I recently came across an article on the CNN web-site. An animal welfare group had found that a certain size of yoghurt pot is just the right size and shape for skunks to get their heads into. Unfortunately, they often get stuck, and suffocate.
CNN ran this as a humor piece.
I contacted CNN, and pointed out that they wouldn't have run a joke report about babies getting their heads stuck in plastic bags ("here's one that died earlier"). As in the past, CNN was very responsive to my input, and they soon dropped the item. However, this is just a symptom of the wider difficulty that many humans have in taking animal welfare seriously.
In the United States, those businesses which are based on the suffering of animals promote their interests through PR agencies and lobby groups. One of the aims of this PR is to persuade people that concern for animal welfare is, first of all, a radical issue that would only be of interest to lunatics and, second, in conflict with a "more important" need to care about humans.
In a society where people believe that they are "free" because they can register their preference for one of two slightly different capitalist parties, it is obviously not that difficult to persuade them that concern for other species is radical. Very few people are capable of independent thought, and many will happily do whatever they are told is the accepted norm, regardless of how ridiculous it may be. If you live in a society where it is legal to test an oven cleaner by putting it in a rabbit's eye - but it is illegal to have sex in certain positions - yes, you are the dangerous radical if you think this is wrong.
But the second objection to concern about animals seems, on the surface, more rational. Many people who have never in their lives done anything to help their own species are outraged when somebody expresses concern for the welfare of another "inferior" one.
The truth is that concern for humans almost always goes hand in hand with concern for other species. Survey after survey has shown that people who care the most about animal rights also have the most liberal views on human rights. Conversely, sadists and psychopaths invariable turn out to have had a history of abusing animals.
But propaganda works best when it taps into existing prejudices. The question therefore arises, why do so many people find it "radical" or "extreme" to care about the needs of other species? Why, in fact, do they see such a gulf between themselves and the rest of the animal kingdom? Is this the way it will always be?
I believe that there are three fundamental reasons why humans believe that there is such a gulf between themselves and other species.
First, Judaism and Christianity both preach that humans have souls but other animals don't. The Old Testament specifically claims that animals exist for man's benefit. Despite the interminable contradictions and nonsense in the rest of the Bible—which most Christians feel at liberty to ignore completely—the idea of human domination over other animals still forms a bedrock of thinking in our culture. Other religions, most notably Taoism and Hinduism, teach respect for all living beings.
The second factor affecting human attitudes is that science appears to reinforce the idea that humans and animals are widely different. One reason for this is that science is based on the irrational belief that the world can only be understood if it is assumed to be mechanistic. This idea, which originates in the writing of the French philosopher René Descartes, has stunted the understanding of animal consciousness. A scientist will try to understand an animal as if he or she were an inanimate object, motivated entirely by reflexes and genetic coding. Attempts to understand the inner mental states of other species are regarded as "speculative" and are ignored. Because the mental experiences of other animals can apparently not be understood using standard scientific techniques, it is assumed that they don't exist. If someone believes that animals are incapable of having feelings, it is unlikely that he or she will care if they are hurt.
Of course, scientists are quick to point out that humans have larger brains than other apes, and, in particular, larger cortices. They are slower to make the comparison with dolphins and elephants, both of which have larger brains than humans (both in absolute terms, and in comparison with the size of their bodies). In fact, the brains of mice are twice the size of humans, in comparison with their bodies. In any case, there is little if any correlation between the sizes of brain in different humans and their intelligence. Given how little is known about the way the cortex works, it would be rash for a scientist to make any claims about human uniqueness based on brain size or structure. At best, we can say that non-humans have less ability to think abstractly. However, the parts of their brains concerned with emotions are pretty much the same as ours.
In apparent contrast to science, which sees animals as objects, some literature—especially children's stories—treats animals as people. This would be a helpful way of understanding animals better; that is, if they did actually behave like humans. But they don't. The experience of being a dog is very different from that of a human. In order to respect animals, we need to appreciate their own existence, and their own uniqueness. A dog is of value because he or she can experience life as a sentient being. His value does not derive from the fantasy that he is really a human.
Such a position does not contradict the argument that the differences between humans and other animals have been exaggerated. 19th century man judged other races and cultures as inferior because they were not European. Today, we would celebrate their differences, and respect them for what they are. We should be able to accept a dog as having dignity without having to pretend that the animal is human. A dog is different from a human, but, like humans, he is a conscious being who deserves respect.
A third reason why humans regard animals as fundamentally "other" is because of the apparent complexity of human life, compared with that of animals. At first, this seems to make sense. Humans drive cars, use computers and watch television, while animals do not.
However, if there is some clear distinction between humans and other animals, this distinction must cover all humans. Some humans exist which have no technology beyond simple shelters and weapons. Yet they are indisputably human. A group of humans born on a strange planet, with no knowledge of human technology, would grow up to live much as chimpanzees do today. However, these creatures would still be human.
Moreover, the sophistication of our technology hides the fact that the use of it often requires very little intelligence. A chimpanzee can use a VCR, although, like most humans, he or she cannot set it to record a television programme. Clearly, an ape could not design a VCR: but then, neither could most humans. If there is an essential distinction between humans and animals, this distinction must include morons.
In any case, although designing advanced technology is a product of human intelligence, this intelligence is actually much more thinly spread than it seems. No human alive could design even the simplest piece of technology from scratch. An engineer who designs a VCR does not need to re-discover electromagnetism, or work out how to produce steel from iron ore. The complexity of our society depends on a tiny number of truly creative people, and the accumulated wisdom of thousands of years of development.
The reason why humans can take advantage of each other's creativity is because they have language. Over the past few thousand years, this has enlarged the apparent gap between man and other apes. However, the actual gap has stayed the same.
Many people would argue that the use of language demonstrates that humans have a different kind of intelligence from other animals. However, chimpanzees taught human sign language can create original and meaningful (albeit very simple) sentences. In humans, the area of the brain which is used to generate language (the planum temporale) is more developed on the left side of the brain than the right. It has recently been discovered that chimps have a similar structure in their brain, also on the left side. There is no evidence that a chimpanzee could write a successful screen-play: but then, neither can most humans. There is a difference, but it is quantitative, rather than qualitative.
In any case, the possession of language does not, by itself, make a person human. A human who is deaf and dumb is not used as food, and is regarded as being completely human.
Despite the obvious weaknesses in all these arguments, the one thing which holds them in place is expediency. It is much easier to believe in something (however irrational) if this benefits you. Large areas of the world economy are based on the abuse of other species.
There was a similar problem in America when people were campaigning to abolish slavery. Plantation owners said that the economy would collapse if they were not allowed to own slaves. But slavery was abolished, and they managed to survive. Today, many scientists say that medical research would be much more difficult if they could not experiment on animals. That may be true: however, exactly the same argument could be used in favour of experimenting on small children. One has to decide what is morally acceptable and proceed from there. A paedophile might argue that he or she has a need to abuse small children. It does not follow that this should be legal. One might argue that the need to develop new medicines is more important than the need to bugger one's offspring. However, a strong need does not make either animal experiments or paedophilia any more morally acceptable. In any case, the overwhelming bulk of animal experimentation has nothing to do with medical research.
A much more significant area where animals are abused is in the food industry. Pigs, animals at least as intelligent as dogs, are kept for most of their life in cages so small they can barely move. Calves are kept in wooden crates so small they cannot even turn round, and are deliberately made anaemic, because this makes their flesh look more appealing.
98.4% of a chimpanzee's DNA is the same as yours. Apart from having fur and a lower IQ, we are pretty much the same. Yet a scientist who would be prosecuted if he as much as slapped a child in the street can torture an adult chimpanzee with complete impunity. Even in the US, experiments on small children and severely mentally-disabled adults are illegal. Yet chimpanzees with the same level of intellect can be freely abused, because they are regarded as objects. And intelligent, social animals such as pigs are kept under conditions of complete brutality, with a total disregard for their suffering, just so that some large corporation can improve its bottom line.
All of this is possible because concern for animal welfare is considered a "fringe" area.
Copyright © 1998-2024 Infocrat, LLC. All Rights Reserved.