Warning: this post discusses some unpleasant and extremely sad thoughts; please return at a later time if you feel you do not currently have the emotional strength to handle such a discussion.

Several of my friends have heard me talk about the following ad nauseam: “when a wolf eats a rabbit, the rabbit loses her entire life, her entire existence, everything that anchors her to this world of ours, and in return, the wolf receives a meal, a single meal, out of possibly thousands of meals he will have in his entire life.”

You have probably guessed where I am going with this, and have already prepared your responses:

• This is how the nature works.
• No one has guaranteed that the world is fair.
• If wolves don’t eat rabbits, rabbits will overpopulate the entire planet.
• Rabbits are genetically inferior to wolves.
• Wolves are bigger and stronger, and their food intake is much more than rabbits.
• Wolves are smarter, can form packs, and easily hunt rabbits.

Yes, yes, I understand. But the question, that I am yet to pose, is really about all of the above, and more. Let’s look at this from a different point of view.

• We, homosapiens, are also part of the nature. We, too, have evolved along other species on this same planet. We have hunted other species, like wolves. And we have killed each other, during wars and otherwise, constantly, throughout the entire history of mankind. All these events are also part of the nature, and part of how the nature works. Yet we always look at wars and murders as being sad events and low points of humanity, if not acts of crime. Oh, and yes, we have developed complex concepts such as ethics, laws, and right vs. wrong, by which we judge different acts of human beings. But why is that we don’t accept wars and murders and thefts and rapes and all other atrocities that the mankind has committed throughout its history as just how the nature works? After all, that is really how the nature has worked so far, at least as far as mankind and its history is concerned.
• And if we are cheated or treated unjustly, we do complain about it not being fair, even though no one has guaranteed that world is fair.
• Different countries have different populations and population growth rates. But even the largest differences in the population growth rates cannot be considered as a justification for one country to invade another country and kill its people to prevent them from overpopulating the planet.
• There are genetic differences among human beings as well, both as individuals within a given race, as well as among different races. Granted, these differences are not as large as the ones between wolves and rabbits, nevertheless, they are large enough to be reliably measured or detected, as various companies can now tell the racial heritage of people by only analyzing genetic data. However, such genetic differences cannot justify one race dominating another. It is true that there have been many counterexamples to this in the history of humankind, the most recent one being Nazis’ belief in the superiority of the Germanic group and the Aryan race that led to World War II. However, all such instances of racism are considered as low points in the history of mankind, and those involved are considered as criminals.
• As more advanced and more enlightened human beings, we do not allow individuals to use their physical strength to intimidate and take advantage of others, let alone cause physical harm to them. Similarly, it is no longer a common practice for a stronger country to invade its weaker neighbors to take control of their wealth and resources (exceptions do exist, but they are mostly condemned by most if not all other nations).
• Although in many aspects people with higher intellect or education are more respected and maybe even considered as adding more value to the society, even the thought of a more intellectual or more educated person’s life being worth more than a less educated person’s life sounds abhorrent.

As we see, we have separated the value of the life of a human being from their intellect, strength, genetic constitution, population growth rate, etc. In fact, we have made so much progress in refining and perfecting the values in which we believe, that at this age, there is no attribute that can make the life of one person more valuable than another person. That is, at least when we talk about human beings, there is really no need to add a qualifier or owner to the word “life.” Life has the same value independent of who it belongs to.

What has led us to this level of enlightenment is probably the realization that, instead of looking at external features of people and categorizing them into different groups to determine their life values, one should consider each individual’s perspective and how they view the value of their own life. In doing so, we realize that, no matter how different we may look from outside, we all value our lives the same way: it is our most valuable possession. And we all react similarly when we detect a threat to our lives. We feel scared. We run away. We don’t want to receive physical harm. Because we all feel pain the same way. And this has nothing to do with whether there is a fairness guarantee in the world or not, or how historically the nature has worked.

Now, I am ready to pose my question: are we, human beings, the only species that feel pain? are we the only species that consider our lives as our most prized possession? Is the pain I would feel if I were to be torn apart and eaten by a wolf or a tiger or a lion fundamentally different from the pain that a rabbit feels when the same happens to her? Doesn’t the rabbit experience the same fear that I would if I were in that situation? Maybe even a mother rabbit has the same worries about the kittens she leaves behind when she is eaten by a wolf, as a human mother at her death bed has about the young children she leaves behind. Maybe that mother rabbit’s kittens feel the same feeling of helplessness, fear, and anxiety, as the young children of that human mother.

You see, we can indeed try to see the world from the perspective of others, even a rabbit, and acknowledge the cruelty in the way the nature works, if we want to. In fact, that’s what we did when we got rid of (or are still trying to get rid of) racism and sexism and other forms of cruelty among human beings. In doing so, we implicitly acknowledged that, simply because the nature has worked a certain way so far, doesn’t mean that we human beings should also continue organizing and managing our societies the same way, using the past behavior of nature as a framework for the laws and regulations in our societies. In fact, in most cases we did just the opposite. For example, while we acknowledged that nobody had guaranteed the world to be fair, we included fairness as a cornerstone of all of our laws and regulations.

The only reason that we do not approach all forms of life with the above enlightened standards that we use among us, is because it is more convenient. And because we believe, and rightfully so, that probably there is nothing that we can do about it at this time. We are holding human beings to a different standard, without trying to justify cruelties and injustices amongst ourselves by resorting to arguments such as “that’s how the nature works,” or “no one has guaranteed fairness,” because that’s probably the most we can currently do. Not because we really believe that things should be done exactly the same way as has historically been done by the nature. Nor we believe that since “no one has guaranteed fairness,” we should allow any form of injustice among us human beings.

Obviously I used rabbits as an example, otherwise, wolves as well as every other species in this world are subject to similar cruelties of the nature. And the fact that, if we find an injured rabbit, chances are that we won’t leave her on the ground for the next wolf to arrive and eat her, and instead will bring her home and will at least offer her some water and maybe a piece of carrot, is a testament of the fact that, deep down, we don’t buy the argument that “this is how the nature works.” And that if we had the power, we would indeed want to prevent pain and suffering of any living being, the same way we are trying hard to do it for human beings.

Yes, we are living a contradiction. As human beings, we have very progressive thoughts and values for ourselves, and we believe that life is the most precious possession of every human being, and has the same value regardless of who it belongs to. But we refuse to hold other species to the same standard, and use excuses such as “this is how the nature works,” or “no one has guaranteed fairness,” despite the fact that the exact same arguments equally and historically hold for human beings as well. I imagine we will live this contradiction for a very very long time. But that doesn’t mean to believe this to be the only way. There may come a time, when all lives, regardless of which species they belong to, are valued equally. And that no living being is subject to the pains and sufferings that we now believe to be part of “how the nature works.” That will be a world that probably has no resemblance to the one we currently live in, but nevertheless can be as real and as meaningful, maybe even more.

One hopes.