If Animals Had Rights, It Would Be Incumbent Upon Us To Protect The Rights Of The Mouse And The Impala

Image: Pinterest

My friend John Nash explains animal rights.

Here are a few of my thoughts on animal rights…


As Darwin and Wallace discovered, nature has neither rules nor plan.  If a creature survives in its time and place, it lives long enough to reproduce and carry on but if not, it loses the competition and disappears. Evolution doesn’t take prisoners.

What appears to be a green and pleasant land to many people is, in fact, a vast and silent war, where even the nodding daffodils, beautiful as they are, are involved in a grim struggle for light, water and resources.  As Tennyson observed, nature is indeed red in tooth and claw.  Mother Nature is less like kindly Gaia and more like a homicidal old biddy with an abiding interest in scything down the very old, the very young, the sick and the disabled.

To protect ourselves from the competition of nature, we made use of caves and other physical and social arrangements inside which to nurture our kind and reproduce, safe from the violence and dangers outside.  Outside, in nature, there were no rules, but inside the cave, we had to have rules – “the rule of nurture”.  They are simply stated as, “sharing and fair exchange without violence”.

To compete “outside” in nature required very different characteristics to co-operate “inside” and nurture.  Evolution and biology conspired to leave men with statistically more objectivity (the ability to see a living creature as a “thing”, necessary to do the killing and gutting necessary to win and defend resources in nature) and leave women with statistically more subjectivity with which to nurture our kind.  This dichotomy is the source of all the caveman jokes, but it served us well and today there are more that seven billion of us.

Looking at it rather mechanically, men put resources into one side of the cave and women released children out of the other.  The two functions are entirely different, equal and complimentary, like the two halves of a wheel.

Our cave is still with us.  Today it is an intellectual cave of amazing complexity that we call civilisation.  And the rules of the cave, the rules of nurture, are still with us too, now evolved in complexity and today called our morals and ethics.  We use those morals and ethics as a standard against which to make judgements like “good” and “bad” or “kindness” and “cruelty”, and we use them to underpin our human rights.

But they are still the “indoor” rules of the human cave.   Outside, in nature, there are no rules.  That is why a cat can spend half an hour torturing a mouse to death in interesting ways, but it is not cruel – it is merely nature.  A hyena can pull the innards out of a living impala while the poor creature stands shivering in agony until death releases it, but it is not immoral – it is merely nature.  Nature doesn’t have rules.  It doesn’t have “good” or “bad”, or “kind” or “cruel”.  These are things of the human cave.  Nature doesn’t work that way.  Nature doesn’t care.

It shows why “animal rights” have no foundation.  Nature neither needs nor wants the rules of the human cave.  If animals had rights, it would be incumbent upon us to protect the rights of the mouse and the impala, and intervene to prevent the cat and the hyena from taking away their right to life.  But in doing so, we would take away the rights of the cat and the hyena to live and eat.  So we give the cat and the hyena back their rights, but in doing so, we would take them away from the mouse and the impala.  It is clearly nonsense.  The whole concept is  the intellectual equivalent of a one-legged man in an arse-kicking contest – amusing but a waste of time.   Animals don’t have rights.

So why are animal rights such a prominent argument?  Well, apart from bank robber Willie’s famous retort, “Cos that’s where the money is”, there is a more fundamental reason.  To continue the caveman analogy, we could say that nature is “male” or objective (without human emotion) in principle, while civilisation is “female” or subjective (incorporates human emotion).   The more civilised societies become, the more “female” societies become.  In conditions of shortage or threat, societies tend to drift more towards the right “objective” side, but after prolonged  periods of peace and plenty, they tend to drift more to the left “subjective” side.  You don’t hear people discussing animal rights during a war or a famine.  Only well-fed, well-protected people talk this way.

Western nations have enjoyed peace and prosperity for three generations, so an inevitable drift to the subjective left is evident.  “Male” interests – discipline, science, hunting, military and competition – are all losing favour, while “female” nurturing interests of relationships, attractiveness, popularity, the arts and automatic rights are gaining.  We have been so cosseted and well-fed in our civilised caves for so long that many people are completely unaware how nature operates.

To extend human rights, the “indoor” rules of human civilisation, over the wild animals of “outdoor” nature would be an act of anthropocentric colonialism that would destroy nature faster than any bulldozer in the forests of the Amazon or Indonesia.


John Nash




Ron Thomson

I am NOT a ‘trophy hunter’ - and never have been. I am not involved in the trophy hunting safari business. I am also not a game rancher. But I have ‘administratively controlled’ professional hunters and safari outfitters in my capacity as a government game warden. I am an 80 year old ex-game warden with 60 years of continuous experience in hands-on wildlife management, and national park management, in Africa (1959 to 2019). In breakdown, I have 24 years experience in the management of national parks in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe - and in the management of the wild animal populations that lived inside those national parks; one year as the Chief Nature Conservation of the Ciskei in South Africa; three years as Director of the Bophuthatswana National Parks Board in South Africa; and I worked for three years as a professional hunter in the South African Great Karoo (taking foreign hunters on quests for plains game trophies). I discovered, however, that professional hunting was not my forte. I worked as an investigative wildlife journalist for 30 years in South Africa. I have written fifteen books and hundreds of magazine articles on the subject of wildlife management and big game hunting in Africa. Five of my books are university-level text books on wildlife management. I am a university-trained ecologist; was a member of the Institute of Biology (London) for 20 years; and was a registered chartered biologist for the European Union for 20 years. I have VAST experience in the “management hunting” of elephants, buffaloes, lions, leopards and hippos (as part of my official national park work in the control of problem animals); and I pioneered the capture of black rhino in Zimbabwe’s Zambezi Valley (1964 - 1970). My university thesis was entitled: “The Factors Affecting the Survival and Distribution of Black Rhinos in Rhodesia”. Look at my personal website if you want any further details about my experience: www.ronthomsonshuntingbooks.co.za.

Ron Thomson has 279 posts and counting. See all posts by Ron Thomson

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.