This is the third post devoted to the content of my new book. In the first post, I quoted from novelist Dean Koontz’s preface, and about six weeks ago, I excerpted the opening section of the Introduction. Today, we conclude our look at the Introduction, in which I wrote:
Perhaps we should not be surprised at the growth of the animal rights movement. Americans love animals. We coo over and coddle our cats and dogs as if they were human children. We paste “Save the Whales” bumper stickers on our cars. We flock to national parks to catch fleeting glimpses of bear, elk, and antelope, remnants of the wild America that once was and yet, still is. We fictionalize and anthropomorphize the animal world with movies like Bambi and Babe. We want our cheese to come from “happy cows.” At the same time, as primarily urbanites, we disassociate ourselves emotionally from the fact that meat comes from killing animals and that our stylish leather jackets were first worn by cows or sheep as their skin.
This love affair with animals can often be charming, if a bit loopy. It is also a potent indicator of our prosperity and cultural success. Most in the West have become so removed from the struggle for daily survival that we now have the luxury of caring deeply about animals and their suffering—which is a good thing. Moreover, our care for animals reflects our empathy, one of the great human virtues.
I then discuss an incident that I think illustrates how we project our own emotional attributes onto animals:
Our deep affinity with animals begins very early in life. I was reminded of this a few years ago whilst on a family vacation to Ireland. In the west coastal town of Dingle there is a unique tourist attraction: “Fungi” the lone dolphin. Tourist boats advertise trips into the harbor to see Fungi, with no fee charged unless he makes an appearance. Liking dolphins and wanting to see one up close, my wife Debra, niece Jennifer, and I eagerly bought tickets, and along with about 20 other tourists, were soon on a boat slowly cruising toward the mouth of Dingle’s small picturesque harbor.
As if on cue, Fungi arrived, swimming almost within reach on the starboard side. We all pressed eagerly up against the railing to get a good look. I was standing behind a very excited little boy—who couldn’t have been older than four—ecstatic at being so close to the magnificent animal. Suddenly, he sighed in ecstasy, held his arms out as wide as he could, and with all of the love in his innocent heart, crooned, “Ah, Fungi!”
It was a touching moment. Fungi was utterly indifferent to the child, no doubt swimming alongside the boat knowing he would be fed by a deck hand as his usual cut of the day’s profits for making an “appearance.” But to the little boy, Fungi epitomized the joy and hope of life itself.
I segue from there to Debra, during the same vacation, reading an awful passage to us from a biography of the French novelist Alexandre Dumas, in which he killed a dolphin–simply because he never had:
“Why did you read us that?” Jennifer and I moaned in unison, our splendid moods of the moment ruined at the thought of such gratuitous cruelty against an innocent animal. The fact that the incident had occurred more than one hundred years previously did nothing to diminish our upset.
And yet: Killing animals has always been and remains inextricably bound with human thriving. We do so for food and leather, in medical research, in sport, and when necessary, to ensure a proper environmental balance. More to the point, there is a lot at stake in this debate. Indeed, pause a moment and consider the impact if we were prevented—as animal rights/liberationists advocate—from domesticating animals. Medical research would be materially impeded. There would be no more fishing fleets, cattle ranches, leather shoes, steak barbecues, animal parks, bomb-sniffing and Seeing-Eye dogs, wool coats, fish farms, horseback riding, pet stores, Indeed, in the end, perhaps not even attractions like Fungi. Millions would be thrown out of work, our enjoyment of life would be profoundly diminished, our welfare and prosperity materially reduced.
From there, I lay out the structure of the book, and then bring the Introduction to a close:
The stakes in the animal rights debate are larger than the sum of its parts. It is my hope that after reading this book, readers will agree that it is a distinctly human and noble calling to continually implement ever-improving methods for raising and caring for animals. But this must not and cannot include granting rights to animals as if they were people. Indeed, I hope this book will convincingly demonstrate that the very concept of animal rights should be rejected because by seeking to destroy the principle of human exceptionalism the movement subverts human rights as it undermines our ability to promote human health, prosperity, and well-being.
In coming weeks, I will be doing some well known nationally syndicated radio programs about all this, both in a debate format and as a sole guest. Once the final details are set, I will let y’all know in case you want to tune in.
April 7th, 2010 | 12:26 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy: Setting the Table, Part 2 » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog http://shar.es/mqtt9 [...]
April 7th, 2010 | 2:25 pm
Whenever AR types go on about the evils of domesticating animals, I think of comedian David Brenner and how he decided the bravest man in human history was the first man to drink cow’s milk. According to Brenner, this guy said to the other cavemen, “You see that big four-legged critter with the horns up on that hill? You see that thing hanging down underneath it? Well, I’m gonna go up and squeeze that thing, and whatever comes out — I’m gonna DRINK it!”
(I suspect beer had been recently invented as well.)
But seriously, don’t the AR’s ever think about how we came to domesticate all these animals that are bigger, stronger, and faster than us? And what it would mean to give up the centuries of effort that went into getting us where we are? And is it really theirs to give up?
April 7th, 2010 | 2:55 pm
I think I will bike over to the Harvard Coop right now and get a copy.
I will be very interested to see if you bring up human reproduction and human reproduction rights, and precisely how you determine which organisms are human and which aren’t.
I’ve found that there are two kinds of animal rights activists, driven by different values and diametrically opposed on the issue of human genetic engineering. Some people are animal rights activists for the same reasons they desire genetic engineering, they abhor the dirty animal aspects of reproduction and seek to uplift humanity (or some ‘posthumanity’) out from the animal kingdom. So though they insist on equality for animal rights more as an insult to humans than because they think animals really have rights.
Others are animal rights activists for the same reason they OPPOSE genetic engineering, like me. I think it is bad economic policy and bad for public health and unsustainable. By “it” there, I’m referring to industrial technology and science intervening in natural biology and threatening the cultural and environmental ecosystem. So I oppose factory farming (which virtually all meat and dairy farms are today) and animal experimentation and the growing industrialization and encroaching “nutritionism” of creation of humans. I think the animal nature of reproduction is beautiful, not disgusting.
April 7th, 2010 | 8:17 pm
Wesley Smith: When we reflect on why it is that humans have such affection for animals, we realize that it’s due to our similar nervous systems: we humans and other animals are related. Therefore, it’s only natural that we want to protect them, and care for them. The fact that their nervous systems are so similar to us, they’re conscious, they feel pain, pleasure, etc., is a reasonable basis for asserting that they have rights. Not as many rights as us, but they DO have rights. You must really deep down believe that humans are not very ”exceptional”, because you think that our flourishing is entirely contingent on our continued exploitation of other animals. I, on the other hand, have complete cofidence that we humans will continue to flourish, indeed flourish more, by living by high moral ideals, which includes using our God given intelligence to be exceptional without cynical exploitation of other creatures.
April 7th, 2010 | 9:04 pm
Wesley Smith: I would like to add that many, if not most experiments done on animals have been shown to be of little value to humans. Mathew Scully, in his excellent, and couragous book Dominion, has pointed this out well. Certianly humans would be healthier not eating meat, and my guess is anyone who actually witnessed a pig being butchered, would never eat pork again. Anyone who saw a mink being skinned alive would likely go without the fur coat. That is, people often ”go along” with these things not because they’re essential to human ”exceptionalism”, but because they’re ignorant. And, you can’t have it both ways: on the one hand, you concede that animals suffer, and therefore they should be protected, but not if it means we cannot eat meat, experiment on them, wear their coats, etc. Logically, if you acknowledge that they suffer, like we do, you’re required to grant them protection; not lip service, to make yourself sound compassionate, but real action. These animals depend on us to protect them, and allow them to have the only conscious life they’ll ever have . To deprive them of this is selfish, and inhumane.
April 8th, 2010 | 10:14 am
Bret: “When we reflect on why it is that humans have such affection for animals, we realize that it’s due to our similar nervous systems: we humans and other animals are related.”
No, it’s because we’re not hungry, or they don’t look tasty, or the other animal is not trying to eat us at the moment. Seriously. Affection for other species is a luxury of our privileged lives. Subsistence farmers don’t see wild animals as potential pets, they see them as competitors in a life and death, you or me struggle.
Bret: “because you think that our flourishing is entirely contingent on our continued exploitation of other animals.”
It is. And the other animals’ flourishing is entirely contingent on their continued exploitation of other animals. Circle of life. You can’t digest a meal without exploiting the animals living in your gut. You can’t grow any crops without exploiting worms, bees, and countless other organisms. And you can’t till land or build a house without taking habitat away from countless animals. Don’t even get me started on driving an automobile, or even riding a bicycle.
April 8th, 2010 | 10:25 am
>>These animals depend on us to protect them>>
Pigs? mink? haven’t been around them much, have you!
>>my guess is anyone who actually witnessed a pig being butchered, would never eat pork again. Anyone who saw a mink being skinned alive would likely go without the fur coat>>
Guess again. When done correctly, the animal never knows what hit them. Once they’re dead, butchering and/or skinning is just a chore that needs to be done.
April 8th, 2010 | 11:09 am
Coincidentally, right after my previous post I ran across this excellent article on the relationship between humans and the bacteria we rely on for digestion:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8607905.stm
April 8th, 2010 | 11:11 am
suek, excellent points. Anybody that thinks you can skin a mink alive has never tried to do it. Or has a lot of scar tissue. ;)
April 8th, 2010 | 11:54 am
Man is an animal and a part of this Earth. Humans, other animal species and plants have co-evolved over the past million-odd years. Certainly, at the first opportunity human-like and human ancestors killed and used animals as an aid to survival. Insects, lizards, snakes, fish, rodents, birds and larger mammals were killed and eaten for their dense nutritional value and useful bones, skins, teeth, feathers and sinews. Today dogs, cows and domestic cats are not here despite man but because of man. These animals evolved side by side with humans. So why shouldn’t we as an animal species on this planet use other animals responsibly to satisfy our survival needs as a species?
That said, animal cruelty in any form not only causes another living being to suffer pain but also demeans us in the process. Not even sharks, tigers, snakes, hornets or spiders kill for pleasure, and hunters I know (and hunt with) take less bloodlusty pleasure in killing an animal than videotaped soldiers took in killing Iraqi civilians. Is it wrong to kill another animal to eat?
Animals used in scientific research (mostly rats and mice) should be treated with the utmost care and compassion (and mostly are) balancing the value derived from the knowledge obtained with the potential suffering. Is a Sprague-Dawley rat bred for drug company research, housed in a controlled environment with cage mates, food and water, and then humanely killed after a year better off than if he had never been born? His contribution to the human condition may have been to test the toxicity of a potential drug. Can we use fewer animals in research with little impact on outcomes? Probably, but ever-tightening USDA guidelines on research animal use have already eliminated much unnecessary use.
A diet rich in animal fats was likely very beneficial to a hunter-gatherer with a life-expectancy of 40 yrs. He didn’t often die from heart disease or colon cancer. But our factory farm culture of today did not develop to benefit consumers but to enrich the few. It is neither healthy nor sustainable. In the US our overindulgence in meat and calories is having deleterious effects on us and our environment.
No animal species has had more impact on the Earth than man. (Arguably the most exceptional Earth beings of all time were the billions of years old photosynthetic bacteria that produced our original oxygen atmosphere!).
If the Rigellians, Kang and Kodos, decide to farm humans, would we be OK with that from an animal use perspective or would we revert back to our animal heritage and fight back?
April 8th, 2010 | 6:37 pm
>>hunters I know (and hunt with) take less bloodlusty pleasure in killing an animal than videotaped soldiers took in killing Iraqi civilians.>>
Would that be Saddam’s soldiers?
There are tapes? Source, please.
As for the “no animals are as cruel as humans” theory…ever watched a cat toy with a mouse or bird? ever seen a “Discovery” or Nat Geo show on the Komodo Dragon?
Nature is incredibly cruel by human standards.
There are cruel humans – that, I recognize – but they are generally condemned. Even the kosher methods of killing animals – a sharp knife was stipulated – were probably required as being the most humane possible at the time.
April 8th, 2010 | 8:30 pm
http://wikileaks.org/
April 8th, 2010 | 9:02 pm
Padraig: We are fortunate to be living in a civilization, where we can have the ”luxury” of developing moral concepts, such as do not kill or steal from others,etc., that humans who lived prior to the emergence of civilization, could not engage in. With your logic, the prohibitions against uncivilized behavior against humans are a result of our ”luxury” of not being attacked by other humans. That is, we are not likely to read Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals, and follows its concepts when are lives are at risk. I would agree that this is true, and by analogy, it’s true what you said about our relations to other animals. So? This does not logically entail that the moral prohibitions against killing humans are invalid, AND, it does not entail that the moral prohibitions against killing animals is invalid. I suspect that you don’t (and I don’t want you to either!) wish to consistently apply your logic regarding our behavior towards animals. Finally, the microorganisms that live in your gut, as well as bees, worms, are NOT conscious, obviously, so you’re not exploiting them, or harming them in any way.
April 8th, 2010 | 9:11 pm
If I could, I would like to add some comments. The assertion that humans are in some way threatened by giving other animals rights, is a curious one. How so? I hear Wesley Smith, and others asserting that, by giving other animals rights, our ”exceptionalism” is at risk. This, of course, is possible, but I have NOT heard one valid argument to support this notion. I suspect that Mr. Smith believes that it’s an a priori truth, in no need of empirical evidence. Actually, one could argue, that as humans become more evolved, we are able to ”reason” more creatures into our rights community, not less.
April 9th, 2010 | 9:27 am
Jeffery: “If the Rigellians, Kang and Kodos, decide to farm humans, would we be OK with that from an animal use perspective or would we revert back to our animal heritage and fight back?”
Jeffery, you were doing so well up to that point.
This “we wouldn’t like it if aliens ate us” argument is an old AR argument, and is, of course, totally hypothetical.
(Unless of course you believe the UFO buffs that think aliens are already using us as lab rats.)
But let’s go with the concept for a second. Aliens show up and start harvesting us for food or whatever. What do we do? Would we fight or submit?
We’d fight like hell. That’s not just our animal birthright, that is part of the resourcefulness and sheer orneriness that makes us human. And sooner or later I think we’d win.
BTW, for a more apt science fiction analogy, I’d use H.G.Wells’ “The Time Machine.” In his future, humans have split into Morlocks (the people with the machines) and the Eloi (kinda like vegans, hang around in Eden and eat the food the Morlocks leave for them). The Eloi are the pretty and harmless group; unfortunately, they also are effectively cattle.
April 9th, 2010 | 9:32 am
Bret: “With your logic, the prohibitions against uncivilized behavior against humans are a result of our ”luxury” of not being attacked by other humans.”
Yes. We have laws and police and military. We provide disincentives to attackers so that we can leave our houses in the morning and don’t worry about having to fight our way back into them at night.
Bret: “Finally, the microorganisms that live in your gut, as well as bees, worms, are NOT conscious, obviously, so you’re not exploiting them, or harming them in any way.”
How do you know? Bees seem pretty conscious to me. And if we benefit from them without giving them any benefit back, isn’t that exploitation?
April 9th, 2010 | 9:07 pm
padraig,
Thank you for judging.
My position is there is no such thing as this metaphysical “human exceptionalism”. We use animals for our survival because we can.
If Kang and Konos showed up (an impossibility or near one) to farm us of course we would fight or run just like the animals we hunt. The question is, would we feel so exceptional herded as cattle.
Thanks for the advice on how to write comments to please you. I’ll take it under advisement.
April 10th, 2010 | 10:31 am
It’s an opinion forum, Jeffery. You don’t want to have your position challenged, go read the funnies.
April 12th, 2010 | 7:50 pm
Padraaig: i really do not know, in a metaphysically certain sense that bees, microbes, etc., aren’t conscious, but for that matter, I’m not metaphysically certain about much of anything, if the standard is that I have to be ABSOLUTELY sure of anything. Clearly, the best way to determine if a belief is true, is to see if enough empirical evidence, and or deductive logic supports it, if not, then it shouldn’t be believed. There’s simply no credible evidence that bees, worms, and (especially) microbes are conscious. Maybe they are, but there’s no reason right now that we should believe that they are. Their behaviors can best be explained as a result of purely reflexive neural activity, and just plain cellular reflexes in the case of microbes (since they possess no neurons.). A creature must, according to the latest neurobiolgical research, possess a large number of neurons, likely in the form of a cerebral cortex, to be conscious. Certianly all mammals fall into this latter category, and possibly birds. Therefore, our moral duties, and are obligation to provide legal rights, extends to at least mammals.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact