Poll Analysis: Should Rats that Wreck Havoc in a Marketplace be Culled?

111
Here is an analysis of the poll question ‘Should Rats that Wreck Havoc in a Marketplace be Culled?’ As of today, the results are:

35% : Hmmm, I dunno
33% : No way!
32% : Yes, definitely!

This poll question refers to the recent case of a local (Singaporean) open wet market that was discovered to be ‘infested’ with rats. As there was a deadly case of food-poisoning, there was a hunt to cull as many rats as possible. It is not unusual that this would be the usual approach the authorities would use, but is there a better solution? Yes. While the rats should be vacated, they needn’t be killed, but trapped and moved to be liberated in nature instead.

It is important to remember that poor hygiene and poor food packing lured the rats to come in the first place. In this sense, their presence is the fault of humans, not the rats who simply want to survive. We also need to remember that since the market is an open one, culling the present rats in no way guarantees that none will ever return. There is however a simple way to keep them out – by building a low-cost low wall around the market compound, that no rat can scale over. [I personally found it quite disturbing that the poll results reveal a balance of uncertainty of what to do with certainty of (not) killing. Killing should always be only the last resort – one seldom taken, if at all.]

    7 thoughts on “Poll Analysis: Should Rats that Wreck Havoc in a Marketplace be Culled?

    1. There have been instances in Zen parables, which animals were killed. There was a cat which was the source of debate that was killed by a monk himself.

      By building low wall around does not solve the problem. Rats can leap high, scale and still get into the food source / chain.

      There is no right or wrong here. However if you choose to die from a poisonous animal bite, what would be your choice?

    2. What are the killing koans? That cat koan was not an endorsement of killing. I think the low wall you envision is too low. There is right and wrong here – because killing can be avoided in this instance. :straight:

    3. The topic brings back some questions I have had for some time: Should we kill mosquitoes feeding on our blood? What if these are Aedes mosquitoes? If it is possible to eliminate the mosquito specie, should man do it? Or should we let nature take its course because everyone(human) and everything (insects and animals) deserve their own karma?

    4. If a mosquito only wants a drop of our blood, why should we want its life? I once saw what seemed to be an Aedes mosquito land on me. I paused a while, unsure what to do. I then decided to shoo it off. It’s not the best solution because if it is an Aedes mosquito, it might bite someone else. I think humans have to learn to co-exist and work on improving their own karma, such that they won’t die due to animals. The fault is not really theirs, but ours. What if aliens see us as pests when they arrive? We wouldn’t want them to kill us. 🙁

    5. Hi Brothers & Sisters in the dhamma,
      Researchers use the mice as field trial for their discovery/invention. Using it for the improvement of our livelihood? So I should consider the act as noble.Intention of the mind & the thought process play an important role in the cultivation & purification of oneself. In this light, I would share my view.

    6. The issue of killing the mosquito would not have arisen if not for the conditions for the mosquito to exist there and then. But since it now exists, perhaps not through the fault of “me” but fellow human beings, how should I take it from there? What if the bug transferred were fatal?
      Is it not oft that we use temporary “solutions” (be it culling or the low wall) to pick up debris downstream for human actions? Since as one man, or a group of human beings, we could never determine the actions of all, does it mean we should stick to temporary “solutions” for that temporary effectiveness, instead of “futile” fundamentals?

    7. Hmmm… but many experiments don’t need animal testing. Something is noble only when it benefits all parties involved. If we are rats, would we rejoice in humans using us to experiment for their sole benefit? It wouldn’t be right to be happy that others are exploiting us selfishly, without compassion.

      Mosquitoes would not be bred if we do not provide breeding conditions where we live. Others might want to kill ’em all but we need not join in the killing. We just need to spread the message of how to prevent breeding. It is after all the one true solution to curb the problem, to nip it in the bud. The ‘temporary solution’ of killing creates negative karma, which makes it not a real solution for the curbing of suffering. That said, it seems that many will still go for temporary solutions. Usually, the thing harder to do is the right thing!

    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.