Twelve years after stepping down from the editorship of BBS I have accepted an invitation from the Humane Society of the United States to serve as editor in chief of Animal Sentience, a new journal just about to be launched that is devoted to understanding and protecting the feelings of other species. I hope the findings reported in this journal will help inspire us to “do the right thing to the right kind of thing” so that we can at last put an end to the greatest moral shame of our own species – and the greatest agony of all the others.
Leadbeater, Simon (2019) In Defence of Tears. Ecological Citizen.
Wiebers, David and Feigin, Valery (2020) What the COVID-19 crisis is telling humanity. Animal Sentience 30(1)
Summary: The planet is in a global health emergency exacting enormous medical and economic tolls. It is imperative for us as a society and species to focus and reflect deeply upon what this and other related human health crises are telling us about our role in these increasingly frequent events and about what we can do to prevent them in the future.
Cause: It is human behavior that is largely responsible for the alarming increase in lethal zoonotic diseases that jump the species barrier from animals to humans: (1) hunting, capture, and sale of wild animals for human consumption, particularly in live-animal markets; (2) massive overcrowding of animals for human consumption in stressful and unhygienic industrial “factory farm” environments, a major direct cause of new disease outbreaks and mounting antibiotic resistance; (3) vast numbers of wildlife species threatened with extinction from habitat destruction and incursion.
Action: The trade and consumption of wild animals in live-animal markets should be banned in all countries. Intensive confinement of animals in factory farm operations should be discontinued worldwide for the sake of animals, humans, and the environment, and we should rapidly evolve to eating other forms of protein that are safer for humans. Additional investment in plant-based agriculture to grow crops to feed humans rather than livestock for human consumption will feed more people while utilizing far less land and water, allowing for the preservation of vital ecosystems for innumerable species.
Each of us can have a positive impact, beginning with mindfulness about what we eat and how all of our daily choices and actions may be affecting animals and natural habitats. Rather than simply attempting to react to crises like COVID-19 after death and destruction are already upon us, we need to address underlying causes and act now to prevent future disasters.
Videos from 2018 Summer School on Animal Sentience and Cognition
From this reading, I learned what it means for killing animals to be vitally necessary, which is that the animal’s life could save, or prevent pain in, a human’s life. People generally believe in the moral statement that it is wrong to hurt or kill a feeling being if it is not vitally necessary, yet most of the research out there hurting animals is not vitally necessary, and just based on curiosity. I believe that we should have stronger laws to protect animals as sentient beings and giving them the benefit of the doubt.
ReplyDeleteAlexander, it's not just about research on animals that it is true that much of it is not vitally necessary...
Delete“In the case of life-saving biomedical research a case can be made for conflict in vital interests: the laboratory animal’s life and the human life it could save.”
DeleteIs this a fine line or a blurry one? It seems a lot of research going on in animal laboratories serves a larger purpose of saving human lives, at least on the long term. Isn’t that what science is about, saving lives and easing pain? It affords a conversation about the long term process of clinical research in the medical world. People have only so many years in their career and even less in their doctorate years to explicitly help humans through their research. Science takes a long time–decades long–to come to vital conclusions. Can an individual really sacrifice his/her career and academic trajectory by deciding to conduct only vital research when there are fixed hierarchies of long standing domains in clinical science that need to be furthered and elucidated, and that matter to some scientists? These are questions I ask myself though I admire and would love to believe that there is a way to ONLY do vital testing on animals. I do strongly believe transparency is the very first step in reforming any industry that harms animals.
Tess, yes, it’s a blurry line as to which research is potentially life-saving (NORTH), and which research is not (SOUTH). We can’t have cartesian certainty for either NORTH or SOUTH. But there’s far too much animal research that is almost certainly not NORTH. Animal suffering and slaughter cannot be treated as if it were just inert raw material for science, as it is in physics and chemistry (if we set aside their potential environmental impact).
DeleteIt is not even possible to sort out the probabilities and trade-offs, however, while the suffering and slaughter of animals goes on at a rate that is beyond belief, with no life-saving justification at all.
(I’m not sure what career considerations have to do with this question. But biomedical researchers have less to expiate than those who hurt animals for taste, profit, fashion or fun.)
I had never considered the cause of COVID in the way you did. By consuming animals, we have created this pandemic, which required further animal harm in testing to create vaccines. While the vaccine is now necessary for us to move forwards, not only the animals used in testing, but all the human lives lost and affected, and animals consumed since then, all could have been spared had we acted ethically to begin with.
DeleteCOVID-19 reading:
ReplyDeleteI think the argument for habitat destruction as a source for the increasing threat of pandemics is an under-valued one. People often look at the overcrowding and confinement of animals in industrial factory farm environments and the exposure to antibiotic-resistant organisms, but removing the natural habitat of animals causes several issues for us as well as the animals. First, if the destruction of the habitat involves cutting down trees, we’re further contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and fueling climate change. As the article highlights, by removing the habitat, the survivors are forced into closer proximity to themselves and us, which increases the likelihood of transforming otherwise benign animal microbes into deadly human pathogens. Although it’s easy to conclude that the rising frequency of pandemics is largely due to the two prior reasons above, we need to be more cognisant about the effects of deforestation and habitat destruction because those manifestations might be harder to reverse.
Alexander, yes, you're right.
DeleteOn the reading titled “In Defence of Tears”:
ReplyDelete“Why do people become vegans? Is it owing to concerns about the loss of wildplaces and the extermination of their denizens, climate breakdown or human health deterioration? Of course all the above matter, but having emotional attachments to animals also remains central (p. 103).”
I appreciated that this article outlined reasons that people practice veganism outside of their emotional attachments to animals. Although, as stated in the text, that emotion is central to many vegans, there are other environmental or health related factors that contribute to dietary choices. Many consumers of meat are not aware of the detrimental effects that the meat industry has on the environment. There is a widespread perception that the only reason to exclude meat from the diet is moral concern, but other factors should be considered when making decisions on what food to purchase and consume.
Kimberly, yes, there are many reasons for humans to stop consuming animals, since it is no longer necessary for our survival or health and very harmful to the environment. My favorite is mercy.
DeleteI also think it's important to have a vegan's point of view, especially one that goes beyond emotional attachment. Truthfully, Prof Harnad was only the second vegan I'd met. Likewise, you learn about veganism in school as a type of diet, but there is little spoken about it; as a result, the cliche idea is that vegans are those who just love animals rather than considering other aspects which, as stated in the comment are "outside of their emotional attachments to animals."
DeleteIn this case, I've always wondered, though it may seem a little far-fetched, how those who grow up in butchery families or live in countries with a high number of "wet markets" influence a person's decision to become a vegan. Furthermore, we frequently learn about empathy towards humans growing up, and if taught in regards to animals, it is more of a "do not hit animals, do not ruin their homes, etc.". In this respect, I wonder if we taught the same concept of empathy concerning humans and apply it to animals, maybe people would be more inclined toward veganism from hopefully eventually understanding other factors/pros that take into play by becoming a vegan.
Maira, “emotional attachment”? How about compassion and justice -- the same human traits that have weaned (some of) us from genocide, slavery, rape, torture, subjugation of women, feudalism, imperialism, autocracy, murder and theft toward our “fellow-man. We have psychopaths (born and made), but we have sentience too. Lazy (apathetic) evolution spawned all of these. It falls to us to do set it right.
DeleteThe Leadbeater reading had me reflecting on how conversations around veganism are hyperfocused on the benefits for people and morality but not on how the meat industry is ruining the livelihoods of animals for consumerism. His reflection on how people need to recognize the suffering of animals and how as children, we are more empathetic to their suffering, but as we grow up, the empathy is lost. This collective apathy undermines our sentience towards animals and is rooted in individualism.
DeleteI grew up around vegetarians and vegans throughout my life because my family is Punjabi Sikh. Interestingly, there are no dietary prohibitions in Sikhism regarding meat consumption, but a significant amount follows a vegetarian diet. The biggest reason why so many Sikhs follow a vegetarian diet is that most are farmers, and there is this recognition that animals can provide more to life when they live and are valuable community members.
The “What the COVID-19 crisis is telling humanity” delineates the dangers of animal and land exploitation for human life, especially in terms of the various pandemics that have happened over the years, and the ones that will happen in the future. While I did find the article interesting, in that it encouraged the transition towards plant-based foods and the cessation of certain types of animal exploitation, the argumentation for it was very human-centered. To me, it followed this kind of logic: since the exploitation of animals and the appropriation of land is deleterious to humans and to our future, we should change our consumption habits. This contrasts with the “Doing the Right Thing” reading which discusses animal pain and our ability to have compassion with fellow living creatures, leading us to change our habits as we understand their sentience and treat them as equals. I feel like this step of compassion towards animals is a necessary condition for real change to happen, rather than just doing for our own sake: otherwise, we will just find a new way to separate ourselves from (what we believe to be) insentient animals and exploit them some other way, for example through scientific research.
ReplyDeleteMathilda, I like the duality you're pointing to in the ways of communicating about animal welfare. You might be right that fostering "compassion towards animals is a necessary condition for real change to happen". In practice though, humans often fail to act on issues that concern something bigger than/detached from themselves until they are facing direct consequences for them.
DeleteThis relates to psychological distance, which describes how removed an object/event is from the self (along 4 dimensions: temporal, spatial, hypothetical, social). In a nutshell, several studies have shown that people are more willing to act (eg mitigate/adapt to climate change) in cases where an issue and its outcomes feel more psychologically close. However, alternative findings have found that psychological proximity can trigger worry and concern (eg climate anxiety and paralysis) that instead prevent action. Applying this to animal welfare, it still remains to be seen whether the most efficient communication strategy is to frame outcomes as psychologically close or distant to people in order to encourage action.
Feel free to pitch in on this, but the most efficient strategy may depend on whether we are trying to trigger individual action or systemic change?
Mathilda, Amélie I too would feel better if we stopped hurting animals for the sake of the animals and not for our own sake. But what matters most for the sake of the animals is that we stop hurting them as soon, and as completely as possible, whatever our reasons, close or far, cupiditous or compassionate.
DeleteThe small portion of biomedical research that really does save lives has to be treated differently from all the other ways we hurt animals -- for food, fashion, finance and fun (including the destruction of their habitat), plus all the biomedical research that does not save lives.
Conflicts of vital (life-or-death) interests are a tragic fact of Darwinian biology. I think we will be in a more honest position to weigh it ethically when we have stopped inflicting on animals the vast, unspeakable and unpardonable quantity of suffering we are inflicting on them now, completely unnecessarily, for no vital (life-or-death) reason at all.
To piggy back on what Mathilda and Amélie said, concentrated animal feeding operations are a breeding terrain for infectious diseases and it has all to do with our human industry practices, misplaced moral codes and negligence when it comes to animals. This shines light on human ego, and our need to dominate, domesticate and control everything around us.
DeleteOur priorities are all wrong. We allow the torture and killing of animals in our industries because we value human lives more than we do animals’. We then, ironically, direct the overwhelming majority of antibiotics (80%!) sold in the USA to huge livestock industries to “prevent disease and promote growth.” Antibiotic resistance genes avidly spread in these farms and render the animals a hazard to our health if we come into contact with them through food and water. The data highlighted in this article were scary. There is such a dissonance here: we are putting our health and lives more at risk by continuing these practices, for the sake of eating animal meat. I am ashamed because I recognize the hypocrisy in my statement since I haven’t been able yet to switch to a fully plant-based diet, but I am an avid believer in the interconnectedness of all organisms, and it’s time I, and we, start to all acting interconnected. This swirls back to what you both were saying about having compassion not only for our own lives but also the lives of the other sentient and breathing organisms that live on the earth that we all share. Whatever it takes to convince people, who ultimately follow trends and strive to conform, should be encouraged.
Tess, well said. Let's hope that transparency, as you recommend above will reach the interconnected mirror neurons of all of us.
DeleteTo the point on the human-centered arguments being shortsighted or limited, it is true that they are limited in the ethical sense, but as Prof. Harnad has insisted, lazy evolution has bred self-centeredness into our species: appealing to the immediate and salient interest of individuals is probably the best way to get people to consent to change. The ethical case, though we may want to treat it as self evident, still requires ethical arguments, which is going to be beyond the reach of who aren't interested in pursuing them. Framing ethical questions as questions of self-interest isn't inherently limiting either– you can make the case (a strong case in my opinion) that compassion is not beneficial just to its recipient, but is mutually beneficial.
Delete(Interview)
ReplyDeleteI agree with basically everything in this interview, except a portion that I would like to comment on:
“The principle is there: It is wrong to hurt or kill a feeling being if it is not vitally necessary. I even think that most people would agree with it, in principle. But in practice, they may either believe that (1) the hurting and killing is vitally necessary, or that (2) the beings don’t really feel the hurting, nor lose anything in the killing: They may believe animals are not sentient, or that their sentience, unlike ours, somehow does not include the capacity to suffer.”
From my own conversations with non-vegans, a third group seems to emerge: (3) those that believe that the pleasure/convenience of animal-based industries outweighs the hurting and killing. The two first groups can be reasoned with to an extent, by (1) introducing people with other options that demonstrate the unnecessity of hurting & killing, or by (2) arguing for the sentience of other beings or the benefit-of-the-doubt approach to sentience. On the other hand, the third group is harder to sway, since they seem to have all the cards in hand (they think animals are sentient & killing/hurting them is not vitally necessary), yet they decide that the trade-off is still in favor of killing & hurting. Pleasure (taste etc) and convenience (social aspects, availability of alternatives etc) seem to be the main drivers of this group. How would one respond to group (3), which is not in denial of the suffering and killing, nor of the unnecessity of this pain, but just prioritizes pleasure and convenience over animal welfare?
I guess the only way to respond to group 3 would be to persuade them that hurting/killing animals actually leads to worse outcomes than not doing so. This seems a no-brainer to me, considering all the suffering and death + other problems (carbon emissions, zoonotic diseases, resistant bacteria) resulting from the way we currently treat animals. But in the end, I suppose one can always find some excuse to claim that hurting/killing animals will lead to better outcomes "in the long run", especially if you believe that human well being > animal well being.
DeleteAmélie, Gabriel, for social, economic and political change, it is not necessary to win over every person, only enough of them:
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFVYD4xp_eo
I think that, in all three cases, the way to persuade them would be to expose them to the treatment of animals in factory farms. Many people can say that animals don’t feel pain, or that their killing is necessary. But if they were to be shown what the animals are forced to suffer through, they would see that of course they feel pain, and nothing is necessary or worth inciting that pain. Unfortunately, the companies controlling these farms realize that they will lose buyers if conditions are photographed and exposed, so they hide the abuse through ag-gag. In this way, company heads are able to keep profiting off the suffering of animals, while buyers are able to consume animal products in peace without thinking of the pain they are perpetuating. It’s a win-win — excluding the third party with the greatest consequence.
DeleteJosie, you're so right: ag-gag, the inverse of transparency is the victims' greatest enemy of all.
DeleteI definitely agree that exposing people directly to the treatment of animals in factory farms would engage our mirror neurons and allow us the chance to perform some mind-reading and thereby empathize (as I talked about in my comment on 11b relating to how a globalized capitalist economy means we no longer get the chance to mind-read with the organisms we interact with) and that this would be effective for getting people off of meat. As a current vegan, however, I have to say that back when I ate meat I would see groups doing demonstrations in McGill metro, etc. projecting graphic videos of animals being brutalized in slaughter facilities, and while I certainly felt bad about it and it got me thinking (I had had the thought that I should perhaps go vegetarian/vegan for years, but had never acted on it), it still didn't push me to finally become vegan. In the end, it was essentially direct exposure to my partner's eating habits, sharing food with them, etc. that pushed me to make the switch. So I would say that the flip-side of our mind-reading capabilities (and the language and sociality they enable) is that we have a significant capacity to influence the others in our lives as well, against not only the very important target of the meat industry but against all of the exploitative, extractive systems that cause so many of these problems including disease outbreak as was mentioned in the other article, as well as climate change which has direct relations to both the meat industry and to COVID, and so on.
DeleteZahur, yes, many factors can influence people, and the effect is rarely instantaneous.
DeleteBut the only way to counter the effect of ag-gag on our mirror-neurons is to open them to the truth through our eyes. That's what the activists at the McGill Metro and the Mount Royal Metro are trying to do.
The most that cog sci can do is make a compelling enough argument for animals to be deemed sentient beings. It has done that in many countries! But… legally granting sentience to animals has had relatively no impact (Brue, Alex., 2018). What can a cognitive scientist further do?
DeleteInformation is available to humans from which they can base their decisions. But what if their decisions are wittingly illogical? Let’s assume they have the pertinent, scientifically valid information available to them, including the overwhelming abundance of mutualistic negative impacts of animal cruelty described by Wieber. We can also assume that it feels like something to choose meat over more logical alternatives. In this sense, would this transcend the doing capacity of humans into the realm of feeling capacity? If we are amongst the 3rd group proposed by Amelie, it seems our doing capacity is overrun by a more authoritative capacity of feeling. If my line of thought is valid, then the onus of cog sci can’t stop at a mere parasitic explanation of the existence of feelings but it must further explain WHY do you feel the need to eat meat. Logically, sentience should be enough, but in our human-centered/dominated world we have shown it is evidently & unfortunately not enough to explain (or change) our (mis)doings…
A naïve way to respond to group (3) is just to innovate more on plant-based foods. But I think that it might be the most efficient way to attract people in group (3) to veganism. What is interesting is that many ways of utilizing plants for protein sources are present in different cultures around the world, and these practices can be incorporated into the plant-based diet, and so understanding them, their history, and how it is made can be a way of touching into different cultures around the world. China has a rich vegan culture especially related to the spread of Buddhism since 1,500 years ago, and Buddhist restaurants such as Gongdelin do an excellent job of imitating meat-based dishes by plant-based materials such as mushrooms and tofu and this practice has been going on for an entire century. This is for certain an excellent vegan competitor of meat-based dishes. If there are more and more competitors that are plant-based and equally tasty as animal-based ones, with the promotion of animal sentience and the cruelty to animals happening now, there is no doubt that a mass transition to veganism will eventually happen.
DeleteSepand, you're right that cogsci alone can't do it (but it can help).
DeleteAnd evolutionary biology can help explain how our species got here (but that is no excuse, any more than it is an excuse for slavery, genocide, or the subjugation of women).
Han, you are right that that the options, and choices exist, and have existed for a long time, all over the world (just as they did for slavery, genocide, and the subjugation of women). Cogsci isn't enough to change people, but we are.
If humans act on the speciest basis that all other animal species are inferior in moral standing, this means that humans also have a greater moral duty to other animals as we can determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”. However, this is not currently informing our interactions with the world. The distinction between something that is a vital necessity and something that is not which Prof. Harnad mentions in the interview is something that can aid us in fostering more ethical interactions with other sentient beings. However, this is something that as Amélie mentions will only change if there is something that benefits us. Thus, in the cases of climate change and the rise of pandemics, we are beginning to see an increased awareness that the acting on the basis of vital necessary is more favorable as our own existence comes into question.
ReplyDeleteDarcy, true, yet I still hope we will do it for them, and not just for us.
DeleteInterview with Professor Harnad:
ReplyDeleteThis interview got me thinking about cognitive dissonance. Whether we want to or not, we experience them in our daily lives. For example, we know that killing innocent beings (humans or non-humans) is wrong, yet we allow the animal industry to exist and grow. Another example is deciding whether I should go work out or not. I know that I NEED to work out to stay healthy, yet I still do not do it sometimes.
What causes this dissonance? Laziness? But if that is the case, then how is laziness evolutionary beneficial to organisms? I understand taking breaks is necessary, but outright not doing something out of sheer laziness seems to be an unintended effect of one of our evolutionary traits.
Alexie, my bet is that cognitive dissonance (and deception, of both others and self) began with language…
DeleteThat's interesting- cognitive dissonance began with language. How so?
DeleteAlexei- I think the dissonance you mention is very real. But I don't think it can be generalized so broadly.
"We know that killing innocent beings is wrong."
I strongly believe many people don't see it as wrong, but not because they think animals aren't sentient.
I'm an Albertan, with strong ties to the rural community, and many people believe animals were put on the earth (by God, or whichever Creator one worships) for humans to eat/use. This idea is even deeper than religion, though, because even for those who are not particularly religious, this way of life is so deeply entrenched in our culture. If I asked my family and friends, I doubt many of them would deny animal sentience. That's not the issue at hand for us, it's about a way of life, and from my perspective, I see a lot of respect for the animals.
I have a lot more to say about this but I'll leave it at that. I expect some pushback on this opinion which is fine!
All in all, I think this might help elaborate on Amelie's comment above, whose points I agree with for the most part, but I do believe that pleasure/convenience is not the whole story here. Cultural nuances may warrant some consideration.
But no doubt, factory farming and many other sanctioned practices are very problematic and there's miles of room for positive change (not to mention tons of motivating factors besides animal welfare, like the Covid-19 article pointed out, and also because of climate change as we all know).
Hi Teegan! I agree with you that there is a huge cultural significance in hunting and farming for a lot of people, and this connection is not a bad thing but rather very important. I was wondering if you have any thoughts as to where we draw the line between "useless" and "necessary" killing or harming of animals and where do cultural practices fall on this continuum? I really could see the argument go either way and I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
DeleteDefinitely! Killing and harming animals is rarely necessary as we know. There are countless alternatives and the many healthy vegans that exist today are good proof of this fact. However, sometimes I like to draw a comparison to religion. Is religion strictly necessary? Not so much...many people live and breathe without it, but on the flip side for many people religion plays a very important role in their life, and they view it as being necessary. So to answer your question, I don't know if I would argue that it's 100% on the necessary side of the spectrum but depending on the group of people and the context it could get very close.
DeleteAnd we should stray as far away from the useless side as possible! I strongly disagree with trophy hunting or anything of that sort. But so does my whole entire family. Many of us hunt but the animal is always used as fully as possible (not to mention the benefit of hunting when animal populations are overpopulated).
**Trigger warning I'm about to mention slaughter practices**
At Thanksgiving this October, we quartered 4 steers and everyone who bought some had to fill out a form saying what they wanted to be done with each part. Spare ribs or ground beef? Dog bones or soup bones? Would you like the tongue? (For many people the tongue is a bit of a delicacy, so if the buyer doesn't want the tongue, someone else will). Wastefulness is not taken lightly.
Many of our traditions play into this culture of respect for the animal. This is as much for us as it is for them. Another example: in 4-H kids are responsible for raising and caring for their own animals (usually steers or lambs) which will then be auctioned off. This is a really valuable learning experience and the better you treat your animal, the better it will show at competition. When my dad and his siblings were growing up their only source of income for themselves was managing and selling their animals, whether it be chickens, pigs, steers, etc. and so they had to do a good job, and if they were mistreating an animal, there would be hell to pay (via my grandpa).
I'm giving these as counterexamples for people to consider.
(I think veganism is great and I eat vegan food all the time FYI!)
I won't join this debate, but I think it's a good idea to reflect on all this in the open.
DeleteI think the debate about the cultural value of animal consumption is fascinating, and I would like to add another argument for those interested. The book The Sexual Politics of Meat introduces the concept of "the absent referent," which refers to the meat being dissociated from the animal that died to produce this meat. This process of objectification, fragmentation, and consumption resonates also links to how sexual violence is being mistreated and how sexual consumption is normalized, for example, prostitution and surrogacy. The cognitive dissonance where we overlook the brutality behind these actions is a key factor in acquiescing with the current societal order. Thus, Resistance to meat eating can be seen as a way of resisting the patriarchy and is endorsed by many activists.
DeleteThat's really interesting Jenny. I strongly advocate for people to know where their products truly come from, but many people pay no attention whatsoever.
DeleteNot just animal products either- all products. There are some atrocities involved in many trades as we all know. Just look at the avocado industry.
Alexei, I had the exact same thoughts while reading this interview. Specifically this quote from it stuck with me:
Delete“But I now realize that there was a lot of self-deception and hypocrisy in my reasoning, and I am deeply ashamed.”
Like you said, this self-deception is so fundamental in everything we do– not just in animal studies but in our everyday lives. It’s important to be aware of it and recognize it. Much like Prof. Harnad, I feel this shame– I’m ashamed that it has taken me this long to realize how much self-deception plays a role in my own life. And on top of that, I’m even more ashamed of the reasonings and beliefs I have used to justify my actions and mask the truth behind them. In class, we discussed cognitive dissonance and I was instantly reminded of the idea of halal meat. Growing up, I always remember being told that halal meat was good to eat because it caused the least pain for the animal… I understand that everyone has their own ways of life, and much like Teegan and Sophie have mentioned, there needs to be a better balance of ethics, law, and respect when it comes to practices like hunting. But in my own personal experience, I realize why this idea of halal meat as justification was problematic: I was using it to justify a much greater issue– the unnecessary slaughter of millions of animals. We have to realize that even these rules that are pushed forward through religion and deemed as the “right thing to do” also fundamentally mask the truth… they are nothing but ways to deceive ourselves and justify actions that have no justification.
COVID-19 Paper:
ReplyDeleteThe authors of this paper demonstrated how uncontrolled animal exploitation is causing many issues that we are currently dealing with.
Even though I agree with the overall message that they are conveying, I do not think that the individual should bear all the responsibility for all of the problems that the animal industry has caused.
The main issue lies in corporate greed and their unending quest to expand. They only care about their profit margins and nothing else. The punishment for breaking the laws and regulations for the safety of animals and the environment must be reworked since their effectiveness is equal to slapping someone's hand. (i.e., a company made billions in profit, yet they only need to pay a 3 million fine for breaking a law they will eventually break again in the future).
Alexie, the industry is a huge, sinister factor -- but it couldn’t go on doing it if we didn’t go on buying it.
DeleteIt is true that the industries are at fault, as well as the systems in which we live in. It is also true that it couldn't go on doing it if we didn't go on buying it. It is a difficult ethical question of how much responsibility the individual should bare. Unfortunately, it is a slippery slope when it comes to the feeling of guilt and feeling as though there is all the pressure of the world on one's back. However, if everyone made efforts there would be a drastic difference... I think that it is a matter of finding the right balance of making action against what matters (in terms of meat consumption, activism, unlearning speciesism, etc) but also not feeling the guilt that the industries allow us to feel for going along with the systems in which we live in and the ways we have been taught, which they profit off of.
DeleteAriane, kid-sib did not understand your last sentence...
DeleteThe interview between Prof Harnad and Marc Bekoff touches upon categorization, the other-mind’s problem and sentience. In their conversation, Harnad makes it clear that the brain “does not wear its functioning on its sleeve,” and argues sentient beings extend far beyond humans. He explains that there is no vital need to cause harm (and loss of life) to animals for our purposes (whether it be for food, or even less so for clothing or sport), so that it should be our duty to withdraw from practices that would harm other species (by becoming vegan). Like Darcy and Amelie stated above, convincing the majority of people to change their lifestyles (by becoming vegan) would be difficult without demonstrating any direct benefit to the person making the change, as vegan options can be argued as being more expensive, less accessible and not as pleasant as their meat-alternatives. I agree that it should not be about us, as you’ve replied to Darcy, but unfortunately, I think the most that can be done in the short-term in commit people to making small steps towards veganism (such as being vegan for two days a week) until the complete change becomes more palpable.
ReplyDeleteKarina, let's hope the transition can go faster than that. Not everyone needs to do it at first; just a critical mass. Then the news will start percolating back that not only is it not hard at all but your metabolism and brain soon adapt to make what you need taste at least as good in herbivore mode as it did in omnivore mode.
DeleteHarnad interview:
ReplyDeleteThe core hypothesis behind the interview with Stevan Harnad is resumed well with this quote “it is wrong to hurt or kill a feeling being if it is not vitally necessary.”. In other words, sheer animal cruelty is unnecessary; we have no vital need to eat and consume meat, so we should be able to stop. I completely understand and agree with the vegan point of view of preserving animals and wanting to dismantle the horror circuits that animals are put through before being consumed by humans.
I also understand that the animals being put through experiments in labs are certainly not treated in the best manner. In addition, I could appreciate that experiments on animals are also not justifiable as vital. I am just questioning whether any non-invasive techniques could be applied to humans and produce the same results as invasive procedures executed on animals. In other words, could anything replace these techniques if we stopped experimenting intrusively on animals?
Because undoubtedly areas of research like optogenetics have produced some exciting results in recent years otherwise, they would have been abandoned a long time ago (because of the physical invasion of lab rats). Even if these results probably don’t help us reverse-engineer cognition, they give us insight into different neuronal aspects of the rodent brain, which might be extended to the human brain. Not everything has to help us in our quest to understand cognitive functions as a whole yet can still be useful to understand other aspects of the human brain.
Étienne, I wish I could say that all life-saving research can be done non-invasively, but it is not true. On the other hand, there's plenty of ways to reverse-engineer cognition non-invasively.
DeleteI think that when the animal suffering and slaughter that is not vitally necessary has been stopped, as it should have been long ago, our mirror-neurones will be better tuned to sense what else needs to be stopped.
Covid 19 paper:
ReplyDeleteThis interesting article evokes the need for human alimentary consumption to change to preserve animal and human well-being. Indeed, we have been mistreating animals in cruel establishments such as factory farms to please human animal consumption for a long time. But unfortunately, it did not affect us if the animals were in overcrowded cages and in terrible health conditions because, as sad as it may seem, “the meat looked the same on the plate” in the end. In the last two years, things have changed; as it is well known now, there has been an outbreak of Covid-19, which “originated in bats and, via an intermediary such as the pangolin, found its way from a “wet market” where live wildlife species were being sold for human consumption in Wuhan, China, to one or more humans at that location.”
This shows that it has come to a complete cycle, as we created these terrible conditions for the animals. And even though most people were not affected by these morally, they continued to eat meat and disregard the horrors of business; they have been physically affected by Covid-19. This virus outbreak is mainly due to the conditions of animals in markets described as “sick, highly stressed, and overcrowded animals in highly unsanitary conditions.” We need to reduce our meat consumption and start shifting to plant-based proteins to sustain a healthy environment for the animals around us and ourselves.
Étienne, We need to do it, and soon, for our own sakes. It can never be too soon for the victims' sakes.
DeleteOn the COVID reading:
ReplyDeleteThis reading was very informative. I think my biggest takeaway is that there needs to be stricter regulation on the meat and dairy industries at large, similarly to how the Chinese government shut down (or at least attempted to…) the wildlife markets. This needs to go further than just ensuring safe animal practice. For example, here in Canada pro-dairy or pro-meat advertising would need to be more restricted, or at least not receive extensive government funding… I think in order for real change to happen the avenue of profit for a lot of these companies needs to change. This can come from both personal and regulatory levels. If people stop eating meat, and the government regulates the meat industry more strictly, then there is very little incentive for these corporations to continue their current path. (This is building off what Darcy suggested above) Sadly it seems like a pandemic wasn’t enough to do anything, but maybe money would be.
Sophie, and maybe CCTV, web-streaming, and crowd-sourced citizen inspection will awaken our mirror-neurones, and then a surcharge on producing, selling and buying animal products and a rebate for producing, selling and buying animal-free alternatives will help nudge us toward doing the right thing at long last...
Delete“The time has come for us to rethink our relationship with all life on this planet – other humans, nonhumans, and the earth, a life form in itself.” Wiebers & Feigin on Covid Crisis
DeleteI think this theme is one that, in a way, can be drawn from all three readings from this week.
The covid-19 reading was especially compelling as it illustrated the full circle effect of our mistreatment of animals coming back to affect us directly. I think we, as individuals and as a collective, need to rethink how we consume and live in general. It’s easier to push the discomfort from our minds when going through daily life without seeing with our naked eyes the suffering connected to what we are consuming (for non-vegans). As Harnad mentions, our mirror neurons need to be activated to a greater extent. I think one positive thing is this animal sentience journal and the discussions being had here.
The earth is not a life form, let alone a sentient life form. But it matters what happens to the earth, because what happens to the earth happens to the life forms that inhabit it, and that matters.
DeleteMelis, capitalism is a big target, animal suffering is a good place to start. My hopes are set on transparency and our mirror neurons.
ReplyDeleteReposting Melis's comment:
Delete"This was my first time learning about ag-gag laws, even though I knew the concept. They refer to laws that forbid undercover filming or photography of activity on farms without the content of their owner. It is the best way to prevent humans from becoming aware of the suffering they're inflicting on animals. The existence of laws such as this one shows organizations' unwillingness (governmental or not) to change or help people change their habits. There is more focus on short-term pleasures than the long-term consequences (explained by the previous skys). How can we expect people to change their established habits without information? We, as university students, are lucky to have access to and know how to use resources to gather correct information, but others might not be so lucky. We are constantly bombarded with advertisements and promotions to continue and even increase animal-product consumption. How can the long-term behaviors of the masses change while organizations are promoting the contrary?"
Polly, it took a long time with slavery and with the subjugation of women (and it's not over). But it's easy for us to be patient -- not so easy for the victims.
ReplyDeleteI found the interview reading very insightful. I really liked how it was mentioned that it is a larger problem that just the experimenting on animals in a laboratory context. It goes beyond as it is a whole industry based on the assumption that inflicting pain on non-humans doesn’t matter. Similarly, certain industries are also built on inflicting pain on humans. I had never heard of the ag-gag laws before and frankly I was shocked. The laws forbid people from having access and releasing data animal mistreatment in the agriculture industry. This is honestly surprising as it seems that what the community is missing is knowledge about the conditions where animals are treated in the agriculture industry. Thus, visibility and acknowledgment seem more important than ever. Going back the pain inflicted on animals within the laboratory, it seems like neuroethics and bioethics in general could be of use for students studying cognition as well as science.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFVYD4xp_eo
DeleteThe interview has given me an answer to what Stevan said in the very first class about no comments on using animal models for testing vaccination but not for the unnecessary scientific explorations. I fully agree that most research published using animal models are mainly driven by a curiosity with so much to be done to actually save lives. But it's this what science need? Curiosity and creative ways to solve problems. Here I am definitely not defending gruesome research! No! Some are really messed up! Halting all animal research is a wishful thinking, but I do think there are doable approaches and a group effort of researchers to stop the abuse of lab animals. I do believe adapting to a no-meat diet takes way more effort, considering countless issues arise in affordability, social-economic-class, education in such topics, cultures and so much more that I will not discuss here.
ReplyDeleteMonica, halting all animal research that may be (N) necessary for human survival and health is certainly wishful thinking while animals are being slaughtered (U) unnecessarily for food, fur, finance, fun or "culture." But let's hope that N will look and feel different in a world free of U.
DeleteUnfortunately, not all life-saving research can be done in a non-invasive way. But what we can do is minimize it by stopping those unnecessary(not life-saving) animal experiments. Especially the food, fur and recreation industry, they inflict a large amount of absolutely not necessary pain on animals, and their ag-gag laws made the rest of the people even less aware and less empathic about this issue. Therefore, transparency is the key to awakening people's mirror neurons. As the professor said: "the only way to counter the effect of ag-gag on our mirror-neurons is to open them to the truth through our eyes."
ReplyDeleteThis interview reading makes me wonder about the realistic aspect of adopting a vegan diet on a massive scale. The fact that animal proteins are more nutritionally efficient than plant-based ones means that humans need to consume more of the latter to achieve a similar level of health as when animal proteins are included in the diet. As far as current farming technologies are concerned, to sustain the nutrition needs of 8 billion people, doesn't that mean we destroy even more natural habitats of wild animals to sustain our vegan diet?
ReplyDeleteI agree with the notion that in order to achieve world veganism, we would have to increase production of plant-based protein options astronomically, but even though this might encroach on some animal habitats in the ecosystem, I think that overall, it is a net positive for animals, since we’ll no longer be inflicting harm upon them as we harvest them for our consumption. Furthermore, if we were to get rid of these animal farms, it would free up space for more of these plant-based farms as well, thus solving part of the issue that you are insinuating here.
DeleteYucen, where do you think the food to feed the animals bred for our taste comes from?
DeleteTo expand on Prof Harnad's response:
DeleteWhile it is true that plant-based diets may require more food to be consumed in order to get the same amount of nutrients as animal-based diets, it is also true that plant-based diets require significantly less land and water to produce the same amount of food. This is because animal agriculture is a much more resource-intensive process than growing plants. Additionally, the amount of land needed to raise animals for food is much greater than the amount needed to grow plants for food. This means that if we switch to a more plant-based diet, we can produce the same amount of food using less land and water, which can help to preserve natural habitats and reduce our environmental impact.
Sophearah, yes, and to expand further: it can also prevent an enormous amount of suffering.
DeleteI feel that properly addressing the problem of overpopulation is the most direct way to reduce unnecessary animal suffering. Non-human species' survival and reproduction are controlled by their environmental constraints. The same constraints are applied to humans to a much lesser degree. It is clear that unnecessary animal suffering is one of the consequences of the off-balance state between humans' exploitative nature and the exploitable resources driven by overpopulation. But implementations and discussions about human population controls are often labelled as "eugenic" and avoided in our daily conversations. Suppose animals are, indeed, sentient, just like us. What makes it less "eugenic" when we are actively modifying their living environment, lifespan, and even genetic makeup just to satisfy our "expensive palates"?
ReplyDeleteYucen, yes, human population growth needs to be addressed, for many more reasons than have been discussed here.
DeleteAlso, just like we talked about regarding the 11a reading, even if we were to doubt that a living organism can feel, the last thing we should ever be doubting is whether that organism can feel pain. This is where I feel as though discussion we've had throughout this course paint an interesting picture, by reminding us of what it means to be ethical and abiding by our morals.
ReplyDeleteComment on interview with professor Harnard:
ReplyDeleteWhat I find funny (perhaps interesting) is the ability of humans to feel (or believe) something but instead do something completely different - cognitive dissonance. As Harnard stated “the principle is there: it is wrong to hurt or kill a feeling being if it is not vitally necessary” and yes this principle sounds to me completely reasonable and correct but yet that is not how many are acting… Last semester I took a class about human motivation (psyc 471) and we learned about intrinsic motivation and how one is more likely to act according to a belief if they internalize such in a specific way. This makes me wonder what is the most efficient way to make people act upon their beliefs because as Harnad said “most people would agree [with the principle] in theory” but yet do not act on it.
Vitoria, it was not necessary to persuade everyone that slavery, genocide, murder, rape, torture, subjugation of women, racism, colonialism, and feudalism were wrong and should be outlawed. It was enough to persuade enough people.
DeleteTo Prof Harnad:
DeleteI think it is not enough to persuade enough (any arbitrary quantity) people. Rather, I think it’s more important to persuade the right people, the people who have the power to make systematic changes or have the greatest influence. Of course, with a greater amount of people sharing a belief, it is more likely a subset of these people have the ability to make great impact. Additionally, it is easier to convince those with power when the masses share a belief. If the right people can be persuaded, they can make the systematic changes and much more quickly influence a massive amount of people.
In this case, I believe the ones with the most power is the government. Governments currently subsidize billions of dollars (12 billion in the US, 8 billion in Canada) to the meat industry. With the right people in power, these subsides can be greatly reduced or completely removed to stop promoting this practice. This money can be put towards investing plant based protein instead (100 million invested currently in Canada). The government can increase fines for not adhering to regulations so that the companies have incentive to take rules more seriously. Either way, persuading enough people is the path to persuading the right people since Canadian citizens have the collective power to vote for those that share best interests.
Sophearah “the government” is not a “people” (though they may be, sometimes, somewhat, “of, by and for” “the people”). All too often governments are made of, by and for the Trumps, Murdochs, Musks and Putins of the world.
DeleteNevertheless, genocide, slavery, rape, torture, subjugation of women, feudalism, imperialism, autocracy, murder and theft toward our “fellow-man” have been (sometimes, somewhat) outlawed, because enough people were against them rather than for them.
The trouble is that other species are not “people,” yet they are by far the overwhelming majority of the victims of people. Only people can be their advocates, if there are enough of them.
That interview with professor Harnad is a reflection about different reasons of professor Harnad’s for becoming a vegan. It also talks about animal research and the fact that in most research, animal suffering is not necessary and will not save any lives - such as the animal research that appears in Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS). Professor Harnad is not against animal research if is serves to saving human lives. However, animals used for cognitive science research is useless because it will never directly save lives. According to professor Harnad - and almost everyone would agree - it is morally wrong to kill animals when it is not vitally necessary. However, in practice, there is a cognitive dissonance that makes people act differently.
ReplyDeleteCharlene, it is not necessary to persuade every human to act; just enough of them.
DeleteI do agree that animal research in cognitive science is not necessary not just because of the cognitive differences present between humans and animals, but because, as mentioned in the interview, the brain is just an organ and cognition is truly a higher order capacity so not much can be revealed from the mere structural elements of the brain. Also, in the interview the idea risk-benefit analysis of using animals was briefly mentioned where Professor Harnad mentioned that he doesn’t think much benefit arose from the studies published in BBS which used animal subjects and the interviewer asks how he would know in advance. I don’t think we need to know the exact future effects of these studies in particular to gauge their influence especially when we can refer to countless studies in the past using animals that were found to be useless.
DeleteI do very much agree with the sentiment that in an ideal world, all of humanity should become vegan, since I think that obviously, hurting and killing sentient beings for our own benefit is wrong, but also because environmentally, being vegan is beneficial to things like climate change and the preservation of the planet’s ecosystems. However, I do think that we are a long way from this logistically being possible; in 1st world countries like Canada, I do think that it is very feasible for the population to go vegan, especially with the invention of things like beyond meat, but in 3rd world countries, where everyone is just trying to survive, this is less possible. What I mean to say is that if I could flip a switch that turned the entire human population vegan tomorrow, I would do it, but in reality, we will likely have to a fix a lot more other problems for this dream to actually happen.
ReplyDeleteBrandon, you are right, the prosperous parts of the world is the place to start. And then they will also produce the alternatives that will make it possible for the less prosperous too.
DeleteI do agree with Brandon, however, when we look at the statistics, India is the country where there are the highest percentage of vegetarians in the world. That is due to religious beliefs (practice of ahimsa --> non-violence towards all beings) and of course we are talking about vegetarians and not vegans, but I don't know if it really is a matter of non feasibility due to financial means and lack of possibilities or a matter of cultural habits, etc. I think that it is definitely a bit of both.
DeleteCharlene, you are right. Poorer countries can manage without eating meat, and culture can help motivate them to do it. Indian and Buddhist culture and creed is among the rare human cultures on the planet that are morally benign (ahimsa) toward nonhuman (and human) beings -- at least in precept (though less and less in practice). Though one wonders what Krishna would have said to Arjuna about nuclear India...?
DeleteThis article about Covid 19 emphasizes the problematic human behaviour towards animals and the environment that is the cause of most diseases. As we all saw it, Covid 19 had a massive impact on the organization of people’s lives, at a global scale. In fact, it is not the first pandemic and it will not be the last one if we don’t change the way we, as humans, interact with the environment. We can read in the article that Covid arose from a bactery that was transferred from bats to pangolins, and then to humans. That was possible through the interaction between pangolins and humans in live-markets in China where wild animals are sold for human consumption. However, in addition to live-markets, overconsumption of meat is problematic because animals are enclosed in ridiculously small areas, leading to overcrowding. We should focus more on plant-based food in the future to reduce the chances of starting new pandemics.
ReplyDeleteI agree that focusing on plant-based and generally more sustainable food industries will lead to greater well-being for all sentient creatures, which is shown in this article. Years prior to covid 19, specialists predicted that our food industry would implode as it did, yet we ignored the warning signs. And now that the negative impact of the pandemic on our daily lives is much lesser than in the last few years, we still haven't adapted our practices... Unfortunately, I don't know anyone who changed their eating habits because of the atrocities revealed by the pandemic. What will it take for people to change, myself included? At least Prof Harnad is a good example of it never being too late, having only switched to veganism many years after vegetarianism.
DeleteComment on the interview:
ReplyDeleteI found this interview very impressive. I think the model of principle vs. practice applies to many other domains in life. Many people might agree that doing or not doing something is morally wrong in theory, however when it comes to practice, most of them tend to lose this awareness or avoid thinking about morality. I do not know why this happens, maybe it is a lack of remorse in our species, or a high level of selfishness that we possess. In the context of hurting animals, it seems like people are fine with it if this serves them pleasure or benefits them in some way. It is very upsetting to see that we are selfish beings to the extent that we either deny that animals can feel pain, or that the outcome of this behavior (the pleasure we feel) outweighs the cruel consequences of what happens to animals.
Alara, see reply to Vitoria above: https://catcomconm22.blogspot.com/2021/08/11c-bekoff-m-harnad-s-2015-doing-right_30.html?showComment=1670093437560#c5837791078288417973
DeleteInterview: In this interview, Dr. Harnad elaborates on the reasoning behind and criteria for vitally necessity as the only justification for doing anything that could potentially harm or kill an animal. Because, as discussed in the previous skywritings, it is impossible to prove that any animal cannot feel, it must be assumed that they can to avoid bringing unnecessary harm to them. Additionally, I think that much harsher restrictions on animal research that is not vitally necessary may push researchers to find new, non-invasive ways to answer the questions they were previously asking with invasive methods. However, to add to the ambiguity between North and South, it has sometimes been the case that research or thought previously considered useless turns out to be integral to future developments (such as imaginary numbers).
ReplyDeleteElena, we will be better placed to make judgments about "Blue Skies" research when the earth is no longer flowing red.
DeleteI think the argument for only killing when vitally necessary to justify predator-prey killings can be expanded even further to incorporate their lacking deduction mechanisms when it comes to addressing moral issues. Again, because we have cognitive capacities that animals don't exhibit, we also have the ability to deduce and we a strong moral sense that we can refer to in addressing these matters. Animals generally don't especially when it comes to feeding and I think the fact that we exhibit these mechanisms places a responsibility on us to use them (as opposed to other species).
DeleteThis is a very good point, and ironic that the only species with higher level functions like moral reasoning is the one to exploit and cause the most suffering to other species. I think the key here is that people do not believe that animals can feel, just like we can feel. They falsely believe that because animals can't think like we do, and lack a neocortex, that they can't feel anything at all. I think if more people believed in animal sentience then our moral reasoning abilities would be used by more people to decide against factory farming, non-vital testing on animals, etc
DeleteCOVID-19 reading: This article approaches veganism from a completely different perspective than the previous skywritings. The authors demonstrate the ways in which the meat industry and its practices have played a role in the spread of COVID-19 and other pandemics. I think there would still be many reasons to stop our current unnecessary harming of animals without entirely focusing on human well-being. However, analyses like the one presented in this paper are important, as they may help to further emphasize the harm that the industry has done and will continue to do to humans. When animals lose their habitats or are forced to live in horrifying conditions in factory farms, humans will be more likely to be exposed to diseases. Furthermore, this article extends the effort beyond veganism and forces people to examine the impact of other industries that continue to destroy the resources that all animals need to continue surviving.
ReplyDeleteElena, it would be a more redemptive footnote to the Anthropocene era if we stopped causing unnecessary suffering for the sake of the victims, but it would be just as welcome if we did it for the sake of ourselves. But the sooner the better...
DeleteThis interview made me consider the differences in our approaches to sentience in connection to my experience in the Winter 2022 semester. As someone who completed an undergraduate research course in a laboratory, I used mice of various ages to examine the effects of a drug that had the potential to be used as a treatment for a specific condition. For instance, although I was never the one to perform the surgery, part of the methods included surgery on the rats which was quite intensive in which “Lipopolysaccharides (LPS) were administered 4 hours before hypoxia-ischemia (HI). HI was induced on postnatal day (P)10 Long-Evans rat pups with a left carotid artery ligation followed by 2-hour exposure to 8% oxygen.” Furthermore, when I asked how the rats were collected, the master student in charge told me it was done in an "ethically appropriate" manner… In this regard, it is quite remarkable that in this situation, we easily just do these to animals because we do not consider animal feelings in the same way we do for humans. Specifically, we would not perform this type of surgery on humans for ethical reasons [not to say that doing it on animals isn't just as bad], but we can see that when we think about humans in these processes, we tend to feel more uncomfortable and empathetic, whereas animals we simply think that they are for beneficial gain and thus do not gain the same type of discomfort.
ReplyDeleteWhile incalculable suffering is being inflicted by humans on nonhuman animals every second of every day, worldwide, completely unnecessarily -- for taste, fashion, fun and finance -- the only question about lab suffering caused to animals is whether it really saves lives. Far, far too often it doesn't; it just generates publications, wins research funding, and promotes careers. It is the same in all areas of science, but only in biological medicine does it hurt sentient beings.
DeleteAs many of my peers have mentioned, there is a strong influence in how we approach our daily lives, which includes how we treat animals as a food source. To avoid repetition, we can already see the dangers that have been repeatedly mentioned by the decision to include animals [cows, pigs, etc.] in our daily meals. However, it appears that these dangers are not being recognized. Rather, it appears that we have increased the abuse of this consumption to the point where slaughterhouses have increased in number and the praise for "fancy steak" with wine on the side has become glamorized.
ReplyDeleteAs a reflection on another class I took this semester, PPHS 511, it is undeniable that we are still at risk of a global pandemic, with one of the reasons being climate change, in which meat consumption being among the contributors. Notably, meat consumption is strongly linked to increases in greenhouse gas emissions that enter our atmosphere on a daily basis. Furthermore, the increased meat consumption necessitates the need for more areas to produce meat/slaughter, etc. This frequently then takes the form of inhabiting land, such as forests. As a result, using previously untouched land, such as forests, may result in pathogen exposure, which will almost certainly result in the emergence of new infections.
In an ideal world, it is clear that animals would not be killed or hurt unless it was “vitally necessary,” but I must admit I am rather pessimistic for the potentiality of such a world. My gut would say that one would not necessarily need to be vegan in order to avoid harming animals—that being vegetarian and consuming milk, eggs, or honey only from cows, chickens, and bees humanely and locally raised would do the trick as well. However it also seems likely that as long as the demand persists for these products, that cannot be met solely via humane practices, and the third group, as Amélie suggests, is indifferent to the suffering endured to obtain these products, then veganism should remain the only solution. However, it’s difficult for me to say a way forward with this conclusion so long as demand persists—which it very much seems to be.
ReplyDeleteJulia, think a little more about necessity versus luxury. (And consider the fate of the male progeny of "humanely reared" cows and chickens; and that there is no way that "local" solutions can scale up to global demand. That's what gave birth to factory farming. And look more closely at how "humane" honey is actually produced.)
DeleteAnd then consider again the difference between necessity and luxury.
In my Indigenous class on food sovereignty, we discussed how the pandemic's severity was ultimately a consequence of settler colonialism and capitalism and the mass exploitation of the most vulnerable. The interview reminded me of this discussion. The pandemic came from the exploitation of animals. It was exacerbated by our greed to put ourselves first before the community and its members, which includes animals. We exploit animals for the sake of research because they cannot verbally communicate with us.
ReplyDeleteThere is no cruelty we have inflicted on nonhuman animals that we have not inflicted also on humans. But with humans we have eventually outlawed it, and all but psychopaths abide by those laws. We have to extend that mercy to all sentient creatures.
DeleteThe Weibers and Feigin reading highlights how industrialism and capitalism have exacerbated the spread of the pandemic, in particular, the meat industry and its practices. Furthermore, this is not the first time the meat industry has been instrumental in causing a pandemic. They are often an epicentre for this due to labour exploitation of both humans and animals.
ReplyDeleteWhen he first moved to Canada in the late 1990s, my uncle had to work in a meat factory. While he worked there, he quit eating meat and has remained a vegetarian ever since because of his experience seeing the horrible conditions these animals had to endure. I bring this up because it depicts these industries' lack of humanity and compassion and how they prey on vulnerable and marginalized populations to satisfy their capitalist urges.
Yes, the mirror neurons of psychopaths are as indifferent to the suffering they cause to sentient humans as to sentient nonhumans.
DeleteYes, in both agony and blood, FF is probably the worst of the worst, but that has a lot of ingrained culture sustaining it too, including Big Macs, Xmas Turkey, and Paschal Lamb. And the agony is felt by each individual victim. The "environment," too is not just an infrastructure for supporting one particular species, but individual elephants, polar bears, fish and snails.
ReplyDelete