Webb 1

Makani Webb

Prof. Sharyn Hunter

English 1201 Online

23 February 2019

A Symbiotic Relationship

A symbiotic relationship: when two types of animals form a pact that brings benefits to

both sides. Typical benefits in these associations include food, safety, cleanliness, relief from

pests, and a home. Human associations with other animals are anything but mutually beneficial.

The animals, such as cows and other livestock, we gain resources are not given advantages in

return and the animals that profit from us, such as flies and other scavengers, we strive to

eradicate. What if we, as a race, changed in order to form a symbiotic relationship with other

species? Adapting cities to accommodate wild animals, while difficult at first, could affect both

animals and people positively in the long run.

How could life be better? How would this plan affect humankind? Imagine walking

through a city, maybe Cincinnati or Columbus. Perhaps while crossing the street, one notices

how the trash that was once cluttering the streets was cleaned. Walking through the city, one

would see lizards skittering across the sides of buildings or coyotes padding along the side of the

street. Wildlife parks stand within walking distance, and woods line the city edges. Picture

driving through a highway, where a glass tunnel instead of open sky protects cars from head-on

collisions with deer and other wildlife.

To make this possible, city planners must consider the following:

● The background information concerning our relations with animals

 Webb 2

● The advantages of changing those relations

● The information about how activists change things

● The basic steps to create this new vision into reality

● The concerns and objections of citizens

Whether everyday people have accepted animal intelligence or not, scientists have

concluded it for a fact: They no longer ask the question ‘are they intelligent’, but ‘what are they

capable of (“Animal Intelligence”). Animals are now being tested for skills such as problem-

solving, mathematical skills, memory, and communication (“Animal Intelligence”). Even

reactions and emotions are being tested (“Animal Intelligence”).

Since animals are intelligent, one might say that humans should accept them and treat

them differently. A major problem with this line of thinking is that it is not realistic to expect

these animals to abide by human laws which they will have to in order to truly give them rights.

What humans can do is give them protection. One way of doing this is to make our cities a

sanctuary. Animals, such as coyotes and fishing cats, have been hiding in human cities for refuge

and easy food (Bisceglio).

When humans have conflicts with animals, especially those labeled as pests, it

customarily ends with death. If one sees a spider, it is typically squashed. When someone has

small mammals stealing food, they leave out booby-trapped or poisoned bait. Marc Bekoff points

out that this practice continues to be inhumane, as “animals that [sic] ingest anticoagulants bleed

to death over the course of days or weeks” (qtd. in Bekoff). Faster poisons, on the other hand,

may take collateral damage such as the family’s curious cat or hungry dog. Neither fast nor slow

is effective in any case (Bekoff), nor does it reflect well on humankind’s relations with other
 Webb 3

beings of intelligence, ones who share the planet. Since both sides are intelligent, they should

treat each other with more respect, as an act of courtesy.

Since no good argument focuses solely on ethics, one has to wonder what the direct

advantages to this proposed city of sanctuary. While many people can list advantages on the

animal side of things, such as a sanctuary from human threat and food, the advantages to humans

can be hard to figure out, despite being very important to us. One should remember that whatever

changes humans make to society will affect every single human child. Children will have the

chance to learn more about the world humans currently ignore in favor of technology. In

addition, the technological and economical changes humans would need to make would cause a

new series of advancements in science, plus the progress caused by a chance to investigate wild

animals. By planting more trees or making more parks to accommodate animals, city-dwellers

help themselves by providing more relaxing parks and cleaner air.

On the other side of things, animals have advantages beyond food and shelter.

Investigations have indicated animals who spend time with humans become more curious, more

aware of traffic, and better at hiding and hunting (Bisceglio; Gorman and Whitworth). A video of

one such study included tests on both a wild and domesticated orangutan (Gorman and

Whitworth). In it, a domesticated orangutan displayed considerable curiosity, by eating food and

solving puzzles the wild orangutan refused to get near. Between food, shelter, a home, and the

psychological benefit of curiosity, the animals can receive plenty from a symbiotic relationship

with humans. Both sides get the added benefit of not being eaten by the other group while in the

city. Any animals who endeavor to eat anyone in a human household can be removed from the

city by force. Humans who try to kill any animals in the city can be put on trial because they are

citizens rather than guests.

 Webb 4

A major problem with this plan is the schism between meat-eaters and those who refuse

to eat meat due to animal cruelty in getting the meat. If humans prepare cities for animals, will

they still be permitted to eat meat? The answer is yes. While some may argue that eating meat

should never be permitted, to restrict a citizen’s diet by law would be a violation of that citizen’s

rights. Animals are, however, dealt with cruelly when it comes to the food industry. Laws should

be made to either deal with this or to switch to a different system entirely. Hunting provides the

possibility of providing meat. However, it may not be able to sustain an entire country unless

there were many volunteers. Humans would need to be careful to keep from wiping out an entire

species due to the sheer number of humans. This solution may not be enough to persuade vegan

animal rights activists, however.

One might wonder if the problem between meat-eaters and vegans could even be solved.

If one were to find a workable solution to a quarrel, especially one that considers both sides, it is

to be understood that the dispute will end, albeit with grumbling at first. The best compromises

work both cases into a single solution, yet sacrifices aspects of the reasoning that directly conflict

with the main part of the opposing argument. One might also wonder how changing the cities

could be the solution. What about the farms and the cruelty there? How will meat-eaters get

meat? In truth, accepting wildlife is not the solution. A solution means someone has found

something that covers or adequately dismisses every single aspect of the problem. Animal rights

is a deep problem and exploring its depths will take time. Changing our cities is not the solution

in its whole, but a step in the right direction.

In the quarrel for animal rights, activists illegally harm many business owners through

threats or destruction of merchandise (Sancenito), although it is not the whole group to be

blamed. There are three types of activists: activists who make public protests within the law,
 Webb 5

activists who break minor laws to frighten or annoy business owners, and activists who break

major laws to stop business owners by force (Sancenito 19). If someone finds the solution to this

problem, it should stop overly fanatical animal rights activists from breaking the law. Any step to

that solution will help business owners who sell animal products or meat from being under

attack.

Plenty of animal rights activists argue that we have some kind of obligation to animals

but differ on what it is. One source argues that animals should have the same rights as humans

and names them as the right to live, to be free, to not suffer, to be cared for by humans, to own

property, and to be protected by the law (Stojanović). Another author claims that we are

obligated to treat animals as the result rather than the method (Korsgaard). These people are right

to an extent. We do have an obligation to consider an animal’s best interests and to prevent their

suffering, but we also have the right to eat meat if we so wish, just as the animals do. We need to

find a solution to keep these rights in mind. Cities for both animals and humans begin to bring

these issues into the light and may allow us to further the goal of a mutually beneficial

relationship.

As mentioned earlier, animals have been living in our cities. In Colombo, Sri Lanka,

fishing cats have taken up residence (Bisceglio). Bisceglio reports that Anya Ratnayaka

discovered the change and began working to investigate. She put a GPS-collar on the fishing cat

whom she met when she first discovered the invasion of the fishing cats. According to her data,

the fishing cat, whom she calls Mizuchi, finds the city comfortable and moves through it with

ease.

Unfortunately, Anya Ratnayaka suspects incoming problems for fishing cats (Bisceglio).

Fishing cats have been killed, by accident or on purpose. Some have been run over by cars,
 Webb 6

others had been killed because humans were afraid despite fishing cats not being known for

attacking humans or because the fishing cats were stealing chickens or snatching domestic

kittens. These are problems that we need to fix in order to design this idealized city. Ratnayaka

suggests simple things, such as planting trees by the sidewalk for birds to sit. Her friend, Jim

Sanderson, says that we can modify parts of the cityscape to be an advantage to both animals and

people (Bisceglio).

If society chooses to build cities for both animals and humans it can greatly reduce the

dangers that come when they choose to live with them. If humans can find a way to prevent

animals from running onto the road and being hit, they can come up with a number of solutions.

Perhaps highways can be enclosed to prevent animals from running onto them and speed limits

can be reduced to ensure more careful drivers to prevent accidents involving death, injury, and

the destruction of cars. Campaigns can be run to inform the populace of which animals have been

known to attack people to prevent panic. Pet and companion animals can be kept indoors or on-

leash, at least in the city. In addition, we can make the sidewalk a place for animals to walk on,

allow easy access to natural habitats nearby, or modify anything animals consistently use.

To change cities, the steps will be as follows: figure out the dangers to urban animals and

neutralize them, determine out the natural environment of creatures who may move to the city

and provide access, conclude what animals are using and assist their use of it while preventing

them from accidentally hurting themselves, decide out ways to innovate the city for both animals

and humans. Finally, city-dwellers need to create a system to keep the city clean of wrappers or

trash. This may sound like a lot of work and a lot of thinking. However, the benefits of doing this

work will include ones for ourselves. In the process of changing the city, it will be cleaner with

available wild areas. It will have trees providing fresh air to nullify the effect of smog. By
 Webb 7

blocking animals from entering highways, drivers not only protect the animals but also protect

themselves from the damage caused by hitting a deer. In this way, the new cities will be better

than before.

Imagine, for a moment, that these new cities succeed. Imagine that society went through

the hard work of changing the cities for the animals and for us, and a century has passed. What

would that life look like? Cities would appear cleaner and run more efficiently because of the

systems society made to keep the city clear of trash. Animals would freely roam the city, seen or

unseen, to no one’s surprise or concern. One might see technology created to prevent the injury

of animals, such as self-driving cars or perhaps cars that do not even travel across the ground.

Young adventurers explore the woods, swamps, or fields more instead of texting and chatting on

Facebook. The air around the city would be healthier because of the trees city-dwellers planted.

We would find a million inconceivable changes started by the campaign to change the cities and

innovations previously undreamed. Human-kind would walk hand-in-paw with animals into a

new era of harmony.

 Webb 8

Fig. 1. Animals, even dangerous predators, have formed deep relations with humans, and

can once more (“Lion hugging his human friend”)

This vision, while optimistic, can be made a reality through hard work. This planet’s

future belongs to us, and someday, our children will have to deal with what we make of it. If we

have the chance to make a better future, why not? If we can change things to benefit our

offspring, what prevents us? What hinders us from going forward and saying, ‘I did my best to

create a better life’?

One might worry if this plan will even be accepted as the right solution. Like in all

things, there will be differing opinions. These opinions may end up like this: Conservationists

like Anya Ratnayaka will likely accept this because it provides a nice way to conserve urban

animals. Abolitionists may not because they believe that we should not use animals. Vegans will

split between yes and no because some will think we should not eat meat at all and others may

accept a less cruel way of obtaining meat. Business owners will also split between those who

think that the solution will hurt their chances of business and those who seek relief from the

extreme animal rights activists that I have mentioned earlier. Meat-eaters could either leap at the

chance to clean the cities, help the animals, and/or find a peaceful solution or they could have no

opinion at all, being unresolved in the conflict. Fearful parents or pet-parents may be against it in

concern for their families at first but could be convinced by the campaigns informing on the

danger levels of certain animals. Society’s insecurities will not act as a preventive to the plan if

one uses an effective marketing strategy and education campaign.

Another question one might wonder is if a symbiotic relationship with animals is even

possible when there is a communication barrier between humans and other animals. This brings

up a good point. Animal mouths are not equipped for human speech, nor are humans equipped
 Webb 9

for animal body language, especially since it may involve the use of tails. Even if people can

figure out how to communicate, how can we explain the definition of or figure out the terms for

concepts such as rhetoric, politics, or change? Especially to animals who live alone, without

hierarchy. One might think that this would prevent the creation of an animal-friendly city, but

they would be wrong. The ability to communicate will not matter. Humans can change the city

proactively, and since, as remarked earlier, the animals are already adapting to cities, they will

likely come on their own. Individual predators who genuinely and specifically endanger human

lives, such as those who have tasted human flesh, can be moved, given a GPS collar, and kept

from cities by humans alerted to its approach. Humankind does not need to communicate its

intentions to change things. Any animal adaption to the changes comes with time, in the same

way as Anya Ratnayaka’s fishing cat friend Mizuchi acclimated to the city.

When I look at nature, I see that it is all about balance. In a symbiotic relationship, each

side gets benefits. In this case, nature strikes a balance between what is typically host and helpful

houseguests, such as with anemone and clownfish. Humans are not truly a part of this balance,

although, we could be. We can choose to strike a balance between us and other animals, in this

case, playing host. By changing our cities to build a mutually beneficial pact between us and

animals, we can take our part in the balance and assist those who share the planet with us. We

can create a better life for ourselves and lead the world into a bright new future.
 Webb 10

Works Cited

“Animal Intelligence.” New Scientist, New Scientist, www.newscientist.com/article-

topic/animal-intelligence/.

Bekoff, Marc. “Killing Animals In The Name Of Conservation Needs To Stop.” The Huffington

Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 14 Mar. 2017, www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rather-than-

kill-animals-softly-dont-kill-them_us_58b6ec57e4b0e5fdf6197950.

Bisceglio, Paul. “Are Cities Making Animals Smarter?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company,

16 Aug. 2018, www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/08/cities-animal-intelligence-

fishing-cats/567538/.

Gorman, James, and Christopher Whitworth, directors. In Captivity, Orangutans Unlock Greater

Curiosity and Intelligence. The New York Times, The New York Times, 12 Dec. 2017,

www.nytimes.com/video/science/100000005592392/in-captivity-orangutans-unlock-

greater-curiosity-and-intelligence.html.

Korsgaard, Christine M. “Fellow Creatures Our Obligations to the Other Animals.” Scholarly

and Reference E-Books, ebooks.ohiolink.edu.sinclair.ohionet.org/xtf-

ebc/view?docId=tei%2Fox%2F9780198753858%2F9780198753858.xml&query=&bran

d=default.

“Lion hugging his human friend”. Digital Image. People Talk. 17 Aug. 2015,

https://peopletalk.ru/article/kak-vzroslyiy-lev-obnimaet-cheloveka/. Accessed 18 Feb.

2019.

Sancenito, John. “Corporate Risk from Extremist Groups.” Journal of Business Continuity &

Emergency Planning, vol. 12, no. 1, Autumn/Fall2018 2018, pp. 17– 26. EBSCOhost,
 Webb 11

sinclair.ohionet.org:80/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&d

b=tsh&AN=131863434&site=eds-live.

Stojanović Nataša. “Which Animal Rights Should Be Recognised?” Anali Pravnog

Fakulteta u Beogradu, Vol 64, Iss 3, Pp 75-92 (2016), no. 3, 2016, p. 75. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.5937/AnaliPFB1603075S.