andrew sullivan

This post by Andrew Sullivan starts off promisingly enough

I live with major cognitive dissonance, since I have been largely persuaded that the way in which most animals are treated and harvested for meat is unethical at best and may even be one the great moral enormities of our time.

He obviously still eats meat but acknowledges the problems it poses. I don't his tone at the end though

There are lots of people like me who want to be moral but can't resist the crackling in the pan.

"one [of] the great moral enormities of our time" vs "want to be moral but can't resist the crackling in the pan."

Give me a break. I don't doubt that there are people who get pleasure out beating up homosexuals. I doubt Sullivan would be so indulgent of that moral enormity. If it is as wrong as he hints, joking about how yummy animals are is completely tasteless.

the chickens are restless

but that's tough shit. On my way back from Elsenberg this morning I had the misfortune to get stuck behind a truck carrying thousands of live chickens. Obviously I could only see the ones on the side of the truck but I would guess that the crates are packed to the center where it is probably quite difficult to breath. The chickens I did see were in a visibly awful state, with many having huge patches of raw skin where feathers should be. There was no name on the truck (unsurprisingly). Us animal rights nuts shouldn't be shocked by this sort of thing, we know it happens. It's still upsetting though.

the island

Last night I watched "The Island". I thought it was pretty good. For those who don't know, in this future the rich and famous get cloned to provide spare body parts to help them live longer generally or in case of an emergency. Naturally our hero's escape their comfy white prison and they find out what their purpose in life is. They are convinced that if their 'owners' only knew what happened down at the mill they would be so outraged that the whole project would be brought to a screeching halt. But, as one of the wiser character's points out

just because you wanna eat the burger don't mean you wanna meet the cow

It's funny cause it's true.

atheism and faith

Do you believe in the Loch Ness Monster? Most people don't, but some do, call them Nessies. Now, Nessies do have evidence supporting their belief, there are photo's and eye witness accounts of the Monster and there is certainly no definitive proof that it does not exist. However most people have their reasons for not being convinced; they dispute the strength of the evidence and offer reasons why they find the Monsters existence unlikely. Now imagine that, even though there is no new evidence for the Monster, the number of Nessies grows untill they are a majority. Now the disbelievers are noteworthy because of their unusual lack of belief and they become known as Anessies. Do the Anessies require faith to maintain their disbelief? I don't think so, they may require faith to disbelieve in the Monster in principle no matter what the evidence, but if they agree to change their views if a certain type of evidence for the Monster comes along, no faith is required to disbelieve. The Anessies may suddenly have a name that describes their views but their beliefs are unchanged, why should faith suddenly be required?

We are all disbelievers in many things. Atheists simply include God as one of those things.

(The example is Julian Baggini's, not mine)

samizdata

I've been getting bolder. A vegetarian in the samizdata comment pit is a bit like a lamb to the slaughter. Fortunately it seems that not everybody can be bothered to think about what they say so even one of the editors sticks up for me. But judge for yourself.

Update: Not an editor, a principle contributor.

Lucy & me

Lucy & me 2
Originally uploaded by Tracy Leigh.

While I'm posting photos, this is a picture of my favourite kitten, Lucy, whom I'm missing very much, and me.

Elsenburg in May

Elsenburg in May 1
Originally uploaded by Tracy Leigh.

Finally as promised. Here is a picture of the view from my place of internship. Isn't it beautiful? It's so great to work in such a beautiful setting.

What and where is it? I am the Department of Agriculture, situated in the rural farmlands between Stellenbosch and Paarl.

Global Warming is happening!

hah! It's happening. I feel so vindicated. But, really it's not a good thing if true. Read this article on CNN where scientists have figured out that nagging differences in temperature readings was due to satellite data errors. I'm surprised that the White House didn't have this information supressed.

The impacts of rapid global warming is huge. And I wonder what is going to happen in South Africa which is already classified as a semi-arid country. That's why the Department of Agriculture is trying so hard to develop an early warning system to pick up when agricultural areas are starting to fade under future water shortages. As if food insecurity wasn't enough of a problem in this world.

Besides us, how many species of animal will no longer be able to survive in their changing environments? Some of you might have seen that wonderful movie, "March of the Penguins". A beautiful, compassionate and intimate documentary about the life cycle of Emporor Penguins in Antartica. These gentle and extremely determined/tough creatures track miles over the Antarctic surface to find an area where the ice is thick enough to hold themselves and their eggs, until the chicks are developed enough to swim away as the ice underfoot melts. This march is so exquisitely timed i.t.o. the length of their journey, how long they can survive without food and the development of the chicks, that I can just see this fragile system being destroyed by global warming. It's sad. These creatures are a testament to the fight for and joy of new life.

animal experimentation for medicine. what should we do?

Sanisha asked me my opinion about the GlaxoSmithKline cases and I must admit that I was not aware of them. I did a quick squizz on google and sure enough there are definitely links between GSK and animal experimentation. And of course there are. I suppose all medicines are tested on animals, especially when they want to test the toxicity levels, e.g. how much would I have to take before it becomes toxic and what will the side effects be? Perhaps we are used to rats and mice being tested and have little compassion for them simply because it has always been so, but other animals are also tested, dogs, monkeys....

My question is, if animals are so different from us, how can they be suitable candidates for testing of human medicines? It breaks my heart when I think of the cruelty behind this. But what is the appropriate action? If one really believes that it's terrible torture and murder, can one just sit by and let it happen? One can almost understand the destructive actions of animal activists. Yet, violence and intimidation is not something I want to condone. These people take too much power into their own hands, are irrational, can hurt innocent people and damange the image of animal liberation movements.

Ghandi believed that violence was never a solution to oppression. And certainly violence just leads to more hatred and violence. Yet in South Africa, black South Afican's eventually started using some violence and intimidation tactics to get themselves heard after decades of trying to talk with their oppressors. I cannot blame them. Millions of lives were being destroyed by Apartheid. But perhaps it wasn't the intimidation tactics that stopped it, but rather economic and social pressures? If that is the case, then perhaps we as the consuming public do have power, by make ethical choices when we purchase things. But we all need medicine. Who would not take medicine when they need it or deprive their sick children? I cannot say that I would.

So what is religion? and how does atheism differ from religion?

Dan, asked me this question about my post yesterday and I found my answer getting so long that I decided to post on it. I haven't done any additional research so this is my answer off the cuff.

Perhaps I take a narrow definition of religion, but I think it's the belief in a god or gods, and supernatural events which, though outside of nature, can influence and change nature. It also includes a set rules, codes of conduct, moral instructions (which sometimes seem inconsistent) and explanations for the universe which often rely on super-natural causes. Some people take a more personal road to spirituality which doesn't fit into any particular religious framework.

Atheism by it's name, means that one does not believe in god or a predefined code of conduct, book of the universe, and generally that goes for other supernatural entities/descriptions. In my mind atheism is a bit like Occam's razor because you don't look for additional supernatural causes for things, but look for causes within one single naturalistic framework.

Here's a question, what is the difference between religion and believing in Father Christmas or any other supernatural entity? The lack of belief in something for which there is no (reliable) evidence or argument is no different than not believing in a whole host of other possible beings/entities for which there is no evidence. For example, should I believe that there are sea urchins flying around the moon? (I realise that the concept of god is considerably more sophisticated)

Obviously a religious believer, may believe that the evidence and arguments are sufficient, or they suspend normal ways of discovering knowledge thus making a decision to believe. Others yet, have made no decision about it, but believe because they have been brought up in a religious framework, hence their whole way of thinking exists within this framework.

However this does remind me of a quote that says: Absence of proof is not proof of absence. But in that case wouldn't it be better to take a sceptical point of view, otherwise one could start believing in all sorts of things?

But really for me it comes down to the fact that from my thinking and understanding of science, philosophy and human behaviour and history, I don't think it makes sense to believe in religion. I admit that god is much more difficult issue, and perhaps I am more agnostic on that point. My agnostism about god could however be caused by the fact that we can define god in any number of ways. The ways that make more sense to me, by their very nature make it impossible to prove or disprove his/her existence, i.e. unfalsifiable. If I describe god as a being that exists separate from the universe, does not obey the laws of the universe and does not interfere (by my own observation) then how can I prove or disprove it?

Atheism = religion

For those of you who might not have noticed, atheism has quite frequently been labelled as a religion or a dogma based on faith. I find this quite frustrating, which is why I posted the quote yesterday: "Atheism is a religion, like not collecting stamps is a hobby".

However, if people insist on calling atheism another religion, then why are atheist values and beliefs not treated with any "respect" by some religious people? Instead atheists are frequently and harshly insulted and distrusted by religious people, who would never dream of saying that about other spiritual/religious people. In fact I find the insinuations quite frightening. I hope that civil liberties and respect of freedom of choice/opinion will be maintained, else we might find atheists behind bars or prevented from having children.

Noting the above inconsistency, in my world, it's good for religious and spiritual people to critisize perceived atheistic principles, and in the same way I hope that that critisizm can be returned and peacefully received. Well-thought out critisisms presented in a non-aggressive and non-derogatory manner help prevent us from taking our belief systems for granted. As soon as we stop thinking about why we believe in what we do and if it still make sense, I believe that progress of the individual (and society)is finished.

Let's never assume we have all the answers... Let's keep searching for them (and the questions) until the day we die. In that way life will always be exciting no matter where we are, what we are doing or how old we are.

I like this....

Atheism is a religion, like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

I borrowed it from Monika on the Skepchick forum.

Skeptic Chick

I found a really interesting site, Skepchick . It's a site for women, note the "chick", but especially for those who embrace being sceptical or questioning. Please check it out and start participating in the forum.

Especially make sure you read this article about why Venezuelan women are so beautiful. Mary Wollstonecroft wouldn't be surprised.

Animal experimentation right here!

I feel shocked and upset. You may recall that I am working at the Dept of Agriculture as an intern. I've been loving it so far, but today I found out that they do animal testing here. A young professional I met is researching how much younger ostriches can be killed to save on grain. His aiming for 8 months rather than 14 months. Cows in the fields have holes in their sides through which the scientists can check their stomach content. I'm sure much more happens here as they have a whole animal experimentation section, but sensitive individuals try not to know things.

Yes, yes we may concole ourselves that we don't eat much meat or eat organic, but there is a lot of horrible things happening behind the scenes which we do not know. By eating meat we are condoning such practices. Like Julian Baggini said, these people (farmers, companies, the government) see animals as protein packages, not as living beings. Their mindset must be callous and aloof towards animals, otherwise how can they do these things?

Yes, people need to eat, but we can choose more humane options. It starts with taking animals more seriously and not choosing a veil of ignorance to justify our food preferences. I'm not entirely against livestock (although I find this name more and more offiensive) as mentioned in previous posts, but they should not be used for testing, they should not be killed for food. The animal's one and only life is worth more our pleasure gained in one meal. If some people's food security rests only on livestock, I'd like to suggest that they are infact highly vulnerable to food insecurity and bad health. There are healthy, more humane and more sustainable alternatives.

Read Stuart's blog below, where he describes the unjust scenario where we, humans are the "inferior" beings used for experimentation and food.

julian baggini

He is an old hero of mine and I can't quite tell if he's a vegetarian. This article makes me think that he might be. It's short and blunt but I think it sums up the meat eaters dilemma quite well. I particularly like this:

...we feel we can have our happy animals and eat them too

anarchy, state and utopia

I find it extremely surprising that there's such a long section on animal rights in Robert Nozick's famous book "anarchy, state and utopia" but of course I'm pleased. I'll try blog on it in more detail later but for now I want to talk about the moral relevance of species membership. In discussions about animal rights I often find that people believe humans have value because of their special talents (things like language, moral agency etc), now I don't buy that argument but even if I did, what about all the humans who don't have any of those characteristics? People normally either point to their religious beliefs or argue that the very fact that these people are human is grounds for different treatment or consideration. If species membership is the crucial ingredient, would super intelligent aliens (with proportionally greater moral capacity) be justified in confining and killing us for their pleasure (or even for things like medical testing)? I can't really see why not. But what would we think of them morally as we were being led to the slaughter? If they knew how we can suffer surely it wouldn't matter how delicious we were.

SPCA: a means to an end? or an end in itself?

Unfortunately the SPCA has come under rap from dissentors amongst staff and outside organisations for their lack of vision and the numbers of animals being euthenaised. It seems that some in the SPCA may have lost the plot, almost racing to pass animals through the system quicker, and that doesn't mean placing them in homes. Staff are traumatised about the number of animals put down and those chosen. Often these animals are young and healthy. Questions are also raised about whether the SPCA tries hard enough to get these animals into a home. Do they advertise enough? Do they have a good business model? Do they have to make it so hard for people to adopt? People have to come back two or three times and fill in several forms before being able to adopt. Many are put off or leave empty handed as the SPCA officials sometimes discourage people from adopting because of the animals' inadaquecy! Surely, it's better to give these animals a chance, even if there is a possibility that they will end up back at the SPCA, than just to kill them straight away?

I wish the SPCA could take an innovative approach, like setting up partnerships with petshops in town, so that healthy, sterilised animals could be brought right into the public eye. They can still ask the interested parties to fill in forms and even check out their homes, but it's likely to be less incovenient for people as they don't have to drive to Grassy Park, it promotes advertising for the SPCA and it encourages petshops to get animals from the SPCA rather than from breeders and goodness knows where, where we don't even know the conditions. Besides why breed more animals, when there are so many beautiful unwanted pets?

If anyone has a bright idea or could design a buisiness model for this, it would be great!

Do you eat to live, or live to eat?

Sorry for the lull is posts again. I had a hectic but positive week, having found myself moved to a one-street agricultural town to do an internship with Dept of Agriculture. It's beautiful out here, with soft green hills and peaceful grazing sheep, cattle and horses. What an opportunity to study these docile creatures. I've gone to watch the sheep twice and they don't do much really. They eat and walk, sometimes at the same time. I was trying to see if I could tell the huge round balls apart, I thought I noticed some distinguishing features but I'm not sure. They did notice me and a bright one or two would stare. So these might not be the brightest creatures but that doesn't mean they don't experience contentment and distress, or that they don't have the potential to revert to their former smarter and wilder selves (i.e. before domestication).

Being out here and after reading a photographic book: "Can We Feed Ourselves" which focuses on the billions of poor in the East, it reminds me that really, life is all about eating. For many people, their whole lives revolve around this issue. So the question of agriculture and livestock is an important one. For many people the manure, animalpower and meat from animals is an important part of life and maintains sustainability. I have come to the conclusion that animal farming can be good, provided that animals are able graze/live under pleasant conditions and that they are used for manure, dairy and eggs, not meat and leather! I think most farm animals would not object to the former system.

Once I get my digital camera out here, I'll take some pretty pictures for my next blog. See you then.