When We Abuse Animals We Debase Ourselves
Moving a cow by chaining it to a tractor and dragging it by its leg says a lot about how we perceive and value animals. When the Humane Society video that showed this and other brutal slaughterhouse treatment made the rounds on the Internet a few weeks ago, it caused public shock and led to a federal investigation. But there’s a deeper lesson that all of us - whether or not we eat meat - need to take to heart: we degrade ourselves when we degrade animals.
Much as bullies demoralize themselves when they dominate or ride roughshod over those who are meek, vulnerable, or defenseless, it should be obvious that human beings are the ones demoralized by the commission of inhumane acts.
Over the years, many have been caught up in the debate over what is, or is not, man’s obligation to animals. But the debate is transcended by the growing realization that neither our civilization nor our planet will survive unless human beings grow richer in moral qualities like mercy, kindness, compassion, and temperance.
Yet in order to establish a platform for speaking out against cruel and painful laboratory experiments and slaughtering techniques, animal rights advocates are often asked to prove that animals have a moral sense and can feel physical and emotional pain.
But even if animals could be proved amoral and immune to pain, human beings would have no basis for even careless treatment of them. Most of us were taught as children to take good care of inanimate objects, even though they feel no pain and have no moral sense. We are taught to treat fine books with virtual reverence. We are taught that it is actually a crime to vandalize buildings, cars, and other inanimate objects.
But even setting aside the degradation brought upon the humans who commit acts of cruelty, research has consistently revealed evidence of the morality and sentience of the nonhuman world. By now documentaries abound in which we can see earth’s creatures disciplining members of their own species for “crimes” within their communities. Conversely we’ve also seen them care for each other, as well as for members of other species, in the most intelligent, unselfish, courageous, and tender ways.
This evidence of morality in nonhumans tells us that mankind and “creature-kind” are inextricably woven together, not separate “worlds” attempting coexistence.
We may not be linked by trunks and tusks, wings and beaks, but I have yet to think of a single quality associated with the best in mankind that is not expressed by animals and often - as with loyalty, sincerity, wisdom, and forgiveness - more perfectly.
Our differences appear to lie more in the complexity with which we express our commonly held qualities. In fact, the caring, thoughtful observation of animals has taught, and can continue to teach, vital lessons about what we ourselves are and what we can accomplish.
We learn from an elephant, for example, that power and gentleness are not incompatible. We learn from any gazelle the naturalness of grace. Our dear canine or feline friends teach us that happiness doesn’t come from outside ourselves - from the act of acquisition - but is something we bring to the simplest object or experience. From birds, we’ve learned the concept of flight. And from any animal we can learn that we don’t outgrow childlikeness when we enter maturity, because childlikeness is a quality of thought, not a condition of age.
In fact, when we abuse childlike qualities in animals - when we take advantage of trust, sweetness, simplicity, or innocence, for example - we are well on our way to the abuse of children. For decades researchers, child and animal protection professionals, and educators have been pointing to the correlation between the treatment of animals and the treatment of children.
But it’s perhaps the almost inexplicably deep love that we’re able to share with creatures that explains what a magnificent symphony we can be. Symphonies aren’t composed of inferior and superior tones and passages. Their beauty is in the unity of the simple and complex, the obvious and subtle, the audacious and demure. What matters in music is that each tone or passage be allowed to contribute its full value, however meek that value.
In the same way, our moral obligation toward animals isn’t a question of what a superior being owes an inferior one. Unselfish affection takes the simple and complex, the bold and the meek in creation, accords each creature its full value, and blends all into a single symphony. Treating animals with the utmost dignity and respect is really the “Golden Rule” of conduct toward all species.
Barbara Cook Spencer is a writer who lives in Brookline, Mass.
© The Christian Science Monitor
Some of us have developed the bad habit of eating too many animals, partly because it’s so easy from the supermarket where we are spared a good hard look at the realities of “processing”.
That old ad campaign, “Beef, it’s what’s for dinner” was negated somewhat by the Humane Society video, and perhaps a little bit to the mutual benefit of our human health and animals’ welfare.
Where capitalism runs amok, people only treat animals decently if and until they can profit from them. Additionally, with human overpopulation of the earth in full swing, people are becoming a plague on this planet and are its most voracious predator.
Tolstoy was right when he said that “we simply have no business interfering with any animals right to habitat or nature-determined experiences”.
My own personal consolation in all this is in doing my own pitifully small part in working to engender respect for other sentient beings and their habitats.
Good article, and I agree. How can we not value animal life, and value human life?. That’s why whenever kids are caught being cruel to animals, they need help and intervention right away. It is a well known fact that children who display cruelty to animals often grow up to be serial killers, or just seriously messed up, at best.
I’ll never forget a scene in a movie I saw years ago, that really left an impression on me. It was the movie “Orca”. And the captain of a whaling ship said to his priest, “can man commit a sin against an animal?”
Yes, we can commit a sin against animals, and our enviornment just like we can against each other.
It is hard enough to get a modern hominid, steeped in consumer mentality, to see anything at all as other than a commodity. If we can not even see that people are people, how are we to see that animals are people? It is a strange choice we have made, to live in a world of dead possessions, shrink wrapped and stockpiled and approved for harvest. Homo proprietus is the only protein that feels itself excellent enough to own other proteins.
I am not a fan of PETA, but abuse of animals tells a lot about the character of someone. If a child did some of these things to a cat, he or she would be in councelling for years, and on the watch list for becoming a serial killer. Dragging a live cow by a chain is a whole lot different in my book, compared with raising animals for food. The latter can be done without willfully inflicting pain on an animal. I am all for cutting down on meat in our diet to realize ecological and health benefits, but a little animal protein in the human diet is healthy (much less than we typically consume in the Western world). Bad apples should be removed from the barrel, as opposed to throwing out the barrel.
Have you seen articles about so-called art in which animals are starved and abused? In one exhibit called “Don’t Trust Me” in SF animals were videotaped by “artist” Adel Abdessemed while being clubbed to death with a sledge hammer. In another by “artist” Guillermo Vargas Habacuc a stray dog was tied up in a gallery without food or water for days and left to die while human visitors sipped wine and chatted. Supposedly the latter exhibit was to point out the plight of stray dogs.
Every age has its Shakespeare.
When we abuse animals we debase ourselves, and conversely, when we respect animals we elevate ourselves.
jclientelle - What you describe is illegal. Were the abusers charged with crimes?
The difference between man and human beings (paraphrased from Academy Award winner, Little Big Man)–
The human beings believe everything is alive. The trees, the rocks, and other human beings. But the white man sees everything as dead– the trees, the rocks. Even their own people! THAT is difference between a white man and a human being.
I do not think anyone has been charged with anything. This “art” does nothing but promote voyeurism of animal torture. The fact that the art establishment would choose these says a lot about where we are. Here is what I believe to be true:
Of the starving dog, an email I received says: “The prestigious Visual Arts Biennial of the Central American decided that the ‘installation’ was actually art, so that Guillermo Vargas Habacuc has been invited to repeat his cruel action for the biennial of 2008.” Here is a petition to stop the this from happening to another dog (and to art, and to our sense of decency).
http://www.petitiononline.com/ea6gk/petition.html
On the exhibit at the SF Art Institute - it was probably filmed elsewhere - here is a description from a group called “In Defense of Animals”:
“The San Francisco Art Institute is running an exhibit now through May 31st made up of video images of six different animals — a doe, a goat, a horse, an ox, a pig, and a sheep — being bludgeoned to death with a large sledgehammer by someone calling himself an “artist.” Entitled “Don’t Trust Me,” this sick exhibit is nothing more than a disgusting attempt to pass off the brutal abuse and killing of animals as legitimate art.
Has anyone seen this in person? The videotape on line is hard to decipher.
jclientelle - Well if there is a hell, these “artists” may find that they become the art. Sorry - This is just too sick. Who watches this stuff? (rhetorical question - please do not answer) This is not about art, it is about cruelty to animals. I am not a bleeding heart, but this is so far over the edge.
So what you’re saying is that since we’re overpopulated we should be culled? Is that humane? Who cares I suppose, I mean we cull deer and other animals to weed out the weaker animals. Its about time to cull the turkeys to bring back the quail population in Kansas. Perhaps the “twisted” children who derange small animals are just preparing themselves for the culling of the human race…just a thought.
Humane means to be kind and compassionate
the opposite–inhumane, means to be cruel and evil–like a non human.
Only a human would claim to corner the market on compassion but not sadism.
On the art world–it was inevitable. When you had people sticking sheep in tanks, and putting steer heads in NY museums where maggots would get electrocuted, it makes sense they would go to the next stage. One day-someone will point out that by this definition of art, war is art and Hitler was a genius. Godard’s Weekend showed a scene of a duck and a pig having their heads bashed in. Students in Toronto tortured a cat to death and claimed it was to protest animal cruelty.
I once argued with a professional artist who said the only thing that separated humans from non humans was art. But I said sadism does to. While other species may show cruelty, humans are the only ones who can be shown to engage in pre meditated acts of cruelty and take pleasure form the fact that they know others are suffering.
The Roman Coliseum had people, men women and children, dwarves, the blind etc being forced to fight to the death. They also staged acts of bestiality where the human would be killed as a result of it. All in front of tens of thousands of spectators.
Has human nature really changed that much?
The problem isnt the white man–the problem is/are human beings. Non white cultures have done equally vicious and disgusting things to non humans. There are tribes that stick reeds into pigs’ hearts and let them convulse to death–a peruvian tribe sews a condor on to the back of an ox as a ritual–a central american tribe would make boar’s tusks grow inward so they could use them in ceremonial masks even though it caused great pain to the boar). There are many many others. The Makah tribe hunted whales and called them a devil fish, and used other humans captured as slaves to tie the fins together. Asian cultures will fry a fish alive and start eating it while alive–rip shells off live turtles, etc. Cockfighting? Dogfighting? Voodoo? It would be great to blame one group of humans for everything but you cant. Humans are the problem.
The argument that humans treat inanimate objects better misses a point–those are human creations. Humans value their own creations more than they do something that is natural(which is probably why they treat inanimate objects better than their own children).
The real issue here is the childish belief in human supremacy–the idea that humans as a group are superior in value to all others and can do what they want to them–while at the same time chastising those that do the same to other humans. I.e. that its ok to be a human supremacist but not a christian supremacist or a white supremacist or a jewish supremacist or a chinese supremacist. They all use the same moral reasoning and fatal flaw.
They claim its because of evolution or divinity–but whatever you use as an excuse for it–Nature and the Universe cannot be shown to regard humans as better than anything else. A human is subject to gravity like any other being.
If you say your God says humans are better, someone else can just as easily say their god says a special group of humans are better than any other.
Morality is like language–every one has a word for the sun, even if they call it different names. Every human group, from the Inuit to the president of Zimbabwe, will say they have some special rights which others must recognize, even if they mistreat others at the same time. If you claim that you deserve special rights–and yet discriminate against others, you have to be able to show why your special rights is any different from that which you say is wrong(i.e. so you say being a white supremacist is wrong because it is unjust and based on arbitrary beliefs in supremacy like skin colour–why is that any more arbitrary than believing you are superior to others because of DNA?).
Forget Singer and Speciesism. Other species cannot be a speciesist.
Only a human can claim they deserve rights at the same time they deny it to others.
A lion hunts gazelles but doesnt ask for rights in return. that is why they are not subject to the kinds of rules that humans must be. Other species cannot use nor do they need moral codes. Only humans do.
It is simply a matter of being fair and consistent–if you want to say that we should be compassionate, fair and just, it has to extend to how we treat non humans. Its mathematical.
And if one cant prevent microbes from being massacred when you scratch your arm–it doesnt mean you then can go and open a slaughterhouse–because then someone else can say–well if you dont care about slaughterhouses why should i care about nazi camps? If you can eat meat, I can rape or commit homicide(obviously its ok since the universe doesnt grind to a stop when humans are massacred).
The only group of people who can make a claim that they can do whatever they want would be serial killers with no social conscious at all, they might be consistent, but if you believe in compassion, then showing regard for non humans is just the way of remaining consistent and fair.
All the arguments are here:
http://animalvegfaq.tripod.com
The difference between a human being and a cartesian is being educable by/through nature. An animal who has not been abused by humans will reveal their character if you choose to be in ‘human being time’. I spent an hour with a 30 year old donkey yesterday. Sat on the floor of his shelter. He came over and after a while stretched his nose toward my chin to exchange breath - the human greeting. We smelled each other’s breathing for about three minutes breathing deeply. His breath was beautifully sweet.
Drawing his head back at one point he looked me in the eye peering forward to show some white and put his nose at my armpit. He wanted his head rubbed. With both hands, thumbs rubbing down the middle of his head, fingers on the sides, we spent about ten minutes massaging, his soul massaging mine, and my hands, his head. At one point he drew back as the palms of my hands passed over his eyes. He wanted them there so the bony area could be rubbed, and then just holding like that. After a while he started passing his head over mine, resting it on my shoulder, sighing. We were getting to know how to talk to each other. Over time, I hope to get to know the rest of the herd.
Mr. Obvious: I am all for cutting down on meat in our diet to realize ecological and health benefits, but a little animal protein in the human diet is healthy (much less than we typically consume in the Western world). Bad apples should be removed from the barrel, as opposed to throwing out the barrel.
Oh dear! When one realizes that they do not require seal meat to live and be healthy, nor do they require the pelt to chlothe, then is it not obvious that one can simply stop clubbing baby seals dead?
kelmer: The real issue here is the childish belief in human supremacy–the idea that humans as a group are superior in value to all others and can do what they want to them
It is time for the human civilization to move away from a system based on a “hierarchy of beings” to a system based on a “hierarchy of actions and values.”
Human beings do extremely cruel, abusive, and exploitative things to one another, why does anyone expect them to treat animals better? The human species has brought so much misery to this planet, and hardly any creature on land or at sea is immune. If only they could talk to us! We take, take, take, and still we’re never satisfied.
When the Europeans first came to North America, they could have learned a great deal from the Indians who, for the most part, knew how to live in harmony with nature. What did they do, instead? They slaughtered the Indians and stole and raped their land. Even the bison were hunted almost to extinction.
chessgames56 - You live in a fantacy land. The native americans were happily killing each other before the Europeans (or the Vikings before them) ever set foot in north america. And they are also often thought to have wiped out the mammoths all on their own. We are indeed an agressive species, like many preditors.
Beware of romantic entanglements with those who have pets you cannot stand. Their pets are telling you something their human master either will not or cannot.
Beware of romantic entanglements with those who detest or are mean to animals. If they can treat an animal that way they can sure enough treat you in the same manner.
Mr. Obvious: Just curious, why are you “not a fan of Peta?” Just too tough for ya?
KELMER: I admire your compassion for animals. (I feel it, too.) When I was in Nepal, my group of international “students” was led by a female monk from Scandinavia. Buddhists believe that everything living goes back to the LIFE STREAM and reincarnates in any number of shapes or animal forms. The Buddhists believe it is lucky to be a human, and they pity the poor animals being at the mercy of humans. However, at the heart of their teachings IS compassion, because in their view, sooner or later WE get to be that cat or monkey or lab rat. (I don’t subscribe to the concept of species migration, but I still think how we treat any sentient being DOES come back to us some way and some how).
OLD GOAT: Moving story. My friend Dennis is so gentle and beloved of the Goddess that like Francis of Assisi, wherever he goes, the animals find him. He was in the water at Manatee Springs when a manatee arrived and seemed to kiss him. He’s the type of individual who will be out on a boat (in salt water) and make sure he has fresh water ON BOARD to share with a stray manatee or two.
old goat–thanks for sharing your experience. Animals have much to teach us. And that includes cows, pigs, chickens, fish, sheep and all the others that some people falsely think they need to kill and eat in order to have a “healthy diet.”
While I agree that abusing animals in such cruel ways is horrific and shouldn’t be tolerated or accepted, I have to object to the personification of animals. They are not human beings, they do not have the same complex brain structures or emotions. I don’t agree with inhumane treatment but animals are not some kind of enlightened beings or something. Their world is as brutish and violent as the human world, it just corresponds to a different set of rules that aren’t muddied by emotions. A shark or a crocodile is violent but has no knowledge of emotion so their reactions simply help them survive. We’ve put a template of emotion onto them that we feel as humans but animals aren’t human. They don’t respond on the basis of compassion or love but on instinct.
I have no respect for the abuse of animals. But it really depends- I mean where do you draw the line? Many children have burned ants with a magnifying glass- is that abuse? Granted, they are insects, but is it not also abuse of plants to log a pristine forest? What about eating a cheese burger? If we afford the same rights to animals as humans, then how can we in good faith eat them? I think when undue pain is caused to an animal for personal gratification that that is definitely wrong. It takes a certain lack of morals to willfully torture an animal. That’s my two cents.
blessthebeasts___You are correct in that animals have much to teach us. While they do not have much reasoning power, (also noted in some humans), they seem to have a crude ability to understand many things, and certainly have fine memories. In working with animals, they display different characteristics such as trust, wariness, contentment, fear,excitement,etc, much as humans do.
While animals can be a joy to be with and should be treated as well as possible, there will always be a few incidents of abuse, accidental or intended, as there are with people. This is unfortunate, but we do not live in a perfect world.
My question to the vegans is–what purpose are millions of cattle, swine, sheep, chickens, turkeys, and fish if not to be used for food? We could use a few cattle for rodeo stock, but some would even say that is abuse. These types of animals do not make proper pets as their maintenance is difficult and require special facilities.
These animals require much expense to keep and care for, so the income from their use as food is the only way they can be kept. Consequently, if we all decided to stop eating meat, in time they would need to be eliminated, which does not seem to be such a great improvement.
My children raised a few steers every year for sale and learned much about how to treat animals which they will never forget. The profit went a long way towards their college educations, which was another benefit. If people would rather not eat meat, that is their choice, but we have to deal with reality.
Kernel, just use “african savage” instead of “cattle, swine, sheep, chickens, turkeys, and fish,” and use “hard labor” instead of food, and you will answer your own query.
Barring a few exceptions such as cows, and maybe some breeds of dogs, other species of animals will survive without the “benevolent protection” of the human hand. A transition to a meat-rare world is already happening. The burgeoning human population needs more resources and raising animals for food is very inefficient. Meat is already very expensive compared to plant products in places like India and China.
Remember, folks: many (but not necessarily all) animal “rights” activists project an idealized, Disneyified view of how the nature world works. They fail to understand that the natural world is a cruel, brutish place. Naturally, this does not excuse the more sadistic abuses at the hands of humans, but the realities of nature put an inescapable dampner on the arguments of these people.
Humans have every right to meat as any other critter, but should take this meat respectfully, which is hardly ever done now. Some animal products (not necessarily meat, though) are necessary for optimal human health. And humans have been keeping domestic animals for many millennia. To suggest that humans can exist without the assistance of other animals is not supported by any anthropological data of any repute, and will only hasten the human extinction which is very likely anyway. So relax, stop feeling so guilty, and enjoy that glass of milk.
SLUGGYSAN
‘and enjoy that glass of milk’. tell me of ONE mammal that drinks milk (naturally, i mean) after it is weaned………….only stupid humans because they’ve been led to believe it’s important for their health. yes, i would agree, if it was human milk. just another myth perpetuated by the dairy corporations and greedy capitalists.
5280 - A number of folks have indirectly answered part of the question you asked me about my problem with PETA. Like everyone else here, I agree that wanton abuse of animals by people is abominable. However, PETA puts animal welfare above human welfare. If a grizzly was charging my child and I had a gun, I would shoot the bear. I do not believe that we are the only creatures on the planet to have emotions, but I do believe that by our standards of emotion, we are at the top of the pile; chimps are close, ants are little machines. Yes, I have a cast system. I believe that the reason we should treat animals well is mostly for us, as we feel pain (or should) when animals are mistreated. This is a human moral issue, not a law of nature. If our pet dog is in pain, most of us share that pain. If one of those caged apes that has a pet kitten accidentally kills it, I also believe that the ape feels pain. The line between humans and other creatures is one that we draw. The lack of even more closely related species to Homo erectus, is probably a function of our highly competitive nature. We wiped them out a long time ago. Perhaps before morality became a human concept. I respect and enjoy animals, but I place their lives and pain below human well-being.
You live in a fantacy land. The native Americans were happily killing each other before the Europeans (or the Vikings before them) ever set foot in north America.
–Like almost all your posts, Mr. O, you miss the mark. My reference was pointing out the respect native Americans had for the land, ‘fantacy’ or no. I did not say the indians were perfect, but that the Europeans had no respect for the lands they stole, and were every bit as violent as the indians, while preaching the ‘love’ of thier faux Christianity.
Look at your history, and how many just shot Bison for sport while passing in trains, never using their kill for meat or warmth, and depriving the indians of the same. From your posts, Mr. Obvious, I see you do not want to move outside your talking point box and, while you claim you’re a scientist, are very dogmatic in your conclusions.
Even Einstein doubted that his formulations were the final word. But if you, like many others, find security in your opinions and beliefs, who am I to challenge that?
chessgames56 - We agree that many today do not appreciate or respect what we can learn from the “natural” world, but I also find that many treat nature as a god. I am continually amazed by the wonders of nature, and strive to restore natural ecosystems on our farm; however I do not treat nature as a god, nor do I think nature holds all the solutions. I am sure of nothing. Everything is just a current hypothesis based on probabilities and evidence. You are correct that I often do not portray this uncertainty in my writing. Some things seem more likely to be certain than others. Aliens may land in my driveway today, but I am not going to move my truck just in case.
Animals are not humans - but I think there is a lot more to them than we may have thought. Research has shown them to be a lot more complicated than we had known. I have many personal experiences in which pets, even fish and lizards, exhibit personality, complex thought and intra- and inter-s species communication. Animals can die of a broken heart after death of a loved one.
Once we were on a whalewatch on a boat run by naturalists. I was alone along a section of rail. A whale came right up to the edge of the boat and put its head out of the water and stared at me for a long time. I could feel waves of love so strong they almost knocked me over. (The fishy breath too). I could feel the whale making an effort to connect with me. I asked the woman in charge of the boat who was that whale? She replied that the whale had been stuck in a net and the boat crew freed her. The whale often comes to visit. Memory, gratitude, grace. Better than some humans.
Even if you don’t go along with my views about animals, and feel humans are above animals, you must admit that abusing a helpless creature is debasing for the abuser and for those of us who allow it to continue. Even ancient religions have rules that are intended to make animal slaughter quick and painless. Many serial killers have a history of animal abuse. Animal abuse hardens people so they can torture and kill humans too.
I feel no guilt for eating animals, just as my dog doesn’t if he catches a rabbit. If God wanted us to be vegetarians he would have made us herbivores. The lion doesn’t feel bad for the zebra, the whale doesn’t mourn over the krill nor the dolphin feel sorry for the hake. But God did give us emotions. To feel guilt I suppose, for having sex and steaks.
Daniel David, what are you talking about??? “[T]he bad habit of eating too many animals”???
David, what is the right amount of animals to eat?
You take a tone that suggests you agree with the author, yet this statement blatantly cuts across what she wrote: did you even comprehend what this author wrote?
The writer observes that we’ve “seen [animals] care for each other, as well as for members of other species, in the most intelligent, unselfish, courageous, and tender ways.”
The author additionally suggests that not only for the sake of the animals (though that would be enough reason), but also so as not to degrade ourselves.
If you grasp these incontrovertible truths, what basis in ethics do you have in eating any meat?
David, so close!
Mr Obvious
You are only obviously someone who justifies their own complicity in cruelty by levelling an accusing finger at someone more cruel.
You state: “The latter (killing animals for the consumption by humans of their flesh) can be done without willfully inflicting pain on an animal. I am all for cutting down on meat in our diet to realize ecological and health benefits, but a little animal protein in the human diet is healthy (much less than we typically consume in the Western world).”
Here’s a couple of stabs at the most basic pronouncements of ethics:
* practice even greater compassion to others than you would expect for yourself
or, a little less onerous
* do unto others as you would have them do unto you
or, at the very least
* do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.
Are you following this Mr Obvious?
Your statement that a little animal protein in the human diet is healthy is a meaningless statement when challenged by the more relevant questions:
* is it reasonably easy to maintain a balanced healthy diet without animal protein?
The answer is outstandingly yes. It is well-documented that vegans and vegetarians have longer life-spans than carnivores. On a personal note, I am recently vegan, and for over 25 years vegetarian, and I am fit and healthy, I exercise for an hour every day and I feel fabulous - until I’m reminded how much suffering there is inflicted in the world around me by my so-called superior species.
We don’t need to eat meat. We want to. I miss it too. I miss ice-cream and chocolate. Dry alcoholics from time to time no doubt crave alcohol. There are probably pedophiles out there who have never actually acted on their impulses, and good on them. Ethics is about at the very least, not doing to others as we would wish others not to do to us.
So how on earth can anyone justify paying someone else, to pay someone else, to do things in hidden away industrial sheds to beautiful sensate and often pretty creatures (not that prettiness should matter) for our selfish little flesh fetishes? It’s unjustifiable, mister: that should be bloody obvious.
jclientelle: What a great story! Many people would prefer to minimize the intelligence and emotional depth of animals since that makes it easier to abuse them. I intend to pass along this account.
An inspiring article, as well.
old goat: you are beautiful of soul
Thought Shaman: agreed. why can’t even apparently intelligent minds like those of Kernel maintain a grip on it
Kelmer
Writes, in a fabulous example of a soul apparently trying to be ethical, but unable to resist the ill-gotten-goods derived from acts of cruelty then grasping at self-serving rationalisations in an ultimately futile effort to keep a clear conscience:
“My question to the vegans is–what purpose are millions of cattle, swine, sheep, chickens, turkeys, and fish if not to be used for food? We could use a few cattle for rodeo stock, but some would even say that is abuse. These types of animals do not make proper pets as their maintenance is difficult and require special facilities. These animals require much expense to keep and care for, so the income from their use as food is the only way they can be kept. Consequently, if we all decided to stop eating meat, in time they would need to be eliminated, which does not seem to be such a great improvement. My children raised a few steers every year for sale and learned much about how to treat animals which they will never forget. The profit went a long way towards their college educations, which was another benefit. If people would rather not eat meat, that is their choice, but we have to deal with reality.”
Response:
(1) To ask “what purpose” is an entire species is an act of utmost human arrogance implying that we are a species the purpose of which goes without question, though others need to justify their existence by reference to some criteria which we might arbitrarily assign. (eg native species, “man’s best friend”, endangered species, etc)
(2) Furthermore, to ask “what purpose” is to deny the individuality of every single sentient being. A cow, in experiencing an amazingly complex range of cognitive processes and emotions is as powerfully interested in its protection from harm, pain and death as any human. To test this theory stand behind a cow front on with your arms behind your sides within kicking distance while someone in front attempts to pull the cow towards the killing floor in a slaughterhouse.
(3) “These animals require much expense to keep and care for, so the income from their use as food is the only way they can be kept”. Oh my, are you serious? Treat the animals not from a “group” perspective, as humans tend to do when thinking of animals, but from the individual point of view of each animal concerned, the same way we would when regarding the rights of humans in our society. It was our crime of ethics to bring these animals into existence to exploit them in factory farms. The remedy, once we acknowledge the wrongness of what we have been doing, is not to perpetuate the cycle, or just finish off exploiting the last batch even, but to immediately assume responsibility for what we have done. Yes, it is costly. To date we have been rapaciously torturning them by the 10s of billions per year for profit. If we had been doing this say to a race of humans, the right thing to do would not be to just finish off the last batch, the right thing to do would be to spend money on a remedy for providing these individuals finally acknowledged to be worthy of equal ethical consideration for the integrity they deserve.
(4) “If people would rather not eat meat, that is their choice, but we have to deal with reality.” That expression “deal with reality” is the kind of throwaway non-argument people who don’t really have an argument say in the hope their baseless proposition won’t be challenged. Ethics is only a meaningful word because reality is the petri dish gone wild of what happens when ethics and its prodigal child “compassion” is not invested into every aspect of our human intentions. The reality of our planet is a planet quite possibly on the brink of extinction due to our selfishness and our unreflective compassionless commodification of the planet’s natural resources, its wildlife as well as the human labour of less technologically advanced cultures.
(5) “My children raised a few steers every year for sale and learned much about how to treat animals which they will never forget.” Sadly, I’m sure they did. Hopefully, one day, they will learn that what they learnt about the value of animals as commodities was ethically flawed and will instead acquire a genuine respect for the individual worth of each living being.
I can think of only 2 (TWO) things we can ingest without the destruction of either plant or animal, and those are “MILK and HONEY”.
Even sounds nice, but how can one survive on that? Like it or not, in MOST cases, we ARE the top of the food chain. Just like the grizzley and polar bear, killer whale,large birds of prey, etc.
That’s just the way it is.
Abuse “not” for substinence is a whole different ball of wax. But do you think that lion makes sure his victim is ‘completely dead’ before he evicerates and fills his belly? Absolutely not.
y.f. banjoman
The intention of my original post was to point out that human beings have a great capacity for cruelty, and until or unless we address the root cause of that, authentic compassion, whether it be for animals or our fellow man will never come to fruition. And to condemn others for their callousness or whatever, equates to a mote/beam dichotomy. This article is good because increases awareness of the suffering of animals; some
will care, and others will not.
However, for those with a social Darwinist mentality who, for example, believe that the poor get the suffering they deserve, or might makes right, it is unrealistic to ever expect them to feel compassion toward any ‘lesser’ creature. Many of those same individuals I bet kill for recreation, and love the ‘thrill’ of it. Some only learn about compassion after a great shock of some kind, where they are forced to put themselves in another person’s shoes.
We simply must realize that many individuals do not want to and will not change; they have made a choice or have been conditioned to close themselves off from caring and/or entertain any other notion beyond what they already believe is true. Further, many of the same, regard sensitivity in others as being a weakness. Best to just let them be and move on.
When all the critics of eating some meat have created even close to as much wildlife habitat (with their own resources and sweat) as my wife and I have, then you can start your preaching. Get off your butts and actually create something positive other than blabber. Stop telling everyone else what to do and actually build something to help.
Mr. Obvious
When you and your wife are economcially evicted from your habitate and they tell you it’s your fault and you deserve it…don’t come here crying…ok
Treefrog - What are you doing with your hands to help? i am not talking about typing on your computer.
Well Mr Obvious
What exactly do you want to know?
We could start with the computer…it is a recycled computer that was given to me (my one and only computer)and it will be recycled to someone else.
My great-great-great grandfather is reported to have lived to 107 although some said it was 114 but records being what they are I can’t say for sure. Some in my family never have grey hair…but they never went to doctors and the food they ate was not anything like the stuff you call food.
Treefrog - My dad is 73 and has never been to a doctor either. What does this have to do with your contribution to the causes that you seem so compationate about? My question was what are you doing with your hands to preserve the earth for future generations? You do not need to answer me. Just think about it.
Mr. Obvious
I live as close to my values as I can and I’m sure you would rather not hear about it…
Treefrog - I am sure that you do try to live as close to your values as you can. So do I. I think that we just approach the ecological and social problems of our country differently. My father always told me to leave the earth better than I found it. My childhood farm is now a nature park. My wife and I restored our first two homes from absolute wrecks to salable houses, and then used the proceeds to by a farm (no help from our parents). We are now restoring 90% of it to natural habitat. We are doing this by making an economic enterprise on the remaining 10% of the land (high-intensity vegetables). This may be a different path than you have taken, but we believe it will leave the earth a little better, and it is sustainable. I do not doubt your motives and I hope that you will not doubt mine. Hopefully we can debate the best path without doubting each other’s moral fortitude. I base my actions on evidence, not rhetoric. I hope to convince you to do the same.
Mr. Obvious
I would say that we have a shared history, for instance that is how my grandparents bought thier first farm many years ago. It is also why I have a different perspective from having a very long history with the land. No need for this to be a competition. I wish that we could live in a world where all things were permitted a full life cycle and then we could all see a better quality of life. My talks with my grandmother all started in a clover patch.
Humans apparently have the digestive system of a frugivore - not a carnivore nor a herbivore. The closest we can come to not harming animals isn’t milk and honey, it’s fruit - fallen to the ground as a true gift, and in return we assist in the transport of the seed to grow and multiply elsewhere.
Of course, if you get a worm in it, oops.
Treefrog - I grew up with my grandmother in our house and learned a great deal from her. Her stories are what let me understand how fortunate we are compared to her generation (She was 99 when she died). This is especially true of her young life in pre-revolution Russia. I appologize for some of my previous comments. I often let my anger and frustration take charge of my senses. I am pationate about environmental issues and it frustrates me when I feel my efforts are subverted by those trying to do good, but who are misguided. When easily disproved arguments are made on behalf of environmental issues, the whole cause gets discreditted.
mairs: I feel no guilt for eating animals, just as my dog doesn’t if he catches a rabbit. If God wanted us to be vegetarians he would have made us herbivores.
Whether or not you feel guilt is up to you. Your second statement is a fallacious argument from authority. Aside from that, it is similar to saying “If God wanted us to be good, he would made us in a way only good thoughts entered our minds.” Sheesh!
banjoman: “…we ARE the top of the food chain.”
Spoken like a meat-eater. A veggie would describe a cycle of life not a chain.
Mr. Obvious: “When all the critics of eating some meat have created even close to as much wildlife habitat (with their own resources and sweat) as my wife and I have, then you can start your preaching. Get off your butts and actually create something positive other than blabber. Stop telling everyone else what to do and actually build something to help.”
*chuckle* Does this mean you have run out of irrefutable reasons to justify eating meat? Thank you for working to preserve/enhance wildlife habitat. You might as well take the next small step and stop eating animals.
Mr. Obvious
I would agree there is great value in knowing your personal history and living in a society that honors it’s ancestors. You should know that not everyone agrees with you and there is no apology needed in that regard. I don’t think environmentalism should be accredited…
Treefrog - Like it or not, scientists have some say in policy. My point above is that policy decisions are often made in the context of debate between polarized parties. When one side can easily point out false statements made by the other side, they become more credible and the policy decisions often go their way. This is why I believe it is important to get the facts straight. I do not expect everyone to agree with me, especially on this site. I am not one to preach to the chior. That is why I chose to post on this site. I am an environmentalist, but my views differ from many. I am interested in action over activism. I believe in thinking with one’s hands.
To mairs: I feel no guilt for driving an SUV–if God wanted me to drive a Prius he wouldn’t have given us Hummers. They look good and make me feel powerful and as long as I drive the speed-limit (wink,wink), you wacky tree-huggers can mind your own business.
Mr. Obvious
Sorry, I am going to have to beg off on that one as it does not make sense to me. If you look at the worlds problems today, you will see a definite correlation to science either directly or indirectly. The real problem is the problem, science may have the solution because science created the problem. You won’t find these things in the natural world.
As a vegetarian the past 15 years or so, I’d go a little further here. First, humans ARE animals. So let’s not set ourselves distinct from that class. Second, in some worrisome regards we treat ourselves worse than we treat other animals. Humans need passports, visas, mortgages, etc. migrating birds do not. Humans need unique identifying numbers, insects do not. Humans need to be controlled by bosses, squirrels, rabbits, mice, etc. do not. You get my drift.
Old Goat is indeed a remarkable soul.
I too try to get in touch with the non human souls that we share our planet with. I have four cats, two dogs and we feed the many birds and wildlife that visit our country home. I believe when Jesus said “unto the least of these you do unto me” didn’t just mean humans.