I see morality as an inherently transactional thing; a universal contract between all moral agents. Humans in a culture together have certain transactional norms that they can expect from each other--you don't murder me, I don't murder you--and it seems to work out. With animals, though, you can't work out the same kind of deal. Most of them would do the same to us as we do to them, given the opportunity. They can and will act savagely towards us, so we are free to act savagely towards them. There are some exceptions--we seem to have worked out a good arrangement with dogs, for instance.
> I think we have a responsibility to hold ourselves to higher standards than that of a wolf or cheetah.
We may or may not have that responsibility, but we certainly don't meet it. History shows that people are at least as vicious as any animal you can name. This is something one tends to forget between wars, or in a place untouched by war.
> Suffering is bad. The fact that it occurs in nature is irrelevant.
The fact that it occurs everywhere in nature is absolutely relevant. Consider the rules of civilized society -- for example, everyone has the right to the pursuit of happiness. Some pursue happiness by having a lot of children, more than the planet can support. The result is widespread disease, starvation and war (otherwise known as "retroactive abortion").
It seems the high standards we've set for ourselves can result in (is resulting in) an unimaginable disaster, one in which everyone exercises their innate freedom of expression.
But there is a solution -- education. The very thing governments fear the most.
> Some pursue happiness by having a lot of children, more than the planet can support.
Perhaps more than their country or their own income can support. But with current technology we can farm enough calories every year to keep every body well fed. (Of course, they are not distributed equally at the moment. But the sum comes out right. And we haven't even really started farming the oceans. We are still mostly hunter-gatherers there.)
> with current technology we can farm enough calories every year to keep every body well fed.
False. Food growth rate increases arithmetically, based on available land. Population growth increases exponentially, based on reproductive potential. They cannot be compared -- population always increases until starvation limits the process, as modeled by the logistic function:
>> Food growth rate increases arithmetically, based on available land. Population growth increases exponentially,
> Sources?
It's called "mathematics." Fields of corn don't spawn little offspring fields of corn on adjacent plots of land, but people do spawn little offspring people. The first is an arithmetic increase (as long as there is still arable land), but the second is exponential.
> Malthus made the same mistake, if I remember right.
Nonsense. He predicted something that hasn't happened yet. If a geologist predicts an earthquake with a probability of 50% within 30 years, and 35 years pass without an earthquake, does that make him wrong?
Suffering is bad. The fact that it occurs in nature is irrelevant.