A dangerous idea

I have written for ages, but I must share this with you. There's a fantastic site where prominent intellectuals in Science are asked what they think the most dangerous idea is, assuming it were true.

Irene Pepperberg, Research Associate, Psychology, Harvard University, studies parrots and has found them to be supremely intelligent, comparible to chimps.

Her dangerous idea is 'The differences between humans and nonhumans are quantitative, not qualitative'.

Why is it dangerous? Because we'll have to start taking animals seriously which will mean rethinking the way we use them for animal experimentation, food production and other forms of exploitation. Even how we destroy and pollute the habitats in which they live.

She's great and has some really fascinating research.

The voices are telling me to kill you

voices
Originally uploaded by Tracy Leigh.

This is just one of the hilarious pictures on this site . It was really hard to choose which one to put on the web, so go please go look the rest!

The Meatrix

Check this out!

"Incovenient Truth"

I saw "Inconvenient Truth" on Friday night. It's a documentary warning about the effects of Global Warming produced by Al Gore. It's really about his mission to make people aware of global warming, why it's happening, what the effects are and what we can do about it.

In some cases it might have been quite sentimental (which is ok), but generally I found it interesting and quite inspiring (i.e. it makes me want to take action). I covered some theory about global warming in my geography courses at UCT and was pleased not to notice any major inconsistencies between the facts presented and my education.

I think Al Gore makes a really strong argument why we should take global warming seriously while trying to make the science understandable and adding a human touch.

The human suffering caused by storms and droughts will be immense, but what really upset me was the reminder of how global warming will effect animals. In the Arctic, it's been found that polar bears are drowning before they are able to find the shore of the rapidly receding ice shelf : ( And, really it won't just be the polar bears that suffer as life cycles are put out of sink and habitats made inhospitable.

We really are heading to a mass extinction. It also makes me wonder if I'm investing my time in the right conservation activity. Trying to protect little remants of vegetation to preserve habitats etc. won't really help when that habitat transforms with climate change.

I didn't search long but here's quite a nice post about the movie.
I urge you to go see it and "The March of the Penguins" to make you realise how they will be effected too.

kill the tiger!

That's my new motto. Of course I support the slaughter of lions and leopards too. And your cat. Actually, it's not my new motto, but maybe it should be. How about just locking tigers up and feeding them tofu? What about following them around and shooting their prey in the head just as the tiger is about to get them?

I think this paper is interesting.

So why do we care about biodiversity?

In the context of my new job, I keep asking myself this question: Why do conservationists and I care about biodiversity?

Personally, I find it a hard-to-define, but certain feeling that biodiversity and nature must be protected in its pristine state. It is partly to do with its utilitarian value, but somehow I value it intrinsically and especially the individual life forms that live within nature. I also believe that we have so much to gain "spiritually" from appreciating and experiencing nature and wild animals. But at the same time I feel that I have to give more concrete reasons in terms of economics, environmental sustainability, food security and all the potential medical and technological discoveries, to other people to make them care about nature. And for that reason, because I want them to value biodiversity, I am always on the look out for arguments and facts in its favour.

This is why I found my reaction to a National Geographic magazine featuring biodiversity strange - I was disappointed and disturbed. From the first line of this "celebration" of biodiversity it only focussed on the utilitarian aspect of biodiversity from a human perspective and quickly went further to discuss how many bugs were foggered in the jungles of South America for a scientist's investigations and how the liver of some type of shark is an anti-cancer agent, and how frogs secrete powerful antibiotics when hurt. It made me realise that the only reason why many humans want to preserve biodiversity is to use it for science experiments and exploitation. It's not that I don't appreciate the amazing technology in nature and how it can help humans, but I am terrified that all this leads to is more suffering for animals that are captured, killed, sliced-and-diced, tested and milked for our benefit.


I just wish people would start to question the things that they do to animals. I realise animals are not as intelligent as us but we must question whether we have right to torture them even if it will help us dramatically. Medical research would probably be best tested on humans, but we don't do that because it is simply unacceptable.

Another heroine

Mary
Originally uploaded by Tracy Leigh.

I read a short biography about Mary Wollstonecraft this Saturday and found that my admiration for her increased ten-fold. I was already convinced by her work: “A Vindication of the Rights of Women” written in 1792, that she was not only the “first feminist”, but a compassionate and great thinker. This is an amazing book which passionately and reasonably argues for equal opportunity for men and women based on broader philosophical arguments about morality, religion and duty.

She makes an excellent point when she says that our moral decisions must be based on our own rational thought and feeling rather than by blindly following rules we don’t understand or the commands of others. Although she makes a general point, she particularly wished this principle to be applied to women, who, above all else had to be “virtuous”, yet were not properly educated to use their own reason and were encouraged to slavishly obey the men in their lives (fathers, husbands, brothers, etc.). And as she most observantly points out, why should women follow such imperfect beings as men?

There is so much wisdom in the book which is still relevant today that I can’t discuss it all here without writing an entire essay. What I find even more amazing is that her ideas, which were revolutionary for her time, seemed to develop without any outside influence, but rather from her own observation, thought and freewill. If so, she entirely independently realised the injustice of the way women (and the poor) were treated in those times. She rebelled against norms which were oppressive and immoral and at all times fought to follow her heart and own integrity. In short, she is amazing.

Please, please, read about Mary and be inspired by a truly brave, compassionate and individualistic thinker.

the vegetarian vice

Here's a post on my blog about the vegetarian vice. What do you think?

My point isn't that environmentalism is bad, just that it shouldn't be synonymous with vegetarianism. Ideally, declaring your views on meat eating should be similar to declaring your religion. Interesting maybe; but not a dead giveaway about your views on a bunch of other subjects.

Lessons of the cat commune

Much to my unhappiness I discovered yesterday that the fluffy-scruffy-looking cat in my block of flats is just skin and bones. I had noticed a while ago that this once much-protected luxurious cat was no longer anything special to its owners. It now shuffles around outside and has serious problems trying to fit in with the other cats who only remember seeing it as kitten being walked on a lead.

This cat Pippa, is starving. And as any concerned citizen of this local community I simply cannot let it starve. So it's going to get food from me as long as I live there. What choice do I have? How could I carry on living there with my cats all fat and happy and this unfortuante creature dying a slow death?

This makes me think of all the unhappy people out there suffering the same fate. Surely it is the responsibility of those who have food to help those who don't?
Yet I know I would struggle to become so personally involved. Perhaps it's because cats' problems are much simpler to fix than people's? Perhaps it's because the situation of poverty is so overwhelming and much too large for one person to tackle?

My ration of food for Pippa however could be compared to a minimum income given to all people no matter who they are or what their circumstances. (Stuart enlightned me to this idea.) Why should a person have to prove that they are unemployed and cannot find work before being given much needed money? The beaurocracy behind this is often so intense, demanding and time-consuming that the poor don't get their money before they are already on their hands and knees, if at all. The minimum income would come from taxes and not really make a difference to the rich, but to the poor it would. I don't know about the financial and logistical issues surrounding this, but it could be a good idea. What do you think?

My webpage has been updated

Finally I have updated my webpage on vegetarianism. It includes a little more new information on the Environment and Vegetarian resources and a new layout which I think is very pretty. A beautiful photo provided by our project botanist, Rupert Koopman inspired the layout (which still needs a little work, I admit). in fact it all needs work and revising, but hey, I'm a working girl!

You can check it out here .

By the way http://www.freewebs.com is quite a nice place to host your website for free.

I've discovered Diane Fossey

I'm housesitting in Scarborough (it's amazing) and discovered in it's bookshelves, "Woman in the Mist". The title is similar to "Gorilla's in the Mist", a book written by Dian Fossey and a movie about her life and is in fact about the passionate Dian

I never really paid attention to the movie, but I was intrigued by this book and once I started reading it, I've been engrossed in another world full of passion, tragedy, discovery and war. Dian is truly a remarkable woman and though some may have called her unstable and crazy, she was driven by a great love and compassion for her fellow creatures. she lived life to the full, with passion and honestly.

This strange bushwoman was also not a stranger to love of and from men. Men of all ages would fall passionately in love with this headstrong woman. Sadly none of these relationships were fated for success (or so far, I'm still reading).

It's set in an interesting place, the jungle-covered mountains between Congo and Rawanda during a time of conflict and uprising in Congo (Zaire), which is providing some fascinating background to my current perception of these countries.

The story is also disturbing and sad. Dian was fighting a losing battle against the most gruesome and persistant poaching of all the animals in the mountains where she lived, a supposed protected area. Gorillas hands and heads were chopped off in the most brutal way. Reading the book, it's easy to see what intelligent and beautiful animals, gorillas are and the connection between us and them. It's also easy to understand why Dian went to such great lengths (at her own personal risk) to try protect them. But very few people cared like her.

I only wonder what has happened to the gorillas now...

Beautiful bulbs!

Beautiful bulbs!
Originally uploaded by Tracy Leigh.

This is just one of the many many species of flowers found in Nieuwoudtville which is rapidly becoming grazed by sheep or ploughed for Rooibos.

This amazing photo was taken by Rupert. Thanks Rupert!

Nieuwoudtville paradise

I just spent a wonderful, informative and allergic 3 days in the bulb paradise of the world. This small area has an extremely high biodiversity of beautiful bulbs. Flowers of every shape and size. You also don't have to drive far to see the awesome plataeus stretching into the Karoo, roaring waterfalls and mysterious Kookeboom trees.

It's also baie Afrikaans! No vegetarian food for me. Well they tried but a vegetarian option simply meant added peas and carrots. I suppose I was vegetarianism is pretty unheard of in this sheep territory. Though rapidly turning into rooibos monoculture.

I will attach photos soon! Keep watching.

Darwin, animals and naturalism

I discovered an interesting book called "Pilgram on the Great Bird Content" by Lyanda Lynn Haupt. It sounds like a fascinating story about nature, birds and Darwin's unique character, which covers important scientific, philosophical and emotional issues related to evolution and nature.

Although I haven't read it, I have read the first chapter which was absorbing and thought provoking. You can check it out online too.

I'd love to buy it but I've already just bought Jane Goodall's "Harvest for Hope and have a million other books to read. Harvest for Hope is "easy to read" in the literary sense, but tough emotionally. Besides all the environmental damage our food production systems cause, there are some horrific stories of cruelty to animals. But she does at least give positive alternatives and ways to take action. All I can say is, buy organic when you can. It's better for your health, the environment and animals. Although it may be more expensive, I wonder if it really would be if other farmers were not subsidised by the government for their inefficient and cruel ways of farming?

I suppose I'm painting a picture that farmers are all evil when they aren't (except those that torture animals!). It's tough to make a living from farming, so even those that do like the idea of conservation still want to make the most money that they can out of their land so that they can feed their family, educate them, etc. It makes you wonder if feeding 6 billion people is really viable?

What's the big deal about GMO foods?

I must admit that I've been rather ignorant about GMO's for a long time now. I couldn't really understand what the big deal was about. After all we have been modifying animals and plants through selection for thousands of years. True, some of the results aren't great: cows' udders are known to cause them pain, persion cats can't eat properly because of their flat faces, etc.

I bought a book by Jane Goodall about food (I can't remember the title now) which described some of the problems of GMO food. Genetically modified foods have genes taken from other life forms and transformed genes which make them bigger, "better", and resistant to pesticides and herbicides. Some of the problems are

1) We are not sure what sort of negative effects food like this could have on humans.

2) Natural cross fertilisation results in genes being spread from genetically modified crops into other crops. This means that all crops whether you like it or not can and probably will become infected with GMO genes.

3) The spread of GMO crops is putting more and more of the land under monocultures with very little genetic diversity.

4) These genetically modified plants can spread everywhere and are resistant to herbicides and pesticides so won't be easy to remove.

5) GMO companies are gaining a monopoly over food and own the rights to certain genes.

Another question I've been wondering about is why is variety in genes important? The reason that I've discovered is that variety of genes means robustness. When a disease or change in environment starts affecting an area, variety in genes will allow some plants to survive and therefore prevent the extinction of the species. Genetic monocultures make humans vulnerable to food crisis.

Also GMO seed companies have patented their seeds, meaning that farmers are not allowed to grow these seeds without purchasing them, but with the natural cross fertilisation farmer's crops are being contaminated without their permission and then being sued by big GMO Seed companies!

It's just crazy and I certainly will be more wary of GMO food. With natural biodiversity already under great threat we certainly don't need to add further pressures. Also what are the ethical concerns of one or two companies owning the genes of certain life forms?

The rights of owning land

Today was the 4th day at my new Biodiversity Planning job and I am loving it! everything about it... the beautifal natural surounds, the passion of the people and the subject matter. To remind you, I am providing technical support for a project which aims to produce conservation plans for several important and threatened biodiversity areas in the Cape.

Pondering the more political and philosophical implications of this project, has already brought me into conflict with my boyfriend (as usual). The question is once these plans, indicating which areas cannot be developed and what other land use is suitable for other areas, are developed how far should we go to inforce it? If a precious natural habitat is found on someone's farm, can we inforce the landowner to not to develop, farm or mine it? Many, especially economists, would say that this is against his or her rights. But in my opinion, owning land should entail some rights, but not all possible permissions. Afterall what does it mean to own land which is something continuous, interconnected and "eternal" compared to our lifespans? That land also belonged to many others before, will be passed down to new generations in the future and is currently inhabited by many living creatures who depend on it for their survival. Once land is altered, it is usually always changed forever. A piece of land is also not an island. Ecosystems need to be connected to each other to maintain viability, and waste dumps, for example, frequently effect the surroundings (e.g. water contamination, property devaluation). There is also the added limitations of the capibility of one person to think long term and holistically. Combined with the pursuit of personal interests, how will they know what is best now and in the future? Also, if it is a time where preferences are to prize and protect rich natural heritage, what would happen if those preferences changed? Yet the scientific necessity of maintaining natural systems, nor the ethical considerations of those many animals who would be lost to themselves and future generations wouldn't.

I admit it does seem risky to allow someone else to tell you what to do on your land, but in the case of our project, it's many, many people from different backgrounds who inform the project. Also the analysis of what areas need to be conserved is based on the best available scientific practices. It's not hodge-podge speculation. I think it's better than letting the natural world be developed in a random way. Human's are notorious for being short-sighted and destroying land. And no, it's not always true that as something becomes more scarce people value it more. Think of Easter Island, where the inhabitants cut down all the trees. This changed the climate and destroyed the soil, causing poverty and hunger, but they couldn't even build a boat to escape this dreadful scenario!

Yes, I'm still alive

I must apologise for the lack of posts lately. With things winding up in my current job before I take the new one in Kirstenbosch, I just haven't had time. So I shouldn't be surprised that I've lost all my readers... But I'll keep posting when I can.

new post!

It's been almost 3 weeks since the last post, so I thought I should do something about it. I think you should charge over here and pummel my opponents into the ground.

Half man, half mouse

Refering to my post below, I think it's an interesting idea: a human's brain inside a mouse! Quoting from the article:
'Professor Henry T. Greely, director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences and leader of the committee that considered the proposal, ..., (said), "We concluded that if we see any signs of human brain structures . . . or if the mouse shows human-like behaviors, like improved memory or problem-solving, it's time to stop."'

Can you imagine that?! For the first time, humankind will finally be able to get the perspective of being another animal!

But really I wonder why they want to do this? According to this article it's to investigate brain diseases like Alzeimers, schizophrenia, etc.. I still don't if I like the idea. I know people and families suffer with these dreadful diseases but we don't test on people. Why not? because we say that human's have some inalieble human rights. Why don't animals have rights? I think any form of testing should be voluntary. Since animals can't give their permission perhaps they shouldn't be used.

Mixing mice and men

Shock-horror when I discovered this article while following links from the site recommended in my previous post saying that they are going to implant human brain cells into a developing mouse's brain. They also discuss other animal testing such as pigs trying artificial corneas and monkeys get gene manipulations as if it were the most fun thing in the world! Sometimes I just don't like scientists! Their desire to discover things before anyone else, change the world and people's minds, which is often and mostly driven by the Ego, far outweighs the suffering that they may cause. grr....

Everyday myths derailed

I found a cool link to this science site where every day myths like the fact that we use only 10 % of our brains or that bubblegum takes 7 years to digest if swallowed or that the Great Wall of China is the only manmade object visible from space by astronauts.

It's strange...

how people can feel so much sympathy and love for cats, dogs and other animals that we adopt, whether they be tortoises, parrots or rabbits, yet happily eat cows, sheep, pigs and chickens. A lot of people really connect with domestic animals, they observe and appreciate their unique personalities, quirks and especially the companionship they give. These people believe that their pets do think and feel, and they really dislike seeing an animal being badly treated. I think it's wonderful to see the connection that can be built between humans and animals, but I also find it so odd that we (it was me too until recently) do not make the link between us and farm animals. Somehow these animals don't feel or think, and are not capable of building relationships or appreciating their lives. If that's what we think then yes it's fine for us to eat them. We need not think more about it.

I suppose we can also justify eating meat by saying it's the natural order of things. Lions eat buck and it's not pretty (I cringe at nature documentaries showing the hunt and kill). This is where I find myself struggling with what seems to be conflicting viewpoints, as someone who believes in nature and evolution (only) and places humans firmly amongst other living creatures, yet believing that human beings can strive for such high ideals and ethics through being aware and having the power to make truly liberated decisions (can we really? more confusion!).

The latter also seems to imply that yes we are ultimately better and above other animals? Well, I don't think it should be a question of superiority but simply one of difference. Each animal is uniquely and beautifully adapted to fit into its environment. A cat is not somehow deficient because it can't do maths, it is supremely athletic and agile, has lightening reflexes, insatiable curiousity, great eye-sight and hearing. How is it deficient for what it's meant to do? It's perfect. So how are we better? Especially when we don't use our natural abilities (like thinking, reflecting, compassion and caring).

There are a lot of things that are natural. It's suggested that rape, racism, war are natural, but that doesn't mean that those are principals we should strive for. I think on some reflection and especially, when we build understanding and empathy for others, we would wish to build a society that is not violent, but peaceful in all ways.

New Job at Kirstenbosch!

Well, I have finally made a decision regarding my future and what I want to do. That's why I have accepted a job offer (for much less money) to work for Cape Nature as a GIS Technician on project for Fine Scale Biodiversity Planning. I'm very lucky to be based at the spectacular Kirstenbosch Botanical Gardens . Now who wouldn't die to have an office environment looking up onto the mountains and the lush forests down it's slope. I feel very lucky to have been given this opportunity to direct my career into biodiversity conservation at such a beautiful place.

Pics of Your kitties

Yesterday's post made me think that I'd like to invite (my precious few) readers to email me photos of your cats. No, they dont have to look like Hitler. If you have anything to say about them (in a line or 2) send that too. Since I've already posted several pictures of my cat, Lucy, I'll refrain for now. but if you don't send me any photos, I'll have to post another of her.

Don't worry, I also love dogs, so at a later stage, I'd also definitely love some doggy photos too.

classic

If you are interested in seeing more cats that look like Hitler, here they are.

an idea!

There is this great place in London (they give away a free copy of the Independent, which is crap, but I love free stuff) that didn't sell ham sandwiches, they did sell pig sandwiches though. It was refreshingly (and disturbingly) honest.

So I have a game that I think carnivorous should play; they should be honest at the dinner table or during food preparation. The more detail the better, so for instance "pass me a drumstick please", could be "please rip that chickens thigh out of it's hip socket, I'd like to pick the flesh from it's bones".

You can stick some other examples in the comments.

animal testing

I support animal experimentation in principal but only in a small number of cases. Unfortunately since I know almost nothing about this kind of research, so I don't know where I think the line should be drawn between what is acceptable and what is not. Having said that I think it is very likely that way to much testing goes on. Whenever I read anything on testing in the media it just bashes on about the benefits of testing. Implicit in this line of reasoning is that testing is fine just so long as it benefits humans which people like me deny (it’s an example of begging the question according to my handy guide to clear thinking). In my view, there must be no other way of doing the test's and the benefits to humans (or animals for that matter) must be enormous. Here's what the Economist has say

Great apes are man's closest relatives, having parted company from the human family tree only a few million years ago. Hence it can be (and is) argued that they are indispensable for certain sorts of research. On the other hand, a recent study by Andrew Knight and his colleagues at Animal Consultants International, an animal-advocacy group, casts doubt on the claim that apes are used only for work of vital importance to humanity. Important papers tend to get cited as references in subsequent studies, so Mr Knight looked into the number of citations received by 749 scientific papers published as a result of invasive experiments on captive chimpanzees. Half had received not a single citation up to ten years after their original publication.

So it can't plausibly be argued that this research is essential for human’s at all. And this is for monkeys! Imagine what is happening to lab mice!

The moral of the story is that people respond to incentives. It's no good telling scientists that they must only do testing that is essential and then leaving them to it because they're decent chaps. Unnecessary testing should be against the law. The more I think about it, a rule allowing special cases for testing sounds suspiciously like torture permits. Designed for extreme circumstances but gradually becoming routine as has apparently happened in Israel.

Censorship of artists

When a dictator takes over a country, often the first to be killed are the intellectuals and artists (writers, artists, etc.). The reason for this is that they make people think, they express things that are sometimes taboo but need to be expressed. They are the social conscience, they comment on society and culture, they can delight us and shock us, make us question. This is dangerous for anyone who wants to keep people under strict control. Questioning, non-conformity, individuality are all things that don't do well under a dictatorship.

This leads me to my concern about the continuing censorship of our social commentators. In London, plays have been closed due to Muslim pressure, Jerry Springer the Opera has received violent critism and threats from Christians, and now most recently, an exhibition of one of India's greatest artists at has closed due to pressure of the Hindu Human Rights Organisation because some of his paintings depict the Hindu gods without clothes.

The pressure that religious groups are placing on artists and intellectuals to not be offensive defeats the purpose of artistic and intellectual endevour. Read this interesting article why religious groups should be expected to respect the law and the freedom of expression of artists like the rest of us.

What's been happening lately?

I'm sorry for posting so little these days. The truth is I've been very distracted with training for my professional qualification and choices about my future, like should I change jobs even though I was just promoted?; should I study further, if so where and what?; should I move to UK and when? I'd like to do all three really, but it's all about the order and unfortunately money. Money is not really important to me, but you do need a certain amount to lead a comfortable life. Now I realise that for many people as soon as they get more money their expectations rise. It's a wonderful/terrible thing about human nature, always leaving us dissatisfied and striving for more. But for me, I'm trying to keep my material expectations stable. Basically I want to stay in the same block of flats, be able to afford my medical aid, rent and food. So even though I've just started earning a lot more in my job, I'm willing to leave it for a much lower-paying job that I think I will find more fulfilling, provided it meets my minimum financial requirements. But for me it also depends on my future plans, I'd really, really like to study further and live overseas, both of which require money (even if I am fortunate enough to get a scholarship) and so ideally I should earn a bit more than I need so that I can save towards these goals. So it all takes careful planning, and in the end one has to look at the budget - which I hate doing!

With all this soul searching, planning and budgeting I have not forgotten the ill treatment of animals bred for eating and those used for testing. I wish there was more to be done, but short of being an animal activist, many people just don't take animal rights seriously enough to even consider the idea. I find the violence of opinions against and complete disdain for animal rights quite alarming. Accompanied with it is such a callous arrogance. I'm not referring to you dear reader, but rather to some other blog dialogues that I have seen.

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.

livestock farming can have benefits for the environment?

I've been trying to become more informed about agricultural practices so that I can really understand what the harms of livestock farming to the environment are. I found a long, but very interesting and technical document on livestock farming by the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the UN.

As we all know livestock can cause severe problems in terms of soil compaction, loss of biodiversity, soil erosion and degradation, etc., but there could also be some advantages after all when it is very carefully managed. I am sceptical of most listed benefits, like increased biodiversity, but I'll describe a particular farming system that could be beneficial.

That is the mixed farming system where livestock and agricultural crops are managed in a single system where livestock feed on crop residue (stalks after harvesting) and manure is used for field fertilisation. Fertilising soil for sustained crop production is actually a real problem. In many traditional farming practices, the balance between livestock and crops meant that these two processes supported each other. Also animals can also be used to plough fields, reducing the need for imported machinery and use of fossil fuels. When crop production outstrips livestock production, fertilizers must be bought which can cause nutrient overloading and pollution. Crop production is also a more intensive use of the land, whereas grazing can support a greater range of life.

I don't really understand it all that well, but I do realise that many people's livelihoods depend on livestock and perhaps livestock can help with sustainable crop production.

Personally, I think that an overdependence on one investment can lead to dire straits in times of drought such as in Kenya, Somalia and Sudan where they depend heavily on cattle. It's interesting to note that those areas occuring in natural reserves don't seem nearly as badly hit by the droughts (i.e. much more vegetation, no dead animals lying around) as the grazed areas.

In the end, even if livestock can have benefits to the environment, I cannot condone their use if they are ill-treated or killed for meat. Cattle and sheep can be kept for milk and wool, used for manure production and ploughing if and only if they are allowed to live in a comfortable, semi-natural way.

Fluffy Teddy bear

Fluffy Teadybear
Originally uploaded by Tracy Leigh.

Meet Grubby. I found Grubby, a sad matted mess lost in the streets of Claremont at the end of 2004. Yet I saw in his little bewildered face, something quite unique and couldn't leave him. I took him home with me, even though I new the landowner would not be pleased. Within a few days, Grubby and I were totally bonded, but I knew I couldn't keep him. So I took him to SPCA. I was horrified when I found out there was a good chance he'd be put down so I begged my reluctant dad to take him. Grub-Grub, as my dad calls him, has captured his heart too.

Isn't it wonderful the kind of delight and love animals can bring us?
Unless we are exposed to animals of all shapes and sizes, we tend to think of them, as robots, but really they are full of personality, whether rabbit, parrot, cat or dog.

I think our relationship with animals can teach us important things with our relationships with people. How is it that we can have such special bonds with beings who cannot talk? Perhaps we make things too complicated, when what we want is really very simple? Love, acceptance, body warmth and touch, companionship...

How exciting - Let's not look for intelligent Life in Space, but appreciate that Life on Earth!

Burden of proof

Sorry for the long break in posts. I've been very busy lately and it's been Easter holidays (I don't have Internet at home).

I just want to leave you with the thought: Why should the burden of proof that eating meat supports inhumane farming practices lie with vegetarians? Surely it is meat-eaters who should prove to the world that the industry they support is not harmful. Since it is very possible (and is commonly the case) that animals are being mistreated in farming practices, why don't we rather err on the side of caution, i.e. let's not eat meat unless we know where the meat comes from and how those animals were/are treated?

animal interests

I've been planning something rather grand, but it aint gonna happen, besides this is blogging...

How do we know that animals do actually have interests and are not simply sophisticated machines? Insects have primitive nervous systems, they react to stimulus in a way that tries to avoid harm, does this mean they feel pain? Not necessarily, for example if an insect damages a leg it doesn't shield it or favor other legs, it doesn't seem to be aware of the damage at all. Even some plants can release chemicals when they are eaten to 'warn' other plants which then become bitterer. This doesn't mean they it suffers, just that it has evolved mechanisms to help it survive. It isn't difficult to imagine a complicated robot programmed to avoid harm that does not feel pain. Fetuses go through a phase where they react to stimulus (like retracting away from sharp objects) but do not feel pain. When they start feeling pain is the subject of fierce controversy. Mammals show signs of suffering because they do favour injured limbs and distress lingers so long as the injury is a problem. They can also be affected psychologically, take a trip to the SPCA, some dogs are terrified of humans no matter how gentle they are. It's not a wild leap to guess that they were physically abused by humans in the past.

There is a more subtle reason why we can guess that animals (particularly mammals) suffer from pain in similar ways to humans. Their nervous systems are similar to ours. Senses (like touch) are expensive (in terms of food) to maintain and repair. Any gadget a species has must be useful for it to be retained, for example brains are very expensive (our brains make up a small percentage of our mass, but uses about 40% of our food), in the past couple thousand year's domestic animals haven't needed their brains as much and they have predictably shrunk. Animals wouldn't have or maintain complex nervous systems if they didn't use them and since they look and function much like ours, they suffering from pain must be similar.

Opposite day!

Following a trend on the blogosphere I'll be inviting a friend of mine “Steve” to make an argument that I disagree with. So why don't you point out where Steve goes wrong.

Life is desirable, everybody agrees about that. The farming industry breeds billions of animals every year that would never been alive if we didn't demand meat. By demanding that we close down farms animal rights nuts are actually denying millions of animal's life. Yes, yes, I know that their life is usually unpleasant but millions of humans have unpleasant lives but you don't hear that many voices actually saying they would be better off if they hadn't been born (not in public anyway). Anyway the point is not to stop them existing, it's to get them a better life by improving conditions in the farms. Of course this is only remotely practical if people are willing to pay for it and that will only happen if they can eat the animals. Suffering may harm the animals but death does not. They don’t fear death like humans; they don't know it's coming at all. And they can't know what they are being brought up for. A painless death ends no hopes or dreams, it doesn't harm them.

So, eating meat and consuming animal byproducts is good, it is a plausible way of providing pleasant, happy lives to billions of animals. Humans should be so lucky.

Religion degrades the value of animal lives!

Before I express my opinion, let me say, that I know not all religious people believe the above, especially some of my friends. My opinion is based on some common things I've heard said recently in some religious gatherings.

I am of the opinion that religion encourages us to not to take animals seriously. It does this by regarding human beings as spiritual beings who alone can comprehend God. Animals cannot comprehend the concept of God, are not spiritual and therefore trivial. Religious folk seem to equate animals with automata like Kant. Animals are mere biological machines that respond to stimuli. Also, religious people see it as degrading to compare human beings to animals. When human beings are not "spiritual" or religious, they are seen to be living on the level of animals. This degradation of animals and placing of humans on a supernatural pedastal can encourage us to overlook the individuality, value and heart of animals (and atheists!). (Please, tell me, if I have misunderstood the opinions of religious people.)

Personally, I don't see this great spiritual divide between humans and animals because I believe we are made of the same stuff. Yes we are further evolved in certain capacities, especially intellectual, but I believe that there are degrees of difference between us and other animals, shades of grey, not black and white. Dr Jane Goodall, would tell you about the similarities between us and chimpanzees, not just in genetics, but in behaviour. Chimpanzees are all individuals, some are strong and aggressive, others gentle and wise, some make good mothers, others are neglectful. They also have complex politics and use tools to get by daily life. The flat where I live, hosts 7 cats and it's fascinating to watch the antics and politics of this community. When I interact with animals, I think it is so wonderful to share this planet with other conscious beings who recognise and communicate with me.

I am tired of animals (and atheists) being degraded by being described as immoral, biological machines, whose lives are essentially meaningless. It's too easy for humans to categorise beings, as "us and them". Them, not at all being like us.

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.

a what?

Sorry for the lull in posts. Tracy has been getting away from it all in PE while the power cuts and the fact that I am at class again have prevented me from logging on. No dazzling insight today. But I did find out that the ethical theory I described a while ago does actually have a real name (I checked when my brother told me that it just was utilitarianism). It has the slightly less grand title of rule utilitarianism. The Oxford dictionary of Philosophy says so.

stupid liberals

I was just reading Oliver Kamm (a favorite blogger of mine) who is a fellow liberal and was impressive recently in his defense of free speech. In a recent post he said that his liberal credentials lead him to support fox hunting. Now liberalism is based on the premise that we should be able to do whatever we like so long as it does not harm others. It is not the first time that I have heard this liberal defense and I should not need to point out that fox hunters are trying to kill the foxes, not give them a little exercise. I suggest another visit to dictionary.com.

...

Further to my last serious post. Since some people oppose research into gender or IQ differences because of its supposed implications maybe I shouldn’t be so surprised at the generally backward attitude towards animals. The differences between humans and animals are pretty clear (if imprecisely understood) so these same people must think that that defends our treatment of animals. Until we understand that possible differences between humans are no grounds for discrimination (sometimes different treatment thought) the majority of people will not move on to animals.

claws of steel

Two nights ago I squashed Lucy’s tail (accidentally) under a chair. She responded incisively by mauling my foot. I was really concerned that I had done her some lasting damage, but she seems fine and has resumed regulation hand and feet mauling in the name of cuteness. My foot on the other hand will bear the scars of the incident for some time to come. So don’t be fooled by the cute little pictures. Don’t mess with this kitten.

the blank slate

I’ve been reading Steven Pinker’s “Blank Slate”. It is certainly very interesting although not quite what I expected. I thought I would be overwhelmed by new evidence based on clever scientific studies that used all the latest and best technology that money can buy. Maybe it’ll get there, I’m only half way, but it’s still interesting. Back in the 70’s Pinker had a front row seat to the controversy surrounding sociobiology (now know as evolutionary psychology). People were (and are) outraged that certain aspects of human behavior may be naturally evolved, this includes things like male violence, some gender roles and things like homosexuality. One fear is that that if men are naturally violent, that somehow legitimizes it. The other fear is that if things like intelligence are innate and if women or blacks are less intelligent, ten years of discrimination against those groups will have been justified. I’ve never heard a good reason for this jump but I can see how it may seem intuitive to some people (racists for example). It is nonsense though; if women -on average- make bad engineers, then they will naturally be underrepresented in that profession without the help of barriers (besides, if merit is the basis for discrimination then you can’t block talented people without violating your own argument).

Anyway, the point Pinker was making is that the human demand for equality does not depend on us being equal in some measurable sense because this would be vulnerable to refutation by the next scientific study. Equality for humans means equal consideration of interests not some factual equality among people. People know this of course, if a racist has a retarded child he does not conclude that it has no rights. Pinker doesn’t recognize the implications for animals; he even cites Singer once and mentions the quaint idea that some people think animals have interests. It seems he’d rather think up new experiments that involve stitching up ferret’s eyes or cutting them out completely. If human rights don’t depend on ability then why is it constantly invoked as a reason to ignore the interests of animals?

Lucy in a SA Cricketer's Cap

Lucy in a cap
Originally uploaded by Tracy Leigh.

As light cuteness-relief from all the serious debate, I thought I'd share another picture of gorgeous Lucy.

Soon she won't be able to fit into caps anymore!

Animals are Unconsciousness!

Several anti-animal rights defendents, rely on the argument that animals are ultimately "unconscious" to justify human use and abuse of animals. They believe animals are very sophisticated biological machines that are programmed to respond to stimuli. I find it strange that they can make this claim for animals, but not extend it to humans? Perhaps we are biological machines too?

To me, it seems that I am self-aware, conscious. I think and feel. How do I know that other humans do too since I cannot and never will be able to get into their heads to see and experience their thoughts and feelings? I could be the only conscious being in a highly complicated machine or dream scape? The fact is that we all infer that other human beings are like us (they think and feel similar feelings) by interpreting their behaviour in particular circumstances. I could assume that these are just complex ramifications of a biological machine, but I do not. It is not useful and is very counter-intuitive. Similarly, by watching and interacting with animals, we can also interpret their behaviour as reflection of their inner world and it certainly seems to be as real as ours.

Also their is the evidence of physiology and evolutionary biology. Many animals (like invertebrates) have commonalities in physiology. We can assume that physiological components that look the same and react the same have the same function. For example, a highly developed nervous system and pain receptors in the brain, indicate a propensity for animals and humans to experience pain. We also know that pain is very unpleasant and by judging animal's behaviour while experiencing pain, they also find it very unpleasant.

Language entitles you to moral status

I have finally started reading one of my four books from the library on animals and ethics. I chose "Taking Animals Seriously Mental Life and Moral Status" by David DeGrazia. I admittedly haven't read very far yet, but am already amazed at the assumptions of anti-animal rights defenders. R.G. Frey wrote in his book "Interests and Rights" that animals have no interests because they have no desires. They have no desires because they can't have beliefs. Belief is necessary for desires, because to desire something you have believe that it is missing and this belief must be stated as a sentence! Since animals don't think in sentences they can't have beliefs. Finally, because animals lack interests they have moral status.

So that's the argument. It's bizzare. To start at the beginning I don't believe that desires have to based on beliefs and that either of these need to verbalised in sentences. If I see an ice-cream and I desire it. This is more of a physical/emotional urge/sensation. If I am frustrated because I've been couped up in the house all week, I don't have to have a sentence for the fact that I just wish to break down the doors and run outside. Secondly, there are many, many things that can't or don't have to be verbalised through words. Language is just a tool for communication and expression. Any artist will know that we express ourselves through many means: music, art and dance, for example. My highschool music teacher, Mr De Beer wrote that "Music allows one to express, that which must be expressed but cannot be through words" (I may not have got the quote exactly right.)

Anyone who has has interacted with animals can see that animals have desires, from continuous meowing asking one for more food or eagre anticipation when one touches the leash. It seems that philosophers, so desparate to stick to some particular philsophical-ethical framework, allow themselves to come to ridiculous conclusions that are refuted by evidence. I think they should be more scientific about it. If it doesn't match reality (in any particular instance), then the framework doesn't work and needs to be adjusted or scrapped!

moral schmoral

As I said recently I am not a utilitarian. I also mentioned that there is astonishing difficulty to formulate a really coherent ethical framework (didn’t I? Well I find it weird; we all have such clear ideas of right and wrong, the greatest minds grapple with the problem without very great success. Read Simon Blackburn’s book, ‘Being Good’ for a summary).

So what am I? I am a contractarian utilitarian (cool hey!), and this is what that means: it means that a moral code should have the aim of the greatest happiness for the greatest number based on rules that may not be violated on utilitarian considerations. I will support my claim based on soccer. Millions of people enjoy watching and playing soccer; I suggest that the point of soccer is to make people happy, so I am interested in maximizing this happiness. The game is based on strict rules which a referee must enforce. Now imagine (if you can) a world cup match between Iceland and China, it seems clear to me that the general happiness will be best served by a Chinese win (the people who care most live in Iceland and China, and there are more Chinese), so should the ref, or maybe the Icelandic keeper tweak the game to ensure the Chinese win? I say no. Match fixing scandals happen, and when they do, people can be badly put off the sport and either withdraw support, or watch suspiciously looking for incriminating behavior. When this happens less people are made happy by the sport and rebuilding credibility and thus happiness level can take time. If it became accepted that the moral thing to do was to selectively fix games the sport would die, killing any happiness associated with it. This is why we want good honest refs and umpires. Sure, we should analyze rules and change the bad ones, but once the new rules are in they must be upheld and respected, and refs who don’t respect them must be dumped. Strictly applied rules do not entail dogmatism, if they are subject to revision. So even though the odd dodgy offside decision may increase happiness, the decision must still be condemned. That is the only way to protect the integrity of the sport and thus promote the utility it creates. Otherwise all games will end up like the Harlem Globetrotters (they seldom lose) or WWF.

So apply the rules of morality to the game of life, and you see where I stand. And yes I am aware that it may be possible to make ridiculous examples of it, but we have to live and we have to try.

more rambling Sing(er)ing

More about Peter Singer and utilitarianism: Utilitarianism is an ethical framework that determines the morality of an action by the effects that it has. The more an action promotes the general wellbeing the better it is morally. Now it’s pretty easy to construct scenarios where the moral utilitarian solution to a problem is intuitively hugely immoral. However other ethical frameworks don’t always fair much better when subjected to hypothetical scenarios.

Anyway, Peter Singer follows his ethical framework to some shocking conclusions. I don’t think shocking conclusions should count against him, in fact I think it is very important not to be afraid to argue shocking conclusions, they may not always seem shocking. Singer notes that philosophers often become the most sophisticated defenders of what we already believe in. That can make philosophers dangerous rather than enlightening if it helps men feel comfortable in their role as oppressors (of woman or black people etc). My favorite example of this kind of complacency happened around 200 years ago. Mary Wollstonecraft published her entirely sensible ‘A vindication of the rights of women’, few today would argue the basic point of the book but an eminent Cambridge philosopher replied with a sarcastic paper called ‘A vindication of the rights of brutes’. He did not trouble to engage with the arguments because they were so obviously absurd. We think thinkers like Singer to battle that kind of reckless complacency. Singer suggests narrowing the moral gap between human and non-human animals, some find this shocking because they think it suggests that we should treat humans like animals are treated. But note that Singer suggests that we not eat animals, not that we should start farming humans, so that is exactly the wrong way round.

So the moral is; don’t dismiss Singer, and as I plan to argue further, supporting animal rights does not depend on one being a utilitarian.

Here is an excellent debate on one of Singers shocking positions.