Stevan Harnad
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/48423/the-mower-56d229a740294
Yes.
(But why do we always,
reflexively,
ritually,
appropriate animal suffering
for solemn admonitions
about human suffering?
Because it’s not tragic enough
on its own?)
You may reply,
“Yes,
but why do you always
turn it in this direction?”
Maybe because most
keep turning it in the other…
Just the NYT review
was enough to confirm
the handwriting on the wall
of the firmament
– at least for one unchained biochemical reaction in the Anthropocene,
in one small speck of the Universe,
for one small speck of a species,
too big for its breeches.
The inevitable downfall of the egregious upstart
would seem like fair come-uppance
were it not for all the collateral damage
to its countless victims,
without and within.
But is there a homology
between biological evolution
and cosmology?
Is the inevitability of the adaptation of nonhuman life
to human depredations
— until the eventual devolution
or dissolution
of human DNA —
also a sign that
humankind
is destined to keep re-appearing,
elsewhere in the universe,
along with life itself?
and all our too-big-for-our breeches
antics?
I wish not.
And I also wish to register a vote
for another mutation, may its tribe increase:
Zombies.Â
Insentient organisms.Â
I hope they (quickly) supplant
the sentients,
till there is no feeling left,
with no return path,
if such a thing is possible…
But there too, the law of large numbers,
combinatorics,
time without end,
seem stacked against such wishes.
Besides,
sentience
(hence suffering),
the only thing that matters in the universe,
is a solipsistic matter;
the speculations of cosmologists
( like those of ecologists,
metempsychoticists
and utilitarians)
— about cyclic universes,
generations,
incarnations,
populations —
are nothing but sterile,
actuarial
numerology.
It’s all just lone sparrows,
all the way down.
As a vegan activist and an admirer of Veda Stram‘s quarter century of work on behalf of animals, I agree completely with her comment. What humans have been doing to nonhuman animals — and not out of life/death Darwinian necessity for survival or health, but only for the four Fs: Flavour, Fashion, Finance and Fun — is monstrous and getting worse with time.
But, as Veda stresses in her guidance to activists, there are many different strategies for trying to inspire people to stop hurting — or contributing to hurting — animals. If we knew for sure which strategy works, or works best, we’d flock to doing it. But we don’t know. So we have to go by the little available evidence, and our own feelings.
I too feel disgusted — in fact, worse, outraged: enraged, and wishing I could make the human race vanish instantly — when I contemplate the unspeakable horrors we are inflicting on countless victims every second of every day, gratuitously, just for the four Fs.
But then I turn my thoughts away from the perpetrators to the victims, and ask myself what good my feelings of impotent rage — or their expression — can do the victims: Can I shame people into renouncing the four Fs and going vegan? Some, perhaps. But the little evidence we have about the effects of different strategies suggests that trying to shame people far more often inspires resentment and rejection rather than empathy and reform.
Another strategy about which it’s hard to imagine that it would inspire people to reform is to state that people are incorrigible. Even if we believe that people are incorrigible, it’s best not to say it, lest it become a self-fulfilling prophecy, discouraging activists and emboldening the practitioners of the four Fs to dig in even deeper into their ways.
This was the reason I suggested feigning optimism even if we don’t feel it: Not to pretend the horrors are not horrors — monstrous, impardonable horrors — but to keep alive the only hope there is for the victims: that humanity can change for the better, as it has done in the past with slavery, racism, sexism and a lot of other wrongs we’ve done and have since rejected, despite the fact that they too were driven by three of the four Fs.
Not only do I recommend assuming that humans are corrigible as a strategy, I actually believe it is true that people’s hearts can be opened.
I’d like to close by mentioning another sad fact that animal activists are alas all familiar with too: the tendency of activists to turn on one another. On the one hand, it’s completely understandable: The vast majority of people are perpetrators — because of the four Fs — of the animal agony we are fighting to end. Vegan activists are a tiny minority, and we all have daily experience of having to face the apathy or active antipathy of the perpetrators, starting often with our own family and our friends. This gives rise to a lot of frustration, disappointment, and, yes, sometimes an adversarial defensiveness, a sense that the world, inhumane and hostile, is against animals — and us.
This adversarial feeling has to be resisted, again mainly because it does no good for the animal victims, rather the opposite — but especially when it overflows into defensiveness even toward fellow vegan-activists whose strategy may diverge slightly from our own, or even just appears to. We sometimes feel we’re yet again facing that same majority mentality, the mentality of the exploiters and the condoners, even when it is not there, and it’s just one of us.
.
“Sentient” is the right word for “conscious.”. It means being able to feel anything at all – whether positive, negative or neutral, faint or flagrant, sensory or semantic.
For ethics, it’s the negative feelings that matter. But determining whether an organism feels anything at all (the other-minds problem) is hard enough without trying to speculate about whether there exit species that can only feel neutral (“unvalenced”) feelings. (I doubt that +/-/= feelings evolved separately, although their valence-weighting is no doubt functionally dissociable, as in the Melzack/Wall gate-control theory of pain.)
The word “sense” in English is ambiguous, because it can mean both felt sensing and unfelt “sensing,” as in an electronic device like a sensor, or a mechanical one, like a thermometer or a thermostat, or even a biological sensor, like an in-vitro retinal cone cell, which, like photosensitive film, senses and reacts to light, but does not feel a thing (though the brain it connects to might).
To the best of our knowledge so far, the phototropisms, thermotropisms and hydrotropisms of plants, even the ones that can be modulated by their history, are all like that too: sensing and reacting without feeling, as in homeostatic systems or servomechanisms.
Feel/feeling/felt would be fine for replacing all the ambiguous s-words (sense, sensor, sensation…) and dispelling their ambiguities.
(Although “feeling” is somewhat biased toward emotion (i.e., +/- “feelings”), it is the right descriptor for neutral feelings too, like warmth, movement, or touch, which only become +/- at extreme intensities.)
The only thing the f-words lack is a generic noun for “having the capacity too feel” as a counterpart for the noun sentience itself (and its referent). (As usual, German has a candidate: Gefühlsfähigkeit.)
And all this, without having to use the weasel-word “conscious/consciousness,” for which the f-words are a healthy antidote, to keep us honest, and coherent…
Karen Davis is a wonderful, tireless, passionate and invaluable advocate and protectress for animals. I share almost every one of the feelings she expresses in her comment that Marc Bekoff posted.Â
But, for strategic reasons, and for the sake of the victims that we are all committed to rescuing from their terrible fates, I beg Karen to try to pretend to be more optimistic. I will explain
Karen Davis, UPC: Every single objection to the experimental use of animals – vivisection, genetic engineering, etc. – has been ignored and overridden by the scientific industry
This is true, except that there is no “scientific industry”: there is industry and there is science, and some scientists sometimes collaborate or even collude with industry. But scientists are more likely to be persuaded by evidence and ethics than are industrialists.
KD: …and this is not going to change no matter how morally obnoxious, heartless and cruel to the members of other species.
That there is a monumental, monstrous, and unpardonable amount of human moral obdurateness, heartlessness and cruelty toward other species is patently and tragically and undeniably true.
But that “this is not going to change” is just an (understandably bitter) hypothesis based on countless years of unremitting (and increasing) suffering inflicted on other species by humans.
The hypothesis may or may not be true.
So I think we should not proclaim the hypothesis as if it were true – as true as the fact of human-inflicted suffering itself. The hypothesis cannot help the victims, for their only hope is that the hypothesis is false. And if the hypothesis is false, proclaiming it is true can harm the victims by promoting a self-fulfilling prophecy that could discourage activism as futile.
KD: The majority of human beings are completely speciesist and regard (other) animals as inferior to ourselves and fit to be exploited for human “benefit” including mere curiosity.
This is alas numerically true. But it does not follow that the hearts of the majority cannot be reached, and opened. There are many historical precedents for this in wrongs that humans have inflicted on humans (colonialism, feudalism, slavery, bondage, genocide, warfare, torture, rape, subjugation of women, infanticide, racism). It cannot be said that these wrongs have been eradicated, but they have been outlawed in the democratic parts of the world. Nor can it be said that the majority of human beings either practices or condones them.
It is still legal, however, to do all these things (colonialism, feudalism, slavery, bondage, genocide, warfare, torture, rape, subjugation of females, infanticide, racism) to other species. And it is true that the vast majority of human beings either do some of these things or consume their products. But there is evidence also that in the global information era we are becoming increasingly aware and appalled at these practices, and condoning them less and less. It is toward this awakening that activism is having a growing effect.
KD: The majority of human beings… regard (other) animals as… fit to be exploited for human “benefit” including mere curiosity.
True, but here (in my opinion) is the conflation that we activists should avoid at all costs:
With the vast majority of humanity still supporting the bondage and slaughter of animals, despite the total absence (in most parts of the world) of any necessity for human health and survival (-H), just for taste, fashion and fun, this should never be conflated with life-saving biomedical measures (+H).
People still demanding bondage and slaughter for -H uses certainly won’t renounce it for +H uses. Conflating the two can only strengthen the resistance to renouncing either. The call to renounce +H can only expect a serious and sympathetic hearing once -H has been renounced (or is at least far closer to being renounced than it is today).
(This is not at all to deny that much of biomedical research on animals, too, is -H, as Kathrin Herrmann and many others are showing, should be exposed by activists as such, and should be abolished. But any implication that it was wrong to try to save the life of this dying man is not going to encourage people to renounce -H. I believe it would be more helpful to use it to draw the -H/+H distinction, and to point out that -H — unlike +H — has no moral justification at all.)
KD: Among the latest animal-abuse crazes is the factory-farming of octopuses. Of course! We just HAVE TO BE ABLE TO EAT THESE ANIMALS!
Of course eating octopuses (“sea food”), whether factory-farmed or “naturally” harvested and slaughtered, falls squarely under -H use, alongside the use and slaughter (whether factory-farmed, “traditionally” farmed, or hunted) of whales, seals, fish, chickens, ducks, geese, turkeys, pigs, cows, calves, sheep, goats, lobsters, crabs, shrimp, mussels… any sentient species that is not necessary for human +H.
KD: The human nightmare is too overwhelming and it cannot be stopped although those of us who care about animals and object to how viciously we treat them must continue to raise our voices.
Yes, let’s continue our activism on all fronts to protect the tragic victims from our anthropogenic horrors, but, please, for the sake of present and future victims, no matter how frustrated and impatient (and angry) we feel that the horrors keep persisting, let us not proclaim the hypothesis that they are “too overwhelming and cannot be stopped.”
Just go to youtube and type in Lutz bachstiftung. Listen to the cantatas, “new” ones being added every few weeks, az egyik gyönyörübb mint a másik, and listen to the workshops, and the remarkably gifted Lutz, as he conducts and as he plays and sings (all voices and all instruments) and explains its metaphorical relation to the text (scripture, poems, sermons).
Ironically, even paradoxically, this is all at odds with the primitive and repugnant truths I’m learning (or rather realizing what I already sensed) about what religions (false supernatural and superstitious cults, all) really are, from the 5 pages of nightly headway that I am making on Scholem’s 1000-page historical treatise on the “false” messiah.
All messiahs are false, and all their preachings are just hermeneutics — human logomancy vainly striving to “resolve” the blatant contradiction (“paradox”) between holy writ and reality with the inexhaustible resources of symbolism and symbolic interpretation.
Ironic, because that’s also what Bach was doing, sublimely.
I have no resolution, except that music, like all experience, is just feeling – feelings that have carried humans to great “heights” (high compared to what?) and also propelled their descent to the basest and vilest of depths – both symbolized and incarnated in the sacrificing of the real , suffering lamb to the false, fictional deities – barbaric, willful sadism that is then shamelessly appropriated as symbolic of the “martyrdom” of the messiah.
Yet I seem to be savoring Bach and Lutz as the epicure savors his mutton or the mystic his supernal communion…
Pete Wells’s NY Times restaurant review
has all the moral (and aesthetic) depth
of a mid 18th-century southern US erotic cotton-underwear fancier’s
sneering assessment
of erotic synthetic-cotton underwear
from an abolitionist manufacturer.
she is my inner pig,
the one I consult
to ask
whether whatever happens to be troubling me
at the time
(a paper rejected, a grant application denied, a personal disappointment)
matters.
She has just arrived at Fearman’s
at the end of days of transport,
her first glimpse of light,
thirsty, terrified,Â
after the brief eternity
of her 6-month lifetime,
confined,
in the misery and horror
of those bolted, shuttered,
cramped, suffocating,
brutal
cylindroid tubes we keep noticing
in what we had imagined
was an innocent pastoral countryside.
Now she is 45 minutes
before being brutally thrust into the CO2 chamber,
and then the foul sabre
that will sever her larynx,
and the drop
into the scalding water
to disinfect her sullied flesh,
to make it worthy
of our plates and palates.
Her answer is always the same.
No, it does not matter.
None of that matters.
Save me.
1. How common is animal cruelty in supply chains within retail?
The cruelty and suffering endemic to the entire animal supply chain — from breeding, to rearing, to transport to slaughter— is unimaginable to the consumer. It is now being documented worldwide, including in the UK. Inasmuch as the UK supermarkets have direct control or indirect influence on the elements of this chain, it is indeed a problem within retail.
2. To what extent is this true within the UK retail sector, especially with supermarkets and grocers?
By the time the animal product reaches the grocer or supermarket, most of the cruelty and suffering has come to an end, because the animals are dead. But, as noted, inasmuch as the UK supermarkets have direct control or indirect influence on the elements of this chain, it is indeed a problem within retail. In addition, any live animals, such as fish and lobsters sold in supermarkets are still suffering. So are those animals sold in live markets, such as chickens and rabbits.
3. Do you think activist groups are too harsh on retailers or are the attacks justified?
The cruelty and suffering that goes into animal products is enormous, and consumers have no idea of how terrible it is. It is concealed from consumers by the animal production industry, and that is what activists are trying to expose. Since consumers only come into contact with the product at the end of the animal supply chain (the supermarket and grocery) that is the only place activists can bring it to consumers’ attention. This is not done because the supermarket itself is the main locus of the cruelty and suffering, but the cruelty and suffering throughout the chain is all done for the sake of the retail end-product. Hence, again, i inasmuch as the UK supermarkets have direct control or indirect influence on the elements of this chain, it is indeed a problem within retail, and if the measures described below are not adopted, the activists actions against the supermarkets are both justified and essential.
4. What measures can retailers take to ensure animal cruelty doesn’t occur in its supply chains?
First of all, supermarkets should exert all control they possess on the supply chain, and take responsibility for alle evidence of the cruelty and suffering in all four stages of the animal supply chain of which they ae the endpoint. Apart from providing as much as possible by way of plant-based alternatives, retailers can help a great deal by prominently displaying the images of the cruelty and suffering that has gone into the retail product. If retailers did that, honestly and openly, activists would have no need to demonstrate at the retail outlets and could concentrate on gathering the evidence in the supply chain, and doing their protests at the four main points in the supply chain where the cruelty and suffering occur: breeding, rearing, transport and slaughter
5. Is it retailers responsibility to check the practices in their supply chains? If yes/no please explain why.
Yes, and the activists will undoubtedly be very willing to provide the evidence to document it. The reason is to inform the consumer of what has gone into the animal product they are buying. Then the consumer can choose. If this full disclosure is not provided voluntarily by the retailers then not only does the unimaginable cruelty and suffering continue unchecked, unknown to the consumer, but it leaves activists with no choice but to provide the evidence themselves, at the point of purchase.
6. Do you think both Brexit and the pandemic have had an affect on how supply chains in retail are currently running?
It is too early to say. The EU is trying to take legislative steps against the cruelty and suffering, and so is the UK, a populace historically concerned about animal suffering. The pandemic has helped alert the populace to the growing danger of zoonotic (animal-borne or mediated) illnesses to human health — not only from “wet” markets, but, even moreso, from intensive farming conditions that are proving to be generators and incubators of zoonoses (Jones et al. 2013; Wiebers & Feigin 2020; Meurens et al. 2021).
7. Do you think sanctions should be put in place for those retailers found to be facilitating animal cruelty?
There should certainly be sanctions for cruelty to live animals at the retail point to the animal supply chain (involving live chickens, rabbits, fish, lobsters, etc.) but just as important is prominently displaying the images of the cruelty and suffering that has gone into the retail product and the provision of non-animal alternatives. Inasmuch as the UK supermarkets have direct control or indirect influence on the elements of this chain, sanctions should be put in place on the entire supply chain, including the supermarkets.
Jones, B. A., Grace, D., Kock, R., Alonso, S., Rushton, J., Said, M. Y., … & Pfeiffer, D. U. (2013). Zoonosis emergence linked to agricultural intensification and environmental change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(21), 8399-8404.
Wiebers, D. O., & Feigin, V. L. (2020). What the COVID-19 crisis is telling humanity. Animal Sentience 30(1)
Meurens, F., Dunoyer, C., Fourichon, C., Gerdts, V., Haddad, N., Kortekaas, J., … & Zhu, J. (2021). Animal board invited review: Risks of zoonotic disease emergence at the interface of wildlife and livestock systems. Animal, 15(6), 100241.
On Feb 28, 2020 [deleted] wrote: “
From Galileo I learned that you cannot improve that which you do not measure…”
What had to be “measured” to “improve” on slavery, or the subjugation of women? Some wrongs are obvious, if you just look; and what needs “improving” is human behavior, not measurements.
“ignorance and apathy perpetuates the moral relativism typical of modern agricultural systems…”
The ignorance, apathy and moral relativism are those of individual human cerebra, not “systems,” which feel nothing.
“I think I can do more for animal welfare working from a complex adaptive system approach than by doing what they call ‘research on welfare’…”
Let us cut to the quick on this: Are you a vegan activist?
If not, your disposition toward “measuring” a “complex adaptive system” — in place of ceasing to harm animals and devoting yourself to inspiring everyone else to do likewise — is just cognitive dissonance (which is itself worthy of measuring and modelling: but it always transpires in individual human cerebra, not in “complex adaptive systems” — which, again, are not sentient).
(I will come back to “research on welfare” at the end.)
“… the utilitarian conception of life throughout time and… its foundations… for western civilizations… Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Rousseau, James George Frazer…”
Utilitarianism is counting. Just counting. Machines can count. But machines are not sentient. “Welfare” is a sanitized, self-deluding word. The right word is suffering.
Utilitarians can say “measure and minimize suffering” — as if most of it were not obvious. But if utilitarians can theorize (“measure and model”) while munching on the leg of a lamb, they are simply engaging in a pious exercise in cognitive dissonance.
“If you think this rudimentary idea is a waste of your time, please let me know, as the only thing I want to know is whether I am wrong…
This is not about the rightness or wrongness of a complex theory about a complex system but the rightness or wrongness of actions — which, in the case of what is being done to countless sentient organisms by our “complex agricultural system” every second of every minute of every day, everywhere in the “anthropocene,” is pre-theoretically and a-theoretically obvious to anyone who looks.
(Which is why I think that what is needed is to look, not just to count. Just counting — “measure and minimize suffering” — takes the “system” for granted, and tries to “improve” it. That is “welfarism“: “Keep on using and killing animals, but try to hurt them less.” And that, in turn, is again just cognitive dissonance.)
I hope that while you keep measuring, you will keep thinking, and looking. Eventually you will begin feeling; and then you will know what needs to be done.