On Gerald the giraffe

There has been quite a lot of cover of the disposal of a giraffe by Copenhagen Zoo (see http://zoo.dk/BesogZoo.aspx or if you lack Danish http://uk.zoo.dk/VisitZoo.aspx), with full page coverage in both the DT and the Guardian, plus a piece by the venerable Mary Warnock in the latter. An oddly tentative piece for a newspaper, but a tentivity which catches my own feeling on the matter quite well.

My first objection is to the use of the word 'euthanase' for the slaughter of a young male animal. I grant that the OED makes no mention of age or illness in its article about the word, but in common usage the word is restricted to the old and infirm, is not used for the healthy. In this context, a euphemism for slaughter - while at the same time claiming that the slaughter helps us to a more healthy understanding of both life and death. Which it may well do, at least for the relatively small number of people present.

My second is that a giraffe is a sentient being, built on much the same lines as ourselves. It is conscious, although perhaps not in such a full blooded way as a normal human being. It can feel pain and may well feel other things like emotions. I once read a convincing account of the emotional life of cats and I see no reason why that of giraffes should be any poorer. We have no business bringing such an animal into the world, particularly such a large and beautiful animal, only to kill it. The fact that it then got fed to the lions, much as cows get fed to us, is, I think, beside the point. The feeding of the lions is secondary, what is primary is our desire to maintain a population of giraffes in zoos. Dressed up as a worthy desire to preserve diversity but really a desire to make a display for us humans. One should have a better reason for doing such a thing.

My third is that the zoo chose to make a public display of the slaughter and subsequent dissection of the giraffe. This may have made, as noted above, for the healthy understanding of the few, but did little for the dignity and comfort of the giraffe. Not so different from the circus displays of St. Perpetua's time in Carthage (see 10th January).

Mr fourth is that there is quite enough ugliness in the world without the wanton destruction of beauty. I would probably get just as steamed up about the destruction of a large and beautiful tree as that of a large and beautiful animal. In rather the same way I was saddened on our last visit to the Lake District by the extent of the spoil heaps from mines, which were spoiling indeed.

So where I end up is that if the giraffe really was surplus to requirements, it was OK to kill it, but it should have been done quietly and privately. And it would have been even better had it been aborted or killed at birth - the position on its genes being available at that point. No need to wait until the animal is alive, well and fully conscious to kill it. Better still, not conceived in the first place.

But I am not sure where all this takes me if one turns to nature reserves, where nature is encouraged to take its course as if it were the real thing and where the lions do the whole business, with no regard for giraffe welfare or dignity. So tentivity does indeed rule and one more thing to ponder about as one falls asleep on the train.