Speciesism: The final frontier
Posted
Even the most politically correct and progressive have a blind spot when it comes to our attitude towards animals. It's time to acknowledge it and get over it, writes Katrina Fox.
Two hundred dolphins were lured into a cove at Taiji in Japan last month. Most were brutally slaughtered while others were chosen by marine park officials to spend the rest of their lives in captivity to entertain people.
The killing is planned to continue until March.
Four thousand sheep from Western Australia died on a ship destined for the Middle East on January 16, where temperatures on the boat were so high, the animals were baked alive.
And just last week Marius, a 18-month-old giraffe, was killed, butchered and fed to the lions at Copenhagen Zoo in front of a crowd, including children to allegedly prevent inbreeding.
These atrocities are but the most recent examples of the horrendous cruelty inflicted on non-human animals. Sadly, they are a mere drop in the oceans of bloodshed for the benefit of people. Between 50-150 billion land animals are estimated to be killed each year worldwide for food alone, while the bodies of about 250 million female cows are exploited so we can consume their milk, and as many as 115 million animals are used in vivisection lab tests.
All this violence is a result of speciesism.
The term was coined by psychologist Richard Ryder in 1970 and refers to a prejudice similar to sexism or racism in that the treatment of individuals is determined by their membership of a particular group. Just as less value is placed on certain people based on their sex, gender, race, sexual orientation or other defining characteristic, so too are animals afforded even less consideration and moral worth based on the fact they are a species other than human.
In short, speciesism is taking place whenever we justify the violence and exploitation of other beings by saying "they're only animals".
So insidious is the nature of speciesism that even otherwise progressive individuals and groups are guilty of it without recognising it. Speciesism in action is when:
- My fellow feminists decry rape culture and the control of women's reproductive systems while simultaneously posting pictures of the (now barely recognisable) abused and tortured bodies (or body parts) of non-human animals they've eaten for lunch, or consume dairy products that are created by the hijacking of the reproductive systems of female cows.
- An ad like this, featuring a woman's bottom depicted as a hamburger bun is banned for being "exploitative and degrading to women", while the once living, breathing, sentient animal whose body was turned into the actual burger is forgotten. She or he has become so objectified and turned into a something instead of a someone that their suffering does not even warrant consideration, let alone outrage.
- We call someone who has committed heinous acts that we disapprove of an "animal".
- We hold a sausage sizzle to raise money for a dog shelter, or a high-end meat-laden dinner to generate funds for marriage equality.
- Businesses that tout themselves as being "conscious" or "ethical" because they have developed outstanding standards in their relationships with staff, customers and suppliers and perhaps even implemented some environmentally responsible initiatives, have practices that involve animal exploitation or cruelty.
- You are horrified at another culture that mass slaughters and serves up cats and dogs for dinner but do not have the same reaction when it comes to cows, pigs, sheep, hens or turkeys.
Our excuses for speciesism range from "they're not as intelligent as us therefore are not deserving of moral consideration" and "other animals eat other animals so why shouldn't we?" to "animals are accidently harmed in the making of everything" and "plants are sentient too and we eat those".
Yet in a new film, Speciesism: The Movie, which makes its Australian debut screening in Sydney this month, director Mark Devries puts the case for debunking these arguments. In a fast-paced helicopter ride over the subject, the film features sound bites from an eclectic group of people, including luminaries in the animal rights movement, academics, medical doctors, lawyers, farmers, a holocaust survivor and a member of America's Nazi Party.
The film has been criticised in some quarters for its Michael Moore-inspired style and the age of the director (Devries was 20 when he started the project six years ago). Yet, ironically, it's more than plausible that many such criticisms are due to the deeply ingrained speciesism of its detractors.
In much the same way that campaigns for the rights and liberation of various oppressed groups of humans were ridiculed throughout history, so it is with speciesism. The very concept is so foreign to most people that they generally react in two ways: with anger or amusement. I have had friends who are passionate about and active in human-based social justice issues tell me how "sweet" or "adorable" my concern for animals is, yet would no doubt consider it patronising for their causes (of which I am supportive of) to be referred to in such a way.
Those who rail against the concept of speciesism often accuse its proponents of anthropomorphism (falsely projecting human qualities onto animals). Yet the sentience and complex emotional lives of animals has been well documented – from books such as When Elephants Weep and The Pig Who Sang to the Moon by Jeffrey Masson, Pleasurable Kingdom by Dr Jonathan Balcombe and The Cognitive Animal and The Emotional Lives of Animals by Professor Mark Bekoff.
Even if you can't spare the time to read these books, if you have any doubts as to whether animals feel emotions, watch this video of cows playing in a field or these bears, freed from years living in a concrete put at a US bear park.
We have run out of excuses for our inhumane treatment of animals. According to Professor Steve Garlick, President of the Animal Justice Party, 80 per cent of decisions made by parliaments in Australia affect animals, yet their interests are rarely considered. It's time to acknowledge the final frontier of social justice and refuse to be complicit in the exploitation and brutality of others – all others.
With 2014 touted as the Year of the Vegan, a good question to ponder is one posed by Edgar's Mission farm animal sanctuary in its tagline: If we could live happy and healthy lives without harming others, why wouldn't we?
Katrina Fox is a freelance writer and editor-in-chief of The Scavenger. View her full profile here.
Topics: animals, food-and-beverage, animal-behaviour
Comments (213)
Add your comment
Jay Somasundaram:
17 Feb 2014 8:51:24am
"a blind spot when it comes to our attitude towards animals."
And by animals, does this include homo sapiens?
Reply Alert moderator
Yorker:
17 Feb 2014 12:32:59pm
No, I don't think so, humans are a "special case" of an animal in Katrina's eyes. One that is not allowed to eat meat, while all the other species are allowed. I think this "speciesism" is a floored and hypocritical argument, try again Katrina ...
Reply Alert moderator
Nein:
17 Feb 2014 1:06:22pm
I don't agree with the author for the most part, but I think the difference she's indicating is that we have a choice, and we can create other sources of iron etc. that we get from animals.
Whereas animals cannot.
Anyway here nor there, really. Someof what we do to animals is cruel. Eating meat and drinking milk is not necessarily cruel. We should be encouraging humane treatment, certainly, but we're designed to eat meat and vegetable matter alike.
Reply Alert moderator
Crisplion:
17 Feb 2014 1:07:31pm
The point is that humans -are- capable of something that no other animal is: moral reasoning. So, the fact that non-human animals eat other animals does not make it hypocritical to question the moral basis for humans doing so. If it did, then your argument could be used to justify human cannibalism, infanticide and rape, all of which occur in the animal kingdom. Try again Yorker...
Reply Alert moderator
Adrian:
17 Feb 2014 1:38:23pm
But it's not clear what drives the moral imperative to *not* eat animals. In other words, if humans are the only *animal* capable of moral reasoning, how does this result in a moral argument against eating non-reasoning animals?
Reply Alert moderator
Crisplion:
17 Feb 2014 1:56:27pm
"...if humans are the only *animal* capable of moral reasoning, how does this result in a moral argument against eating non-reasoning animals?"
It doesn't and I don't think that an absolute moral argument against eating meat is sustainable. (I'm a vegetarian, not a vegan, and I don't judge other people's choices.)
What I'm saying, is that you can't -justify- eating meat on the grounds that other animals do it. I'm also saying that an argument like that, if taken seriously, would be dangerous, because non-reasoning animals do all manner of things that, as reasoning animals, we would see as criminal.
Reply Alert moderator
Trev:
17 Feb 2014 3:03:02pm
I justify eating meat because it is delicious.
Reply Alert moderator
Jimmy Necktie:
17 Feb 2014 1:57:13pm
also "morality" itself is a human construct that Nature would only laugh at.
Reply Alert moderator
Aria:
17 Feb 2014 2:27:35pm
@Jimmy
Laughter is also a human construct.
Reply Alert moderator
Jimmy Necktie:
17 Feb 2014 2:52:30pm
not true Aria. People laugh without being taught how. I believe it's a modification of the fear response in apes, crossed with the appeasement response (bared teeth).
Reply Alert moderator
JoeBloggs:
17 Feb 2014 2:53:40pm
Aria,
Actually Laughter is not a human construct at all.
Numerous species demonstrate vocalizations similar to human laughter. A significant proportion of these are mammals, including non-human primates, which suggests that the neurological functions involved in expressing cheer occurred early in the process of mammalian evolution.
Note too that studies on rats and dogs note these species express laughter though higher frequency vocalisation (beyond human ears) and/or in ways we would not assume as humans to be laughter, though it still being an expression of joy in these animals (aka laughter).
We aren't so different or superior after all.
Reply Alert moderator
Aria:
17 Feb 2014 3:24:04pm
@Joe, Jimmy
Perhaps I should have been more specific - I was questioning Jimmy's earlier description of "Nature" as something that can "laugh" at something. This connotes some sort of derision or mockery of that latter concept, which "Nature" cannot feel. I commented because his point was about how we like to fallaciously impose human constructs on the world, but then he himself imposed a human construct on the concept of Nature.
Otherwise, I completely agree with your biological analyses of laughter as a behavioural phenomenon.
And now, I'll refrain from continuing this somewhat tangential discussion ;)
Reply Alert moderator
marg1:
17 Feb 2014 2:27:58pm
Adrian - animals can still fear and feel pain and still understand when bad things might be about to happen to them. I believe animals do know when they are going to die and I personally do not want to be in any way responsible for that. I think the author of this article is correct in everything she says - that we as a species have rather grandiose ideas of our own self importance on this earth, that we think we have the right to do whatever we like to this earth and to use everything that lives on it for our own purposes. I believe this is wrong and the day of our reckoning is coming with the onward march of ACC. Pity we will take down so many other innocent species with us. No doubt I'll get a barrage of replies refuting my claims. Crisplion -I also totally agree with your post.
Reply Alert moderator
Jimmy Necktie:
17 Feb 2014 3:11:27pm
you assume animals carry all the same baggage as we do with our fancy powers extrapolation and abstract thinking.
Animals do not "fear" death so much as have an overriding instinct to avoid death (at least until after reproduction, when some species actually stop eating and die - eg pacific salmon).
That is not to say they do not feel stress or that it is humane to inflict such stress gratuitously. There are ways to farm and kill without inflicting stress.
Humans *only* fear death because of said pesky powers of extrapolation and abstract thought. It is instinct that makes you pull your hand away from a flame, or makes you nervous of heights. It is abstract reasoning that lets you wonder about what happens when we die.
Reply Alert moderator
Yorker:
17 Feb 2014 2:26:54pm
It's hypocritical to label meat eating humans as speciest because, to construct that argument, you need to be speciest yourself Crispy.
Reply Alert moderator
Crisplion:
17 Feb 2014 2:58:09pm
Yorker, insofar as I'm saying that humans are exceptional in being able to reason morally, perhaps I -am- being 'speciesist' (although I think the term rather silly).
I think it's perfectly possible to morally defend the practice of eating meat, although I choose not to eat it myself. I just don't think you can defend it on the grounds that other animals do it, as your original post seems to. It isn't that other animals are "allowed" to eat meat, as you put it, it's that other animals can't ask themselves the question of whether or not they're morally justified in doing so. We can.
Reply Alert moderator
Hamadryad:
17 Feb 2014 3:33:51pm
You're right. Speciesist is a silly term. Clumsy and silly. The correct term is 'specist'. And yes, humans are the only specists on the planet.
Reply Alert moderator
Jimmy Necktie:
17 Feb 2014 4:36:07pm
differentiating between things is not inherently evil.
Reply Alert moderator
Adrian:
17 Feb 2014 3:31:19pm
@Crisplion - I agree with your position, the argument of using animal behaviour to justify human actions is flawed from the beginning. So I think we are on the same page.
Comments like that from Jimmy Necktie in this thread demonstrate the futility of this entire discussion. If one believes that "morality" is only a human construct, then trying to force your "morality" onto others is contradictory to say the least.
@marg1 - I have no doubt that animals can fear and feel pain. I love animals, and would never condone any cruelty towards them. Still, as many others have pointed out, the philosophical foundation of this article crumbles upon even the most cursory of inspections. Unless, of course one was to appeal to some sort of higher authority than human "morality" which opens up another whole can of worms.
Reply Alert moderator
Zing:
17 Feb 2014 12:53:33pm
Of course not. Unless you begin with the assumption that humans are somehow special, the author's "holier-than-thou" attitude doesn't even get off the ground.
Barring a few symbiotic exceptions, most animals would not sacrifice their own effort for the sake of another species. Given the author is the one rejecting this ugly reality, it would seem she's the one with a blind spot.
Reply Alert moderator
Marty:
17 Feb 2014 9:11:48am
Actually I have no problem with other cultures killing and eating whatever animal they want to , I am not about to try cat or dog but if they want to , good for them. As long as the killing is done in a humane way I dont care one iota. As for 2014 being touted as the year of the vegan ? On what planet? Seriously we get it you dont like meat and animal products , but here is a tip the vast majority of us do and will continue to do so . Back to your kelp and mung bean wafers and leave us alone
Reply Alert moderator
naughtee:
17 Feb 2014 10:45:26am
if our population continues to grow and our ability to grow food diminishes the chances we'll be chowing down on humans gets very close to 1.
perhaps the vegans will be sought for their particular flavour... hmmm ;)
Reply Alert moderator
Zing:
17 Feb 2014 12:36:05pm
It's unlikely that humans will resort to cannibalism in the future.
Letting poor people starve is far easier and raises fewer moral complications. And it's been working just fine up until now.
Reply Alert moderator
naughtee:
17 Feb 2014 1:42:49pm
nice one zing, our past certainly features cannibalism, perhaps we'll adopt a more pragmatic approach and only compost our loved ones.
Reply Alert moderator
Jimmy Necktie:
17 Feb 2014 2:01:25pm
"our past certainly features cannibalism"
As far as I know cannibalism has never been a food source, except in dire times. Other forms of cannibalism are centred on religious or spiritual beliefs but are not primarily for food.
Reply Alert moderator
Hamadryad:
17 Feb 2014 2:58:03pm
War IS cannabilism. And humans are the only animal that does it.
Reply Alert moderator
Zing:
17 Feb 2014 3:27:36pm
Hamadryad. War is not cannibalism. And humanity doesn't have a monopoly on either of them.
Since an organism can only exist by depriving resources to another, war is the natural state of all life forms. Peace and cooperation is the exception, not the norm.
Reply Alert moderator
Jimmy Necktie:
17 Feb 2014 4:40:05pm
there is a facsinating doco on dessert ants that might open some eyes. Colonies war with each other. Individual members are treated differently based on their role. Some members are expendble others are not. All sorts of "isms" going on in nature.
Reply Alert moderator
rob1966:
17 Feb 2014 12:28:42pm
If 2014 is "the year of the vegan" it's going to be one very long and tediously boring year...
Reply Alert moderator
aGuy:
17 Feb 2014 2:03:58pm
Its only the year of the vegan to vegan groups. I personally would like to make a new title for the year.
Year of freedom of choice.
I wont stop someone being vegan and they will not stop me eating an animal or even preparing one myself straight from the wild or farm.
Reply Alert moderator
JonteJ26:
17 Feb 2014 9:15:40am
I currently live in China and speciesism is rife. I try my best to avoid animal products, but my extended family here see something peculiar about not eating meat. I'm almost always questioned over my dietary preferences and almost never praised. It comes from an engrained cultural attitude that the only people who don't eat meat are ones that can't afford it. I've even had people be outright hostile stating things such as "You're too picky! The animals' lives are being wasted because of you!". My wife's aunties have tried to sneak meat into the dumplings and then when I discover it, they say something like "It's only a little bit of pork. You need it to give the dumplings flavour", or "I thought ham was vegetarian". (As a side note, the word for ham in Chinese does not include the character for meat - so is sometimes thought not to be meat). I've met many young people who want to refrain from meat and other animal products, but are very quickly discouraged when their parents/aunties jump on them and say "Only poor people would behave such a way!". The biggest barrier to eliminating speciesism is not lack of people willing to try, but the fact that there are too many engrained customs/practices that make it very hard for young people to make the leap. If all your life your parents tell you that you need meat, TV ads talk about the benefits of regular red-meat and dairy consumption, it takes a very strong mind to disagree with that.
Reply Alert moderator
Pamela:
17 Feb 2014 11:48:53am
Well said Jonte. You and I must have very strong minds then. :)
Reply Alert moderator
Scotty A:
17 Feb 2014 12:01:04pm
Yeah, but a pain at dinner parties :)
Reply Alert moderator
rob1966:
17 Feb 2014 12:31:07pm
I have no issue with vegans, and welcome them to my table; cooking them an approrpiate vegan meal.
Of course, I expect similar in return; they can cook me a nice juicy steak when I visit theirs.
Reply Alert moderator
Aven:
17 Feb 2014 1:11:36pm
True, I faced this dilemma when I lived in China. I stayed a vegetarian for the first 6 months and then relented and started to eat meat (but never dog or cat) in the other 6. I did this because when I went to China I wanted to live in the culture and fully experience it. I went back to being a vegetarian once I returned to Australia and am now fully committed to being a vegetarian when I travel overseas.
So I know it is tough and people do not understand the motivation. Although I was surprised that there are some young Chinese people who are expressing their ethics.
Reply Alert moderator
Peter the Lawyer:
17 Feb 2014 3:08:12pm
Speciesism is a silly term. But if it is specieist to eat meat then I am gadly specieist, as are a lot of other animals.
Reply Alert moderator
Desert Woman:
17 Feb 2014 9:17:44am
We are not over or under each other, other species or the planet. We are all a part of the whole and belong to it as our first peoples knew. The very basis of our understanding of ourselves is wrong and ultimately leading to destruction of the planet and all her inhabitants.
Reply Alert moderator
Mark O:
17 Feb 2014 12:34:17pm
One assumes that all other species are speceist, as all need to compete to survive, and consume other elements of the ecosystem top try to ensure theirs is the dominant species.
Our (female) planet seems to care less either way so long as some form of balance is maintained until the planet killing meteorite comes along, or she erupts the Yellowstone hotspot again (100,000 yrs overdue) to teach us all a jolly good lesson. Mother Knows Best.
Reply Alert moderator
Desert Woman:
17 Feb 2014 1:12:26pm
Mark, speciesism consists of devaluing other species, regarding them as unequals. It does not consist of not eating them. Aboriginees around the world eat animals but have ceremonies in which they give thanks and apologies to the animal before killing it. They respect them and take only what they need. Eating another does not necessarily imply competition and besides, many species favour cooperation over competition.
Reply Alert moderator
Jimmy Necktie:
17 Feb 2014 2:05:41pm
"regarding them as unequals" They are unequal. From us, from each other.
"Aboriginees around the world eat animals but have ceremonies in which they give thanks and apologies to the animal before killing it."
Since the animal being eaten has no knowledge or understanding of this, how is relevant other than to the humans conducting the ceremony.
Reply Alert moderator
Desert Woman:
17 Feb 2014 2:32:20pm
Jimmy, every animal and plant has a place and a role in the planetary system and should be respected as such. Each species is unique in some way but that does not make any of them unequal as parts of the whole. When you remove any member of an ecosystem, you change the entire system.
Reply Alert moderator
Hamadryad:
17 Feb 2014 3:39:06pm
Well what's the use of a religious ceremony when the very idea of a god is utterly ludicrous?
At least the gesture of giving thanks to a prey animal for continued survival facilitated by the sustenance it provides is recognition of the value of life, ALL life, and an acknowledgement of the precarious nature of existence.
Reply Alert moderator
aGuy:
17 Feb 2014 2:05:49pm
Lol, like what? Your understanding of nature seems far to warm and fuzzy. All animals are in a constant battle against bacteria and parasites. Even animals that live in groups have internal fights to be the alpha.
Reply Alert moderator
Desert Woman:
17 Feb 2014 2:26:18pm
Sorry a Guy, your last point is simply not true. Some animals live by rank and competition for it. Others don't. Others again, such as wolves and dogs, employ a mixture where they hunt cooperatively and compete for breeding rights. Humans always have a choice.
Reply Alert moderator
Peter the Lawyer:
17 Feb 2014 3:15:23pm
I suggest you go away and read Mandevilles "Parable of the Bees." It is a marvellous treatise on how man's vices have led him to progress to the highest position amongst the animals.
Reply Alert moderator
aGuy:
17 Feb 2014 4:03:08pm
Canines are competitive. They will compete against other packs for territory. They will compete within the pack for Alpha positions (thus breeding rights) and even the young will selectively be fed by adults depending on relationship.
The hunting cooperatively is also a result of competition as they are competing against other animals for life. There are some very interesting dynamics on who takes front of the pack (where injuries are most likely) and why. Many want to appear as leading the charge but do not want to take the first lunge where they may be kicked by a much heavier beast.
Cooperation is a tool of necessity when it comes to hunting larger animals, not a desire choice in any canine group. The pack is there to ensure life based on selfish instincts of the individual to preserve life.
Reply Alert moderator
Hamadryad:
17 Feb 2014 3:44:09pm
You're missing the point aGuy. Conflict in nature is avoided where possible (uses up too much metabolic energy) and when it is undertaken, it is done so according to strict rules of engagement to ensure the continued survival of the organism, either through ensuring only the strongest genes are perpetuated or for the simple purpose of nourishment. In humans conflict emanates from the bottom up. That is, businessmen, politicians and religious figures (the lowest forms of life on the planet) invoke war to satisfy their own self interests.
Reply Alert moderator
Jimmy Necktie:
17 Feb 2014 4:50:56pm
I would argue, in general, humans try to avoid war also.
Both Machiavelli and Sun Tzu placed war as the last and least favourable option. "Persuasion is better than force" is not a moral argument, it's a fact.
Beginning with the first clan groups, ways were invented to avoid conflict as conflict is always risky and usually expensive in time and resources.
Reply Alert moderator
marg1:
17 Feb 2014 2:31:02pm
Well said Desert Woman.
Reply Alert moderator
gwoshmi:
17 Feb 2014 9:20:31am
I understand what Katrina is on about but how far does this go?
Cockroaches? Rats? Mosquitoes? Does it make me a Nazi when I weed my garden? I'm practising genocide after all.
I watched a vegan president of his branch of the Greens crush a (a moth from memory) and when I questioned him on it he said "it's not native".
What's the difference?
Reply Alert moderator
Aven:
17 Feb 2014 1:19:52pm
Good point about natives. As an environmentalist I cycle past a plague of rabbits around Canberra. The animal lover in me looks in wonder on the incredibly cute furry creatures but the environmentalist wonders how much grazing pressure these cuties put on the land and are they stopping more native and endangered species from thriving?
The (ongoing) need to deal with feral pests creates real dilemmas for animal rights. Do you kill feral cats in central Australia or allow them to spread and push many different native endangered species into extinction??? As much as I am against the killing of animals at an individual or a group level, when it comes to one species versus many, I'd support the extermination of feral cats.
Yes, you would be right in saying that if humans didn't spread these pests around the globe there would not be a problem but blaming humans for the original problem does not offer a solution to it.
Reply Alert moderator
GordonAitchJay:
17 Feb 2014 1:35:54pm
How far does this go? As long as it's practically possible, we should avoid harming others. We live in a very messy world, and inevitably we will be faced with moral dilemmas. We should always aim to cause as little harm - the least suffering and least number of deaths - as possible.
I'm not sure if cockroaches and mosquitoes are sentient, or in what ways they are sentient. Rats, however, clearly are sentient and have rich mental lives. Because of this, it's very important that they are not harmed. Humans don't like experiencing pain and discomfort, and neither do rats.
If anyone is interested, there is an excellent article by Brian Tomasik on the question of invertebrate sentience - http://www.utilitarian-essays.com/insect-pain.html
"It's not native" is a very poor justification; it's a morally irrelevant distinction. White Aussies aren't native to Australia and we cause all sort of problems, but that's not a valid justification to kill us. Though it was a moth, so I don't think it's a big deal. The moth probably lacks even a rudimentary mental existence, so there's no one there experiencing the crushing. Similarly, killing them means they can no longer experience the future when it comes, but I doubt moths experience anything, so there is no one there who is actually harmed.
Animals, including humans, matter because they can experience things that affect them. Pain and discomfort can be very unpleasant experiences. If we don't like unpleasant experiences, why would any other animal with a similarly sophisticated nervous system be any different?
"If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering?in so far as rough comparisons can be made?of any other being. If a being is not capable of suffering, or of experiencing enjoyment or happiness, there is nothing to be taken into account. This is why the limit of sentience (using the term as a convenient, if not strictly accurate, shorthand for the capacity to suffer or experience enjoyment or happiness) is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of others. To mark this boundary by some characteristic like intelligence or rationality would be to mark it in an arbitrary way. Why not choose some other characteristic, like skin color?" - Peter Singer
I also want to quickly reply to the objection that "other animals eat other animals so why shouldn't we?" I think people find that the most persuasive argument against veganism.
The argument is an "appeal to nature" and is fallacious. Just because killing and eating other animals is natural doesn't automatically make it good or moral (or bad or immoral, actually. It's irrelevant to us.).
Other animals engage in natural be
Reply Alert moderator
bob:
17 Feb 2014 9:20:55am
When I walk into a room that has a sign, "no food or drink allowed", I often wonder are humans food. Katrina has only touched on speciesism in a shallow way, what we should really look at is if humans are only at one end of a spectrum of sentience, then perhaps we should also consider the contribution that the human body can provide to the dietary needs of others.
If we are going to have animals in the world then we need to accept that some of them will get eaten (murdered) by other animals, otherwise we end up with piles of rotting old aged carcasses, perhaps not even rotting (if small animals - bacteria etc - are forbidden too).
The alternative would be a world without animals which would be an environmental disaster. Veganism, like many things, is ok if only a small portion of the population follows it. If we all followed it then we would need more fertilizer, more genetically altered (all wheat is altered from the natural) grains, poisonous soy beans etc. There would be no animals recycleing crop waste into nutrients and so on.
Another problem with a pan-species sentiency recognition is that we would then need to prosecute animals that rape and murder other animals, maybe only as children or mentally unfit to plead but they still need to be dealt with somehow, perhaps locked up in a asylums until cured of their tendancies. Many a tomcat will find itself in a cage somewhere getting a strong talking too by a shrink.
Katrina, is it speciesism to consider humans as somehow different from other species when it comes to food and murder, after all we only have strong taboo against eating our kind which is basically the same as most animals and better than those that do. I'm sure the sharks off WA have no problem with human snack food.
Soylent green!
Reply Alert moderator
Rae:
17 Feb 2014 2:35:39pm
Part of the human condition is to take ourselves far too seriously.
Often without any real experience.
We have no real understanding of what constitutes consciousness.
I remember going as far as not boiling water and worrying about the plants I was eating. What we do to the plant kingdom is hugely cruel.
However it depends on how hungry you are what you will eat.
Personally i'd go a rat burger everytime and the living in the sewers before consuming Soylent.
Reply Alert moderator
Sea Monster :
17 Feb 2014 9:22:27am
Chimpanzees hunt monkeys for meat. They seem to relish the chase, the kill and the eating. Are they speciesist? At what point did we become speciesist after we diverged from our common ancestor?
Would it have been cruel if the lions had killed the Giraffe?
Reply Alert moderator
Sea Monster:
17 Feb 2014 11:21:53am
Humans shouldn't see themselves as better than animals. Humans need better standards of behavior because we're better than animals
Reply Alert moderator
ateday:
17 Feb 2014 1:27:59pm
We are not better, we are certainly different but not better.
In fact as we are the only animals species actively engaged in destroying our only life support system, the environment, for our own gratification then we are probably a lot worse than other animal species.
Reply Alert moderator
naughtee:
17 Feb 2014 1:57:23pm
"worse" by who's standards? :)
we're part of a process with the illusion of control (and even worse a sense of morality), i look at humans with their self-importance and just think of them as the photosynthetic archaea and bacteria banging out all that toxic oxygen some 3 billion years ago, no doubt they had lots of discussions about reducing their impact on their planet as well... "think of the dolphins" they said, "what about the chickens" they wailed, fat lot of good it did them... no wait ;)
Reply Alert moderator
Sea Mendez :
17 Feb 2014 2:19:22pm
How do you define 'actively'? Most species are quiet indifferent to their life support systems. Many destroy their life support systems actively or not.
God bless yeast and its habit of poisoning its liquid environmental with its own excreta.
Reply Alert moderator
Peter the Lawyer:
17 Feb 2014 3:21:28pm
If we are destroying the environment, then surely that behaviour is 'natural' to us. Therefore it is natural that the enviropnment will one day be destroyed.
Reply Alert moderator
CF Zero:
17 Feb 2014 4:03:08pm
Well that depends on whether we decide to do something to stop it occurring, left unchecked yes, most species destroy themselves with their own success. Humans are different, we can discuss the future and decide on a course of action.
If however we decide to destroy ourselves as we are presently doing then I question the value of any individual or the species because having intelligence then refusing to change behaviour is worse than not having the intelligence in the first place.
Baby boomers could learn something from the Salmon, I think we are the only species that regards the parent as more important than the offspring.
Reply Alert moderator
rufus t firefly:
17 Feb 2014 2:16:19pm
We're not 'better than animals'. We are animals. Biologically we're a member of the ape family (as any text book for the last 20-30 years confirms). And one of our abilities that most other animals don't have (and certainly not to the same extent) is the ability to make reasoned choices. Which puts a moral responsibility for our actions back on us, one that doesn't apply to most if not all other animals. To use some philosophic parlance, we're moral subjects, other animals are moral objects - what happens to them matters morally, but they aren't morally culpable as we, arguably, are.
Reply Alert moderator
Kimba:
17 Feb 2014 11:31:19am
You are not a monkey, you are not a lion. You are a human being with intellect that (supposedly) surpasses that of beasts. You are not a beast. Stop acting like one. If you want to continue devouring every living thing, note there will be dire consequences to the planet and future generations. Fresh water for one is essential and something a person cannot go without for long. Something like 70% to 80% of fresh water goes to feed farm animals. Some experts believe we will be at war over fresh water. The majority of grain, wheat, soy go to farm animals even being imported from third world countries while tens of thousands of those people die of starvation every day. Why are meat eaters so selfish and thoughtless? Why are they so stubbornly heartless to the suffering of other species? Many of us survive and thrive on plant based diets. Nearly everyday more and more imitation meats and cheeses are created by loving and caring individuals. Please stop thinking of, and loving only yourselves.
Reply Alert moderator
Sea Monster :
17 Feb 2014 12:28:46pm
Isn't your insistence that I'm not a beast speciesist? Aren't you encouraging me to see myself as superior to beasts?
I don't devour every living thing.
This article and my comment are not about the environmental impact of eating meat.
Reply Alert moderator
Mark O:
17 Feb 2014 12:38:22pm
"Nearly everyday more and more imitation meats and cheeses are created by loving and caring individuals."
Soylent Green?
How come we speciists are discounting the body of evidence that plants cringe when they are cut, and can communicate. Eating plants is murder.
Reply Alert moderator
Kimba:
17 Feb 2014 3:27:52pm
We need to eat plants to sustain life. We do not need to eat meat to survive. That's the difference. And yes we are quite superior to animals in our ability to discern right from wrong, good from evil. Most of us. However animals are superior to us, or shall we say innocent of our capacity for destruction. They know not the lust for money or greed or prideful arrogance that consumes the malevolent industries of slaughter.
Reply Alert moderator
Sea Monster :
17 Feb 2014 12:39:48pm
Sorry I also want to know at what point it became unacceptable for humans to act like beasts. Chimpanzees are pretty smart too. Is it acceptable for them to kill monkeys? What's the demarcation?
Regarding lions would you therefore agree that it would be okay to turn the live giraffe lose in the lions cage? Just so long as a human doesn't do it. Or given the lions need to be fed (can I assume you don't want them starved or released in Denmark to fend for themselves) why is it okay to kill a cow and not a giraffe?
If they were turned loose; would it be okay for Danish citizens to kill them in self defense?
Reply Alert moderator
Tim:
17 Feb 2014 5:02:14pm
Humans are capable of moral agency, though of course, some are borderline when brain damage,intellectual disability and mental illness are factored in, I would consider all the other primates to be borderline cases and as with animals like dolphins that might be on the brink of moral agency there is less imperative to incorporate that into food selection because unlike humans its hard for these animals to meet their nutritional needs through agriculture and food storage.
You are on the money that this expectation is too high for some humans and really,the expectation should be something we put upon our ethically evolving human society.
Reply Alert moderator
Ian:
17 Feb 2014 12:42:58pm
You do get that Humans gained the intellect that you're talking about because we are predators don't you? Apex predators as it turns out.
Reply Alert moderator
Sea Monster :
17 Feb 2014 12:52:59pm
Super predators (high five!) to David Attenborough last night as he noted the demise of mega-fauna coincided with our arrival on each continent.
Reply Alert moderator
naughtee:
17 Feb 2014 12:59:00pm
kimba, we ARE monkeys (look it up)
Reply Alert moderator
Jimmy Necktie:
17 Feb 2014 2:31:22pm
we are primates, more closely related to apes than monkeys. But we are a different species (homo sapiens sapiens) and so we are neither a monkey nor an ape.
Reply Alert moderator
Sea Monster:
17 Feb 2014 3:16:03pm
Jimmy most taxonomists would classify us as great apes. There are several species of great apes. Your claim is highly controversial.
Reply Alert moderator
whogoesthere:
17 Feb 2014 9:23:24am
I'm all for animal welfare. Animals can feel pain and suffer and in my view their quality of life should be taken into consideration at all times. But they are not human. I expect if the author had to choose between the life of a child, and the life of a cow, she'd pick the child.
Animals do eat other animals, and I doubt the entire human race is going to turn vegan anytime soon. To wish it was so seems idealistic to the extreme.
A more relaistic goal (and even this will be difficult) is for humans to learn to treat the animals we exploit with basic care so they have a decent quality of life, for however long that life is.
Terms like 'hijacking of the reproductive systems of female cows' and comparing it people being raped seem unlikley to me to help the author's cause.
Of course like most other problems the biggest issue is there are too many people to feed on the planet. I fear animal welfare will only make small steps in affluent countries until we reduce our own population.
There is a difference between animal welfare and animal 'rights', I believe in the former, but it is a different thing to the latter.
Reply Alert moderator
Peter:
17 Feb 2014 11:18:41am
Given that cows are continually kept pregnant and their new born calves are immediately ripped away from them - the males sent to the abattoirs, the females put on some ersatz food to grow them into the next generation of milk producers - how is it untrue or unrealistic to say their reproductive systems have been hijacked?
It describes exactly what happens. It's accurate.
A lot of people just can't call a spade a spade when it comes to where our meat and dairy comes from.
Reply Alert moderator
Applaudanum:
17 Feb 2014 11:52:04am
The less said about vegetable production the better, eh?
All those innocent plants, kept in unnatural conditions and forcefed nutrients to an extent they wouldn't 'to get in nature. Sprayed with insecticides that prevent the natural occurrence of bugs eating vegetation. Then the fruit, which the plant has grown in the utmost adversity as a byproduct of simply trying to get closer to the sun, is cut and torn from the plant and taken away, thwarting the natural seeding and regeneration cycle. The shame!
Reply Alert moderator
Pamela:
17 Feb 2014 12:27:42pm
It comes from fear of the possibility of having to give up the meat addiction.
Reply Alert moderator
Jimmy Necktie:
17 Feb 2014 2:43:28pm
what an odd comment. Meat addiction? Seriously?
If our bodies crave meat, could it be because our bodies crave meat? As in that's their design? By the same argument does that make us also "addicted" to anything else (animal, veg or mineral) that we find tasty?
Reply Alert moderator
Pamela:
17 Feb 2014 4:59:39pm
You said it right there; you 'crave meat'. I rest my case.
Reply Alert moderator
whogoesthere:
17 Feb 2014 12:31:25pm
I didn't say it wasn't true, I said the comparison to rape would do little to help the authors cause.
I actually agree with you. I think people should face the truth of their choices, so put a picture of a battery hen on the egg carton, and so on.
Reply Alert moderator
Clancy:
17 Feb 2014 12:36:47pm
Katrina has described the process accurately.
Reply Alert moderator
aGuy:
17 Feb 2014 2:10:00pm
A farmer and slaughterhouse has a strong incentive to keep a system ongoing. That is more than I can say for harvesting wild animals.
Reply Alert moderator
natureisn'tsonice:
17 Feb 2014 5:04:05pm
Cows continually kept pregnant is unnatural? What do you think happens in herds on African plains? - as soon as a female is able to reproduce, she's mated, ie, continually and there's no guarantee it won't be from a near relative if the same dominant bull/buck dominates for a couple of years!
Reply Alert moderator
Pamela:
17 Feb 2014 12:26:05pm
We are animals too. Humans are just another species of mammal. I'm sure a cow mother would choose her baby calf over a human child just like any other mother. Her baby is as important to her as ours are to us. And what you say about animals not deserving rights is exactly what was said about the slaves a century or two ago.
Reply Alert moderator
Rae:
17 Feb 2014 2:50:05pm
We are also a long way from envisaging a Royal Society For the Prevention of Cruelty to Plants.
Reply Alert moderator
devilsdance:
17 Feb 2014 9:26:07am
nice article - good to get a different perspective.
I can also see a connection here with some of the inproven practices of much eastern medicine - the use of bile bears and killing endangered species for using the body parts in bogus "ancient" "medicine".
Reply Alert moderator
Seano:
17 Feb 2014 9:36:57am
"the bodies of about 250 million female cows are exploited so we can consume their milk,"
Recent surveys have shown that most of them enjoy it. There's nothing anthropomorphic about milk and honey.
Reply Alert moderator
GJA:
17 Feb 2014 10:43:25am
Perhaps the cows participating in the survey were not a representative sample.
Seriously, a survey of whom? What a ridiculous contribution.
Reply Alert moderator
Seano Doolittle:
17 Feb 2014 11:03:01am
" What a ridiculous contribution."
Only to some like you GJA. Show me the reference to the exploitation survey anytime you like. Don't forget to tell them how the other half live before you ask them any questions.
Reply Alert moderator
GJA:
17 Feb 2014 12:52:33pm
Sorry, but you claimed there were "recent surveys", not me, so I think the burden of proof lies with you. Go ahead, show us these fabulous surveys.
Reply Alert moderator
kenm:
17 Feb 2014 9:42:01am
The cruelty of homosapiens has no bounds.
Reply Alert moderator
Pamela:
17 Feb 2014 12:39:35pm
Thumbs up to kenm. Just like human ignorance, human cruelty is endless. I work in animal welfare and I see it every day. Dolphins in Japan and Denmark, Seals in Canada and South Africa, Whales in our oceans, the giraffes in Denmark, zoos across the world, many with thin, starving lions, bears etc; lonely elephants in concrete boxes or chained up and whipped for circus 'entertainment'; dogs and cats crammed into tiny cages on trucks for Chinese markets to be skinned alive for their fur and meat, Australian exporters sending live animals on horror ships off to be tortured to death in the Middle East and Indonesia (those who survive the trip that is). Pigs and chickens buried alive in Asia because of fear of disease, kangaroos tortured to death by yobbos in utes, their baby joeys stomped to death or swung and bashed against the bullbars, under their 'humane code of practice'. Kangaroos dragged behind cars for miles; body parts left along the roads, some hacked to death afterwards. Kangaroos found suffering with arrows through them. And on it goes. All perpetrated by homosapien - the so-called 'superior' species.
Reply Alert moderator
rufus t firefly:
17 Feb 2014 2:23:29pm
Humans are less cruel than just about any other species I can think of. They're the only species having this discussion for a start. Don't miss the wood for the trees.
Reply Alert moderator
Pamela:
17 Feb 2014 5:02:40pm
Er, did you read the above? Do other species do that for profit and entertainment?
Reply Alert moderator
Jimmy Necktie:
17 Feb 2014 2:44:25pm
"The cruelty of homosapiens has no bounds."
That's probably true but what does it have to do with eating meat?
Reply Alert moderator
Gordon:
17 Feb 2014 9:46:23am
Smile. Take a selfie. See those teeth? You're (partly) a carnivore.
Your brain evolved to hunt for dinner while avoiding becoming one. That it now ties you in emotional knots is a tribute to its agility but not much else.
Reply Alert moderator
JonteJ26:
17 Feb 2014 10:12:00am
I can't imagine you using those teeth to take down a cow (or a sheep, pig, etc.). I doubt they have the ability to pierce the hide.
Reply Alert moderator
Seano:
17 Feb 2014 10:29:40am
Still intimidating around other animals until you might pat them first. Best to remember to smile with your mouth closed at non-English speaking members of the animal family. When you do, keep the jaw slack don't grimace, it sends the wrong message.
Reply Alert moderator
leafygreens:
17 Feb 2014 10:44:49am
The brain and the thumb allow us to make tools to overcome our lack of tooth and claw. Language lets us transmit inventions.
You can eat small rodents, fish, birds, insects and carrion with those teeth, and the digestive system will use it all up.
Even otters manage to bust open shellfish.
Carnivores with teeth to tear eat herbivores with teeth that grind and omnivores eat both and their dentition reflects it.
Reply Alert moderator
Pamela:
17 Feb 2014 12:41:34pm
In reply to your first sentence leafygreens. So do monkeys. All species have their own language; it's just that we humans don't understand it.
Reply Alert moderator
Jimmy Necktie:
17 Feb 2014 1:26:57pm
a species' ability to communicate is not the same thing as a language. A language requires abstract thought. Some other species may do this, but most do not.
Reply Alert moderator
rufus t firefly:
17 Feb 2014 2:26:33pm
"All species have their own language; it's just that we humans don't understand it."
So how do you know its there? Intuition? Instinct? Beatrix Potter? LOL.
Many animals can communicate to varying extents. That ain't language. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Reply Alert moderator
Gordon:
17 Feb 2014 10:52:05am
I believe we started small - squirrels rabbits and insects. After that, a tough hide and a big body were no match for stone tools and hunting in groups.
I'm all for ethics and avoiding cruelty, and I do take the authors point that choosing to be nice to species based on cuteness is not very well thought through. But, I don't believe we owe other animals any more than they owe us.
Reply Alert moderator
Peter:
17 Feb 2014 11:22:04am
So we're the first mammals blessed with a high state of self-awareness, but according to your ideas we're supposed to keep behaving like primates?
I'd say that's a position born out of lazyness and convenience, and a personal lack of empathy.
Reply Alert moderator
Dicky:
17 Feb 2014 11:44:45am
Peter : so damned well put, couldn't agree more (except for the "high state of self-awareness", but that is a whole new minefield).
Reply Alert moderator
Gordon:
17 Feb 2014 12:27:47pm
Ethically there is no difference between eating a giraffe, spraying a cockroach, and baking to death the billion yeast cells that just caused your bread to rise. Once you start where do you stop? Wiser heads than mine have tackled this issue and it comes down to avoidance of cruelty or waste, vigilance, adoption of humane solutions wherever practical.
All of these things are mental constructs, existing solely inside minds evolved to promote the survival of the owner's genes, unavoidably at the expense of something else's. Few of us hunt giraffes, most of us eat bread, we all draw our own lines in between.
Reply Alert moderator
Gordon:
17 Feb 2014 12:47:12pm
No. Those possessed of mind should use it. If your ethics have you choosing to consume from further down the food chain that's fine. The quirks of a hunter's brain sometimes leads to cruelty : think of a cat with a bird for example. We can turn away from such behaviour ourselves by choice, and most do. Deciding who or what is going to die so that you may live could be a full-time job if you allowed it to be. Do you spend all day worrying about that or do you, lazily and conveniently like me, have a line drawn somewhere?
Reply Alert moderator
rufus t firefly:
17 Feb 2014 2:29:28pm
Gordon - try Tom Regan's Animal Rights book. It's pretty old, but it provides a useful way of working out a moral difference between a cockroach, a giraffe and a human being (your examples of moral equivalence, although I doubt your seriousness).
Reply Alert moderator
Zing:
17 Feb 2014 12:44:40pm
Muscles in the arms. Straight back and legs designed for running.
Think our ancestors used all that to chase down wild vegetables? Guess again.
Reply Alert moderator
rufus t firefly:
17 Feb 2014 2:32:05pm
"Muscles in the arms. Straight back and legs designed for running.
Think our ancestors used all that to chase down wild vegetables? Guess again. "
To which the appropriate response is 'so what?'
Or do you draw all your moral conclusions from our physiognomy?
Reply Alert moderator
Zing:
17 Feb 2014 3:07:27pm
My reply was to Jonte, who implied that our bodies aren't evolved for eating meat because our teeth are no longer efficient weapons.
As to your statement? It's logical to derive morality from natural factors such as evolution.
The alternative is to derive morality from your personal opinions. And why are your personal opinions any more valid than the meat-eater who lives next to you?
Reply Alert moderator
CF Zero:
17 Feb 2014 4:07:50pm
We sacrificed strength for dexterity to make us more efficient killers and be under no illusion, that is what we are
Reply Alert moderator
seg:
17 Feb 2014 11:25:34am
ummmm....no, actually humans are omnivores.
Reply Alert moderator
Gordon:
17 Feb 2014 12:05:53pm
i.e. partly carnivorous, which is what I said & why I said it.
Reply Alert moderator
Matthew:
17 Feb 2014 11:43:12am
This is/ought fallacy is never going to die is it? Just because our species has evolved to be omnivorous, doesn't mean we ought to be. You tend to get tied up in illogical knots thinking this way.
Reply Alert moderator
Jimmy Necktie:
17 Feb 2014 1:30:23pm
"doesn't mean we ought to be"
"ought" is a strange word to use. We are what we are. Should we redesign our teeth and digestive system to suit what we "ought" to eat, or will we have to wait for evolution to do it?
Reply Alert moderator
Here's to you:
17 Feb 2014 10:09:55am
Whether you're a vegan or a meat-eater, that's obviously your choice and only yours to make. Depends on your philosophy on life I guess. As some people here have already said, the welfare for animals seems only logical. If we are all pro-life then the attention paid to the welfare of animals should be natural but there are people that are not pro-life. No matter how much they say they are, the fact that they don't care some lives are killed and some are saved is proof of that but then some people have already touched on how do you define life? Is life characterised by conscious thought or is it life defined by the presence of organisms despite very limited cognitive functions. It's a never-ending cyclical conundrum and there's not going to be a definite answer.
One thing for sure though is that we continue to consume at a rising rate. We want things fast and in abundance. One could argue that we have so much "choice" in what we can eat that the consumption of meat is not necessary but then we are ignoring our instinct to pursue pleasure but within in these times or sustainability and limited resources, it might be wise to start a collective discussion on restraining our thirst for consumerism. Everything in moderation is healthy but we want it to the utmost maximum.
The issue of speciesism is unfortunate but when it is ingrained so deeply and sub-consciously into the natural behaviours of people, how can they be converted even when they know of the cruelty and the suffering of the animals that they seek out to eat for pleasure?
Reply Alert moderator
Huonian:
17 Feb 2014 10:17:45am
Here's a simple question, Katrina. Which farming industries use the most pesticides ? The livestock industries or those that produce your fruit, grain and veggies?
Pesticides are designed to kill living creatures on an industrial scale. And, even if you don't care that the creatures killed are fairly low on the food chain, they are food for the cute and cuddly animals that people care about. Billions of cute and cuddly animals die each year so that you and I can eat.
The reality is that there is more animal death in a plate of veggies than in a steak.
There are good reasons to eat less meat and, indeed, even to go vegetarian if that's your thing. But yours is not a sound one.
Reply Alert moderator
aGuy:
17 Feb 2014 2:14:58pm
It is actually the livestock industries because at times they need to prepare feed and animals need to eat plants, taking over much more space than a vegetable garden.
There are non-pesticide methods of producing anything on a farm as well.
Vegans have less animal deaths on their hands because each animal needs to eat the many plants that the vegan eats the plants not the lesser weight end product. They cut out a part of the process thus saving energy and living creatures.
Still, I will keep eating meat because it is natural for us to eat it and most importantly to me, it tastes great.
Reply Alert moderator
Mike:
17 Feb 2014 10:18:04am
I have had vegan eating habits since 1997 and have gone through a number of stages of thought in regard to this topic. While I can certainly understand the sentiments behind this article, I read it with a terrible sense that it was almost useless to even bother. Unfortunately, when confronted with these emotional pleas, the average response is akin to that from Marty (comment near the top of this thread). It essentially gets you nowhere, makes you seem to be the 'weird' one for not eating what everyone else does, and ultimately does not help animals or make anyone want to even try vegan food. As a physics analogy you are met with an equal and opposite reaction! I decided a very long time ago not to even bother pushing my food choices on others. I figure the best thing you can do to promote veganism is to eat that way without making a big deal about it and thus show how easy and normal such a lifestyle can be. Telling everyone how bad their choices are only serves to make you a gastronomic iconoclast. And I dare say that is actually what some vegan types want (although I am not suggesting that the author of this article had such intent). There does exist within some in the vegan community a narcissistic desire to be the 'super vegan'. Go to any vegan forum and see them debating over the use of honey, or which sneakers don't have animal-derived glue, or why mere vegetarians are apparently just as bad as meat eaters. It is enough to make you not want to use the term vegan for your dietary choices for fear of being lumped in with them. To be blunt, I don't really understand why someone would want to eat meat when they really think about where it came from, but I don't think it is my place to tell them not to either.
Reply Alert moderator
Gordon:
17 Feb 2014 10:57:40am
Well said. I'm a lifelong atheist but I abhor "noisy" atheists - find myself defending people's religious choices against them sometimes. I think anyone who thinks about these ethical matters can and should arrive at their own ethical position. But when it descends into competitive moral vanity it is very off-putting.
Reply Alert moderator
Tombowler:
17 Feb 2014 1:59:11pm
Well said. I declare myself agnostic, simply because I find it hard to associate myself with the intellectual hand wringing of the loud atheist. I have considered my moral approach to vegetarianism and conscientiously arrived at a position of omnivorous consumption without waste and seeking to mitigate cruelty.
This sanctimonious nonsense is absurd beyond words. The ultimate hypocrisy of failing to recognise the impact of broad acre cropping on insect life, herbivores and indeed the plants themselves, many of which respond clearly to external stimuli, is utter tripe.
Reply Alert moderator
MildMasanthrope:
17 Feb 2014 10:58:41am
People are great at taking things to extremes.
Seems to me logic dictates a small potion of the population do better with no meat. Equally, a small portion do better with more meat.
What we do know is universality amongst a population is not a natural state. I suppose if people did a modicum of maths and paid attention to the bit about Gaussian Distribution, many of these inane arguments would never get an airing.
Then again, the Pareto Principle would suggest 80% of half decent thought would only come from 20% of the population.
If meat is not your thing then all power to you and good on you for recognizing it.
Reply Alert moderator
leafygreens:
17 Feb 2014 10:59:58am
''I decided a very long time ago not to even bother pushing my food choices on others.''
Thankyou. I wish the pro-meat zealots would do the same.
Living by example is a powerful thing. Engaging people when their ears are open gets you further than emotive blame.
Until we discuss this rationally, and consider the real practical problems in swinging entirely one way or the other, then it remains two tribes at war.
With 7 billion people and counting, all mouths to feed, both intensive meat/fisheries and intensive vegetable systems can't feed them all AND return ecosystems to full biodiversity.
Reply Alert moderator
Applaudanum:
17 Feb 2014 11:58:35am
I'm doing my bit not to add to the 7 billion mouths. Have you?
Reply Alert moderator
leafygreens:
17 Feb 2014 12:43:41pm
Yep.
& not even at 'replacement'' levels accross the immediate family, either.
Of the 10 sibs & partners (both sides, in total) there are only 6 offspring, and no plans for anymore...
Humans are not an endangered species... and we already greatly exceed the carrying capacity of our habitat :-)
Reply Alert moderator
JoeBloggs:
17 Feb 2014 3:20:10pm
"Humans are not an endangered species... and we already greatly exceed the carrying capacity of our habitat :-)"
Only if you make the incorrect assumption that our habitat exists solely on this one little blue planet.
As our species now as the ability to leave this planet and we are very close to having the actual and real ability to colonise our solar system (using orbital settlements) and utilise the vast and abundant resources in our solar system (predominately in the asteriod belt) we are no longer tied to this planet and therefore our habitat is inclusive of parts the solar system.
The likely reality is that we will grow much of our food in commerical styled processes (ie. in vats) within the orbital settlements using collected resources thus negating the need to have any animal farming in space, though we will perhaps grow plants for food.
This will remove the pressure off the environment on Earth in time once a critical mass of humanity has transitioned into being a space faring species. We just need to survive the next few hundred years.
Our civilization needs to live long enough to develop the technologies to be self sustaining and self sufficient if we are to become, as Arthur C. Clarke said, "Guardians of the Galaxy".
Reply Alert moderator
Rocket Surgeon:
17 Feb 2014 1:44:35pm
@Mike Congratulations, you are the exception to the joke, "How can you tell id someone's a vegan? Don't worry, they'll tell you."
Reply Alert moderator
madmax:
17 Feb 2014 10:38:15am
I've see appalling acts of cruelty committed to animals from humans. So next time you put milk in your coffee... Ah what's the point trying to educate the ignorant
Reply Alert moderator
LEONDOTCOM:
17 Feb 2014 2:11:23pm
I see appalling act of cruelty committed to humans from other humans.
I see hunger committed by vegans and meat eaters on other humans (vegans and meat eaters).
Reply Alert moderator
mike j:
17 Feb 2014 2:21:52pm
And I've seen appalling acts of cruelty committed on humans by animals.
Just ask Siegfried & Roy.
Reply Alert moderator
Betie:
17 Feb 2014 10:41:52am
Yet the author of this very article uses the word 'person' interchangeably with 'human'.
Reply Alert moderator
Hudson Godfrey:
17 Feb 2014 10:42:57am
As far as we can tell an animal has every right to be treated humanely, to be allowed live to the best of its ability. Yet whenever we defend human rights we don't find it necessary to pretend that the minimum standard should be one anyone very much enjoys so much as to say it precludes suffering. I don't think that it is speciesism to say that extends to acknowledging we have different places in the food chain, or that nature itself is often cruel in unavoidable ways.
Where I'm with you therefore isn't on the case of the Giraffe being slaughtered, or even on the unfortunate existence of zoos if they mean to preserve endangered animals, but it is in the case of the bears, the sheep and the dolphins.
The matter here still seems to be persuading humans that the arc of progress bends away from violence and cruelty in all things. We'd be kidding ourselves to think that animals' opinions matter in the sense that they might influence outcomes they experience whenever they encounter us humans. Yet there's always going to be that certain harshness at the boundary between our need for nourishment and our desire to avoid cruelty. What we see in some extremes is transgressive and I've tried above to highlight cases where we've nothing to gain from being more cruel than we need to be. Those to me seem to be the worst of all possibilities, the place to start, and the one where our sympathies align. Telling me I need to think twice about the cruel ramifications of the head on my cappuccino stretches credulity!
Reply Alert moderator
Transcend:
17 Feb 2014 10:44:48am
I am not a vegan/vegetarian, and I think this article has attracted a bit of negative reaction because if its lean towards pro veganism, but I also agree with a lot of its themes.
I do not think the main message here is about 'going vego'.
Dolphin hunting, bear bile farming, and inhumane slaughter practices are among a number of ways humans have treated animals disgustingly.
Yes animals eat other animals, that's natural, but they do not take more than they need or mistreat them for long periods of time the way we often do.
I would say to the author that I agree we are desensitized and/or ignorant to animal suffering, and anyone who is vocal about the treatment of animals is instantly vilified by the majority mindset.
The way I would suggest to make a change, is make people realize the way all species interact in nature (most of us are disconnected from how food gets to our plates) and support more sustainable and cruelty free farming practices.
Reply Alert moderator
OUB :
17 Feb 2014 11:15:29am
Katrina has blogged here a number of times before. Her holier than thou approach across a range of subjects may be attracting a reflex reaction.
Reply Alert moderator
tony72:
17 Feb 2014 10:44:55am
I am personally against vegans who wilfully slaughter innocent fruits and vegetables........
Sarcasm aside Katrina, where do you draw the line and to what lengths would you go to stop this "Speciesism". Are you going to jump in-front of a lion in Africa holding a carrot and try and talk it out of eating a wildebeest, or maybe jump in the ocean and politely ask a great white shark to stop eating the surfers.
Im happy for vegans to keep to their lifestyle, but please stop preaching to others when your just as guilty for eating living things.
Reply Alert moderator
Matthew:
17 Feb 2014 11:58:00am
There is no need to draw a line. You do the best you can to reduce suffering. Eradicating factory farming is a good place to start. An individual can very easily contribute to this goal by not eating meat. I am hardly going to reduce much animal suffering by trying to reform the world's carnivores. There is no perfect solution. But huge valuable gains to be made.
Reply Alert moderator
Machiavelli's Cat:
17 Feb 2014 12:23:27pm
Absolutely factory farming should be eliminated. Apart from the cruelty it makes the animal products (meat, eggs) taste bland.
Reply Alert moderator
GJA:
17 Feb 2014 10:49:24am
While I understand and can appreciate the philosophy, I think veganism goes a bit far. More extensive take-up of a vegetarian lifestyle would provide great benefits to the environment, and I'm sure my overall health would be improved. But I think the bees are not put out if they share their honey.
Reply Alert moderator
leafygreens:
17 Feb 2014 11:15:28am
Why is a broadacre soy monoculture better than a paddock full of cows if you acknowledge the rights of the lifeforms that previously inhabited that area?
Why is modifying the hydroscape for rice & cotton cultivation better than daming creeks for pasture for meat and leather?
Destruction of habitat and reduction in biodiversity is 'bad things being done to the environment' too :-)
A pre agriculture lifestyle of nomadic hunter/gatherers is sustainable only for a tiny fraction of the current numbers of humans. We dont get to return to the Garden of Eden
Bears raid bee colonies for honey, as will primates.
Bees pollinate the majority of food crops.. are they enslaved for your canola? Fruits? Peas& beans?
Reply Alert moderator
GJA:
17 Feb 2014 12:58:30pm
We can provide more food for more of the world's people with less use of land and water than we can from the production of meat. Cattle are a known source of a signifcant amount of the world's greenhouse gasses. Pigs require vast sewage sequestration and treatment, and when breaches occur the damage to waterways is enormous. The assumption that a vegetarian lifestyle requires we become nomadic hunter/gatherers is just stupid, first because we don't need the 'hunter' component and second because vegetarianism isn't 'pre-agricultural'.
Yes, bees are useful to human agricultural production and bears and primates, including humans, like to consume their product. What's your point?
Reply Alert moderator
leafygreens:
17 Feb 2014 3:09:56pm
Vegetarianism is still speciesist. Speciesism is the topic of the day.
A monoculture block of plants deprives the wider biologic community of habitat and permenently modifies the land use to our needs, despite us knowing it will result in death and dispossession.
Hunter gathering (plus or minus the hunting for meat..) has to be seasonally nomadic to be sustainable or you simply eat an area out and starve yourself. There are few places left on earth so un modified that we could still do it and too many for all of us to do it. Last time we could there was only a few 100K of us, before we discovered agriculture..
Back to point one... agriculture (plus or minus meat) means other species are displaced, or subverted, to feed ourselves. In doing so they have had their rights removed. Speciesist invasion/ enslavement.
Bees do mind, or they wouldn't defend the hive with their lives. They don't 'share' honey with us, it is taken from them. They seem to get over it and get on with rebuilding and restocking, but that's just about survival.
It is a huge investment in time and energy to collect pollen and make honey, for the nourishment of their offspring, and we steal it for ourselves.
We may provide them with crops and homes and select for passive temperement, only so we can take their honey.
Reply Alert moderator
Gordon:
17 Feb 2014 12:59:01pm
Spot on. The idea, most particularly in Australia, that running a few range animals for meat on country that could support little else is somehow worse than trying to grow a crop there - with all that entails - is nuts. A euro-style feedlot supplied by acres of intensive soybean farming is not the same as the Australian rangeland.
Reply Alert moderator
Viking:
17 Feb 2014 1:14:40pm
The vegan take on bees is that beekeepers kill bees during hive inspection and honey robbing.
I'm a beek myself and yes we do. We try and prevent it as much as possible for the good of the hive and ourselves (nothing sets off anger in bees as much as pheremones they release when squashed or when they sting).
I can personally moralise this against the fact I rescue wild swarms from peoples gardens/houses which would otherwise be eliminated by an exterminator.
Reply Alert moderator
IanM:
17 Feb 2014 10:56:39am
"Our excuses for speciesism range from.....plants are sentient too and we eat those. Mark Devries puts the case for debunking these arguments" So "speciesism" is an appropriate slur when eating some species, but not others? To paraphrase George Orwell, some species must be more equal than others, which is what Fox is criticising in others. It would seem even Katrina Fox and Mark Devries are prepared to eat some species (speciests!); the argument is really about where to draw the line. Given we all accept that there should be a line (not many advocates for cannibalism out there), perhaps Katrina Fox's case would be better put without the attempt to smear her opponents with perjorative nonsense like "speciesism".
Reply Alert moderator
Jimmy Necktie:
17 Feb 2014 1:34:49pm
"Our excuses for speciesism range from..."
I have no excuses as I don't believe in "speciesism"
Reply Alert moderator
Marty:
17 Feb 2014 2:01:30pm
Me either it is a ridiculous term
Reply Alert moderator
Dave:
17 Feb 2014 11:09:08am
If animal rights activists want higher standards from humans they must persuade the majority of species on this planet to lead by example.
I'll abstain from 'speciesism' when the rest of the animal kingdom stops practicing it. I'll stop eating animals when every carnivore on this planet is permanently converted to a vegan diet.
How long do you reckon that's going to take, Katrina?
Reply Alert moderator
nevvvv:
17 Feb 2014 11:10:32am
I am actually sympathetic to the author's point of view. However, I don't see the point of pushing a cause that's completely unrealistic. This holier than thou attitude in my view is a pretence that avoids the real issue that face humanity.
The fact is the earth is completely over populated. Australia is over populated. If we continue on this path humans have no choice but to increase factory farming of animals, strip the seas of its natural resources. Animals have a very bleak future unless we deal with the human population crisis.
Reply Alert moderator
Mike:
17 Feb 2014 2:40:00pm
Yes that lies at the heart of the problem. Overpopulation has an interesting twist - apart from domestic pigs, most meat in the Third World comes from animals that range and forage in lands that cannot support the growing of food plants. Goats are actually the world's most eaten animal, with cattle a close second.
Here in the West, the Dust Bowl in the USA arose mostly as a result of cutting up the Praries into too-small arable farms that replaced a previously sustainable supply of Bison and "Antelope". These lands now produce vast crops but at the cost of government subsidies, GM plants and a vast river of fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides dumped on the poisoned lands. It looks as if Africa is going to go the same way.
Now, if "sustainable" range feeding animals were to disappear overnight, hundreds of millions or even billions would rapidly starve. Whenever I mention this to a vegan their puzzled expression indicates that this concept has never crossed their minds.
Reply Alert moderator
Peter:
17 Feb 2014 11:14:48am
Well said Katrina.
It really is a massive hypocritical blind spot on the part of the modern monkey.
So much sentimental anguish over hurt to some (not all) fellow monkeys, but little thought about the brutality, pain and misery dished out to other animals just as able to feel pain and fear.
Homo Sapiens is the cruelest animal on this planet by some measure: we have the brains to know what we're doing to other animals but consider it OK.
Reply Alert moderator
MJLC:
17 Feb 2014 11:17:38am
I consumed Fox this morning and, to be honest, if it has any nutritional value I'm certainly finding it elusive. The flavour has strong overtones of tripe and blubber, and the aftertaste reminds one of (headless) chicken.
We may very well have run out of excuses for our inhumane treatment of animals, but inhumane treatment of readers seems to be alive and kicking.
Reply Alert moderator
Tania:
17 Feb 2014 11:18:45am
Thank you so much for bringing to light what so many people do not even consider in their day to day. I'll never forget when I was a child, talking to my brother about dolphin traces in tuna. He turned around and said "Why are you so sad for the dolphin, but not for the tuna?" Absolute turning point.
Reply Alert moderator
Geoff Pape:
17 Feb 2014 11:21:34am
Humans are starting to come around. Although no as quick as most of us would like. So many years of brainwashing takes time to undo. I mean grown men drinking milk and considered normal by society! And from another species no less! Females raped and their babies killed, and all so the dairy industry can keep the population under control with their fear tactics of "you need your calcium". We humans are so easily controlled by the animal abusers. But most people don't like to be known as fools. So perhaps this will be what causes the change in those people who "can't do without THEIR steak and cheese" to break free of the Matrix world that has been pulled over their eyes. The rest of us are quickly waking up to a realization that animal suffering and murder can NEVER be humane, there is no need for it, and we can do something about it every day by what we put on our plate.
Reply Alert moderator
Tiger Tim:
17 Feb 2014 11:23:30am
Marius (who was 2 years old, not 18 months) was not killed in front of the crowd - he was euthanased behind closed doors. It was advertised they were going to perform the autopsy (which is mandatory, regardless of circumstances of the death) and general public could observe if they wish. This is not uncommon in European zoos.
As for "..allegedly prevent inbreeding", with such mall breeding stocks in their program, it would be cruel to allow inbreeding, which would likely cause physical and mental issues with offspring. Unfortunately other European zoos were not able to accommodate Marius for various reasons which left little option. The zoo also pointed out they knew as soon as he was born, Marius could not remain in the zoo, within 2 years, they would need to find a new home for him or he would need to be euthanased. Meantime, they gave him a happy life and hoped something would come up.
It seems contradictory that on that same day, millions and millions of people happily tucked into their steaks, etc without a thought but one giraffe providing natural food for natural predators is an outrage.... really?
Reply Alert moderator
Robotman:
17 Feb 2014 11:35:32am
Aliens come to Earth. We cannot communicate with aliens. Aliens like the taste of humans. Humans factory farmed for meat.
What would your response be?
Reply Alert moderator
Jimmy Necktie:
17 Feb 2014 1:38:02pm
like all animals, I would try to escape if possible. Is that meant to make me a hypocrite? Because it doesn't.
Reply Alert moderator
JoeBloggs:
17 Feb 2014 3:30:28pm
Would you even realise you were being farmed?
Do Sheep and Cattle realise they are being farmed?
Do they realise that the end destination of their cattle truck trip is a slaughter house? would we know any better considering the alien species would be vastly more advanced than us?
Or would we live happy little lives and then before we knew what was happening end up dead?
While not suggesting alien abductions are real, or not real, events the allegations suggest that the humans involved have no ability to move or respond to what is occuring or even clearly recall the event. An ideal and 'humane' method of harvesting a species if you ask me.
Reply Alert moderator
Mike (the other one):
17 Feb 2014 11:37:54am
The one thing that all these 'clever' bleeding hearts never consider (or if they do, they absolutely will not acknowledge it) is the profound effects of overpopulation on this planet.
The single biggest cause of the destruction of other species on this planet is caused by land clearing, you know, the sort of land clearing that makes way for crops for vegans. It would have been a miserable demise for the animals that once lived there, it is permanent and doesn't give any of the species that once lived there a chance of recovery.
I wouldn't mind betting that the very same bleeding hearts of the ilk of the author are the same bleeding hearts that want to let all the refugees and boat people into Australia (it would be interesting to do a survey) but allowing that to happen would cause a whole lot of land clearing wouldn't it?
It's about balance and so many of these (man made) issues that concern people so much are directly related to overpopulation. Speciesism is not the final frontier, we are omnivores. The final frontier or rather the new frontier needs to be the addressing of overpopulation in political debate the world over.
To reiterate - it is all about BALANCE.
Reply Alert moderator
Aven:
17 Feb 2014 1:31:41pm
the sort of land clearing that makes way for crops for vegans - where is your reference to this?
Land clearing is a problem but happens in a lot of tropical countries due to the method of growing crops (e.g. slash & burn agriculture) or elsewhere to grow monocrops for export (e.g. biofuels). Land is also cleared for pastures. A lto of land has been historically cleared for multiple crops but that was before veganism was widespread. So can you statistically prove your statement??
Reply Alert moderator
ateday:
17 Feb 2014 1:35:54pm
All our problems are related to overpopulation.
Reply Alert moderator
jash:
17 Feb 2014 11:39:32am
I have always believed animals deserved better but it really hit home when watching Tom Cruise's 'War of the Worlds', where humans were ruthlessly harvested for their biology by the alien machines. This was depicted so brutally and mercilessly that I couldn't help but see the comparison. If animals shared our level of consciousness, they would feel the same horror. Just because they don't, doesn't mean we should continue the slaughter.
Reply Alert moderator
Rae:
17 Feb 2014 3:15:10pm
We really have no idea of the level of consciousness other species have. Recent research is pointing to the plant kingdom having a high level and a complicated communication system.
We have barely scratched the surface of our understanding of consciousness.
Reply Alert moderator
EricK:
17 Feb 2014 11:41:52am
This subject came up for discussion in a group of about 25 at uni a couple of years ago. In the end, nearly all of us agreed that we ate meat because it tastes good - the other reasons might help to justify it if we have to, but if it didn't taste good we probably wouldn't eat it ...
So engaging in ethical/rational arguments might just be a waste of time Katrina if that's what we really think?
Reply Alert moderator
Jimmy Necktie:
17 Feb 2014 1:43:29pm
"we ate meat because it tastes good"
And why do you suppose it "tastes" good? Because your body recognises it as a valuable food source. Our "tastes" encourage us to find fat, sugar and salt as these were typically hard to find in early times.
Presumably this is also why poo stinks and (one assumes) tastes bad.
Reply Alert moderator
paul:
17 Feb 2014 11:42:12am
It is a source of wonder that people who cannot find a difference between a human and other animals should then present themselves as being morally superior. This is a purely ethical argument that has not reference knowledge. If you feel that eating animals is wrong that is fine. However, you can be a vegetarian without having to abuse everyone who is not. That is a moral failing in itself.
Reply Alert moderator
Peter Franklin:
17 Feb 2014 11:45:48am
I am wondering about the attitude to feral animals. Maybe I missed something in the article, but it is important to get rid of these destructive animals.
Reply Alert moderator
SimonP38:
17 Feb 2014 11:45:59am
Some animals are treated improperly. That is unargueable. This does not mean that all animals are treated improperly. Growing animals for meat is not improper or morally deficient.
I am an onmivore. I eat meat. This is an appropriate and healthy way of living. Meat growns on animals. I am not allowed to eat live animals and they dont taste any good raw anyway.
I am not horified when cats and dogs are eaten. Apparently they taste good.
St. Marius the Geraffe - Sorry you are not what we need and cant be trasferred. and the lions are hungry. A perfectly rational decision.
If you choose to live as a vegan that is your choice. Good on you. I will not publically criticise what i think is a silly and unhealty decision.
Please dont try to tell me i am somehow morally inferior because I am not squeemish about killing animals.
Any yes, I have shot cattle, and butchered them in the field to eat them. Something all kids should be exposed to so they know where there food comes from.
Reply Alert moderator
Chrism:
17 Feb 2014 12:45:56pm
" I am not allowed to eat live animals and they don't taste any good raw anyway."
Oysters do, and they are still alive when you eat them.
Reply Alert moderator
Steve_C:
17 Feb 2014 11:54:09am
So; what happens when the 'meat' products that are currently being grown in laboratory conditions, attain full industrialised levels of production?
Does it solve the 'dilemma' to have meat grown in a way that takes the living, breathing animals we currently exploit out of the equation; or does it create a whole new set of 'dilemmas' for those of our species who just can't bring themselves to embrace something "new"?
Meanwhile, I watch my fellow Australians reefing well established plants and trees out of the ground - whether it be in then yards of their own properties or along the route of some new road or expansion of an existing thoroughfare without the merest thought for the animal life that subsists off the plants they treat with the same level of consideration that they give to any other life form - apart from themselves that is!!
Once upon a time, humans may have felt the need to kill in order to live; but as an integral part of that, they paid respect and homage (as much as today's self-centred and egotistical snots would like to lampoon anyone who might acknowledge such a concept) to everything that gave them life.
They also (importantly) seemed to be able to use every part of the animals they needed to kill in order to survive.
The humanity of today is a bulldozer. An unthinking and uncaring bulldozer - apart that is, from the egotists, opportunists and self-serving crooks who manipulate 'the rest' for their own ends.
For however long that remains the case, the rest of this planet is likely to suffer.
If there's intelligent life on other Worlds out there... they ought to be very, very concerned that we're trying to identify planets with "Earth-like" conditions; because once we've spotted one, we'll do our darndest to get to it - and once we have, any living thing on that planet will be treated just like life here!
Oh Boy!! Won't life elsewhere be in for a real treat!!!
Reply Alert moderator
Chris:
17 Feb 2014 12:12:58pm
What the animal liberation people propose is absurd, animals are not equal to humans in any meaningful way, particularly in the most important of the distinguishing factors: the mind. Humanity has evolved over millions of years as a predatory species that exploits whatever it can whenever it can get away with it. It is in our collective best interests to allow things to continue mostly as they are. I am an advocate against animal cruelty, but I do so with the knowledge that an animal's rights are always subservient to a humans when there is a conflict of interest. We need to stop romanticising animals (and ourselves) and look to the truth of the world that we live in.
Reply Alert moderator
Ummm:
17 Feb 2014 12:59:58pm
Chris, the human mind differentiates us from animals, but not necessarily in a way that we should be proud of.
Yes, the human mind is capable of rising to great heights, but it can also sink to diabolical depths and lead to cruelty and depravity that no animal is capable of. I seriously wonder whether humanity, as a whole, lives in the psychological 'light' or in the 'darkness'. Look at places like North Korea, where people are tortured and killed because someone doesn't happen to like them, and think of all the instances of torture and cruelty occurring all over the planet. To be truthful, probably most of it is happening to defenceless animals, but where humans can get away with it, a lot of them seem to delight in torturing each other in various ways too.
So, even if we are more intelligent than animals, are necessarily better, or simply better at being diabolical?
Reply Alert moderator
Chrism:
17 Feb 2014 2:49:45pm
to Ummm,
I think you fail to see the implications of your own observations.
The things you talk about, the light and the dark, are value judgements on different aspects of our own evolved nature. We are capable of helping each other and killing each other, of building or destroying.
We humans are the only animals capable of looking at the potential range of behaviours and trying to voluntarily limit ourselves to a subset of these behaviours which we label as good, rejecting others as bad, depraved, the dark.
No animal can act in a depraved way, simply because they have no understanding of the concept. They do not exercise self control, or try to do the right thing. They just do whatever seems natural to them at the moment. That doesn't mean that what they do is not awful by human standards: Laying eggs in the living body of another animal, stalking and killing other animals, killing your new mates existing offspring; the natural world is replete with horror stories.
When you say that some people are depraved you are praising humanity because no other species even attempts to live ethically.
Reply Alert moderator
Ummm:
17 Feb 2014 4:30:12pm
What you say is true Chrism, but I think that a lot of animals have a natural 'sweetness' that humans don't. Think of a cat sitting purring on your knee (in pure bliss) or a dog greeting its master when he/she comes home (unbridled enthusiasm). Animals seem more pure somehow and just feel what they feel and I would think they have less (if not no) actual malice, or intent to cause harm just for the sake of it.
Look at a bumble bee, buzzing around collectin pollen for its 'tribe'. Peaceful and hard working. The only thing it would sting is a human trying to steal the product of its hard labour.
Reply Alert moderator
Aria:
17 Feb 2014 12:29:57pm
I'd say it makes the most sense to adjust the rights of other living organisms depending on their sentience. Although this raises sticky questions about how we quantify sentience, it is more reasonable than silly polemics like "You destroy mosquitoes, therefore you are immoral" or "We are apex predators, therefore we can do anything and everything to other sentient beings".
Yes we are apex predators - I am therefore a bit confused by arguments for veganism from an animal rights standpoint. Natural systems do not contain some sort of inherent morality standard that humans defile - they consist of predator-prey relationships at all levels. It's also undeniable that species that display more human qualities enjoy more support - probably because we measure sentience relative to our own.
At the same time, it's coming to the time when we should move beyond this standpoint. We as a species are capable of manipulating natural systems on a level far beyond any other species. We possess a level of sentience which allows us to think about things beyond merely an instinct to eat, avoid being eaten, and breed. I said earlier there is no inherent morality that we must obey. But I think that most people agree that being in this position, we ought to have some guiding ethical system in the way we live our lives (this is of course why we have set up societies and everything, rather than viewing each other merely as competition for our next meal).
Reply Alert moderator
Jimmy Necktie:
17 Feb 2014 1:49:38pm
" "We are apex predators, therefore we can do anything and everything to other sentient beings".'
I think that should read "we are apex predators, therefore we eat other animals" I don't think anyone is arguing the "anything and everything" part.
What does sentience have to do with it? Guilt because they "know"?
Reply Alert moderator
Aria:
17 Feb 2014 2:25:25pm
"I think that should read "we are apex predators, therefore we eat other animals" I don't think anyone is arguing the "anything and everything" part."
I was pointing out the extreme position. "We are apex predators, therefore we eat other animals" is viewpoint I have said I find perfectly reasonable. I would be pleasantly surprised if nobody argues the "anything and everything" part. There's often no end of extreme positions in all the debates I see in these comments sections.
"What does sentience have to do with it? Guilt because they "know"?"
Sentience is in it because that's the basis of our behaviour towards each other. Theoretically, I don't have any reason to believe anyone else other than myself is a conscious, feeling, sentient human, because the limit of my absolute knowledge is "I think, therefore I am". However, we find it reasonable that we are indeed sentient humans and not brains in vats in some vague Matrix-like reality. As a result, that conditions our behaviour towards each other because we accept that others feel similar emotions, hopes, desires, pains and fears to ourselves. Likewise, I think it's reasonable that this assumption of consciousness and sentience should extend to species other than our own, but that through observation of their communal structures, they do not possess the same level of sentience as we do.
This is inherently anthropomorphic, of course. We are more likely to consider more sentient that which behaves in a way more like human beings. Thus, it's pretty much inevitable that a chimp gets classified as being more sentient than a tree. In the absence of further evidence to the contrary however, this is what we must work off.
Reply Alert moderator
Jimmy Necktie:
17 Feb 2014 3:32:29pm
"I don't have any reason to believe anyone else other than myself is a conscious..."
No. "I think, therefore I am" demonstrates your own existence is the only thing you can prove to a logical certainty (even as a brain in a vat) - the only thing you can *know*. And that reasoning only talks about existence, not empathy or emotion or feeling.
While you point out that some other species may also feel emotions such as empathy, or otherwise demonstrate sentience, that on its own is not enough to make eating them immoral. I would argue that in the state of nature there is no morality, only what is natural. And whatever occurs must therefore be natural, as it occurred within nature (where else?)
"I would be pleasantly surprised if nobody argues the "anything and everything" part"
I think then you will be happy as I don't expect anyone will.
Reply Alert moderator
Clancy:
17 Feb 2014 12:34:11pm
Funny this should be published today. I saw 'Philomena' yesterday (a very sad and inspiring film about a woman looking for her son she was forced to give up for adoption 50 years previously), and it suddenly struck me that our culture routinely does this to millions upon millions of mothers each year without even questioning it. Cats, dogs, sheep, cattle, horses, pigs, etc. Anyone who has actually watched a mare with her foal or mother and kittens couldn't doubt they love and care for them as we do for our young. I've pretty much weaned myself off meat, dairy and fish, but yesterday's insight will be hastening the process.
Yes, many other animals eat animals, but we are one of the few that completely controls the lives of the other animals for our benefit - ants with aphids are the only other example I can think of. And yes, there is evidence that plants are aware, but eating plants does not have to kill the plant, and fruits are actually made to be consumed to spread the seeds.
Reply Alert moderator
Maubere:
17 Feb 2014 12:41:58pm
In the not so distant future, vegetarianism will not be an option, due to the wasteful use of diminishing arable land and water required to produce animal protein. I can hear the keyboards going into meltdown now, but India actually exports food.
Reply Alert moderator
Jimmy Necktie:
17 Feb 2014 1:51:18pm
there is the same amount of water on the planet as there has always been. Whether it is sprayed on crops or poured through a cow, either way it ends up back in the ocean.
Reply Alert moderator
JoeBloggs:
17 Feb 2014 3:34:16pm
Though a diminishing rainfall due to changed climatic conditions will reduce the amount of arable land and therefore the ability to grow produce.
Reply Alert moderator
Chrism:
17 Feb 2014 12:43:48pm
Yes, Katrina, I do accuse you of anthropomorphism and of a dangerous kind.
Humans have evolved to be very good at sensing the thoughts and emotions of other humans. Its an important survival trait. Unfortunately it means that we wrongly ascribe thoughts and emotions to other animals and even objects that just aren't there; we see faces in clouds, see a sad family in a random rock formation and get moved by splashes of inanimate paint on a flat sheet of canvas. How so much easier to read things into animals that just aren't there.
Animals have no rights whatsoever other than the rights given to them by nature, which is to simply to live and die by the laws of physics and chemistry. Nature doesn't care if an animal lives, dies or 'suffers'. Why should we?
And what other rights could an animal actually have? Who exists to endow these rights? Humanity? But that puts humanity in the position of God over all other animals, the ultimate statement of speciesism.
There is no evidence whatsoever that any other animal on the planet experience consciousness and therefore none that they experience pain or emotions.
Pain is just information. damage to an animal causes information to be sent along nerve fibres causing evolved responses from the animal; flight or fight, physiological changes to respond to the damage and prepare for action, making noises to warn or attract help. Humans interpret this as if the animal was suffering, but unless you have consciousness you cannot experience pain any more than a photocopier taking action after a paper jam is experiencing pain.
Anthropomorphism is the triumph of unexamined emotionalism over reason and is a poor basis for framing ethical behaviour.
Reply Alert moderator
ateday:
17 Feb 2014 1:40:28pm
You are confused Chrism, humans are animals too.
Believe it or not.
Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Just another mammal.
Reply Alert moderator
Chrism:
17 Feb 2014 2:21:48pm
@ateday says "You are confused Chrism, humans are animals too."
But I never said humans weren't animals. The thing is we are not JUST animals.
As Carl Sagan once said, "through humanity, the universe has begun to contemplate itself."
That makes us pretty damn unique, at least on this planet. If you are still not convinced, what other animal could even conceive of the idea of ethics, let alone debate it.
People keep on attributing to other animals qualities they simply do not possess.
Reply Alert moderator
Hamadryad:
17 Feb 2014 3:57:11pm
How does that make us unique? And what powers does this uniqueness confer? The 'right' to appropriate an entire planet, to change the climate and alter the geography, to eliminate tens of thousands of other species, most of which have existed in harmony with the rest of the planet for millions and millions of years? Just because we can recognise our individuality in the mirror, and contemplate our own demise? BFD
Reply Alert moderator
MildMasanthrope:
17 Feb 2014 1:10:09pm
I suppose this is a problem.
World power concentrated in the hands of about 200 unelected people, mostly men born into extreme privilege.
A global population at least twice that of the globes carrying capacity.
A climate that, with a 90% degree of probability, is close to stuffed.
And what was the other, oh yeah, people eating meat as determined by their digestive tract.
Reply Alert moderator
MR:
17 Feb 2014 1:15:47pm
I haven't read anything as sanctimonious as that piece in a while. Why is it that the ultra-left fringe is only able to argue a point via nagging the mainstream? For the love of god, please go ahead and take the moral high road... and keep going. In the meantime, I am going to watch a David Attenbough doco on lions hunting wildebeest on the Serengeti, while eating a beautiful piece of beef.
And I do so not because the cow 'was not as intelligent' as I and 'therefore not deserving of moral consideration,' nor because the lion eating a wildebeest somehow justifies my meal, nor any of the other ridiculous 'excuses' you described justify my beef consumption. I do so simply because I am an imperfect human being who likes steak and who does not subscribe to your ultra-idealistic metaphysical view of the world.
Enjoy the trip... Please don't write.
Reply Alert moderator
Dove:
17 Feb 2014 1:58:08pm
Such a myopic view that anyone who disagrees with you, on any issue, must hold a contrary political position. Not eating meat has nothing to do with left or right perspectives. I'll spare you my tip.
Reply Alert moderator
Clownfish:
17 Feb 2014 1:22:31pm
If people like Katrina take their views on 'speciesism' seriously, then she'd have to take umbrage at other animals' appalling acts of speciesist behaviour - especially the predators.
But she doesn't. Therefore, either she doesn't really believe in speciesism at all, or she holds humans to a different standard than other animals.
Which is speciesist.
Either way, 'speciesism' is a ridiculous argument.
Reply Alert moderator
Benji:
17 Feb 2014 1:26:26pm
Ok, question to all of you; what's wrong with those people (such as myself) who raise their own livestock (Sheep, chickens, fish and cows) keeps them, kills, butchers and eats them on an as needed basis? I will never not eat meat, no matter the arguement (It's too tasty) but I have my own eco/hobby farm, where my wife and I are almost fully self sufficient (some things still need to be brought from Wollies, such as seasoning, sauces, etc). I doubt many other could say as much.
I name all my animals, treat them very well, but it won't ever stop me from eating them when I feel like some fresh meat. I ate Arwen the Cow's rump last night as a roast... very nice.
Reply Alert moderator
JoeBloggs:
17 Feb 2014 3:50:02pm
That sounds lovely.
Though there is insufficient room on this planet for all of our species to be self sufficient like you.
In generations to come food will just be commerically 'grown' in vats from 'meat' cultured in a petri dish & fungus.
Reply Alert moderator
Hubert:
17 Feb 2014 1:28:38pm
Thank you Katrina for an interesting article.
We will never be able to live without harming something, be it flora, fauna, or ourselves. Our mere existence means something must make way for (or be) the resources we require to exist (subsist).
This is simply the laws of nature. All creatures, including humans, take whatever they require to exist. If they don't, they cease to exist. Simple.
That said, we are a cruel and oft stupid species when it comes to our environment. We hunt species to extinction. We kill for fun. We try and solve problems by introducing species, whose introduction causes more problems that it solved. In some cases we introduce species for fun (like foxes for fox hunting).
Perhaps one day as a species we will mature and limit or erradicate such behaviours. I doubt it will be any time soon though.
Reply Alert moderator
AmberC:
17 Feb 2014 1:31:18pm
When I skim through these comments it's clear to me that so many people want to justify their participation in the cruelty and killing of animals for their own pleasure (not need)...because maybe coming to the realization that this is unnecessary and wrong would just be too difficult to realize? To admit that countless animals have suffered and died because you couldn't go one without a cheeseburger? It's difficult to accept.
I've worked with many different animals one on one and gotten to see that they are truly sentient beings. Each one has a unique and special personality. They can feel pain, sadness, comfort, warm, joy. Who is anyone to deny them a happiness, warmth or a good life?
With heart disease as a #1 killer and cancer the #2, it's even harder to understand this logic of humans defending the killing of animals just for the pleasure of consumption or not caring that they endure horrific cruelty to produce dairy products. It's time that we evolve. We can do better and in turn, it just feels better. Don't you think that knowing that you have eliminated suffering and cruelty from your daily life would feel better? It sure does for me. I am not missing out on anything.
Reply Alert moderator
AJ:
17 Feb 2014 1:33:46pm
If slaughterhouses had glass walls, we wouldn?t need to be having this discussion.
Reply Alert moderator
Jimmy Necktie:
17 Feb 2014 1:54:39pm
wouldn't bother me. Used to be a time when people *knew* what happened in a slaughterhouse. I told my kids from when they were young where meat comes from.
Reply Alert moderator
tay:
17 Feb 2014 1:41:05pm
Brain must be the most under-utilised organ we have ever possessed! Our species is such a mess! and it is sad that we defend the current situation instead of improving ourselves!
Reply Alert moderator
Jonathan Carroll:
17 Feb 2014 1:44:03pm
Speceism is term which parodies itself, alas I am sure their are enough lunatics that it may just take hold.
Reply Alert moderator
aGuy:
17 Feb 2014 1:54:41pm
Firstly, the title is offensive. There are many frontiers people are trying to overcome. Species is not one for me. There are frontiers of racism, sexism, classes, space, ocean, sensible political debate, disease and much much more.
No species considers another species on the same level as its own. There may be indifference due to lack of competition or even cooperation between species, but all will reproduce to the detriment of other species. Humans are no exception. The biggest difference is that we are most successful.
And as for the lion eating the inbreeding (there is no alleged as they know how it came into being), I do have once criticism. If we are to teach people about animals, there should be an aspect of a live hunt. No animal eating another is pretty, yet it is natural. We have perverted the course of nature with our modern sensitivities to the point the animals we see in zoos are shadows of there potential selves.
Cats are near the only animal living with humans that still retain and act upon their predatory instincts. In most countries, it would be part of the ecosystem for them to kill birds, rodents and more. Australia is one of the few exceptions.
In the mean time, I am perfectly happy in killing an animal myself so long as the animal is used to the fullest capability and the killing does not threaten the species with extinction.
Reply Alert moderator
MildMasanthrope:
17 Feb 2014 3:35:48pm
Speceism is not offensive.
Its just a dumb, alarmist name used for attention seekers get their 15 seconds.
Reply Alert moderator
Aqous:
17 Feb 2014 2:00:02pm
So it's ok to hijack a plant's natural life systems for our benefit because they couldn't be bothered evolving a brain.
While I think there is something to be said for our treatment of animals I fail to see why we should reject a concept that's been around since the early days of life - getting energy from consuming another life form. The first carnivores didn't come into being because they wanted to be cruel, it was an easier means of sustaining one's self.
Are you suggesting humans are the only animals that have ever sought to exploit other animals for their gain?
Reply Alert moderator
rufus t firefly:
17 Feb 2014 2:08:21pm
There's no anthropomorphising in ascribing moral value or interests to animals other than ourselves. It's simply a recognition of an implication nestling inside evolution theory for the last 160 years. We are far more prone to the mistake of theomorphising ourselves in order to maintain an arbitrary distinction between ourselves and other animals that science insight can't sustain. So a rejection of speciesism is a useful corrective, even though this piece was long on passion but fairly short on reason.
However - this ain't the final frontier. Once software is deemed concious, by any means we would ascribe to drawing the same conclusion fro other creatures (other than an arbitrary prejudice for meat based lifeforms) will we have the moral right to unplug the PC? Be interesting to ponder the where the author's prejudices would lie here, although I have my suspicions.
Reply Alert moderator
Jimmy Necktie:
17 Feb 2014 2:50:25pm
further complicating the morality of artificial life is that we, as creators, would literally be gods...
That ought to keep the moral philosophers busy for a time.
Reply Alert moderator
Esteban:
17 Feb 2014 2:11:18pm
Katrina, what a storm.
If you really want to get people over to veganism you have to be less radical. When you describe the dairy industry as hijacking the reproductive system of female cows you lose your target market.
You need to promote the health, wealth and environmental benefits of veganism over meat eating to gradualy shift perceptions. Encourage people to have one vege meal a week then two and so on.
Under those circumstances the meat eater will listen to your message and engage with you. With a conceted effort you could reduce meat eating by 5 or 10% within 30 years.
With the approach you have taken in this article the meat eater thinks you are a hopeless joke and will not listen to a word you have said.
Perhaps the attraction of veganism is that you are a member of the enlightened and compassionate minority and deep down you don't want too many new members because you will be a bit mainstream looking?
Reply Alert moderator
Scott:
17 Feb 2014 2:13:31pm
While the author has a point - speciesism is definitely a thing - I'm not sure how well it is advanced by the comparisons made to sexism and racism
These "isms" had an historical route in an inaccurate belief in difference - for example, women aren't actually on average less intelligent than men. When as a society we learnt the truth, the old prejudices remained, but they were revealed for what they were - prejudices.
Here, it's a different fight. I don't think we are ever likely to discover that sheep are actually as intelligent as humans. Instead, the fight is to have them considered morally significant despite these differences.
This is a pretty different battle, and maybe it should have different end goals. Talking about the hijacking of reproductive rights being equivalent, when a cow may be incapable of some of the emotional impact it has on a human - such as deprivation of dignity or independence - may be little more than "sweet".
Reply Alert moderator
Adrian:
17 Feb 2014 2:28:35pm
How does this slaughter differ from human abortion?
Reply Alert moderator
Rommel09:
17 Feb 2014 2:55:00pm
Wow this article has somehow attracted the channel 10 audience it seems.
Instead of criticising the author who is trying to have a positive impact on this world, ask yourself this question:
"if we could live happy and healthy lives without harming others (i.e meat, dairy, mining, middle east slavery, sweat shops, deforestation etc etc) why wouldn't we?"
I'll tell you why, because like it or not, 83% of this population are clueless drones who are unable to truly listen to their hearts and think for themselves. A large percentage of the rest are just greed-driven, parasites who unfortunately happen to be our industry and political leaders.
It is so sad that in 2014 so many people have to rely upon tradition, industry influenced media and fairy tales (religion) to tell them what to eat and how to live their lives.
The fact of the matter is that if everyone here took the time to visit a slaughterhouse and/or do some research into nutrition and what your body needs to prosper, the majority of you would decided to reduce environmental impact, your risk of obesity/cancer and ease your conscience by eliminating animal products.
Forks Over Knives, James Wildman, Gary Yourofsky... do yourselves and the world a favour, unlearn all the crap you have been taught and watch what they have to say.
Reply Alert moderator
Judi:
17 Feb 2014 3:21:59pm
Thank you Katrina Fox for writing this article, I am a vegetarian and have been for 38 years. My primary school was situated across from a slaughter house and being so young we were not aware back then what was really happening. The smell was something terrible and I often wondered what made me feel sick until I realised it was the smell of death. To me it is pure murder and no one on this planet will ever change my mind.
Reply Alert moderator
Melvyn Bowler:
17 Feb 2014 4:27:20pm
Well put Katrina, but who is going to pick up on that and run with it ?
The rulers of the world don't even care about their own species, never mind about any other.
Profit and power trumps ethics every time.
Why do we still allow animal experimentation?
Why do we still allow live animal export ?
Why do we still allow factory farming ?
And so on.
And they are the obvious ones, never mind the cows constantly producing milk for young that were butchered shortly after being born. Does anybody care about the feelings of these thousands of cows, and if not why not ?
We can healthily do without milk, and many of us do, but once again power and profits is too well entrenched.
And as for the Edgar's Mission farm animal sanctuary tagline: "If we could live happy and healthy lives without harming others, why wouldn't we?"
Because, when all is said and done, most of us don't care !
Or not enough of us care !
Or none of us care !
Reply Alert moderator
Jazmyn Smith:
17 Feb 2014 4:30:34pm
Veganism in its ultimate, most pure form, leaves no margin for speciesism. A vegan world is a world where humans do not intentionally cause suffering to other sentient beings. The natural order has been severely distorted - but we are starting to wake up. Have no doubt that veganism is an inevitable outcome - a solution I can only hope we reach out of intelligence and peace, not desperation and despair in the aftermath of Climate Change, economic war or entire populations wiped out due to starvation. Peace & love is a nice enough term to spread around - but it is time to become actively involved.
Time to end specisism . Time to be vegan.
Reply Alert moderator
JoeBloggs:
17 Feb 2014 4:53:55pm
can I continue to eat sentient caviar?
Reply Alert moderator
Dee Kerley:
17 Feb 2014 4:39:54pm
Well said Katrina! Not well said Nein! If you think it's not harmful eating meat and drinking milk then you should kill your own animals and take babies away from their mothers when they're born - maybe then your eyes will see the truth about where your sanitized food comes from and from who it comes from.
Reply Alert moderator
Qiao:
17 Feb 2014 5:00:21pm
Hi everyone, lots of debate (as expected). Over the past two months I have been making the transition from meat-lover to vegetarian. My decision is based on rational and compelling health and environmental reasons. Sure, at the moment my mouth still waters whenever I walk past a burger joint but hey, I deal with it. I'm happier and healthier for making the change and I encourage others to consider doing so too.
For those who have a bit of free time tonight, look up 'Food Inc.' and 'Earthlings' on Youtube. Both are very well made and insightful documentaries on where food (meat AND veg) comes from. It may not change anyone's mind but may help tip you over the edge if like me you were already considering making the change.
Reply Alert moderator
Add your comment