As the sun sets in the west, the Westernhero puts his injured steed out of its misery. In the cartoons, the strays flee the dog-catcher and his "mercy killing." "For Westerners, not to kill a suffering beast is 'maltreatment,' but if one kills an unusual animal to eat, like a dog, then it's 'cruelty,'" notes author Lee Lien-feng. She adds that Christianity teaches that man is the highest of beings, and must look after the animals with kindness.

Westerners criticize Orientals for killing a tiger or shrike to eat it as immoral behavior. But from the Chinese point of view, if foreigners eat beef, but refuse dog, or if some animal protection activists will eat seafood but not wild birds, this is like the famous scene in Dream of the Red Chamber where Tai-yu is accused of "false rectitude" because she can't get used to the things others were eating.

In the traditional Chinese view, all living things are on a par with each other. Since "the lives of man and beast are fundamentally equal," man and beast both have the nature of animals; man is like all living things--he kills life to eat. And since living things are equal, why eat one kind and not another?

In fact, in traditional Chinese thought, there is an exceptional feeling of "humanity" toward animals. The late philosopher Tang Chun-yi said that, where there is no conflict of interests, Chinese cannot bear to see them die. This goes even for the lowly rat. The Chinese poet has written, "Love the rat and leave a little rice; take pity on the moth and do not light the lamp." And where the Westerner will put the stray dog "to sleep," the Chinese believe that each minute of its life is possibly one more minute of happiness. It is only with urbanization that the Western view has been seen as more hygienic.

In particular, the Chinese people have been influenced by Buddhism and its philosophy of mercy, which prohibits the killing of even the fly or the mosquito. The humorist Lin Yu-tang has expressed his view that Buddhism prohibits taking life but doesn't deny that man is a carnivorous creature.

Cattle especially draw pity. Even today many older women refuse to eat beef be cause "the beast plows the field for man, and eating its meat is intolerable." Also, many people abstain from eating meat periodically even if they are not lifelong vegetarians.

In Confucianism, the true gentlemen must be "benevolent to the people, loving of things." The Book of Rites proscribes the chopping of a tree or the killing of a beast at the improper time "unfilial"--the worst offense. When the good emperor hunts, he leaves the prey an escape route. For all natural resources, including animals, the watchword is "there is a time to take, and be sparing in use."

Although America was the first place to have modern "national parks," records from the Chou Dynasty (1122-221 B.C.) indicate not only the setting aside of land for animals, but also the modern view that the survival of animals requires a "management office" and "national park law" with punishment of poachers. At the same time, while it was permitted at planting time to build traps to prevent animals from damaging the irrigation or crops, these had to be removed after the harvest.

Another deep influence on Chinese thought is Taoism. Because of the deep love in Taoism for one's spiritual freedom, that love is extended to those things around man, so that man's attitude is to spoil them.

In Chuang-tze's ideal era of perfect virtue, the dwelling places of man and beast would be mingled; man would not only coexist with the animals, but would roam with them and could climb the trees to peer into the homes of the birds. Though on the surface this is daydreaming, perhaps Chuang-tze did not mean that this vision be realized. Rather it is just the affirmation in traditional Chinese thought that man and beast both have life, and the hope to achieve "unconsciousness of the line between the world and myself."

But the real world does not always permit of such poetic sentiments toward animals. In the Northern Sung dynasty (960-1127), poets had a "fete for butterfly appreciation," where they drank wine, composed poetry, and reveled in the butterflies and fresh flowers of early spring. Peasants, meanwhile, had their "fete for butterfly eradication." Cater pillars eat crops, and peasants had to protect their crops.

The overseas Chinese environmentalist Hsieh Hsiao-tung says that Westerners regard the Chinese people's "Chuang-tze Butterfly Dream" parable with admiration. But the world of harmony envisioned by the philosophers and poets only exists in the thought of a few. Most people must struggle against nature to survive, and rarely deliberately seek harmonious relations with it.

Research Fellow Yih-Yuan Li of the Academia Sinica has been deeply exploring why "Chinese people love to use wild animals for dietary supplement," but has come up with different views.

He believes that Chinese have always sought harmony in three areas: with their bodies, with society, and with nature. To achieve the first, it is necessary to use food from without. Foods have been divided in Chinese medicine into "cool" and "hot" types. When one's "fires" are high, one should eat "cool" foods, when the body is "cold," one must "balance" with the "hot." This makes Chinese ask only of food: "will it 'balance'?", and not whether or not it is something one is accustomed to. Today most people can't distinguish definitively between "cool" and "hot," but the concept of dietary supplement remains ingrained.

Says Li, "It is necessary to start from this prioritization to understand why Chinese give the impression that 'if it moves, you can eat it'." Otherwise, one could wrongly make the superficial judgement that "people who eat those wild animals are beyond the pale of civilization."

Yih-Yuan Li also points out that traditionally Chinese had a very practical view of animals. He has borrowed the view of Western anthropologists that westerners viewed "unnatural" animals, such as the ostrich (a bird that can't fly) or the seahorse (it looks like a horse but lives in the water) as ominous. Chinese, on the other hand, looked at them positively. Nutritional anthropologists believe that animals such as the seahorse, sea slug, or pangolin were viewed as especially good for "dietary supplement" because of their special natures.

Chinese have not taken a scientific view of animals. The Compendium of Materia Medica of the Ming dynasty (1368-1644) was hailed by westerners as the greatest work of natural history of the 16th century, but in China it was used only for medical reference. Lee Lien-feng says Chinese often look at nature poetically, but don't research to find out what nature really is. If a Chinese and a Westerner catch a strange fish, the latter will want to classify it; the former will want to cook it. This argument is used by Lin Yu-tang as one reason why Chinese have not made major contributions to modern zoology.

Studying animals has given westerners a better appreciation of the need for their protection. How will Chinese face the situation of an ever-decreasing and thus ever-more valuable animal population?

For example, with protectionists all opposed to eating the shrike, Tsing Liu of the Taiwan Forestry Research Institute stands against the tide of opinion. He argues that if an animal is on the edge of extinction, of course it should be protected. As for the shrike which comes in large numbers, after scientific investigation shows it is not en dangered, judgement can be made as to whether it is a resource for eating, watching, or both. Then a concrete method for protection can be set, and both use and protection will be rational.

Times are changing: As modern Chinese, how will we treat our intimate partners in this world?

[Picture Caption]

The animals in Chinese art are mostly impressionistic. (photo by Arthur Cheng)

The West emphasizes scientific research; animals are often turned into stuffed specimens.

The Buddhist ethic of "letting living things be free" has taken on a modern nature; you catch them, I'll buy them and set them free!

"There is a time for cutting trees; there is a time for killing beasts." Is this ethic so hard to follow? Pictured is an environmental protectionist who is trying to stop the excessive cutting of forest.

Two birds in the bush are really not worth one in the hand? It would be tough for most to realize the reasoning of "raising a bird is not as good as planting a tree" where birds will come to live.

Although the nets used to catch fish in the fishing and hunting age were primitive, at least they didn't pose the danger of wiping out a species at a single stroke.

You are also one of us: "Let's take a picture of the whole family."

From the point of view of natural history, conflict between man and beasts was a natural fact before societies took shape. (photo from Taiwan: Three Hundred Years published by Outdoor Life magazine)

The animals in Chinese art are mostly impressionistic.

The West emphasizes scientific research; animals are often turned into stuffed specimens.

The Buddhist ethic of "letting living things be free" has taken on a modern nature; you catch them, I'll buy them and set them free!

"There is a time for cutting trees; there is a time for killing beasts." Is this ethic so hard to follow? Pictured is an environmental protectionist who is trying to stop the excessive cutting of forest.

Two birds in the bush are really not worth one in the hand? It would be tough for most to realize the reasoning of "raising a bird is not as good as planting a tree" where birds will come to live.

Although the nets used to catch fish in the fishing and hunting age were primitive, at least they didn't pose the danger of wiping out a species at a single stroke.

From the point of view of natural history, conflict between man and beasts was a natural fact before societies took shape. （photo from Taiwan: Three Hundred Years published by Outdoor Life magazine）

You are also one of us: "Let's take a picture of the whole family.".