I was going to write a post on animal rights a few months ago but thought better of it. I changed my mind and fluffed up what I had written in order to supplement (but not invalidate) the discussion initiated by Jason over here.
Environmentalism and animal rights should remain separate groups. Their interests, though sometimes related and even mutually beneficial, are just as often too disparate for a harmonious union. For example, hunters can make powerful conservationists (conservation being a major branch of environmentalism), but hunters and animal-rights activists mix worse than oil and water.
This article makes mention of the hundreds of thousands of goats that have finally been eliminated from the Galapagos Islands. By eliminated I mean: they were shot. Had an organized and well-funded animal-rights campaign arisen, accomplishing that task might have taken much longer, or cost a great deal more. Or it might not have happened at all. I use these goats as an analogy for the horse roundup mentioned in Jason's article. Both species of domesticated animal are the result of many thousands of years of genetic engineering by human beings to produce an animal of use to them. Neither has a place in the wild. The ecosystems they evolved in are human-generated.
I suspect most enviro-types favor a reduction in the suffering of lab and domesticated animals, and are in general empathetic to the cause. I certainly am. PETA has made a lot of progress in this direction and many of their efforts are worthwhile indeed.
But what movement does not have its extremists (they have ALF, we have ELF)? A recent editorial in Science described how a researcher closed shop and moved because of threats to his life. A bomb had been left on his neighbor's porch step (the activists having gotten the wrong address).
On the other hand, here is a case where PETA made its own bed by bad-mouthing the late Steve Irwin. I recall one episode on the topic of introduced species where Irwin was trying to catch feral cats with a net, which is as hard to do as it sounds. It would have been a lot more effective to just shoot them out of the trees, but there is no way they could have suggested such a thing without bringing the animal-rights activists into the fray.
I recall reading an article by a biologist describing his return to an isolated oasis in the Australian outback. The first time he had visited this place it had been a rich, diverse ecosystem. He found a sterile, silent, wasteland on his second visit. He couldn't explain it until he found the desiccated remains of the house cat that had eaten its way through the ecosystem and starved to death.
Hampering efforts to eradicate feral domesticated animals is one of the main points of contention between animal-rights types and conservation types. On the other hand, they can effectively join forces on issues like saving mountain gorillas or orangutans. Their motivations for doing so are less important than the fact that they are doing so.
Another thing people should try to keep in mind is the difference between suffering and death. Suffering can happen without death, often proceeds death, but always ends at death (with the exception of all of you going to hell of course). Striving to end extreme animal suffering is good, but striving to end the deaths of ubiquitous domesticated animals is largely irrational. Not all things must suffer, but all things must die (again, with the exception of those select groups of religionists who have earned a pass).
I also put a poll together to test how rewording a question might change the results.
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.
Calling all radicals: Unite for Kerry-Boxer
Dispassion as the world ends: The absent heart of the great climate affair
Comments
View as Threaded
Jason D Scorse Posted 8:33 am
12 Nov 2006
Sure, when you put things in this simplistic manner above and bring up issues of extreme positions you may get people to say that environmentalism shouldn't deal with animal welfare issues, but if you think about it a little more it makes no sense.
And it also contradicts my main point in "Big Tent Environemtnalism" that diversity is strength- for example, just because I don't think most hunting is good doesn't mean I can't work with hunters- looking for intellectual purity in a movement- while appealing- is a fool's errand in my opinion.
And an environmentalism that believes it has nothing to say about whaling as long as it's "sustainable" because somehow that's a separate issue left for animal rights' activists has lost its soul and will likely go the way of the dinosuars.
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 8:57 am
12 Nov 2006
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 11:52 am
12 Nov 2006
but most of the animal welfare arguments are about how they are treated, not that they in fact are killed... whaling ...entails extreme suffering and cutting dramatically short the lives of whales
http://animalradio.com/Bear.295.jpg
Jason, this is a case of extreme suffering and the kind of abuse I am very glad to see PETA focusing on. I am also glad to support their attempts to end whaling. It does not matter that I am motivated by different reasons. Let me put it succinctly, it does not matter that most of what PETA does deals with the treatment of animals (which I doubt is accurate by the way). They also do a lot of stupid shit that I don't want to be associated with, the statement about Irwin being one recent example.
Facts are hard to come by but it is a fact that killing a whale does not cause any more suffering than letting it die a natural death. In this respect, the whalers are no different than a pod of orcas. Your definition of extreme suffering differs from mine. As far as cutting dramatically short the lives of whales, well, that is what happens when orcas or other predators kill. The arguments become moot if we can end whaling.
You mention that all things die and that suffering is the issue so does that include the suffering of the animals' kin that are left after their relatives are killed- for example, in the case of elephants?
You could extend that argument and include the suffering of animal rights activists when an elephant is killed. You are anthropomorphizing animals. Different animals suffer on different scales, but none have the cognitive capacity to suffer on the same scale as a human. I would happily lobby that mothers with calves be spared and that culling lone bulls be emphasized. Suffering is a matter of degree. Whales and elephants have more capacity to suffer than lobsters, but not as much as humans. We have been here before.
The two groups are probably more effective as seperate, mutually repectful entities, joining forces on some issues, and going seperate ways on others.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
s5 Posted 1:34 pm
12 Nov 2006
For that matter, there are plenty of animal rights advocates who view society's obsession with "cute" and charismatic animals (like cats and dogs) as harmful, as it pulls the focus away from protecting other species.
At their core, animal rights advocates want the same thing as environmentalists: to allow animals and the natural world to exist with minimal harm and interference from human civilization. Of course there will always be differences of opinion on various individual issues and on methods, but don't assume that PETA press releases define the alpha and the omega of animal rights.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:12 pm
12 Nov 2006
I am surprised, Biodiv, that you did not comment on the letter from The Ocean Conservancy from which I quoted in Jason's thread. As you may recall, it shows that people can be seriously concerned both in animal welfare and in conservation of species at one and the same time.
It seems to me that there is no good reason, logically or ethically, to separate people who are concerned with conservation, biodiversity and the extinction crisis, from people who are concerned with animal welfare. To be sure, there are troublesome types, who with great anger and self-righteousness might insist on such a division: not you, Biodiv, but rather those supporters of animal rights, in PETA and elsewhere, who aggressively and vociferously condemn anyone who has failed to meet their standards. Obviously, that does not make for good and effective fellowship.
We should not let ourselves be bothered by the statements of one or another person associated with PETA. That organization should not be treated by its members as a kind of church, enforcing its orthodoxy. Rather, optimally, it is a friendly community of like-minded people who share certain beliefs and values, but in whose lives those beliefs and values may be expressed in different ways, and with different intensity.
For what it is worth, I like PETA, but have never given them money, nor do I look at their website. I much prefer the Humane Society of the US.
It was indeed tasteless for the PETA VP to criticize Steve Irwin. To be fair, though, Irwin's activities were always controversial. Whether he ever put animals into frightening or stressful situations is possible, but I could not say. I am sure he never intended to harm an animal. Possibly, his own regular physical contact with animals may have inspired imitators to try something similar, and some of those imitators may not have had the same high regard for the animals' welfare as Irwin did. Still, on balance, his career was praiseworthy, for teaching his audience how beautiful and precious are species of animals that too often are objects of revulsion or fear -- and that included the individual animals that belong to those species.
On goats and horses: Yes, they have been bred by human beings for certain various phenotypal and behavioral peculiarities. But I do not think either is as far from their respective wild ancestral form as is the dog, that amazingly diverse creature. The small, white, fluffy beast stretched out and snoring a foot from me at this moment does not resemble a wolf very closely, however much she enjoyed playing "Pleistocene Carnivore" with me last night.
There is nothing more natural, ultimately, than the running free of several populations of feral horses in the Western states of the US. Horses are native to North America, after all. Have feral horses in the US done any ecological damage? I have never heard of that, but would be interested to hear if that is the case.
Goats on Pacific islands are another matter entirely. I have no problem with their being shot, so long as that is done as swiftly and painlessly as possible.
And in general, I have little problem with hunting, again so long as pain is kept minimal, and so long as the activity of the hunter resembles closely that of a natural predator, killing what it needs to eat. Sport hunting, a` la Dick Cheney, crosses a major ethical divide.
Biodiv, you wrote this:
<<
You are anthropomorphizing animals. Different animals suffer on different scales, but none have the cognitive capacity to suffer on the same scale as a human. I would happily lobby that mothers with calves be spared and that culling lone bulls be emphasized. Suffering is a matter of degree. Whales and elephants have more capacity to suffer than lobsters, but not as much as humans. We have been here before.
>>
I agree pretty much with the sentiment of everything else that you wrote, but I cannot agree with you here. Animals' cognition and capacity to suffer are very hard to assess, and we must not be confident that we have figured it out. A recent cover story of the New York Times Magazine, on elephants, presents the sensitivity of those animals as clearly as anything else that I have read about them. They are in no way inferior to us in this regard.
On lobsters: I have no firm judgment about their use as food, just yet, and tend not to be as squeamish as others. Still, it is a matter of great ethical importance that when a living lobster is dropped into a pot of boiling water, it is observed momentarily to struggle to escape, until it is overcome by the immense heat. Clearly, that animal suffered.
We do not have a humane method for dispatching the fish, crustaceans and mollusks that become our seafood, apparently. Many years ago, in Portofino, on the Italian Riviera, I saw a boy emerge from the water with an octopus that he had just caught; when he was on the pier, he vigorously slammed the octopus down onto the stone-paved floor. That sort of thing is probably the only vaguely decent manner of killing a future-seafood critter that I have observed.
Thanks very much to s5, for a very interesting and helpful contribution. It just goes to show, animal-rights advocates are not a simply described, monolithic bunch.
Feral cats are indeed a big problem, and it is not altogether clear what to do about it. But those people who love the cats, and wish them not to be harmed, but have no regard for all the songbirds that those cats are eating, strike me as a bit foolish.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:54 am
13 Nov 2006
Canis,
Horses went extinct in North America long ago for unknown reasons. The feral horses found in the West today are domesticated animals, no more natural than your average cow. They round them up every year to control their population (to limit damage to the land).
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:09 am
13 Nov 2006
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Pandu Posted 5:26 am
13 Nov 2006
biodiversivist,
This sentence bothered me too:
"Different animals suffer on different scales, but none have the cognitive capacity to suffer on the same scale as a human."
How did you conclude that suffering is dependent of cognitive capacity? It seems to me that there is a lot more to it.
I'd like to recommend an author:
http://www.jeffreymasson.com/library.html
When Elephants Weep: The Emotional Lives of Animals was a best seller.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:02 am
13 Nov 2006
Also, let us remember "The White Bone," a story about African elephants, by the Canadian author Barbara Gowdy, which I have mentioned before. She has an impressive bibliography on animal behavior, elephants and other African fauna, in her Acknowledgements.
To Biodiv: You are right, the reasons for the extinction of the North American Pleistocene megafauna are not well understood. (I.e., "we don't know what the hell happened.") (Sorry, all you paleontologists, that is probably not fair.) But what that suggests is that North America is relatively vacant. The wastefully speedy pronghorn does not have a cheetah anymore to pursue it; there are no more American lions and sabertooths, dear to the heart of all Californians, stalking shaggy elephant-cousins and rhinos and ground-sloths. Robert Delfs (where oh where is Robert Delfs?!) told us not long ago about the exquisitely adapted North American flora, that evolved in concert with those large herbivores.
So, I do not see what difference a few horses make, at this point. The feral horses of the Western states are, to be sure, descendants of domestic animals. But my point is, they are not so very far removed from their wild ancestors, and so their feral behavior, especially their socialization, have apparently recapitulated the successful behavior patterns of those ancestors. (By contrast, feral dogs exhibit very different behavior from that of wolves.)
What "damage to the land" could they possibly do? I am not saying that that is impossible, but really I have never heard of it. Are they driving any animal to extinction? Are they adding an anomalous environmental pressure on animals or plants? The only reason that I know of, for why they are rounded up and shipped away, for slaughter or whatever, is that the cattle ranchers believe those few horses -- there are not really so many of them, after all, that their population needs to be controlled -- are robbing their cattle of their pasture.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 8:01 am
13 Nov 2006
Horses and elephants are both being culled around the world to control their populations. Birth control has been tried but was found to be too expensive. What else can be done as their populations swell past the confines of the few areas ceded to them by humanity?
Elephants clearly have strong emotions and long memories. They can remember old friends and grieve the loss of their young.
Does that mean they should not be killed to control their numbers? And if so, how do you control their numbers. Does that mean we must radio collar every last wild elephant and make sure its birth control is up to date twice a year as they might in a zoo? Who foots that huge bill, conservation orgs or animal welfare orgs? How different are African game parks now from a zoo anyway? What happens to a herd on birth control that can't have any young elephants? Will they suffer gentrification? What is wrong with this picture?
The bottom line, humanity is destroying nature.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:46 am
13 Nov 2006
The evidence from Africa, regarding elephant behavior, seems pretty conclusively to indicate that "culling," that sweet-sounding and totally false metaphor taken from gardening, is not the answer.
The article from the NY Times Magazine to which I referred is the cover story of the 10/8/2006 issue. It is titled "Are We Driving Elephants Crazy?," and its author is Charles Siebert.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 9:24 am
13 Nov 2006
So, what is to be done in their case, if not shoot them? I did not like at all the shot of the squealing squirming pig that was hoisted by its hind legs. Nevertheless, I cannot think of a satisfactory solution.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink