the slippery slope and habitat destruction

When I told my friend, Hadeel, that I had become a vegetarian she warned me of the slippery slope of morality. I fear that she is right. Once one decides to take a moral stance on an issue one finds that it has ripple effects into many other areas of life, especially if one tries to be consistent in one's beliefs.

For example, one may start as a vegetarian, but then realise that perhaps chickens and cows kept for eggs and milk are also badly treated, so then convert to being a vegan. One also starts to notice that animal products are used everywhere from marshmallows, furniture, clothes and shoes. So these must also be bought with great care.

Because I became a vegetarian primarily because I believe that animals have a right to life and one where they are not abused, it occurred to me that habitat destruction for human purposes also comprimises this right. Everytime a new housing development, parking lot, industrial area, farm lot goes up on a once open green space, the habitat/home of many creatures is destroyed. Yes they may be able to run away but soon those areas become overcrowded and cannot support all these refugee animals. Some animals may be killed in the act of clearing and digging up the land, especially baby animals and those not blessed with speed.

We humans tend to believe that all land is there to be owned and this may tie in well with economic principles. But considering that land was not always owned by humans, didn't have neat boundaries and is the home to many many creatures (including human) how can we just claim it as ours evicting all the original inhabitants? It is rather a colonialist attitude.

Where land is totally transformed (agriculture, urban areas) we may as well accept that it will never go back to what it was, but for the rest we should leave it. We must focus on utilising existing human space maximally, no longer spreading out and out and out, but up! Also we must change the scale of cities. It should be made in the old style with cobbled streets suitable for pedestrians and cyclists. This would also create that friendly, hospitable world that we all seek.

blogging

Scroll down a little and you’ll find a post with seven comments. I tried to make the distinction between arguments for becoming a vegetarian and the reason I became one because they aren’t necessarily the same. My replies were obviously inadequate (I was pointedly avoiding making a broad argument for vegetarianism) even though I was really trying! It was frustrating but I think it illustrates why blogging can be valuable. It forces you to focus on what is said, not meant, or implied or anything which forces you to try to be clear and structured. In debates on butterflies and wheels, I was often astounded by how people were interpreting what I was writing. Conversation can be better; particularly if you are sympathetic to the person or what is being said, but so many other things are going on in a conversation -body language, sucking up etc- that progress can be elusive.

Anyway, I guess I should actually make a proper case for vegetarianism now. Well, soon.

Why is it wrong to harm animals?

Several philosophers and religious figures believe/d that it is wrong to harm/abuse animals because this type of behaviour can lead to these people abusing humans. They deny that harming animals is an intrinsic harm to animals.

This is a strange argument because firstly, surely any pain or suffering is a negative experience and intrinsically evil in itself, especially when inflicted unnecessarily and cruelly?

Secondly, if animals were inanimate objects who didn't really have feelings or whose feelings didn't matter, why would harming them automatically lead to the abuse of humans? After all to believe this, we must believe that the human inflicting the abuse must be a cruel person and behaving cruelly. However, one cannot behave cruelly without a subject who can experience that cruelty in a negative way, as a bad experience. Otherwise the abusive person can not really have any ill-intent.

To illustrate, if I find it a great stress release to smash a tennis ball against a wall, or crack rocks with a pick-axe, noone would say I am being cruel and that I would necessarily transfer my frustration onto people. That's because it isn't cruel to hit, smack, smash, splinter an inanimate object. Cruelty can only be associated with abuse inflicted on a being that can suffer. Suffering in itself is a cruel and horrible experience. Surely, any moral system will have as a fundamental premise that unnessary suffering is a bad thing and should be prevented, alleviated or reduced as much as possible?

Toto needs a home

Toto
Originally uploaded by Tracy Leigh.

Toto is just one of the delightful dogs at the SPCA in Cape Town

Animals needing homes

Stuart and I are still volunteering at the SPCA and things are starting to pick up because we can take the dogs for walks now. But it's also sad because we have been there long enough to notice when beautiful animals are put down.

Perhaps there isn't enough advertising for the SPCA (which is why so many lovely dogs are put down) so here is a link to dogs needing a home. There are actually many more than this, but for some reason they don't all get advertised. Please take a look.

Back to animals

I finally gave up on "Taking Animals Seriously" by David De Grazia, especially after being side-tracked by that awful but "gripping" book, Da Vinci Code. I tried to come back to it, but found that I just can't understand it. It is too academic and requires too much knowledge on theories of ethics and philosophy. So I just started reading Regan's All that Dwell Therein . Regan is one of the big animal rights proponents. I must say I am enjoying this book far more as it is more practical and doesn't rely on so much theory.

Regan briefly discussed Descartes's opinion on animals. He believed that animals are simply automata. They react to things like machines and have no consciousness. Even when they yelp, wimper, cry and scream this is just an automatic response and doesn't actually mean they are experiencing pain. This radical conclusion is based entirely on the fact that they don't have language. Discartes believed that without language you can't think, and without thought you can't feel pain. I disagree with every premise.

As a result of his conviction that animals are just automata, he and others (easily influenced by the great Descartes) happily tortured (experimented) animals while they were alive for the sake of science. I was horrified to read that he used to nail animals' feet onto boards and cut them open to see how they would bleed while they were alive! This was all to discover how blood circulates.

shocking and very sad...

Zuma trial brings up women's rights issues.

This isn't really a blog intended to discuss women's rights and rape (though I have a lot lately), but a friend of mine sent me an email about her shock of Zuma supporters' behaviour outside the courts and the attitude of her colleagues (highly educated, at that), who believe that:
1. The accuser's sexual history has a bearing on whether she was raped or not
2. The fact that she was treated by a psychiatrist makes her an unreliable witness.
These are dangerous perceptions, that downplay the trauma of rape and the validity of a woman's testimony.

She rightly suggested that we use this time to discuss issues and perceptions around rape. You can find a very interesting link about rape in South Africa at the UCT Law, Race and Gender Unit . Go to "Research" and "Sexual Offences".

Some horrific statistics state for the last 10 years the average number of reported rapes is 50 000 (which is always less than the true amount). "Further its been reported that in 2000 of the 52,975 rape cases reported countrywide only 8,297 went to trial with fewer than half of those (7% of reported cases) resulting in guilty verdict." UCT Law, Race and Gender Unit

why am I a vegetarian?

My answer is very short. The only reason why I could justify eating meat was that my pleasure from eating meat outweighed the suffering of the animals. I knew this wasn't true but carried on eating meat. Reading Peter Singer stopped me from ignoring the issue.

I know there are good environmental reasons, but they didn't influence me.

Differences between men and women

I was directed to an interesting article on why women are not and may never be as well represented in top science positions. The author, who works at a medical research institute in Cambridge cites studies that show that men have on average tendincies to have greater focus/obsession and forget about other people. Generally they are not that far away from being autistic. All these characteristics combined with agression and arrogance often take them higher up the scientific ladder (and others) compared to women, who think about things more broadly, are more empathetic and caring, and less aggressive. The latter has resulted in far more women pscychologists in the UK. Anyway, he says the female qualities should be more valued by recruiters/employers so that they don't count as a disadvantage to women. He also states that it seems that women are just as creative and original as men, which is a necessary ingredient for scientific breakthroughs.

There is evidence that indicates some of these differences are intrinsic to gender (though one finds male and female brains in both males and females) and we shouldn't be afraid of scientific studies that demonstrate this. It makes me think of the President of Harvard, who was severely harassed for stating in a speech that one of the possible reasons why there are less women in top science positions is due to intrinsic differences. This may be the case, but I think the biggest burden for women is the fact that women take on more social and family responsibilities than men, making it more difficult for them to work obsessively at the sacrifice of all else. Someone has to take on society's needs, it should be rewarded, not penalised. Work places really need to make it more friendly for mothers in particular. If all mothers refused to take on the responsibility they do, men would finally have to be less selfish in their pursuits.

If vegetarian/vegan tell me why?

I think I started this blog by briefly describing why I am vegetarian, now I want to know if any of my readers are vegetarian and if so why?

I am vegetarian because I have always been idealistic, but more importantly because of philosophical thought, environmental concern and compassion. For philosophical reasons, it seems that it is human-based-bias against other species that allows us to cause animals massive unnessary harm, without thinking its wrong. It seems doubtful that the environment can sustain millions of livestock, nor can a diet based on animals feed the world (Think of the energy pyramid in biology. As one goes from plants to herbivores to carnivores, the total energy gets less). For reasons of compassion, I think it is wrong to use and kill animals for food, which causes billions of animals to suffer every year.

Liberal link?

I’m quite interested in exploring the link between animal rights and liberalism. It seems to me that there is a pretty direct link and that if you count yourself a libertarian you must oppose hunting, factory farms etc (I can’t say how far this would go). All that is needed is that animals have interests and that those interests can be harmed. It is a pretty minimal position and apart from the obvious intuition that they do have interests, I’d say there is ample scientific evidence too. So I think that this should be the default position for liberals and needs overturning with a specific argument that animals don’t have interests. It’s a pretty tough ask.

I think its interesting because it looks pretty built in to a political ideology and one doesn't need to go through all the icky philosophy and science etc. Of course people are resistant, cows are yummy...

vegetarian nazi's

More on my emerging Nazism, note this quote:

a focus on the rights of animals is consistent with a disregard for the rights of humans

Well, I'm not sure that it is. Humans are animals so how can it be? But what the hell, the following statements are consistent with each other:

1. I enjoy pizza

2. aliens regularly abduct drunk americans (because they are so amusing).

Now... statement 1 is true (I've tested it repeatedly), do I believe in alien abduction? Your answers in the comments.

International Womens Day

I don't commonly discuss women's rights on this site (even though it is one of my passions), but since it is International Women's Day today, and I bet most of you didn't know it, I thought I'd inform you. The truth is that the liberation that some of us women have, is a very recent achievement and there is still a very long way to go before all women are allowed to be fully equal members of society where they can interact with it as they choose and be free from physical abuse. In many countries like Iran a heated struggle continues for women's rights. But unfortunately, even in South Africa and Cape Town, many women suffer intense physical abuse from their partners. In some cultures, it seems like it is the norm, with women simply being happy if their partner doesn't beat them. The struggle isn't over ladies, don't forget about your sisters who may not be as fortunate as you. Help give them a voice.

Taking animals seriously

I've started making an effort to read more serious literature on animal rights, interests, ethics, or whatever you'd call it. At the moment I'm reading David De Grazia, Taking Animals Serious and I'm struggling because of its high level. It requires a background on ethics and an understanding of how one constructs ethical theories. Admittedly, he says one can skip the more techinical part on ethical theory, but personally, I want to gain a solid grounding for my arguments on animal ethics. Yet, one thing keeps coming into my mind, surely the only important thing to consider, is that animals experience pain and suffering (physical and emotional) and it is wrong to cause any being (human or non) unnecessary suffering. Of course, what is "necessary" could be debated, but most people don't even get this far in their reasoning.

It's not that difficult.

I'm tired, I've been working hard (for me) and have made little time for blogging about animal rights or updating my Vegetarian webpage. Already, I feel that going to the SPCA every Saturday morning is a bit draining and taking up a lot of my time. Trying to be a conscientious good person, activist, etc., is hard work and I don't even have a difficult life. One can imagine then, why so many people just don't have the time or energy to be bothered about most good causes. But then, cutting out meat from one's diet isn't that inconvenient and could even mean saving money. One usually doesn't even have to shop at a different grocery store (though I recommend getting Woolworths dairy - I think it's better - but please check up on that.) In fact it's more difficult to find shoes and bags not made out of leather! But, fortunately we don't have to do this every day. Making some "small" changes in our lives, requiring little active effort, can really make a big difference in this world.

links

I've just confirmed that I have the technical savvy of an 80 year old. The links should work. It took ages, and I still don't know what the problem was/is. I suspect a conspiracy, and I'm sure Tracy must be in on it.

Jane Goodall is pro-vegetarianism

I discovered Jane Goodall's webpage the other day. She is a remarkable woman, a role-model for girls and young women, a top scientist, and a mover for peace and animal protection.

She has a page describing various ways each of us can help the environment, people and animals. One of the important things she encourages is reducing or cutting out meat consumption completely.

On her webpage one can even adopt a chimpanzee. Of course adopting, doesn't mean taking it home to the comforts of your suburban house, but rather supporting it financially so that it can live in one of her natural sanctuaries in Africa.

Amazingly, Jane will be in South Africa this month. She will be at Umhloti Lodge, Nelspruit on the 20th, the Johannesburg Zoo on the 22nd, and in Grahamstown, SciTek, on the 25th. Please go listen to her lectures if you can and tell me about it! (unfortunately I can't go)

more...

I’ve browsed the net and can’t find confirmation that he was a vegetarian, but it seems likely. Apart from his book Peter Singer notes this .incident when Nozick took scientists to task for not considering animals

Rethink women's rights!

Did you know that Timothy McVeigh was a passionate defender women’s rights? I have always supported equal rights for women but now I’m not so sure, I don’t want to agree with anything that monster said. So I guess I’ll have to have a rethink…

As you may have guessed none of this is true, it’s ridiculous, but take a look at this. It is quite heartening that crap like this actually counts as criticism of the view that animals have rights.

Scroll down and take a look at what Stephen Hawking has to say. Why is he not campaigning for nuclear disarmament? Is that really the best he can think of? He’s a bright chap, why isn't he lookig for a cure to AIDS?

Libertarianism

The other day I was complaining about stupid liberals. Libertarians are not usually the friends of animals and I thought it was surprising because the idea of coercion is so easily extended to include animals. Plus the question of whether animals can be coerced in a meaningful way can be reduced to questions that can be investigated in a scientific way. Anyway, Robert Nozick, who provides one of the most famous and best philosophical defenses of libertarianism, does take animals into account; he thinks it’s difficult to defend conventional meat eating based on minimal assumptions about animals. And this was in 1974, before Peter Singers book Animal Liberation. I don’t know why other liberals didn’t follow his lead (maybe animals are just to yummy) but Nozick’s treatment of animals was a pleasant surprise.

parenting

I am cat sitting two very expensive kittens in Greenpoint right now and on Tuesday night one of them got sick. So I rushed the poor kitty off to an emergency hospital where she stayed the night. She is happy and perky now, but man, I feel like a worried harassed parent. I can barely imagine what the real thing must be like.