The Silent Witness of Violence: Nature
The video of a donkey being forced to smoke in Karpaz sparked widespread outrage on social media. While at first glance it may seem like an isolated act of animal cruelty, experts warn that such incidents reflect a much deeper societal and environmental issue. According to experts, mistreatment of animals is not just an individual act of cruelty, but rather a sign of deep-rooted indifference toward nature, living beings, and ethical values. Such behavior can have ripple effects stretching from ecosystems to societal structures.
In this context, we discussed the issue in depth with Asst. Prof. Dr. Nihal Bayır from the Faculty of Engineering at Cyprus International University (CIU). Dr. Bayır emphasizes the strong connection between animal welfare and environmental ethics, pointing out that the incident in Karpaz is a stark example of how a human-centered approach to nature can lead to devastating outcomes. Below, she explains the multifaceted impacts of animal cruelty—from environmental sustainability and rural development to social empathy and ethical responsibility.
1. Can you assess the recent incident in Karpaz, which was a donkey being forced to smoke, from the perspectives of environmental awareness and environmental ethics? What are the potential impacts on the ecosystem if such incidents persist?
The incident involving a donkey being forced to smoke should not be interpreted as a simple act of violence against an animal. It points to serious problems in terms of environmental awareness and ethics. From an environmental consciousness standpoint, it highlights a disregard for animal rights and an utter lack of consideration for the fact that animals have emotions. It reveals a failure in instilling love and respect for nature and animals through education. Nature is viewed solely as a usable resource. From an environmental ethics perspective, this treatment reflects an anthropocentric mindset—seeing nature as existing solely for human use. The failure to recognize animals as individuals with the right to live and be well undermines their inherent value. Ethically, such actions harm not only the animals but also the shared values of society and nature itself. Even if such events appear isolated, they can lead to broader ecological consequences. In areas intertwined with wildlife, cruelty toward animals can threaten other species and disrupt peace and balance in the ecosystem. Stress in local species may lead to migration or disruption in reproductive behavior, ultimately disturbing the natural balance. Socially, such incidents weaken the culture of living in harmony with nature and can also harm tourism and the local economy.
2. What are the ecological consequences of such acts toward domestic or wild animals in terms of biodiversity and ecosystem balance?
In biologically sensitive regions like Karpaz, species such as wild donkeys can lose their health, behavioral balance, or reproductive patterns due to human interference. When one species is harmed, chain reactions can occur in species that feed on or are fed by it. Animals that are repeatedly disturbed or abused may deviate from natural behavior—fearing or becoming aggressive toward humans. Ecotourism, which depends on observing wildlife, suffers when animals are harmed. As native species decline, their empty ecological niches may be filled by invasive species that are often more harmful and harder to control. Natural processes such as seed dispersal and nutrient cycles are disrupted—herbivores control plant populations and fertilize the soil with their waste. Harming these animals means the loss of these ecological services. If violence toward animals becomes normalized, other environmental harms may also be legitimized. A decline in societal respect and a sense of belonging to natural spaces makes conservation increasingly difficult.
3. Is animal cruelty just an individual ethical issue, or part of a broader environmental mindset? How would you evaluate this?
Hurting an animal is primarily related to the individual's moral values, capacity for empathy, and sense of responsibility. It involves violating fundamental ethical principles such as conscience, compassion, and justice. Such individuals tend to see living beings as objects and disregard their emotions. However, these behaviors don’t occur in a vacuum—they arise within specific cultural and environmental structures. Cruelty reflects a mindset of human dominance over nature. It stems from the belief that animals are valuable only insofar as they serve humans, reducing them to exploitable beings. This view leads not only to animal abuse but also to a general disrespect for nature. In other words, animal cruelty is a reflection of a cultural structure that objectifies nature and consumes it with a disposable mindset.
4. What is the connection between animal rights and environmental protection?
Animal rights and environmental protection are deeply and directly interconnected. Both aim to approach nature from a non-anthropocentric, inclusive, and ethical perspective. They share foundational values such as non-violence, empathy, responsibility, and justice, redefining the human-nature relationship by positioning humans as a part of nature rather than its master.
5. What role can environmental education and awareness play in preventing such incidents?
Many people are unaware of why they should respect nature and animals. Environmental education not only provides knowledge but also nurtures sensitivity, shapes values, and most importantly, aims to change behavior. It fosters empathy, a sense of shared living, and ethical responsibility. Awareness can be raised through public service announcements, documentaries, social media campaigns, and local media. Education and awareness efforts can reduce the number of individuals who harm animals by clarifying the consequences of their actions. They promote a more respectful, sustainable approach to nature, increase social awareness, empower citizens to protect animals and nature, and help laws gain broader support through a more informed public.
6. What steps should be taken to increase environmental awareness in rural communities?
Environmental education should be held in accessible community spaces such as village coffeehouses, local councils, and farming cooperatives. It should be practical, experience-based, and supported with visual materials rather than just theory. Content must be relevant to daily life. Influential local figures—like imams, teachers, and community leaders—should actively participate.
Instead of printed materials, more effective tools like video screenings, short films, posters, and radio announcements should be used. For children and youth, creative methods like nature games, environmental competitions, and theater can be employed. Tangible projects like tree planting, recycling initiatives, or building shelters for stray animals should involve the community. People must understand both their rights and responsibilities in protecting animals and nature. Special focus should be given to informing them of legal consequences.
7. What are the indirect impacts of such individual irresponsibility on environmental sustainability?
Animal cruelty disrupts natural cycles in ecosystems. Especially in rural areas, such behavior can frighten wildlife, cause migration, or disrupt reproductive cycles, leading to biodiversity loss and the disappearance of key elements maintaining local ecological balance. Behaviors like polluting water sources, littering in nature, or lighting careless fires in forests endanger the sustainability of natural resources in the long term. Each irresponsible act also sets a negative example for others. “If they’re doing it, I can too” leads to widespread lawlessness and apathy. In regions reliant on tourism, agriculture, and animal husbandry, environmental damage results in direct economic losses. Irresponsible behavior undermines the impact of environmental education and policy on the ground and severs people’s emotional and cultural ties to nature.
8. Is there a relationship between society’s treatment of animals and their general view of the environment? In societies with low environmental awareness, is there also a lack of sensitivity to animal welfare?
A lack of empathy, ethical responsibility, education, and information, along with a worldview that sees humans as superior and animals/nature as tools, underlies both environmental and animal insensitivity. Societies that value animals usually also value nature, as they do not see animals as separate from their ecosystems.
For example, someone who feeds stray animals often also cares about environmental cleanliness; someone who values tree planting may also work to protect wildlife habitats. In societies with low environmental awareness, animal abuse is more common, stray animals are ignored or seen as problems, shelters are neglected, laws are not enforced, and this widespread indifference can even lead to a lack of empathy between people.
9. In the context of environmental ethics, what are the responsibilities of individuals and the government?
Individuals are responsible for behaving in environmentally conscious ways, respecting animals and nature, and responding to environmental harm.
They also bear the responsibility to be informed and socially engaged—researching environmental issues, spreading awareness, teaching nature ethics to their children and community, supporting environmental NGOs, volunteering, and participating in local decision-making.
The government is primarily responsible for legislation and enforcement. It must establish and implement laws that protect nature and animals, enforce penalties for environmental crimes, and ensure accountability. The state should also make environmental education compulsory in schools, raise public awareness through media campaigns, and conduct targeted outreach in rural areas. Furthermore, policies across agriculture, transportation, energy, and urban planning should prioritize nature conservation. Strategies must be developed to safeguard biodiversity, water resources, and natural habitats for future generations, while also promoting green and circular economies.
10. How should our approach to nature and animals be shaped not just by law, but also by a sense of social responsibility?
Laws draw boundaries and define what cannot be done. Social responsibility, on the other hand, instills consciousness and guides us toward what should be done.