There is a new bill to ban horse slaughter in the U.S. This article argues it's arbitrary and based on a special-interest lobby.
This raises the question: Who gets to decide which animals are cute, noble, and worthy of protection? Or is there a better way? An actual defensible set of ethical, scientific, and reasonable criteria we can use to determine the protection specific animals should be afforded? In earlier pieces I have tried to lay out the beginning of such a method, and overall this has not been well-received by environmentalists here at Grist. So to the next poll question:
Sorry, the poll you are seeking no longer exists. If you’re in a voting mood, suggest a poll and you might just see it on the site.
‘The Cove’ pulls no punches in documenting Japanese dolphin hunt
Screwing up environment not so great for economy, studies find
Comments
View as Flat
caniscandida Posted 6:26 am
08 Nov 2006
That said, it must also be recognized that those concerns, while closely related, are not the same, and can come into conflict.
Anyway, answering "No" to the poll question, especially on account of that qualifying adverb "entirely," is hardly to make a very forceful statement.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:06 am
08 Nov 2006
I say "but" because sometimes the proper thing to do to preserve the environment means harming some animals. Would it be wise to stop restoring populations of predators like bears, eagles, wolves, et cetera because we don't want their prey to suffer? No. Would we stop using fire to restore natural areas because animals do die? No.
Furthermore, each of us inflict some suffering by our very existence. I suspect each of you lives in a house or an apartment. What lived on that land before you? Did someone carefully move the gopher out of the way before excavating for a foundation? Even vegetarians destroy vast areas of nature by tilling the soil to grow their food. If you are a vegetarian, do you ever think about the mammals and birds displaced by your food plants? Ever find a shredded frog in a bale of hay you might mulch your garden with? It is not pleasant, but I'm not going to off myself over it.
Life involves compromise. Life depends on killing. I believe, however, we are obligated to minimize the suffering we cause.
Can I comment on the horse issue itself? It seems distinct from the poll.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:17 am
08 Nov 2006
I suspect it is still important for enviromentalism to contain some sort of animal welfare component. Is there any science showing that a human who treats dogs, cat, horses, various farm critters, et cetera humanely will also have greater respect for wildlife? It seems that someone who might kick their dog for a good chuckle probably would also shoot an eagle for pure enjoyment.
Didn't our current President abuse frogs by putting firecrackers in them? Hmmm... any connection with his current policies?
Permalink
willa Posted 7:35 am
08 Nov 2006
I don't know of any stats on this specifically, but I think the answer to "Do people who are kind to domesticated animals behave better towards wild ones" is a qualified Yes. Someone who intentionally and reasonedly treats all domestic animals well is likely to be concerned for wildlife in that more abstract sense (I won't ever have a chance to physically care for or abuse a wild animal, but I still care about preventing them from suffering).
That said, most people who are kind to animals are only kind to some animals, and abstraction is indeed a big part of it. I can't tell you how many horsepeople I know who give to equine rescues and are, to the best of my knowledge, kind to their own horses--but still eat meat all the time! I have had, thus far, basically no luck getting the major fundraiser for the horse rescue my mom founded to go veg. People come for this trail ride and gourmet lunch, and they go out and ride their horses, come back and take their saddles off and give them carrots and groom them and make sure they have water and shade and whatnot--and then go eat chicken. It's odd.
So I'd like to say people who care about animals care about animals, period, but obviously it ain't so. Not too different than anything else, really--men who are totally respectful of their own wives and mothers have absolutely no shred of caring for the women getting raped and murdered in Sudan et al, loving PTA-participating parents don't care at all about conditions in third-world orphanages or even in foster care across town, etc, etc.
I do think that having an actual foundation behind one's theories helps; one can consistently show, for instance, that healthy attitudes towards domestic animals go hand in hand with healthy attitudes towards not engaging in domestic violence, say, and I'm guessing that extrapolates to health attitudes towards animals not physically under one's control, but I don't think that whether or not someone actually, physically kicks dogs accurately predicts whether he will either beat his wife or illegally hunt endangered species. If you see what I mean...
Permalink
KathyF Posted 4:11 pm
08 Nov 2006
I am a vegetarian, and this is one of many reasons why. Because by eating plants directly, I save many, many more of those mammals and birds than I would if I ate the massive amounts of plant matter I'd eat indirectly by consuming meat.
What do you think cows, chickens, and pigs eat?
Permalink
bookerly Posted 6:32 pm
08 Nov 2006
the health and well being of that peculiar animal known as "homo sapiens"?
IE, should we care about the poor and suffering people?
patrick
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:02 pm
08 Nov 2006
All living things on this planet are cousins. No one deserves any less than us homo saps, for too long the self-regarding, self-entitled ones. (I.e., all you non-homo-saps maybe deserve more; yes, you ducks and snails and zooplankton, you all deserve at least as much; I mean you!) We homo saps can think, and can feel, and can think and feel ethically: so we need to work out what our responsibility is to all our cousins, both those who thrive and those who do not thrive, in the biosphere.
On other matters:
Thanks, WiscIdea, in general, and for more specifically referring to environmentalists' protectionist attitude regarding eagles.
In fact, that attitude is hardly assured. And we have had for some time now a culturally conflicted issue, which I think has got only minimal coverage in the environmental press (in Audubon a while ago): the Hopi, and their treatment of captive young golden eagles. That is a huge issue, involving a number of huge values in conflict.
Thanks, KathyF, for your message. We should always remember the reptiles and amphibians, along with the mammals and birds; I am sure you do, and I only bring those critters up because I want to make sure that others remember the frogs and salamanders, and turtles and snakes and lizards. Quite unclear, what WiscIdea was forgetting, or suppressing, in that regard.
Thanks, Willa, for reminding us that our humanity remains closely related to our friendship for animals, and our care for them, and our refusal to allow them to suffer.
You wrote this remarkable paragraph:
<<
So I'd like to say people who care about animals care about animals, period, but obviously it ain't so. Not too different than anything else, really--men who are totally respectful of their own wives and mothers have absolutely no shred of caring for the women getting raped and murdered in Sudan et al, loving PTA-participating parents don't care at all about conditions in third-world orphanages or even in foster care across town, etc, etc.
>>
This should be received as a classic. There is no clearer writing, by an American, on American complacency and its ethical failure, in under a hundred words, than this.
I cannot help wondering what your "etc, etc." has hidden.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
willa Posted 10:49 pm
08 Nov 2006
Also, lest I sound holier-than-thou, I should point out that I myself was once a person who loved horses but didn't think even once about the morality of eating a steak. I got over it, but still.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:42 am
09 Nov 2006
(2) This particular line of discussion is addressing whether environmentalism must take into consideration animal welfare. And I was attempting to communicate that virtually every decision we makes inflicts some pain. We cannot allow animal welfare to guide every environmental decision, but we should minimize suffering. It really depends on the definition of animal welfare.
(3) I am not trying to justify consumption of meat.
Depending only on plants does not always save many many many more animals. There is land that cannot be used for growing vegetable protein. However, you can allow animals to graze on that land. Furthermore, this can be done in a responsible way that preserves native grassland, grassland that supports many many endangered species. Where I live, people are restoring native grassland. They are also raising bison and occassionally selling them as food. This seems better than converting the fields to soybeans.
In some parts of the world, this is the most efficient way to acquire protein. Would you suggest that herders living in the dry regions of Asia and Africa attempt to irrigate and till their poor soil, drain remote wetlands, deplete aquifers, cause erosion and loss of vast areas of grassland, and expand the area needed to grow crops that will not yield as much protein as the animals they currently depend on. This will create much more suffering and environmental destruction in the long run. I've brought up this issue in other posts.
One of my pet peeves is fundamentalism -- religion, diet, politics, environmentalism, everything. There is rarely an all-encompassing solution -- a solution that works for everyone everywhere -- to a problem. The land available to feed people varies in quantity and quality across North America and around the globe. Perhaps we can afford to limit ourselves to fruits and vegetables. We can burn fossil fuel to make sure we have access to anything we want anytime of the year. However, we have to look at individual circumstances.
I do not enjoy inflicting pain. I'm very aware of the fact that my addiction to meat causes suffering. If I had to kill animals myself, I would probably become a vegetarian on the spot. But I cannot ask everyone on the planet to become vegetarians. I cannot impose my culture on them.
A friend of mine joined the Peace Corp a few years ago. He was a vegetarian, but had an opportunity to go to Mongolia. He had to start eating meat again because it is an important part of the diet in Mongolia. They cannot rely on plants for protein in their climate; perhaps if they were wealthy enough, they could fly them in from other parts of Asia. Would you relocate the herders? Would you force them to grow plants? Or would you allow them to eat meat?
Yes, humans consume far too many animals! But growing plants instead of using animals is NOT ALWAYS the most efficient and environmentally responsible thing to do.
Permalink
jscorse Posted 3:55 am
09 Nov 2006
Yes, environmentalism at its core cares about humans- the movement started because of air and water pollution and the affects of toxins on human health- also, we (mostly) don't care about species just for their own sake but how they affect our well-being
With all due respect, bringing up examples of rural people who live in areas where it's impossible to be vegetarian (or at least very difficult) is a straw man for so many reasons I don't have the space to list them- that has close to zero to do with this discussion
J.S.
J.S.
htt://voicesofreason.info
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:37 am
09 Nov 2006
Is it a good idea to restore native grassland in North America?
Is it okay to add bison to the restored areas?
Is it okay to "harvest" the bison and sell the meat to pay for the restoration activity?
I wish everyone would restore native habitat using their own time and funds, but we live in a society where we have to have day jobs and pay for stuff. I'm having enough trouble trying to protect two tiny acres of former savanna. Very few people will maintain 1000s of acres of grassland just for moral reasons. It really helps if projects can be subsidized by selling something.
I do not think this is a straw man. There are areas suitable for growing crops and areas suitable for raising animals, even in North America.
I must add, however, this does not mean one is free to inflict more suffering than necessary. Environmentalism must take animal welfare into consideration and, sure, I would advocated severely reducing consumptioon of meat for all of the reasons brought up by vegetarians, but I'm not convinced that this extends to the point of saying true environmentalists cannot consume meat. It really depend on where the meat comes from.
I prefer to by free range beef, hoping it helps preserve some open areas for grassland birds. I buy organic chicken and eggs because I feel it is better for the environment. I do not eat pork because I realize how polluting it is.
In a better world, I suppose everyone in North America who wanted to eat meat would eat only bison and other wild game "harvested" from massive community-maintained natural areas.
Permalink
willa Posted 5:33 am
09 Nov 2006
"Free-range" is a completely meaningless term.
I agree with you that it's not necessarily evil, from an environmental or an animal-welfare standpoint, to eat truly free-range, grass-fed meat (in very small quantities).
But it is totally a straw man, because the amount of meat that can be produced in ethical ways is dwarfed by the amount of food we need to feed humans in general. No one is suggesting that the Mongolian herders become vegan. A lot of people are suggesting veganism/vegetarianism to the millions of people whose only nearby source of protein is not yak-related.
Btw, I highly recommend Peter Singer's new book, The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter as a source of info for anyone who thinks our food system is okay.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:38 am
09 Nov 2006
I answered "no, but..."
Answering "no" means I agree environmentalism should not separate itself entirely from animal welfare.
If I had stopped there, I would have been safe. But I went on to suggest a few exceptions to the rule... why environmentalism might sometimes trump animal welfare. But...
If the issue of protecting large predators even though prey might suffer is irrelevant... If the decision to burn a North American prairie even though non-native wildlife might suffer is not an issue... If consideration of whether land is more suitable for grazing (and a source of protein) than it is for plants is a straw man... If the validity or practicality of other cultures consuming meat is a straw man... If the suggestion that encouraging people to consume products, including meat, from natural environments vs. factory farms is irrelevant to the question... then...
What does "environmentalism" mean?
What does "animal welfare" mean?
Perhaps the poll question should have been...
Should environmentalism separate itself entirely from issues of "Western-style factory farming, our over-consumption of meat, and cultural tendencies to treat animals very poorly" and focus only on "sustainability"? In that case, I can answer with an unqualified NO! Environmentalism must embrace animal welfare and make it a cornerstone of the movement.
I apologize for irritating folks. I seem to keep getting myself into trouble by having a slightly broader view of things and not reading questions from a strictly European American perspective. In one of the "religion" discussions, I immediately interpreted "God" as including various Christian views, as well as non-Christian views; and thus did not contribute to the discussion. Here I interpreted "environmentalism" as concern for all global ecosystems and their components. And I interpreted "animal welfare" as including all mammals, fish, birds, amphibians, insects, pets, farm animals, game animal, exotics no longer confined to their orinal continents, et cetera. As a result, I cannot see the poll question as a black and white issue.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:51 am
09 Nov 2006
Still... I cannot condemn humans for consuming meat or say true environmentalists should never consume meat. The predator/prey relationship is natural. And there are clearly times when hunting or herding is more practical or better for the environment than farming a given piece of land.
I'll just shut up now and go back to promoting GMOs. :)
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:51 am
09 Nov 2006
To Willa: Thanks for mentioning this excellent new book by Peter Singer. And giving credit where credit is due, let us not forget his co-author, Jim Mason. For many people who know him, or have read him, Peter Singer is apparently an off-putting person. I can sort of see why. Nevertheless, he writes well, and he does indeed get us to think challenging thoughts which we would not have done otherwise.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
willa Posted 11:29 am
09 Nov 2006
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:49 am
09 Nov 2006
Thanks to CanisCandida for a gracious and lovely reply.
Jason, if you thought you replied to my remarks, I am afraid you missed the point. True, environmentalists have always care about their own well being, but we/they have often been remarkably indifferent to the status of others of our species (and of course, as you well know, of other species).
Peter Singer was interviewed on TV here (the big national English station) a couple of years ago. I had read him before, but it was the first time I heard him speak. He came across very well.
patrick
Permalink
TokyoTom Posted 1:33 pm
09 Nov 2006
You have my sympathies Jason, but those who try dictate to China and the rest of the world will quickly see that a non-dogmatic and pragmatic focus on the big picture is essential. You are tilting at windmills.
Permalink
KathyF Posted 1:47 pm
09 Nov 2006
We all tend to see the big grey picture, regardless of our ethnocentristic backgrounds, but some of us are more or less knowledgeable about certain agricultural practices. Doesn't mean we're bad people.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 1:53 pm
09 Nov 2006
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
TokyoTom Posted 2:18 pm
09 Nov 2006
I think many like me do not see a need - or even a possibility - to focus solely on sustainability. We should of course also care about animal welfare, factory farming and the harm we do ourselves by alienating ourselves from nature. My guess is that the 25% represents those of us who think that inflexible dogmatism is counterproductive and a distraction from greater priorities.
While I care about animal welfare within societies in which I can have an influence, internationally I care MUCH, MUCH more about the integrity of ecosytems and the protection of biodiversity.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:59 pm
09 Nov 2006
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 6:07 pm
09 Nov 2006
Gee, I voted for Webb, wasn't that enough??
patrick
Permalink
atreyger Posted 12:10 am
10 Nov 2006
If I had to kill animals myself, I would probably become a vegetarian on the spot.
Shouldn't that really be the deciding factor in the case of vegetarian vs. omnivore?
jscorse,
With all due respect, bringing up examples of rural people who live in areas where it's impossible to be vegetarian (or at least very difficult) is a straw man for so many reasons I don't have the space to list them- that has close to zero to do with this discussion.
Why do you think that everyone lives like you? I mean, why do you want everyone to move to a city, sit in a coffee shop drinking high-priced drinks, talk about their vegan breakfast, clubbing baby seals, empowering the cows, NAFTA and those country bumpkins who are voting for Bush?
willa,
"Free-range" is a completely meaningless term.
Yep, cows eating grass as they walk from field to field is definitely not free-range. And as buffalo eat and behave mostly as they have behaved for millenia, yep, they're not free-range. Thank god we have you to define that as being equal to a CAFO.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:37 am
10 Nov 2006
I especially do not find anything enlightening in the mutual diatribes with the feller from Tokyo.
Has anyone else noticed this, or am I becoming a crank? Hehehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:29 am
10 Nov 2006
Environmentalists emphasizing animal welfare alienate allies that look at the predator/prey relationship as natural... not only the hook and bullet crowd, but also vegetarians not ready to condemn others for eating meat.
It is hard enough to convince people to set aside natural areas. It is hard enough to keep out the ATVs and snowmobiles. It is hard enough to unite liberal and conservative politicians to leave natural areas untouched.
Do environmentalist really want to drive away hunters? Ducks Unlimited has helped preserve wetlands... would their be a prairie pothole left if it weren't for duck hunters. Pheasant Forever helps fund grassland research. Even though pheasants are not from North America, the efforts help native wildlife. Turkey hunters in Wisconsin are helping pay for the restoration of oak savannas that might otherwise become housing developments. And trout fishermen are restoring cold-water streams filled by runoff from early agricultural practices in the state. This benefits far more than the fishermen. Endangered fish, amphipians, reptiles, birds use the streams as well.
I have to change my vote in the poll to YES, if combining the two problems leads to inaction.
Permalink
willa Posted 7:05 am
10 Nov 2006
Go to Hell.
"Free range" as a term slapped on product labels is completely meaningless, as are a lot of others, like "all natural"--they all have zero legal force, and therefore can be put on products to deceive consumers. Just because a cow isn't in a confinement stall doesn't mean it's out on pasture. That's what I was referring to; I was not saying there's no benefit to truly free-range methods. Sometimes it helps to try to understand what people are saying before being snotty.
Sorry, I'm not in a very good mood.
And hey, Amazingdrx, if this conversation bores or otherwise negatively impacts you, fell free to go somewhere else. It's called "discussion", and apparently other people here feel like they want to have it, so if you don't...
Permalink
atreyger Posted 10:56 am
10 Nov 2006
will try to do...
I see, I wasn't talking about supermarkets though.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:17 am
10 Nov 2006
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 11:56 am
10 Nov 2006
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:51 pm
10 Nov 2006
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 3:14 am
11 Nov 2006
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:57 am
11 Nov 2006
In light of that, while I agree with my friend Willa that the subject of determining where animal welfare and environmentalism intersect is an important one, it is not clear to me how profitable this particular "discussion" has been. Has anyone learned anything? Has anyone been persuaded of anything?
I find most valuable the references to personal experiences, in relation to this subject. E.g., I especially appreciate Willa's remarks on raising horses, and also Pandu's discussion of the place of milk and other dairy products in the traditional Veda-founded diet that he follows.
On the other hand, the "discussion" of whether the "most healthful diet" can or cannot include foods of animal origin has not been especially edifying. I admire vegans, and would gladly attempt that diet if my circumstances were different. But the bitterly aggressive manner in which Jason has tended to defend it is not at all pleasant, and might indeed look to those of us of mere serene temperament as resembling a "rant." Ever observing those stereotypes that so rarely let me down, I guess that is more of a West Coast thing. : )
Still, as I said, the larger subject is important. Relevant to it is a letter that I just received from The Ocean Conservancy, soliciting support for the "International Coastal Cleanup" which they organize. It begins, "I don't know about you, but one of the things that hurts me most is to see an innocent animal suffer." Later:
<<
Today, all but one species of sea turtles are on the brink of extinction -- because of human activities.
Here's one of the reasons why. When a sea turtle sees a plastic bag floating in the ocean, it doesn't see it as a piece of trash. Tragically, it sees a jellyfish. And when it tries to eat that jellyfish, the bag gets lodged in its intestine.
Sea turtles who eat plastic often die a slow, painful death. All because someone -- maybe somebody hundreds of miles inland -- thoughtlessly dropped a plastic bag on the ground.
>>
And toward the end:
<<
Once the last sea turtle dies, there will be nothing we can do to bring them back again. It is so important to take action today, while we still have a chance to make a difference.
>>
It is remarkable, how seamlessly interwoven are these two assertions, which logically are quite distinct: first, It is bad for individual sea turtles to suffer; secondly, It would be bad if sea turtle species were to go extinct.
That is why I have said that, Yes, it is useful and even necessary to pay attention to the distinction; but No, so far as what many of us individually believe and do, the distinction is not all that important.
It would be interesting to know what the writer of that letter, Kathleen McGoldrick, Ocean Conservancy's Vice President for Constituency and Outreach, thinks about all this. Does she think that she is addressing two distinct groups in one and the same letter? Or does she think, as I do, that there exists a large number of people who are concerned with both matters simultaneously? And for that matter, what does she herself think, personally?
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 7:12 am
11 Nov 2006
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:42 am
12 Nov 2006
They favor the rights of corporate citizens like Halliburton over the rights of real citizens.
It is a sort of neo-right wing that has taken over the libertarian movement from comfortable digs in think tank land. Thus the corporatarian is born! Bill Kristol's brown shirts in terms of the idealogue part of the movement.
They have a point of view of western civilization as an offshoot of modern corporate feudalism. A global empire of allegedly "superior" western values. The United Corporate States Of Earth is their imperial vision!
Forget animal rights under these fellers rule, forget human rights too. We are all chattel on the all hat no cattle duhbyaist ranch run by the evil lord cheney of halliburton.
And now they even hung poor lil bonnie prince duhbya out to dry! The end justifies the means with this crowd. They want a preemptive attack on Iran next.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
IvankaSteener Posted 1:42 am
22 Nov 2006
Over 70 percent of the American population are against slaughtering horse...why is our Senate ignoring us?? The Senate is supposed to "represent" their citizens. Every week they don't vote on the issue something like 2000 horses are slaughtered! Americans dont eat horses so why are we allowing foreigners to make money of our pets?
Everyone needs to call their Senators and flood their offices with calls so they will listen to their people. The main operator # is 202 224 3121. The Senate is standing on a bill that America wants passed.
Permalink
willa Posted 2:13 am
22 Nov 2006
Yay!!!!!!
Permalink