In fact, three entities directly benefit in such a commercial transaction:
1. the capturer - for earning some money,
2. the customer - for feeling good about giving a bird a chance to flee (and whatever metaphysical satisfaction the customer might derive from it),
3. the bird - for getting a chance to flee.
But a good economic analysis must follow the chain of transactions from beginning to end, or else you end up with
suboptimization. As far as the bird is concerned, the transaction begins when he is captured. Therefore the
net benefit of the transaction to him is
negative. He would be better off if he had never been captured and had not needed to be released.
Of course somewhere in the back of the room a psychologist is muttering something about the value of a "growth experience."
I know when I was a dumb kid and we used to chase jackrabbits (actually not rabbits but a large species of American hare) across the desert on our dirt bikes we always justfied it by saying it made them stronger, faster and more nimble so they could get away from the coyotes. (Hares nest aboveground so they have no warrens to escape into.)
People have the right to earn money.
Yes yes, and civilization has already made the decision that we have the right to earn that money at the expense of the comfort and even the survival of other species of animals. I'm a carnivore so I don't even argue with that, although I would like to see livestock treated more humanely even if that makes their meat more expensive. But the issue of
karma has been raised--however you define it. I think from a
cosmic perspective there's something a just a teeny bit wacky about claiming that causing animals nearly unbearable stress (some animals can die from shock just as humans can), in order to enjoy the sweet sensation of setting them free from a prison that they didn't even need to be in, is a
net improvement in the universe.
As I have noted already, this is a cavalier dismissal of the feelings of the bird. In economics that's just fine because economics is dismissively anthropocentric. But in the philosophy of the country where this transaction takes place, they claim that all species are part of the Grand Scheme of Things and if you're not careful you may come back as one of them, at the mercy of both nature and your (formerly) fellow man! Do they really want to wake up as a bird, with some guy trying to stuff them in a cage while their family flies away on their winter migration, so that another guy can pay the first guy to let them out?
And people have been paying freely for entertainment and a sense of spiritual elevation for millenia anyway.
Yes, I understand. I do have a degree in accounting after all. This discussion has two levels: microeconomics and philosophy. Let's not mix them up.
In that case, your objection to the practice of catching birds and releasing them upon payment, is even more unbased.
I'm attempting to merely observe and comment, so forgive me if it comes across as objection. I'm hardly in a position to object to the morality of others except in its most extreme aspects such as war, racism, child abuse, etc.
Nonetheless I do get to wrinkle my forehead, ask questions, and make observations.
