I received an advance copy of my new book by mail today. (It will be generally available in about 2 weeks.) This is my 12th, and it never ceases to be a thrill to hold in your hands the product of countless hours of research, thinking, and writing. Thanks to all who helped bring years of effort to this fruition.
The issue of our relationship to animals is extremely emotional and important. I obviously hope that everyone will read the whole book. But I know some can’t or won’t. So, from time to time, I will post some short excerpts here, to give a nutshell overview of what I write and advocate over 249 pages of text.
Let’s start with the writing of someone else–the conclusion to the brilliant, almost mystical preface, by novelist Dean Koontz:
When we self-blind ourselves to the Truth of the world’s magnificent complexity and mystery–of which we are a fundamental part –we do not only cut a thin wedge from the roundness of existence and convince ourselves that this one theory or ideology is the whole Truth. In our narcissism, we also insist that those who refuse to wear our blinders are villainous and depraved and corrupt. In this regard, an ideologue is no different from a member of a religious cult who has carved a sliver off the body of Christian theology and has made it his end-all and be-all. But the entire truth of a vast forest is not embodied in a single leaf.
A recognition of the world’s complexity requires an acceptance of the truth that intentions and nuance matter. Puppy mills are an outrage and should be shut down because they horribly abuse breeder dogs for no purpose but profit. This isn’t the same as a scientist, following merciful protocols (as most do), using lab rats in search of cures for disabling diseases. A sound argument might be made for the cruelty of denying a wide-ranging and undomesticable animal like an elephant the freedom to roam, keeping it chained to a stake for no purpose but to entertain us with clever tricks in the circus; though a well-designed zoo park might not be cruel at all. Training a dog to do tricks is not cruel, because dogs are pack animals and consider us members of their pack, because they would rather be with us than elsewhere, and because their natural inclination to play makes learning tricks a joy for them.
Among other things, this book is a rational, reasonable argument for the need to accept the nuanced complexity of the world and to resist the dangerous simplifications of antihuman ideologies. Wesley J. Smith knows too well that if the activists ever succeeded in their goals, if they established through culture or law that human beings have no intrinsic dignity greater than that of any animal, the world would not be a better place for either humankind or animals. Instead, it would be a utilitarian nightmare in which the strong would destroy the weak, in which power-crazed leaders would destroy everyone who loved peace, in which the wealth of the world would be concentrated in the hands of a murderous few, in which mercy would be unknown and the only virtue would be the ability to survive, in which the only right would be the right to die.
Yes, animal rights is inextricably connected to the importance of human exceptionalism, and with it, human freedom and dignity. Grazie mille di cuore to Dean for his contribution, friendship, and support.
February 5th, 2010 | 10:07 pm
Yes, animal rights is used to try to justify the importance of human exceptionalism, which is a circular-reasoning, self-defeating, and untenable concept. Yet another example of the exploitation of non-human animals. Humans are animals, everything that breathes is an animal, vivisection is never merciful, and targeting animal rights is not the way to defeat the culture of death any more than participating in rather than rightly damning even the entire concept of “bioethics” is.
February 6th, 2010 | 8:30 am
Wesley, I was just thinking about writing a book and the title would be “A pig is a Pork, is a Bacon, is a Ham. Do you think I should write “IT”?
I hear ya! What do you mean by that?
Really nothing at all Wesley except that I was hoping that you might help me write “IT” cause my spiritual secretary just quit on me to go and work for some guy she calls Abrum The Ham. Go Figure! :)
Peace
February 6th, 2010 | 10:55 am
Love. him.
February 6th, 2010 | 11:27 am
Terri Schiavo was murdered by the same society (=bunch of humans) that has tolerated vivisection and the callousness it breeds. Ingrid Newkirk became an animal rights activist after working in an animal shelter and seeing what goes on in animal shelters. Michael Savage, who shares SHS’s erroneous view of animal rights, has seen what goes on in labs and knows what kind of people vivisectionists really are, just came out against experimentation on chimps. Wake up and smell the coffee.
February 6th, 2010 | 12:12 pm
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by CO2HOG: SHS: A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy: Koontz Preface http://bit.ly/bQuBrV #tcot…
February 6th, 2010 | 3:40 pm
What is it with this concept of “antihumanism”? Who’s being antihuman? The other animals? We’re bothering them, not vice versa. It’s humans who are being “antihuman,” and humans who are castigating them for doing it. The culture of death did not come along because of the animal rights movement; it’s a result of what the animal rights movement is trying to fight — on behalf of the value of life, which is an absolute value, and respect for SENTIENCE. Every day there is more and more evidence that the other animals are way ahead of us. If they weren’t we’d have learned from them. But God forbid we should admit that they have anything to teach us.
February 7th, 2010 | 3:02 pm
[...] off the shelf because I saw that Koontz wrote the preface to Wesley J. Smith’s new book, A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy. If this is the conclusion to the introduction, I can’t wait to read the rest: [...]
February 7th, 2010 | 4:35 pm
Along with Dean Koontz, all the scientists are swooning.
What does Koontz do scientific research in, again? I keep forgetting.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
What does scientific research have to do with the moral/ethical debate over “animal rights?’ Not a thing.
February 7th, 2010 | 9:05 pm
“Every day there is more and more evidence that the other animals are way ahead of us.”
Ahead of us in what way?
February 7th, 2010 | 9:26 pm
Wesley: Yes it does. When scientific research does something unethical, which vivisection is, the end result is not to our benefit, but rather the culture of death.
February 7th, 2010 | 9:32 pm
Wesley: No, it has a very important thing to do with it. When scientific research does something as unethical as vivisection, the result is the culture of death.
February 8th, 2010 | 12:43 pm
Some animals apparently border on sentience. The case of Koko the gorilla comes to mind; personally, I believe that if Koko had been suspected of a crime, and when asked, signed, “No, Koko not do that,” then Koko – or any animal capable of enough self-awareness to self-referentially deny its own culpability for an act – would be entitled to due process out of respect for its God-given level of self-awareness.
Animals not having reached that level of self-awareness are chattel in the traditional sense of the term; that property which is precious and to be cared for, and used in the manner least harmful/most beneficial to the property and to ourselves.
“Animal rights” derive solely from the charge that God gave us to be stewards – not owners – of His creations.
February 19th, 2010 | 8:13 pm
[...] title comes from a quote from PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk.) According to the preface, by another author, “Among other things, this book is a rational, reasonable argument for the [...]
February 23rd, 2010 | 11:36 am
[...] my book criticizing the animal rights movement that I will post from time to time here at SHS. We began with the conclusion of Dean Koontz’s wonderful preface. We now turn to the book in [...]
February 23rd, 2010 | 4:17 pm
FYI, Ingrid Newkirk runs one shelter, in Virginia, where they kill 97% of the animals they bring in. Look it up, the statistics are out there.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Galway: Yes, thanks. I have written about that.
March 3rd, 2010 | 4:25 pm
The animal rights people want to divorce humans from the world of nature – we are one and a part of it not separate or different. Humans are as natural as any other animal.
What constantly floors me is that people who claim they are for animal rights are the very first in line to take away the right to reproduce or even exist from those animals.
They also appear to believe that humans are not a part of the natural world. Different is not unnatural.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact