| ||
| ||
|
The logo on a popular Animal Rights T-shirt reads, "Horse Carriages Are Sooo Last Century."
.
Other things are also last century: Live humans answering a phone call, cashiers ringing up items as opposed to machines and swans in Central Park. (If the DEC gets its way, swans will soon be "sooo last century" in the entire state of New York.)
.
Perhaps one could even argue that animals in general are "soooo last century" as according to recent scientific studies, half the world's population of animals have disappeared since 1970.
.
But, should disappearing or "banished" animals be a goal of Animal Rights?
.
One would think that primary among the rights of any creature (or human) would be the right to continue living, as well as general species survival.
.
But, there are some in Animal Rights who propose and believe that many animals should not continue surviving at all. -- Primarily, all those animals domesticated and "used" by humans over the centuries. These would include all "food" animals, domestic pets (including companion cats and dogs) and apparently any horses "used" by humans to pull carriages (and presumably any other task that involves "use").
.
One popular spokesman for such theory is Rutgers Law Professor, Gary L. Francione.
.
.
Mr. Francione argues that all domesticated animals are virtually of human creation for human use and servitude and moreover, that they could not survive independently in the natural world and therefore, should be eliminated.
.
Though the words are different, this is similar to the DEC declaration that mute swans should be eliminated in New York State because they are an "invasive species," brought to the US by Europeans for ascetic purposes.
.
It is somewhat ironic and disturbing to note advocates for Animal Rights and opponents basically arguing the same humanist theory. (i.e. humans created the problem and therefore should fix it by eliminating the animals.)
.
Where in history do we argue that human victims of enslavement, war, oppression, bigotry or even human error should be "eliminated" as remedy for the abuse?
.
It seems we usually attempt to address alleged abuses of fellow humans or human error through policy and life style changes and legislative, legal remedies.
.
Though Mr. Francione claims that he and his partner are caregivers to 5 rescued dogs, he later asserts that were there only two dogs in the universe and he and his partner determined their fates, they would not allow the dogs to breed in order to "put an end to the pet industry." (This is also a position supported by PETA and other radical fractions of AR.)
.
Mr. Francione claims to "love" his five rescued dogs. Yet, he and other ARists would deny such nurturing and fulfilling animal/human bond and connection to future generations because of an imperfect and arguably abusive industry. Is this not a little like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face or throwing out the baby with the perennial dirty bath water?
.
Is it not in fact, blaming and punishing the victims for the sins of the abusers?
.
Why would we not be able to address abuses towards animals in the same ways we address them towards humans -- education, evolution, recognition of inherent rights, lifestyle changes and legal remedy? Why dismiss and throw out all the good and reciprocity of animal domestication and connection, along with the bad?
.
Last week, I alluded to the fact that it is not always a matter of humans overtaking and "enslaving" animals that form animal/human bond and connection.
.
Anyone who's ever rescued an animal knows this, as well as people simply tossing some treats to otherwise wild ducks, geese, pigeons or even dolphins.
.
Many wild animals willingly engage with humans out of their own free will. Stories of such engagements fill National Geographic documentaries and YouTube videos.
.
This past Sunday, 60 Minutes even did a segment ("Dognition") on how latest scientific studies and research indicate dogs understand far more of human language than what was originally thought and actually do "love" their human caregivers.
.
If such can be true of dogs (who are among the most studied and well known of all animals), then should it not also be presumed true of other animals as well -- particularly those domesticated over thousands of years, such as horses, cats and even farm animals?
.
We have barely begun to scratch the surface of our understanding of the complexities of the animal kingdom and how it connects to us as humans.
.
And yet, there are seemingly some who would aspire to get rid of all that because of humans' long and sordid history of animal abuse and killing.
.
Professor Francione does make many salient and relevant points in his writings.
.
Particularly, in the contention that to the animal being kicked, beaten or abused, it matters not whether the perpetrator is a deranged or sadistic human or someone merely doing a job. Nor, does it matter whether such abuse is being carried out directly or indirectly through payment for "service" or "product."
.
While it is true that all those who eat or purchase products of animal abuse and destruction are complicit in (and probably in denial of) the abuse, it seems serious mistake to equate such (or really, most) people with those who deliberately torture, hurt or kill animals for sadistic pleasure which is usually indicative of psychopathy.
.
The typical person eating meat or consuming dairly should not be assumed to be mentally ill nor compared to those who obviously are (such as the noted case in above links of a young man viciously tossing a cat across the pavement for laughs).
.
Nor should it be assumed that every "use" of animals (on its face) is "morally wrong" anymore than it would be to assume such for humans. As previously noted, humans use other humans all the time whether in a work or even personal relationship. And so too, do animals use each other -- often for the betterment and survival of the whole species.
.
Unfortunately, on the particular issue of animals raised and killed for "food," use of animals has toppled down the slippery slope from "use" to actual abuse decades or even centuries in the making (but particularly since the development of antibiotics after WW2 and creation of intensive "factory farms" where billions of animals can be raised, deprived and severely abused inside of buildings where few people see or are even aware of their interminable suffering).
.
Nor should the slaughter of 55 billion animals a year worldwide for meat be considered by any stretch of the imagination, "humane" as it is literally impossible to conduct such massive carnage with any semblance of humanity or consideration of "animal rights." Anyone doubting these words need only to witness any number of animal slaughter videos on YouTube or read the landmark Washington Post article from a few years back, "They Die Piece by Piece."
.
.
More recently, it was also reported in the Washington Post that nearly 100,000 chickens slaughtered in the US annually are boiled alive -- dumped into scalding vats without having been sufficiently "stunned" or killed. Some argue that 100,000 chickens out of millions is not significant. But, for even one chicken to die this way is one too many in a society referring to itself as "civilized and responsible."
.
But, perhaps the worst offense of the meat and egg industries (and our government) is that the animals most slaughtered and abused -- fowl and rabbits -- are not even covered under the federal Animal Welfare Act or the Humane Slaughter Act. This is unacceptable under any modern consideration or definition of animal welfare, let alone, "rights."
.
While some reforms are finally taking place in the meat, dairy and egg industries (thanks to public pressure and outrage) http://blog.humanesociety.org/wayne/2014/10/centerplate-animal-welfare-announcement.html, the bottom line is that significant progress cannot occur until world demand for animal products is drastically curtailed and reduced, if not eliminated.
.
Even Bill Gates seems to recognize that current consumer demand for meat and its current production is unsustainable over the coming decades for the planet due to waste of vital resources (water and grain to sustain farm animals) and environmental destruction.
.
Professor Francione, PETA and other Animal Rights activists promote an agenda of "elimination" of all animal use, domestication and even the breeding or promotion of companion pets.
.
But, such agenda goes too far (and damages the cause itself) as its end goal is to eliminate billions of more animals from the planet (including entire species) and completely sever any animal/human connection and bond. That seems in some ways to put us more on the side of otherwise adversaries seeking to kill animals for any multitude of rationalizations, "pests," "too many" or "invasive."
.
Only in the AR case, we claim to want elimination of all animal companionship or "use" for the animals "own good."
.
One wonders how the animals would actually feel about that if they could talk? Especially those animals (dogs, cats, horses and others) enjoying otherwise fulfilling and reciprocal relationships with humans.
.
As far as the issue of "food animals" it seems we need to first strive towards the three "Rs." -- "Reduction, replacement and refinement." Were everyone to seriously cut back on meat, dairy and egg consumption and replace with healthy and tasty options, it would hopefully eliminate the so-called "need" to raise and slaughter animals in such assembly line, abject and cruel conditions. Eventually, we could demand coverage of the animals most abused for "food" (fowl and rabbits) under the Animal Welfare Act and Humane Slaughter Act and fight to get even more laws passed to insure proper care, respect and treatment while the animals are here and under our control.
.
Personally speaking, I am vegetarian (near vegan) for more than 35 years and never envision myself eating meat or fish again regardless of any laws passed. But, it is both unrealistic and perhaps not entirely desirable to expect or demand that the whole world "go vegan" as such would not only virtually eliminate all farm animals from the planet, but other kept animals (such as cats or endangered species predator animals maintained in zoos) who cannot be sustained on plants alone.
.
It seems in some ways, we need new and alternative definitions for Animal Rights. Definition that considers the physical and mental needs of individual animal species and their relationship to humans and the planet.
.
True Animal Rights should not be about loving animals to extinction and denying their right to interact with humans if so deemed reciprocal and healthy for and by both. Just ask any carriage horse leisurely clip clopping through Central Park or any wild goose or dolphin enjoying a treat from humans or any pampered dog or cat rushing to greet their caregiver coming through the door to say, "Hi, I'm glad you're back. I missed you!"
.
.
.
***********
2 comments:
What you point out is the difference between Animal Welfare (AW) activists and Animal Rights (AR) activists. Most people want the AW but confuse it with the AR who want to eliminate all human/animal interaction. I would really like to understand the AR view on cats - the only animal that domesticated itself. Cats actually chose to be with people. And they can survive on their own as demonstrated by feral cats. Take any feral kitten young enough and it can be socialized into a housecat.
Very well said. I truly care about animals and wouldn't mind more consideration for them in a legal sense beyond property if the the stated end goal loudest organizations pushing for it was the elimination of species and genotypes that have been with us from the very beginning. There are old breeds and varieties that are already at risk of extinction. Some researchers believe that the domestication of dogs freed our ancestors to develop language (olfactory regions got smaller & language regions got bigger when dogs moved into the picture). That may or may not be true, but the dog's ancestor chose our ancestors just as much as we chose them. (Don't believe me? Look at what it takes to actually contain an adult wolf.)
Driving them to extinction seems to me to be a crappy way to give thanks for tens of thousands of years of partnership and service.
Post a Comment