog is a hunter with great offensive weapons. If a rooster bites you, it takes a kick to fix it. If a pit bull or a Rottweiler bites you, things change. Those who love their dogs will rarely admit that their pets can be dangerous. If he bites you … it’s your fault. He’s so good and you, maybe bleeding, don’t love animals! So far the “good” animal stereotype has been applied to white sharks too !!! I am reminded of Jessica Rabbit: I’m not bad, they pull me that way. Nature has “planned” hunters with weapons and predatory instincts. They are not bad: It’s their nature, and it’s good to be careful. If you see a peat bull roaming the streets alone, stay away. And don’t swim in crowded waters by white sharks. Unless you have a clear understanding of the principles of fighting dogs and sharks that feed on marine mammals, such as seals and sea lions, they may confuse us.

Going back to the constitution it is seen that the article directly refers to the animals, considering them “Other” Compared to the biodiversity that they are related to, it is inspired by the argument of animal rights that, as a zoologist, I do not want to share. Science cannot be confused with an emotional attitude, no matter how great.

Sometimes even scientists show up Some logical inconsistencies. In the university system, when zoology merges with anthropology, departments are formed by integrating zoology institutes with anthropology. Thus there is a need to find a unique name for the new structure. At a university I will not name, they decided to use the name: Department of Animal and Human Biology. If we were lions, they would call it: Department of Animal Biology and Lions! Man is an animal And human biology is a branch of animal biology, a more modern name than zoology, the science that studies animals as part of biodiversity with us: when we say biodiversity we also talk about animals, it goes without saying. Talking Heads asks such Psycho killer: If you say something once, Why say it again?

The change has now been approved. Let’s have it like that. But this animalistic subtlety, for me, is worth keeping an eye on. When it comes to taking action on behalf of the environment or animals, they are called ecologists and animal rights activists, and not ecologists and zoologists, we risk making political choices based on emotion, not solid scientific knowledge. It would be as if, for environmental change, they did not call each other Environmentalist But only technicians with some inspiration Environmentalist, Without a knowledge base in the environmental field and without feeling the need to consult with those who have. If this were to happen, we would even witness the inclusion of nuclear energy in the green classification, considering the need for sustainability of the proposed measures.

If you love something so much, it is not enough to have scientific skills in it. Berlusconi is not a gynecologist!

Leave a Comment