Humans As Animals and Ethics
I’d like to respond to Dan, who has been in the midst of a conversation with Dudley on this blog. I am copying Dan’s last comment where he quotes Dudley, which I have put in italics, and then gives his response. If you struggle with the lack of context, you can see the entire conversation here.
“How are humans being classified as non-animals in Social Studies class?”
By teaching that animals have long been used to, say, work in the fields, regardless of their choice. Doing the same thing to humans is usually presented as wrong, thus making a distinction between animals and humans. The double message is that humans both are and are not animals.“No one is being made to make ethical statements based on science in school.”
I don’t agree with that in all cases. I suspect that some would like ethical statements based on science to be made in schools. Within the context of this blog, I understand people to have been attempting to base ethical statements on science.I agree that faith(s) can be discussed in school. I disagree that it should be taught. Perhaps this has changed, but when I was in school, slavery was presented as wrong. I think this is a faith-based teaching.
Do you see humans as animals? If yes, is it wrong to own animals as pets or use them for work against their obvious choice?
One of the themes on this blog that I’m interested in is: Assuming a purely materialistic universe, is there any way, based solely on the physical evidence that we can observe, to build a moral or ethical system that is not relative to the individual? I understand Noell to be saying yes, there is, and I disagree. If you haven’t done so already, you may want to check out Noell’s post: http://www.agnosticmom.com/2006/08/02/evolutionary-psychology-and-materialism-as-a-world-view/ and my response, which is approx #12.
I will now quote Dan in italics and then make my response.
“The double message is that humans both are and are not animals.”
I will agree with this statement. Humans are animals. And at the same time, humans are not animals. The statements only contradict because of semantics. The truth is, we evolved from animals, we are part of the animal kingdom. We share many similiarities with animals. We are animals.
And yet, we evolved a few other capabilities that distinguish us from animals. The greatest factor in this is the human development of advanced language. It is language that allowed us to form the communities that we have, allowed us to develop a capacity for empathy, allowed us to have an awareness of others, allowed us to have some choices beyond our instincts, allowed us to think about ourselves and evaluate.
Humans are the only animals we know of that can act against even our greatest instinct, which is to spread our genes (procreation). We have, for example, invented birth control. Daniel Dennett likes to point out this fact as he explains how language has made the human species unlike any other animal.
(Note to Dan: If you really want to understand this viewpoint, Daniel Dennet, atheist philosopher who knows his science, is the person to read or listen to.)
“Within the context of this blog, I understand people to have been attempting to base ethical statements on science.”
There is a distinction to be made here. Science must do its investigating and be kept wholly separate from ethics. Learning that nature selects that which is “most fit,” for example, does not mean it is ethical for humans to favor those most fit and allow to die those who are less able. Humans must make decisions on ethics from a philosophical stand-point. But many of the findings in science can direct us to a greater understanding of how things work, giving better clarity and accuracy to our philosophy about ethics.
For example, it will take science to better understand what is going on when someone is in a vegetative state. Science does not tell us whether it is ethical or not to take someone off life-support. But it might tell us whether someone has any chance for survival, whether there is any level of consiousness, whether there exists any pain or desire within the person. We can then take the scientific evidence to help us decide the ethics of whether to leave a person on life support or take them off. Science gives us the information we need. It does not give us the ethics. That is why, yes, we have discussed a link between science and ethics on this blog. And yes, I would submit that scientific findings are crucial information as we make choices in ethics. But there is still a vast separation between the two. Science gives us factual information. Ethics must derive from philosophical discussion with the facts at hand.
“Perhaps this has changed, but when I was in school, slavery was presented as wrong. I think this is a faith-based teaching.”
It does not take faith in a being that no one has seen to come to the conclusion that enslaving someone who desires freedom is wrong. Faith and ethics have nothing to do with each other.
Do you see humans as animals? If yes, is it wrong to own animals as pets or use them for work against their obvious choice?
This is an example of where scientific progress may shape our ethics on treatment of animals. It seems that my dog is in pure bliss living with us, even with our rules that he not leave the house without us. If it were to be discovered that dogs are unhappy as domesticated pets, that they have a will and desire currently unknown to us, then I would conclude that it is unethical to keep them. It’s not about the fact that they are animals (as we are, too). It has only to do with their ability to be content or “happy,” as far as animals can be happy. It appears that dogs are happy as pets. It is unethical to treat animals with cruelty, even if they are animals.
I do not allow my kids to cage up wild insects, as much as they would like to, because I know insects have a need to be free.
Cows were bred to live the lives they do. As far as we can tell, cows have no need to run free and pursue other interests in the wild because they were not bred to desire that. But, if it were discovered through science, that cows were, in fact, unfulfilled and depressed on the farm, it would become a matter of ethics whether we keep them there or not. Arizona just dealt with these issues politically as we passed a law that farmers give more space to pregnant cows and calves raised for veal (previously they had no room to even turn around).
Humans are animals that are extremely different from all other animals. Our particular difference requires we have more autonomy in order to be happy. Other non-human animals just don’t have as many needs for personal fulfillment as we do because they did not evolve in the direction we did.
So, I hope you see, Dan, that there is nothing contradictory here with the view of humans as animals. And there is nothing shady in terms of the relationship between science and ethics.
November 11th, 2006 @ 10:07 pm
I think Dan’s challenge might be interesting but I’m not sure I understand it. When he says, “Assuming a purely materialistic universe, is there any way, based solely on the physical evidence that we can observe, to build a moral or ethical system that is not relative to the individual?” What is your interpretation of “not relative to the individual”? Does that imply the challenge is to build a moral or ethical system that is objective rather than relative and universally applicable to some broader entity than an individual such as a whole culture or the human species? What is the significance of “individual”?
November 11th, 2006 @ 10:09 pm
I think Dan’s challenge might be interesting but I’m not sure I understand it. When he says, “Assuming a purely materialistic universe, is there any way, based solely on the physical evidence that we can observe, to build a moral or ethical system that is not relative to the individual?” What is your interpretation of “not relative to the individual”? Does that imply the challenge is to build a moral or ethical system that is objective rather than relative and universally applicable to some broader entity than an individual such as a whole culture or the human species? What is the significance of “individual”? It is the individual that acts in an ethical manner.
November 11th, 2006 @ 10:11 pm
Sorry about the duplicate. I must have double clicked.
November 12th, 2006 @ 10:01 am
Slavery being wrong may be a component of some faiths, but certainly not of all - and, arguably, not of Christianity. Christians may have decided that slavery is immoral, but they didn’t use the Bible to do it.
We make distinctions between animals daily: it’s okay to essentially drown (or suffocate) the fish we eat, or plunge lobsters into boiling water, but neither is okay for the chicken or steer. It’s okay to impale a worm on a hook and drop it into the lake to catch sunfish, but not okay to do the same thing with a mammal if you’re after sharks. Why? Because they are “higher” animals than fish or worms. The distinction between dogs or horses and humans isn’t any different. You don’t need to go to religion to understand that we can make distinctions between how we treat animals based on how much concept of self that animal has, how much suffering it feels (or we think it feels) - essentially, how close it is to being like us.
That’s not faith. It’s empathy.
November 12th, 2006 @ 10:33 am
I may be simply restating what has been written above, but human beings are unique in our ability to make value judgements. We can study through scientific inquiry to discover the black and white of an issue - i.e. Who is fittest to survive. Until humans came on the scene, the answer to that question was effected through natural selection - the fittest survived, the less fit did not.
We are unique in that we can make decisions that go beyond nature. We can provide a means for the less fit to, in fact, survive. We can create an environment in which the less fit can achieve equal footing on the playing field - i.e. Class divisions in high school sports. Or, we can allow them to succumb. Therein lay the ethical decisions. We can even take the fittest down. In effect, we create a new paradigm, if you will, as to what defines being fittest. We have the ability to intervene with nature. (Does that qualify us as gods?)
I agree with Noell regarding the issue of slavery. It is NOT an issue of faith. It IS an issue of ethics. Slavery is condoned in the christian bible. Slaves are instructed to be obedient to their masters. From an ethical standpoint people, who recognize slavery is inherently evil, are superior to the christian god who falls miserably short in the ethics department owing to his (her,its) vanity and penchant for revenge.
TLS
November 12th, 2006 @ 9:32 pm
I don’t think nearly enough informed opinion is being expressed on the part of animal intelligence.
Animals have been known to provide means for the less fit to survive, and not just when they raise their children and care for their elderly.
Many animals have identifiable language - dolphins, primates, whales, mice and elephants for starters - and many have communication systems that are more direct than verbal language, being enabled with vision capable of seeing a broader spectrum than ourselves, and hearing and scent that do the same.
Animals have also exhibited personalities, humor, and empathy (cross species and otherwise). Some animals even have behaviors that people interpret as religious (like seahorses doing a dance every sunrise, which serves no benefit to their physiology except perhaps social… celebrating the light of morning).
Animals play - they gossip - they are choosy about whom they keep company with, given the freedom to do so.
An increasing number of animals tested show enough self awareness to identify themselves in mirrors - recognizing, with curiosity, anomalies in their reflection (like painted marks).
You can not name a human quality that other animals have not exhibited in some fashion. The only limitation on this subject is the amount of study and research devoted to it. Humans have just not seen the value of such research - and as it stands, much of the most amazing reports are still anecdotal (often from farmers).
When it comes to turning a blind eye to the intelligence of animals raised for food - the reason is clear - we’d rather not know. Pigs are infamously more intelligent than dogs. Cows have an unaggressive nature but that does not mean they are content to die, have their mates, siblings and children stolen away, or live in sufferable conditions (thus the maze structure and platform contrivances of the slaughter process - designed to prevent the cow from seeing what happens ahead until it is too late to turn back).
If someone like Noell (whom I seem to recall said something about fish or chickens being unable to feel pain in a previous post - which is false) honestly feel the ethics of meat eating must get center stage if it turns out that our habits cause an excess of suffering - about a half hour of research will turn any reasonable person into a vegetarian, or a consumer of more responsibly farmed livestock.
A good book to read regarding agricultural animal intelligence research is “The Pig Who Howled At The Moon” by Jeffrey Masson
http://www.amazon.com/Pig-Who-Sang-Moon-Emotional/dp/0345452828/sr=1-1/qid=1163391806/ref=sr_1_1/102-3987282-4892955?ie=UTF8&s=books
November 12th, 2006 @ 11:08 pm
I suppose, as we evolve, our taste for meat, and our need for other animal-derived products will wain. My older son once proclaimed that he was seriously considering become a vegetarian, but it occurred to him that he didn’t really like vegetables, but DID like meat. Now there’s a quandry.
There certainly exists solid evidence that properly balanced vegetarian or vegan diets can provide all our nutritional needs. I won’t argue that. However, I am 60 years old, and have eaten meat for virtually my entire life. Generally, I don’t eat as much of it now as I used to, but it is very unlikely that I will ever swear off of it entirely. Certainly, not because someone casts accusations at me for being an animal killer. I believe the history of man eating meat goes back a ways. There is precedent.
Still, I understand that the ethics regarding our use (or exploitation, if it suits you) of animals for food, clothing, pets, laboratory testing, etc., is a hot button issue. Only time, science, and proper education will ultimately resolve it.
I do believe that extreme animal rights activists are no less nutballs than religious extremists and anti-abortionists, among others. That any of them have resorted to violence, including murder, and/or the destruction of property makes them terrorists by any definition. They are “true believers” who take the position that their particular cause is, above all others “holy,” and any tactics they use in the advancement of it are justified.
I find that to be a load of guano.
As it stands today, the five or so billion people on earth could not survive without the use of animal products. Animal activists who condescend to meat eaters are self-righteous prigs. If they believe it, by all means, they should live it. But, just as with religion, they should not presume to demand that all others must follow suit, or be subject to their violent judgement. (It is my belief that many of the people who involve themselves in such crusades would just find another, if their current passion could no longer be pursued. If memory serves, that is a central part of the discussion of Eric Hoffer’s “The True Believer.” Such people tend to jump from one cause to another. It helps them to sustain their sense of moral superiority and self-righteous indignation toward society.) To actually harm or kill other human beings for such a cause is counter productive and, frankly, evil.
I will defend to the death my right to gnarl on pigs feet and Spam. Ooh, and pass me those Vienna Sausages.
TLS
November 13th, 2006 @ 6:38 am
Everyone here has contributed excellent information to this discussion, much of the specifics I did not take the time to go into. I’ve really enjoyed these comments.
Ron, if you’ll remember, I clarified that chickens (did I mention fish?) seem to feel a minimal amount of pain, and it is not comparable to the capacity for pain that humans have. Not only that, but they do not seem to remember it afterward to the degree that humans do, if at all. In addition, they do not appear to feel the social loss when one of their own goes, like humans do (while, on the other hand, elephants seem to mourn when they encounter the bones of other elephants).
My information on chickens comes from neuroscientist, Sam Harris. Therefore, I believe it would be more accurate for you to say that my contention is controversial and currently under debate, as opposed to “false.” Because it is still not known for sure, and because there are opposing opinions among the scientists in this field, it seems suspect that you claimed my statement to be utterly false. It is always important to admit when your theory is still under debate.
For example, you said, You can not name a human quality that other animals have not exhibited in some fashion. The only limitation on this subject is the amount of study and research devoted to it. The implication here is that because we have found various animals exhibiting a couple of human qualities in the small amount of research we have done, with more research we will inevitably find them to have almost as much, if not as much, intelligence, social and emotional neediness, and advanced language as humans. Your expectations of what we have not yet discovered seems to have already made up your mind for you and you do not seem to be open to the possibility that each animal only contains a minimal amount of similarity to the complicated human species.
As for vegetarianism, dear Terry, I do not personally believe that that is the only ethical option, since humans are carnivores by nature and there is a certain amount of balance that results from this if we eat it more sparingly than most Americans do. Another answer to the dilemma is to reduce our consumption to those animals which are not super emotionally attached to their peers, that we provide pleasant living conditions for the animals while they are alive, and that we kill in a way that does not cause them physical suffering. This is easier to do with smaller animals.
November 13th, 2006 @ 7:56 am
Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I, too, am a died in the wool carnivore, nor do I apologise for it. I was writing more in response to Ron.
Additionally, I believe that extremism is, in a sense, symptomatic of self-hatred - such activism is a means of doing pennance.
I understand the revulsion that some feel toward our exploitation of animals. A slaughter house is not pretty. The methods of raising, transporting and killing chickens, pigs, cattle, etc. often seem heartless and barbaric. We should, I suppose, attempt to clean up our act as it were. Alter the system to reduce what we perceive may be the misery and pain suffered by these animals.
Problems arise in making change owing to the fact that the food industry in much of the west is huge, and the demands on it are great to maintain production at a high level. Technology has made few significant inroads into this process -VERY few improvements which benefit the animals in any way. Perhaps if animal activists worked WITH the industry rather than against it, some solutions could be achieved.
Another thought. What are we going to do when someone discerns that carrots scream when yanked from the ground, an apple feels pain when plucked from a tree, and a grape is miserable during the process of becoming a raisin?
November 13th, 2006 @ 9:37 am
Did you know that eating less meat is also helping the environment?
I always recycle all my glass, paper, and most plastic containers since I believe that it’s a good moral choice. But eating less meat?
I was reading Jared Diamond’s “Collapse” over the weekend, and found a statement, something like “methane produced by cows has a heat trapping effect measured at over 20 times that of CO2.” I had NO IDEA that cows produce methane! So, I “googled” for more information this morning. Apparently, bacteria in the stomachs of cows (and other ruminant animals) break down and ferment fodder during digestion, producing methane that is released either through flatulence or burping.
And while the digestive difficulties of one burping cow may not seem like a big deal, the cumulative effects of 1.3 billion cattle producing over 100 million tons of methane annually can have a significant effect on the world’s balance of greenhouse gases. Human-related processes, from energy production to agriculture, produce approximately 60% of the world’s methane. Ruminant animals such as cattle, buffalo, and sheep, are estimated to produce approximately 15% of the world’s total supply. Imagine that!
There’s more. Corn is a preferred feed and an average cow consumes 25 pounds daily. It takes 1.2 gallons of oil to make the fertilizer used for each bushel of that corn. At that rate, a 1200 pound cow in her short lifetime will consume, in effect, 284 gallons of oil.
This is just another piece of information that I hope is relevant to this discussion. I do believe that meat consumption is a moral issue, whether it’s about animal treatment or effects on the Earth.
I personally belong to the “Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Eco-Farming” group, which gets our meat delivered from nearby Amish farmers whose animals live and being slaughtered humanely. I only choose eggs from cage-free chicken. I donate to the U.S. Humane Society and get involved in various issues raised by this organization. And I get my strongest motivations from Peter Singer writings.
November 13th, 2006 @ 9:51 am
Terry–Your original comment was clear enough (although I always enjoy the humor in your posts, so you can add clarifying comments as often as you like!) I just wanted state that I do not think giving up meat is the only option consistent with my view on ethics and morality. But I agree with your critique of many animal rights activists having a form of self-hatred and religiosity.
Olga–Yes, I did know about an environmental impact from cattle, but not the reason you mentioned. I don’t remember the specifics of what I read years ago, but I don’t think it was because of co2. Fascinating! The environment is one of the many reasons that I rarely eat beef. Most of the meals I cook are chicken, seafood, or meat-free.
Do you think you could post a link to the organization you are a part of? I am not even aware of any amish communities in my part of the land, but I wonder if we have something here.
Ron–I wanted to ask you one more thing. I noticed you talked about animals having empathy (which I was aware of) but it surprised me coming from you because it wasn’t long ago that when I said that empathy was innate in humans you were adament that empathy doesn’t even exist. I have two recent articles (New York Times and Newsweek) on the innateness of empathy and its contribution to an innate moral sense that I would like to blog about but haven’t had time yet. Because this is hopefully an upcoming topic, I am curious: are you on board with the empathy thing now? Or do you only attribute it to non-human animals?
November 13th, 2006 @ 10:04 am
[...] On the Agnostic Mom blog (which sadly doesn’t look like it used to thanks to unethical cyber-vandals) she posts some feedback regarding a conversation about ethics and science and animals. Interesting stuff. Humans As Animals and Ethics [...]
November 13th, 2006 @ 5:25 pm
Here’s an anecdote about pain and animals. Don’t read it if you’re bothered by such.
When I was in college (early 70s) majoring in animal husbandry, undergrads were basically the labor for the school’s farm. Meaning, we did the shearing, the dehorning, the castrating, and the vaccinating.
We handled the pigs late - they waited for the undergrads to show up in the fall. For optimum vaccination and castration, you do the pigs very young, when they’re small enough to pick up and hold against your legs with one hand while you do the job with the other. These pigs were a couple of months too old, and it required two students to a pig for castration. The pigs were gathered up into a series of side by side pens, each pen with a sow and her litter. The MO was three students into a pen: one to corner the sow and keep her away and two to castrate and vaccinate.
There were three kinds of pigs: females, who were (obviously) only vaccinated; a very few males, who were earmarked for potential stud boars and thus only vaccinated; and most males, who were vaccinated and castrated.
When we went into a pen, all the pigs milled about around us, getting in the way. We’d grab one, check its ear, do what had to be done, slap on the disinfectant, and put the pig back down. The pigs we vaccinated and the pigs we castrated behaved exactly the same: as soon as we grabbed them they began squealing and they didn’t stop until we put them down, at which time they all stopped squealing. The volume was precisely the same whether they were cut or jabbed - and in fact, since they *didn’t* run away but remained just milling around and getting in the way, so did the pigs we picked up and immediately put down since we’d already done them.
Moreover, the sows in the neighboring pens, and their pigs, apparently didn’t care what was going on. They ignored us until we climbed into their pen, and then they behaved in precisely the same manner.
Pigs may be “smart” but it’s a different kind of smartness than dogs have.
November 13th, 2006 @ 6:04 pm
“Pigs may be “smart” but it’s a different kind of smartness than dogs have. (quote from Karen).
Just wanted to highlight this important point.
I once saw my dog utterly humiliated. I had no idea dogs could feel humiliation. And of course, this is anecdotal and my own possibly false interpretation. He had an injured eye and was wearing one of those big cones around his head to keep him from scratching. He got out of the house that way and went running with innocent enthusiasm to a neighboring house in the midst of construction.
The construction workers began heckling my dog, taunting him because of the cone. My dog’s enthusiasm suddenly dropped, he turned around and came back to me, head down and with a look that showed embarressment. Perhaps it was me projecting my own feelings on my dog. It sure didn’t seem that way, though.
November 13th, 2006 @ 6:22 pm
Okay, I am back again. I guess I have a lot to say on these subjects.
Terry–As for the idea of evolved human vegetarianism, there would have to be an environmental reason for the change, some sort of pressure. It could be a lack of meat available for consumption over an unbelievably extensive period of time, say thousands of years. It could be social pressure where meat consumption is forbidden or ilegal, again over long period of time. But since we don’t evolve for “noble” purposes, there would have to be something to propel that to happen.
The other problem with the idea is that there is a general consensus, at least among all the scientists that I read, that humans are not currently evolving. Our environment is changing so dramatically right now that humans are a moving target for evolution. The component that initiates the change, or adaptation, must be sustained for thousands of years before it has its effect on a species. This is why we talk about the evolutionary environment of our ancestors: humans evolved into modern humans in a more less-changing environment in a primitive time.
Karen–I am curious about your pig story because it turned out different than what I expected. Did you take that to mean the pigs didn’t feel a difference between the two procedures? Did you interpret their squeals as no indication of pain, but a reaction only to your presence?
November 13th, 2006 @ 9:14 pm
Noell,
I wasn’t suggesting that humans would “evolve” to vegetarianism. Any change in that regard that I was suggesting would be through ethical decisions, based, perhaps, on future discoveries regarding our knowledge of animal intelligence or emotional awareness. Anyway, are we to measure the value of an animal’s life and well being based upon its relative intelligence? Treat the smart animals well, but don’t worry about the dummies? Actually, I think any significant move toward vegetarianism is unlikely to happen, not during my lifetime at any rate
I am not particularly concerned about animal rights. It doesn’t keep me awake at night. I certainly would not knowingly mis-treat or otherwise do harm to an animal other than vermin and certain bugs. But, again, I do eat meat. Also, I know that millions of animals of all kinds have died, in some instances slowly and painfully, in research laboratories. That is not a pleasant thing to dwell on, either. However, without those deaths, unfortunate as they are, we would still be living with 19th century medicine. At the end of the day people must put people first.
With all this discussion, though, I don’t know if I should be eating smart meat or dumb meat. What a world, what a world.
TLS
November 14th, 2006 @ 6:06 am
To me it’s not a matter of measure the animal’s value. I think it has only to do with the pain we cause to the animal or others when we kill it for meat. For example, if elephants recognize themselves in mirrors and mourn when they come across the skeleton of another dead elephant, it makes me wonder if they have an emotional connection to their elephant associates and would experience tremendous emotional pain when one goes missing, the way humans do. If so, I would suggest we don’t eat elephants. Since we don’t, that problem is solved.
When comparing the amount of pain we are inflicting on a chicken and its associates to an elephant, it’s likely there is a huge difference. So let’s eat chickens. I don’t know what kind of pain is involved in killing pigs or cows. Am I making sense? I think the greater the intelligence an animal has, the more like it is to also have a greater capacity for pain.
The subject of medical research is an unsanswerable dilemma, at least for now, and perhaps forever. I hate to even think about that. But ultimately, I revert to our natural drive to put people first as you do. It may or may not be inconsistent with my own principles. But ultimately, of all the animals in the kingdom, humans are most vulnerable to emotional pain, and perhaps physical, as well.
November 14th, 2006 @ 6:35 am
Biologically, humans are animals. If you look up the word animal, we fit the description. The reason many people don’t like it is because their religion has a hierarchy which puts human beings above all other living things.
It is natural for humans to have a preference for their own species, but it takes religion, for humans to pretend that they are not animals biologically.
November 14th, 2006 @ 6:37 am
Noell,
I also think that being human, and having the ability to make value judgements - certainly more complex judgements than any other animals are capable of as far as we know - weighs heavy on us. We can’t have it all.
As far as we know, we ARE the supreme beings. Therefore, it falls to us to make hard choices. It is often not pleasant, and sometimes not fair. We all too often make the wrong choices. That can depend on our motives and our wisdom - or lack of same. Just look at how we treat each other, let alone how we treat other animals.
I would venture to guess that most people, who work in experimental labs that use animals, would say that if given other viable alternatives, they would welcome them. I don’t imagine they enjoy hurting and killing the animals. Some animal activists claim that such experimentation is not necessary - that there are other ways to achieve the same goal. Were that the case, I believe there would be a significant effort to eliminate animal testing. Apparently, it is not.
What I alluded to above as regards “cleaning up our act” was aimed at what, if any, efforts are being made by anyone to encourage the meat producing industry to develop means to raise, transfer and slaughter animals in as humane a manner as possible. Unless and until we all become vegans, the demand for edible meat will remain high. Perhaps all I am talking about, when it comes down to it, is simply assuaging our sense of guilt.
I have a sister in-law who was appalled to discover (not till early adulthood) that the meat one buys at the grocery comes from once live animals. She just thought it was somehow manufactured just as you find it in the meat section in the little styrofoam plates covered in clear plastic. - Really! (That is about on the same level as Cher believing that the presidential carvings at Mt. Rushmore were a natural phenomenon.)
Well, as my son, who is in school in Florida, would say:
Later Gater
(Actually, I don’t believe he would say that, but what the heck.)
November 14th, 2006 @ 8:25 am
The Weston A. Price Foundation http://www.westonaprice.org/ is the place to start if you are looking for community-supported farms in your area to buy organic produce and meats from “happy” livestock. The main page contains Local Chapter link in the left pane under Get Involved section that will take you to the list of contact people and other resources by state. I am not sure if you have to become a member in order to get the information.
I am not a member, but my co-worker is, and she helped me out. At that time I was looking where and how I could get raw milk for my son, that is the milk that comes straight from a cow or a goat without being pasteurized and homogenized. Eventually, I joined the group, which in turn is a part of a private small-scale farmer’s community. The food orders and deliveries are coordinated by a group volunteer (my coordinator sacrifices her whole garage, two huge coolers and a refrigerator once every two weeks to keep our food for half a day until it’s all picked up by members). The produce is organically grown, milk comes “as is” from pasture-fed cows and goats, hotdogs and ham are nitrate free, eggs are from happy chickens. “Happy” because they are raised out on the grass in nice weather, and in the greenhouse in winter with clear white plastic to give more light. They can go out on nice days. They are fed organic alfalfa juice from France in the feed. In the winter they get ground shelled corn and some soy. Hogs are allowed on pasture too, when it suits. Right now they would just tear the grass to pieces. They would go after the roots -they would turn the grass upside down and eat the roots. Right now they get good grass hay and skim milk.
I know my farmer’s name and address. I have yet to visit the farm, but some members did.
I am so happy I have this opportunity to help out the small farms and benefit from their wonderful offerings. And I hope that similar arrangements are available in your area.
November 14th, 2006 @ 8:25 am
Hello Noell,
I’d like to reply to dudley here first, if I may:
(the comment I’m replying to can be found near the end of http://www.agnosticmom.com/2006/10/15/protecting-your-child-from-discrimination/#comments )
Hi dudley,
“Humans are not being classified as non-animals in Social Studies class.”
When I was in school, I was taught that, especially in the past, animals were used to perform agricultural labor. This was presented as largely OK. Humans were used to work in, say, cotton fields, and this was presented as not OK. The justification for this seemed to be the powerful overtone that humans were in a different class than animals. Hence, they were classified differently.
“Where in the world are you getting all of these animals working in the field against their will?”
On farms, ranches, and, in the past, slave plantations.
“No class, science or non-science, teaches about the use of animals in the field against their “obvious choice” and then uses this as the reason for the ending of human slavery and the categorization of humans as non-animal.”
I had the strong impression, in part from school, that humans ought not to be enslaved, but animals could be. Is this what you mean?
“Are you serious that this is your gripe against the public school system?”
Well, this is an example of a gripe I have. Noell had posted a gripe related to Biology, so I thought it would be cool to post a gripe, too. It’s not something I’m deeply concerned about, though. At the same time, issues relating to public schools are usually good for getting discussions going.
Peace,
Dan
I hope to get to the main article and other comments here soon.
November 14th, 2006 @ 9:31 am
Dan,
I don’t believe you are being sincere. The idea that your gripe against the public school system is that teachers are sending our children a “double message” by teaching that humans are animals in biology class and then indirectly classifying humans as non-animals in another class by teaching through overtones about animals working in the field against their will and the ending of human slavery is ridiculous. At this point, I think you are simply being obnoxious by playing semantic games with the word “animal”. If you want to discuss biology or public schools or anything, I think you should at least have the humanity to be honest.
If I’m wrong, and this is in fact your true opinion, then I don’t have much to add to what has already been said in this post and in the comments above. Are you being sincere?
November 14th, 2006 @ 11:14 pm
Its taken me a while to reply - sorry if this is disjointed.
One response seems to imply that I am some kind of extremist and/or vegetarian - well, I’m neither.
Being a consumer of meat - we can purchase meat that is farmed humanely - if we value reducing animal suffering. Many people don’t even know they have that option. I’ve enjoyed Olga’s contributions, and I’m also becoming involved in local farms that produce food in a way I understand to be healthier and more humane. It costs more - but hospitals expensive too, and I’d rather pay a farmer.
Certainly there are people I’d call extremists - and certainly they seem to suffer from some psychological problems - but whipping out that label when someone presents an idea that is uncomfortable (the notion that you shouldn’t torture your food - in this case) is unhelpful. Labels obscure communication.
That animals feel no pain is a false notion that many people still carry. Sorry I misrepresented your notion that chickens feel LESS pain, Noell.
Empathy - The way people use the word most often - as a way of relating to a similar emotion or circumstance from an informed (yet not identical) perspective - is fine and good. My hesitancy to use the word in the past is due to my notion that people use it in too literal a way.
Giving examples of how animals behave in captivity can be misleading. I’ve read that pigs are intelligent enough to go insane shortly into their typical lives as livestock on the average pig farm. A person raised in such conditions wouldn’t make a very good example for human potential either.
Terry’s contention that we are supreme beings: Supreme how?
Biologists have pretty popular opinion that, as far as animal life goes, insects are by far the most successful animals.
Life is not a hierarchy, its a web - we are lunch to animals smaller than we can see (they are dining on us right now).
It seems unreasonable to compare our nervous systems with other animals to determine who has more or less of something - that does not address the fact that it is relative to the species. Given the diversity of animal life - the vast majority of emotion and pain that exists would likely be entirely alien to our own experience. This is where the empathy can get hairy. Presumptuous empathy is the stuff we use with good intentions to pave our way to hell. Smile at the wrong gorilla and he’ll take your head off.
November 15th, 2006 @ 4:19 am
If you have seen cows on a field, you should know that they do have other needs to fullfill. It’s very wrong to think that their only purpose is to be bred and feed us. They come from wild ancestors too, like pigs, lambs, chickens and so on.
The fact that they are domesticated animals does not mean that they dont need to be free and graze on pastures.
They way we breed animals nowdays it is extremely unethical and wrong, they suffer from all sort of problems because of the way they are bred and it is scientificcally dimonstrated, still, nothing changes the situation. This doesn’t mean though that I think that humans and animals are on the same level and i cant see anything wrong in owning an animal and eventually eat it if you treat it accordingly to its fisiologic needs and avoid any useless pain.
November 15th, 2006 @ 6:41 am
Ron–I knew you weren’t misrepresenting my statements about chickens on purpose. And thank you for clearing up the empathy concept. I do now remember you explaining the association you have with mystics and empathy, and it’s all clear now.
I see your point about nervous systems and pain being relative to the species. It’s a possibility. I am not convinced that it is significant (I guess we’ll agree to disagree on this one pending new research), but I see it is a definite possibilitiy and something I will keep my mind open to as we learn more.
BTW, I don’t know that Terry S. was pointing the finger at you necessarily, as the he was to extreme animal rights activists in general. But I won’t speak for him, since I don’t read minds.
November 15th, 2006 @ 9:20 am
I don’t particularly dwell on who is or is not supreme, but by measures we can make, we do have certain advantages over other species. It’s true that bacteria, viruses and any number of parasites are constantly at work both for and against our own bodies. But none of them have a good fast ball, nor can any of them write a sonnet or even peer at other parasites through an electron microscope.
I understand that through the evolutionary process every living thing has, in effect, honed particular skills to an art which have enabled them to survive and, perhaps, flourish within their particular environment.
I suppose using a superlative to describe our position in the cosmos is a bit over the top, as it is all relative. As the world changes under the influences of nature (i.e. weather, geologic changes, etc.) and its movement through space, our hold on any semblance of supremacy could be jeapordized in an instant.
I will temper my enthusiasm by saying that humanity is the nearest thing to being supreme, again, that we know of, since most of us here have sent god packing. As I indicated above, humans can perform tasks that no other life forms can. While I doubt that an amoeba would ever desire to compose poetry, it simply has no capacity to do so. Some other animals do have varying capacities for thought, judgment and creativity, but such abilities are developed to a far greater degree only in humans. Also, humans have an adaptability that few other living things possess. A palm tree could not survive long exposed to an arctic winter. But a person can go from sitting under that same palm, say in Bermuda, wearing a swim suit, then hop a plane, and in hours be cutting ice for an igloo wearing a heavy parka and mukluks. Ah, you say, a parka and mukluks. Give the palm tree similar protection, and it might also survive. The point is that the palm has no capacity of its own to conceive, manufacture, acquire or even put on a parka and mukluks. It is exactly those abilities which we most value and go a long way in defining just who we are. Of course our sense of superiority comes from a certain bias, but I think we’re allowed. Who’s to stop us?
The stuff that fills our minds - thoughts, curiosity, creative impulses and so on are no more substantial than the air. All of it could disappear in the plume of an atomic blast. But a world left to more successful species, say, cockroaches would be a mindless planet. As far as we know, there is nothing or no one else to care. Of what value is any of our knowledge or supposed wisdom to the universe? Frankly, I have no idea. Probably none. The universe will go on unpreturbed regardless of our presence. It will not register a “shift in the force” in the event of our annihilation. Our understanding of things is of value only to us.
By the way Ron, I was not accusing you of anything. If it seemed so, I apologize. I guess my transition from the specific to the general was not clear. Although, being “accused” of being a vegetarian does not seem to me a particularly bad thing. Some of my best friends are vegetarians. But no, I did not mean to imply that YOU are an extremist. I simply went off on a jag about people on the fringe, as it were, who become “true believers” in support of any number of causes. I just need to hone my discursive skills.
TLS
November 15th, 2006 @ 6:52 pm
That tendency to shift from specific and general pretty much describes most disagreements folks have here. These are very broad topics - and we feel strongly about them sometimes, and other times certain things just seem so obvious that we disregard contrary opinion out of hand. This is all stuff I am guilty of as much as anyone else.
I enjoyed your last post, Terry - I liked seeing the thought process shift back and forth from paragraph to paragraph - that’s how I tend to hash these things out for myself in a journal.
We absolutely have a bias to consider ourselves the peak of evolution. I imagine dolphins have that notion regarding dolphins also. Our adaptability is a tremendous benefit - and it has come largely from having the leisure time to think up complex ideas and the time to be creative and inventive. Sure humans were doing this ages ago - but the boom in the years since industrial age is (as far as I know) unprecedented. Humanity is like a bomb exploding in slow motion - the question is whether or not its something we can survive.
The poetry point is understood - but my first thought is that other animals are differently creative, and have different standards. There are some pretty fancy octopus gardens, as well as feather and shiny object collections out there that win the evolutionary equivalent to pulitzers (generally - the prize of status, power and breeding privileges). I’m sure some of their achievements are sublime to them as our own species’ are for us.
I can’t role dung half as well as a scarab (though I haven’t practiced… much).
By the way - another subject - I watched ‘The God Who Wasn’t There’ today and despite some low production standards and lousy music it was very good in places. I was slow to disregard the existence of a historical Jesus - but the historical evidence against that character’s being literal is far more plentiful and convincing than I was aware of. A good reference from the documentary is the site for a book called The Jesus Puzzle at: http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/
November 15th, 2006 @ 9:20 pm
Ron said above:
“Humanity is like a bomb exploding in slow motion - the question is whether or not its something we can survive.”
I think that is absolutely the situation we find ourselves in. As I have said, I believe humanity has the capacity to find answers to most, if not all, of the questions that we face concerning the origins of life and the cosmos. But, there are no guarantees. What we CAN do and what we WILL do might well be 2 different things. We may go boom. By our own hand or by something outside ourselves - an earthly collision with a marauding comet or an enraged Michelin Man.
We are certainly moving at a fast pace, faster than at anytime in human history. Some believe we are out of control. That may be. But we are stuck on this crazy ride. We just gotta hold on.
Ron - An issue I have regarding the abilities of animals is self-awareness. Do you suppose that scarabs lounge around beetle bars bragging amongst themselves about their dung rolling prowess?
Speaking of beetles, have there been any Ringo Starr sightings in any of those Octopus gardens?
Otherwise, interesting thoughts, and I will endeavor to check out your reference to the “jesus puzzle.”
Oh, and Hey, Noell. Sorry if we’ve taken over your space here. These things just have a way of going off on all kinds of tangents. There’s just so much fertile ground here. (I tried to fashion some kind of joke about stepping in fertilizer or some such, but it just wasn’t going to come out right.)
Later,
TLS
November 16th, 2006 @ 7:17 am
I like it when you take over the space.
I agree with the human assessment: I believe humanity has the capacity to find answers to most, if not all, of the questions that we face concerning the origins of life and the cosmos. But, there are no guarantees. What we CAN do and what we WILL do might well be 2 different things.
When we invented all this technology that is now threatening earthly existence and human health (pollution,global warming, pesticides, plastics that are carcinogens, etc.), we were solving problems and had no way of knowing the consequences. Therefore we can’t blame ourselves for getting into this predicament. We can blame ourselves for not trying harder to get out of it.
I believe that we can be just as ingenious and find new solutions for the problems we created. Will we do it fast enough? Is it too late? It’s impossible to know for now. The other question that comes along with this is what kind of new devastating problems might we cause ignorantly with the new solutions we devise?
Still, I can’t blame humanity for creating these issues in ignorance of the negative outcomes.
November 16th, 2006 @ 8:26 am
I suppose all of it is our fault, but, as you indicate, blame gets us nowhere. Any time spent chiding ourselves for our lack of insight is time wasted. We must acknowledge our mistakes and then move forward with some dispatch. While you are probably right about unknown consequences of our “fixes.” I think, though, that we are more aware now that cause and effect are very much at play when playing around with things such as our atmosphere, that can have a global consequence. We understand better that we must look forward before we pull the trigger. What might we hit besides our intended target? Indeed, what are the consequences of taking out the target?
I think its interesting and a bit scary that prior to the detination of the first atomic bomb, there were at least a few of the Manhattan Project scientists who believed there was a remote possibility that once the atom was split, it could, theoretically at least, cause an unstoppable chain reaction and literally destroy the planet. Happily, it didn’t. I bet there were a few sweaty palms out in the New Mexican desert back in 1945.
TLS
November 16th, 2006 @ 9:31 pm
Dung beetle bragging rights - Eric Larson (of Far Side fame) may know better than I, this seems right up his alley.
Technically - the bragging rights for these beetles is the size of the photo strip in their wallets, since the dung balls house their eggs and the quality of the poo ball helps to determine survival of the genes.
I’m pretty sure that once folks like us (generally laymen) KNOW about the problems in question, they are hard to avoid. When we stop over fishing or hunting, animal populations tend to grow faster than scientists estimate - - maybe the same will be true for transforming our plastics, reducing dependance on fossil fuels, and forming a victimless global economy.
November 16th, 2006 @ 9:46 pm
Before somebody says something: I know its easy to argue that people have known about some problems for ages and they are still problems today… cut me some slack - I was taking a shot at optimism
November 16th, 2006 @ 10:05 pm
Yay for optimism!
November 16th, 2006 @ 10:08 pm
I know that a good deal of the environmental (among other) problems we face are blamed on greed. I wouldn’t say that is wrong, but perhaps, only partly right.
While most of us would favor the reduction of pollutants and other measures which would go some distance toward insuring that the world our children and theirs inherit remains a “friendly” place to live. But we also want whatever life has to offer us NOW. Most of us want the “good life” whatever that might mean. Does that qualify as greed? Perhaps.
Much of the west has become a highly materialistic culture - the “He who dies with the most toys, wins” culture. But, all of this comes with the meteoric advances in technology. At no other time in human history has there been so much available to so many. It’s not an altogether pretty picture - the juxtaposition of conspicuous consumption as measured against the millions of starving, homeless people all over the world.
I think that is one of the major problems with our technological “explosion.”
How can we more fairly and equitably share the wealth? How much is too much? In American society it is largely left to the individual to decide.
I know this is a rather rambling bit of drivel. It’s not clear what it is I believe about all this. I think the answer to that is: I don’t know.
I like material things. But there are other “things” I value more. My family, my work, my ability to think. I am 60 years old. I don’t think I have ever owned a car that was manufactured in the same decade in which I owned it. The most I ever paid for a car was $3000. That was a 1984 Plymouth Reliant wagon purchased in the early 1990s. (And let me tell you, it was HOT.)
I’m not trying to convince anyone of my humility. If I had ever possessed the means, I’ve no doubt that I would have been roaming around some show room or other kicking tires. But, it doesn’t really bother me, either. My only concern is that whatever I or my wife are driving be reasonably dependable. That’s not always been the case. But we have a decent home, and judging by the size of the belts I wear, I have never been forced to miss a meal.
A lot of people miss a lot of meals - to the extent that they starve to death. I really don’t know what I’m able or willing to sacrifice. Perhaps only this weak effort in the blogosphere. Not much, huh?
Someday humanity will learn to equitably provide for the needs of ALL.
Or not.
TLS