Need to read the following paragraph, and answer his question in the last sentence and think of some differences and connection.
Word count :300
For this weeks discussion post I wanted to open with talking about the reading â€œAnimal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Bad Marriage, Quick divorceâ€ by Mark Sagoff because I felt it had some strong points of discussion and also because it included some analysis and comparison from the first reading from the week, from Leopold. In the Sagoff readings, he makes compassions from the different authors we have read in the course including Singer who we heard from last week. I found it interesting some of the things he pointed out such as the fact that Singer â€œis concerned with the welfare of individual animals, without special regard to their status as endangered speciesâ€ (Packet P. 115) and points out that this differs from Leopoldâ€™s concern less for the welfare of the animals, but more for the concern for animals species as a whole. I found myself thinking about this difference a lot ,because prior to this course I just thought someone who wants to help animals would never hunt or never hurt them, but clearly this is a controversial topic because Leopold was indeed a hunter. Leopold talked about something else that was interesting to me and shed new light on the topic what he calls â€œland pyramidâ€ explains how each level from insect to human effects one another. He explains how lack of one species will in term affect the well being of another species. However, the part I found interesting is when explained by Sagoff that Leopold was able to believe this sort of balance between all species, but was still a supporter of hunting because â€œLeopold recognized that since top predators are gone, hunters may serve an important ecological function.â€ (Packet, P.115) I wanted to shed light on that quote specifically because to me it seems ironic that someone who is interested in the well being of a species as a whole is a supporter of hunting, but honestly to me this comparison made sense. If top predators are gone, then I suppose hunting at a fair level can help even that out? But itâ€™s not to say that all predators are gone, and that thereâ€™s not a fine line between over hunting. I have been anti-hunting my whole life but wanted to hear more thoughts on how my classmates are interpreting this part of the Sagoff read in regards to the Leopold reading. And on a different note, I found it extremely interesting how Sagoff talks about how â€œenvironmentalist cannot be animal liberationists.â€ (And vice versa) Again I found this really interesting because it absolutely makes sense in the reading, but I have never made the distinction between the two on my own. I wanted to point out one last quote from the Sagoff reading that helps explain the difference between the two: â€œThe environmentalist would sacrifice the lives of individual creatures to preserve the authenticity, integrity and complexity of ecological systems. The liberationist â€“ if the reduction of animal misery is taken seriously as a goal- must be willing, in principle, to sacrifice the authenticity, integrity and complexity of ecosystems to protect the rights, or guard the lives of animals.â€ (Packet, P.117) What do you guys think about the difference between these two and which side to you connect with more and why?