With the almost limitless types of life forms, some sometimes wonder if there is an equivalency or a hierarchy to life. Some say because the life-giver is the source of that life and all things that live have similar functions if not appearance, that life is life and therefore the same wherever it is found, all lives have equal value.
Whether we believe creation or that other thing, we must agree that no living thing can survive without consuming some other life, except plants. Creating life would have been a useless act unless a means were provided for it's survival and continuation. On the other hand, a life form crawling out of slime would have already had some kind of external food source to grow and develop. It appears that no matter what the source of life is, the resulting life cannot survive without consuming some other life of equal or lesser value.
All life does have value even if it is only as a food source for other lives but it seems that lives which are subservient to others must be lesser in value than the one which consumes it. Again, since living things can survive only by eating other living things, those lives at the top of the food chain would seem to be superior to all the lives below it on the chain. If you were the life-giver, how would you have done it? Nothing which is, or was not at some time, alive can sustain other life.
But there are life forms which serve multiple purposes but nearly all are in service to human life. They serve as work animals, companions, guards or providers of beauty. None of these functions is a requirement for their existence but are imposed on them by man. Some seem to enjoy the relationship. When an affection for a human is shown by a domesticated animal, it can't be certain whether it is due to an internal quality or the fact that the human has provided food and shelter for it.
In the end, all life should be respected and appreciated for itself and for its contribution to the overall plan of life and survival. Each, for a period of time, reflects the creator and is subservient to him. Without their life there could not be ours.
Whether we believe creation or that other thing, we must agree that no living thing can survive without consuming some other life, except plants. Creating life would have been a useless act unless a means were provided for it's survival and continuation. On the other hand, a life form crawling out of slime would have already had some kind of external food source to grow and develop. It appears that no matter what the source of life is, the resulting life cannot survive without consuming some other life of equal or lesser value.
All life does have value even if it is only as a food source for other lives but it seems that lives which are subservient to others must be lesser in value than the one which consumes it. Again, since living things can survive only by eating other living things, those lives at the top of the food chain would seem to be superior to all the lives below it on the chain. If you were the life-giver, how would you have done it? Nothing which is, or was not at some time, alive can sustain other life.
But there are life forms which serve multiple purposes but nearly all are in service to human life. They serve as work animals, companions, guards or providers of beauty. None of these functions is a requirement for their existence but are imposed on them by man. Some seem to enjoy the relationship. When an affection for a human is shown by a domesticated animal, it can't be certain whether it is due to an internal quality or the fact that the human has provided food and shelter for it.
In the end, all life should be respected and appreciated for itself and for its contribution to the overall plan of life and survival. Each, for a period of time, reflects the creator and is subservient to him. Without their life there could not be ours.
No comments:
Post a Comment