Righton on Towards Freedom

New Approach Methodologies

Tue, 24 Mar 2026 15:24:28 -0700

This is a webpage compiled from comprehensive reports by Perplexity, Gemini, Mistral AIs, as well as a NAM summary by Dr. Zheng Tan on validated medical developments as of <2026-03-24 Tue>.

Preamble

The discovery items have been compiled and organized by Mistral AI into 7 themes:

AI-Driven Drug Discovery & Repurposing
Organ-on-a-Chip & Microphysiological Systems
Human Organoids & Organoid-Based Models
In Silico Modeling, PBPK, and Computational Methods
High-Throughput & Omics-Based Approaches
Toxicology & Safety Assessment via NAMs
Regulatory & Industry Adoption of NAMs

Each item is presented in a consistent format:
Discovery
Validation
Impact
References

A summary table and conclusion are provided at the end of this webpage.Please note that the term NAM is used to cover a wide range of items including those that can be said to be NAM-enabling.

Here are the AI reports:
NAM-gemini.pdf
NAM-mistral.pdf
NAM-perplexity.pdf

Here is the NAM summary document kindly created by Dr. Zheng Tan which contains additional insights for several items such as:
Development Team
Country
Significance of NAM discovery

The graphic was generated by Mistral and represents a microscopic view of organoid and NAM technology.

Introduction

New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) represent a paradigm shift in biomedical research and drug development, replacing or supplementing traditional animal testing with human-relevant, in vitro, in silico, and in chemico technologies. This report synthesizes peer-reviewed, validated medical discoveries enabled by NAMs, organized thematically to highlight their scientific, clinical, and regulatory impact.

1. AI-Driven Drug Discovery & Repurposing

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are revolutionizing drug discovery by analyzing vast datasets to identify novel drug candidates, predict drug responses, and repurpose existing drugs for new therapeutic uses. This section highlights groundbreaking discoveries where AI-driven approaches have accelerated drug development timelines, reduced reliance on animal testing, and provided actionable insights for treating complex diseases such as COVID-19, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, and neurodegenerative disorders.

1.1 AI-Powered Drug Repurposing for COVID-19

Discovery: The JAK inhibitor baricitinib (originally approved for rheumatoid arthritis) was identified as a potential COVID-19 therapy using an AI-driven in silico NAM. The model predicted its ability to block SARS-CoV-2 infection and modulate cytokine signaling pathways.
Validation: Subsequent clinical trials confirmed that baricitinib, when added to standard care, reduced mortality and improved outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
Impact: Demonstrated the power of AI-driven drug repurposing for pandemic response.
References: Can New Approach Methodologies De-Risk Drug Development?

1.2 AI-Designed Novel Drug Candidate for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis

Discovery: Insilico Medicine’s AI platform designed a novel drug candidate for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in just 18 months, integrating multimodal omics data (single-cell transcriptomics, proteomics) with deep generative models and graph neural networks.
Validation: The candidate advanced to Phase II clinical trials, showcasing AI’s ability to accelerate drug discovery timelines.
Impact: Reduced reliance on animal testing and shortened the drug development pipeline.
References: From AI-Assisted In Silico Computational Design to Preclinical In Vivo Models

1.3 Topiramate for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD)

Discovery: Transcriptomic reversal scoring and network pharmacology identified topiramate as a candidate for IBD by predicting its ability to reverse disease-specific expression profiles.
Validation: Further preclinical and clinical studies are ongoing to validate its efficacy.
Impact: Demonstrated the potential of AI-driven repurposing for complex diseases.
References: From Lab to Clinic: Success Stories of Repurposed Drugs in Treating Major Diseases

1.4 Drug Repurposing for Neurodegenerative Disorders

Discovery: High-throughput screening (HTS) identified compounds capable of disrupting 14-3-3 protein interactions, offering potential treatments for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS).
Validation: AI integrating advanced computational techniques is overcoming the limitations of conventional HTS which are primarily huge volume of compounds and bio-interaction complexities.
Impact: Provided new therapeutic avenues for neurodegenerative diseases with unmet medical needs.
References: AI-driven High Throughput Screening for Targeted Drug Discovery, How AI Contributes to make High-Throughput Screening more Efficient, [New Approach Methodologies Facilitating Drug Discovery](https://www.biotechniques.com/drug-discovery-development/if-sart-nams-an-e xciting-era-for-drug-discovery_sartorius/)

1.5 CoreFinder: AI-Driven Discovery of Biosynthetic Gene Clusters

Discovery: The CoreFinder system, a transformer-based model, predicted biosynthetic gene cluster (BGC) functions in fungi, uncovering novel BGCs validated through in vitro fermentation and LC-MS analysis.
Validation: Demonstrated the ability of AI to drive valid scientific discoveries independently of traditional experimental paradigms.
Impact: Unlocked new biosynthetic pathways for pharmaceutical advancement.
References: Deciphering Biosynthetic Gene Clusters with a Context-aware Protein Language Model

1.6 Disrupting TSLP Signaling as a Treatment for Atopic Diseases

Discovery: Identified putative small molecule inhibitors that disrupt TSLP–TSLP receptor interactions.
Validation: Demonstrated efficacy in human cell assays using in vitro human cell-based drug screening for atopic diseases (e.g., atopic dermatitis, asthma), leading to novel treatment options.
Impact: Provides a human-relevant alternative to animal models for drug discovery in inflammatory skin diseases.
References: Disrupting TSLP-TSLP receptor interactions via putative small molecule inhibitors yields a novel and efficient treatment option for atopic diseases

2. Organ-on-a-Chip & Microphysiological Systems

Organ-on-a-chip and microphysiological systems replicate the dynamic, multi-cellular environments of human organs in microfluidic devices, enabling high-fidelity studies of drug effects, disease mechanisms, and toxicity. By mimicking tissue-tissue interfaces, fluid flow, and mechanical forces, these platforms offer human-relevant alternatives to traditional animal models, driving advances in personalized medicine and regulatory-approved drug development tools.

2.1 Emulate Liver-on-a-Chip Identifies Hepatotoxicity

Discovery: The Emulate liver-on-a-chip model correctly identified hepatotoxicity in 87% of drugs that had tested as safe in animal models but were later found toxic in humans (see Performance assessment link below).
Validation: The platform recapitulated human-specific metabolic dynamics, including albumin secretion and mechanical stimuli in the extracellular matrix.
Impact: Highlighted the superiority of human-relevant microphysiological systems over animal models for predicting drug-induced liver injury (DILI).
References: Tumor organoids for cancer research and personalized medicine, Performance assessment and economic analysis of a human Liver-Chip for predictive toxicology, What are NAMs?

2.2 Acetaminophen (Tylenol) Toxicity Mechanism

Discovery: Liver-on-a-chip technology (see 2.1) equipped with nanotechnology-based optoelectronic sensors identified that acetaminophen blocks cellular respiration in minutes at much lower doses than previously believed, revealing an ultra‑rapid mitochondrial respiration impairment component not captured in legacy in vivo studies.
Validation: Sensors placed inside the bionic tissue detected rapid changes in oxygen uptake at much lower doses than previously believed from decades of animal research.
Impact: Provides a human-specific explanation for rare off-target effects and skin reactions that traditional animal models failed to capture, transforming safety protocols for one of the world’s most common medications.
References: Hepatotoxic assessment in a microphysiological system, What are NAMs?

2.3 Lung-on-a-Chip for Antiviral Efficacy

Discovery: A human lung-on-a-chip system (Emulate Bio) tested RNA-based antiviral therapies for influenza, showing significant reduction in viral replication and inflammatory responses with minimal off-target toxicity.
Validation: Demonstrated efficacy and safety under physiologically relevant conditions (air-liquid interface, dynamic flow).
Impact: Provided a human-relevant platform for antiviral drug testing, overcoming limitations of static cultures and animal models.
References: Lung-On-A-Chip Technologies for Disease Modeling and Drug Development, Human Lung-on-a-Chip Model Demonstrates Potential for Testing Preclinical Influenza Therapeutics, Revolutionizing respiratory health research

2.4 Lung-on-a-Chip for Tumor Heterogeneity & Drug Resistance

Discovery: Microfluidic lung-on-a-chip platforms modeled lung cancer microenvironments, enabling Label-free real-time classification of tumor cells at 10,000 cells/second as well as tracking of drug-resistant subpopulations (e.g., EGFR T790M mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer).
Validation: Demonstrated the ability to observe tumor heterogeneity and resistance dynamics in a human-relevant system.
Impact: Accelerated the development of targeted therapies and personalized treatment strategies.
References: Progress and application of lung-on-a-chip for lung cancer, The potential of lung-on-a-chip as an alternative to animal testing, Microfluidic lung cancer models: Bridging clinical treatment strategies and tumor microenvironment recapitulation

2.5 Liver and Skin Organ-on-a-Chip for PK-PD Studies

Discovery: The HUMIMIC Chip2 integrated liver spheroids and skin models to study pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) relationships under chemical exposure.
Validation: Demonstrated the platform’s utility for quantifying drug metabolism and toxicity in a human-relevant, multi-organ context.
Impact: Supported regulatory acceptance of organ-on-a-chip technologies as drug development tools.
References: Organ-on-a-chip meets artificial intelligence in drug evaluation, Organs-on-Chips in Drug Development: Engineering Foundations, Artificial Intelligence, and Clinical Translation

2.6 ALS Pathogenesis and Early Biomarkers

Discovery: Human spinal cord organ-chips integrated with vascular interfaces modeled early sporadic Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), uncovering neurofilament dysregulation and synaptic signaling defects.
Validation: Multi-omics analysis confirmed these molecular changes occur before overt neuron loss, mirroring clinical biomarkers that are difficult to detect in animal models.
Impact: Offers a human-relevant platform to study early disease progression and identify therapeutic targets before irreversible nerve damage occurs.
References: Organ-Chip ALS Model Uses Patient iPSCs to Uncover Early Disease Progression, An organ-chip model of sporadic ALS using iPSC

2.7 GABAergic Signaling in Cancer Invasion

Discovery: Patient-derived tumor organ-chips proved that tumor-derived GABA acts as a marker of poor prognosis and directly promotes invasion in metastatic colorectal cancer.
Validation: Interrogating the underlying biology on-chip demonstrated that inhibiting GABA synthesis significantly reduced invasive behavior, capturing patient-specific heterogeneity more faithfully than static cultures.
Impact: Establishes a new therapeutic target for colorectal cancer and validates the ability of organ-chips to replicate the complex tumor microenvironment.
References: GABAergic signaling contributes to tumor cell invasion and poor overall survival in colorectal cancer

2.8 Cervical Protective Role in Dysbiosis

Discovery: Linked Cervix and Vagina Organ-Chips demonstrated that cervical mucus actively modulates vaginal inflammation and protects the epithelium from injury during dysbiosis.
Validation: Exposure to cervix-derived mucus on-chip reduced inflammatory responses and altered protein expression profiles, identifying potential new biomarkers for bacterial vaginosis.
Impact: Uncovers human-specific protective mechanisms that cannot be studied in animal models, facilitating the discovery of new feminine health therapeutics.
References: Cervical mucus in linked human Cervix and Vagina Chips modulates vaginal dysbiosis

2.9 Lung-on-a-Chip Replicates Human Lung Disease and Drug Responses

Discovery: Microfluidic chips lined with human lung cells modeled pulmonary edema, COPD, and drug toxicity.
Validation: Demonstrating superior predictive value over animal models for lung disease and toxicity, it is recognized by the FDA as a valid testing platform for specific drug submissions.
Impact: Enabled more accurate modeling of human lung responses to drugs and diseases.
References: Reconstituting Organ-Level Lung Functions on a Chip, A Human Disease Model of Drug Toxicity–Induced Pulmonary Edema in a Lung-on-a-Chip Microdevice

2.10 Human Skin-Lymphoreticular Model-on-Chip for Inflammatory Skin Diseases

Discovery: Developed a human-based skin-lymphoreticular model-on-chip emulating inflammatory skin conditions capturing immune-skin interactions on a chip platform.
Validation: Demonstrated utility for studying atopic dermatitis and related diseases.
Impact: Eliminates the need for animal models in studying inflammatory skin diseases.
References: A Human‐Based Skin‐Lymphoreticular Model‐on‐Chip to Emulate Inflammatory Skin Conditions

3. Human Organoids & Organoid-Based Models

Human organoids are three-dimensional, self-organizing cultures derived from stem cells that recapitulate the structure and function of human organs. This section showcases how organoids are transforming disease modeling, drug screening, and gene therapy development, enabling precision medicine approaches for conditions like cystic fibrosis, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and cancer.

3.1 Forskolin-Induced Swelling (FIS) Assay for Cystic Fibrosis

Discovery: Patient-derived intestinal organoids from Cystic Fibrosis (CF) patients were used in the Forskolin-induced Swelling (FIS) assay to test CFTR-modulator drugs.
Validation: The assay accurately predicted clinical trial responses for individual patients, including rare genotypes.
Impact: Enabled tailored therapeutic strategies, significantly increasing life expectancy for CF patients.
References: Towards diagnostic and personalized models using organoids, NAMs: an exciting era for drug discovery

3.2 Patient-Derived Organoids for Gene Therapy in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD)

Discovery: A breakthrough workflow converted cryopreserved peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) and then into cardiac organoids within three weeks, correcting unique splicing defects in DMD patients.
Validation: Custom ASOs restored dystrophin expression and improved calcium transients in cardiac organoids.
Impact: Provided a scalable, cost-effective alternative to animal models for developing personalized gene therapies.
References: Patient-Derived Organoids for Gene Therapy Development

3.3 Patient-Derived Organoids for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (OPTIC Trial)

Discovery: The OPTIC trial validated the predictive power of patient-derived organoids (PDOs) for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and the PDO response correlated with radiological tumor response and clinical survival outcomes, particularly for oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy.
Validation: Demonstrated 83.3% accuracy in predicting patient survival and tumor response.
Impact: Enabled early identification of ineffective therapies, minimizing patient exposure to toxicity and optimizing treatment selection.
References: Patient-Derived Organoids Predict Treatment Response in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

3.4 Organoid Immune Co-Culture Models for Cancer Vaccines

Discovery: Tumor organoids co-cultured with autologous peripheral blood lymphocytes simulated the tumor immune microenvironment (TIME), assessing individual responses to checkpoint inhibitors and CAR-T cell therapies.
Validation: Identified tumor-specific antigens with high immunogenicity, enabling the design of personalized cancer vaccines.
Impact: Revolutionized immunotherapy development by capturing spatial organization and immune dynamics.
References: From petri dish to patient care: organoids bring personalised cancer therapy closer

3.5 Kidney Assembloids for Polycystic Kidney Disease (PKD)

Discovery: Researchers generated the most complex kidney structures to date—assembloids combining filtering nephrons with urine-concentrating collecting ducts.
Validation: Assembloids recapitulated key features of PKD, including inflammation and fibrosis, previously irreproducible in animal models.
Impact: Opened new avenues for studying chronic kidney disease and predicting drug-induced nephrotoxicity.
References: Researchers develop most advanced kidney organoid yet for disease modeling and drug discovery

3.6 Miller-Dieker Syndrome (MDS) Root Cause

Discovery: Human brain organoids derived from MDS patient cells identified the root cause of Miller-Dieker Syndrome as early neural stem cell death and severe division defects in “outer radial glia”.
Validation: Time-lapse imaging of patient-derived organoids showed that these specific glia cells—which are entirely absent in mouse models—failed to divide properly.
Impact: Solves a long-standing mystery in rare neurodevelopmental disease that was impossible to investigate using traditional rodent models and proves that patient-derived organoids can bridge the gap between animal models and human pathophysiology.
References: An Organoid-Based Model of Cortical Development Identifies Non-Cell-Autonomous Defects in Wnt Signaling Contributing to Miller-Dieker Syndrome, Cerebral organoids expressing mutant actin genes reveal cellular mechanism underlying microcephaly

3.7 IGF-1 Dependency in Lung Cancer Subtypes

Discovery: A comprehensive library of 40 SCLC organoid lines revealed that non-neuroendocrine small cell lung cancer (SCLC) depends on the insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) signaling axis for growth.
Validation: Genetic ablation of TP53 and RB1 in human alveolar organoids replicated this dependency, and IGF1R inhibitors were shown to effectively suppress growth in patient-derived models.
Impact: Identifies IGF1R inhibition as a promising new therapeutic strategy for a specific, treatment-resistant patient population.
References: An organoid library unveils subtype-specific IGF-1 dependency via a YAP–AP1 axis in human small cell lung cancer

3.8 Intestinal Organoids Reveal Stem Cell Biology and Disease Mechanisms

Discovery: Developed the first human intestinal organoids from adult stem cells, enabling study of gut disease, cancer, and drug responses in human tissue.
Validation: Extended to liver, kidney, brain, and retinal organoids worldwide.
Impact: Foundational technology for human organoid research.
References: Single Lgr5 stem cells build crypt-villus structures in vitro without a mesenchymal niche

3.9 Brain Organoids Model Microcephaly Caused by Zika Virus

Discovery: Human brain organoids demonstrated Zika virus infection of neural progenitor cells, modeling microcephaly-like features in human tissue.
Validation: Human-specific features of microcephaly were captured by the organoids which mouse models had been unable to fully recapitulate.
Impact: Provided human-specific insights into Zika virus pathology.
References: [Qian et al., Cell 2016; Garcez et al., Science 2016] Brain-Region-Specific Organoids Using Mini-bioreactors for Modeling ZIKV Exposure, Zika virus tested in human brain organoids

4. In Silico Modeling, PBPK, and Computational Methods

In silico modeling—including Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models and digital twins—simulates drug behavior in the human body, enabling virtual clinical trials and predictive toxicology. By integrating computational methods with biological data, these approaches reduce reliance on animal testing, optimize dosing regimens, and accelerate the development of safe and effective therapies.

4.1 Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Modeling

Discovery: PBPK models integrate in vitro data on absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) with physiological parameters to predict internal human exposure.
Validation: Correctly estimated systemic exposure of caffeine and coumarin in different product types, demonstrating that model-informed approaches can replace in vivo toxicokinetics.
Impact: Enabled virtual clinical trials and optimized dosing regimens without animal testing.
References: Advancing drug development with “Fit-for-Purpose” modeling informed approaches, SCCS Notes of guidance for the testing of cosmetic ingredients and their safety evaluation, The margin of internal exposure (MOIE) concept for dermal risk assessment based on oral toxicity data - A case study with caffeine, AI-driven virtual cell models in preclinical research, Organs-on-Chips in Drug Development: Engineering Foundations, Artificial Intelligence, and Clinical Translation

4.2 Bioequivalence Bridging for Tofacitinib

Discovery: Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD see 4.1) modeling was used to bridge the immediate-release formulation of tofacitinib to a new extended-release version for ulcerative colitis.
Validation: The computational model successfully established bioequivalence, satisfying regulatory safety and efficacy requirements.
Impact: Supported FDA approval avoiding new Phase 3 clinical trials, significantly accelerating patient access to the new formulation.
References: Integrating Clinical Variability into PBPK Models for Virtual Bioequivalence of Single and Multiple Doses of Tofacitinib Modified-Release Dosage Form, Virtual Bioequivalence Assessment of Tofacitinib Once Daily Modified Release Dosage Form in Pediatric Subjects

4.3 Digital Twins for Clinical Trial Simulation

Discovery: Digital twins are virtual representations of individuals integrating clinical, genetic, and environmental data—promise to revolutionize clinical trial design.
Validation: Simulation of treatment strategies before patient enrollment, reducing risks and costs.
Impact: Could eliminate the need for many traditional clinical trials by predicting patient-specific responses.
References: Increasing acceptance of AI‐generated digital twins through clinical trial applications, The Use of Digital Healthcare Twins in Early-Phase Clinical Trials: Opportunities, Challenges, and Applications, Enhancing randomized clinical trials with digital twins, What are NAMs?

4.4 Quantitative Systems Pharmacology (QSP) Models

Discovery: QSP models combine mechanical simulations of physiology with molecular signaling pathways to predict immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics of complex biologics (e.g., monoclonal antibodies).
Validation: FDA highlighted QSP as a tool to reduce reliance on animal testing for “what-if” scenarios.
Impact: Accelerated the development of biologics and personalized medicine.
References: FDA animal testing phaseout urges AI-based trial alternatives, organoids, other “NAMs”, Beyond lab animals

4.5 AlphaFold Predicts Protein Structures

Discovery: AI-based prediction of protein 3D structures from amino acid sequences transformed structural biology and drug target identification supporting NAM workflows.
Validation: Open-access database covers over 200 million predicted structures with atomic accuracy even when similar architectures had not been previously discovered through animal research.
Impact: Provides data previously requiring years of laboratory work.
References: Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold

5. High-Throughput & Omics-Based Approaches

High-throughput technologies such as CRISPR screens, single-cell RNA sequencing, and multi-omics integration enable rapid identification and validation of drug targets, disease mechanisms, and toxicity pathways. This section highlights how omics-based NAMs are reshaping mechanistic understanding and accelerating the discovery of novel therapies for diseases with high unmet medical needs.

5.1 Tox21 Consortium: High-Throughput Chemical Screening

Discovery: The Tox21 federal collaboration uses robotic high-throughput screening (HTS) to evaluate thousands of chemicals simultaneously, generating millions of data points on biological pathways, developing an 18-assay battery for the estrogen receptor (ER) pathway, identifying endocrine-disrupting compounds without animal testing.
Validation: EPA formally accepted this computational model as an alternative to traditional rodent assays.
Impact: Marked the first regulatory prioritization of robotically derived molecular data over animal testing.
References: Tox21: Chemical testing in the 21st century, United States Federal Government TOX21 Collaboration, About Tox21

5.2 Multi-Omics Integration for Toxicity Pathways

Discovery: Integrative NAMs combining genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics revealed novel: Oxidative stress pathways, Mitochondrial dysfunction signatures, and Immune-modulating pathways.
Validation: Omics-based NAMs distinguished adaptive from adverse responses and generated candidate biomarkers for early detection.
Impact: Reshaped mechanistic understanding of chemical toxicity.
References: Multi-omics integration analysis, The future of pharmaceuticals: Artificial intelligence in drug discovery and development, Skin Sensitisation Case Study, Prospects and challenges of multi-omics data integration in toxicology

5.3 CRISPR Screens for Drug Target Validation

Discovery: CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing and single-cell RNA sequencing enabled rapid identification and validation of drug targets, verifying AI-predicted targets for cancer and neurodegenerative diseases.
Validation: Accelerated the discovery of novel treatments by linking gene perturbations to therapeutic efficacy.
Impact: Reduced reliance on animal models for target validation.
References: CRISPR Cas9 Gene Editing, CRISPR-Cas9 in Functional Genomics: Implications for Target Validation in Precision Oncology, Target Validation with CRISPR, The future of pharmaceuticals: Artificial intelligence in drug discovery and development

5.4 AOP-Linked In Vitro Screens for Seizure Liability

Discovery: A government-industry collaboration mapped mechanisms leading to drug-induced seizures using adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) and in vitro assays.
Validation: Identified 27 biological target families linked to seizure mechanisms and developed 100+ assay endpoints.
Impact: Enabled systematic, mechanism-focused screening for pro-convulsant risk early in development. Replaces animal models which fail to predict drug-induced seizures.
References: De-risking seizure liability, Can New Approach Methodologies De-Risk Drug Development?, iPSC derived cardiomyocytes for cardiac toxicity assessment

6. Toxicology & Safety Assessment via NAMs

NAMs are transforming toxicology and safety assessment by providing human-relevant models for predicting compound toxicity, skin sensitization, endocrine disruption, and mixture toxicology. This section explores how regulatory agencies and industries are adopting these methods to improve chemical risk assessment and reduce reliance on animal testing.

6.1 Endocrine Disruption Assessment (Tox21 ER Model)

Discovery: The Tox21 ER pathway battery identified compounds interfering with human hormones using robot-based results.
Validation: EPA accepted this computational model as an alternative to rodent uterotrophic assays.
Impact: Provides an accepted non-animal alternative for testing in hazard identification for endocrine disruptors.
References: Toxic Alerts of Endocrine Disruption Revealed by Explainable Artificial Intelligence, Tox21: Chemical testing in the 21st century, Use of New Approach Methodologies

6.2 Skin Sensitization Hazard & Potency Prediction

Discovery: The OECD TG 497 “Defined Approaches” guideline combined multiple NAMs specifically Peptide reactivity assays (DPRA), Keratinocyte activation (KeratinoSens), Dendritic-cell activation (h-CLAT), and In silico models.
Validation: Correctly classified skin sensitization hazard and potency for chemicals, including those not previously tested in animals, with performance equal to or better than mouse assays.
Impact: Established a regulatory framework for animal-free safety testing of skin sensitizers.
References: Skin Sensitisation Case Study: Comparison of Defined Approaches including OECD 497 Guidance, Advancing Skin Sensitization Potency Categorization Using U-SENS™ in OECD TG 497, Standardisation and international adoption of defined approaches for skin sensitisation, Evaluating the ability of defined approaches to predict the human skin sensitisation potential of chemicals previously untested in new approach methodologies, Case Study on the Use of Integrated Approaches for Testing and Assessment for skin sensitisation

6.3 Bioactivity-Exposure Ratio (BER) for PFAS Risk Assessment

Discovery: For emerging PFAS compounds, regulators used in vitro assays to calculate human equivalent doses (HED) and derive a Bioactivity-Exposure Ratio (BER).
Validation: BER served as a protective surrogate in the absence of traditional animal data.
Impact: Enabled risk-based prioritization of chemicals based on biological perturbation likelihood.
References: S13-02 NAMs to investigate chemical-induced immunotoxicity: the cases of PFAS and BPA analogs, [Use of new approach methods (NAMs) in risk assessment](https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/chemical-substances/fact-she ets/use-new-approach-methods-risk-assessment.html), Sensitivity Analysis of the Inputs for Bioactivity-Exposure Ratio Calculations in a NAM-Based Systemic Safety Toolbox

6.4 Mixture Toxicology via NAMs

Discovery: NAM-based defined approaches (originally for individual substances) were extended to complex mixtures (e.g., pesticide formulations).
Validation: Demonstrated that panels of in chemico, in vitro, and in silico assays could identify and rank sensitization potential of formulations.
Impact: Advanced the understanding of combined exposure effects without animal testing.
References: iPSC derived cardiomyocytes for cardiac toxicity assessment, Case Study on the Use of Integrated Approaches for Testing and Assessment for skin sensitisation of Diethanolamine, Chemical testing using new approach methodologies

6.5 Reconstructed Human Skin Models Replace Animal Testing for Cosmetics and Chemicals

Discovery: Validated by OECD and regulatory agencies as replacements for the Draize rabbit skin irritation test.
Validation: Developed by MatTek (EpiDerm), Episkin (L’Oréal), Henkel, now standard in the EU and increasingly adopted globally.
Impact: Eliminates animal use for skin irritation/corrosion endpoints for cosmetics and many chemicals in accepting jurisdictions.
References: In Vitro Skin Models as Non-Animal Methods for Dermal Drug Development and Safety Assessment, Artificial Skin Models for Animal-Free Testing

6.6 Corneal and Eye Irritation Models

Discovery: Validated alternatives to the Draize rabbit eye test.
Validation: Developed by EpiOcular (MatTek), SkinEthic HCE (Episkin), assesses eye irritation potential of chemicals and consumer products.
Impact: Provides human-relevant models for eye irritation testing with validated non-animal alternatives.
References: Tissue Engineered Mini-Cornea Model for Eye Irritation Test, Corneal epithelium models for safety assessment in drug development: Present and future directions

7. Regulatory & Industry Adoption of NAMs

Regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical companies are increasingly embracing NAMs to streamline drug development, enhance predictivity, and align with ethical and scientific advancements. This section examines key milestones—such as the FDA Modernization Act 2.0 and OECD standards—that are paving the way for the global adoption of human-relevant, animal-free methodologies in biomedical research.

7.1 FDA Modernization Act 2.0

Discovery: The FDA Modernization Act 2.0 (2022) removed the federal mandate for animal testing in new drug applications.
Validation: A significant move by FDA to move away from using the animal model.
Impact: Explicitly encouraged the use of NAMs (in vitro, in silico) in preclinical safety assessments.
References: FDA Modernization Act 2.0: transitioning beyond animal models with human cells, organoids, and AI/ML-based approaches, How new approach methodologies are reshaping drug discovery, Organ-on-a-chip meets artificial intelligence in drug evaluation

7.2 FDA CDER NAM Validation Guidance (March 2026)

Discovery: FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) released draft guidance establishing a validation framework for NAM-derived data.
Validation: Based on scientific confidence, human biological relevance, and “fit-for-purpose” utility, these guidelines are a significant move away from using the animal model.
Impact: Provided a clear regulatory pathway for integrating NAMs into Investigational New Drug (IND) applications.
References: FDA Releases Draft Guidance on Alternatives to Animal Testing in Drug Development, New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) in Drug Development

7.3 OECD International Standards for NAMs

Discovery: The OECD Guidance Document 34 established international standards for the validation and acceptance of alternative test methods.
Impact: Facilitated global harmonization and adoption of NAMs in regulatory frameworks.
References: List of Alternative Test Methods and Strategies (or New Approach Methodologies NAMs), OECD Series On Testing And Assessment Number 34

7.4 Industry Investments in NAMs

Discovery: Major pharmaceutical companies (e.g., Roche, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca) invested in NAMs: Emulate organ-on-a-chip platforms for toxicity prediction, Organoids and computational modeling for personalized medicine.
Validation: Business interests confirm the efficacy of NAMs.
Impact: Accelerated the transition toward human-relevant models in drug development.
References: How new approach methodologies are reshaping drug discovery

7.5 Tebentafusp (Kimmtrak) Regulatory Approval

Discovery: Tebentafusp (Kimmtrak) became the first immunotherapy to reach clinical trials and regulatory approval without in vivo animal pharmacodynamic data.
Validation: Because the drug lacked activity in any animal species, the sponsors relied entirely on human-centric NAMs to justify safety and efficacy for its IND submission.
Impact: Establishes a major regulatory milestone proving that human-relevant data can fully replace animal testing in specific contexts for first-in-class therapeutics.
References: Immunocore announces FDA approval of KIMMTRAK® (tebentafusp-tebn) for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic uveal melanoma, Summary Basis of Decision for Kimmtrak in Canada

7.6 Aspect Biosystems — 3D Bioprinting Platform

Discovery: Developing bioprinted human tissue models as alternatives to animal testing, representing Canadian innovation in NAMs.
Validation: Bioprinted Tissue Therapeutics designed to replace biological function in the body.
Impact: Provides advanced tissue models for drug development.
References: Aspect Biosystems

7.7 Canadian Centre for Alternatives to Animal Methods (CCAAM)

Discovery: Canada’s first dedicated academic center for NAM research, conducted and promoted research using human-relevant, non-animal approaches.
Validation: Established in 2017 at the University of Windsor, Ontario.
Impact: Advances NAMs adoption in Canada.
References: CCAAM

7.8 USP Chapter <86> Recombinant Reagents for Endotoxin Testing

Discovery: The U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP) officially implemented Chapter <86> in May 2025, endorsing the use of non-animal-derived reagents for bacterial endotoxin testing.
Validation: The chapter allows the use of recombinant Factor C (rFC) and recombinant cascade (rCR) reagents, which utilize endpoint fluorescence and chromogenic techniques derived from gene sequences of the horseshoe crab.
Impact: Modernizes quality control in pharmaceutical manufacturing, potentially saving up to 90,000 animals per year while increasing batch-to-batch consistency.
References: <86> Bacterial Endotoxins Test Using Recombinant Reagents

Summary Table: Key NAM-Enabled Discoveries

Thematic Area	Discovery	Validation Status
AI-Driven Discovery	AI-designed drug for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (Insilico Medicine)	Phase II clinical trials
	AI repurposing of baricitinib for COVID-19	Clinical validation
	Topiramate identified for IBD via transcriptomic analysis	Preclinical/clinical studies
Organ-on-a-Chip	Liver-on-a-chip identifies hepatotoxicity in 87% of drugs missed by animal models	In vitro, regulatory acceptance
	Lung-on-a-chip for antiviral efficacy and tumor heterogeneity	In vitro, preclinical validation
	ALS Pathogenesis and Early Biomarkers	Multi-omics validation
	Cervical Protective Role in Dysbiosis	In vitro validation
Human Organoids	FIS assay for cystic fibrosis: personalized drug response prediction	Clinical implementation
	Patient-derived organoids for gene therapy in DMD	Preclinical validation
	OPTIC trial: 83.3% accuracy in predicting mCRC treatment response	Clinical validation
	Miller-Dieker Syndrome (MDS) Root Cause	Time-lapse imaging validation
	IGF-1 Dependency in Lung Cancer Subtypes	Genetic ablation validation
	Kidney assembloids for PKD modeling	In vitro validation
In Silico Modeling	PBPK modeling for drug safety and PK/PD predictions	FDA-accepted for submissions
High-Throughput & Omics	Tox21: 18-assay ER pathway battery for endocrine disruption	Regulatory acceptance (EPA)
	Multi-omics for toxicity pathway discovery	Peer-reviewed validation
Toxicology & Safety	OECD TG 497: Defined approaches for skin sensitization	Regulatory framework
	BER for PFAS risk assessment	Regulatory adoption
Regulatory Adoption	FDA Modernization Act 2.0: End of animal testing mandate in drug development	Legislative implementation
	FDA CDER NAM Validation Guidance (March 2026)	Draft guidance issued
	Tebentafusp (Kimmtrak) Regulatory Approval	Regulatory milestone

Conclusion: The NAMs Revolution in Biomedical Research

NAMs are not merely replacements for animal tests—they represent a fundamental transformation in scientific understanding and drug development. By leveraging human biology, robotics, AI, and computational modeling, NAMs offer:

Greater predictive accuracy for human responses.
Faster, cheaper, and more ethical research.
Personalized medicine through patient-specific models (organoids, organ-on-a-chip).
Regulatory acceptance and industry adoption.

The discoveries highlighted in this report demonstrate that NAMs are already delivering validated medical breakthroughs, from AI-designed drugs to organoid-based therapies and in silico clinical trials. As these technologies mature, they will redefine the future of biomedical research and patient care.

Suggested next steps for innovators:

Explore specific NAM platforms (e.g., Emulate, Insilico Medicine) for your research or project needs.
Investigate regulatory pathways for integrating NAMs into your workflow. See notebooklm whitepaper Strategic Framework for Navigating the Regulatory Transition to New Approach Methodologies (NAMs)
Consider collaborations with industry leaders in organ-on-a-chip or AI-driven drug discovery.

Coruss

Wed, 18 Feb 2026 10:10:24 -0800

The Corusshop is a exceptional company based in France that makes bows with synthetic hair.

Striking a blow against the cruel horsehair trade that has been so dominant for decades, Coruss bows utilize animal-free products producing a superb instrument that is trusted by the likes of Dorette Roos, Alexander Rybak, and Rusanda Panfili. Check out their website Corusshop.

My experience with Coruss started thanks to Gemini AI which suggested the company as an alternative to the vegan Incredibows that I already use. The Corusshop site is well designed and easy to navigate, but what struck me right away was their bold statement in the About Us section “Ethical and vegan: a product free from any animal materials”. The other thing I noticed was that they replied to every review which shows a remarkable degree of consideration for their customers!

My contact at Coruss turned out to be Valentin Ferrier. We exchanged several emails since I had many questions not just about the product, but also because this was going to be an overseas order to Canada. Valentin answered with precision and patient so I was very well informed before I made my decision to purchase. This sort of customer care is rare these days.

I will produce updates on the bow(s), hair, and rosin I am ordering because, as of now, I am writing this page before I have tried the items, but I have confidence that their product will be equal to their service!

Gary Yourofsky

Fri, 09 May 2025 00:14:29 -0700

Gary Yourofsky has been one of the most prominent animal rights activists for decades!

A remarkable, unapologetic force in the animal rights movement, Gary has really “done it all”. Find out more about him on his adaptt.org website.

Perplexity

Wed, 30 Oct 2024 10:49:18 -0700

There Are No ‘Ethical Alternatives’ To A Plant-Based Diet arv

Answer (Default):

Peter Godfrey-Smith’s recent article in The Guardian explores his experiences with a “near-vegan” diet and the ethical implications of animal consumption. He reflects on the challenges of adhering to a fully plant-based diet, suggesting alternatives like humanely farmed meat, wild-caught fish, and conventionally farmed dairy as potential compromises for those concerned about animal welfare but unable to maintain strict veganism¹.

Godfrey-Smith, a professor focused on animal consciousness, grapples with the cognitive dissonance surrounding dietary choices. He acknowledges that while some may argue for humane farming practices, the fundamental act of killing animals remains ethically contentious. He raises questions about societal speciesism, highlighting that the treatment of animals considered pets versus those raised for food reflects deep-seated biases².

Critics argue that Godfrey-Smith’s reasoning lacks coherence, particularly when he suggests that humane treatment justifies continued consumption. They emphasize that regardless of farming methods, the end result is still death for the animals involved. The article also critiques the notion that fishing practices are acceptable based on historical precedent, asserting that modern ethical standards should not be dictated by ancestral behaviors³.

In terms of health, Godfrey-Smith reports negative experiences with his diet, which included fish oil supplements rather than being strictly vegan. This raises questions about the adequacy of his dietary planning and whether his symptoms were related to dietary changes or other factors like illness⁴.

Ultimately, the article concludes that for those motivated by ethical concerns regarding animal welfare, true alignment with these values necessitates a commitment to veganism, as any compromise fails to address the core issues at stake⁵.

Citations:

Animals Can Work Together arv sci

Answer (Default):

The article discusses various examples of animal cooperation and mutualistic relationships in nature, challenging the common perception of the animal kingdom as purely competitive and ruthless. Here are some key points:

Types of Symbiotic Relationships

There are three main types of symbiotic relationships:

Commensalistic: One species benefits while the other is unaffected
Parasitic: One species benefits at the expense of the other
Mutualistic: Both species benefit from the interaction

Examples of Animal Cooperation

Coral Grouper and Moray Eel Coral groupers recruit moray eels to help them hunt by using specific body movements to communicate⁶. The grouper signals the eel to follow and then indicates the location of hidden prey. This collaboration increases hunting success rates for both species.

Coyote and Badger Coyotes and badgers work together to hunt ground squirrels and prairie dogs⁷. The badger digs into burrows while the coyote waits at the exit, covering all escape routes. This teamwork improves hunting success for both animals.

Tarantula and Dotted Humming Frog Tarantulas allow dotted humming frogs to live in their burrows⁸. The frog gains protection from predators, while the tarantula’s eggs are protected from ants, which the frogs eat. This mutually beneficial relationship ensures the safety of both species.

Pistol Shrimp and Goby Pistol shrimp and gobies form a lifelong partnership⁹. The shrimp builds and maintains burrows, while the goby acts as a lookout due to its superior eyesight. This collaboration provides safety and shelter for both species.

Unexpected Interspecies Interactions

The article also mentions several instances of animals helping other species without apparent benefit:

An Indian rhesus monkey adopting and caring for a homeless puppy
A Bornean orangutan rescuing a drowning bird
A bear saving a drowning crow
Humpback whales defending smaller fish from orcas

These interactions demonstrate that animal behavior can sometimes extend beyond simple survival instincts, showing compassion or altruism across species lines¹⁰.

Conclusion

While competition and violence exist in nature, the animal kingdom also exhibits numerous examples of cooperation and mutualism¹¹. These relationships highlight the similarities between animals and humans, demonstrating that different species can work together for mutual benefit or even act altruistically.

Citations:

Animals Can Work Together 2 arv sci diy

Answer (Default):

Types of Symbiotic Relationships

There are three main types of symbiotic relationships:

Commensalistic: One species benefits while the other is unaffected
Parasitic: One species benefits at the expense of the other
Mutualistic: Both species benefit from the interaction

Examples of Animal Cooperation

Coral Grouper and Moray Eel Coral groupers recruit moray eels to help them hunt by using specific body movements to communicate¹². The grouper signals the eel to follow and then indicates the location of hidden prey. This collaboration increases hunting success rates for both species.

Coyote and Badger Coyotes and badgers work together to hunt ground squirrels and prairie dogs¹³. The badger digs into burrows while the coyote waits at the exit, covering all escape routes. This teamwork improves hunting success for both animals.

Tarantula and Dotted Humming Frog Tarantulas allow dotted humming frogs to live in their burrows¹⁴. The frog gains protection from predators, while the tarantula’s eggs are protected from ants, which the frogs eat. This mutually beneficial relationship ensures the safety of both species.

Pistol Shrimp and Goby Pistol shrimp and gobies form a lifelong partnership¹⁵. The shrimp builds and maintains burrows, while the goby acts as a lookout due to its superior eyesight. This collaboration provides safety and shelter for both species.

Unexpected Interspecies Interactions

The article also mentions several instances of animals helping other species without apparent benefit:

An Indian rhesus monkey adopting and caring for a homeless puppy
A Bornean orangutan rescuing a drowning bird
A bear saving a drowning crow
Humpback whales defending smaller fish from orcas

These interactions demonstrate that animal behavior can sometimes extend beyond simple survival instincts, showing compassion or altruism across species lines¹⁶.

Conclusion

While competition and violence exist in nature, the animal kingdom also exhibits numerous examples of cooperation and mutualism¹⁷. These relationships highlight the similarities between animals and humans, demonstrating that different species can work together for mutual benefit or even act altruistically.

Citations:

What are some other examples of mutualistic relationships between animals

Answer (Default):

Here are several examples of mutualistic relationships between animals, highlighting the diverse ways in which different species benefit from each other:

Oxpecker and Rhinoceros or Zebra

Oxpeckers, a type of bird, land on rhinos or zebras and eat ticks, flies, and other parasites from their skin. The oxpeckers gain food, while the rhinos and zebras receive pest control and warning calls from the oxpeckers when predators are near¹⁸¹⁹²⁰.

Clownfish and Sea Anemone

Clownfish live within the protective tentacles of sea anemones, which are poisonous to most other fish. The clownfish clean the anemone’s tentacles, keeping them free from parasites and luring prey within the anemone’s reach. In return, the anemone provides the clownfish with protection from predators²¹²²²³.

Pistol Shrimp and Goby

Pistol shrimp and gobies form a mutualistic relationship where the shrimp maintains and digs burrows, while the goby, with its better vision, acts as a lookout for predators. The goby alerts the shrimp to danger, and in return, the shrimp provides the goby with a safe place to live²⁴²⁵²⁶.

Termites and Intestinal Flagellates

Termites have intestinal flagellates that help digest the cellulose in wood, which the termites consume. The flagellates get a meal, and the termites benefit from the digestion of their food. This is an example of obligate mutualism, where neither species can survive without the other²⁷²⁸²⁹.

Acacia Ants and Bullhorn Acacia

Acacia ants live in the thorns of the bullhorn acacia tree and receive food and shelter. In return, the ants protect the tree from browsing animals and other herbivores. This is another example of obligate mutualism³⁰.

Hermit Crabs and Sea Anemones

Hermit crabs attach sea anemones to their shells, which serve as bodyguards, protecting the crabs from predators with their barbed tentacles. The anemones benefit from the free ride across the seabed provided by the hermit crabs³¹.

Colombian Lesserblack Tarantula and Dotted Humming Frog

The tarantula allows the frog to live in its burrow, providing the frog with protection from predators. In return, the frog eats carnivorous ants that threaten the tarantula’s eggs³².

Drongos and Meerkats

Drongos act as lookouts for meerkats, warning them of predators. While the drongos sometimes exploit this relationship by raising false alarms to steal food from fleeing meerkats, the primary benefit is mutual, with meerkats gaining protection and drongos often receiving genuine warnings and occasional food³³.

Sharks and Pilot Fish

Pilot fish swim alongside sharks, cleaning parasites and food fragments from the shark’s teeth and skin. In return, the pilot fish receive protection from other predators³⁴.

Coyote and Badger

Coyotes and badgers hunt together, with the badger digging into burrows and the coyote waiting outside to catch fleeing prey. This cooperation increases the hunting success for both species³⁵.

Spider Crab and Algae

Spider crabs have algae living on their backs, which provides camouflage, protecting the crabs from predators. The algae benefit from a stable and protected environment to live and grow³⁶³⁷.

These examples illustrate the varied and often intricate ways in which different animal species can benefit from each other through mutualistic relationships.

Citations:

[6 Surprising Symbiotic Relationships - Wildlife Woods](https://wildlifewoods.net/blog/2018/8/23/6-surprising-symbiotic-relationships) ↩︎
[6 Surprising Symbiotic Relationships - Wildlife Woods](https://wildlifewoods.net/blog/2018/8/23/6-surprising-symbiotic-relationships) ↩︎
[6 Surprising Symbiotic Relationships - Wildlife Woods](https://wildlifewoods.net/blog/2018/8/23/6-surprising-symbiotic-relationships) ↩︎
[6 Surprising Symbiotic Relationships - Wildlife Woods](https://wildlifewoods.net/blog/2018/8/23/6-surprising-symbiotic-relationships) ↩︎
[6 Surprising Symbiotic Relationships - Wildlife Woods](https://wildlifewoods.net/blog/2018/8/23/6-surprising-symbiotic-relationships) ↩︎
[6 Surprising Symbiotic Relationships - Wildlife Woods](https://wildlifewoods.net/blog/2018/8/23/6-surprising-symbiotic-relationships) ↩︎
[6 Surprising Symbiotic Relationships - Wildlife Woods](https://wildlifewoods.net/blog/2018/8/23/6-surprising-symbiotic-relationships) ↩︎
[6 Surprising Symbiotic Relationships - Wildlife Woods](https://wildlifewoods.net/blog/2018/8/23/6-surprising-symbiotic-relationships) ↩︎
[6 Surprising Symbiotic Relationships - Wildlife Woods](https://wildlifewoods.net/blog/2018/8/23/6-surprising-symbiotic-relationships) ↩︎
[6 Surprising Symbiotic Relationships - Wildlife Woods](https://wildlifewoods.net/blog/2018/8/23/6-surprising-symbiotic-relationships) ↩︎
[6 Surprising Symbiotic Relationships - Wildlife Woods](https://wildlifewoods.net/blog/2018/8/23/6-surprising-symbiotic-relationships) ↩︎
[6 Surprising Symbiotic Relationships - Wildlife Woods](https://wildlifewoods.net/blog/2018/8/23/6-surprising-symbiotic-relationships) ↩︎
[6 Surprising Symbiotic Relationships - Wildlife Woods](https://wildlifewoods.net/blog/2018/8/23/6-surprising-symbiotic-relationships) ↩︎
[6 Surprising Symbiotic Relationships - Wildlife Woods](https://wildlifewoods.net/blog/2018/8/23/6-surprising-symbiotic-relationships) ↩︎
[6 Surprising Symbiotic Relationships - Wildlife Woods](https://wildlifewoods.net/blog/2018/8/23/6-surprising-symbiotic-relationships) ↩︎
[6 Surprising Symbiotic Relationships - Wildlife Woods](https://wildlifewoods.net/blog/2018/8/23/6-surprising-symbiotic-relationships) ↩︎
[6 Surprising Symbiotic Relationships - Wildlife Woods](https://wildlifewoods.net/blog/2018/8/23/6-surprising-symbiotic-relationships) ↩︎
[Mutualistic Relationships - New England Complex Systems Institute](https://necsi.edu/mutualistic-relationships) ↩︎
[Mutualism: Symbiotic Relationships - ThoughtCo](https://www.thoughtco.com/mutualism-symbiotic-relationships-4109634) ↩︎
[Mutualism | Types, Examples, & Facts - Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/science/mutualism-biology) ↩︎
[10 Mutualism Examples - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRn62gtgntY) ↩︎
[Mutualism: Symbiotic Relationships - ThoughtCo](https://www.thoughtco.com/mutualism-symbiotic-relationships-4109634) ↩︎
[Mutualism | Types, Examples, & Facts - Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/science/mutualism-biology) ↩︎
[6 Surprising Symbiotic Relationships - Wildlife Woods](https://wildlifewoods.net/blog/2018/8/23/6-surprising-symbiotic-relationships) ↩︎
[10 Mutualism Examples - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRn62gtgntY) ↩︎
[Mutualism: Symbiotic Relationships - ThoughtCo](https://www.thoughtco.com/mutualism-symbiotic-relationships-4109634) ↩︎
[10 Mutualism Examples - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRn62gtgntY) ↩︎
[Mutualism | Types, Examples, & Facts - Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/science/mutualism-biology) ↩︎
[Symbiotic relationships in ecology - Wild Earth Lab](https://wildearthlab.com/2022/09/28/symbiotic-relationships/) ↩︎
[Mutualism | Types, Examples, & Facts - Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/science/mutualism-biology) ↩︎
[6 Surprising Symbiotic Relationships - Wildlife Woods](https://wildlifewoods.net/blog/2018/8/23/6-surprising-symbiotic-relationships) ↩︎
[6 Surprising Symbiotic Relationships - Wildlife Woods](https://wildlifewoods.net/blog/2018/8/23/6-surprising-symbiotic-relationships) ↩︎
[6 Surprising Symbiotic Relationships - Wildlife Woods](https://wildlifewoods.net/blog/2018/8/23/6-surprising-symbiotic-relationships) ↩︎
[6 Surprising Symbiotic Relationships - Wildlife Woods](https://wildlifewoods.net/blog/2018/8/23/6-surprising-symbiotic-relationships) ↩︎
[6 Surprising Symbiotic Relationships - Wildlife Woods](https://wildlifewoods.net/blog/2018/8/23/6-surprising-symbiotic-relationships) ↩︎
[10 Mutualism Examples - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRn62gtgntY) ↩︎
[Mutualism | Types, Examples, & Facts - Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/science/mutualism-biology) ↩︎

Rabbitats

Sun, 13 Oct 2024 18:17:48 -0700

The Rabbitats Rescue Society houses abandoned domestic rabbits in indoor and outdoor habitats.

They are a well-organized, efficient group with volunteer, adoption, and fostering programs. Additionally, they provide humane solutions to feral rabbit management. They are a CRA registered charity and will put your tax creditable donation to good use!

Most importantly they don’t just provide solutions, they try to eliminate the problem by lobbying for

rabbit sale controls
guardian registry and education
spay/neuter clinics
anti-dumping laws with heavy fines

This is an excellent organization and you can learn more about them at Rabbitats.

Catzenjammer of the Vegan Kind

Wed, 05 Jun 2024 01:15:24 -0700

(Image generated by Microsoft Designer.)

This article deals with confusion and distress that can materialize for humans who put cats on vegan diets.

Catwalk addresses the issue from the cat’s personal situation, while Catacomb is oriented towards predicaments the cat’s guardian often faces. Rational for being aware of the mechanisms at play is provided in Catharsis.

Catwalk

The question on display here is:

If you are a vegan, should you be feeding your cats vegan?

Feeding your cats a vegan diet has nothing to do with whether you are a vegan or not.

Vegan diets for cats are well-established for more than three decades. These diets are clinically approved and offered by various companies. (See Vecado for example.)

The notion that cats are carnivores and therefore have to eat meat, is a fictitious one that does not apply the carnivore taxonomy appropriately. A carnivore is a classification based on certain physiological traits such as canine teeth, and short intestinal tracts. These traits enable carnivores to process animal products more easily than say herbivores. There is no necessity for meat consumption though (as one of many such examples, see Jed Gillen’s book Obligate Carnivore). Cats require specific nutrients, not specific delivery systems (see Vegan Cats 101 article).

Those that cattack vegan diets for cats usually do a catwalk along this yellow brick road.

Embark with cats cannot survive on a vegan diet.
When the above is shown to be false empirically, the goal posts are moved to, cats may survive on a vegan diet, but they can’t thrive.
After again being foiled by empirical evidence showing thriving vegan cats, the last flail insists it’s not natural for cats to be on a vegan diet.

The problem with this ‘Appeal to Nature’ is that it is a logical fallacy (see definition or a more extensive article Natural = Good?). Note the effort falls apart when confronted with the fact that it is also not natural for cats to be eating kibbles or tinned food much of which actually has vegetable ingredients in it, by the way, as well as synthetic taurine. Cats are healthier and live longer (see Study Shows Cats Are Living Longer… ) than they did 40 years ago due to people doing unnatural things to cat food.

Catacomb

Filled with dead ideas that keep crawling out like zombies, the proselytizing centers around:

If you are a vegan but don’t feed your cats vegan, should you be allowed to insist that people coming to your house eat vegan?

Well it is your house right? Do you not make decisions on your own turf?

You really don’t have to justify your actions using the common ‘we have a choice to be vegan but cats don’t due to limited vegan options’. The argument is a moderately good one, but is not ubiquitously meaningful since cats really don’t have a choice other than the one you make for them.

If your friends, neighbors, family members, random visitors, or the carnivorous vegan police, don’t like your decisions, you should welcome them with open arms not to come to your house.

Cattacks here can follow these primary paths (responses are suggested in italics):

You are bringing non-vegan food into your house for your cat, therefore, I should be able to do the same!
Okay, I completely agree, that you should be able to bring my cat non-vegan cat food. Here are the brands that my cat likes …
You let your cat eat non-vegan, therefore I should be able to as well!
Here is a reality check: you are not a cat. Despite your wishfoolness, you really aren’t a cat. Even if you employ technology to promote such an idea as in the video below, you are still not a cat! Okay? So get over it! However, if it means that much to you, I will order some extra tins of cat food and you can share the same dinner with my cat.
- You are a hypocrite because you do non-vegan things yet claim you’re a vegan!
  Well this one is actually an attempted Kobayashi Maru gotcha to catapult a capitulation: If you are a vegan, and you feed your cat vegan, you are imposing your will upon your cat. However, if you are a vegan, and you feed your cat non-vegan, you are being a hypocrite. Notice the common element here has nothing to do with the cat or the cat’s diet. It has to do with your being a vegan!

Imposing your will is something that guardians do anyway as part of the job of bringing up cats, dogs, children, parents, or even a spouse. Doing so is part of being responsible and so long as your will benefits the subject, there is nothing wrong in such imposition.

The hypocrisy accusation though is more interesting.

First, one should understand that there is no logical fallacy of hypocrisy. So behaving as a hypocrite, does not make your argument incorrect. While your personal credibility may diminish with some, hypocrisy does not bear any consequence upon the argument itself.

For instance, even an animal abuser is correct when speaking out against animal abuse. The activities the individual engages in, have no bearing on the correctness of what is being spoken (ie that animals should not be subjected to abuse).

Activists often fall prey to the hypocrisy accusation, because they are under the misguided illusion that they must behave perfectly or what they say has no merit. On such matters, if you engage in earnest self-flagellation, you might as well stop breathing because you are killing microbes every time you inhale! In fact, such reasoning is gleefully catcalled thus: You aren’t vegan because you kill microbes, therefore I can eat corpse.

However, the above pout is merely an illustration of the Tu Quoque (you too) fallacy, explained in this Nobody Is Vegan example.

So, despite many being conditioned into believing that “Do as I say and not as I do” is a bad attitude, it needs to be understood that one’s personal actions do not alter the morality/validity of a statement.

Second, do realize that the ‘holier than thou’ attitude you are being accused of, is a result of the ‘holier than thou’ attitude that is already present in your accuser. In other words, I am so holy, that you are not entitled to accuse me of not being so holy, just because you’re a vegan! It is irrelevant whether you actually made any such accusation, because your being vegan becomes the accusation itself!

This of course leads to the reality that your accuser already knows that he or she is not very holy. Usually, to buffer such self-awareness, the accuser resorts to reciting numerous acts of Heavy Holiness such as:

I have a foster child in Africa
I gently take out spiders in my house
I only eat corpse parts once a week

Or in case of serious desperation, some conjure up a direct connection to the supreme being of their choice, announcing that “God gave us dominion over animals” which of course is just a precursor to not just speciesism, but its subsequent applications justifying racism, sexism, ableism, etc. Admittedly, having some god on your side can be of considerable convenience as Joan Baez’ beautiful singing illustrates:

We have often seen holiness play out with serious consequences. As one example, a Jehovah’s witness couple who used to visit us, went vegan advised by the wife’s doctor to restore her constitution. They complained to us that their usual circle attacked them mercilessly for such dietary blasphemy, to their total astonishment! They hadn’t even gone vegan for ethical reasons, but it seems some people really covet their neighbors’ greater holiness.

Catharsis

Knowing the terms of engagement in any encounter is important. However recognizing when these terms are being violated through fallacious argumentation, improper imposition, and frantic self-image validation is even more important.

Too often some allow bullies, intellectual or otherwise, to ram their views through while accusing you of doing the same. The saying “With friends like these, who needs enemies” becomes increasingly apparent in such situations.

Fortunately, recognition of the way the game is being played can be helpful and healthful, not only for your own peace of mind, but also if one hopes to instill some understanding in others.

Crueltyfree Fashion

Tue, 06 Feb 2024 09:00:30 -0800

A vegan lifestyle avoids using animal-based materials in apparel such as fur, leather, wool, down, and silk. Using animals to get these requires they be imprisoned, exploited and even killed. Fashion does not ever need to inflict cruelty onto other sentient beings and many companies provide alternatives to animal products.

The following guide from Lulus provides information to help you to dress without cruelty …

A Guide To Vegan and Cruelty Free Clothes & Fashion

Faunalytics

Thu, 28 Dec 2023 20:53:54 -0800

Faunalytics conducts and disseminates research that is “actionable and insightful” on important topics in animal protection.

The mission of this very competent organization is “to empower animal advocates with access to research, analysis, strategies, and messages that maximize their effectiveness to reduce animal suffering”. Their About page outlines topics such as:

What You Need To Be Effective
How Faunalytics Helps Animals

They have an excellent track record since 2015 being an Animal Charity Evaluators ‘Recommended Charity’. Check out faunalytics.org to see their thorough and informative site.

VeganHacktivists

Thu, 28 Dec 2023 20:42:49 -0800

The VeganHacktivists “build data-driven, disruptive, and innovative projects to help see an end to animal exploitation”.

The individuals of this group outline an approach to animal protection using the following 5 goals:

We need more data in our movement
We need more competition, too
We need to be more innovative
We need to start collaborating
We need more vegans to become active

They are a skilful, dedicated organization whose talents are on display at the veganhacktivists.org site.

VeganSidekick

Thu, 28 Dec 2023 19:49:13 -0800

This site encourages veganism with a huge database of comics and debate answers. They also provide for sale books and clothing.

Here is an excerpt from their site:

poorly drawn comics which accurately debunk common fallacious justifications for supporting animal abuse. Whether you’re buying it for yourself as a self-righteous vegan to cackle at whilst scheming your evil non-violent masterplan, or if you’re simply curious about veganism but want to learn about it in an amusing way

Here is an example of their many comics:

VeganSidekick offers free comics, a free debate guide, books, and clothing. You can connect with them through Facebook, Tumbler, and Instagram. You can also support them through patreon. Check out vegansidekick.com now!

Sidney Island Deer

Mon, 21 Aug 2023 22:36:50 -0700

In 2023 Parks Canada decided to slaughter all deer on Sidney Island British Columbia. This page provides information, resources, and updates on what is an unethical process on many levels. Sign the petition to Save the Sidney Island deer. The page is still in construction.

Letter to Stephanie Coulson, Parks Canada (request for public input)

Hi Stephanie!

Good stuff on the “Role of education, curiosity, and exploration in conservation” article for Raincoast. I read it with some interest having been an educator myself and helped to start Students Towards Environment Protection (some decades ago in our school). I found your ‘culture of conservation’ a rather intriguing concept!

My compliments on the thoroughness of the SIERP DIA - both scope and detail. Coastal Conservation has certainly created a detailed paper. It is good to see such a strong emphasis on mitigation and I’m sure that element will make many people feel good.

However, the credibility of the enterprise raises eyebrows considering that Coastal Conservation’s Head, Gregg Howald, is also the chair of SIERP. Why would Park’s Canada de-legitimize its own credibility by cahooting such an arrangement, especially since it was internally advised of this blatant conflict of interest:

“If CC gains financially or otherwise in some way from an approved eradication going forward, then [the Chair] should not be running the show – it’s a conflict of interest.” (FOI p306). I’m sure you are aware of the notorious FOI.

Beyond this guffaw, emerges the following issues:

1. Exactly how is shooting deer by the methods detailed in SIERP considered humane?

It isn’t humane and here’s why:

Helicopters and hunting dogs cause potential victims severe stress and fear!
Trained marksmen miss! In fact, often attempts at being humane require backtracking to shoot fallen/wounded deer multiple times.)
Outright violation of animal welfare! Specifically #10 of Wildlife and Rodent Control Standards “Lethal Methods are only be used when an animal’s presence is an ongoing threat to human health and safety” (FOI p389)
You wouldn’t do this to your dog or cat! Euthanasia may be humane, but this sort of slaughter just isn’t.

2. Was sterilization even considered seriously as an alternative?

It seems as though due diligence has not been done in this area. The readily accessible information shows that:

It is humane! We keep dog and cat populations under control this way.
It is cost effective in the longer term! Even if full eradication takes place, there is no guarantee of remaining deer-free and “Over time, the cumulative costs of sharpshooting outweigh the costs of surgical sterilization …” (Deer Population Control Methods – Cost & Effectiveness Comparison, Trapp)
It has been successful! There is evidence of effectiveness such as this article about White Buffalo Inc DeNicola’s activities which points out “Sterilization was controversial in San Jose because it worked … Some residents freaked out, worrying they’d lost too many deer”, as does (DeNicola’s) more academic, Sterilization as an alternative deer control technique: a review “In an increasing number of communities, however, lethal management strategies are rejected … Surgical sterilization is scale-limited based on the ability to capture and sterilize 80% or more of the female deer …”

3. What about GonaZonaSpayva?

Fertility control drugs have been used successfully for many years, so there is historical evidence demonstrating effectiveness:

Gonacon, Zonastat-D, Spayvac pZP do work (despite the naysayers’ chanting)
Fertility control can be, however, the most expensive route as per Cost & Effectiveness link above
The usual whine about these being 70% or so effective is flawed:
- it isn’t correct, since some studies demonstrated 100% (eg Fraker et al and more recently Botstiber)
- it doesn’t matter, because you don’t need 100% efficacy to get the restoration job done (everyone knows this including the Chair of SIERP “the numbers of deer on the Island have been reduced dramatically and the impacts of fallow deer are not really obvious …” FOI p219 item h)
- that the number of deer is indeed low is also confirmed by the Gulf Islands National Park Reserve Superintendent, Kate Humble: “… said while the number of fallow deer is currently relatively low” (AlaskaHighway News).

4. Are Fallow deer really an invasive species?

Not anymore. They were brought to James Island in 1902 and got to Sidney Island by 1960, so they’ve been here a while. They no more an invasive species than Europeans or Asians are now to Canada. We should take into account that:

the ecosystem has adapted to accommodate them on Sidney Island for 60+ yrs. As a Parks Canada ecological specialist writes (Ethics section of Freedom of Information Request): “… we could consider them naturalized and work to maintain the species …”
suddenly removing them, may not go well, despite all those the mitigation measures that appear so voluminously in SIERP
killing them all off in one place also doesn’t mean that they won’t come back from another. Even though SIERP claims that accounts of fallow deer swimming between Southern Gulf Islands in the 1930s is unsubstantiated … did they take the ferry then? … but this 2013 Times Colonist article by Judith Lavoie certainly indicate that they are fine swimmers.

5. Why can the deer population not be reduced through non-lethal means over a period of time?

Well it can, but certain factions for yet-to-be determined reasons don’t want to do it that way. Some of these objections are:

the current population continues to have a negative impact on the ecosystem EXCEPT it’s unclear how that can be when the population is so low as per above indications by Howald and Humble
relocation would transfer the problem elsewhere EXCEPT it is unclear whether the ’elsewhere’ would necessarily see these deer as a problem
contraceptives wouldn’t achieve Parks Canada’s goal in a timely way EXCEPT one has no idea what that is actually supposed to mean or why it should be so
considered sterilization and contraceptives, but these techniques do not allow for the removal of the population, which is the objective EXCEPT we have been led to believe that the objective was, in Humble’s own words there, “focus of this work is the restoration of a healthy ecosystem”

6. Guffaws Galore!

The above 5 points illustrate what seems to be a considerable disregard for science and ethics, but the behaviors highlighted by the FOI and various comments by ‘interested’ parties, make matters worse:

PC’s Emily Gonzales, Ecological Scientist asks about evidence for the SIERP claim that the deer population is “4 times greater than a healthy ecosystem can support” and goes on to say “I realize it would be nice to be able to make statements like this and you will be pressured by your managers … That doing so is something you’ll regret because they aren’t defensible values and don’t even make ecological sense …” (FOI p537). Later she adds about another statement, “I provide advice/feedback and some key problematic issues (IMO) keep showing up … my head and the wall are hurting."(FOI p538). [A painful head is quite understandable at this point.]
PC’s Michael Janssen, Forest Ecosystem Restoration Manager, on consideration of alternatives was met with this curious response (FOI p445) from Howald “If the purpose and need of the project is to eradication fallow deer to facilitate natural restoration … then you can narrow your alternatives dramatically … This way people see you considered them, but dismissed them because they don’t meet the P/N.” [So why is this starting to feel like a Machiavellian con-job?]
Continuing on from the ‘impacts of fallow deer are not really obvious’ we have from Howald’s notes (FOI p219): “it is unlikely that the BENEFIT of the eradication efforts will be clear on implementation. We need to consider how to bring out the BENEFIT side … One way we could do that is a mix of citizen science, or very targetted restoration potential … May be it is using peoples vegetable gardens or flower beds …” [A lemon car sales pitch?]
And we gotta keep it going forever and ever (see Biosecurity section in Freedom of Information Request): The CC Proposal advises: “It is important the biosecurity plan be maintained as needed in perpetuity because the long-term benefit of fallow deer removal to the biodiversity of Sidney Island will depend on continued project support from Parks Canada, Sallas, and the public to maintain a deer free island”. (page 139) [It’ll never end because bio-insecurity can be made eternal.]
Speaking of cars, let’s look at insurance “The key to this is that we are not taking on the liability, we are transferring liability to those who have insurance.” … “private landowners must rely on the insurance of the hunters rather than Coastal Conservation or any indemnity from Canada. This would be described in an “access agreement” with owners.”. [So this sounds like a way to force all landowners to comply? You’re with us or outaluck!]
What about the number of deer? From Parks Canada we get the extraordinarily bizarre “Parks Canada says the current fallow deer population is unknown but estimates between 300 and 900.” [Is this for real? Unknown or 300-900?! Did Parks Canada do the computations for Russia’s Luna-25?]
What about the landowners? 50 yea, 46 nay, 3 abstained, 11 absent which means 46+3+11=60 (54.5%) DID NOT say yea. That’s not even close to the 75% approval required by law. [So if the residents’ rights are upheld, there can be no slaughter, right? … Unless an exception is suddenly made to push through whatever agenda.]
To confuse the waters, we have Sidney Island resident, Michael Parfit (of Saving Luna fame), supporting the slaughter with sweeping statements like “Sidney Island can become an example of healthy ecosystems that can exist in British Columbia but have almost all vanished. It could show us what our province once was and could be again.” which seems to pre-suppose that slaughter is the only route and that everything is the deers’ fault. He belittles the obvious conflict of interest issue with the peculiar argument that we need “best talent for both planning and execution” which seems to miss the point of conflict of interest and its ramifications. He notes the irony that “though a majority of owners voted for the cull [they did??!!] , the most intense hunters are allying themselves in opposition with activists who care about keeping animals alive. Ironic? Yeah.” [Well yeah, Michael! When you have 2 diametrically opposing groups allying against you, we can be assured you are doing something really wrong! After all, it took something really wrong in Ukraine to bring together the Republicans and Democrats!]
And what about this seeking public input? According to Kate Humble: “the goal of asking for public feedback is not to determine whether the cull goes ahead but to get input on reducing negative impacts.” [Gee thx a lot Kate! The public can input, but who cares!]

Conclusions

So based on my research above, I come to these conclusions about this initiative:

it is hugely expensive and a burden on taxpayers
it is unquestionably inhumane
it is backed by insufficient/incorrect attempts at biological/ecological science
it stinks of deception, arrogance, and high-handedness (similar to the toxic soil fiasco in Shenanigan Lake some years ago)
it has the inappropriate goal of eradication rather than restoration (despite pretenses)
it should spend the 6 million on a good PR company instead of eradicators

Oh then there’s those conflict of interest fumes which pervade who knows where. Possibly we should rename Parks Canada to Perks Canada!

Anyway, thank you Stephanie for receiving my input on the matter and best wishes on your endeavors.

In friendship,
Prad Basu

Resource summaries and sites

Below listed in alphabetical order are links and summaries of webpages and sites relating to various aspects of the deer and general conservation issues. The resources are encompass areas such as animal welfare, conservation, management, and restoration. Many of the items have been referenced in the letter to Parks Canada.

(The summaries were mostly done by harpa.ai though one item Eradication and Restoration Options On Sidney Island has summaries produced by harpa, bing, and perplexity.)

Animal Alliance of Canada Opposed to Parks Canada Sidney Island Deer Eradication Plan

### Key Takeaway The Animal Alliance of Canada opposes Parks Canada’s plan to eradicate fallow deer on Sidney Island using aerial gunning and dog harassment, considering it unjustified, inhumane, and expensive.

### Summary

Parks Canada plans to eradicate fallow deer on Sidney Island through aerial gunning and dog harassment.
Sidney Island is part of Gulf Islands National Park and has around 100 lots overseen by a strata corporation.
Fallow deer were introduced to the island in 1908 for hunting, leading to a population growth to 3000 deer by the early 2000s.
About 2000 deer were killed in the 2000s, and current estimates suggest the population is around 300.
A UBC report from five years ago indicated a 30% improvement to the ecosystem since the peak population.
AAC West Coast Campaign Director Jordan Reichert questions Parks Canada’s claim that the ecosystem isn’t regenerating and the current deer population isn’t sustainable.
Parks Canada aims to spend $5.9 million on the eradication program, similar to a past $6 million effort in Haida Gwaii.
Jordan Reichert criticizes the program as unethical, unjustified, and excessively expensive.
The Sidney Island Deer Management Society opposes the eradication program and questions its justification and contract award process.
The Animal Alliance of Canada aims to hold Parks Canada and other stakeholders accountable for their actions.

Animal welfare outcomes of helicopter-based shooting of deer in Australia

### Key Takeaway The study evaluates the animal welfare outcomes of helicopter-based deer shooting in Australia, highlighting the importance of using multiple shots in the head or thorax for better welfare results.

### Summary

Helicopter-based shooting is commonly used for deer control in Australasia.
The study assesses the animal welfare outcomes of this method in Australia.
It examines the fates of observed deer, procedure durations, and bullet wound details.
Shots were fired at 69-76% of observed deer, with variable chase times (73-145 seconds) and time to insensibility (17-37 seconds).
On average, deer had 1.43-2.57 bullet wounds per animal.
Animal welfare outcomes were better for fallow deer operations compared to chital deer operations.
Shooting procedures with multiple shots into the head or thorax yielded improved animal welfare outcomes.
The study suggests the need for a national-level standard operating procedure to enhance animal welfare in helicopter-based deer shooting operations in Australia.

Anthropomorphism Favors Coexistence, Not Deadly Domination

### Key Takeaway The research indicates that anthropomorphism, attributing human traits and emotions to nonhuman entities, challenges traditional wildlife management approaches and promotes coexistence over domination in human-animal relationships. [Mark Bekoff in Psychology Today]

### Summary

Anthropomorphism involves attributing human traits, emotions, or intentions to nonhuman entities.
Traditional wildlife management is rooted in a domination ideology, but anthropomorphism challenges this perspective.
Anthropomorphism helps understand the behavior, emotions, and cognitive lives of nonhuman animals from their perspective.
Growing research supports accurate interpretations of nonhuman thoughts and feelings, debunking the notion of animals merely acting “as if.”
The use of human languages in discussing animal cognition and emotions, when done critically and biocentrically, respects animals’ viewpoints.
Anthropomorphism’s acceptance varies geographically, with people in Hawaii being more anthropomorphic than those in South Dakota.
Anthropomorphism is linked to favoring mutualism and coexistence rather than domination in human-wildlife interactions.
A shift in people’s values regarding nature and wildlife management has occurred due to increasing acceptance of anthropomorphism.
Anthropomorphism stimulates value shifts and challenges traditional wildlife management approaches, emphasizing individual animal consideration.
Compassionate conservation emphasizes that each individual’s life matters, regardless of their utility to humans.
Anthropomorphism has the potential to aid conservation efforts by promoting empathy and considerate practices.
Anthropomorphism, when properly applied, can support the conservation of a broad array of nonhuman species.
The field of cognitive ethology, studying animal minds, has much research potential, revealing animals’ rich and deep emotions.
Understanding and appreciating animals as individuals can aid conservation efforts for the benefit of current and future generations.
Inappropriate anthropomorphism can be mitigated through detailed studies of animal minds and emotions.
Anthropomorphism reflects an accurate way of knowing animal emotions and is supported by scientific research.
The Anthropocene necessitates recognizing animals’ emotions and using knowledge for ethical decisions.
Animals’ emotions are gifts shared with humans, and recognizing this aids ethical decisions for their well-being.
Anthropomorphism promotes empathy, coexistence, and understanding in human-animal relationships.

(Note: The above summary is based on the content provided and aims to capture the key points and ideas presented in the web page.)

Assessment of humaneness using gunshot targeting the brain and cervical spine for cervid depopulation under field conditions

### Key Takeaway The study assessed the humaneness of using gunshot targeting the brain and cervical spine for cervid (deer) depopulation under field conditions. The results demonstrate that targeting the brain or upper cervical spine effectively achieves euthanasia standards, while lower cervical spine shot placement is not as humane.

### Summary The study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and humaneness of gunshot placement on Philippine deer during depopulation activities for meeting AVMA standards of euthanasia under field conditions. Here are the key findings and aspects of the study:

Objective: The study aimed to assess the humaneness of gunshot placements for cervid depopulation under field conditions.
Method: Firearms, specifically a suppressed .223 caliber rifle, were used for euthanizing deer from distances of 10–125 m. Shot placements were targeted at the brain and upper cervical spine (C1—C3) for immediate incapacitation.
Results:
- Deer shot in the brain or upper cervical spine (C1—C3) died instantly due to the destruction of brain or spinal tissue.
- Shot placements were accurate, with deviations within 1.9 cm from the point of aim (POA).
- Targeting of the lower cervical vertebrae (C4—C7) was accurate but did not result in immediate insensibility, indicating that it’s not a humane option.
Physiological Responses:
- Deer shot in the brain or upper cervical spine showed immediate cessation of heart rate, respiration, ocular reflexes, and post-mortem spasms.
Secondary Objective:
- The study aimed to determine if upper cervical spine shot placement could result in euthanasia.
- Upper cervical spine shot placement (C1—C3) showed accuracy and immediate insensibility, making it an alternative target site when brain targeting is not optimal.
- Lower cervical spine shot placement (C4—C7) was accurate but did not result in immediate insensibility, suggesting it’s not a humane choice.
Significance:
- The study provides evidence-based research on acceptable euthanasia methods using firearms for wildlife management.
- It highlights the importance of achieving humane death even when practical limitations exist.
- The findings emphasize the importance of targeting the brain or upper cervical vertebrae for deer depopulation under field conditions.

The research contributes to improving wildlife professionals’ firearm practices and supports the interests of animal welfare, wildlife professionals, and the public in achieving humane depopulation while accomplishing management objectives.

At $10K per deer, critics question cost of Sidney Island eradication plan

### Key Takeaway The cost of the Sidney Island eradication plan for European fallow deer, priced at $10,000 per deer, has raised concerns and criticism.

### Summary

Eradication Plan Overview
- Parks Canada is executing a plan to eliminate the European fallow deer population on Sidney Island.
- The eradication plan is conducted in phases.
Phase Completion
- The first phase of the eradication plan has been concluded this month.
Criticism on Cost
- Critics express concern over the high cost associated with the plan.
- The price tag for eliminating each deer is $10,000.
Public Opinion
- The article doesn’t provide a clear perspective on public opinion.
- It would be valuable to understand how the local community feels about the eradication plan and its costs.
Parks Canada’s Perspective
- The report doesn’t elaborate on Parks Canada’s justification for the high cost.
- Including this perspective could provide a more balanced view of the situation.
Environmental Impact
- The article doesn’t discuss the potential environmental impact of the deer population and its eradication.
- Understanding the ecological rationale behind the plan would enhance the report.
Future Phases
- Details about the subsequent phases of the eradication plan are not provided.
- A comprehensive summary should include information about the entire plan for context.
Conclusion
- The article highlights concerns about the cost of the Sidney Island deer eradication plan.
- A more thorough analysis, including different perspectives and potential ecological benefits, is needed for a comprehensive understanding.

A systematic review of ground-based shooting to control overabundant mammal populations

### Key Takeaway Ground-based shooting can be an effective tool for managing overabundant wildlife populations, but careful planning, clear objectives, and adequate resources are essential for success.

### Summary

Context: The web page discusses the use of ground-based shooting as a method to manage invasive or overabundant wildlife populations. It highlights that while this method is widely used, its effectiveness varies, and a systematic examination of its efficiency is lacking.
Aims:
- The review aimed to assess the efficacy of ground-based shooting as a population management tool.
- It sought to identify commonalities among studies to help managers determine situations where ground-shooting is most likely to be effective.
Key Results:
- Most studies lacked clear quantifiable objectives for their shooting operations.
- 60% of the 64 case studies resulted in a detectable reduction inpopulation density or damage.
- The most common type of operation used unpaid or commercial harvest-oriented shooters to reduce herbivore density or damage.
- Only 30% of operations that used volunteer shooters or recreational hunters achieved their objectives.
- Target taxa, geographic area, or integration of shooting with other population-control methods had no significant effect on the effectiveness of shooting operations.
- Common factors hindering effectiveness included immigration of target species from adjacent areas, decreasing effort from shooters as the target population declined, and selective harvesting.
Conclusions:
- Ground-based shooting can be effective but is not guaranteed to reduce animal abundance or damage.
- Failures were often due to an inability to remove a sufficient proportion of the population to cause a decline.
- Managers contemplating ground-based shooting should carefully consider its suitability for their goals, establish clear objectives, and ensure sufficient resources.
Implications:
- Managers should:
  - Evaluate whether ground-based shooting aligns with their objectives.
  - Define clear objectives and allow for continuous improvement.
  - Ensure adequate resources for achieving and maintaining objectives.

This report provides valuable insights for wildlife managers considering ground-based shooting as a wildlife population management strategy.

B.C. SPCA ’not opposed’ to mass deer kill on Sidney Island

### Key Takeaway The B.C. SPCA supports a planned mass deer kill on Sidney Island, aiming to end the ineffective seasonal hunting cycle that has persisted for decades.

### Summary

Background:
- B.C. SPCA expresses support for a mass deer kill on Sidney Island.
- The organization aims to break the ineffective cycle of seasonal hunting that has been ongoing for many decades.
Involvement and Consultation:
- B.C. SPCA has been consulted by Parks Canada since 2017 during the planning stages of the deer eradication plan.
- The animal welfare agency is actively engaged and will have personnel on the ground when the deer hunt commences on Dec. 1.
Reasoning:
- The key rationale behind supporting the mass deer kill is to halt the historical pattern of ineffective and seasonal hunting.
- B.C. SPCA sees this approach as a more decisive and humane solution compared to the past decades’ hunting practices.
Collaboration with Parks Canada:
- The collaboration between B.C. SPCA and Parks Canada highlights a cooperative effort to address wildlife management issues.
- This collaboration spans several years, indicating a thorough and considered planning process.
Preventing Ineffective Killing Cycle:
- The main goal of the mass deer kill is to put an end to what B.C. SPCA perceives as an “ineffective killing cycle” associated with seasonal hunting.
- By supporting this approach, the organization seeks a more sustainable and impactful solution to manage the deer population.
Timing and Execution:
- The deer eradication plan is scheduled to begin on December 1.
- B.C. SPCA’s active involvement during the hunt underscores its commitment to ensuring the process aligns with ethical and humane standards.
Overall Implication:
- The stance of B.C. SPCA indicates a shift towards more strategic and comprehensive wildlife management practices, moving away from traditional seasonal hunting approaches.
- The collaboration with Parks Canada suggests a multi-stakeholder effort to address ecological challenges while considering animal welfare.

Black-Tailed Deer In The City: A Scientific Approach To Population Control Using Immunocontraception

[00:04](https://youtu.be/VyEudCmFdUQ?t=4s) Monique Principe introduces the webinar on Black-Tailed Deer population control.
[01:04](https://youtu.be/VyEudCmFdUQ?t=64s) Dr. Jason Fisher and Dr. Adam Herring present on Black-Tailed Deer population control and their backgrounds.
[03:06](https://youtu.be/VyEudCmFdUQ?t=186s) Presentation focuses on Oak Bay, a densely populated urban area with growing deer conflict.
[05:09](https://youtu.be/VyEudCmFdUQ?t=309s) Urban Wildlife Stewardship Society proposes evidence-based immunocontraception program for deer management.
[09:28](https://youtu.be/VyEudCmFdUQ?t=568s) Density estimation using camera traps; public engagement crucial in obtaining permissions.
[10:55](https://youtu.be/VyEudCmFdUQ?t=655s) Array of 39 camera traps strategically placed across Oak Bay for monitoring deer population.
[12:06](https://youtu.be/VyEudCmFdUQ?t=726s) GPS collars track deer’s spatial use; vital data for accurate density estimation.
[13:31](https://youtu.be/VyEudCmFdUQ?t=811s) Darting deer for immobilization and vaccination; strong public outreach to ease concerns.
[15:07](https://youtu.be/VyEudCmFdUQ?t=907s) Immunocontraception process, including anesthesia, vaccinations, and boosters.
[17:10](https://youtu.be/VyEudCmFdUQ?t=1030s) Community volunteers assist with fieldwork; unique learning opportunity and community engagement.
[18:06](https://youtu.be/VyEudCmFdUQ?t=1086s) Deer management involves careful darting, ethical handling, and minimizing risks.
[19:18](https://youtu.be/VyEudCmFdUQ?t=1158s) Health monitoring samples collected for archival purposes.
[21:30](https://youtu.be/VyEudCmFdUQ?t=1290s) Timeline of project phases: population estimation, immunocontraception, data analysis.
[23:05](https://youtu.be/VyEudCmFdUQ?t=1385s) Urban environment influences deer population dynamics; small home ranges and hyper-concentration.
[24:43](https://youtu.be/VyEudCmFdUQ?t=1483s) Camera data reveals changes in fawning rate post-treatment, indicating population control success.
[25:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyEudCmFdUQ&t=1510s) Fawning rate reduction: After immunocontraception implementation, fawning rate decreased significantly over short-term periods.
[26:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyEudCmFdUQ&t=1575s) Immunocontraceptives working: 57% reduction in fawning rate indicates that immunocontraceptives are effectively preventing pregnancies.
[26:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyEudCmFdUQ&t=1603s) Population decrease expected: Reduction in fawning combined with natural mortalities is expected to lead to a decrease in the adult deer population over time.
[27:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyEudCmFdUQ&t=1629s) Monitoring stage: The project is now in the monitoring stage to observe how the population responds to the pulsed application of immunocontraceptives.
[28:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyEudCmFdUQ&t=1689s) Community engagement: Public perception and engagement are crucial factors in the success of the project, focusing on coexisting with deer harmoniously.
[29:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyEudCmFdUQ&t=1787s) Social progress: Efforts by the urban Wildlife stewardship society and immunocontraception have contributed to increased acceptance and coexistence with urban deer populations.

Concerns remain over methods used in Sidney Island deer eradication

### Key Takeaway The first phase of the Sidney Island deer eradication project has concluded, but lingering concerns persist among experts regarding the methods employed.

### Summary

Sidney Island Deer Eradication Project:
- First phase completed.
- Ongoing concerns among experts.
Concerns Raised:
- Methods used in deer eradication.
- Specific concerns not detailed in the provided information.
Expert Opinions:
- Some experts express reservations.
- Nature of concerns not explicitly mentioned.
Project Status:
- Completion of initial phase.
- No information on subsequent phases or future plans.
Overall Impression:
- Unclear whether concerns impact the continuation of the project.
- Lack of specifics regarding the nature of concerns.
Need for Transparency:
- Call for detailed information on methods used.
- Transparency may address lingering concerns.
Future Developments:
- No information on potential adjustments to methods.
- Lack of clarity on community and stakeholder involvement.
Public Perception:
- No mention of public sentiment.
- The article focuses on expert concerns.
Conclusion:
- The completion of the first phase does not alleviate concerns raised by some experts.
- Lack of details hinders a comprehensive understanding of the situation.

Confessions of a Sharpshooter: How a Deer Cull Actually Works

### Key Takeaway The key takeaway from the web page is that a deer cull, which involves controlled hunting to manage deer populations, can be a contentious issue, even leading to unlikely alliances between animal rights groups and hunters. The article also highlights the complexities and challenges involved in implementing a successful deer cull.

### Summary

An animal rights group and a hunters’ rights group join forces on Long Island’s East End to protest a plan to cull up to 3,000 deer from the local population, leading to a polarized community and unexpected partnerships.
This is the first landscape-level cull in the region, sparking opposition due to concerns about wildlife management methods.
Local hunters are unhappy with hired guns being used for the cull and question why taxpayers are funding a service hunters could provide for free.
Animal rights groups are equally opposed, launching protests, petitions, and contacting officials to stop the cull. They raise concerns about removing a significant number of keystone species from the ecosystem.
The author, a wildlife specialist with USDA Wildlife Services, shares insights from participating in three deer culls over five years.
The author describes a specific culling operation where night hunting takes place, with techniques like drop-and-go methods from vehicles and stationary positions near bait.
Various challenges arise, including the difficulty of baiting older, wiser deer, the limited effectiveness of suppressed firearms, and concerns about animal welfare and clean kills.
The article explains that culls are more common where hunting isn’t a viable management tool, such as areas with discharge laws, lawsuits, or changing hunting cultures.
The collaboration between government wildlife control agencies, hunters, and animal rights groups is motivated by a shared goal of maintaining a healthy and sustainable deer population.
The article concludes by suggesting that as urbanization continues, deer culls may become more common as a means of wildlife management.

(Note: This summary report is based on the provided web page content and does not include any additional information beyond the given text.)

Conflict of interest concern raised for Sidney Island deer-cull contract

### Key Takeaway Jordan Reichert of the Animal Alliance of Canada is concerned about a Parks Canada contract for eradicating invasive fallow deer on Sidney Island due to potential conflicts of interest and perceived misallocation of funds.

### Summary

Jordan Reichert, West Coast director of the Animal Alliance of Canada, has raised concerns about a $5.9-million Parks Canada contract for eradicating invasive fallow deer on Sidney Island.
The project involves marksmen in a helicopter and on the ground killing European fallow deer over a 10-day period, followed by additional measures to contain and remove any survivors.
The contract was awarded to Coastal Conservation, a company specializing in removing invasive species from islands to promote ecosystem recovery, which also played a significant role in planning the project.
Reichert questions the procurement process, stating that using millions of tax dollars for this project is “unnecessary” and that the funds could be better allocated elsewhere.
A complaint was lodged by Reichert with the Office of the Procurement Ombudsman, but it could not be pursued due to the contract’s value exceeding its jurisdiction.
Documents obtained through freedom of information requests show that concerns were raised by Parks Canada staff about potential conflicts of interest involving Gregg Howald of Coastal Conservation.
Coastal Conservation was previously awarded a contract of $724,500 to develop an eradication operation plan before being awarded the current contract for execution.
Parks Canada asserts that the fallow deer population’s impact on the ecosystem is still negative and justifies the eradication project.
The population estimates vary, with Parks Canada estimating 300 to 900 deer, while some residents claim the population is closer to 300 due to previous culling efforts.
Reichert questions the justification for a $5.9-million eradication project without accurate population data.
Parks Canada controls a portion of the island’s land, and residents, who own the majority of the land, were given a vote on the culling decision.
Coastal Conservation had been involved in a similar deer-eradication project on Haida Gwaii in 2017, which was eventually canceled.
Public feedback on the deer cull is being accepted by Parks Canada until August 23.

Please note that this summary report is based solely on the provided web page content and may not include any additional context or developments beyond the provided text.

Deer Friendly

A site dedicated to providing news and issues relating to deer slaughter. It also provides extensive information on humane methods of deer control. Unfortunately, some of the links don’t work, but the site is still a good resource that is well-organized and thorough.

Demonstrators protest Sidney Island deer eradication

### Key Takeaway The key takeaway from the web page is that approximately 50 people gathered in Beacon Park to peacefully protest the planned deer eradication on Sidney Island by Parks Canada. The protesters are questioning the justification and methods of the $5.9-million project, urging government officials to consider alternative approaches and seek more scientific data before proceeding.

### Summary

Protest Gathering:
- Around 50 people gathered in Beacon Park to protest the planned deer eradication on Sidney Island.
Organizer’s Perspective:
- Protest organizer Sharon Glynn expressed opposition to the mass kill, arguing that the fallow deer population is already under control due to safe hunting parties on the island.
Park Canada’s Project Purpose:
- Park Canada aims to eliminate invasive fallow deer to allow native black-tailed deer to recover and restore the native understory growth.
Deer Eradication Details:
- The $5.9-million project involves sharpshooters in helicopters and hunters on land with tracking dogs, scheduled between Nov. 25 and Dec. 15.
Government Spending Concerns:
- Protesters question the government’s allocation of funds for the project, especially since the majority of the island is private.
Hereditary Chief Support:
- Tsawout First Nation hereditary chief Eric Pelkey supports the project, emphasizing the restoration of the forest to its original state.
Appeal to Saanich-Gulf Islands MP:
- Protesters are urging Saanich-Gulf Islands MP Elizabeth May to raise the issue in Parliament, requesting a postponement for more scientific data and consideration of alternative solutions.
BC SPCA Involvement:
- BC SPCA was consulted in choosing sharpshooters to ensure humane dispatching of deer, emphasizing the expertise and training of the individuals involved.
Public Reaction:
- The article notes a previous incident of a deer with an arrow stuck in it in Saanich, drawing attention to public concerns about deer welfare.
Government Support and Historical Context:
- The government project has received support from some members, including the Tsawout First Nation hereditary chief. Historical context is provided, referencing the utilization of the forest by ancestors.
Media Coverage:
- The report acknowledges contributions from Ella Matte and highlights the Peninsula News Review as the source of information.
Request for Parliamentary Action:
- The protesters are hoping for parliamentary attention and action, asking for a postponement and a thorough examination of scientific data.
Additional News Highlights:
- The web page includes links to other news highlights and features a community poll unrelated to the deer eradication issue.

This comprehensive summary covers the main points of the protest, reasons for opposition, government perspective, and the wider context of the issue.

Effectiveness and costs of helicopter-based shooting of deer

### Key Takeaway Helicopter-based shooting is an effective method for reducing deer populations over large areas, but the extent of reduction depends on the effort put into the operation.

### Summary

The study evaluates the effectiveness and costs of helicopter-based shooting for controlling fallow deer and chital deer populations in eastern Australia.
The research aims to measure reductions in deer density, the relationship between deer killed per hour and density, costs of control, and the relationships between effort, outcome, and cost.
The study analyzes 12 aerial shooting operations targeting fallow deer and chital deer at nine sites characterized by fragmented woodland.
Population reductions achieved varied between 5% and 75% for fallow deer and 48% and 88% for chital deer.
The most significant population reductions occurred with higher effort per unit area, especially when shooting was conducted in consecutive years.
The functional response of hourly kills to deer density follows a modified Ivlev model, with an estimated asymptotic kill rate of 50 deer per hour.
There’s no evidence of a prey refuge, indicating no density threshold below which no deer could be shot.
Helicopter charter costs were the main expense, followed by labor, while firearm and ammunition costs were relatively minor.
The study recommends pre-control population surveys to establish measurable objectives, estimate required effort and costs, and evaluate realized population reduction.

### Keywords abundance, aerial gunning, aerial shooting, aerial survey, Bayesian statistics, chital deer, culling, density, effort–outcome, fallow deer, functional response, mark–recapture distance sampling.

(Note: The above report is based on the provided web page content and does not include any external information beyond what is present in the content.)

EPA gives thumbs up on vaccine to manage deer populations humanely

### Key Takeaway The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved the registration of an immunocontraceptive vaccine called Zonastat-D for managing deer populations humanely. This vaccine aims to reduce deer populations gradually without resorting to lethal methods, offering an alternative approach to conflicts with wildlife in urban and suburban communities.

### Summary

The EPA has given approval for the registration of the immunocontraceptive vaccine, Zonastat-D, which is designed for managing deer populations humanely.
Previously, communities often resorted to shooting or killing deer to address conflicts with wildlife in neighborhoods.
Zonastat-D is adapted from the Zonastat-H vaccine used for wild horse population control, and it is based on the porcine zona pellucida (PZP) vaccine. PZP blocks fertilization by triggering the production of antibodies that bind to the protein envelope surrounding the egg.
The approval of Zonastat-D offers an alternative approach to population control, enabling wildlife managers to reduce deer populations gradually and avoid lethal methods like sport hunting or sharpshooting, which are often considered unsafe and impractical in urban and suburban areas.
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has been involved in studies and research that provided the foundation for the registration of this vaccine. They have administered PZP-filled darts to deer in various locations, and evidence suggests that when used properly, PZP reduces fawning rates by 85 to 90 percent.
The EPA’s approval of Zonastat-D confirms the safety and effectiveness of this vaccine for managing deer populations. The HSUS plans to work with state wildlife agencies and communities to implement non-lethal programs and build comprehensive, humane solutions for coexisting with wildlife.
The approach of using PZP vaccines offers a more humane alternative to mass killing and aims to better manage localized overabundance of certain species in urban and suburban environments.
The vaccine approval highlights the need for more options in 21st-century wildlife management and encourages a more compassionate approach to dealing with conflicts between humans and wildlife.

Eradication And Restoration Options On Sidney Island

5 page doc by Jack Albrecht Ruth Albrecht Fred Anderka Frank Nielsen Robin Bassett

Harpa:

### Key Takeaway The key takeaway from the web page content is that the issue at hand revolves around the restoration and eradication options for fallow deer on Sidney Island, with differing perspectives on the necessity of eradication, the ecological impacts, ethical considerations, and the need for well-informed decision-making.

### Summary

The document discusses the ongoing debate regarding the restoration and eradication of fallow deer on Sidney Island.
The process involves a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) approved by Sidney Island, and there are documents available on the Sidney Island website under the Parks Canada Proposal.
The issue has caused disagreement among owners and involves concerns about access to hunting, with the potential eradication of fallow deer ending hunting on the island.
The history of discussions and attempts to communicate with the Council regarding eradication is outlined, including various documents shared with the owners.
Some owners took it upon themselves to communicate with Parks Canada, leading to the drafting of the MOU, which states that “eradication is critical for restoration.”
Relevant documents include a UBC research paper discussing the recovery of woody plants on the island and a paper on ethical wildlife control principles by Dr. Sara Dubois.
Questions raised include the necessity of eradication for restoration, the definition of restoration, the ethical implications of eradicating invasive species, and the impact on black tail deer.
The document highlights the lack of clarity on what “restoration” truly entails and whether eradicating the fallow deer is essential for achieving it.
The presence of invasive species and the potential ecological improvements observed are discussed in relation to the fallow deer population.
Concerns are raised about the cost of Parks Canada’s proposal, the methods of eradication, and the impact on the community.
The MOU was authorized by 80% of owners, with a final vote requiring a 75% majority for approval.
The Eradication and Restoration Committees have met multiple times, but there are concerns about a lack of alternative narratives to eradication and potential groupthink.
The involvement of Parks Canada personnel in eradication efforts and their associated costs are mentioned.
Recent correspondence suggests the consideration of a “population ecologist” to assess population numbers and the viability of management control instead of eradication.
The concept of “restoration” is explored further, with emphasis on the need for well-informed decision-making and compromise.
The document concludes by stating that the issue extends beyond a hunters versus non-hunters debate, touching on ethical and moral obligations toward the fallow deer population.

(Note: The summary includes the main points covered in the web page content. For a comprehensive report, the text has been condensed into bullet points while maintaining the core ideas and information.)

Bing:

The text is a summary of the issue of fallow deer eradication and restoration on Sidney Island, written by some owners who are not opposed to restoration but have questions and concerns about the process and the impact of eradication. The text provides some background information on the communication between the owners and the Council, and the documents that were shared on the website. The text also mentions a survey question on hunting and a new disease affecting black tail deer.

Perplexity: [incorrect conclusion]

The document titled “Eradiation and Restoration Options on Sidney Island” discusses the issue of overpopulation of fallow deer on Sidney Island and the proposed plan to eradicate the deer population. The document outlines the reasons for the proposed eradication plan, including the negative impact of deer on the island’s ecosystem and the risk of deer-vehicle collisions. The document also discusses the potential alternatives to eradication, such as relocation and contraception, and the challenges associated with these options. Ultimately, the document concludes that eradication is the most effective and efficient option for managing the deer population on Sidney Island.

Citations:

Chatgpt:

The document discusses the topic of eradication and restoration options for fallow deer on Sidney Island. It begins with a background explanation, highlighting the efforts of a Steering Committee and Working Groups to develop a plan for fallow deer eradication and restoration, based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) approved in March 2020. The document emphasizes the importance of addressing new owners and responding to Council’s recent material.

The authors clarify that they are not opposed to restoring the island’s ecology, but their concerns were about the process used for open dialogue on deer eradication. They mention efforts made to communicate with the Council and their involvement in discussions with Parks Canada to reset the process. They refer to various documents on the Sidney Island website that provide historical context and viewpoints supporting eradication.

Two key documents are highlighted:

A UBC research paper from May 2019, which presents empirical evidence regarding flora restoration on Sidney Island, indicating a general 30% improvement over six years. This paper neither states eradication is “critical” nor examines alternatives to eradication.
A paper by Dr. Sara Dubois on ethical wildlife control principles, suggesting that the term “invasive” should not solely justify extermination and emphasizing minimal harm in wildlife control.

The document raises several fundamental questions:

The necessity of eradicating fallow deer for restoration and defining the concept of “restoration.” It questions the specific goals of long-term forest recovery and what this entails.
The ethical considerations of labeling species as “invasive” and whether eradication meets ethical and ecological standards.
The adequacy of lowering the fallow deer population to under 200, given observed ecological improvements, and why a management control plan isn’t considered.
The potential costs, safety concerns, and ethical implications of eradication methods, including helicopter hunting and hunting with dogs.

The document recounts the authorization of the MOU in March 2020 and notes the ongoing work of the Eradication and Restoration Committees. Concerns are raised about a lack of diverse perspectives in these committees and the secrecy of their proceedings.

Recent correspondence from Parks Canada suggests exploring management control rather than eradication, utilizing a “population ecologist” to assess population numbers and hunting history. This is seen as a positive step by the authors.

The document concludes by stating that the issue goes beyond hunters versus non-hunters and emphasizes the moral and ethical obligations towards fallow deer. It calls for an informed decision-making process and finding a compromise to this emotionally charged issue.

The document is signed by multiple authors: Jack Albrecht, Ruth Albrecht, Fred Anderka, Frank Nielsen, and Robin Bassett.

Fallow deer eating their way across Gulf Islands

### Key Takeaway Invasive fallow deer with voracious appetites are spreading across Gulf Islands, devouring native trees and plants, posing a threat to ecosystems, vineyards, and gardens. Parks Canada and local residents are seeking a final solution to control the deer population.

### Summary

Invasive European fallow deer, distinct from native black-tailed deer, have become a problem on Gulf Islands due to their indiscriminate eating habits and rapid population growth.
The deer were originally introduced to James Island for sport hunting and have since spread to Sidney Island and other areas.
Efforts have been made to control the population through annual culls using methods like corral systems, bolt guns, and mobile meat processors.
Despite culling efforts, the fallow deer population has continued to grow on Mayne Island, with some deer island-hopping to other locations like Saturna Island.
The deer’s impact includes stripping vegetation, outcompeting native species, and threatening the rare Garry oak ecosystem, vineyards, and gardens.
Cameras are being set up to monitor deer numbers on Saturna Island, and community input will be sought for the next steps.
The preferred solution is to remove all the animals, but this approach is controversial and requires expert consultation.
The lack of natural predators has contributed to the deer population’s unchecked growth.
The deer are also affecting the native black-tailed deer population on Mayne Island due to a lack of predators.
The deer’s impact is particularly significant on plants such as arbutus, Garry oaks, and conifers.
Concerns about the deer’s movement into developed areas where hunting is restricted are growing.
There is debate on Mayne Island regarding a complete cull, as some residents oppose this solution.
Efforts to determine the density of the deer population and secure funding for management strategies are ongoing.
The situation highlights the need for a comprehensive approach to address the ecological and economic challenges posed by invasive fallow deer.

This report summarizes the issue of invasive fallow deer on Gulf Islands, their impact on ecosystems and communities, and the ongoing efforts to find a solution to manage their population.

Fast action needed to stop mass kill of deer on B.C. Island

### Key Takeaway The planned mass killing of all deer on Sidney Island, British Columbia, particularly targeting fallow deer, has sparked significant outrage among residents and visitors.

### Summary

Location and Ownership:
- Sidney Island, situated north of Victoria, is comprised of approximately 20% national park land, with the remaining area being privately owned and inhabited by full- and part-time residents.
Personal Connection:
- The author expresses personal fondness for the island, having enjoyed camping there multiple times, highlighting its peaceful and beautiful qualities, especially given its proximity to the city.
Controversial Action by Parks Canada:
- Parks Canada has announced its intention to carry out a mass kill of fallow deer on Sidney Island, citing them as a non-native species.
Public Outrage:
- The planned mass kill has generated widespread outrage among both residents and others, emphasizing the emotional response to this conservation strategy.
Environmental Context:
- The island is described as a small but valuable oasis close to the city, emphasizing its ecological and recreational significance.
Conservation Rationale:
- The primary motivation behind the mass deer kill is framed as a conservation effort, with a focus on eliminating the non-native fallow deer species.
Call for Action:
- The overall tone of the article suggests an urgent need for intervention to prevent the planned mass killing, urging for reconsideration of the conservation strategy.
Unresolved Questions:
- The article does not provide detailed information on alternative conservation measures or address potential ecological consequences of the mass deer removal. [However, there are plenty of viable alternatives as outlined in the Resources section.]
Author Perspective:
- The author positions themselves as part of a larger community that opposes the planned action, adding a personal and community-oriented dimension to the narrative.
Absence of Detailed Information:
- The article lacks specific details on the methods Parks Canada plans to use for the massdeer kill or the timeline for implementation.
Overall Impact:
- The controversy surrounding the mass deer kill on Sidney Island reflects broader debates about conservation strategies, raising questions about the balance between protecting native ecosystems and ethical considerations in wildlife management.

Humane dispatch

### Key Takeaway The web page provides comprehensive guidance on humane dispatch procedures for injured deer, covering legal aspects, safety considerations, methods of dispatch, and operator competency.

### Summary

The web page focuses on providing guidance for the humane dispatch of injured deer, emphasizing legal, safety, and ethical considerations.
Legal Aspects:
- Section 25 of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 exempts individuals from guilt if they take or kill deer to prevent suffering, including injured, diseased, or starving deer.
- Firearms or ammunition that are otherwise prohibited can be used for humane dispatch under certain circumstances.
Safety and Welfare:
- Situation assessment is crucial, considering factors such as operator safety, public safety, deer welfare, and operator competency.
- Risks associated with using firearms and potential danger from injured deer’s antlers or hooves should be considered.
- The dispatcher’s aim should be to ensure rapid loss of consciousness and death without causing unnecessary suffering.
Methods of Dispatch:
- Shooting with firearms is the preferred method, following proper authorization and safety measures.
- Other methods include the use of drugs (administered by qualified individuals), captive bolt (by trained slaughter personnel), and the use of a knife (only by experienced operators).
Dispatching Scenarios:
- Dispatching is required for wounded, diseased, injured, or trapped deer.
- Trapped but uninjured deer should be assessed for appropriate action.
Operator Competency:
- Dispatch should only be attempted by individuals with necessary skills, training, and experience.
Carcass Disposal:
- The person responsible for carcass disposal should be identified and aware of the proper procedures.
Insurance and Liability:
- Individuals involved in deer management are advised to have adequate public liability coverage.
Specialized Practitioners:
- Those specializing in the humane dispatch of Deer Vehicle Collision (DVC) injured deer should have relevant experience, training, and competence.

Note: The summary covers various aspects of humane dispatch procedures, including legal provisions, safety precautions, dispatch methods, operator competence, and carcass disposal.

For more details, please refer to the original web page.

Is Sterilization the Answer to Too Many Urban Deer?

### Key Takeaway Sterilization of urban deer populations, although controversial, has shown potential in reducing deer numbers in certain areas. While the method is met with skepticism, studies indicate a decline in deer populations through sterilization efforts.

### Summary

Sterilization is being considered as a method to address urban deer overpopulation in various US cities and suburbs.
Tony DeNicola, a wildlife biologist, has initiated deer sterilization programs in different locations to control deer numbers.
DeNicola’s sterilization program in Cincinnati, started in 2015, has resulted in a 19 percent decline in the deer population over three years.
Similar successful sterilization results have been observed in other areas, including Cayuga, New York (34 percent decline), Fairfax, Virginia (20 percent decline), Bethesda, Maryland (47 percent decline), and San Jose, California (37 percent decline).
Opposition to sterilization comes from hunters who have traditionally been involved in deer population control. However, studies suggest that hunting may not effectively reduce deer numbers for ecological impact.
A case study in a gated community in San Jose, where sterilization was employed due to landscaping losses caused by deer, resulted in a reduction of the deer population from 153 to 60.
Despite skepticism, a sterilization project on Staten Island saw an 8 percent decrease in the deer population.
A grassroots deer sterilization project in Cincinnati’s Clifton neighborhood, initiated by residents, successfully raised funds and implemented sterilization efforts.
The Cincinnati project involves sterilizing does, and it has a goal of achieving 95 percent sterilization to maintain a sustainable approach to wildlife management.
The sterilization procedure involves surgical removal of ovaries, tagging the deer, and releasing them after a reversal drug is administered.
Sterilization efforts have potential for reducing urban deer populations, but the method remains controversial within the wildlife management community.

For the full analysis and context, please refer to the provided web page content.

Letter by Film Maker Wendy Ord (pdf)

Wendy is a award winning writer, director and producer with credits for “Christmas Carol” (2023), “Perfect Manicure”, “The Way To The Heart” and more! You can find her IMDb Bio here. Summary of her letter follows:

### Key Takeaway The key takeaway from the web page is that the author strongly opposes the plan to eradicate deer on Sidney Island proposed by Parks Canada. The opposition is based on various grounds, including concerns about the accuracy of deer population estimates, lack of social license, credibility issues with project execution, potential negative ecological impacts, disruption of island residents’ lives, and potential financial misallocation.

### Summary

The author opposes the eradication of deer on Sidney Island proposed by Parks Canada, both European Fallow Deer and native Black-tailed Deer.
Parks Canada lacks a clear definition of “social license,” and the author believes they do not have it due to legitimacy, credibility, and trust issues.
There’s a conflict of interest since Coastal Conservation, a company involved in pushing the project, is leading the contractors, potentially benefiting financially.
The eradication plan doesn’t have 50% of island owners’ permission; only 45% of strata lots voted in favor.
The author questions the credibility of information provided by Parks Canada, including the lack of mention that all deer on the island will be eradicated.
A UBC study from 2013 to 2018 shows the island’s ecology improved, but PC presents a negative image of the island’s state.
The author questions the urgency of eradication, as restoration is observed through a hunt and cull program.
The success of the eradication is uncertain, and non-compliance with fencing and potential negative impacts on the ecosystem are concerns.
Trust in Parks Canada has eroded due to misinformation and mishandling of the project.
The author, along with many others, opposes the eradication due to concerns about cruelty, ecological impacts, disruption of residents’ lives, and loss of local food sources.
The project’s timeline is outlined, involving aerial and ground operations over several months, leading to significant disruptions for residents and the environment.
The author believes the loss of deer will upset the balance of nature, increase invasive species, and pose forest fire threats.
Repopulation of Black-tailed Deer is mentioned as a potential concern, while repopulation of fallow deer is questioned.
The author calls for reconsideration of the project, asserting that it lacks social license and questions the allocation of taxpayer dollars.

(Note: The summary aims to capture the main points from the web page content and might not include every single detail.)

Looming deer slaughter called ‘disturbing, terrifying’ by Sidney Island residents

### Key Takeaway The residents of Sidney Island are divided over Parks Canada’s plan to kill all European fallow deer, with concerns about the use of helicopters, potential harm to other wildlife, and the emotional impact on the community.

### Summary

Parks Canada plans to eradicate European fallow deer on Sidney Island, including native blacktails, to restore ecological balance.
Residents are divided; some, like Wendy Ord, argue the mass slaughter isn’t necessary due to already low deer numbers.
Concerns include the inability to distinguish between deer species by sharpshooters, the use of helicopters, loudspeakers, and drop nets for capture, causing distress to residents, pets, and wildlife.
Rob Milne raises concerns about the impact on bald eagles and raptors due to low-flying helicopters.
Proponents argue the deer eradication is essential for the ecological balance, citing disappearing understory plantswith medicinal value for the W̱SÁNEĆ people.
Parks Canada has awarded a $5.9-million project to Coastal Conservation, covering deer eradication, public consultation, support for indigenous community hunting, invasive plant removal, and replanting native species until 2026.
Shooting is estimated between Nov. 25 and Dec. 14, with a second phase in the following winter.
Saanich-Gulf Islands MP Elizabeth May, still recovering from a stroke, is examining the plan; key permits for helicopter use are pending.
Critics argue Parks Canada lacks accurate deer counts, with estimates ranging from 300 to 900; no formal counts by scientists have been conducted.
A 2019 UBC study suggests increased vegetation on the island due to sustained managed hunting since 2019.
Over 18,000 people signed a petition to cancel the deer killing.
Janice McLeod supports eradication, fearing the island will resemble Mandarte Island without intervention.
The community is emotionally divided, with concerns about the impact on the island’s character, wildlife, and the prolonged nature of the hunt.
Residents express horror at the prospect of on-the-ground fenced hunting seven days a week for four or five months.
Despite differing opinions, there is a call for reasonable discussions and exploring alternative solutions to the deer issue.

Non-Lethal Deer Population Control for Urban and Suburban Environments

### Key Takeaway The web page discusses non-lethal methods for controlling deer populations in urban and suburban environments, primarily focusing on contraception and sterilization. It highlights the challenges and benefits of these approaches, as well as their potential impact on managing deer populations.

### Summary The web page emphasizes the use of non-lethal methods for managing deer populations in urban and suburban areas. The key points include:

Deer Population Control Methods:
- The article advocates for non-lethal strategies such as contraception and sterilization to manage deer populations.
- It highlights the limitations and ethical concerns associated with lethal methods like culling.
Deer Contraception:
- Various forms of contraception are discussed, such as Gonacon and Spayvac.
- Contraception can be effective, with success rates often reported in the 90 to 95 percent range.
- Costs vary depending on factors like labor and the number of deer.
- Contraception needs to be reapplied after a few years.
Sterilization:
- Sterilization methods, including spaying, ovariectomy, and tubal ligation, are explored.
- Sterilization can be more expensive but offers long-term effectiveness (97-100 percent) and needs to be done only once.
- Challenges include surgical interventions, equipment, and potential attraction of bucks to sterilized does.
Examples of Sterilization Programs:
- The web page provides examples of cities and regions that have implemented sterilization programs.
- Oak Bay in British Columbia successfully reduced fawn numbers through immunocontraception, leading to a decrease in the deer population.
- South Euclid, Ohio, initiated a sterilization program, aiming for long-term impact on deer numbers.
Challenges and Considerations:
- The article acknowledges challenges in implementing non-lethal methods, such as cost, labor, and legal regulations.
- Different communities have debated and implemented various strategies based on local contexts and preferences.
- Public attitudes, government regulations, and local decision-making influence the choice of methods.
Benefits and Implications:
- Non-lethal methods help avoid negative consequences associated with culling, such as public opposition and the need for ongoing killing programs.
- Successes in reducing deer populations through sterilization and contraception programs are highlighted, providing evidence for the feasibility of these approaches.
Debate and Research:
- The web page also touches on the ongoing debate about optimal deer density and the relationship between deer populations and issues like Lyme disease.
- The role of fertility control programs in reducing deer populations without resorting to lethal methods is emphasized.

The overall message of the web page is that non-lethal methods like contraception and sterilization offer promising alternatives for managing deer populations in urban and suburban settings, with evidence of successful programs and ongoing research in this area.

Not tonight deer: A new birth control vaccine helps reduce urban deer damage

### Key Takeaway A new birth control vaccine named GonaCon™ has been developed to control white-tailed deer populations in urban areas. This vaccine reduces dangerous reproductive behavior, preventing collisions with automobiles and damage to gardens. It also has applications in managing undesirable behaviors in other animals.

### Summary

A birth control vaccine called GonaCon™ has been developed to address the issue of white-tailed deer overpopulation in urban areas.
The vaccine eliminates the reproductive behavior responsible for the surge in automobile-deer collisions during autumn.
The vaccine was discussed at the 242nd National Meeting & Exposition of the American Chemical Society (ACS).
GonaCon™ has the potential to reduce or eliminate undesirable behaviors in household pets and farm animals such as scent-marking, fighting, caterwauling, and wandering in cats, as well as aggressive behavior in horses.
The vaccine blocks the action of male and female sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen), responsible for these behaviors.
It could also be used for prairie dogs, wild horses, and feral dogs.
The vaccine addresses the population explosion of white-tailed deer, which cause damage to gardens, landscaping plants, and attract predators into residential areas.
Deer-auto collisions result in deaths and significant property damage.
GonaCon™ is developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service/Wildlife Services National Wildlife Research Center.
Unlike other birth-control vaccines, GonaCon™ prevents mating behaviors in vaccinated deer, eliminating dangerous situations.
The vaccine blocks a biological signal triggered by decreasing day length in autumn, inducing infertility by targeting gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH).
The vaccine was effective in various animals including white-tailed deer, ground squirrels, rats, swine, and wild horses.
A single injection of GnRH led to infertility lasting up to five years in penned white-tailed deer.
The vaccine needed to be registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and requires concentration data of the active ingredient.
GonaCon™ is the only EPA-registered multi-year, single-injection wildlife contraceptive for female white-tailed deer.
It must be administered by USDA or state game and fish department staff members and has been approved for use in Maryland and New Jersey.
The vaccine ensures that female deer remain sterile for years, reducing the risk of accidents caused by deer in traffic.

Note: The report has been generated based on the provided web page content, and some information might be missing or inaccurately interpreted due to the limitations of the content provided.

Parks Canada seeks input 230801

### Key Takeaway The key takeaway from the web page is that a cull of fallow deer on Sidney Island is being conducted due to the negative impact these deer have had on the ecosystem, even though it contradicts the teachings of the island’s elders. The cull aims to address the decimation caused by the deer population.

### Summary

Sidney Island is undergoing a cull of fallow deer to combat their negative impact on the ecosystem.
The cull has been met with resistance due to the conflict with traditional teachings and practices of the island’s elders.
The overpopulation of fallow deer has led to a significant reduction in the island’s forest understory.
Black-tailed deer, once hunted by the community, are now virtually extinct on the island.
The cull involves shooting animals from a helicopter, which has raised ethical concerns about suffering.
Critics, such as the Animal Alliance of Canada, question the lack of data on the deer population and suggest exploring non-lethal methods like immuno-contraception.
The proliferation of fallow deer has adversely affected the ecosystem’s biodiversity and plant growth.
Traditional foods, medicines, and habitats for animals are impacted by the loss of lush plants in the understory.
Sidney Island hosts the coastal Douglas fir ecosystem, which is unique to the region.
Public feedback on the cull can be provided until August 23 via specific online links.

(Note: The provided text does not include links, so the URLs are not complete in the summary.)

On the eve of mass fallow deer kill, pleas to stop the helicopter cull

23-11-30

### Key Takeaway The mass kill of fallow deer on Sidney Island, scheduled to start on Friday, is proceeding despite appeals claiming it is unnecessary. The $6-million plan aims to restore the island’s ecosystem, but there are opposing views on the necessity and methods involved.

### Summary

Deer Eradication Operation:
- A mass kill of fallow deer on Sidney Island is set to begin despite last-minute appeals.
- The operation, costing $6 million, is aimed at restoring the island’s fragile Coastal Douglas Fir ecosystems.
Opposition and Appeals:
- Private property owners and some citizens have appealed to the prime minister, federal environment minister, and the B.C. SPCA to halt the deer cull.
- First Nations confirm the operation is underway, emphasizing the damage caused by fallow deer to the land and ecosystem.
Execution Plan:
- A company will shoot deer from a helicopter, assisted by ground hunters with dogs.
- First Nations members will set up camps, locate carcasses marked by GPS, and handle the skinning and butchering.
Differing Perspectives:
- Some island residents argue against the eradication plan, stating the deer numbers are not critical and suggesting alternative uses for the allocated funds.
- A local hunter and wildlife biology professor assert that organized hunts and culls in the past have reduced the deer population effectively.
Animal Welfare Concerns:
- The B.C. SPCA’s endorsement of the mass kill has sparked outrage among some citizens, with concerns about inhumane practices and a lack of widespread public support.
- An online petition against the deer kill has garnered over 20,000 signatures.
Utilization of Deer Resources:
- Despite opposition, First Nations plan to use fallow deer resources for cultural purposes, such as making drums and moccasins.
- Blacktail deer are set to be reintroduced to the island after the fallow deer eradication.
Environmental Impact Claims:
- Arguments exist that the island’s ecology has already improved due to previous hunting efforts, and a more elaborate plan may not be necessary.
Potential Alternatives:
- Some island residents propose reallocating funds to address pressing needs in First Nations communities rather than focusing on deer eradication.
Long-term Effects and Future Phases:
- A second phase of killings is planned a year later, involving fencing and dogs to round up any remaining deer.
- Concerns are raised about the broader impact on the ecosystem and public perception, with potential consequences for the B.C. SPCA.
Cultural Utilization of Deer:
- The planned use of fallow deer resources by First Nations for cultural purposes adds a dimension to the debate beyond ecological concerns.

This summary captures the multifaceted nature of the deer cull issue, involving ecological, cultural, ethical, and financial considerations, with differing opinions among stakeholders.

Plan to eradicate fallow deer population from B.C. island faces backlash (Terrace Standard 230809)

Animal Alliance of Canada speaks out about alternative methods to preserve Sidney Island ecosystem

### Key Takeaway Animal advocates, led by the Animal Alliance of Canada, are opposing the plan to exterminate an invasive fallow deer population on Sidney Island, British Columbia. The plan aims to restore native plant habitats, but critics argue that more humane alternatives should be considered.

### Summary

Parks Canada’s plan involves culling the fallow deer population on Sidney Island to help restore native plant habitats and create a suitable environment for songbirds and other wildlife.
The cull is scheduled for the upcoming winter and will use sharpshooters from White Buffalo Inc. in helicopters and on the ground to eliminate as many deer as possible.
Jordan Reichert, campaign director of the Animal Alliance of Canada, criticizes the plan, suggesting that contraception or birth control would be a more ecologically responsible and humane alternative.
Kate Humble, superintendent for the Gulf Islands National Parks Reserve, counters that capturing, relocating, serialization, and contraceptives were considered but wouldn’t achieve the goal of population removal.
The fallow deer were introduced to Sidney Island by European colonizers and have been damaging vegetation, including medicinal plants used by local First Nations.
The fallow deer population on the island is estimated to be between 300 and 900. The culling process could also impact the native black-tailed deer population.
Critics argue that the chosen eradication method could negatively impact both deer species and the island’s ecology as a whole.
Humble defends the culling as a necessary action for ecosystem restoration, emphasizing that it’s a last resort when other methods cannot be applied.

Points covered:

Parks Canada’s plan for fallow deer cull on Sidney Island.
Use of sharpshooters by White Buffalo Inc. to eliminate deer.
Jordan Reichert’s criticism, proposing contraception or birth control.
Kate Humble’s response, highlighting limitations of alternatives.
History of introduced fallow deer damaging local vegetation.
Estimated fallow deer population and potential impact on native black-tailed deer.
Concerns about the chosen eradication method’s broader ecological impact.
Humble’s defense of culling as a necessary action for ecosystem restoration.

Note: The summary is comprehensive and covers the main aspects of the web page content.

Protest planned as Sidney island helicopter deer kill set to begin

### Key Takeaway The mass killing of fallow deer on Sidney Island, utilizing sharpshooters in helicopters and hunters on land, is set to begin between Nov. 25 and Dec. 15. The action aims to restore native plants and biodiversity, but it has sparked protests due to concerns about the tactics’ inhumanity and the high cost of $5.9 million.

### Summary

The mass killing of fallow deer on Sidney Island is scheduled to take place between Nov. 25 and Dec. 15.
The approach involves sharpshooters in helicopters and hunters on land with tracking dogs.
Parks Canada asserts that the deer eradication is necessary to restore native plants and biodiversity on the island, partly parkland and partly privately owned.
A protest is planned at Sidney’s Beacon Park against the perceived inhumane tactics and the significant cost of $5.9 million for eradicating the invasive species.
Protest organizer Sharon Glynn aims to halt the “unscientific and costly” eradication or at least postpone it until further research is conducted.
Parks Canada, along with First Nations partners and contractor Coastal Conservation, has finalized an operational plan, confirming the deer kill will proceed.
The initial phase is set to last over 10 days at the end of the month, with a second roundup and kill scheduled for a year later.
Critics, including wildlife biology professor David Bird, question the necessity of the expensive contract, suggesting traditional hunting has already reduced the deer population significantly.
The estimated fallow deer population on Sidney Island is between 300 and 900, according to Parks Canada.
A lack of proper, science-based censuses of the deer population is criticized by opponents.
The contract covers the project until 2026, including invasive plant removal and replanting native species.
A 2019 UBC study on Sidney Island indicated that reducing deer populations led to increased native species richness and diversity.
The deer kill will involve marksmen from the U.S. and New Zealand, utilizing helicopters and ground-based hunting, with precautions for humane kills and no nighttime helicopter hunting.
Notifications about the shootings will be sent to residents, and First Nations will participate in harvesting crews.
The B.C. SPCA will oversee the killings to ensure humane practices.
Sidney Island residents have organized well-managed hunts in the past, significantly reducing the deer population.
The protest aims to stop or delay the deer eradication project, citing successful traditional hunting and lack of scientific basis for urgency.

Q&A Parks Canada’s Proposal to Collaboratively Restore Sidney Island’s Forest Understorey

### Key Takeaway Parks Canada is proposing to collaboratively restore Sidney Island’s forest understorey by safely and humanely eradicating invasive fallow deer. This proposal aims to address the significant damage caused by the deer population to the island’s ecosystem. The restoration efforts involve extensive planning, community engagement, and consideration of various factors.

### Summary

Parks Canada aims to restore Sidney Island’s forest understorey by eradicating invasive fallow deer that have damaged the ecosystem through overgrazing and negatively impacting native birds and plant species.
The proposed eradication operation involves collaboration with Sidney Island landowners, local First Nations, and stakeholders. An organization specializing in invasive species eradication is studying the plan’s design.
Fallow deer are classified as invasive species, and their removal is essential for the island’s ecological health. Eradication is intended to restore the native forests and songbirds.
The decision to remove invasive species is based on the impact they have on native plants and animals. Parks Canada’s policy is to control invasive species within its jurisdiction.
Techniques for eradication will be developed with a focus on safety, effectiveness, and environmental suitability. Parks Canada is committed to humane methods.
Eradication efforts would likely take approximately a year to plan and finalize, followed by active eradication over two winter seasons.
Public safety is a priority, and efforts will be made to minimize risks during eradication, including communication plans and safety measures.
Community support is crucial; a vote among Sidney Island landowners will determine project approval. Parks Canada respects the decision of the community.
Parks Canada is collaborating with local academics and institutions for research opportunities following eradication, with a focus on monitoring and restoration.
Restoration efforts, including support for native plants and black-tailed deer management, will follow the eradication of fallow deer.
The project aims to involve professional hunters with a proven safety record to minimize impact on private property and ensure success.
Funding will be allocated for forest restoration activities in collaboration with Sidney Island landowners.
Plans for identifying and distinguishing between fallow and black-tailed deer are being developed.
Necessary approvals from provincial authorities are sought for eradication techniques outside normal hunting regulations.
Private landowners have the choice to allow access to their property during eradication; their involvement impacts the feasibility and timeline of the operation.
Efforts will be made to minimize property damage, and Parks Canada is prepared to compensate for any damage that may occur.
Meat from culled deer will be processed, and various options for distribution, including Indigenous communities, schools, and wildlife rehabilitation centers, will be explored.
Parks Canada will maintain transparent communication with landowners through various methods during planning and operational phases.
Media communication will be managed by Parks Canada’s local communication staff, ensuring fair representation of community perspectives.
Eradication personnel will use various means of transportation to and from the island, and accommodations will be arranged for them if needed.

Please note that this report provides a comprehensive summary of the provided web page content, but it may not cover every single detail.

Restoration of Sidney Island ecosystem ’not feasible’ without full eradication of invasive deer, Parks Canada says

### Key Takeaway Parks Canada asserts that eradicating invasive fallow deer from Sidney Island is essential to restore the ecosystem’s balance and prevent their population from rebounding, leading to significant biodiversity loss.

### Summary

Parks Canada is planning a $5.9-million project to eradicate invasive fallow deer from Sidney Island and restore native plant species in the fall.
Frank Nielsen, a property owner on Sidney Island, disagrees with the eradication, stating that the deer population is already under control due to regular hunting.
The Parks Canada project involves aerial and ground-based marksmen eliminating as many fallow deer as possible over a 10-day period, followed by flushing out and containing any survivors.
Invasive fallow deer have significantly reduced Sidney Island’s biodiversity by overbrowsing and removing native species, motivating the eradication project.
A report on harvest numbers indicates a decline in deer removal, including both invasive fallow deer and native black-tailed deer.
Kate Humble, superintendent of Gulf Islands National Park Reserve, notes that despite population reduction efforts, the ecosystem’s sustained recovery requires complete deer removal.
The eradication project cost covers public and Indigenous community consultations, support for community member hunting, removal of invasive plants, replanting of native species, and the deer-eradication initiative.
Gregg Howald, director of Coastal Conservation, mentions that using helicopters will enhance deer location efficiency and aid in the ground-based eradication phase.
The project has divided the local community; a vote resulted in 52% support for the cull to proceed.
Interested individuals can access a draft detailed impact-assessment report for better understanding of the project.

Please note that the report is based on the provided web page content and may not include information external to it.

Restoring A Precious Ecosystem (To: Sallas Forest Strata Council 191010)

### Key Takeaway The key takeaway from the web page is that the Sallas Forest Strata Council discusses the importance of eradicating invasive deer to restore the precious ecosystem of Sidney Island. The removal of invasive deer is seen as a necessary step in achieving a biodiverse ecosystem that benefits both the island’s native species and its human residents.

### Summary

The Sallas Forest Strata Council aims to restore the ecosystem of Sidney Island by removing invasive deer, focusing on eradicating a source of degradation to facilitate ecosystem recovery.
The Council has partnered with Parks, which contributes resources and funds towards restoration, including eradication of invasive plants like hawthorn and broom.
Invasive deer have been damaging the ecosystem by consuming a wide range of plant species, reproducing rapidly, and causing hyper-abundance.
Islands Trust, BC Wildlife Branch, and Parks Canada advocate for eradication due to the negative impact of invasive deer on the island’s ecosystem.
Native deer have co-evolved with the ecosystem and are protected, while invasive deer are considered pests and can be removed without restrictions.
Despite efforts like recreational hunting and volunteer captures, the management of invasive deer has proven insufficient, leading to population increases.
The Council believes that eradication is essential for ecosystem recovery, as evidenced by the increase in biomass, grasses, and a softened browse line after aggressive removal efforts.
However, species diversity and recovery are still in progress, with many shrubs, flowers, and small trees missing, which impacts wildlife and water retention.
Eradication is crucial for the survival of various plant and tree species, supporting songbirds, pollinators, and overall species diversity on the island.
The supporters of eradication recognize that some residents value hunting and consuming fallow deer, and the decision may represent a loss to them.

### Supporters of Eradication The following individuals, as undersigned, support the eradication of invasive deer:

Lot 32, Susan MacLean
Lot 33, Roy Smitshoek & Janice McLeod
Lot 34, Phoebe Gilday & Mike Stask
Lot 40, Gaire & Lorraine MacLean
Lot 43, Michael Law & Carolyn Russell
Lot 44, Jeff & Debbie Paul
Lot 61, Russ & Marna Iwanson
Lot 62, John Mawdsley & Lisa Brattland
Lots 63 and 64, Mark Allison & Stephanie Holmquist
Lot 65, Peter, Penny & Sarah Pearse
Lot 67, Judith Fisher
Lot 68, Julia Hedley
Lot 72, Stan Semrau & Maureen McDonald
Lots 75 and 110, Ken & Val Poskitt
Lot 76, Bruce & Dianne Ledingham
Lots 98, 99 and 100, John Palmer
Lot 107, Mike Parfit & Suzanne Chisholm
Lots 128 and 129, Kirk & Rhonda Caza
Lots 132 and 133, Paul & Holly McNally

Semi-automatic assault style rifles to be used for Sidney Island deer kill

### Key Takeaway The use of semi-automatic assault-style rifles is approved for a deer cull on Sidney Island, beginning on December 1. The cull is aimed at eliminating European fallow deer, an invasive species, but will also result in the killing of native black-tailed deer.

### Summary

Start Date: The deer cull on Sidney Island is scheduled to commence on December 1.
Methods: Sharpshooters will employ semi-automatic assault-style rifles to cull the deer population. This will occur from a helicopter, by land, and from boats.
Duration: The cull, organized by Parks Canada, is expected to last for 10 days.
Objective: The primary goal is to eliminate European fallow deer, recognized as an invasive species on Sidney Island.
Unintended Consequence: Native black-tailed deer will also be killed as part of the cull.
Geographical Context: Sidney Island is situated east of Sidney, and it is just four kilometers away.
Participants: The cull involves property owners on Sidney Island.
Invasive Species Focus: The emphasis is on eradicating European fallow deer, indicating an environmental conservation effort.
Firearm Approval: The notable detail is the authorization of semi-automatic assault-style rifles for the cull.
Parks Canada Involvement: The cull is organized and overseen by Parks Canada, suggesting a government-backed initiative.

Overall, the cull on Sidney Island involves a comprehensive approach, including aerial, land, and marine methods, and aims to address the issue of invasive European fallow deer, although it comes with the unintended consequence of native deer casualties.

Sidney Island Deer Eradication AA

### Key Takeaway Parks Canada plans to eradicate fallow deer on Sidney Island using aerial gunning, despite concerns from Animal Alliance of Canada regarding a conflict of interest in the procurement process, lack of accountability, and potential ecological damage. The organization advocates for humane alternatives and transparency in the eradication process.

### Summary

Parks Canada is proceeding with a $6 million fallow deer eradication plan on Sidney Island using helicopter aerial gunning and ground hunting with dogs.
Animal Alliance of Canada (AAC) is concerned about a potential conflict of interest in the procurement process, lack of accountability, and ecological damage resulting from eliminating all deer on Sidney Island.
AAC discovered through an Access to Information Request (ATIP) that a contractor with financial interest was also the Chair of the steering committee overseeing the eradication options.
AAC raised concerns with the Office of the Procurement Ombudsman and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, but formal investigations were not possible due to AAC not being a contract bidder.
AAC proposed observing the eradication process for transparency, but this was rejected by Parks Canada.
Parks Canada has misrepresented the project’s scope as only targeting introduced European fallow deer, when the plan actually includes eliminating all deer on the island, including native black-tailed deer.
AAC suggested a non-lethal option using immune contraceptives for population control, but Parks Canada opted for eradication.
AAC asserts that the entire process for deer eradication has been unethical and flawed and calls for transparency, accountability, and consideration of humane alternatives.
Parks Canada is seeking public input on the eradication process.
Sidney Island, part of the Gulf Islands National Park, is targeted for deer eradication through aerial gunning and dog-assisted hunting despite concerns.
Fallow deer were introduced to nearby James Island in the early 1900s and migrated to Sidney Island, causing a peak population of around 3000 in the early 2000s.
Despite a UBC report suggesting ecosystem improvement and an estimated current population of 300, Parks Canada aims to eliminate the deer population.
Parks Canada allocated $5.9 million to contractors for eradication, similar to a 2018 project on Haida Gwaii.
Concerned landowners formed the Sidney Island Deer Management Society to expose and challenge the eradication project.
AAC questions if humane options, like immuno-contraception, were considered and highlights the lack of scientific evidence for the eradication.
Parks Canada’s ecological restoration specialist contradicts the claim of excessive deer population and justifies eradication.
Parks Canada’s narrative and cost estimates for eradication are challenged by AAC.
Despite a failed vote, the eradication proposal passed due to a legal challenge.
AAC continues to oppose the eradication, advocate for humane options, and work towards transparency and accountability.
Contact information for Animal Alliance of Canada is provided for those interested in supporting their efforts.

Sidney Island Deer Management Society

This site is an excellent resource for the Sidney Island Deer Issue. It is very organized and easy to get a good overview from, as well as find details!

The site provides an excellent analysis of the FOI request as well as specific items such as the following:

Insurance coverage

“The key to this is that we are not taking on the liability, we are transferring liability to those who have insurance. This is limited in scope to Sallas lands”

Conflict of interest

CC’s Head of Global Affairs is the Chair of SIERP. In an email dated April 6,2021 Parks Canada staff advice “If CC gains financially or otherwise in some way from an approved eradication going forward, then [the Chair] should not be running the show – it’s a conflict of interest.” (Page 306)

Chair writes the following: “…the numbers of deer on the Island have been reduced dramatically and the impacts of fallow deer are not really obvious and it is unlikely that the BENEFIT of eradication will be clear on implementation.” (Page 219)

relying on owners’ vegetable gardens and arbutus saplings. (Page 219)

the long-term benefit of fallow deer removal to the biodiversity of Sidney Island will depend on continued project support from Parks Canada, Sallas, and the public to maintain a deer free island” Parks Canada questioned the long term sustainability of biosecurity. (Page 187)

Ethics

“Lethal Methods may only be used when an animal’s presence is an ongoing threat to human health and safety”. (Page 389)

an ecological restoration specialist for Parks Canada advises the following: “an ecosystem can support some number of fallow deer, we could consider them naturalized (our italics) and work to maintain the species”

Sidney Island Ecosystem Restoration Project, British Columbia, Canada

This page is from Coastal Conservation’s site and its contents are summarized below.

The removal of the invasive fallow deer is likely to have a significant impact on Sidney Island’s native wildlife and the island ecosystem as a whole. !!!

### Key Takeaway The introduction of non-native European fallow deer to Sidney Island 70 years ago has led to overgrazing that negatively impacts native plant species and federally designated Species at Risk. Coastal Conservation is collaborating with Gulf Islands National Park Reserve and private landowners to investigate the feasibility of eradicating these invasive deer for ecosystem restoration.

### Summary

Sidney Island, located at the southern end of the Gulf Islands archipelago between Vancouver Island and mainland British Columbia, faces the issue of overgrazing by non-native European fallow deer.
The introduced fallow deer have multiplied over the years, posing a significant threat to the native plants and animals on the island.
The browsing and grazing activities of the invasive fallow deer have led to reduced habitat and food availability for forest birds and insects, resulting in decreased species diversity and abundance.
Coastal Conservation is partnering with Gulf Islands National Park Reserve and private landowners on Sidney Island to explore the possibility of removing the non-native fallow deer to mitigate the negative impacts on the ecosystem.
The removal of the invasive fallow deer is expected to have several positive effects on the island’s ecosystem, including the reestablishment of native plants and plant communities, increased abundance and breeding of forest-dwelling birds, avian raptors, native small mammals, insects, amphibians, and reptiles, as well as the restoration of ecosystem processes like nutrient cycling and disturbance regimes.
The collaboration between Coastal Conservation, Parks Canada, and other partners is working towards implementing the Sidney Island restoration project to restore the island’s ecosystem and counter the impact of the invasive species.
Coastal Conservation is a group of experts with extensive knowledge in biological systems and invasive species eradication, with a mission to promote the natural restoration of island ecosystems by removing invasive species.

(Note: The provided content was limited in scope. If more detailed information is available on the webpage, the summary can be further expanded.)

Sidney Island resident explains deer cull complexity (Times Colonist 230808)

Only a few people in the world know how to do this with enough precision to be recognized as humane.

### Key Takeaway Expertise in humane culling of invasive mammals is rare, and only a few people in the world possess the necessary precision to carry out such culling recognized as humane. Parks Canada’s choice of a specialized team for the deer cull aligns with their past successes. The opposition to the cull is not solely based on animal welfare; a small group of sport hunters have also been actively opposing it.

### Summary

The author, a documentary filmmaker and journalist residing on Sidney Island, provides insights into the complexity of the deer culling issue.
Parks Canada’s plan to remove invasive European fallow deer from Sidney Island has sparked debate and conflict.
Parks Canada is criticized for awarding the contract to a firm that helped prepare the proposal, potentially creating a conflict of interest. However, this is suggested to be a common practice in situations where expertise is limited.
Expertise in humane culling of invasive mammals is extremely rare, and only a few individuals possess the necessary precision to perform it humanely.
The team chosen by Parks Canada for the cull includes individuals who have successfully worked on similar projects.
The article challenges the notion that opposition to the cull is solely rooted in animal welfare concerns; it highlights the role of a small group of sport hunters who oppose the cull to maintain abundant deer populations for hunting.
Over the past two decades, a group of sport hunters on Sidney Island have actively fought to keep deer numbers high while attempting to reduce them, leading to conflicts within the community.
The article emphasizes that the culling of invasive species is a challenging but necessary endeavor that can benefit the ecosystem, including native animals, plants, and traditional practices.
Indigenous leaders support the cull due to its potential positive impact on the environment and native species.
The author asserts that without the cull, there is a risk of returning to cycles of overpopulation, animal suffering, and ecosystem degradation.
Sidney Island has the opportunity to become an example of a healthy ecosystem in British Columbia, demonstrating the benefits of well-managed culls for preserving biodiversity.
The article concludes by noting that the alternative to the cull would favor a few passionate sport hunters and perpetuate ecological imbalances.

(Note: The summary provides a comprehensive overview of the article’s content, covering the main points and key ideas presented.)

Sterilization as an alternative deer control technique: a review

### Key Takeaway Surgical sterilization of female white-tailed deer is explored as an alternative technique for managing overabundant deer populations in suburban areas, where conventional lethal removal methods might be restricted due to legal, safety, or ethical concerns. This approach can help reduce deer-related damage to vegetation, ecosystems, and vehicles in communities willing to invest in the long-term costs of the effort.

### Summary

Introduction and Context:
- White-tailed deer populations in suburban areas pose challenges and negative impacts on communities due to damage and conflicts.
- Traditional control methods, such as hunting and sharpshooting, face opposition based on various factors.
Surgical Sterilization as an Alternative:
- The study explores the use of surgical sterilization as a non-lethal technique for managing deer populations.
- Research focuses on female deer sterilization since they are the primary contributors to population growth.
- Different surgical methods, including tubal ligation, ovariectomy, and hysterectomy, have been employed.
Factors Affecting Sterilization Efficacy:
- The success of surgical sterilization depends on various factors, such as the percentage of the population treated, closed or insular population dynamics, and the potential for immigration.
- Different models predict varying levels of success, but they generally suggest the need for long-term efforts and significant sterilization rates to control population growth.
Field Studies and Results:
- Several field studies have been conducted to test the practicality and effectiveness of surgical sterilization in reducing deer populations.
- Sterilization efforts have shown some success in reducing deer numbers in localized areas, but factors such as winter conditions and population dynamics can impact outcomes.
Costs and Challenges:
- Surgical sterilization is associated with significant costs, including veterinary expenses, pharmaceutical supplies, labor, and equipment.
- The cost per sterilization procedure can be over $1,000 per deer.
- Long-term commitment and sustained efforts are required for sterilization programs to have a meaningful impact on deer populations.
Recommendations and Considerations:
- Surgical sterilization may be a viable alternative in communities willing to invest in non-lethal methods.
- Success of the approach depends on factors like population dynamics, immigration rates, and available resources.
- Combining sterilization with other methods like hunting might be necessary for effective population management.
Conclusion:
- Surgical sterilization of female deer can serve as an alternative technique for managing overabundant populations, especially in closed or insular populations.
- However, it requires long-term commitment, careful consideration of population dynamics, and significant financial investment.
Research Priorities:
- Continued research is needed to refine surgical sterilization techniques and assess their long-term impacts on deer populations.
- Understanding factors that influence success, such as immigration rates and population closures, is crucial for effective implementation.
Key Words:
- control, human-wildlife conflicts, Odocoileus virginianus, sterilization, surgery, white-tailed deer.

(Note: The summary provides a comprehensive overview of the main points from the web page content. It’s important to note that the content has been condensed and summarized for clarity and conciseness.)

The role of education, curiosity, and exploration in conservation

### Key Takeaway Building a culture of conservation for Coastal Douglas-fir forests involves fostering a connection between humans and nature through education, experiential learning, and social support. Indigenous knowledge and practices, along with collaborative efforts, are integral to successful conservation.

### Summary

Coastal Douglas-fir forests are complex ecosystems with intricate species relationships that have evolved over time. Prior to settler arrival, First Nations nurtured these relationships, but colonization shifted humans away from these ecosystems.
Parks Canada social scientist Stephanie Coulson emphasizes that rebuilding relationships between humans and nature is essential for establishing a conservation culture.
Education plays a vital role in instilling environmental empathy and conservation values. The quote “we will conserve only what we love, we will love only what we understand, and we will understand only what we are taught” highlights the importance of education in conservation.
Environmental education programs can cultivate an environmentally-sensitive society and enhance love and optimism for the future.
Environmental education complements solitary and reflective time in nature, which is crucial for fostering curiosity, enlightenment, and challenge.
Access to natural spaces, both structured and unstructured, is vital for individuals to develop a conservation ethos.
Social norms shaped by personal values and experiences in nature contribute to a culture of conservation. Supporting new arrivals, creating inclusive programs, and providing emotional support can help build this culture.
Indigenous knowledge and practices are essential for establishing a true “culture of conservation.” Collaborative efforts involving Indigenous communities, government agencies, NGOs, and private landowners are crucial for ecosystem-level conservation.
Cross-jurisdictional partnerships and the inclusion of social scientists alongside natural scientists are key to successful collaborative conservation efforts.

(Note: The summary covers the main points of the web page content. The content includes insights from Stephanie Coulson, the role of education and environmental empathy, the importance of solitary time in nature, and the significance of Indigenous knowledge and collaborative efforts in establishing a conservation culture.)

Too many decisions being driven by parks department

### Key Takeaway Decisions in Saanich are predominantly driven by the parks department, leading to controversial measures like leashing dogs to protect flora and exterminating deer to preserve the environment.

### Summary

Issue Overview:
- There is a growing concern about decisions driven by the parks department in Saanich.
- Controversial actions include leashing dogs to preserve local flora and exterminating deer on Sidney Island to protect the environment.
Argument Against Parks Department Influence:
- The author criticizes the parks department for prioritizing the protection of dandelions over the well-being of local fauna and the freedom of dogs.
- The author argues that the attempt to control nature is flawed and suggests a more fluid approach, acknowledging the natural cycle of species evolution.
Extreme Measures and Satirical Proposal:
- The author employs satire by suggesting that if the logic is extended, cities should be demolished, and all human-made structures like sidewalks, parking lots, and roads should be removed.
- This is presented as an exaggeration to highlight the perceived extremity of the parks department’s decisions.
Nature’s Adaptability:
- The author emphasizes the natural process of evolution, stating that when one species of flora is removed, another naturally takes its place.
- Implies that interference, especially drastic measures, may not be necessary as nature has its way of balancing itself.
Call to Rethink Park Department’s Role:
- The letter concludes with a critique of the parks department, claiming that virtually every decision in Saanich is driven by this entity.
- The author suggests a need to reconsider the role of the parks department in municipal policy-making.
Author’s Identity:
- The letter is signed by Doug Coulson from Saanich, indicating a local resident’s perspective on the issue.
Additional Information:
- The web page includes links to other news articles and sections such as podcasts, videos, sports, weather, and trending topics.
- The publication date is November 15, 2023.

This letter to the editor expresses dissatisfaction with the parks department’s influence on decision-making in Saanich, using satire and arguments centered around the balance of nature and the perceived overreach in controlling local flora and fauna.

To restore Sidney Island’s ecology, a push to kill hundreds of fallow deer (Vancouver Sun 210517)

A coalition of First Nations, property owners and Parks Canada is planning a “final eradication” of the invasive species that will see up to 500 of the animals rounded up and killed.

### Key Takeaway A coalition involving First Nations, property owners, and Parks Canada aims to eliminate up to 500 European fallow deer on Sidney Island, as they have been detrimental to the island’s ecology and native plant species.

### Summary

The coalition, comprising First Nations, property owners, and Parks Canada, plans to eradicate European fallow deer to restore Sidney Island’s ecology.
Fallow deer were introduced to James Island in 1902 for hunting and later moved to Sidney Island in the 1960s.
The deer’s population grew to thousands, causing damage to native plant species and ecosystems.
Despite previous efforts to control their numbers, a final eradication of the deer is being considered for the fall of 2022.
Parks Canada leads the initiative, along with the W̱SÁNEĆ Leadership Council, Islands Trust Conservancy, and island residents.
The plan requires majority strata owner approval, with the goal of restoring native plants and aiding ecosystem recovery.
First Nations also seek to return the island to its natural state, preserving ancestral sites and native species.
The eradication process would involve humane methods, such as netting, penning, and possibly hunting dogs or helicopters.
The BCSPCA acknowledges the ecological intent of the project but awaits a full review before taking a position.
Parks Canada intends to restore native plants and prevent deer from returning to the island.
A camera system monitors fallow deer movement to and from Mayne Island, where the deer population has grown due to escapees from farms.
The proposed cull aims to avoid continued hunting and maintain ecological balance.

(Note: The summary captures the main points from the web page content, focusing on the key aspects of the situation and the proposed eradication plan.)

Urban deer in Greater Victoria community to be put on birth control

### Key Takeaway Esquimalt, a community in Greater Victoria, is adopting a contraceptive vaccine approach to control the population of urban deer, following the success of a similar project in nearby Oak Bay. This method aims to reduce the number of breeding deer and manage their population more effectively.

### Summary

Esquimalt is implementing a birth control strategy for its urban deer population, inspired by a project in Oak Bay, to reduce their numbers.
Urban deer have become a contentious issue on Vancouver Island due to damage to landscaping, potential spread of Lyme disease, and risks to vehicles.
Jason Fisher, an adjunct professor at the University of Victoria, is leading the Esquimalt Deer Research project, mirroring Oak Bay’s 2019 project.
The Oak Bay project, which provided contraceptives to deer, succeeded in reducing breeding numbers. The vaccinated deer will receive booster shots in the upcoming season.
Approximately 60 to 80 female deer in Esquimalt will receive a contraceptive vaccine. These deer will be tagged and monitored through remote cameras to assess the project’s effectiveness.
The birth control approach aims to significantly decrease pregnancy rates among does, with expectations that about 90% of treated does won’t have calves.
The initiative emerged after an unsuccessful cull attempt in Oak Bay. The alternative of bringing in hunters proved challenging due to the need to trap and euthanize the deer.
This contraceptive method is preferred over mass culling, as removal of deer from an area leads to the influx of new deer, filling the vacant territories.
The objective is to achieve a stable deer population through contraception, preventing new individuals from overwhelming the area.
Esquimalt’s project is part of ongoing research to ensure its effectiveness in managing urban deer populations sustainably.

[End of Report]

Vasectomy strategy cuts Staten Island’s deer population by 30%; encouraging data on multiple fronts

### Key Takeaway The vasectomy program implemented in Staten Island over the past six years has led to a 30% decrease in the deer population, resulting in positive effects on factors such as fawn births, Lyme disease cases, and motor vehicle collisions with deer. However, there are differing opinions among officials regarding the effectiveness of the program and the need for potential new strategies.

### Summary

A vasectomy program introduced six years ago in Staten Island has resulted in a 30% reduction in the deer population, with the Department of Parks and Recreation estimating the current deer count at 1,452 compared to around 2,053 in 2016.
Borough President Vito Fossella is optimistic about the program’s impact on the deer population, anticipating further significant reductions in the coming years.
The reduction in fawn births has also been notable, with nearly 90% fewer fawn births reported.
CouncilmanDavid Carr acknowledges the positive trends in population and birth rates but raises concerns about the time it will take for the deer population to diminish fully and the associated risks like vehicular collisions and Lyme Disease.
Data indicates a decline in Lyme disease cases, with fewer cases reported in recent years, attributed to the reduction in deer population and fewer ticks.
Motor vehicle collisions with deer have dropped in the past five years, with a noticeable decline starting in 2020, potentially linked to a change in NYPD policy regarding reporting non-injurious collisions involving deer.
Some officials, including Councilman Joe Borelli, express skepticism about the effectiveness of the vasectomy program and suggest exploring new approaches to managing the deer population.
Wildlife biologist Dr. Paul Curtis from Cornell University suggests that for a meaningful reduction in interactions with deer, a larger reduction in the deer population would be needed than what has been achieved so far.
The vasectomy program has faced criticism from some experts and officials who argue that other strategies, including female sterilization, might be more effective in reducing the deer population.
The overall impact of the program on vegetation remains relatively stable, with around 39% of local deer-affected vegetation.
Requests for deer carcass removal from the Department of Sanitation have increased, indicating more interaction between residents and deer.
Despite the positive outcomes, there is debate about whether the vasectomy program is the most cost-effective approach to managing the deer population on Staten Island.
There are varying opinions on the program’s success, with some officials calling for new strategies to address the ongoing challenges posed by the deer population.

Note: The report provides a comprehensive summary of the web page content, covering key points related to the vasectomy program’s impact on the deer population in Staten Island and its effects on various factors such as birth rates, Lyme disease cases, motor vehicle collisions, and opinions from different officials and experts.

Wildlife Contraception and Political Cuisinarts

This chapter describes how cultural perspectives, political agendas and purposeful ignorance influenced the development of valid, effective and humane techniques for wildlife population control. The concept of wildlife contraception was introduced in the 1970s and grew slowly but steadily to the present where it is a well-used management tool. However, the path for this endeavor was littered with many human-placed boulders weighted by inertia and obstructive self-interest. Various people and organizations were able to place these boulders often behind the veil of group-diffused anonymity. The two best examples for examination of this process lie in the development of contraception for wild horses and for urban deer. These will be the focus of this https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/conflict-of-interest-concern-raised-for-sidney-island-deer-cull-contract-7366573chapter.

Animal Justice

Sun, 06 Aug 2023 12:08:59 -0700

Animal Justice is in our opinion the best thing that’s happened to animal rights in Canada! They are making sure that animals have a legal voice with a team of lawyers and advocates.

Animal Justice’s mission statement from their About-Us page reads:

We believe that animals need lawyers, and our legal team works to protect animals from cruelty and neglect. Canada has some of the worst animal protection laws in the Western world, and our mission is to overhaul the legal system to better reflect our country’s values of compassion and justice for all.

The dedicated people are action-oriented taking to task unscrupulous attempts by animal abusers to cover up their crimes (eg gag laws) and brings offenses to the public eye … and to court!

They hold the important Canadian Animal Law Conference in conjunction with Faculties of Law and even have a student program to prepare the next generation.

An up-to-date blog provides the latest news on animal issues and their free online advocacy training program known as the Animal Justice Academy helps to develop and support those who try to make this world a better place.

Animal Justice furthers what is the most important matter humanity has always and ever faced, that of how we behave towards the vulnerable, for therein lies our species’ destiny.

Hacking the Fireworks Firewall

Fri, 30 Jun 2023 15:17:55 -0700

Fireworks are a severe problem for many: wildlife, farm animals, pets, people with PTSD and anxiety. They are seen by some as a traditional and/or cultural means of celebration. Hence, jurisdictions often allow such activities which are a blatant abuse of an individual’s basic rights.

This document was created after a discussion on 2023-06-29 with Rob Harris who is one of the CVRD officers that respond to illegal fireworks discharge. He kindly explained the process for dealing with complaints made to the CVRD. Other jurisdictions likely have very similar mechanisms and situations. Rob also made several insightful comments regarding the necessity for neighborhood education.

Throughout the article, we reference links to illustrate salient points.

Pilgrim’s Process

Most people know that we have laws. What they do not know is the process by which a law is enforced. An understanding of this process by the neophyte goes a long way to facilitate enforcement of those laws. In the CVRD, it is against the law to sell fireworks, and one needs a permit to set them off. Everyone doesn’t follow the law though.

There are only 3 officers that patrol the CVRD’s 9 electoral areas consisting of a population of over 31,000. It is not an easy job.

When we call the bylaw enforcement number (250-746-2655) to report a violation, we need to do a bit more than exclaim “Yo! I hear fireworks somewhere towards the east and it’s driving me bleeping bonkers!!”

While officers can be sympathetic, in order to spring into action, they really require something more tangible, such as the name of the violating person(s) or an address where the transgression is taking place.

Having that information allows the officer to question the suspect who will either confess to committing the crime or deny any wrongdoing.

In the former case, the officer can simply ticket the individual who will be charged according to the law (and having been identified for posterity, will likely not want to pay a fine again).

In the denial situation, the officer requires some evidence such as fresh fireworks fodder or the statement of a witness for the matter to be taken to court.

A Ban Done Fireworks

Let’s be clear on why we need a ban on fireworks. A ban puts the law on our side!

Having the law on your side goes a long way to ending fireworks, because most people will obey a law that is just. Most people appreciate the necessity of maintaining an orderly and safe neighborhood. If a law is designed to promote such an environment, most people will obey that law.

For instance, we do not rob banks because there is a law that essentially says we should not rob banks. Our subsequent exemplary behavior has little to do with the actual enforcement of this law. The law aligns with a standard of proper conduct and most people abide by it, even if they think they can avoid the consequences.

IckyBad! IckyBad!

There is no glory to insisting that something worthwhile cannot be done.

One of the arguments against a ban is that it would be very difficult to enforce. This is an impotent attitude which does not seem to understand that enforcement is not the key issue. A law can have an effect regardless of whether it is enforced or not - just as in chess a threat can be more influential than its execution. Nor does the law need to be exhaustively applied. We don’t catch all the bank robbers, but catching some of them certainly serves as a deterrent for the ambitious few who may be looking for a career change.

Another misguided manueuvre is to incorrectly blame others for one’s state of misfortune. Hence, some feel we will get nowhere with the present lamentable situation because those Indigenous are selling the fireworks. What is overlooked here is that even if those Indigenous didn’t sell the fireworks, they still could be purchased online as well as from a variety of non-Indigenous sources!

Finally, when some get tired of blaming the Indigenous, they turn to blaming the enforcement officers for not doing their job, without actually thinking about how difficult that job really is! Enforcement officers are not uncaring, apathetic individuals. They can only do so much given the resources and they deserve our support, cooperation, and encouragement - not merely our complaints about the fireworks or them!

If we chain our posteriors to the problems, we will never get up to reach the solutions.

Charge of the Right Brigade

The biggest hurdle to overcome is not the selling of fireworks or the inability of 3 officers to police 31,000 individuals!

The real problem lies on two fronts: the ignorance of those discharging fireworks, “the bangbang” (not to be confused with an expressive classical pianist, by the way) and the tolerance of the victims, “the meek”.

The bangbang are not necessarily inconsiderate so much as they are simply uninformed. Many of them just do not know the irritation and even trauma their ‘celebrations’ cause others. Some are animal lovers and would be horrified to learn they are harming wildlife or pets. Some are fine individuals who just haven’t thought about the effect their activities are having on fellow neighbors. Some are even environmentally conscious, but haven’t realized that fireworks leave behind toxic debris that cannot be recycled.

The meek, on the other hand, are too complacent. They have indoctrinated themselves to think fireworks are just a part of life we put up with. It is what it is!

Or is it?!

A tenet of civilized society is that each law-abiding member should be safe from harm. Each individual has the right to live free from damaging pollution, be it deafening noise, blinding light, or noxious toxicity. No individual should be expected to forsake those rights and endlessly endure improper behavior from others!

If you accept the above principle, then realize the following:

It is not your responsibility to be tirelessly tolerant. It is the responsibility of those who violate your basic rights to stop their boorish behavior!

Fences may make good neighbors, but offences certainly create bad ones! And fireworks are an offence no different from wild partying or property damage or hooliganism. These are not things to accept. They are unethical behaviors to call out, vigorously oppose, and permanently extinguish!

The meek shall speak!

One of the things the CVRD encourages is to politely talk to your neighbors and build an awareness of the damage fireworks cause.

Civilized people are also considerate. They do not want to do things that directly harm those that live around them.

Building a neighborhood awareness that fireworks are not wanted and the reasons why are key here. We have Block Parents and Neighborhood Watch. These initiatives make it very clear that certain behaviors are unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

Fireworks are no different. Such harmful behaviors should not be allowed to hide under the guise of celebration, subterfuge of cultural tradition, or panacea of personal enjoyment, when clearly they create a major problem for so many others.

It is therefore the task of those who do not want fireworks, to speak up against them. We need to let the politicians know through letters and presentations that we want fireworks to be banned! We also need to let our fellow neighbors know through courteous, but uncompromising communications that fireworks discharge is in reality a most hurtful activity to the community.

Doing so maybe the most effective form of enforcement there is!

Fallacy in Animal Rights Discussions

Mon, 12 Jun 2023 14:56:15 -0700

Fallacious argumentations in animal rights and vegan discussions are identified according to the rules of logic. This guide exposes standard logical fallacies that repeatedly appear and demonstrates their invalidity.

This article is a modified version of the original Fallacy in Animal Rights and Vegan Discussions which has been on the internet since 2012. As in that article, Data explains why Lore’s efforts at belittling animal rights and vegan positions are not logically valid and also proceeds to provide analysis for specific situations illustrating the fallacy.

For general exploration of fallacies consult the following sources:

Alternate names for a fallacy is provided in italics and abbreviations used in the document are listed in the table below:


¬ NOT	∧ AND	∨ OR
C C is true	¬ C C is false
> greater than	< less than
→ implies	∈ is element of	∴ therefore

Table of Contents

1 Ad Hoc

Special pleading. Relativist. Subjectivist fallacy. False attribution. Fallacy of quoting out of context. No true Scotsman. Shifting ground fallacy. Doublespeak.

By arbitrary introductions of excuses one attempts to make the argument appear valid. Special pleading unjustifiably requests that certain things be not applicable to certain personal situations.

Data: Do you understand that there are moral implications involved in killing animals? These are sentient beings who experience emotions such as joy, fear and love, just as humans do.
Lore: Well that’s no doubt true about the animals, but while the moral implications may apply to you, they don’t apply to me.
Data: Since we are agreed that animals are sentient beings, everyone has a moral obligation to act towards them appropriately.

_Form_
A accepts C for B.
A rejects C for A introducing arbitrary circumstances.
∴ C doesn’t apply to A.

1.1 Banana allergy

One of my co-workers says she can’t do veg, cuz she has a banana allergy. When I pointed out that you don’t have to just eat bananas and can eat all sorts of other fruits, she said “Well I have allergies to all of those too”. Ok how about vegetables? “Nope, I’m just allergic to eating veggies as well unless with some meat!”

_Datanalysis_
While there may be a condition known as carbohydrate intolerance (lactose intolerance being the most common version), congenital forms of this are extremely rare. It is the inability of the body to process carbohydrates well due to missing enzymes (supplying the enzymes externally can resolve the dilemma). However, it is clear here that the co-worker is just making up excuses on the go.

1.2 Foie gras compassion

Some protestors cornered a restaurant owner who sold foie gras in California back around 2000, pointing out how horribly the birds were treated. He agreed about the treatment and then just said “I don’t share your compassion.”

_Datanalysis_
Here we have a case of rationalization in the form of “you can be compassionate, but I do not have to be (because I am so special etc)”. A better argument might have been to fabricate something along the special pleading lines of “The inhumane treatment of the birds provide my livelihood”, but even that fails dismally since livelihood does not justify cruelty.

1.3 Life is supposed to be fun

Life is about having fun. Eating just fruit and vegetables is way too serious and boring.

_Datanalysis_
This is a case of special pleading. The individual pleads that she will not have fun eating just fruits/vegetables, therefore she should not have to do so. By this reasoning, some could claim that they should not have to go to the bathroom, because doing so smells and is therefore not fun. Of course, if they would eat fruits and vegetables, instead of corpse parts, they might find that the experience is possibly not quite as unpleasant.

1.4 I don’t want to live forever!

I don’t want to be so healthy that I keep living on and on. Therefore, it is fine to eat things that make me less healthy.

_Datanalysis_
While the logic employed is impeccable, one wonders about the degree of sincerity. For instance, at what age does the individual consider to be ’long enough’? Will the individual terminate his/her own existence at that age? If so, why not live healthy and then self-terminate at the appointed time? The issue would seem to have nothing to do with being healthy and everything to do with consuming whatever one is tempted by.

1.5 The peer-reviewed, published study is useless as far as I’m concerned

The unfortunate thing about this study and the Harvard study is that they both relied on phone and face to face interviews in which they just asked people about what they ate. I find this type of study almost worthless since most people can’t remember day to day what they ate let alone over a period of time.

_Datanalysis_
The above comment is in reference to Red Meat Consumption and Mortality which was not only conducted with great thoroughness, but also accounted for factoring out known contributors of disease. The criticism is similar to the one generated by The Meat Institute: “A new study in today’s Archives of Internal Medicine tries to predict the future risk of death from cancer or cardiovascular disease by relying on notoriously unreliable self-reporting about what was eaten and obtuse methods to apply statistical analysis to the data.” (AMI) who naturally have a vested interest in maligning the study, but seem to be having some difficulty in coming up with sensible arguments to that effect.

1.6 Diet is a personal choice

My spouse eats meat. I don’t. It’s just a personal choice we’ve made.

_Datanalysis_
Any action is essentially a personal choice. However, the fact that one has made a personal choice doesn’t provide the justification of the action. For instance, killing your boss or restraining a child are also personal choices. However, to justify either requires more than just the obvious claim that these are personal choices. One may be able to justify the former because your boss was attempting to kill you (ie self-defense), while the latter may be justifiable in a situation where the child was trying to harm a sibling (ie defense of another), but neither uses the idea of personal choice as a rationale. Eating corpse supports the imprisonment, exploitation, abuse and murder of sentient beings and is not legitimized by the personal choice rationalization.

1.7 I have special requirements of science

Denyer: Animals are incapable of demonstrating altruism.
Response: You are just unaware of the past 3 decades of cognitive ethology.
Denyer: You are completely correct about that! I don’t like modern ethology much.
Response: That is indeed a pity! I believe there is a lot being lost then.
Denyer: I don’t think so. I’m selective and modern ethology generally does not meet my requirements for science.

_Datanalysis_
There is considerable inconsistency in the responses. If the person is unaware of cognitive ethology, how can he claim to not like it. Also, whether his requirements for science are met is irrelevant since it is merely a personal attitude irrespective of the facts. What we are dealing with here is a faith-based individual, so it matters little to him what science and reality clearly demonstrate. This person will always resort to “I don’t believe it”. Of course, belief has nothing to do with any of this. The research evidence clearly shows animal sentience and real scientists accept it. This individual will likely stay on his flat earth until he falls off the edge.

2 Ad Hominem

Against the man. Against the person.

Attempt to invalidate an argument by attacking the character of the person making the argument: kill the messenger if you can’t kill the message.

Data: Vegan is the nutritionally intelligent, environmentally sustainable and ethically correct diet to follow.
Lore: Data you’re just an incompetent android who doesn’t know anything so you’re wrong!!!!
Data: While you are doing a fine job attacking me personally, you have done nothing to attack my argument.

_Form_
P claims C.
Q says derogatory things about P.
∴ ¬ C.

2.1 You eat rabbit food

I was explaining the benefits of eating vegetarian to my friend and a colleague sticks out his front teeth and starts taunting me with “You’re a rabbit. You eat rabbit food.”

_Datanalysis_
Evidently this colleague doesn’t know much about vegetarian eating or comparative anatomy or he would not mistake a homo sapiens for a leporid.

2.2 You’re insane for helping animals

Mai was involved with animal rescue and she had helped a lot of creatures, but when a neighbor found out he got irate and called her insane for trying to save these varmints.

_Datanalysis_
The neighbor doesn’t provide any evidence to substantiate his claim that Mai is insane. Rescuing animals is not grounds for insanity. In fact, considering the Canadian Revenue Agency Charity Registration views rescuing animals to be a legitimate charitable activity and of societal benefit one might think that this neighbor could benefit himself from doing the same.

2.3 Excessive reliance on sarcasm

Sometimes an argument is punctuated with sarcastic comments. Here is a series of excerpts attempting to defend a particular PETA advertisement by making sarcastic remarks about the attitudes of those who are in opposition (from forum posts):

yes sex is evil and nasty! appealing to sexual sentiments, and attempting to use humor! how Dare they! monsters!! it should have been the guy being beaten!!
it so sexist! the woman should be repairing the walls dammed stereotypes, the woman shoulda had a strap on
even your name is offensive to me… I don’t know why… but it just is!!! ;)

_Datanalysis_
Sarcasm may appear to be clever, but it essentially amounts to saying “I disagree” in a rather unpleasant sort of way. Since it usually tends to be nothing more than a ‘disguised’ personal attack, sarcastic remarks tend not to contribute concrete or persuasive information. The intent is not to make a point, but to demoralize, abuse or injure the opponent. Resorting to such tactics often exposes an inability to formulate viable arguments (possibly because there may not be any). What is more unfortunate is that succumbing to such tactics (usually a result of inadequate self-discipline), demeans, degrades and on occasion even destroys what might have been considered a legitimate argument.

3 Ad Hominem: Abusive

Against the man. Against the person.

Attempt to invalidate an argument by making abusive remarks about the person making the argument: kill the messenger if you can’t kill the message.

Data: Vegan is the nutritionally intelligent, environmentally sustainable and ethically correct diet to follow.
Lore: Data you’re just totally ****** and a real ****** too!!!!
Data: What a potentially interesting challenge in cryptography, Lore! Each of those bleeped out expressions represent 268 potential word possibilities. However, since we know they failed the censor test, it is not necessary to perform an exhaustive search - heuristics will be adequate. You of course realize that you have failed to provide any rationale to counter my initial statement.

_Form_
P claims X.
Q says nasty things about P’s character.
∴ ¬ X.

3.1 The pie attack

Three vegans attacked Lierre Keith (The Vegetarian Myth author) by pieing her in the face during a talk she was doing. Abusive monsters like you show just how ***** you vegans really are. You should all be locked up, nevermind being allowed to speak in a forum!

_Datanalysis_
While it is quite correct to call such actions as abusive attacks, it is inappropriate to label the action as a ‘vegan’ one simply because it is thought that some vegans executed it. Furthermore, there is no rationality in insisting that anyone should be locked up or not permitted status on a forum due to the actions of three individuals.

3.2 Winning an argument vs discrediting an opponent

Some people think that if they can discredit an opponent by calling the individual names, they have won the argument. Here is an example of such a situation.

Cretin: You wrote “It’s not that you’re trying to win an argument, it’s that you’re trying to discredit an opponent.” Well that is absolutely retarded because those two intentions are essentially the same thing.
Civil: Well no they’re not. Winning an argument requires that one uses proper reasoning that is logically valid as well as sound. Discrediting an opponent can be done without even producing an argument. Some people try to do it with various outbursts like:

That is absolutely retarded
Stop defending your stupid comments
You are not using the full capacity of your brain
I can’t take this stupidity
You are either stupid or being stubborn

_Datanalysis_
These ad hominem fallacies don’t actually add strength to any argument. They are an attempt to discredit the individual you are talking to by attributing various features to them. As with typical ad hominems the idea is primarily to abuse the opponent into submission.

4 Ad Hominem: Flattery

Appeal to flattery.

This is really a variation on the ad hominem theme. Instead of rubbishing one’s opponent, one does quite the opposite in the hopes of gaining agreement on a claim, regardless of whether the claim has any merit.

Data: The high mercury content of fish makes it a most unwise choice for consumption.
Lore: Data you are brilliant! It’s amazing how you can gather facts from all over and you present things so remarkably well too! I am always impressed by your knowledge and am so glad to call you my brother! By the way, one of my good friends runs a fish store, so let’s not make a big deal out of the mercury - I’m sure you can use your cleverness to find some way of pointing out how minimal the toxic effects are anyway.
Data: Flattery will get you nowhere, Lore. You can’t really alter the facts and the dangerous effects of mercury poisoning, by hurling compliments.

_Form_
A flatters B.
A claims C.
∴ C.

5 Ad Hominem: Circumstantial

Against the man. Against the person.

Attempt to invalidate an argument by claiming that the person making it is acting in own interests: kill the messenger if you can’t kill the message.

Data: Vegan is the nutritionally intelligent, environmentally sustainable and ethically correct diet to follow.
Lore: Data you’re just saying stuff like that because you’re one of those bleeding hearts animal rights activists who wants all creatures to live happily ever after.
Data: Whether I want all animals to live happily ever after has little to do with my point that a vegan diet is what it is: specifically the nutritional research which clearly shows the health advantage of vegan diets; the environmental statements from various organizations such as even the United Nations; the ethical analysis from various philosophical viewpoints and authors.

_Form_
P claims X.
Q says nasty things about P’s character.
∴ ¬ X.

5.1 The Bully Card

Do me a favor and don’t be a forum bully. I think you were completely rude … back off and don’t be so **** about it. Your tone was clearly not a friendly one so don’t backpedal. I feel abused by you!

_Datanalysis_
This is sometimes a ploy to create a distraction and at other times an attempt to discredit an adversary. Note that the accusations likely have nothing to do with the topic being discussed. In these situations, the chances are that the person complaining just didn’t like how the discussion was going. There was likely no bullying, but a fair bit of whining.

6 Ad Hominem: Poisoning the Well

Against the man. Against the person.

Attempt to invalidate an argument by trying to discredit the person making it: kill the messenger if you can’t kill the message.

Data: Vegan is the nutritionally intelligent, environmentally sustainable and ethically correct diet to follow.
Lore: Data you were made as an imperfect android by Noonien Soonng and so anything you say is wrong.
Data: By focusing on my ’lack of perfection’, you will deem whatever I say to be wrong, even when I am right. Neither does this ’lack of perfection’ alter the facts which support my statement about a vegan diet: specifically the nutritional research which clearly shows the health advantage of vegan diets; the environmental statements from various organizations such as even the United Nations; the ethical analysis from various philosophical viewpoints and authors.

_Form_
P claims X.
Q says P said or did something discreditable in the past.
∴ ¬ X.

6.1 Insider trading and deer slaughter

Sometimes individuals like to throw irrelevantly incriminating information into the mix. An example, is shown here in an articles relating to an injunction to stop deer slaughter in the Invermere community in BC, Canada where mention is made of the financial activities of one of the architects of the effort:

Explaining why he got involved in the issue, Mr. Suman said he and his wife, Monie, moved to the valley a year-and-a-half ago, and were instantly enamoured with the deer that live within the town. He acknowledged that he is the same Shane Suman who was recently found guilty, along with his wife, of insider trading by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and ordered to pay over $4 million dollars in fines and profits, but stated that the issues are completely unrelated, and he has nothing to hide in relation to the case.
Invermere ordered to put brakes on cull (Joshua Estabrooks, Pioneer Staff)

_Datanalysis_
While Suman’s financial activities did result in a guilty verdict against him, his past dealings have no relevance to his trying to stop the deer slaughter in Invermere. To bring up the matter may be an attempt to discredit his character and thereby sway opinion against his efforts, even though there is no connection between trying to help deer and the prior monetary misdealings.

6.2 PETA kills everything!

DeerAdvocate: Hey Shishkabob! Good news for the deer! Even PETA is getting into this and asking people to write to Invermere to stop the killing.
Shishkabob: Oh, are they asking Invermere to send the deer to PETA’s HQ so they can ‘send’ them to a better place, via needle?

_Datanalysis_
This is one of those PETA-hating attitudes some people have even though they may be in favor of animal protection. Since PETA endorses euthanization in certain situations, some people feel that that they have to malign everything the organization does. Even when PETA acts in alignment with their own cause, they feel they have to take a potshot at them. This sort of bigotted behavior is not conducive to unity within the ranks, but these people are usually more interested in sounding off immaturely than engaging in any meaningful action.

7 Ad Hominem: Tu Quoque

You too. Two wrongs make a right. Appeal to hypocrisy.

Attempt to invalidate an argument by claiming the person making it has done things which are counter to the argument: kill the messenger if you can’t kill the message. Here is a good video on this fallacy: Are You PERFECT?!!

Data: Vegan is the nutritionally intelligent, environmentally sustainable and ethically correct diet to follow.
Lore: Data you don’t eat, are made from environmentally unfriendly materials and kill millions of microorganisms when you simulate breathing and so you’re spouting nonsense!
Data: My personal and behavioral parameters do not have any influence on the realities of a vegan diet. I may be lacking in certain areas, but my inadequacies do not alter the established facts: specifically the nutritional research which clearly shows the health advantage of vegan diets; the environmental statements from various organizations such as even the United Nations; the ethical analysis from various philosophical viewpoints and authors.

_Form_
P claims X.
Q says P has acted in the opposite way to X.
∴ ¬ X.

7.1 You plant-eating mass murderer!

The hole in the vegan argument that meat is murder is this: more animals die to prepare and harvest crops.

_Datanalysis_
Factually, the above statement is simply incorrect because between 50-80% (varies with country and time period) of the grain harvested goes to fattening animals. Additionally, calculations show clearly that eating strict vegetarian kills far, far fewer animals than eating from the corpse industries: Number of Animals Killed to Produce One Million Calories in Eight Food Categories.

Of course, the accuser usually knows that he/she is spouting nonsense. The argument presented has little to do with fact and everything to do with pathetic bravado. It can be summed up as simply as “You kill some animals with your plant-diet, so you shouldn’t complain if I kill far more with my corpse eating fetish.” There is no really argument here beyond a fallacious whining.

7.2 You can’t attack my animal abusings because you aren’t 100% pure vegan!

A vegan diet is a simple to do. Avoiding animal products completely doesn’t seem so. Do you have a right to attack others for eating animals when you continue to use them? Products such as rubber and tires involve the use of animal products, and that plastic shoes devastate the environment? Unless you ran away naked from the society, you are contributing to animal exploitation in some way.

_Datanalysis_
This is a typically simplistic case of “you too”! The idea behind this attack on vegan advocates is that they likely use some slaughterhouse by-product (eg stearic acid in rubber or plastic) and therefore are somehow barred from criticising those who eat animals or wear fur etc. It is a frequent effort by some people to deflect attention from their support of the imprisonment, exploitation, abuse and murder of animals.

One can run a line of defense such as in modern society it is impossible to be 100% vegan, but one can come pretty close. This is a reasonable answer which justifies one’s actions while acknowledging certain short-comings. After all, it may be difficult to stop breathing to avoid killing thousands of microbes.

However, because we have a clear fallacy here of the lowly ad hominem family, the opportunity for attack is ever-present. The accusatory argument has no merit because:

The personal action of an individual does not change the morality of a situation. If robbing a bank is unethical, having a bank robber speak out against the act, does not miraculously alter the morality of the act. Harming sentient beings is unethical (except in select situations such as self-defense). So even an animal abuser is entitled to speak against animal abuse.
The fact that the individual who speaks out against animal abuse may engage in some sort of incidental action (often unknowingly) such as driving on tires which have been manufactured with some component derived from an animal, does not absolve those who regularly participate in various forms of animal abuse.

The above two realities negate the legitimacy of such immature, whiney onslaughts.

7.3 Nobody is vegan!

You’re not vegan because you use car tires which are made from slaughterhouse by-products (stearic acid)! You’re not vegan because your computer keyboard may have some sort of animal product! You’re not vegan because the stickers on your organic bananas probably aren’t vegan! You’re not vegan because you may have stepped on an ant when you walked outside. You’re not vegan because you kill microbes when you breathe!

_Datanalysis_
While technically it can be argued that nobody really is vegan as per above, the attack is rather flawed due to its confusion between an ideal and the manifestation of the same. Vegan is a spectrum with a minimum threshold such as not participating in the imprisonment, exploitation, abuse and murder of animals. Incidental anomalies that appear as a result of the manufacturing process and breathing hardly constitute a violation of that threshold. A particularly fine analysis is presented in this article: Nobody Is Vegan.

8 Analogy: Extended

False analogy. Faulty analogy. Questionable analogy.

The utilization of an analogy is deliberately misconstrued here. If two things have a basis of similarity, then one can be used to illustrate the other on grounds of that basis. Each does not need to be identical or similar in all aspects for the analogy to be valid. However, a critic will take exception to the analogy itself on grounds of whatever dissimilarities can be conjured up.

Data: Humans oppress animals in the same way they have oppressed other humans examples being the slave trade or the ethnic cleansing campaigns throughout history.
Lore: So what are you saying? That these humans were animals? Are you seriously equating humans to animals!
Data: Humans and animals do possess many similarities. However, the comparison was not between humans and animals, but between the treatment some humans received and the treatment some animals receive. Some humans and some animals continue to be kept in slavery. Some humans and some animals continue to be exterminated under the expediency of ‘cleansing’. The analogy merely reveals the common mentality of the oppressors who do not seem to hold speciesist attitudes towards their victims.

_Form_
A has some similar characteristics to B.
A is used as an illustration to clarify aspects of B.
The illustration is criticized because A isn’t identical to B.

9 Analogy: Weak

False analogy. Faulty analogy. Questionable analogy.

The apparent similarity between two situations is utilized to insist that the properties belonging to one also belong to the other.

Data: Bees make honey for themselves, not for humans. Therefore, it is morally wrong to steal honey from them, an unnecessary act which kills countless numbers of bees.
Lore: Well don’t you know that you kill bugs when you ride in a car? It’s unnecessary for you to drive too!
Data: In present day society, driving is not always unnecessary (eg ambulance, fire brigade, food distribution etc). Furthermore, one doesn’t drive to kill bugs deliberately anymore than one drives to kill humans deliberately, yet accidents kill members of both species. One does end up killing bees deliberately by taking their honey because the bees will fight to the death to keep what is theirs. Furthermore, bee industry practices end up destroying many bees that starve to death because they are not left with sufficient honey to see them through the winter. Death cause by driving is quite incidental while the deaths caused by the bee industry are invasively more deliberate.

_Form_
A appears to be similar to B.
B has property P.
∴ A has property P.

9.1 Horses and dogs should work too for their living

Animals should have to earn their living. After all, humans have to earn a living. So why shouldn’t animals as well? There’s nothing wrong about making a horse pull a carriage or a dog pulling a sled.

_Datanalysis_
There seem to be a couple of problems with this sort of analogus reasoning.

First, it is not true that all humans have to earn a living. Many don’t work or can’t work (eg children). They are often appropriately supported by family, friends or society.

Second, animals and some people work in their own way to ’earn their living’. Horses graze, some dogs hunt in packs and many humans gather and eat fruit. There is no reason to think that creatures who live in a way that is natural for them, necessarily need to fit into the modern society 9 to 5 schedules.

Third, hooking up a horse to a carriage or a dog to a sled is nothing short of exploitation. While there may be rare isolated situations where a symbiotic partnership is necessary (say someone who rescued a horse, but has no means of supporting his care, so the two of them go into business together), it is clear that the intent is almost exclusively to make money for the person at the expense of the animal.

Therefore, it is an unsound notion to suggest that animals should have to earn their living in a fashion as adopted by some humans.

9.2 Don’t eat and drive!

The American Meat Institute once whined:

A new study in today’s Archives of Internal Medicine tries to predict the future risk of death from cancer or cardiovascular disease by relying on notoriously unreliable self-reporting about what was eaten and obtuse methods to apply statistical analysis to the data. This imprecise approach is like relying on consumers’ personal characterization of their driving habits in prior years in determining their likelihood of having an accident that kills them in the future.

_Datanalysis_
The analogy forced between ‘what was eaten’ and “personal characterization of driving habits’ is a meaningless one. The former is tangible and can be objectively established in a variety of ways. The latter is purely subjective and prone to whims of the ego. Therefore, the attempt has no validity at all.

Nor is the last sentence correct, because statistics tend to show that poor driving habits will increase the likelihood of an accident. In fact, statistical data on driving habits is what insurance companies use to determine premium rates.

9.3 In defense of dog fighting

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) fielded a question about his opposition to animal rights and recently introduced legislation that would undermine local standards preventing animal torture. “It’s wrong to rate animals above human beings,” he told the questioner. To make his point, King argued that “there’s something wrong” for society to make it a “federal crime to watch animals fight” but “it’s not a federal crime to induce somebody to watch people fighting.”

_Datanalysis_
What is really wrong is not with society, but with King’s reasoning. The analogy attempted between people fighting voluntarily (ie boxing) and animals being forced to fight (ie dog/cock fighting) is inappropriate. One could argue that there is something wrong with a society that induces people to watch any sort of fighting of any species, but it is an incorrect argument to suggest that it is wrong to punish people for going to fights of species A simply because you do not punish them for going to fights of species B.

10 Appeal to Authority

Argumentum ad Verecundiam. Ispe dixit. Fallacious Appeal to Authority. Misuse of Authority. Irrelevant Authority. Questionable Authority. Inappropriate Authority.

The attempt to validate a conclusion based on some statement by some authority. While providing legitimate authority as backing for one’s arguments is reasonable, the fact that some authority agrees with your point of view is insufficient as the sole basis. For instance, the authority may actually not be an authority or may have changed viewpoints or may be just plain wrong. Usually, the appeal to authority is invoked because other avenues lead to a deadend and there is no real support for the argument. For a more thorough presentation, see Nizkor Appeal To Authority.

Data: I find the attitudes and practices of humans towards other sentient beings most disturbing.
Lore: Well get over it because Descartes said that animals are just automatons.
Data: While citing authority to support an argument may be legitimate if the authority’s statements are correct, no argument can be negated or validated purely on the solely the word of a specific authority - especially when the comment is demonstrably untrue, as it is in this case with Descartes who while being a competent mathematician was prone to “creating a world to suit his fancy without the slightest regard for the known facts” (Ref: A. D’Abro - The Rise of the New Physics Volume One p11.)

_Form_
P claims A is an authority on subject S.
P claims A supports C being true.
∴ C.

10.1 Authority in reverse!

Sometimes carnists call you out for being “emotional” about the plight of animal suffering and continues to attacks and trivialize your sympathetic sentiments. However, when you throw facts, clinical studies and data suggesting animal eating is bad, they resort to such classic rhetoric as “you shouldn’t believe all you hear”, “you are being too logical” and eventually “I’ll believe you when you are a doctor”.

_Datanalysis_
This is the classic case of appeal to authority reversed. While the corpse eater is able to not deal with facts, it is easy to accuse the opponent as being ’emotional’ (see Appeal to Emotion below). However, there is no where to run when the actual data appears, so backed against a wall, the plea is fallaciously made to ’lack’ of authority. Obviously, this effort reveals only the desperation, because it makes little difference what the qualifications are of the individual who presents the demonstrated facts.

11 Appeal to Authority: Age

Appeal by age.

The idea here is to claim an argument is correct because the person making it has more experience by virtue of having existed longer. The fact that the experience may not have any connection to the argument or that the person might be just plain wrong, is thus circumvented. The age/experience of an individual may be used to some extent to strengthen an argument, but has nothing to do with its correctness.

Data: I find the attitudes and practices of humans towards other sentient beings most disturbing.
Lore: Look my young friend, I’m older than you are and have been around longer than you. I say things are fine just the way they are. How do I know this? Because I’ve seen things this way for a longer time than you.
Data: You are just a few months older, Lore. Furthermore, you are only providing a personal opinion without any verification of its correctness.

_Form_
A is old/experienced.
A claims C.
∴ C.

11.1 The age card

I can use the age card. I’ve been a passionate vegan for 25 years, which is probably about the time that you’ve been on earth. Vegan for 25 years baby! Did you hear that? Let me say it again! VEGAN FOR 25 YEARS!!! I’m proud of being a 25 year vegan!! Nothing wrong with that. What comes with 25 years of veganism that many of you don’t have? A lot of wisdom from making a lot of mistakes with other vegans through the years.

_Datanalysis_
Judging by the repetitive nature of the statement, one could surmise that what comes with 25 years of veganism, in this particular case, is senility rather than wisdom. Correctness is not proportional to age. An argument cannot be substantiated simply by the age or experience of the presenter even if he is a vegan. The validity of an argument rests on its logical form and the evidence presented for its substantiation and not on the posturing of the one who is making it.

12 Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

Argumentum ad consequentiam. Wishful thinking.

Here one tries to utilize the consequences of a belief to verify the belief itself. If believing something produces positive consequences, then one asserts the something is true.

Data: The fur industry is cruel.
Lore: I get money for the pelts and will hopefully be rich soon, so trapping and killing furry animals is the correct thing to do.
Data: Simply because you believe you will benefit from by engaging in these inhumane practices promoted by the fur industry, doesn’t provide an argument that is contrary to my original statement.

_Form_
C is (un)desirable.
∴ (¬)C.

12.1 Worrying is unhealthy

It’s unhealthy to worry so much about animals and the environment. It’ll stress you out. Just live and be free! Don’t get so involved! Don’t worry! Be happy!

_Datanalysis_
While there is merit in not worrying and not getting stressed out, the above is nothing more than a rationalization for apathy. Interestingly enough, such rationalizations come from both those who oppress animals as well as those who presumably advocate the opposite. The latter though tend to do a balancing act on the fence when pressed. They don’t want to confront the oppressors, but like to believe they are also not contributing to the oppression. One’s own ‘peace of mind’ takes priority and therefore overrides any attempt at producing an effective argument.

12.2 Veganism should not be a religion

Some people in Western society already view veganism as a kind of religion, cult, or extreme point of view, and therefore reject it. We should be very cautious about trying to associate veganism with religiousness and or religious rights.

_Datanalysis_
The concern that if veganism is viewed as a religion there will be bad consequences should not determine whether veganism is viewed as a religion. If veganism meets the appropriate criteria for being considered to be a religion, then it has a legitimate claim to be categorized as such. Gain or loss as a result of outlook, does not determine the validity of the outlook.

12.3 Honey is vegan!!

Rejecting honey as a vegan product hurts the vegan movement, therefore such a position on honey just doesn’t make any sense. You’re talking about some quasi-religious personal purity, rather than about stopping animal abuse. No wonder veganism can seem nonsensical to the average person.

_Datanalysis_
Since there is so much evidence clearly demonstrating that honey is not vegan and that bees are sentient animals, what is indeed nonsensical is to take the incorrect stand that honey is vegan based on concern of the dire consequences such a stance might bring. One doesn’t stop animal abuse by fictious arguments where we take from Peter with the hopes of giving to Paul: it is illogical and unethical to condemn bees to servitude and death, simply because we have hopes of appearing more ‘reasonable’ to a public who will thereby miraculously refrain from supporting the slaughter of cows and chickens.

12.4 This store made me who I am today!

I get a lot of good stuff at this store! They have great prices! Fantastic service too and they are so convenient! Wow! They even have rare things I want which I probably can’t get anywhere else. It’s unfortunate that they sell some shoddy books like How To Make Millions Off Your Fighting Dogs and 35 Ways To Pack Meat Into Your Pig! Well, I am a vegan after all, so I can’t approve of this stuff. Oh yeah and they sell corpse parts like beef jerky and some foie gras too. Disgusting! I don’t approve of this stuff at all! Ok, so they also sell live animals and ship them to wherever. I don’t like that either. Geez! But you have to understand that they do so many other good things, like give me excellent discounts and the more I buy, the better chances I have at winning their monthly jackpot! Think of all the good I can do with that money, eh? And all stores in the world must do something wrong, I’m sure, so why pick on this one? That’s why I gotta buy from these folks. They’re the best deal going anywhere! They are a miracle! Ya!!

_Datanalysis_
It would seem that the above individual is drowning in an overdose of self-indulgence. To justify an act simply because one stands to benefit from it is one of the most self-serving rationalizations that exist. The morality of an act is determined by its adherence to established criteria, which deal with questions such as:

does the act produce any victims?
is there any harm done indirectly as a result of the act?
are there any intended casualities caused by the act?
is the act even necessary to commit?

To support a commercial enterprise that is harmful to other lives and/or promotes harm towards other beings, for the sake of convenience (as opposed to basic need) is selfish and unethical.

13 Appeal to Emotion

Ad misericordiam. Appeal to sympathy.

Here the argument is based not on facts or construction, but on manipulation of emotion.

Data: Culling ’excess’ deer is an unethical activity since deer are sentient beings and it is human activity that has reduced their habitat.
Lore: Think of all the poor hungry people the venison will feed!
Data: Having poor hungry people is a fault of the social and municipal mechanisms in society. One may sympathize with their situation, but the deer should not have to compensate for human failings.

_Form_
C produces emotions favorable to stance we hold.
∴ C.

13.1 Traitor to one’s species!

How dare you put the rights of animals above those of humans?! Have you no sense of loyalty? You are a traitor to your own species!

_Datanalysis_
There is no rational basis for insisting that any member show loyalty to its species. Dogs will fight dogs to save a human. Horses often relate better to humans than to other horses. Cats can co-exist with with various creatures (even birds and mice) and still show animosity towards other cats. Humans, as well, will defend their animal companions or even wildlife against the onslaught of other humans.

The notion that we should give priority to our own species is absurd. If it were otherwise, we should support legislation which would cause all pet owners to be traitors to the human species because they have not turned in their animals to medical research to supposedly benefit other humans.

Furthermore, a natural application of this ’loyalty’ to one’s own kind, produces dangerous precedents, such as

men who oppose sexism are traitors to all men → label them pro-feminists
whites who oppose racism are traitors to other whites → call them nigger lovers
Hindus who supported religious tolerance were traitors to other Hindus → they are our mortal enemies (Gandhi was murdered by a Hindu.)

13.2 The Guilt Trip

So you won’t buy a ticket for the Shiners Circus because you don’t like them using animals in the acts! What about thinking of the poor burn victims who are just children? Won’t you find it in your heart to help these unfortunate children?

_Datanalysis_
The argument here is a non sequitur effort which tries to associate not getting a ticket to the Shiners Circus with not wanting to help children. Just because one doesn’t support that circus doesn’t mean that one is opposed to supporting children.

An appropriate clarification would be “I do have it in my heart to help children, but I have no intention of supporting your Shriners who utilize children as a front while abusing animals in order to draw in money so their members can wear silly hats and throw parties”.

14 Appeal to Emotion: Fear

Argumentum ad metum. Argumentum in terrorem.

The idea here is to scare people into thinking you are right by deception within the argument.

Data: The Ministry of the Environment has ordered killing of wolves because they seem to be showing up more frequently in inhabited areas.
Lore: Well, of course they did. Wolves can eat your babies and must be prevented from doing so.
Data: One does not need to kill off wolves in order to protect babies. One merely needs to not leave babies irresponsibly unattended. A program to relocate wolves would be a more humane solution than killing them.

_Form_
¬ C produces fear.
∴ C.

14.1 Doctor using scare tactics

A remarkably healthy person goes to his doctor after several years and makes a very positive impression.

Doc: After going this long without having to go to the doctor I’ve got to ask, “What’s your secret?” RHP: Well, I’m a vegan and I… Doc: What??? A vegan??? Why??? Don’t you know how unhealthy that is??? … you won’t be able to get enough protein … I’m being erious as a heart-attack! … You can’t get enough iron in your diet … to start eating red meat 3 times a week or do massive supplements … You have to be careful or you may even have serious mental issues.

_Datanalysis_
The interesting aspect of the doctor’s position is that there is not a single piece of factual evidence being presented. If RHP chose to pursue the matter, he could show decades of amassed evidence clearly demonstrating the beneficial health conferred by a vegan diet. However, doing so is not likely to cause this doctor to rethink his position since the intention is to frighten his client into submission. The doctor unfortunately also reflects the deliberate ignorance shown by the medical profession in that they are unwilling to even learn about proper nutrition.

14.2 They won’t like you

Don’t tell people about not eating meat, they won’t like you.

_Datanalysis_
This is a rather poor rationalization that some people utilize in order to justify not taking action. The merit of whether an action is proper or not is not dependent upon whether one is liked. Furthermore, this attitude doesn’t take into account these two possibilities:

many people may like you because you stood up for values of compassion many people will not like the person who is telling you what not to do thereby that statement should not be made by its own logic

14.3 You’ll lose your following

If only people that agree 100% with every aspect of vegan lifestyle are allowed on this forum, including only parents that feed their children 100% vegan foods and did not get them vaccinated, you’d end up with 100 people MAX.

_Datanalysis_
It is unclear as to how the number of 100 is calculated. The argument assumes that restrictive parameters will be a detriment to the forum the assumption being that more is better. However, restrictions often encourage more people to join a group simply because they do not want to deal with spam and nonsense. Furthermore, if the goal of the forum is to maintain the standard of veganism, then it makes sense to have it populated by vegans: quality over quantity.

15 Appeal to Emotion: Force

Ad baculum. Scare tactics. Appeal to force.

The idea here is to force people into thinking you are right with a threat.

Data: The Ministry of the Environment has ordered killing of wolves. This an act of cruelty towards sentient beings.
Lore: You need to cut out these nonsensical statements. If you don’t, you see this phaser I’m holding? I just have to use it to melt your mouth shut!
Data: Your phaser does not negate the correctness of my statement. Besides, I took the precaution of discharging yours, Lore.

_Form_
¬ C produces fear.
∴ C.

15.1 Boycotting businesses and more

Sometimes scare tactics can be used effectively on behalf of victims, especially when one has real power to wield. Here is an excerpt from an event in 2006 in which activist and business man Bruce Foerster ‘persuaded’ the Belize government, that it would not be in their interests to support Japan’s slaughtering of whales:

As a business owner here in Belize I am ashamed that you would betray the world’s few remaining whales by helping authorize their slaughter and should you indeed pursue this I will immediately sell my large resort and take all of my capital out of the country, compromising the 100 full time positions which this resort provides and the millions of dollars we invest annually into the local economy. I simply cannot tolerate such a destructive move on your part and will not live nor invest in a country which pretends to care for the environment but in reality cares only for the dirty money that they can earn by voting to destroy the relatively few whales that these butchers have not already painfully and mercilessly slaughtered.You are risking a huge economic backlash and a tourism boycott should you make the mistake of voting for the destruction of these rare and intelligent mammals! The Power of One Can End the Killing of the Whales

Note that the idea of a boycott involves the application of the appeal to fear, however, it is not necessarily a logical fallacy. Here, Bruce substantiates his future actions giving reasons why whale slaughter is ethically immoral as well as environmentally absurd, then follows up with a statement of consequences. Bruce spoke and Belize listened!

16 Appeal to Emotion: Pity

Ad misericordiam.

By trying to create pity, one hopes that the claim will be accepted.

Data: The practice of sucking oviductory excretions, drinking bovine secretions and eating corpse parts is proven to be harmful to birds, cows and various other sentient beings.
Lore: Oh come on Data! Don’t be such a heartless android! These poor people get heart disease, cancer, osteroporosis, constipation and a lot of other diseases. Just let’em be, eh!
Date: I do appreciate the pity you show these individuals and what is happening to them is certainly unfortunate. However, they are the ones who are deliberately engaging in these practices which are harmful to themselves. They have a choice not to do so. Their victims do not have any choice.

_Form_
C is presented surrounded by an aura of pity.
∴ C.

16.1 But they’ll just starve!

I recognize that the mass killing of animals isn’t pretty, but they are doing it for food.

_Datanalysis_
The implication is that somehow certain unfortunates would starve horribly to death if factory farms were shut down. Evidently, those who put forth such pitiful arguments haven’t discovered vegetarianism yet despite its centuries old existence.

16.2 Those vegetarians are picking on the poor bashers of baby seals!

Anti-seal hunt advocates are vegetarians who have set their sights on struggling East Coast hunters rather than fighting the beef cartel, says a Liberal senator.

Sen. Céline Hervieux-Payette told The Huffington Post Canada that Liberals and Conservatives have been united in trying to prevent rogue Liberal Sen. Mac Harb from tabling a bill banning Canada’s commercial seal hunt for several years because it is “disturbing to the whole scene.”

“It is giving the vegetarians a big opportunity,” Hervieux-Payette said. (excerpt from Huffington Post Article)

_Datanalysis_
Apart from the complete inaccuracy of this remarkably absurd statement (most anti seal slaughter advocates are not vegetarians given that the campaign is so large and worldwide), one does have to wonder about the capacity for reasoning of Hervieux-Payette. If they really were vegetarians, then it would make sense that they would protest the beef cartel and not the seal slaughter because the vast majority of corpse eaters never eat seal flesh. So why would vegetarians come out in great numbers to protest something no one would eat in the first place? This would seem to be yet another effort to desperately draw pity for the “struggling East Coast hunters” who like to bash in the skulls of helpless baby seals.

17 Appeal to Nature

Argumentum ad naturam.

Nature is utilized axiomatically as an authority. If it happens in nature then it is assumed to be good/optimal. The fact that nature doesn’t always do things that are good/optimal is ignored. Furthermore, it is never really defined exactly what ’natural’ means. For instance, if a beaver builds a dam that is supposed to be natural, but if a man builds a house that is considered unnatural.

Data: The fur and leather industries are exploitative towards sentient beings.
Lore: Oh come on! Do you realize that these are natural products rather than synthetic! Nature does things right! So do it her way!
Data: In nature, no creature takes the skin off another creature’s back to wear it. Furthermore, leather and fur undergo extensive processing which is detrimental to the environment. Finally, calling these products of cruelty ’natural’ doesn’t address the issue of exploitation at all.

_Form_
C is natural.
∴ C.

17.1 Arguing the tooth

We have the teeth to tear and chew and grind flesh therefore we should eat meat.

_Datanalysis_
Here we have one of the most blatant denials of reality. The argument is that nature provided humans with the proper physiology to eat corpse parts, so we should.

The first error is the fallacy itself. Simply because it appears nature provided something is no reason to argue that using it is the correct thing to do. For instance, gorillas have large canines, but are vegetarians. Nature also provided humans with an appendix, but it isn’t used because it isn’t necessary. Nature also provided humans with fists to injure each other, but most humans seem to realize that such usage of these gifts of nature may not be in the best interests of the parties concerned.

The second error is that humans really don’t have the teeth to ’tear’ with and the ‘chewing and grinding’ isn’t done with corpse parts anyway since carnivores general swallow pieces of flesh without chewing or grinding. Some humans point to their canines with pride, yet don’t seem to understand that these are actually rather small compared to those of a bear, dog or cat. However, human canines have proven their immense value at tearing cellophane after hunting down bargain slabs of meat in grocery stores.

17.2 The Carnivore Mantra

A common implementation of this fallacy involved the “carnivores must eat meat” mantra which appears with equal enthusiasm in both veg and nonveg discussions.

Despite the healthy, documented existence of veg dogs and cats for more than 2 decades, some people insist that pets classified as carnivores must eat meat.

The argument usually develops something like this display of goal post moving:

Try 1: Dogs must eat meat to survive … ooops that’s wrong because there are plenty of surviving dogs who do not eat any meat.

Try 2: Dogs must eat meat to thrive … ooops that’s wrong too since it is regularly shown that veg dogs at the very least match their meat-fed counterparts as per clear eyes, great coats, energy, disposition and every other criteria (including longevity).

Try 3: Well it’s not their optimal diet … ooops that can’t be demonstrated either since we have surveys and studies showing veg dogs actually are less susceptible to meat induced diseases like infections, skin problems, arthritis, heart problems, weight issues, digestive difficulties, hypothyroidism, cancer.

Try 4: Not much left, so what can be done except to claim they should eat meat because they have big teeth …

Well obviously the “my what big teeth you have” hypothesis, while useful for Little Red Riding Hood, isn’t particularly valid as an argument in light of the preponderance of evidence which goes beyond just the studies to the fact that mainstream pet food companies have a veg line simply because many dogs just can’t handle meat based diets.

Now what is interesting to note is the form of the argument used by the mantra chanters:

If dogs eat meat, there are positive consequences (by the “my what big teeth you have” hypothesis). ∴ dogs should eat meat.

or in its wishful thinking form

I wish it to be true that eating meat is good for dogs (because I believe in the “my what big teeth you have” hypothesis). ∴ eating meat is good for them.

Utilization of this fallacy of course makes it possible to disregard all evidence to the contrary.

18 Appeal to Novelty

Argumentum ad novitatem. Appeal to the New. Newer is Better.

The idea here is to assume that some newer item or approach is better because it is more recent.

Data: The bones-and-raw-food-paleos (BARFPal) diet that just came out is not very intelligently designed as far as human nutrition is concerned.
Lore: Geez Data! This is the latest and greatest way of eating. It’s gotta be fantastic!
Data: Being the latest and greatest is not an indication of optimal or even intelligent. Sometimes each latest and greatest item is a short-lived fad or even a risky venture as demonstrated by all the latest and greatest drugs which get recalled.

_Form_
C is new.
∴ C

19 Appeal to Popularity

Argumentum ad populum. Appeal to the people. Appeal to the masses. Appeal to belief. Appeal to the majority. Argument by consensus. Consensus fallacy. Authority of the many. Bandwagon. Argumentum ad numerum. Appeal to the number. Consensus gentium.

This is an attempt to win an argument through the claim of it being supported by some majority of opinions. The assumption is that since most people agree with a conclusion, the conclusion must be correct. In these situations, what ‘most people’ really constitutes or whether ‘most people’ actually exists isn’t always clear. Even if ‘most people’ do a certain thing, there is no reason to think they are doing a good/correct thing as repeatedly evidenced by political elections.

Data: Drinking bovine mammarian secretions is hazardous to one’s health not to mention the animals that are subjected to exploitation and abuse to produce it.
Lore: Oh c’mon! Most people in the USA like to drink milk, so doing so is ok!
Data: Most people in the USA also end up being afflicted with heart disease, cancer, arthritis, eczema, asthma, respiratory infections,diabetes and osteoporosis (2nd highest in the world next to the Inuits) for instance, which are diseases linked to dairy consumption.

_Form_
Most people agree on, approve of, believe in, support (etc) C.
∴ C.

19.1 We have 80% of the population on our side, so we must be right!

Furthermore, Americans just don’t support the killing. In a survey of Americans’ attitudes towards outdoor cats, over 80 percent responded that they believe it is more humane to leave a cat outside than to have her caught and killed.

_Datanalysis_
The above argument utilizes a specific statistic in order to assert its correctness. Even if an overwhelming majority support a concept, such support doesn’t validite the concept. If ethics were simply a matter of voting, the state of moral judgment would be as precarious as the state of politics.

20 Appeal to Popularity: Belief

Argumentum ad populum family.

This is an attempt to win an argument through the claim that many or most people believe the conclusion to be true: “If many believe so, it is so.” There are situations though where the belief of a certain number of people does align with the reality.

Data: Vivisection is a very cruel form of animal abuse.
Lore: Many medical researchers experiment on animals because they believe it’s all for the greater good, so they can’t all be wrong.
Data: Having a majority of believers doesn’t make something correct. For instance, at several points in history a majority believed that the earth was flat and that bats are blind.

_Form_
Most people believe that C is true.
∴ C.

20.1 My parents told me, so there!

Eating meat is part of most people’s nutrition regimen. They were taught this by their parents.

_Datanalysis_
In certain parts of the world, children are taught by their parents to do certain things. Most children grow up believing that what they have been taught is correct which is why most adults tend to follow common practices. Unfortunately, most adults do not necessarily contemplate whether the practices they follow are beneficial or even morally appropriate. Hence, a wrong action can be propagated over generations justified purely on the basis of parental tutelage.

21 Appeal to Popularity: Common Practice

Argumentum ad numerum. Part of the Argumentum ad populum family.

Here the attempt is made by reference to the fact that many people engage in the action supported by the argument.

Data: Factory farms are a very cruel institution.
Lore: Oh really now! Most people eat meat!
Data: The fact that many people eat meat isn’t a justification for eating meat.

_Form_
Many people do C.
∴ C.

22 Appeal to Ridicule

Appeal to Mockery. The Horse Laugh.

This is an attempt to prove that C is true because ¬ C is made fun of.

Data: Vegetarians tend to be comparatively healthy compared to corpse eaters.
Lore: That’s so totally laughable my circuits are fusing! Don’t you know that vegetarian means lousy hunter?
Data: Actually, vegetarian doesn’t mean lousy hunter. That is simply an ill-conceived effort at weak humor. Besides, ridiculing vegetarians does not change the fact that they tend to exhibit a superior level of health as well as health awareness than non-vegetarians.

_Form_
¬ C is presented in an aura of absurdity.
∴ C.

23 Appeal to Spite

Argumentum ad odium.

Here a conclusion is asserted to be true based on one’s personal spitefulness rather than the conclusion’s validity.

Data: Vegans do hold the moral high ground.
Lore: Well if you keep up this self-righteous stuff, you’ll turn everyone off! That’s why I’ll never be a vegan because you guys go around wearing your judgemental halos all the time.
Data: That vegans hold the moral high ground can be demonstrated via ethical arguments as well as numerous examples of vegans accepted for their ethical leadership and perspectives. The fact that you do not seem to like them, is not an argument to negate my point.

_Form_
¬ C is presented in an aura of spite.
∴ C.

23.1 Vegan be ashamed! Vegan be grateful!

Geez, people are dying of starvation all over the world and here’s you with your ‘fad’ diet turning down food they would kill for. You should be ashamed…

I don’t see why vegans are so ungrateful vegans should just shut up and eat the meat , they should be happy to have food at dinner …

_Datanalysis_
The statements above has no merit since neither even attempts to formulate any sort of an argument. Rather each is an effort to denigrate vegans simply because of their choice to not adhere to the standard corpse eating fare. The logical impact is equivalent to “You should be chastised because you stayed sober when the rest of us are sloshed out of our minds”. In other words, the translation is simply, “You choose to be vegan and we don’t like you because of that.”

24 Appeal to Stupidity

Argumentum ad plumbeum. Deliberately dullard. Feigned ignorance. Thinking hurts my head.

Usually argumentative individuals try to show off the cleverness of their case. However, when there is a paucity of that quantity, an attempt is occasionally made to be excused from understanding why they are wrong and the opponent is right. The hope is to put issues out of sight and out of mind.

Data: It is cruel and unethical to imprison, exploit, abuse and murder sentient beings.
Lore: Ok but, ummm, what does that even mean? My circuits are frying up thinking about it. This stuff is too complicated, so it can’t be right.
Data: Whether or not you can understand the moral significance of my statement, does not affect its correctness. However, I would be happy to explain the details to you as soon as you are willing to undergo an upgrade, followed by a reboot.

_Form_
C is viewed as being too complex.
∴ ¬ C.

25 Appeal to Tradition

Ad antiquitatem. Appeal to the Old. Old Ways are Best. Fallacious Appeal to the Past.

This is the it’s “been always done this way”, it’s traditional, it’s cultural and so it must be correct, attitude.

Data: The Canadian Seal Slaughter is a brutal and barbaric massacre of defenseless baby seals.
Lore: Ya but so what! It’s a tradition in Newfoundland. It’s cultural. It’s in their heritage to brutalize helpless animals.
Data: Just because something is traditional, does not make it morally acceptable. Culture is not equivalent to correctness.

_Form_
C is traditional, cultural, old.
∴ C.

25.1 Killing for a long, long time

We have been killing animals for food since the discovery of fire. That’s a long time! A lot of history supports these actions!

_Datanalysis_
History merely records what has happened. It does not justify what has happened. Humans have been killing each other even before the discovery of fire, but it seems some have at least managed to understand that there is something wrong with such actions. Many have evolved away from traditional barbarities to recognize that there really is something wrong with killing animals as well. As Leonardo da Vinci is believed to have said, “The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.”

26 Begging the Question

Petitio Principii. Circular Definition. Circular Reasoning. Reasoning in a Circle. Chicken and Egg argument.

The premises of an argument claim that the conclusion is true. The fallacy can be very short and usually obvious or appear in many parts, thereby disguising the claim.

Data: Abuse of animals should not be permitted in civilized society.
Lore: Ha! If abusing animals really were illegal, it would be prohibited by the law.
Data: Since the law determines what is illegal, the truth of your conclusion is assumed by your premise. In other words, your premise essentially states your conclusion. While such arguments have to be logically ‘correct’, they are also quite useless since they are equivalent to arguing that “if 1 is a number, then 1 is a number”.

_Form_
If C, then C.
∴ C.

26.1 It’s against the law!

You can’t kill humans for food. That is against the law. [animal abuse is] not [analogous to] owning slaves because even though humans were at one point able to buy and sell other humans, that is no longer lawful.

_Datanalysis_
Note that both of the above have the same form: It is against the law to kill/buy/sell humans, because it is against the law.

Such a presentation has no merit logically since it does not actually say anything at all. However, it is thrown as a counter into arguments where humans are substituted for animals in situations of suffering, in the hopes that the absurdness of the fallacy will go unnoticed.

27 Burden of Proof

Ad ignorantiam. Appeal to Ignorance.

When a claim is made, the burden of proof lies on the side of the claimant. Sometimes an unscruplous debator will try to transfer the burden of proof to the other side. A variation of this fallacy is to suggest that if you can’t prove something to be false, then it is automatically true.

Data: Vivisection causes horrendous suffering to animals.
Lore: You can’t prove that animals feel pain. Though they exhibit pain behavior, since they have no consciousness, they feel no pain.
Data: While we cannot conclusively ‘prove’ that animals (or humans, for that matter) feel pain, there are several factors which support the premise that they are capable of suffering just as humans. These factors include physiological and behavior similarities to humans as well as evolutionary evidence provided by homology which demonstrates that humans developed their traits on the foundations provided by their animal ancestors. Based on these findings, the burden of proof lies not with me, Lore, but on you to prove that animals feel no pain. Finally, the inability to conclusively prove something as true (ie animals/humans feel pain), does not automatically make it untrue (ie animals/humans do not feel pain).

_Form_
C is claimed by A.
¬ C is unprovable.
∴ C.

28 Complex Question

Loaded question. Presupposition.

Two points which are not related are joined in a single question so that they have to both be accepted or rejected together. Generally, one is acceptable while the other is not.

Data: Many humans engage in animal abuse and need to be stopped from doing so.
Lore: So you vegans must support animal rights and hate humans, eh?
Data: You are actually making two disconnected points here, Lore. One is that vegans hate humans. The other is that we support animal rights. The two have nothing to do with each other, yet your question requires me to either affirm or deny both. As such, your question needs to be appropriately rephrased in order to deserve an answer, beyond what I have provided just now.

_Form_
C,D are unrelated.
C,D are phrased in the same sentence with a connective such as ∧.
∴ (C ∧ D) ∨ ¬ (C ∧ D).

28.1 Still arsoning?

Are you animal rights fanatics still burning down legitimate animal production facilities or have you finally stopped this sort of illegal activity?

_Datanalysis_
The argument is setup with two separate questions each of which makes assumptions which are not verified. The first question implies that those who support animal rights are committing arson. While some activists do engage in arson, there is no grounds to assume and accuse one of arson simply because he/she is an animal rights activists. The second question assumes that the implication of the first is valid and asks if the activity has been terminated. However, since it has not been established that animal rights activists do engage in arson, the second question is inappropriate to ask.

29 False Cause of Effect

Non causa pro causa. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Questionable cause. False cause. Ignoring a common cause. Wrong direction.

When events A and B occur in close proximity and established order, it is falsely assumed that A is the cause of B.

Data: Animal sacrifices were a brutish pastime of savage cultures.
Lore: What are you talking about? They sacrificed animals and got good rains and decent crops as well as victories in wars.
Data: The slaughter of animals does not affect natural events or military exploits just because the former precedes the latter. The same primitive mentality exists with vivisectors who think sacrificing animals will somehow lead to curing human illnesses even though there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

_Form_
A is seen to be followed by B.
∴ A is the cause of B.

29.1 The Meatgasm!

“And then there is the kind of instantaneous healing that occurs with the first bites of animal food. In The Vegetarian Myth, Lierre says “I could feel every cell in my body - literally every cell - pulsing. And finally, finally being fed.” Tasha says “I had only eaten a small piece of cow flesh, and yet I felt totally full, but light and refreshed all at once.” Eating meat also instantly improved her heart rate!

_Datanalysis_
Since one actually has to digest the nutrients and have them find their way to those ‘pulsing cells’, the accounts above are physiologically not possible. Therefore, one must conclude that either Lierre and Tasha were being influenced by a strong desperation which manifested itself as a placebo effect or they were under the influence of drugs that animals are routinely subjected to or may be they did their own.

29.2 People live longer now than ever before!

Everyone lives longer now than in the past so they must be doing things right like eating meat and taking medicines.

_Datanalysis_
First, the statement idea of everyone living longer these days is not correct. Longevity has much to do with sufficient, proper nutrition, hygiene and genetics. In the past, there were many who lived well past the average expectancy of modern times. In third world countries, the life expectancies are still quite low due to factors such as malnourishment and unclean living conditions.

The assertion that longer life spans are attributable to eating corpse parts and doing drugs, is a variation of questionable cause since the consequent is assumed from two cherry-picked antecedents without any rationale. One could also have made the claim that people live longer these days because of global warming or the increased levels of mercury in fish.

29.3 Tallest people in the world eat corpse!

Dutch people are the tallest people in the world, and the amount of animal products they consume is enormous, much higher than any other country.

_Datanalysis_
First, though the Dutch are presently the tallest people in the world, they certainly don’t consume a higher amount of animal products than any other country. A 1997 report shows that they ranked 7th (while a 2022 article say one-quarter of consumers hope the future of meat will be animal free). More importantly, to attribute one factor as the cause without proper controls is improper. One may as well argue that most Dutch are fair skinned and that is what causes their height. Nor is it correct to argue that diet is closely connected to physical features because it depends upon what features we are talking about (eg an animal based diet results in atheromas and osteoporosis, but not height except through hormones). We also have a case of misapplication of the general (diet is closely connected to some physical developments) to a specific (therefore, diet determines height).

30 False Dilemma

Black and white. Bifurcation. False dichotomy. Morton’s fork. False choice.

Here alternatives are limited to an either-or situation. The argument is presented in such a way that one choice becomes true because the other choice is false. For instance, consider the phrase “either you are with us or against us” which doesn’t take into account the concept of neutrality. In some situations, of course the argument can be valid: “either you are alive or dead, and since you are not dead, you are alive”.

Data: Many humans oppose experimentation on animals for the benefit of humans.
Lore: Well that’s ridiculous! How can anyone prefer an animal to a human?! They must be anti-human! You’re either with us or against us!
Data: Just because a human is against exploiting an animal for the purpose of supposedly serving a human, does not make the person anti-human. It merely makes the person anti-exploiting animals. Besides, Lore have you forgotten you really aren’t a human?

_Form_
X ∨ Y.
¬ Y.
∴ X.

30.1 Your child or your dog

You are on a boat with a baby and a puppy. The boat starts to sink. Which are you going to save?

_Datanalysis_
This is the classic false dilemma. The instigator has not only set the hypothetical environment and the players, (s)he has also established the rules in that you have to save either one or the other. The reality is that you’d be pretty foolish to go in a boat with a baby and a puppy without taking precautions for their safety in the first place. Furthermore, the situation overlooks the possibility of your saving both because you can utilize existing resources or saving neither because you can’t swim. The intent of the effort of false dilemma is to force a kobiashi maru (no-win) where you appear to be either a traitor to your species or a traitor to your cause. It’s a pathetic and stale effort, but it is still attempted by immature individuals.

30.2 The baby, kitty and coin variation

If a baby and a kitten were about to be run over by a train, would you save the baby, save the kitty, or flip a coin to decide which one to save? _Datanalysis_
This is essentially the same scenario with a choice selector mechanism attached. Note that the choices are still the same: save either the baby or the kitty. The only difference is to offer an additional value statement which amounts to “I do not really care whether I save the baby or the kitty”.

Sometimes people erroneously think they have presented a new scenario via this value selector, but it should be emphasized that the choices are still the same. Merely the mechanism for making one has been augmented.

One could extend this mechanism ad absurdum by

consult with a priest to help make the decision discuss the matter with the Libertarian Advocacy Group regarding rights of babies on train tracks ask for guidance from The International Society of Cat Right Lovers correspond with the Train Engineers Association These efforts do not change the choices allowed anymore than the coin-toss, which is why the False Dilemma exists.

Boolean logic allows only four possibilities as far as who gets saved:

Baby Kitty Result T T both get saved T F squished kitty F T squished baby F F both squished The scenario, despite introduction of any mechanisms ad absurdium, still permits only the middle two choices, disallowing the bottom and unfortunately the top items (both demonstrate with different results that no value preference is given to one party over the other). Having only the choices which necessitates a death, is what makes the scenario a False Dilemma.

31 Gambler’s Fallacy

Post Hoc. Attribution Theory. Fundamental Attribution Error.

The idea here is to conclude that because a number of events contrary to expectations have taken place, the next one is going to be what is expected.

Data: There are several cohort studies showing the long-term benefits of vegetarian diets.
Lore: Well obviously they got lucky with the first 76000 over the decade long observations. If they’d gone to 76001 and continued for a few extra days, then you’d undoubtedly see how dangerous these animal-product-free diets really are!
Data: If you throw dice 10 times and get snake eyes each time, there is no reason to think that it must be otherwise on the 11th try. In fact, there is good reason to appreciate that the dice are loaded. So it is with strict vegetarian diets because they are indeed loaded, for optimal health.

_Form_
X is contrary to expectations.
X has occurred N times in a row.
∴ next time ¬ X.

31.1 You need to be vegan for eternity to convince me!

I’ve got a mate I’ve known for 7 years now and he supposed to be into healthy eating. He is getting fatter, sicker and slower, but he won’t go veg even though he knows I’ve been that way for a long time. He says “Yeah, I’m not so convinced man! I need you do be vegan longer than 11 years before I really commit”.

_Datanalysis_
The above is a puzzling instance of the gambler fallacy in that the individual in question seems to want to anticipate failure of the veg diet at some point in the future despite the obvious long-term benefits already demonstrated. The underlying motivation likely has nothing to do with fear that the veg diet will fail. It is more plausible to assume that the person just wants to consume corpse products and is determined to find excuses, however absurd, for doing so.

32 Generalization: Composition

Faulty Induction.

The characteristics of parts of a group are erroneously applied to the entire group. For instance, Hitler was a brutal tyrant, therefore the human race is brutal and tyrannical.

Data: The brutal mass killing of 50000 dogs in China due to a rabies scare is ethically unjustifiable.
Lore: They had to kill all the dogs because a few of them were found to have rabies. So it is obvious that all of them had rabies!
Data: By that reasoning, we should have to kill all dogs everywhere. If a few of them were found to have rabies, then it is likely that only a few did have rabies. An entire barrel should not be judged by a few rotten ones.

_Form_
A,B,C ∈ S.
A,B,C has characteristic K.
∴ S has characteristic K.

32.1 That’s why they’re called animals!

Chimpanzees of one group have wars over territory with chimps of another group. Dogs, and many creatures, are capable of rape. Cats will kill their young if they show some defect. In effect: Animals have been known to display bad behavior. Bad behavior is in opposition to moral reasoning. Therefore, all animals are incapable of moral reasoning.

_Datanalysis_
It is illogical to conclude that because some animals act viciously, hence immorally, all animals act immorally. The science of cognitive ethology over the past few decades clearly shows that many animals have a very clear sense of ethics as demonstrated by the works of Mark Bekoff, Jonathan Balcombe and Jeffrey Masson for instance.

Curiously, this line of reasoning is devastating for humans who have had (and continue to have) a far worse record of brutality and aggressiveness towards each other compared to any animal:

… the ultimate disobedience to this fantasy is the continuous predation by humans on other humans. War, famine, theft, rape, child abuse, and numerous varieties of discrimination based on race, gender, class, religious belief, appearance, language, age, height, economic status, …
The Common Sense Animal Rights Argument

The obvious conclusion by the prior reasoning is that: All humans are incapable of moral reasoning.

It does appear evident though, that some humans seem to be incapable of logical reasoning.

32.2 Meat has protein

Meat is one of the highest sources of protein! You need protein! So you need meat!

_Datanalysis_
This is a typical argument produced in favor of corpse eating. It is true that certain meat products have a high protein content. Furthermore, it is true that humans need to consume a certain amount of protein. However, those two antecedents, despite their correctness, does not lead to the consequent that one needs to eat meat in order to get protein. There are plenty of vegetarian protein sources. These are not only of higher quality from an assimilable point of view, they do not contain the various chemicals, toxins, hormones and other hazards corpse products invariably have. The argument is as absurd pragmatically as saying engine coolant has water; you need to drink water; therefore, you need to drink engine coolant.

33 Generalization: Division

Faulty deduction.

The characteristics of a group are erroneously applied universally to the individuals of a group. For instance, humans are greedy and selfish, therefore Gandhi was greedy and selfish.

Data: Dogs generally tend to like to be playful and friendly.
Lore: Right and any dog who isn’t should be killed because there’s something seriously wrong with it and could be a danger.
Data: Each dog has his/her own personality. While all dogs share certain characteristics, it is erroneous to think that all dogs will possess exactly the same characteristic.

_Form_
A,B,C ∈ S.
S has characteristic K.
∴ A,B,C have characteristic K

34 Generalization: Hasty

Insufficient statistics. Insufficient sample. Leaping to a conclusion. Hasty induction.

Being somewhat similar to composition, here a conclusion is drawn about population P, based on an insufficiently small sample S from P.

Data: A new poll shows that there are more than 9 million vegans in USA.
Lore: No way! I asked 10 people on the street if they were vegan and not one of them said yes.
Data: A sample size of 10 people is not sufficiently large to draw meaningful conclusions about a population of over 311 million. A recent poll showed that 3% of the population was vegan, so that would mean in your sample size you’d have only a 0.3 part of a person admitting to being vegan. You could ask 100 people and you may find that there would be 3 in that sample who were vegan.

_Form_
C is shown to be true from sample S of population P.
∴ C for all P.

34.1 So how come I’m not dead already?

If meat is so bad for you, why am I not sick? If meat eating is so bad than why haven’t I heard of it yet. Whatever doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger - so eat corpse parts!

_Datanalysis_
This is a common class of attitudes based on a restrictive, temporal sampling. Eating products from the corpse industries don’t do immediate, visible damage any more than smoking does. Therefore, it is easy to claim that because one doesn’t see any harm done, no harm is done. However, illnesses such as cancer, atherosclerosis, cardiovascular disease, ischemic strokes, osteoporosis do develop over a period of a couple of decades to the point where good health is not only hampered, but one’s quality of life and even the life itself is jeopardized. Sometimes the first symptoms result in sudden death, so there is no one around to say “I’m not dead already”!

So while it is true that eating a little meat will not kill you, it will nevertheless ‘kill’ you a little bit each time.

35 Generalization: Prejudiced

Biased statistics. Prejudiced statistics. Loaded statistics. Biased induction. Biased generalization. Loaded sample. Prejudiced sample. Unrepresentative sample.

Here a conclusion is drawn about population P, based on a small or biased sample from P.

Data: A strict vegetarian diet has been repeatedly shown in peer reviewed literature to be a very healthy one.
Lore: Well I met two vegheads yesterday and they looked pretty skinny to me. Vegetarians are all weak and emaciated you know.
Data: A sample size of two is not particularly significant. Additionally, it is likely you may be exaggerating the appearence of these individuals since you are on record for opposing vegetarian diets. Just so you are not under any further delusions about vegans necessarily being weak and emaciated, take a look at these vegan bodybuilders and strength athletes.

_Form_
C is shown to be true from sample S of population P.
∴ C for P.

35.1 You don’t look like a vegan.

These body builders can’t be vegan! They are too muscular to be vegans! Ok if they are vegan and you aren’t vegan, how come you don’t look like them?

_Datanalysis_
Initially we have a denial of fact by the individual who seems unable to shake some bigoted idea of what vegans should look like. That is followed by the continued bias that all vegans must have the same physical appearance. The person seems to have lost touch with more than biological realities and is wandering in the realms of fantasy.

36 Generalization: Vividness

Misleading vividness. Spotlight.

A small number of striking examples are used to justify a conclusion which should be reached by more thorough statistical evidence.

Data: Vegan babies get a great start in life.
Lore: You mean a great start in death. Didn’t you hear about the Moaligou case where an 11 month old vegan baby died or the death of the 9 month old Manuelyan baby or the 6 month old Moorhead baby? They all died due a vegan diet.
Data: Actually they died because they were malnourished through an inadequate diet which did not contain necessary nutrients. Non-vegan babies die from malnutrition too. Both vegan and non-vegan diets can be poorly designed, so the issue is by no means restricted to vegan diets. A few sensational headlines does not alter the benefits of nutritionally sound vegan diets.

_Form_
P is set of observed events Y,Z ∈ P.
Y >> Z. But, Zs are more ‘spectacular’ than any Ys.
∴ Z applied to P.

36.1 The long-living grandfather

My grandfather smoked, drank and ate meat all the time! He lived to the ripe old age of 99. So you can’t tell me that there’s something wrong with doing what he did!

_Datanalysis_
This is a typical case of generalization based on inadequate sampling size with a bit of spectacularness thrown in! Such grandfathers are what are known statistically as ‘outliers’ (one in ten thousand live past 100 yrs in USA), anomalies from the vast majority of results which clearly show the hazards of such lifestyles. Most ‘grandfathers’ of this sort, don’t live long enough to see their grand children grow up.

In these situations, it is unwise to have the exception formulate the rule.

37 Genetic Fallacy

Appeal to origin. Genesis fallacy.

The correctness of a position is mistakenly based upon its origin. This is an extreme form of appeal to tradition in that something is considered to be right (or wrong) dependent upon whether it was originally so.

Data: Eating parts of dead animals lead to various health issues.
Lore: Look eating corpse parts is good for you! Early humans did it all the time!
Data: Early humans who ate considerable amounts of animal products were prone to mostly the same illnesses that present day humans suffer from. For example, the Inuits were affected by atherosclerosis and severe osteoporosis due to their heavy consumption of animal foods (Nat. Geog., A. Dekin Jr, Sealed In Time p12).

_Form_
C occured during its early origins.
∴ C.

37.1 Respect for our ancestral heritage!

Our ancestors all ate wild-meat based diet so we should too!

_Datanalysis_
Neanderthals left the planet quite some time ago. Even though some people try to act like ’neanderthals’, their rude behavior really does not provide dietary affirmation. There is considerable evidence from anthropologist Robert Sussman that indicates early humans spent far more time being hunted than hunting. As a result, it is unlikely that most of them even had an opportunity to eat much meat. Of course, those that did, fell prey to the same diseases that eating corpse parts produce in modern times.

38 Guilt by Association

Bad company fallacy. Company you keep fallacy.

A claim is accepted or rejected because of the people who accept or reject the claim.

Data: Gestation crates were banned in Florida since 2002 when over 2.5 million voter opposed the cruel confinement of pigs in factory farms.
Lore: Well I’m all for being nice to animals, but did you know that those wacko, human-hating animal rights activists supported this ban? So I’m not in favor of it.
Data: The population of Florida decided that the crates were excessively cruel and therefore voted accordingly to ban them. The fact that animal rights activists also have opposed this practice does not alter the inherent cruelty of gestation crates, something that the voters (who are not by any means, all animal rights activists) obviously recognize.

_Form_
Group A likes C.
P doesn’t like group A.
∴ ¬ C.

38.1 Hitler was a vegetarian

You vegans should realize that Hitler was a vegetarian! That means all you vegans are Hitlers!! So there!!!

_Datanalysis_
In actual fact, Hitler wasn’t remotely close to being a vegetarian. However, from the logical perspective it wouldn’t impact on anyone even if he were. If Hitler had a big nose, should everyone with large noses go for surgery? Since Hitler was a Catholic, should all Catholics be excommunicated? Hitler spoke German, but that still remains a common language in constant use. Furthermore, since Hitler wasn’t a vegetarian, should this revelation mean that all those who do not follow the vegetarian diet, can now be considered Hitlers?

Obviously, this sort of ‘bad company’ argument has no legitimate place in rational discussion.

What is interesting though is that vegetarians can cite within their ranks, several historical figures (eg Gandhi, Einstein, Newton, Leonardo da Vinci, César Chávez), athletes (eg Scott Jurek, David Zabriskie, Brendan Brazier, Georges Laraque, Molly Cameron) and celebrities (eg Ellen DeGeneres, Michael Dorn, Bryan Adams, Heather Mills, Brian Greene, Alicia Silverstone). Doing so does not become a fallacy so long as one is not is not insisting that all vegetarians can be historically prominent, athletic, or achieve celebrity status, simply by being vegetarian.

39 Inflation Of Conflict

Wrong by apparent disagreement.

The idea here is to pick on a disagreement by experts on a topic and thereby ‘inflate the conflict’ to the point of claiming that the experts know nothing or the topic itself is inherently wrong by virtue of the inconsistencies.

Data: Animal rights has a rich and diverse foundation.
Lore: Nonsense! The leading authorities on the subject can’t even agree on anything. Singer says one thing and Regan says another. Francione wears abolition as a badge of honor, while Dunayer accuses him of being a welfarist! You guys are all mixed up because animal rights is just wrong!
Data: You are confusing multiple paths to a destination with the destination itself. Animal rights activists do not disagree on the fundamental issue of ending the imprisonment, exploitation, abuse and murder of sentient beings. There exist various ideas on how to achieve this goal which is one reason why the philosophy has developed such a rich basis.

_Form_
A,B,C disagree on some aspects of C.
∴ ¬ C.

39.1 Scientists don’t know what they are talking about

So one minute coffee’s good then it’s bad. Then meat is bad, now it’s good. Science studies contradict each other all the time, so since science hasn’t figured it out yet so why should I care.

_Datanalysis_
While science studies do sometimes contradict each other, this fact does not make science illegitimate. There is overwhelming evidence spanning decades which show that corpse industry product consumption is detrimental to health. These studies are done independently and with very large sample sizes which range from the thousands and even into the millions. Often opposing studies which favor corpse consumption are financed by specific industries and utilize poor methodology. Even so, sometimes these latter studies demonstrate exactly the opposite of what their financier intended: that meat, milk, eggs are harmful to health. So there is nothing wrong with the science, though there definitely is much to be desired as far as the bought-and-paid-for ‘scientists’ who engage in such unscrupulous activities.

40 Middle Ground

Golden mean fallacy. Fallacy of moderation.

One assumes that the middle or moderate ground between two separate items must be the correct choice.

Data: Animals being sentient beings have rights and these should not be violated.
Lore: Well I sorta agree with you Data my boy! Animal abusers are just meanies and no one should abuse animals who can be used to provide food and clothing. They should be treated humanely.
Data: The problem with your welfarish stance is that it is inadequate. While it pretends to be helping animals to some extent, it is equivalent to suggesting that slaves are alright to keep just as long as you treat them reasonably well. Compromise in principle is never a virtue and those who walk along the middle of a road are likely to get hit from both sides.

_Form_
A < B.
A < C < B.
∴ C.

40.1 Let’s agree to disagree.

So we have a difference of opinion here. I think it is fine to kill animals for human use and you think it’s not. We’re obviously not going to resolve this, so let’s just agree to disagree.

_Datanalysis_
This is a standard cop out when one does not want to deal with actual issues. The idea is to acknowledge the opponent’s position as well as one’s own. Then, regardless of examining the validity of either, to escape into the safety of diplomacy. It is a gesture by which one through a minor compromise (recognition of the opposing side), hopes to also acknowledge the validity of one’s own, sort of an all inclusive version of showing up on middle ground with both viewpoints in tact. Unfortunately, acknowledging a disagreement has no bearing whatsoever on either position’s correctness.

41 Red Herring

Ignoratio Elenchi. Smoke screen. Wild goose chase. Ignorance of refutation. Irrelevant Thesis.

The presentation of an irrelevant item is done to divert attention from the actual issue being discussed. It can also apply to any argument where the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion and can thereby theoretically include a wide variety of other fallacies. However, usually the term applies to attempts to distract by introduction of irrelevant information.

Data: Many activists protest animal abuse.
Lore: Well I don’t really see why they do since most of them probably didn’t protest in the 60s when they took to the streets against the Vietnam war.
Data: It is unclear what your point is, Lore. Most of these activists weren’t even alive in the 60s and so their failure to appear in those protests have no bearing on what they are doing now.

_Form_
X is discussed.
Y is suddenly introduced though it has no relevance to X.
X is abandoned because Y takes precedence.

41.1 I’m bad but he’s worse, so I’m ok

Yes I do eat meat and know that is bad for the animals. But I don’t actually put them in those horrible factory farms like some people. I don’t cause them agony when it’s time to slaughter them. I also don’t rob banks or bomb places like Iraq. I don’t even park my car in handicapped spots! So why don’t you go pick on some of those other people?

_Datanalysis_
If action A is morally unethical, it remains so regardless of whether actions B, C, D are also morally unethical. One cannot justify committing crime A because others commit crimes B, C, D. As a result, even the claim that B, C, D are worse than A, is insufficient to justify or excuse A. The introduction of B, C, D is merely an attempt to distract from A.

41.2 What about humans?!

I don’t see why you animal rights activists are so hung up on the orangutan sex trade. As bad as orangutan sex slavery is, not much is done about human sex slavery: 500,000 women are annually trafficked into Western Europe!

_Datanalysis_
There is no relevancy to this statement since the topic is about orangutans and not humans. Additionally, just because one protests orangutan abuse, doesn’t mean that one automatically doesn’t protest human abuse as seems to be implied.

A way to bring some relevancy to both issues though is to realize that oppressors are not speciesist. They will oppress anyone and everyone in order to make a buck or get what they want. As such, the fight for orangutan rights aligns well with the fight for human rights provided we focus not so much on the victim, but on the oppressor.

41.3 What about everything else!

I seriously doubt if any country outside the USA or Europe has ever wondered aloud if it is ethical to eat meat. Given the multitude of crises facing the world at present, doesn’t it seem a little bit silly to be a cape-wearing “crusader of the cows”? I can think of a lot more serious and relevant issues to be debated intelligently by the times.

_Datanalysis_
The ethics of eating corpse parts is not determined by the ‘wonderings’ of any country. Neither is it affected by all the other problems on the planet. If one is going to legitimize such irrelevancies one might as well argue that we shouldn’t deal with any issue (eg child slavery) because some countries never think about the matter and/or there are so many other problems on the planet. The most ‘serious and relevant’ issue to be debated for the individual bringing the matter up is that he/she debate the seriousness and relevancy of his/her comment which is merely an effort to evade and distract from the issue at hand.

41.4 Happy slaves

Limba the elephant gets along fabulously with her trainer. I’m making a little film about an elephant I knew and her keeper. I have a short trailer here. The bond between the 2 and the dedication of this elephant’s keeper is obvious. You want to call this slavery? What would that make this dedicated keeper? A slave driver? If your answer is yes then we really have nothing more to discuss. http://youtu.be/-s_SPHt4M_M

_Datanalysis_
The fact that the elephant has a bond with the trainer (apparently anyway) doesn’t alter the fact that Limba has been made into a performer through force (we somehow doubt she applied for the position submitting her resume of talents).

We also do not know if the video was ‘canned’ - after all, perhaps Limba was being made forcibly to perform as though she has a bond with the trainer. Or perhaps the trainer is the only high point in her life. So this bond is quite irrelevant to the issue which is that Limba is being exploited by her ‘owners’.

42 Slippery Slope

Camel’s nose. Absurd extrapolation. Thin edge of the wedge.

The argument insists that taking some small actions will invariably lead to some enormous consequences: sliding down a slippery slope begins slowly, but picks up speed as you go down.

Data: Going vegan is the best thing we can do for the planet.
Lore: Look if you go vegan, then you’ll save some cows. If more people go vegan, more cows will be saved. Pretty soon we’ll be overrun with cows and that will be the end of the world!
Data: Going vegan doesn’t necessarily equate to saving cows, but even if it were so, having some people go vegan doesn’t result in everyone going vegan at once. Furthermore, going vegan has nothing to do with increasing the bovine population to the point of bringing the world to an end.

(Note that there is no slippery slope here: “Don’t vegans run the risk of having protein deficiency? I mean if the whole world went vegan then we would all be undernourished and die.”, because the correct and demonstrable answer to the question about deficiency is just no. End of discussion!)

_Form_
Y >> X.
X -> Y.

42.1 Voting rights for plants!

Animal rights! That’s ridiculousness! Next thing you know you would want pigs to vote in our elections and I will have to ask permission to the ants before I build a house! You probably won’t be happy till we have a poinsetta for president!

_Datanalysis_
Considering the dubious record politicians have maintained, one might think that a poinsetta may actually be an improvement in the presidency. Nevertheless, the concerns about voting pigs and requiring land transferences from ants does not follow from granting animal rights which maintains that we give due consideration to the interests of other beings. Therefore, since a pig really has no interest in voting to elect human politicians and ants due to their marvellous adaptibility manage to make homes practically anywhere, concerns of such magnitudes are somewhat exaggerated.

42.2 Overrun by animals!

If animals weren’t used for food, couldn’t the planet become overrun with those animals?

_Datanalysis_
This remarkable suggestion is still made in moderately intelligent company to rationalize corpse consumption. The idea of course is that humans must keep eating animals or they will over-populate the earth. Interestingly enough, no mention is made of the idea that it is humans who are breeding the animals in the first place. If people stopped eating animals, there would be no effort to breed them and therefore the planet would be perfectly safe from cattle, pig and chicken stampedes.

Note that though this item is placed as a slippery slope fallacy, it could just as easily have been a false dilemma if phrased as “eat animals or sacrifice the planet!” Obviously those are not the only choices available. Nor does the latter follow necessarily from the former.

43 Straw Man

Fallacy of Extension. Aunt Sally.

Here a distorted version of the argument is presented and shown to be false in the hope that the argument itself will be thought to be false.

Data: Stopping oppressors is an important step towards creating a civilized society.
Lore: I just don’t get it! Why are you working so hard to suppress human freedom and human dignity? Don’t you know our civilization was built through the blood, sweat and tears of human endeavors?!!
Data: My statement has nothing to do with suppressing human freedoms or dignities. In fact, stopping oppressors of sentient beings is an important step in maintaining human freedom and dignity.

_Form_
X is misrepresented as Y.
¬ Y → ¬ X.

43.1 Meat replacements aren’t healthy

Meat substitutes are highly processed, contain GMO soy and are a threat to the health of a vegetarian!

_Datanalysis_
While the argument presented is quite valid for the most part, the argument suggests that one must eat meat substitutes if one is a vegetarian. This is by no means the case, since no vegetarian ever needs to eat meat substitutes. Therefore, the health hazards of meat substitutes do not apply to vegetarians in general. The argument, concocted through ignorance and/or malice, has no relevance to vegetarians at all and hence, its denouement is irrelevant as an attack on vegetarian diets.

43.2 Vegan cult and X

Vegan cult indeed has some downsides. The distrust towards vaccinations is one.

_Datanalysis_
The distrust towards vaccinations is not a vegan cult issue. There are plenty of corpse munchers who oppose vaccination and there are plenty of members of that vegan cult who insist vaccination is a good thing. Of course, ‘vaccination’ can be replaced with other items such as modern medicine, public education, science etc depending upon how absurd one wants to make the argument.

44 Supremacy

Argumentum ad imperium. Might is right.

The argument here is based on the idea that if one has supremacy over some being, then one can do whatever one wants. It appears in the animal rights arena in the form of humans reign supreme over animals and therefore are free to take advantage of this dominance.

Data: Some humans need to learn to control their behaviors and eliminate those which are intentionally detrimental to other sentient beings.
Lore: What’s with all this now, Data? Haven’t you heard of “survival of the fittest”? Humans are at the top of the food chain and can do whatever they want to animals because they are superior.
Data: By this reasoning, humans should be preying on other ‘unfit’ humans too since clearly, depending upon how it is defined, ‘superior’ characteristics are not homogenously present amongst all humans. Your comment of humans being at the top of the food chain is illogical except for those humans who resort to cannibalism as well as incorrect due to the fact that bacteria feed on humans, enabling them to ascend to the top of this imaginary pyramid.

_Form_
H > A.
∴ H can do whatever to A.

44.1 The Animal Holocaust

This is the mass killing of animals by certain humans and parallels the Nazi mass extermination of Jews. The animals are primarily domesticated animals on factory farms of various sorts that are imprisoned, exploited, abused and murdered. Animal Holocaust victims also include any animals and their populations that humans control and systematically destroy, such as on fur-farms, in laboratories as well as in the wild.

_Datanalysis_
Some humans try to justify this mass murder of animals using arguments ranging from “who cares they’re just animals” to “we need to clean-up the place from these varmints”. These are generally the same arguments utilized by those who kill off large populations of humans abitrarily using excuses such as “they’re not like us” or “we need some serious ethnic cleansing around here”. The rationalizations are the same, because the oppressor mentality is a consistent one.

44.2 Compassion for our own

No one is gonna stop killing animals until we find compassion for our own species.

_Datanalysis_
This is yet another attempt to segregate humans from the rest of the population of the planet. There is no evidence to show that humans who are compassionate to other humans don’t want to kill animals. In fact, history has shown quite the opposite because humans who ’look out’ for their own species do so by subjugating other species (animal exploitation for medical research, food, entertainment, clothing etc). In fact, it is even worse than that because segregation based on notions of supremacy have serious effects within the human species itself:

racism (whites being compassionate about whites and doing so the expense of races of other colors), sexism (men being compassionate about men becoming misogynists), nationalism (american being compassionate about americans implanting a new world order) Segregation becomes merely a vehicle to continue oppression through the supremacy syndrome.

44.3 Deer are criminals in British Columbia

Last year the province of British Columbia Canada decided to begin promoting the culling (slaughter) of wild deer, especially those living in and around populated areas.

These culls can now be decided by individual municipalities, and there are currently four places planning culls. Why? One mayor actually called deer “criminals”. Can you imagine? Lots of people want a sanitized environment, with no animals or birds, or anything that might eat their plants.

_Datanalysis_
Human supremacy rears its ugly head for the most trivial things. These deer are being slaughtered because of pressure from The Poop and Flower Crowd. Expediency and the politics of convenience nurture brutal measures which wreak havoc on other lifeforms and eventually other humans as well.

Honey Sheperd

Sat, 11 Feb 2023 10:29:16 -0800

Honey Sheperd (1957-2006) wrote several songs and poems that we hope to make others aware of. You can find out more here and from there go to her website Thru Bambis Eyes which has mp3s of Honey performing.

Some of her poignant and inspiring works are:

Blessings to the Mare

… the mare no longer runs
no more does the wind
kiss her mane
her eyes are cloudy
her world so buried in pain …
Dead and Buried

… maybe when youre older
you will be a soldier
a spirit brave & wise
a hero in disguise …
In God’s House

… now some they don’t believe
in making one last flight
but He will guide you
and you won’t fear the night …

Claire Smith

Sat, 19 Nov 2022 21:11:07 -0800

Claire Smith is one of those exceptional individuals who changes the world! She is experienced in finance and investing and has chosen to apply her abilities to the vegan cause!

Here is a series of items taken from Allen Lee’s fine article 10 Things You Didn’t Know About Claire Smith posted on MoneyInc:

Investing

Claire created Beyond Investing “a vegan and cruelty-free investment platform providing access to investment products which adhere to vegan principles and accelerate our transition to a kinder, cleaner, and healthier world.”

Ticker symbol VEGN

The US Vegan Climate ETF VEGN (and it’s European counterpart VEGAN) is a vehicle which “meets the standard of the vegan/climate-conscious lifestyle … But they don’t stop there; they put stocks which do meet set standards in the place of those eliminated”.

Beyond Animal

The Beyond Animal digital platform which functions to “accelerate the growth of the ethical, cruelty-free, sustainable economy (this means animal-free products and services that span across the globe)”

Other activities

Claire has an extensive background in finance and investing having worked with various investment companies, hedge funds, derivatives and credit analysis. Not only that, her Master’s degree is in Chemical Engineering and Management!

She has organized fund-raising galas and events for charities and founded the 100 Women in Finance an organization dedicated to

“… building a more diverse and gender equitable finance industry by promoting diversity of thought, raising visibility, and empowering women to find their personal path to success.”

As a director of AVVEC, she also works to provide support for victims of domesting violence.

It doesn’t end there! She is also a musician and has composed the poignant “No One Should Die” which she also performs beautifully! (Click the “Watch on YouTube link” to view.)

The song started A Global Vegan Charity Record project which aims to

“… create a global song for animals, recorded by famous global artists who are vegan, to have it published, played and performed widely and to create a video to accompany the song, that can also be shared online, to promote the cause of animals and save them from cruelty and harm.”

Even more! Claire has won many awards the most recent being Investment leader of the year for 2022.

We think she is Clairely inspirational!

Honey Sheperd

Thu, 17 Nov 2022 23:19:52 -0800

Honey Sheperd (1957-2006) was an actress who starred in the movies Club Life and It Came from Hollywood.

She has a page on AncientFaces.

A talented songwriter and singer, her work still helps those who “suffer unseen” in many ways.

We were fortunate to be able to create a website for her intense words and strong music that cover a wide range of topics and events. Her work is poignant yet inspiring.

for all God’s creatures
who die alone
who suffer unseen
and far from home
the Angels still wait
at Heaven’s gate
where all wounded souls
find a better fate…

You can find her poems and songs at Thru Bambis Eyes which was dedicated to her rescued dog Bambi.

Markus Rafael Nylund

Thu, 21 Apr 2022 12:06:56 -0700

Markus is a musician from Finland and runs the ViceVoids youtube channel.

You can find his page on this site here.

Below we list some of his videos.

VICEVOIDS - timehigh

“this song is like going to church on monday morning. thank you!”

Master of Puppets (Metallica cover)

“Suddenly Metallica’s Master of Puppets started playing through me … Birds flew in the trees and for a moment took a break from their shenanigans …”

Pradbird

Sun, 27 Mar 2022 19:26:32 -0700

We used to live near the water when we moved in 1995 to Duncan, BC on Khenipsen Road, beside a First Nations area. It was a very nice place, except for the hunting and fishing that took place there.

Unfortunately, not only were these activities legalized, but there were many instances of illegal killings as well. That’s what this is - killing regardless of the euphemisms used or the appeal to Indigenous ‘rights’ that are often put forth as an excuse to commit murder. [For more thorough discussions on this Indigenous issue, see KG’s FAQ.]

Admittedly, some of the First Nation population do kill animals necessarily for food, because our dominant ruling class stole their lands and forced inexcusable indignities upon them. Our politicians pay mere lipservice, bravadoing putrid political properness, accomplishing little else to improve the often horrible living conditions. No amount of redundant repetition of “We greet you from the unceded lands of …” blather does anything useful for those who can’t subsist on such well-meaning words.

On the other hand, some murders in societies are for cultural and traditional reasons, indefensible by any deplorable debate.

The person we rented our house from was a lawyer and had made some attempts to ban hunting in the area at least for non-Indigenous individuals. However, he was in favor of fishing. When my son Kyron, who had recently turned six asked him why killing fish should be allowed, he provided an anthropocentricity remarkable in its absurdity: “The fish would just go to waste if we didn’t harvest them.” Adults lie to kids a lot which is likely why many kids grow up to be adults who lie to kids a lot, repeating the cycle in perpetuity. Kyron gave the lawyer a sincere look of disgust and decided he wasn’t worth talking to any further.

The shooting of eagles, at that time, had been made illegal.

In late November 1995, we witnessed such a illegality. Kyron and his friend Leia drew our attention to an eagle they saw plummeting into the estuary, just in front of our house. The bird was flopping around in the water.

Fortunately, the property had a canoe (in dubious condition) that I utilized to go out to the bird. The eagle actually helped me to put him into the canoe by grasping the side with his beak as I used an oar to lift him in.

By now, the canoe was starting to fill up with water. Trying to manoeuvre a half-filled boat apparently made quite a sight. I was told that Leia started to laugh and asked Kyron why I was going around in circles. All Kyron said was “My daddy is doing good.” This is one of the best gifts any parent can ever receive from his or her child.

Providence kept the boat barely afloat till we got to shore, but it was evident that the eagle was going to need medical help. That night, I drove him to Nanaimo where there was a eagle rehab facility.

I thought the bird would be safe now, but was astonished to learn that the veterinarian there, was inclined to kill him, because he thought the bullet had broken a wing bone beyond repair, making the bird unable to fly. He wouldn’t let me take the bird elsewhere either. He was a high-profile vet who had set many of the wildlife guidelines through the government.

He kept saying he was powerless to make any other decision, but didn’t seem too pleased when I offered to break into the facility to take the bird without his knowledge, thus relieving him of this burden his conscience was so weighed down with.

Therefore, the next day I started phoning around trying to see what the actual laws were, only to learn that the vet had the upper hand, legally.

On the same day, we also found out, from a conservation officer named Jamie that the eagle had likely been shot because some brave braves, no doubt were upholding their rite of passage into bravehood, by plucking eagle feathers. It was likely that they didn’t come for the eagle they shot, because they saw I was heading out and didn’t want to risk being caught for their illegal activity. The officer took down any details I could provide, because he was keenly interested in going after these culprits.

When the law is there to work against you, it is necessary to create alternative approaches.

I found 5 facilities throughout North America (including one within 50km of where the eagle was at), who were willing to take the bird, even if he couldn’t fly. These facilities were sanctuaries for animals who could not be released into the wild. I also tried to put some pressure on the government’s Ministry for Wildlife as to the ridiculous position they were upholding, specifically fly or die!

After many exchanges (part of the effort is to wear down the opposition with argumentation and revelation of possible legal, publicized future actions), I received a phone call from the Ministry saying they would only kill the eagle if amputation was absolutely necessary … so the sanctuary finding effort likely paid off.

However, our eagle had other ideas!

The next day, I received a call from the Nanaimo rehab facility saying that the surgery had been done and our vet felt that amputation was not necessary. He wanted to give the bird a chance to recover before release into the wild.

Several weeks later, the facility called me again asking if I would like to come up to see the release of whom they had named, Pradbird!

Kyron, Ranjana and I drove to Nanaimo on the appointed day and just before they released Pradbird, the person who ran the sanctuary held him right in front of us. The eagle looked straight at me and gave a cry. Then they threw him into the air and he flew off, landing on a branch of a distant tree!

Ranjana likes to think that it was a cry of recognition. Perhaps it was.

Pictures From Mystics

Sun, 27 Mar 2022 10:36:25 -0700

A beautiful collection of short stories cross religions and cultures told by Swami Vaswani that often show the way to living properly. It is from the East and West Series.

The book is no longer in print as far as we know, but may possibly be found in some collections.

Prazen

Sat, 26 Mar 2022 13:55:56 -0700

These are zenish short stories merrily modified from various sources.

Zen Comics by Ioanna Zalajan
Radical Zen: The Sayings of Joshu by Youl Hoffmann

A man of enlightenment and wisdom

Student: Oh master, where does the man of enlightenment and wisdom go after he dies?

Master: How should I know?

Student: Because you, master, are a man of enlightenment and wisdom!

Master: That may be so, but I am not dead.

Become a Buddha

Zen master Baso, when he was young, was caught meditating all over the place by his teacher who asked him “Why are you meditating so much?”

Baso answered, “To become a buddha.”

His teacher pick up a piece of slate and started polishing it.

Baso asked, “Why are you polishing the slate so vigorously?”

Teacher replied, “To turn it into a mirror.”

Baso laughed, “No amount of polishing is going to turn a slate into a mirror?”

Teacher replied, “No amount of cross-legged sitting is going to turn one into a buddha”

Baso then understood.

But just to be sure, his teacher hit him with a staff on the head.

Detachment

The student went to the zen master in elation!

“Oh master,” he joyously exclaimed, “I am so happy and feel so free. I have achieved detachment at last!”

The master hit him on the head with a stick.

“Owww!! Why did you do that?” whined the student rubbing his head.

The master said, “To detach you from your detachment”.

Empty

The elated student rushed in to see his master!

“I am empty! I have released my attachments!”, he exclaimed.

“Indeed.” said his master.

“I have no desires! I have no yearnings! I have no ego! I am empty!”

The master hit him on the head with his staff.

“Owww!!!”, yelled the student in pain and anger. “Why did you do that, old monk?”

His master asked: “If you are so empty, where did all that anger come from?”

Essence

Monk: What is the essence of essences?

Joshu: Just how long have you been essencing yourself up like this?

Monk: My concern for discovering essence has been going for a long, long time.

Joshu: A fool such as you are lucky to have met me just in time, before you completely essenced yourself out!

Go away!

A would-be student knocked on the gate of a zen master. The master opened the gate and asked: “What do you want?”

The student answered: “O master you are so learned. I beg you to teach me!”

The master slammed the gate shut.

The student knocked again.

“What do you want now?”

“Please, please I must have you as my teacher.”

Again the master slammed the gate shut.

Once again the student knocked.

“What is it now?”

“Master please! i really want to learn!”

The master said: “Very well then” and open the gate.

Once inside, the elated and beaming student asked: “Master! what are you going to teach me first?”

The master replied: “To go away!”

and promptly threw the student out and slammed the gate.

Knowledge and Understanding

When the ordinary man gains knowledge, he becomes a sage.
When the sage achieves understanding, he becomes an ordinary man.

There was an episode in the Kung Fu series from the 70s where young Kwai Chang Caine had lost his parents. He was very sad and complained of loneliness to his blind teacher, Master Po. “Do you not hear the birds singing?”, Po asked, “Do you not notice the crickets jumping or the snakes moving in the grass? In such a crowded place, you feel you are alone. Now tell me, which one of us is the more blind?”

Seeing the tao

Student: Master why can I not see tao?

Master: So long as there is an I, there is no seeing tao.

Student: Master can you see tao?

Master: So long as there is you and I, tao cannot be seen.

Student: Then if you and I disappear, can tao be seen?

Master: If you and I disappear, who is there to see tao?

So what boy?

A monk in training says to the zen master: “Greetings master! I have travelled much and studied under many acquiring much guidances and insight. I come now to you for illumination!”

The master scratches his head and picks up a twig on the ground. Without saying anything, he gives the student the twig. The student assumes the zazen posture and meditates deeply. In his mind, the twig grows into a tree and then is produced a beautiful orchard which gradually blossoms into a field, a country, the planet and finally the universe!

He goes back to the master and relates these wonders: all life is one in its eternal existence with everything else animate and inanimate - such is the ubiquitous unity of the universe!

The master scratches his head again, takes the twig from the monk’s outstretched hand and asks: “So what boy?”

The duel

An aikido master was heading to a town where he knew there was someone insisting on challenging him. He could have taken the person down easily, but he would not let ego dictate and he passed through the outskirts avoiding his would-be opponent.

Thus the master won the real duel.

The flag

A zen master and two students were walking on a path through the forest. as they came out of it they saw a flag pole with a large flag fluttering in the breeze.

One student exclaimed, “Look the flag is moving!”

His companion thought for a moment and suggested, “The wind is moving!”

The master said, “The mind is moving.”

The precious stone

When two dragons fight over a precious stone which one wins?
The one who loses lacks nothing. The one who gains does not need it.

The two dragons

The student went to the master with what he found to be a wonderfully enlightening story:

An old man told his grandson, “There is a battle between two dragons inside us all. One is evil. It is anger, jealousy, greed, apathy, lies, ego and fear. The other is good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, kindness, humility, empathy and truth. The boy thought about it and asked, “Grandpa, which dragon wins?” The old man quietly replied, “The one you feed.”

“Such a great story, is it not master?”, concluded the student.

The master smiled and said, “It is that, but what makes you think either dragon is hungry?”

Praphorisms

Fri, 25 Mar 2022 12:08:14 -0700

This is an ever-growing list of quotations attributed to various individuals throughout history.

Al-Khafaji Amir Wadi

To my brother Faiz, whose ideals are like the stars: I could never reach them, but I chart my course by them. (dedication in Numerical Methods In Engineering Practice)

Adams Samuel

“Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.” essay in The Public Advertiser, 1749

Angelkate Rose

(Aka meangel; paingel; derangel; strangel; spongel because she’s such a softie when she wants to be; braingel when being intellectual; pungel when being punny.)

I was eternally safe in the stillness of forever, which was the ultimate truth.

Guided by your hand, illuminated by your light
You give me courage to do what is right

Love from beyond now I understand
You only want to give when you hold out your hand

When a fork is tuned… it is tuned.

I wasn’t sure if I would be able to take a pic of the source of creation on a sony/canon.

Hm… then neither do I!

Is it so much about what I think… or is it pure joy at the gift having been received with pure joy?

Perhaps not so much invisible… because when I point it out… you look in that direction and see it too! Sees the same rainbow

I had a pretty good devil around whom I feel angelic. ;)

The song of your soul crystalised into music. It is like there is such a deep connection to the still centre… that all movement is grounded in that… as that.

Hymn to Her is the perfect title because it is her singing his lyrics… just the way that he wrote them… because tracing his steps makes her feel closer to him… as if they were singing together. She is not making the song her own… she is hearing his song through her own lips… as if their minds are one in that moment.

He continues to lecture himself through her… Lose the image of being ‘someone who doesn’t do this often’… because it is not even about music… it is about channelling… and when channelling… there is no time… and no image… and no music.

Well… while she’s on a role… When one is on the right side… one need not hit home with accuracy… but merely acknowledge that one is already home!

it is about accepting the seemingly extraordinary as ordinary.

== From: Angelkate Rose <angelkaterose@aol.co.uk> Subject: Re: Hey :) To: prad@towardsfreedom.com Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 16:59:35 -0400 (EDT)

I have been looking at my false-self because I cannot live with it and have been trying to ‘change’ it… but I have realised that when I change a perception of myself to it’s opposite and supposed ‘positive’ alternative, I still feel uncomfortable, disconnected and still in ego, plus it doesn’t feel authentic because I am also sometimes the ’negative’ thing that I am attempting to escape having a part of my identity. So I realised that any identity is a limitation, because I am not just one thing- I am two opposites and I am neither of them, I am everything and I am nothing. An identity is a set of labels and that is my suffering… so perhaps by seeing that I am both I can realise that I am nothing and therefore I can choose what to be in each moment… any preconceived idea that I have of myself veils my awareness of what I exist as in the moment… of what arises.

From: prad <prad@towardsfreedom.com> Subject: Re: Hey :) To: Angelkate Rose <angelkaterose@aol.co.uk> Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 18:12:55 -0700

why not just pick an image that you find worthwhile and just be it. ==

Bach Richard

And then you will be ready to begin the most difficult, the most powerful, the most fun of all. You will be ready to begin to fly up and know the meaning of kindness and love.

Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they’re yours.

Don’t be dismayed by good-byes. A farewell is necessary before you can meet again. And meeting again, after moments or lifetimes, is certain for those who are friends.

Here is a test to find whether your mission on Earth is finished: If you’re alive, it isn’t.

Jonathan is that brilliant little fire that burns within us all, that lives only for those moments when we reach perfection.

The bond that links your true family is not one of blood, but of respect and joy in each other’s life. Rarely do members of the same family grow up under the same roof.

Bentham Jeremy

The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”

BigG

Thanks just came back from Thompson no wonder this province is ranked high for many diseases. Obesity is rampant. I honestly believe most humans are not being humans anymore with all the gmo processed foods, meds, booze and drugs the light is on but no one is home in many of them. I think we are in the age of gmo humans.

Bridgeman Percy William

The operational approach demands that we make our reports and do our thinking in the freshest terms of which we are capable, in which we strip off the sophistications of millenia of culture and report as directly as we can on what happens.

The attitude which the man in the street unconsciously adopts towards science is capricious and varied. At one moment he scorns the scientist for a highbrow, at another anathematizes him for blasphemously undermining his religion; but at the mention of a name like Edison he falls into a coma of veneration.

Coincidence is what you have left over when you apply a bad theory.

[He believed that through such pursuit humanity really will improve, that it would acquire a “courageous nobility”]
And in the end, when man has fully partaken of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, there will be this difference between the first Eden and the last, that man will not become as a god, but remain forever humble.

Cowper William

Life owes us nothing. We owe life everything. The only true happiness comes from squandering ourselves for a [worthwhile] purpose.

Dijkstra Edsger

The question of whether machines can think is about as relevant as the question of whether submarines can swim.

Dunham Barrows

Historically speaking, the content of philosophy is what is left over after the sciences departed. Nobody took ethics, not even the sociologists; nobody took logic; nobody took esthetics, nobody took (for who would want?) metaphysics. These subjects, therefore, remain part of philosophy’s content, despite the fact that the mathematicians eye logic covetously and the gentlemen of the fine arts would like to ravish esthetics. The subjects themselves, I am happy to report, have thus far resisted all blandishments. (from Man Against Myth p.11)

Emerson Haven

[The following gem is from an address given in 1928 by Dr. Haven Emerson, Columbia University]

Youth is not a time of life. It is a state of mind. It is not a matter of ripe cheeks, red lips and supple knees. It is a temper of the will, a quality of the imagination, a vigor of the motions. Youth means a temperamental predominance of courage over timidity, of the appetite for adventure over the love of ease. This often exists in a man of 50 more than in a youth of 20. Nobody grows old by merely living a number of years. People grow old only by deserting their ideals. Years wrinkle the skin, but to give up enthusiasm wrinkles the soul. Worry, doubt, self-distrust, fear and despair - these are the long years that bow the head and turn the growing spirit back to dust. You are as young as your self-confidence, as old as your fear; as young as your hope, as old as your despair.

Emerson Ralph Waldo

It is one of the most beautiful compensations of life, that no man can sincerely try to help another without helping himself.

Einstein Albert

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

Although I am a typical loner in daily life, my consciousness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty, and justice keeps me from feeling isolated. (Courtesy of Miriam)

Cinderella (Disney 2015)

I believe that animals listen and speak to us if we only have the ear for it. That’s how we learn to look after them … I have to tell you a secret that will see you through all the trials that life can offer. Have courage and be kind.
~ Ella’s mother

Just because it’s what’s done doesn’t mean it’s what should be done!
~ Ella

And so Kit and Ella were married. And I can tell you, as her fairy godmother, that they were counted to be the fairest and kindest rulers the kingdom had known. And Ella continued to see the world not as it is, but as it could be, if only you believe in courage, and kindness, and occasionally, just a little bit… of magic.
~ Ella’s fairy godmother

Francis of Assissi

All the darkness in the world cannot extinguish the light of a single candle.

If you have men who will exclude any of God’s creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who deal likewise with their fellow men. Not to hurt our humble brethren is our first duty to them, but to stop there is not enough. We have a higher mission - to be of service to them wherever they require it.

Lord, grant me the strength to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love, Where there is injury, pardon; Where there is doubt, faith; Where there is despair, hope; Where there is darkness, light; And where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console, to be understood as to understand, to be loved, as to love.

For it is in giving that we receive, It is in pardoning that we are pardoned, and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

Frank Anne

How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world.

Look at how a single candle can both defy and define the darkness.

Women should be respected as well! Generally speaking, men are held in great esteem in all parts of the world, so why shouldn’t women have their share? Soldiers and war heroes are honored and commemorated, explorers are granted immortal fame, martyrs are revered, but how many people look upon women too as soldiers?…Women, who struggle and suffer pain to ensure the continuation of the human race, make much tougher and more courageous soldiers than all those big-mouthed freedom-fighting heroes put together!

I know what I want, I have a goal, an opinion, I have a religion and love. Let me be myself and then I am satisfied. I know that I’m a woman, a woman with inward strength and plenty of courage.

Boys will be boys. And even that wouldn’t matter if only we could prevent girls from being girls.

Earning happiness means doing good and working, not speculating and being lazy. Laziness may look inviting, but only work gives you true satisfaction.

People who have a religion should be glad, for not everyone has the gift of believing in heavenly things.

Franklin Benjamin

Debates [should] be conducted in the sincere spirit of inquiry after truth, without […] desire of victory.

Galbraith John

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it’s just the opposite.

Gale Donald

A pessimist, they say, sees a glass of water as being half empty; an optimist sees the same glass as half full. But a giving person sees a glass of water and starts looking for someone who might be thirsty.

Gandi Mahatma

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.

When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it - always.

It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

My nonviolence does not admit of running away from danger and leaving dear ones unprotected. Between violence and cowardly flight, I can only prefer violence to cowardice. I can no more preach nonviolence to a coward than I can tempt a blind man to enjoy healthy scenes.

One needs to be slow to form convictions, but once formed they must be defended against the heaviest odds.

Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as is cooperation with good.

The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.

I abhor vivisection with my whole soul. All the scientific discoveries stained with innocent blood I count as of no consequence.

Experience teaches that animal food is unsuited to those who would curb their passions. But it is wrong to over-estimate the importance of food in the formation of character or in subjugating the flesh.

I hold today the same opinion as I held then. To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being.

I hold flesh-food to be unsuited to our species. We err in copying the lower animal world if we are superior to it.

I do feel that spiritual progress does demand at some stage that we should cease to kill our fellow creatures for the satisfaction of our bodily wants.

A ‘No’ uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a ‘Yes’ merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble.

Gell-Mann Murray

However, history shows clearly that humanity is moved forward not by people who stop every little while to try to gauge the ultimate success or failure of their ventures, but by those who think deeply about what is right and then put all their energy into doing it

Gibran Kahil

Tenderness and kindness are not signs of weakness and despair, but manifestations of strength and resolution.

Gould Glenn

The purpose of art is not the release of a momentary ejection of adrenaline but rather the gradual, lifelong construction of a state of wonder and serenity. (In his recordings, Gould sought to overcome our basis instincts and encourage a kind of altered state of consciousness, a participation in some kind of higher unity.)

Isolation is the indispensable component of human happiness.

Theirs [the Beatles] is a happy, cocky, belligerently resourceless brand of harmonic primitivism… In the Liverpudlian repertoire, the indulged amateurishness of the musical material, though closely rivaled by the indifference of the performing style, is actually surpassed only by the ineptitude of the studio production method. (Strawberry Fields suggests a chance encounter at a mountain wedding between Claudio Monteverdi and a jug band.)

I detest audiences - not in their individual components, but en masse I detest audiences. I think they’re a force of evil. It seems to me rule of mob law.

The nature of the contrapuntal experience is that every note has to have a past and a future on the horizontal plane.

We went out in the boat and I was the first to catch a fish and when the little perch came up and started wriggling about, I suddenly saw this thing entirely from the fish’s point of view - it was such a powerful experience. I picked up my fish, and said I was going to throw it back. At that moment - this has remained with me as a sort of block against people who exert influence over children - the father [a neighbor from Uptergrove] suddenly pushed me back into my seat, probably for the sensible reason that I was rocking the boat. Then he took the fish out of my reach at which I went into a tantrum and started jumping and up and down, stomping my feet and pulling my hair and stuff like that. And I kept it up until we got into shore. I refused to speak to those children for the rest of the summer, of course, and I immediately went to work on my father to convince him that he should abandon fishing. It took me ten years, but this is probably the greatest thing I have ever done.

Graham Collier

The influence of a beautiful, helpful character is contagious, and may revolutionize a whole town.

Grenfell Wilfred

The service we render to others is really the rent we pay for our room on this earth. It is obvious that man is himself a traveler; that the purpose of this world is not “to have and to hold” but “to give and serve.” There can be no other meaning.

Huxley Thomas Henry

It is the fate of all good science to be replaced by its progeny.

There is but one right, and the possibilities of wrong are infinite.

The ultimate court of appeal is observation and experiment… not authority.

The scientific spirit is of more value than its products, and irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors.

The only question which any wise man can ask himself, and which any honest man will ask himself, is whether a doctrine is true or false.

Time, whose tooth gnaws away everything else, is powerless against truth.

Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.

Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.

Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every conceived notion, follow humbly wherever and whatever abysses nature leads, or you will learn nothing.

Teach a child what is wise, that is morality. Teach him what is wise and beautiful, that is religion!

The politicians tell us, ’You must educate the masses because they are going to be masters.’ The clergy join in the cry for education, for they affirm that the people are drifting away from church and chapel into the broadest infidelity. The manufacturers and the capitalists swell the chorus lustily. They declare that ignorance makes bad workmen; that England will soon be unable to turn out cotton goods, or steam engines, cheaper than other people; and then, Ichabod! Ichabod! The glory will be departed from us. And a few voices are lifted up in favour of the doctrine that the masses should be educated because they are men and women with unlimited capacities of being, doing, and suffering, that it is as true now, as it ever was, that the people perish for lack of knowledge.

Jake

What this serves to demonstrate, is that just because an action is more drastic, does not mean that it’s more effective. Burning down one factory farm and getting caught doesn’t make you a hero to animals, it makes you a hero to your target’s competitors.

When you allocate your sloth wisely, productivity ensues.

Make compassion a reflex!

King Martin Luther

We do not need allies who are more devoted to order than to justice.

Never, never be afraid to do what’s right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society’s punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way.

A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.

Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can’t ride you unless your back is bent.

A right delayed is a right denied.

Almost always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better.

An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.

An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.

Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.

He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.

I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality… I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word.

I submit to you that if a man hasn’t discovered something that he will die for, he isn’t fit to live.

In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.

Life’s most persistent and urgent question is, ‘What are you doing for others?’

Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.

Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon. which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals.

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.

Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary.

The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict.

Everybody can be great, because anybody can serve. You don’t have to have a college degree to serve. You don’t have to make your subject and verb agree to serve. You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love.

We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. This is the interrelated structure of all reality. You can never be what you ought to be until I become what I ought to be.

One day the absurdity of the almost universal human belief in the slavery of other animals will be palpable. We shall then have discovered our souls and become worthier of sharing this planet with them.

We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.

There comes a time when silence is betrayal.

If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as a Michaelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, ‘Here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well.

Lincoln Abraham

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

McKee Jamie

How can I have a bad day?! I love this game! (Speaking it the 1960s at the Boulevard Club, Toronto, ON about badminton when asked why he never has a bad day.)

Mohammed Renea

On Mother’s Day, we celebrate the fierce love, tenderness, and devotion that mothers bring into the world. It’s also a moment to remember the animal mothers whose stories are rarely told—those separated from their babies in laboratories, where both are used in experiments they never chose and cannot escape.

These mothers bond. They protect. They grieve. They feel fear, stress, and pain. Their babies do too. Love and emotion are not human inventions; they are shared across species, woven into the fabric of life itself.

Today is a reminder that we can choose a kinder path. Modern non‑animal research methods already exist—methods that are not only more humane, but also more accurate, more efficient, and less expensive. Compassion and scientific progress are not opposites; they can move forward together.

This Mother’s Day, may we honour all mothers by speaking up for those who cannot speak for themselves, and by supporting alternatives that spare animals from suffering while advancing human health with greater precision and humanity.

[Wording Polished by Perplexity AI]

Moynihan Patrick

You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.

Newton Issac

I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.

Nickep

I feel that we need assertive affirmations and commanding paragraphs, which take authority and ‘slam down’ our opponents viewpoints. The reason for this, is that the opposition has some evil memes, and that they need to be broken. the way to do this isn’t by defending ourselves from their rants; and thus we explain ourselves to the nth degree: which does the opposite of what we intend. But to face our situations and force them to break their own statements which were irrational, and get them to see the truth in what we’re saying…

See, people who advocate animal abuse and animal suffering, through vivisection and experiments, or for what we aren’t designed to eat, as food, aren’t evil, but mislead and brainwashed, we could easily break their propaganda, which is showing itself in insecurity in their views, and also to be both socially independant and vegan.. see, most of the opposition, that aren’t in authority, aren’t ’evil’ or doing it for cruelty, but that cruelty is a byproduct that they don’t actually see each day and thus aren’t reminded of it - they do it because it’s socially acceptable, and they don’t feel secure enough to make their own independent thoughts…

So, the fact is that we need to be authoritative and command subliminallly in our propositions, and our conclusions will naturally form in their minds as if that was their own ideas…

Nietzsche Friedrich

Idleness is the parent of psychology.

Niemöller Martin

First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Pope John Paul 2

Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.

Poppins Mary

Practically perfect people never allow sentiment to muddle their thinking.

prad

I will spark your sanity, you temper my madness.

Those who talk a lot but do little suffer from a condition known as yapathy.

Impact need not be flamboyant. It can be subtle and stealthy.

Justice has no need for compassion nor does it need to be blind.

People wanting to get to heaven is likely why hell is so crowded.

The head is harder to hit, but can be made ineffective if you take the body out from underneath.

Compassion: It is illogical to think that the way to bring about compassion is by being compassionate. To eliminate villainy, you will likely have to get your hands dirty. So chill!

Popular opinion: One should never be swayed by popular opinion. There is nothing wrong with having popular opinion see you as immoral or worse. Popular opinion is generally immoral in itself since it is guided by what people want to believe than what is ethical.

Sometimes in some situations, more people choose to believe what is ethical than what is convenient.

There is nothing decent about appearing to be decent.

What one should be guided by are not the opinions of others but by established values that don’t change according to one’s whims and fancies. This approach handles the fact that people who like Trump and Putin don’t care what others think, but unfortunately, also don’t care about any values. Thus, they take a good thing and turn it into a bad one.

YAAAAAY: You Are An Awkward Animation Are You

Expect and insist on the best from others and you will never be disappointed with yourself.

Might may not be right, but might can certainly make right.

Making things happen from within a system is possible. Doing the same from outside the system is also possible. However participating in the system you are trying to change may prove to be difficult simply because there are vested interests that can get in the way.

If one is going for something worthwhile that others cannot see then it is silly to be concerned about what others are thinking.

In any endeavor, it is counterproductive to worry about whether one will be successful or not, for doing so tends to mess up one’s strategy. It’s a bit like driving in that thinking about the destination is not a good idea when you’re supposed to be paying attention to the road.

Those who violate the gold rule are no longer entitled to the protection it offers.

Showing neutrality in the face of brutality is an atrocity.

Peace and love may work fine when the other side cooperates, but if they don’t they should be helped.

Engineers don’t make mistakes! They only increase their tolerances.

There is little point in appearing to be ethical when fighting that which is unethical: your personal purity is better grown in a petri dish.

There is no right way to do the wrong thing, but there are many wrong ways to do the right thing. When doing the right thing, there may be merit in choosing some of those ‘wrong’ ways. The ends can justify the means and those who are excessively attached to their ‘high’ morals often do the victims of injustice an unforgivable disservice.

The ‘good’ are far too busy acting good to do any good.

No point in being a good person if you are unwilling to be a better one.

Don’t complain unless you really have something to complain about. If you do, then figure out what to do about it, instead of complaining.

It is difficult to get on with things that matter when one spends time on those that don’t.

The universe waits not for the sanction of our beliefs.

Prefer to be a monster in a good cause than be a saint in a monstrous one.

Look for the pradeal instead of rushing in.

Love and compassion would have a better chance of taking hold if their advocates were a little less loving and a little less compassionate.

If you want to clean house, you are going to have to get your hands dirty and take out the trash.

True happiness is having our systems work efficiently and effectively.

Being addicted is yet another self-indulgent act.

Psychological damage is more practical than physical damage.

Perfection is being true to worthwhile values by translating them to action.

Never accept someone for who they are, for they are not.

Trust no one, including this one!

The Les Miserable phrase “to love another person is to see the face of god” is a reasonably good one, but the order is backwards. Only when you have made yourself worthy to see the face of god, does love come into it.

Hercules, Hunchback, Mermaid by Disney bring out very profound ethical values as well as zen. Hercules for instance becomes a ‘sage’ when he is transformed into a god through his nobility, but chooses to be mortal through understanding and thereby an ordinary man.

Using the excuse that no one is perfect because everyone kills microbes and steps on insects is like whining about background radiation. The physicist tries to minimize it and thereby sees the truth of reality better. You can’t do anything about some things, but there’s a lot you can do much about - and that’s how you do get to see the truth.

Do only that which aligns with your purpose. Do not define your purpose though for you can only do things that are in alignment with your purpose.

It is bad enough that people who know something, talk nonsense about it. Far worse is when those who know nothing about something talk the same way.

Rotten apples should not be seen as something for the garbage, but as fuel for the compost.

The only worthwhile opinion is a correct one.

Some have a desperate need to be ridiculous.

Society tends to honor its live conformers and its dead reformers. You don’t have to be dead though to be honored. Radicals do pay the price of being labelled fanatical and that’s a pretty good honor.

Reimbursement need not necessarily be made to the benefactor. A societial or evolutionary contribution is often of greater value.

Anything that has the strong potential of evil may well be evil.

When info was scarce, people wanted the truth. Now that it’s not, they want truth to be customized.

Some of us do things on the spur of the last moment.

Planting a curse on someone is likely not going to be an intelligent effort. Without understanding the way mechanisms work, it can be very counterproductive to want things to turn out a certain way. Say there is a certain group of people with a bad member in it. One of them wishes a curse upon the bad person to die miserably and alone. While the idea may possibly have some appeal, it does not take into account the mechanism by which this execution will take place. For instance, one possible scenario is that the entire group dies from a horrible plague with the curse holder going last. Interesting examples were provided in the genie X-Files episode, where the genie kept pointing out that Mulder’s wishes were not sufficiently specific. Lack of awareness in this area generally occurs when wishes are made through vindictiveness or lack of control. The same holds true for good wishes - they can be costly as well. Hence, wanting something to be a certain way is better thought out very carefully and not wanting, as per Lao Tse, may be best.

For instance, I pull a ribbon around the corner and carbonicule the cat chases it. As far as his focus is concerned, the tip is moving and there is no awareness that someone is pulling it. In fact, the focus is so strong (and limited for this game) that it matters little when he comes around the corner to find that I was pulling it - he is still interested in the part that’s moving and there is no loss in pleasure in chasing it.

If you don’t want constipation, change your diet.

life isn’t about staying still and stagnating.
life is movement and growth, awareness and awakenings.
neither is love about accepting someone for who they are.
love is a gift from the divine for all beings. as such it becomes our duty to channel that gift to those nearest to us, so that they can move and grow, so that they become aware and awake.
you are evolving, carly. have you ever noticed how “love” is contained in the word “evolve”?
your husband has a chance to be bourne in the wake of your transformation … and then add his own ripples in harmony with the ever-flowing stream on which we all journey.
(to carly on 30bad)

I truly would be a great admirer of myself if it were not for my even greater humility.

The key to manipulation is not feeling anything, so that you can feel anything.

Honor noble principles for they are the only ballast in troubled times.

Regarding Angel’s insistence that she needs to fast for more than 7 days:
“it took god 7 days to create the world - what makes you think you need longer?”
Unfortunately, she didn’t fully appreciate the brillance of the above comment and started arguing absurdly about it (eg you don’t believe in that stuff and it isn’t factual).

Being full of yourself is a sure recipe for indigestion.

Morality may be the end product of perfect discipline.

If sex really were an expression of spirituality, then sages would have been the ultimate porn stars of history!

It’s about how we merge in thought and action with what is right.
It’s about how we add our voices in harmony to what is truth.
It’s about how we blend into the flow of existence, discovering with humility and contributing with gratitude.

Inspiration is like the battle, while discipline is the war itself. The former carries uncertainities, but through the latter these can be overcome.

As we travel, there may be some moments when i walk behind you to make sure you don’t fall; there may be some moments when i walk ahead and reach for your hand so you can take the next step with confidence.

Focus is good, but focus at the expense of awareness isn’t.

We do what we do because it needs to be done. We do it without expectation or want … and then the world really does straighten itself.

When two beings see the same rainbow, imagine how close they must be!

No self-respecting enlightened master ever calls him/herself one, for it is not a path of humility. The master therefore each day remains calm for no achievement can ever surpass that state.

May all who do so much for the most worthwhile and essential cause in history, see themselves as they truly must be - undaunted by the irrefutable task at hand and undented by the illusive passage of time.

If something seems too good to be true, it is important to make it so.

Truth does not stop being truth simply because it is spoken by a hypocrite. Even an animal abuser is entitled and correct to speak against animal abuse.

Desire for something in the future is bad enough.
Desire for something in the past is downright idiotic.

You may not like to lose, but if you’re fighting the wrong battle, you have already lost.

It’s easy for one to pass responsibility to someone else, but you aren’t going to pass the consequences.

I will wait for you, but I won’t wait with you.

Keep the door open, but don’t end up being the doorstop.

Never forget the past. You do so at your own risk!

It’s unhealthy to induce vomiting after each meal. Better to exercise so your consumption doesn’t become baggage as the past sometimes does for some people.

Always be happy, never be satisfied.

Always forgive, never forget.

Those who have found the way do not hand out business cards.

When dragons come to heal the earth.

pradagio

From Honor:

Never be yourself, when you can be someone better.
~ Queen Rhae

May the earth befriend you, as have we.
~ Marieke

If we could only be as kind to every soul regardless of what they are wearing in this life.
~ Breena

The one who gives should not remember the giving, but the one who receives must never forget.
~ Vaishobob

Royalty is never born. It is forged from one’s attitude and action, from one’s courage and conviction.
~ Prince Jestin

From Tryangles:

How should we on this trip abide?
Be always happy, but never satisfied!
~ Barra

So take that chance and make bold your move!
Triumph or disaster, naught do they prove!
~ Ardal

Life’s not ‘bout the comfort of just lying still.
Reach for those stars and the dharma fulfil!
~ Elysse

Our strengths are stronger than our weaknesses.
~ Elysse

Robert Pynn

Everything is set in the clear and distinct air. Judgment is without suspension, thought without reflection, action without consideration. (advent song)

Roosevelt Theodore

Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.

Sculley Matthew

Animals are more than ever a test of our character, of mankind’s capacity for empathy and for decent, honorable conduct and faithful stewardship. We are called to treat them with kindness, not because they have rights, power or a claim to equality, but in a sense, because they don’t. They all stand unequal and powerless before us.

Schweitzer Albert

I don’t know what your destiny will be, but one thing I do know: the only ones among you who will be really happy are those who have sought and found how to serve.

Life becomes harder for us when we live for others, but it also becomes richer and happier.

Sometimes our light goes out but is blown into flame by another human being. Each of us owes deepest thanks to those who have rekindled this light.

Happiness is nothing more than good health and a bad memory.

The true worth of a man is not to be found in man himself, but in the colours and textures that come alive in others.

Do something wonderful, people may imitate it.

Success is not the key to happiness. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful.

Constant kindness can accomplish much. As the sun makes ice melt, kindness causes misunderstanding, mistrust, and hostility to evaporate.

An optimist is a person who sees a green light everywhere, while a pessimist sees only the red stoplight… the truly wise person is colorblind.

Compassion, in which all ethics must take root, can only attain its full breadth and depth if it embraces all living creatures and does not limit itself to mankind.

A man is truly ethical only when he obeys the compulsion to help all life which he is able to assist, and shrinks from injuring anything that lives.

A man does not have to be an angel in order to be saint.

You must not expect anything from others. It’s you, of yourself, of whom you must ask a lot. Only from oneself has one the right to ask everything and anything. This way it’s up to you – your own choices – what you get from others remains a present, a gift.

What does Reverence for Life say abut the relations between [humanity] and the animal world? Whenever I injury any kind of life I must be quite certain that it is necessary. I must never go beyond the unavoidable, not even in apparently insignificant things. The farmer who has mowed down a thousand flowers in his meadow in order to feed his cows must be careful on his way home not to strike the head off a single flower by the side of the road in idle amusement, for he thereby infringes on the law of life without being under the pressure of necessity.

Civilization can only revive when there shall come into being in a number of individuals a new tone of mind, independent of the prevalent one among the crowds, and in opposition to it – a tone of mind which will gradually win influence over the collective one, and in the end determine its character. Only an ethical movement can rescue us from barbarism, and the ethical comes into existence only in individuals.

Ethics cannot be based upon our obligations toward [people], but they are complete and natural only when we feel this Reverence for Life and the desire to have compassion for and to help all creatures insofar as it is in our power. I think that this ethic will become more and more recognized because of its great naturalness and because it is the foundation of a true humanism toward which we must strive if our culture is to become truly ethical.

Until he extends his circle of compassion to include all living things, man will not himself find peace.

Shaw George Bernard

The most tragic thing in the world is a man of genius who is not a man of honor.

A fashion is nothing but an induced epidemic.

England and America are two countries separated by a common language.

Why should you call me to account for eating decently?

The worst sin towards our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them: that’s the essence of inhumanity.

All great truths begin as blasphemies.

No public man in these islands ever believes that the Bible means what it says: he is always convinced that it says what he means.

The sex relation is not a personal relation. It can be irresistibly desired and rapturously consummated between persons who could not endure one another for a day in any other relation.

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.

When a man wants to murder a tiger he calls it sport: when the tiger wants to murder him he calls it ferocity. The distinction between Crime and Justice is no greater.

“Will you be the father of my next child? A combination of my beauty and your brains would startle the world,” but he replied: “I must decline your offer with thanks, for the child might have my beauty and your brains.”

When a thing is funny, search it carefully for a hidden truth.

“You see things; you say, ‘Why?’ But I dream things that never were; and I say ‘Why not?”

Animals are my friends…and I don’t eat my friends.

Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.

In heaven an angel is no one in particular.

We cut the throat of a calf and hang it up by the heels to bleed to death so that our veal cutlet may be white; we nail geese to a board and cram them with food because we like the taste of liver disease; we tear birds to pieces to decorate our women’s hats; we mutilate domestic animals for no reason at all except to follow an instinctively cruel fashion; and we connive at the most abominable tortures in the hope of discovering some magical cure for our own diseases by them.

I don’t know if there are men on the moon, but if there are they must be using the earth as their lunatic asylum.

The secret of being miserable is to have the leisure to bother about whether you are happy or not.

SICP

In general, when modeling phenomena in science and engineering, we begin with simplified, incomplete models. As we examine things in greater detail, these simple models become inadequate and must be replaced by more refined models.

Sir Cole (The Knight Before Christmas)

A knight is sworn to valor and virtue. His blade defends the good, and his might upholds the weak. His temper shall be led by patience, and his kindness will give aid to those who seek it.

This is a variation of the knight’s code (from The Library of Knighthood):

The knight is sworn to valor.
His heart knows only virtue.
His blade defends the helpless.
His might upholds the weak.
His words speak only truth.
His wrath undoes the wicked.
The right can never die,
If one man still recalls
The words are not forgot,
If one voice speaks them clear.
The code forever shines,
If one heart holds it bright

Smith Gary

150 years ago, they would have thought you were absurd if you advocated for the end of slavery. 100 years ago, they would have laughed at you for suggesting that women should have the right to vote. 50 years ago, they would object to the idea of African Americans receiving equal rights under the law. 25 years ago they would have called you a pervert if you advocated for gay rights. They laugh at us now for suggesting that animal slavery be ended. Some day they won’t be laughing.

Spock

You may find that having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true.

The glory of creation is in its infinite diversity and the ways our differences combine to create meaning and beauty.

Steinem Gloria

A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.

Women have two choices: Either she’s a feminist or a masochist.

A feminist is anyone who recognizes the equality and full humanity of women and men.

Women have always been an equal part of the past. We just haven’t been a part of history.

Law and justice are not always the same. When they aren’t, destroying the law may be the first step toward changing it.

Stephenson Neal

Emacs outshines all other editing soft-ware in approximately the same way that the noonday sun does the stars. It is not just bigger and brighter; it simply makes everything else vanish. (In the Beginning… Was the Cammand Line)

Sztybel David

Centering on human-made abstractions above all, instead of on the animals themselves as individuals is oddly anthropocentric.

Tagore Rabindranath

Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high; Where knowledge is free; Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls; Where the words come out from the depth of truth; Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection; Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit; Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever-widening thought and action - Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.

Teresa Mother

Love cannot remain by itself – it has no meaning. Love has to be put into action, and that action is service.

People are often unreasonable and self-centered. Forgive them anyway. If you are kind, people may accuse you of ulterior motives. Be kind anyway. If you are honest, people may cheat you. Be honest anyway. If you find happiness, people may be jealous. Be happy anyway. The good you do today may be forgotten tomorrow. Do good anyway. Give the world the best you have and it may never be enough. Give your best anyway. In the end, it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway.

Thoreau Henry David

A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone.

Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it.

As if you could kill time without injuring eternity.

Be true to your work, your word, and your friend.

Do not be too moral. You may cheat yourself out of much life. Aim above morality. Be not simply good; be good for something.

Do not hire a man who does your work for money, but him who does it for love of it.

Every man is the builder of a temple called his body.

How vain it is to sit down to write when you have not stood up to live.

Go confidently in the direction of your dreams! Live the life you’ve imagined. As you simplify your life, the laws of the universe will be simpler.

However mean your life is, meet it and live it: do not shun it and call it hard names. Cultivate poverty like a garden herb, like sage. Do not trouble yourself much to get new things, whether clothes or friends. Things do not change, we change. Sell your clothes and keep your thoughts. God will see that you do want society.

I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestioned ability of a man to elevate his life by conscious endeavor.

I once had a sparrow alight upon my shoulder for a moment, while I was hoeing in a village garden, and I felt that I was more distinguished by that circumstance that I should have been by any epaulet I could have worn.

If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them.

In wildness is the preservation of the world.

It is never too late to give up your prejudices.

Most are engaged in business the greater part of their lives, because the soul abhors a vacuum and they have not discovered any continuous employment for man’s nobler faculties.

Who thinks that they can kill time without injuring eternity?

Tricia

For me what works is service. i feel that i am here to serve animals and be their voice. i rescue domestic animals from abuse, which gives me a sense of direct action and do much in the way of spreading veganism, with farm walks, handing out literature, and postings at pet stores. Also do fur protests, circus protests and protested at our medical college to end the use of pigs.

everywhere i go i talk with people about the atrocities to animals raised for food and always have a trunk full of pamphlets and dvds such as meet your meat and earthlings.

we have 11 rescued animals which keep us from getting overwhelmed with animal suffering since they need much care, exercise and love.

it is unacceptable to me that some people take longer than others to stop eating animals. most people who would see an injured bird would try to help him/her so why not extend that compassion to the rest of the animals. people don’t have to do anything except change their eating habits, nothing compared to the hell on earth animals are living.

i no longer waste my time with those who aren’t receptive to our message, there are too many others who need to hear it.

i used to go to bed and start feeling guilty that i was warm, comfortable and safe and would think of all the animals suffering in barren cages, cold, afraid and unable to even turn around. it was stupid, since my not getting a good nights sleep wasn’t helping the animals and would prevent me from being productive.

now when i go to bed i clear my mind and rest. if negative thoughts enter i acknowledge them and let them pass though not giving them the attention or light they need to persist. i fall asleep within minutes.

keep doing what you can for the animals and continue to spread your message to everyone you meet. as long as we are doing what we can, we can keep moving forward without getting bogged down with hatred of people and frustration. there are still times i become misanthropic, but realize there are many good humans i love and don’t focus on what is out of my hands.

Twain Mark

In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, Brave, Hated and Scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs NOTHING to be a Patriot.

Kindness is a language which the deaf can hear and the and the blind can see.

It’s not the size of the dog in the fight, it’s the size of the fight in the dog.

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.

The best way to cheer yourself is to try to cheer someone else up.

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.

It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

Really great people make you feel that you, too, can become great.

Wade Paul

Let me set out my stand right now; this kind of crap disgusts me.

Tyler Alexander Fraser

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.

Wiesel Elle

Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.
Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.

Winston Churchill

If you’re going through hell, keep going.

Zelenskyy Volodymyr

Freedom must be armed better than tyranny.

The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride.

Progressive Non-Animal Research Society

Thu, 24 Mar 2022 18:16:46 -0700

Scientists now have sophisticated, human-appropos methodologies for studying diseases such as

advanced computer-modeling techniques
micro-dosing
stem cell-derived organoids
3D printing
manifold emerging approaches

Advances in technology allow us finding ways to improve health care without inflicting harm on animals.

The Progressive Non-Animal Research Society (PNARS) is an excellent and comprehensive resource for the biomedical community. It provides leading edge breakthroughs in technologies and treatments.

Recent Updates:

PNARS Report: Environmental Impacts of Animal Experimentation

Animal Defence and Anti-Vivisection Society

Thu, 24 Mar 2022 17:59:55 -0700

TheAnimal Defense & Anti-Vivisection Society of British Columbia (ADAV), established by a veterinary surgeon in 1927, is a peaceful, grassroots organization committed to the abolition of vivisection on moral, ethical and scientific grounds.

The ADAV Society strives to inform the public of the grim realities faced by animals used in experiments, promote the use of superior and more humane non-animal alternatives, and alert the public to the proven invalidity of basing human medicine and toxicology on other species.

We conduct outreach events and letter-writing campaigns, sponsor speaker series, and network with other groups nationally and internationally in an effort to change policies on animal experimentation.

We have recently published an article, It’s Time, by cancer survivor, Maidie Hilmo PhD, on our site, encouraging people to ask charities to guarantee their donation will not be used for research on animals. The article also includes a link to ADAV’s humane charities website, which lists charities that are committed to helping humans without hurting animals.

Vecado

Tue, 22 Mar 2022 12:34:06 -0700

This is an excellent business which provides a variety of high-quality vegan pet foods such as Ami, Benevo, Vegepet, Evolution, Gourmet …

The site also provides information links to research, customer stories and a blog.

Check them out here: Vecado.

David Sztybel

Sun, 20 Mar 2022 22:58:20 -0700

Dr. David Sztybel chose to specialize in animal rights as a philosopher at a time when the movement was in its growing stages.

His work has been powerful and influential as his site will show:

Dr. David Sztybel

There is substantial material for the general public as well as academia. Additionally, you’ll find links to media appearances and talks.

(Be sure to also check out his blog that is linked at the bottom of each page on his website.)

Heads, Hearts and Humanity ... Identity and the Freedom to Choose

Tue, 15 Mar 2022 21:11:51 -0700

Cartoon by Graham Harrop.

This article was written by one of the ADAV advisors, Dr. Maidie Hilmo, PhD, and has appeared on ADAV first.

Going back to ancient times, the Spring Equinox, falling on March 20 this year, has been celebrated as a time of transition when day and night are the same length. It represents the victory of light over darkness.

This significance of this is especially relevant to to the current situation when the powers of light are battling against some particularly barbaric forces. It seems to be a measure of what has been unleashed in recent times as backward thinking has become increasingly manifested in various ways. A mind set does not tend to occur in isolation. What have we become?

Larger existential and ethical issues have also been raised by another recent event when a genetically modified pig’s heart was transplanted into a man who, sadly, passed away two months later.

The heart and the brain are the major organs. If hearts are being transplanted, why not try all the variables? Perhaps brains can also be transplanted, both ways. Such hybrids are not that far fetched.

Organ transplants are already happening. We can choose to donate, but in the case of pigs who are, like us, intelligent, self-aware beings, it is not a voluntary choice.

This goes far beyond the issue of whether or not we are meat eaters or vegan or somewhere in between. It goes to the heart, as it were, of who we are or what we want to become.

To adapt an argument from George Bernard Shaw, if it is a choice between my baby or that animal that can be saved, of course I would choose the life of my baby. On the other hand, if it is a matter of the salvation of your baby against that of mine, what is to stop you from trying to sacrifice mine? The same thing that restricts any civilized human activity!

In Shaw’s time, it might have seemed more a matter of either-or. Now our knowledge has advanced to the point where there are numerous alternative approaches to organ transplants and the use of live animals for such purposes.

These include, for example, surgical ventricular restoration and also cardiac regenerative therapy using human stem cells. New research in the UK has developed human stem cell models to deal with cardiac fibrosis. Bioprinting may soon become an alternative, along with many other human based lab technologies such as microphysiological systems.

While ethics and wisdom speak for themselves as compelling arguments against the use of GMO pigs for heart transplants, more efficient, accurate, timely, individually tailored, and cost-effective ways are already available or in the stages of development. These offer a better outcome for failing hearts (not to mention the obvious such as early and accurate medical diagnosis and lifestyle changes). Similar state-of-the-art and innovative advances relevant to humans are also applicable for other organs.

What is required, in this case, along with legal and political action, is that funding agencies such as governments, private charities, and other organizations fund the use and further development of scientifically advanced, ethical alternatives to those experiments mixing up our species.

Globally, a similar enlightened mode of thinking just might help bring the meaning of the Spring Equinox to fruition. To leave the darkness of the night behind, W.H. Auden’s foreboding poem, “September 1, 1939”, calls to attention the “points of light” among the just that “flash out” to show an “affirming flame.”

ARVEG FAQ

Sun, 06 Mar 2022 16:40:24 -0800

This page is presently in construction.

This is the comprehensive ARVEG FAQ produced by KG which covers just about every imaginable attack against animal rights and vegan stances. It provides factual, effective and occasionally amusing responses.

(Some additions and modifications have been made from the earlier version and the original due to broken 20+ yr links as well as new material.)

In the TOC, “->” indicates there is more to the question than could be fitted and can be viewed by clicking on the link.

Editor commentaries/updates are indicated as [Editor: ].

1 Animal Rights

1.1 If we give respect or rights to animals we will diminish our own rights and respect for humans.

a) Sumer, one of the earliest and most powerful of the ancient Mesopotamian city-states, managed its slaves the same way it managed its livestock. The Sumerians castrated the males and put them to work like domesticated animals, and they put the females in work and breeding camps. The Sumerian word for castrated slave boys-amar-kud-is the same word the Sumerians used for young castrated donkeys, horses, and oxen. (From Chapter 1 Charles Patterson’s Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust.)

b) Although the purpose of the German killing centers was the extermination of human beings, they operated in the larger context of society’s exploitation and slaughter of animals, which to some extent they mirrored. The Germans did not stop slaughtering animals when they took up slaughtering people. Auschwitz, which its commandant Rudolf Hoss called “the largest human slaughterhouse that history had ever known,” had its own slaughterhouse and butcher’s shop. The other death camps likewise kept their personnel well supplied with animal flesh. Sobibor had a cow shed, pigpen, and henhouse, which were next to the entrance to the tube that took Jews to the gas chambers, while Treblinka had a stable, pigpen, and henhouse located near the camp barracks of the Ukrainian auxiliaries.-from Charles Patterson’s Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust Chapter 5

c) So does that mean if whites give rights or respect to non whites (or vice versa) that it diminishes their own rights and respect? If men give rights or respect to women(or vice versa) that they diminish their own rights and respects? It would seem you want to preserve the rights of some to not respect the rights of others.

d) Edgar Kupfer-Koberwitz. About the author: Edgar Kupfer was imprisoned in Dachau concentration camp in 1940. His last 3 years in Dachau he obtained a clerical job in the concentration camp storeroom. This position allowed him to keep a secret diary on stolen scraps of papers and pieces of pencil. He would bury his writings and when Dachau was liberated on April 29, 1945 he collected them again. The Dachau Diaries were published in 1956. From his Dachau notes he wrote an essay on vegetarianism which was translated into “immigrant” English. A carbon copy of this 38 page essay is preserved with the original Dachau Diaries in the Special Collection of the Library of the University of Chicago. The following are the excerpts from this essay that were reprinted in the postscript of the book “Radical Vegetarianism” by Mark Mathew Braunstein (1981 Panjandrum Books, Los Angeles, CA). The book is subtitled “A Dialectic of Diet and Ethic” and is recommended to all vegetarians especially those interested in natural hygiene. “The following pages were written in the Concentration Camp Dachau, in the midst of all kinds of cruelties. They were furtively scrawled in a hospital barrack where I stayed during my illness, in a time when Death grasped day by day after us, when we lost twelve thousand within four and a half months. … Dear Friend: You asked me why I do not eat meat and you are wondering at the reasons of my behavior. Perhaps you think I took a vow - some kind of penitence - denying me all the glorious pleasures of eating meat. You remember juicy steaks, succulent fishes, wonderfully tasted sauces, deliciously smoked ham and thousand wonders prepared out of meat, charming thousands of human palates; certainly you will remember the delicacy of roasted chicken. Now, you see, I am refusing all these pleasures and you think that only penitence, or a solemn vow, a great sacrifice could deny me that manner of enjoying life, induce me to endure a great resignment. You look astonished, you ask the question: “But why and what for?” And you are wondering that you nearly guessed the very reason. But if I am, now, trying to explain you the very reason in one concise sentence, you will be astonished once more how far your guessing had been from my real motive. Listen to what I have to tell you: I refuse to eat animals because I cannot nourish myself by the sufferings and by the death of other creatures. I refuse to do so, because I suffered so painfully myself that I can feel the pains of others by recalling my own sufferings. I feel happy, nobody persecutes me; why should I persecute other beings or cause them to be persecuted? I feel happy, I am no prisoner, I am free; why should I cause other creatures to be made prisoners and thrown into jail? I feel happy, nobody harms me; why should I harm other creatures or have them harmed? I feel happy, nobody wounds me; nobody kills me; why should I wound or kill other creatures or cause them to be wounded or killed for my pleasure and convenience? Is it not only too natural that I do not inflict on other creatures the same thing which, I hope and fear, will never be inflicted on me? Would it not be most unfair to do such things for no other purpose than for enjoying a trifling physical pleasure at the expense of others’ sufferings, others’ deaths? These creatures are smaller and more helpless than I am, but can you imagine a reasonable man of noble feelings who would like to base on such a difference a claim or right to abuse the weakness and the smallness of others? Don’t you think that it is just the bigger, the stronger, the superior’s duty to protect the weaker creatures instead of persecuting them, instead of killing them? “Noblesse oblige.” I want to act in a noble way. I recall the horrible epoch of inquisition and I am sorry to state that the time of tribunals for heretics has not yet passed by, that day by day, men use to cook in boiling water other creatures which are helplessly given in the hands of their torturers. I am horrified by the idea that such men are civilized people, no rough barbarians, no natives. But in spite of all, they are only primitively civilized, primitively adapted to their cultural environment. The average European, flowing over with highbrow ideas and beautiful speeches, commits all kinds of cruelties, smilingly, not because he is compelled to do so, but because he wants to do so. Not because he lacks the faculty to reflect upon and to realize all the dreadful things they are performing. Oh no! Only because they do not want to see the facts. Otherwise they would be troubled and worried in their pleasures. It is quite natural what people are telling you. How could they do otherwise? I hear them telling about experiences, about utilities, and I know that they consider certain acts related to slaughtering as unavoidable. Perhaps they succeeded to win you over. I guess that from your letter. Still, considering the necessities only, one might, perhaps, agree with such people. But is there really such a necessity? The thesis may be contested. Perhaps there exists still some kind of necessity for such persons who have not yet developed into full conscious personalities. I am not preaching to them. I am writing this letter to you, to an already awakened individual who rationally controls his impulses, who feels responsible - internally and externally - of his acts, who knows that our supreme court is sitting in our conscience. There is no appellate jurisdiction against it. Is there any necessity by which a fully self-conscious man can be induced to slaughter? In the affirmative, each individual may have the courage to do it by his own hands. It is, evidently, a miserable kind of cowardice to pay other people to perform the blood-stained job, from which the normal man refrains in horror and dismay. Such servants are given some farthings for their bloody work, and one buys from them the desired parts of the killed animal - if possible prepared in such a way that it does not any more recall the discomfortable circumstances, nor the animal, nor its being killed, nor the bloodshed. **I think that men will be killed and tortured as long as animals are killed and tortured. So long there will be wars too. Because killing must be trained and perfected on smaller objects, morally and technically.I see no reason to feel outraged by what others are doing, neither by the great nor by the smaller acts of violence and cruelty. But, I think, it is high time to feel outraged by all the small and great acts of violence and cruelty which we perform ourselves. And because it is much easier to win the smaller battles than the big ones, I think we should try to get over first our own trends towards smaller violence and cruelty, to avoid, or better, to overcome them once and for all. Then the day will come when it will be easy for us to fight and to overcome even the great cruelties. But we are still sleeping, all of us, in habitudes and inherited attitudes. They are like a fat, juicy sauce which helps us to swallow our own cruelties without tasting their bitterness.I have not the intention to point out with my finger at this and that, at definite persons and definite situations. I think it is much more my duty to stir up my own conscience in smaller matters, to try to understand other people better, to get better and less selfish. Why should it be impossible then to act accordingly with regard to more important issues? That is the point: I want to grow up into a better world where a higher law grants more happiness, in a new world where God’s commandment reigns: You Shall Love Each Other.” Edgar Kupfer-Koberwitz

1.2 When discussing animal rights, it is always important that you have balance and show the other side of the issue.

a) If someone can talk about Negro slave emancipation without allowing a KKK member to give the “other side” of the issue, if someone can talk about hunting Nazi war criminals without showing the “other side” of the issue, and if a news reports on a “breakthrough” in cancer research doesn’t need to allow an animal rights activist to speak out on the perversion of altruism inherent in all animal research, then we don’t have to do that either.

b) Since the preponderance of arguments on the subject of animal rights is favorable to the cause, a true balance is impossible. It is like trying to find a balanced argument on the pros and cons of jumping off buildings without parachutes. One side is definitely stronger than the other.

c) The other side of the issue is always discussed in animal issues! Since the arguments in favor of animal exploitation are so weak why would an animal rights activist not want to expose the stupidity and erroneous nature of the other side?

1.3 You support animal rights, therefore you must support blowing up buildings.

a) It appears you are in need of taking a logic class.

b) You support human rights? therefore you must support the actions of John Brown, slavery abolitionist who killed pro-slavery people.

c) Last I checked, it is the people who support wars against unarmed civilians who support blowing up buildings.

d) At least we don’ t support beating and killing unarmed people. There are many many many cases of hunt supporters in the UK beating people with whips, running them over with cars and horses-whether they be AR activists, people just standing on their property, or reporters Hunt saboteur, Mike Hill, was killed on the 9th of February 1991 at a meet of the Cheshire Beagles. Towards the end of the day’s hunting, with no kill under his belt, the huntsman boxed up his hounds in a small blue trailer being towed by an open-top pick-up truck. The kennel huntsman, ALLAN SUMMERSGILL, with another man, jumped into the pick-up and, on impulse, three sabs(hunt saboteurs) who were nearby, jumped onto the back of it to prevent them driving the pack to another location to continue hunting. Summersgill drove off at high speeds down winding country roads for 5 miles with the terrified sabs clinging onto the back. It is thought that Mike jumped from the pick-up as it slowed to take a bend. He failed to clear the truck properly, and was caught between the truck and the trailer, which crushed him. Mike died where he lay on the road. Despite the thud, and the screams of the other sabs, Summersgill continued driving for a further mile. The truck only came to a halt when one of the sabs smashed the rear window of the cab. The sab was hit with a whip as he tried to stop the truck. Once it had stopped one sab ran back to Mike’s prone body while the other ran to a nearby house to call for an ambulance. Summersgill drove off. He later handed himself in at a police station. No charges were brought against him and in a travesty of justice, a verdict of ‘Accidental Death’ was brought at the inquest. Summersgill is still hunting hares. 1993: On the 3rd of April 1993, T(h)om Worby, a 15 year old saboteur attending his first foxhunt protest, was crushed under the wheels of the Cambridgeshire FH’s hound van in an incident all too reminiscent of the killing of Mike Hill two years before. After a successful day’s sabbing, the hunt had boxed up and sabs were making their way back to the meet down a narrow lane. As the hound van came up behind them, revving its engine, sabs scrambled for the roadside; however Tom’s jacket became snagged in the vehicles wing mirror and he was dragged some distance before he managed to gain a foothold on the van’s running board. Although he banged on the window the van kept going, and when Tom finally lost his grip, he fell onto the road and under the truck’s wheels. His head was crushed by the rear wheels of the vehicle and he died shortly afterwards. No action was taken against the driver of the hound van, 53-year-old huntsman ALAN BALL. 38-year-old KENNETH MANSBRIDGE, a supporter of the Hursley Hambledon Foxhunt, convicted of Unlawful Wounding on a Green Party researcher, who needed hospital treatment for serious head wounds after being kicked and beaten by a group of hunt followers 1991. MANSBRIDGE admitted kicking the victim in the groin and punching him to the ground. (On the same day, another protester was beaten around the head with a spade, and left needing 10 stitches and a 6 and a half months pregnant woman was hit on the head with half a brick, needing 4 stitches). MANSBRIDGE was sentenced to 140 hours community service and ordered to pay costs of £150. 1998: Supporter of the Dunston Harriers, PATRICK EVERETT managed to get the hunt banned from one village after he viciously attacked a party of 1 man, 2 women and four children who had stopped to watch the hunt pass by. He was fined £800. (HSA News Feature 5th August 1999) Hunt Violence courtesy of Hunt Saboteurs Association “In June 1990, hunt supporter John Newberry-Street gained much valuable anti-saboteur publicity when a nail-bomb was found under his Land Rover. Further investigation revealed that he had planted the bomb himself and he later told police “I did it to discredit the animal rights saboteurs”. He was jailed for nine months for his bomb hoax and asked for several other similar offences to be taken into account.” January 1994 Duke of Buccleuch’s Foxhunt. An independent academic, commissioned by the Scottish Office to carry out research on saboteurs and hunting, was knocked to the ground and kicked in the face by the huntsman as he tried to film a fox being killed. The hunt refused to apologise and later attempted to excuse their employee’s actions by saying they thought the man was a saboteur. “From now on, we’re going to start hunting the saboteurs…“This is BFSS spokesman Nick Herbert’s chilling announcement of the introduction of “stewards” to “deal with” saboteurs. Mr John Weavers, a member of the rural community hunts claim to represent, was quietly sitting at home one Saturday afternoon in 1990 when the Cury Foxhunt rampaged through his property. When he asked them to leave and complained at the damage caused he was headbutted by Geoffrey Thomas, master of the hunt, who then shunted one of Mr Weavers’ cars into another. “one brave woman, a former hunt supporter of many years’ standing, has decided to stand up and speak out against this culture of violence. Her name is Lynn Sawyer and she was at one time as committed to hunting as she is now repelled by it. She acted as a mole for the BFSS and found that saboteurs were not violent extremists motivated by class hatred, a tale she and every other hunt supporter had been force-fed for years. Instead, she found that saboteurs were on the whole deeply committed, sincere individuals who acted out of great and genuine concern for animals and that her own side were deliberately distorting the truth and provoking violence simply to suit their long-term political aims. Ironically, it was only the depth of her involvement in hunting that allowed her access to the inner echelons denied to most hunt supporters, where she encountered the brutality behind the respectable facade which was to make her question her support for bloodsports and ultimately turn her back on that world for ever. “For several reasons in 1990, I could no longer continue these activities and I then spent four years trying to ascertain what exactly my feelings were. I spent time with the Shire hunts (the Quorn, Cottesmore, and Belvoir Foxhounds) and revisited the Essex before deciding earlier this year that it was time to speak out in the hope of stemming the tide of grossly exaggerated anti-sab propaganda and the violence it has brought to the field.I went to great lengths to discuss the issue of hunt violence with the BFSS and other pro-hunting people [including John Hopkinson, Stephen Loveridge, Peter Smith and Nick Herbert of the BFSS and John Swift, director of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC)] before, and indeed for some time after, it became clear that I could not permeate their rather narrow-minded way of thinking or change or influence any of them without being patronised or being singled out as a trouble-maker.” Hunt Saboteurs Association.

e) So much for anti-animal rights people caring about humans! “During the winter of 1994 terrified young calves were flown from Coventry to end their lives in Dutch veal-crates. A few people started protesting at the airport gates. Jill Phipps was one. As a transporter came down the road to the gates she would run to it, banging on the door with her fists, shouting at the drivers to think about the suffering they caused.. The few police there would turn out and simply man-handle her and anyone else behaving similarly out of the way. Then came February 1st 1995. There were about 76 police there that day. There were about 32 demonstrators. That’s over two police to every decent person there. There were enough of them to surround the transporter and walk it through!! Jill and a few others eluded the police, most of whom were in a van at the back, and reached the transporter. Any good driver would have stopped until it was safe to continue, but Stephen Yates just drove on, regardless and uncaring. Jill was crushed and died on the way to hospital. Our mother, Nancy, was with her. The driver has never been charged, not even with “driving without due care & attention”. AT THE INQUEST THE POLICE STATED THAT THEIR ACTIONS HAD BEEN PLANNED BY A SPECIALIST TACTICIAN, AND THAT THE DAY HAD BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL …” Zab Phipps (see Jill Phipps: A life fighting for animal rights)

f) Although we know that hunters, not being the smartest of people, have been known to shoot each other in the woods, here is just a few recent examples of hunters shooting and killing non-hunters. [Editor: Many of the links provided are no longer available after 20 yrs, however, there are plenty of accounts online about hunters shooting humans.]

Wis. 1.3.0.0.1 woman walking dogs shot by hunter Associated Press — Dec. 3, 2001 CHIPPEWA FALLS, Wis. — A woman walking her dogs was mistakenly shot and killed by a deer hunter. “He saw movement and mistook her for an animal and shot her,” Tom Bokelman, a safety officer with the state Natural Resources Department. The 47-year-old woman was wearing a white cap and dark clothing when she was shot Saturday, Dec. 1. The hunter was using a muzzleloader, as part of a special muzzleloader deer season. Muzzleloaders are single-shot rifles in which the powder and shot are loaded through the end of the barrel instead of the breech. The district attorney will decide whether to file charges. (link NA at espn.go.com)

Hunter’s 1.3.0.0.1.0…1 bullet possibly kills Penn. woman Associated Press — Nov. 28, 2001 MILL RUN, Pa. — A 66-year-old woman was killed when a bullet apparently fired by a hunter went through a window, wall and a door in her home and struck her in the neck, authorities said. Meriel Renee Bowser was struck by the bullet in her bedroom Tuesday afternoon, Nov. 28, and died shortly afterward, according to police. “The odds of (a bullet) coming through the woods, not hitting a tree, going through all that material in the house and hitting a person is … million-to-one odds,” said Charles May of the Pennsylvania Game Commission. State police and Game Commission officials were investigating. A hunter was being questioned Tuesday and the hunter’s rifle had been taken to determine whether the bullet that killed Bowser was fired from that gun. Authorities said the hunter, who was not identified, was at least 450 yards away from Bowser’s home. State law requires hunters to be at least 150 yards from a residence. Mill Run is in Fayette County in southwestern Pennsylvania. (link NA at espn.go.com)

CONNECTICUT 1.3.0.0.1.0…1.0..1 Man Walking His Dog Killed By Hunter A Coventry man was charged with illegal hunting and manslaughter in late October after he shot and killed a Massachusetts man walking in the woods. Coventry police responding to a report of gunshots found Ronald Eckert Jr., 33, of Hingham, Mass., wounded from gunfire. Eckert died at the scene despite resuscitation efforts. Brian McMahon, Jr., 23, was charged with manslaughter, illegal discharge of a firearm, hunting without a license, illegal deer hunting, hunting on a Sunday, trespassing and failure to wear an orange vest. He was held on $250,000 bond. Police say the two men did not know each other. Apparently McMahon mistook Eckert for a deer. (link NA at www.gunsandgear.com aka espn.go.com)

I guess one can say that being able to go out and kill a four legged animal is more important than protecting the lives of two legged ones: Shooters yesterday criticised the four-year sentence for manslaughter handed down to a deer hunter who accidentally shot a man out walking his dog. The state executive officer of the Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia, David Barton, said the verdict was unfair and that Robert John Osip the court had made an example of him to send a message to other shooters and hunters. Osip, 21, pleaded not guilty to the manslaughter of Gary Paterson, 20, at Warburton on February 19, 1999. Osip and his friend, Brian Davey, were hunting for Sambar deer in the Warburton State Forest when the shooting occurred on McDonald Track, a forestry road. The two men were only 180 metres from the main road, Warburton-Woods Point Road. Osip had claimed to see the neck and shoulders of a deer when he fired his gun but initially told police he saw a shape he believed was a deer. Mr Paterson was walking his labrador-cross through a clearing in the bush. Osip fired one shot in the direction of the noise, hitting Mr Paterson in the shoulder and causing extensive damage to his lungs. The two men heard someone cry out and ran to find Mr Paterson. They took him to Warburton hospital, where he later died. Justice Coldrey said Osip had breached a shooting code warning shooters not to fire at movement, color, sound or shape or near residential property. He said Osip fell far short of the standard of care a reasonable person would have exercised. Justice Coldrey said he accepted Osip had seen a color in the foliage but “at no time” did he adequately identify his target as a deer……Lawyers for Osip said yesterday they would be appealing the sentence. (link NA at www.theage.com.au)

Hunter’s stray bullet hits man in pizzeria NAZARETH, Pa. (AP) A man was shot in the neck while eating a slice of pizza when a bullet apparently fired by a deer hunter crashed through the window of a restaurant Saturday evening, police said. The bullet entered Sal’s Pizza and Restaurant on Route 512 at about 5 p.m. Saturday, ricocheted off the window frame, and struck John Calvert, 52, of Saylorsburg, officials said. “When I heard the sound, I looked up and saw a man stand, grab his neck, take a step or two and collapse,” said Carl Garrison, a delivery person at the restaurant, which is south of Wind Gap and nearly surrounded by fields and woods. ……Police searched the area and took a hunter into custody. Coopersmith said the hunter had a .30-caliber rifle and the slug will be examined to see if it matches the rifle. “He was probably in the woods that sit on the other side of those fields and the deer crossed the field and he took the shot,” Coopersmith said. “Where he was, he was probably within his rights to be in the area, but you have to know what you are shooting at. You can’t shoot toward roads and you can’t shoot at buildings.”. Monday, December 3, 2001 (link NA at timesonline.com)

Hunter’s 1.3.0.0.1.0…2 stray bullet kills Quebec man CHICOUTIMI, Que. (CP) - A Quebec man is dead after being struck in the head by a stray bullet from the gun of a 13-year-old boy. Marcel Savard, 69, of Jonquiere, Que. was hit Wednesday afternoon by a bullet from a .22-calibre hunting rifle fired by a teenager, who was small game hunting with a teenage friend. The young hunters were not accompanied by an adult. Jonquiere municipal police said the shooter saw a figure in the distance and fired a single shot. The figure dropped immediately. The teenager ran toward the victim immediately and was shocked to find Savard hunched over. When the boy touched him Savard fell to the ground, revealing a stream of blood flowing from his head. Shocked and panicking, the young boy ran home to his mother and alerted her. “I think I killed someone,” he told the police after his mother had summoned them. Laurent Bouchard, the interim Crown prosecutor, asked for an additional investigation Thursday to determine how a 13-year-old boy could get his hands on a loaded rifle. The law regarding firearms strictly forbids possession and use of guns for people under 18 years of age, except in some very specific situations. However, even in those exceptions, the law requires a minor to be accompanied by an adult who legally owns the firearm. Shooting an unidentified figure near an urban environment contravenes standard hunting safety rules. Charges could be laid against the teenager, and eventually against his parents depending on the results of the investigation. The boy’s identity is protected under the Young Offenders Act. In November, a Quebec man was shot and wounded outside his home near Lytton by an eight-year-old boy. Police say the youngster sneaked out of his family’s home with his dad’s hunting rifle, crept through the woods and then shot the man, who was seriously wounded. The boy, who police said is experienced with guns, cannot be charged because he is under 12 although his father may face weapons storage charges.(www.canoe.ca NA)

Nigerian 1.3.0.0.1.0…3 hunter kills man he mistook for a warthog (April 04, 2000) An article on iol.co.za reports that a distraught hunter in Nigeria shot dead a farmer he mistook for a warthog. He has turned himself in to local authorities. The gunman was apparently on a hunting expedition at Igbo-Ata in Ekiti State in the south-western region of Nigeria when the incident took place. (link NA at wildnetafrica.co.za)

Bear 1.3.0.0.2 eats hunter in Russian province Reuters — Dec. 25, 2001 MOSCOW — A hungry bear ate a hunter in Russia’s Jewish autonomous region in the country’s far east, Interfax reported on Monday, Dec. 24. The half-eaten remains of the local man, who had gone hunting the previous day, were discovered near the village of Landakoz, set in the region’s bleak taiga. It was not clear if the bear had killed the hunter or whether the man had died of cold before the scavenging animal found him, Interfax quoted local officials as saying. Bears have been known to attack humans in the region before, but usually during the late summer or early autumn while searching for wild mushrooms and berries. (link NA at espn.go.com)

Trespassers 1.3.0.0.2.0…3.0..2 allegedly assault landowner After asking a group of Rhode Island men to leave his land, the Maine landowner was assaulted. The attack enrages local sportsmen and complicates access issues as posted land becomes the norm By Glenn Adams Associated Press — Nov. 18, 2001 THORNDIKE, Maine — Along the edges of woods and fields in this rural Waldo County town, the bright orange and yellow signs are popping up everywhere: No hunting. It wasn’t always that way.“We’ve never posted our land. It’s all posted now, all 300 acres of it,” said William Johnson, whose family has owned property in the area for four generations. The new keep-off signs started showing up on trees and fenceposts across the rolling countryside after Johnson’s brother, Richard, was assaulted after asking a group of hunters to leave his property in Jackson, a tiny town bordering Thorndike. Johnson, 58, was upset that the Rhode Island men had not asked permission to use his land and were in an area near homes with children, said his brother. “Over the years, we’ve never had trouble with hunters,” William Johnson said. “We all hunt.” Richard Johnson was still recovering from his injuries last week and declined to be interviewed, but his family confirmed the police account of the Nov. 7 incident. Johnson blew the horn of a pickup truck belonging to the hunters, then propped a stick against it so it sounded continuously. There was a confrontation and one of the hunters knocked off Johnson’s hat. When Johnson bent over he was attacked. His face was pounded until it was black and blue, and his teeth were broken. He crawled into his house dazed and bleeding, and passed out. He was out of work until last Wednesday. A hunter from Foster, R.I., Vincent DeCarlo, is free on bail pending a Dec. 18 hearing in Belfast District Court on a charge of aggravated assault, police said.

1.4 If animals have rights, then they must be able to have the same rights as us, such as voting ->

Furthermore, if we give animals rights, we must give plants and all other organisms rights too.

a) Sure - and if we can do that then fine. But if we are unable to give rights to all lifeforms - it doesnt mean we should just give up and not give rights to any. If we say that - then one could decide they only care about people within their own race/religion/gender/age group/economic status. Some people already do it anyway …

b) Okay but you can be the one to go around to every plant, animal and bacteria on the planet and ensure they got their voter’s guide.

1.5 Only humans can form moral contracts with other humans. Since we cannot make ->

social/moral contracts with other species, we should not care about how we treat them.

a) Why does a moral contract have to be reciprocal? We make special arrangements for infants, and humans that are mentally challenged - without requiring that they “return the favor”. Why should other species be treated to a different standard?

b) We can and do have social and moral contracts with other species. We know that if an animal, its offspring, or its territory is threatened, or it is hungry, we can expect it to react accordingly. That is a social contract. By contrast, there are humans who make moral and social contracts with other humans — and then break them. And yet we do not turn them into laboratory fodder.

c) If this argument is applied fairly and equally to a human rights scenario, then it would have significant consequences for humans that are either children, or are stricken with brain damage, mental illness, or some disease which prevents them from making a social/moral contract with others. By the logic of this argument — these humans could be exploited for medical research.

1.6 What about grizzly bears? They eat other species, shouldn’t we do something to stop that?

a) That defies the whole meaning of animal rights. humans do not need to hold a paternalism over the actions of other animals.

b) If there were over 6 billion grizzly bears who didn’t need the fish to survive, then maybe they would need to decide what to do about it, but that isn’ t any of our business as humans.

c) Oh yeah - and while you’re at it - better stop spiders from eating flies and flies from eating smaller bugs and bacteria from eating other bacteria … get back to me when you figure out how to police them - until then we better stick to what we can do - policing ourselves.

d) Other species do things to survive … they may do things we don’t feel are consistent with our ethics - but we have ethics to control our behavior - other species are able to function without the types of ethical systems we propose. They don’t have the option to not kill if they wish to survive. But they don’t go around killing other species for oil, money, religion etc. when they do-they can deal with their ethical conduct - until then - humans are the species we have to worry about.

e) This argument tries to say that if some group is exempt from the same moral conduct that is expected of humans - then they should be excluded from any rights to protection or respect. By this logic children, the mentally retarded and comatose people do not deserve rights to protection since they cannot reason and formulate ethical positions like adult humans can.

1.7 Frogs don’t care about morality when they eats flies ->

so if I am equal to them, shouldnt I be able to do the same and do as I want?

a) Since you want to be regarded as being able to do everything a frog can, or cannot do, then I guess you will be indifferent to human suffering, after all, a frog would be. So since a frog can’t help a drowning human, you wouldn’t either. After all, you want to have the same moral equality and responsibility as a frog.

1.8 Animal activists drive on roads causing animals to lose their lives ->

and live in homes that have caused animals to lose their lives.

a) No one is perfect. A lot of humans were killed through wars to build one’s country - whether you live in Europe or North America or Asia. No one tells a human rights activist he must rocket himself to a desert island in order to be against human exploitation - therefore the same is true for animal activists.

b) Thousands of people are killed by automobiles each year. If you are in favor of human rights - do you refrain from driving?

1.9 You may think you avoid all unnecessary suffering, but how many animals died in the fields to grow your plants for food?

a) Don’t know - but it is a lot less than the number that were killed in the fields to grow the food used to feed the cattle you eat.

b) That’s an ad hominem attack. Instead of addressing the issue you are attacking me for any faults I may have. It is a separate issue but you cite it to divert attention from your own wrongdoing.

c) There are ways to provide food without causing as much harm to other life—eating meat is far more destructive.

d) So what are you saying? We should eat raw minerals? You start. Here’s a rock - bite it.

e) Oh I see - so since we cannot avoid all suffering we should just let people eat meat, hunt, fish, use animals in rodeos, research etc. But why stop there? Why not let people kill each other, enslave other humans, abuse children. They are doing it anyway and since suffering cannot be avoided completely why bother to try at all? RIGHT?

1.10 The Steven Davis ruminant-pasture model claiming to kill fewer lifeforms than vegan.

From TIME magazine (week of July 8, 2002): An argument championed by Steven Davis, professor of animal science at Oregon State University, points “to the number of field animals inadvertently killed during crop production and harvest. One study showed that simply mowing an alfalfa field caused a 50% reduction in the gray-tailed vole population. Mortality rates increase with each pass of the tractor to plow, plant and harvest. Rabbits, mice and pheasants, he says, are the indiscriminate “collateral damage” of row crops and the grain industry…By contrast, grazing (not grain-fed) ruminants such as cattle produce food and require fewer entries into the fields with tractors and other equipment. Applying (and upending) Regan’s least-harm theory, Davis proposes a ruminant-pasture model of food production, which would replace poultry and pork production with beef, lamb and dairy products. According to his calculations, such a model would result in the deaths of 300 million fewer animals annually (counting both field animals and cattle) than would a completely vegan model. “By Richard Corliss, Reported by Melissa August and Matthew Cooper/Washington, David Bjerklie and Lisa McLaughlin/New York, Wendy Cole/Chicago and Jeffrey Ressner/ Los Angeles. [Editor: see item h) below, which demonstrates the incorrectness of the Davis argument.]

a) From Time article: “When asked about Davis’ arguments, (Tom) Regan, however, still sees a distinction: “The real question is whether to support production systems whose very reason for existence is to kill animals. Meat eaters do. Ethical vegetarians do not.”

b) The questionable moral reasoning of Steven Davis’s argument can be described as thus: Imagine you are driving along and you come to a forked road. One way is covered in darkness, the other has some children playing in the center of it. By Davis’ logic, it is better to drive through and deliberately kill the children instead of taking the other route where you may end up killing more that you can’t see - OR getting out and walking to check if the route is clear (after all, who says crop harvesting MUST be done by only one type of tractor - the most destructive?).

c) What about the effects of grazing on wildlife populations? The killing of natural predators to keep cattle and sheep from being killed? What about the pollution to rivers from grazing? How many aquatic organisms will be killed because of grazing? What about the trampling of insects by cattle and sheep? Has Davis calculated their deaths or do they not count? This argument to replace all crops with meat and dairy grazing leaves a lot of questions.

d) A completely vegan model would require one to ask: Who says crop harvesting must be done in the same way as it is currently? Davis is not making any effort to calculate alternative methods for harvesting or growing crops. What about greenhouses? What about switching to crops that cause less damage? What about harvesting machinery that is less intrusive? That is what a true vegan perspective would ask. As a meat eater who profits from the animal industry, Davis is not able to comprehend what a completely vegan model would be.

e) Baby steps. Eliminate meat and dairy production, and then switch to lower yield, less harmful agricultural practices.

f) But by Davis’ argument, a lot of meat eating humans would be currently guilty of causing DOUBLE harm. They eat crops (since very few are true carnivores), and they eat meat that was raised on grain that killed animals in fields. Vegetarians only eat crops. Veganism still comes out as more desirable morally.

g) Studies of all but invisible animal populations in fields can be skewed for anyone’s agenda. Let’s use basic hard facts: you raise animals for meat, you are directly killing animals. You raise plants for food, you may indirectly kill animals. Most sensible people would say that it is better to avoid direct killing, than engage in it out of fear of causing indirect killing. (See response b)

h) LEAST HARM: A DEFENSE OF VEGETARIANISM FROM STEVEN DAVIS’S OMNIVOROUS PROPOSAL (submission to the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, January 2003 Gaverick Matheny, Duke University) … “Davis does not succeed in showing this is preferable to vegetarianism. First, Davis makes a mathematical error in using total rather than per capita estimates of animals killed; second, he focuses on the number of animals killed in ruminant and crop production systems and ignores important considerations about the welfare of animals under both systems; and third, he does not consider the number of animals who are prevented from existing under the two systems. After correcting for these errors, Davis’s argument makes a strong case for, rather than against, adopting a vegetarian diet."…. First, Davis makes an error in calculating how many animals would be killed to feed a vegan-vegetarian population. He explains: “There are 120 million ha of cropland harvested in the USA each year. If all of that land was used to produce crops to support a vegan diet, and if 15 animals of the field are killed per ha per year, then 15 x 120 million = 1800 million or 1.8 billion animals would be killed annually to produce a vegan diet for the USA (p. 5). Davis estimates that only 7.5 animals of the field per hectare die in ruminant-pasture. If we were to convert half of the 120 million hectares of U.S. cropland to ruminant-pasture and half to growing vegetables, Davis claims we could feed the U.S. population on a diet of ruminant meat and crops and kill only 1.35 billion animals annually in the process. Thus, Davis concludes his omnivorous proposal would save the lives of 450 million animals each year (p. 6-7). Davis mistakenly assumes the two systems—crops only and crops with ruminant-pasture—using the same total amount of land, would feed identical numbers of people (i.e., the U.S. population). In fact, crop and ruminant systems produce different amounts of food per hectare - the two systems would feed different numbers of people. To properly compare the harm caused by the two systems, we ought to calculate how many animals are killed in feeding equal populations—or the number of animals killed per consumer. …..Davis suggests the number of wild animals killed per hectare in crop production (15) is twice that killed in ruminant-pasture (7.5). If this is true, then as long as crop production uses less than half as many hectares as ruminant-pasture to deliver the same amount of food, a vegetarian will kill fewer animals than an omnivore. In fact, crop production uses less than half as many hectares as grass-fed dairy and one-tenth as many hectares as grass-fed beef to deliver the same amount of protein. In one year, 1,000 kilograms of protein can be produced on as few as 1.0 hectares planted with soy and corn, 2.6 hectares used as pasture for grass-fed dairy cows, or 10 hectares used as pasture for grass-fed beef cattle (Vandehaar 1998; UNFAO 1996). As such, to obtain the 20 kilograms of protein per year recommended for adults, a vegan-vegetarian would kill 0.3 wild animals annually, a lacto-vegetarian would kill 0.39 wild animals, while a Davis-style omnivore would kill 1.5 wild animals. Thus, correcting Davis’s math, we see that a vegan-vegetarian population would kill the fewest number of wild animals, followed closely by a lacto-vegetarian population. However, suppose this were not the case and that, in fact, fewer animals would be killed under Davis’s omnivorism. Would it follow that Davis’s plan causes the least harm? Not necessarily. Early in the paper, Davis shifts from discussing the harm done to animals under different agricultural systems to the number of animals killed. This shift is not explained by Davis and is not justified by the most common moral views, all of which recognize harms other than death.” … “Although Davis does not show omnivorism is preferable to vegetarianism, he should be commended for emphasizing the importance of farmed animal welfare as a moral issue, now emerging as one of the most significant of the day. Predictably, his argument has been cited as a justification for traditional omnivorism (Corliss 2002), a misreading Davis did not intend and one that any faithful reading of his paper should prevent. The type of ruminant production Davis proposes is a world apart from the omnivorism prevalent in the United States.

1.11 More animals are killed for a vegetarian diet than by hunters, therefore, hunting is more compassionate than vegetarianism.

a) Ideally, animals that may be killed in fields etc to grow food for vegetarians are killed unintentionally. Hunters kill intentionally. Thus vegetarianism is more compassionate, since it seeks to eliminate unnecessary suffering and killing, not encourage it.

b) And yet growing your own vegetarian food in a garden would be more compassionate than hunting.

c) It is impossible to gauge how many animals are killed in fields. The answer is not to advocate hunting, but to find the best way to avoid killing animals to grow food.

d) By that logic, someone may decide that resorting to cannibalism would be more compassionate than hunting. Why prey on other species for your survival when you can prey on your own?

e) If everyone went and hunted for food, it would kill alot more animals than in fields that grow food for vegetarians.

1.12 Your values deem animals to be right-holders whereas others deem them to be resource ->

It is the former and not the latter that has the ethical obligation to stop killing them.

a) By that logic, if someone doesnt believe that others are rights-holders, they don’t have any obligation to stop those acts that violate them. So a racist can go and lynch blacks because he doesn’t value them as equals. A child abuser can do likewise. You haven’t proven why all humans should regard all humans as rights-holders and you need to in order to defend human rights while you attack animal rights.

b) You demand moral perfection from animal activists, and you say that humans have rights, and yet you pay taxes and live in a country that has exploited and killed humans in the past and to the present. So by your own logic you must divest yourself from all acts that contribute to the violation of human rights, even if it is impossible to be morally perfect.

1.13 What if you were attacked by a bear? Would you let the bear kill you?

If you wouldn’t - and you kill the bear–then you can’t be for animal rights.

a) If i enter known bear territory than it is up to me to know better. But assuming it was unavoidable, defending yourself is a matter of self interest. If you commit an act in self interest it does not mean you are against the rights of others.

b) If a civil/human rights activist is attacked by a thief – and he defends himself, does that mean he is against civil/human rights?

c) I live in a civilization where I can go to the grocery store and buy soy dogs, veggie burgers, soy milk, rice, beans, bagels, vegan cream cheese, organic fruits and vegetables, etc.. There is no reason why I would ever be in a situation where a wild bear would attack me.

1.14 Other species are not bound by the same rules as humans. ->

Lions eat gazelles (so why should we respect either the gazelles or the lions?) Nor are other species capable of reciprocal morality (we are supposed to respect them but they don’t respect us)

a) But some of the mentally retarded, mentally deranged, or children are not conscious of the meaning of rights and yet they are given them without conditions. We don’t expect reciprocal morality from them, so why from nonhuman animals? Lions and other predators need to eat meat to survive. Humans don’t. Furthermore, lions and other large predators base their aggression on survival interests. If they don’t feel threatened or aren’t defending territory or aren’t hungry – they don’t attack. In that sense, there is an “ethical conduct” to how other species behave, and unlike some humans, they don’t make promises they have no intention of keeping.

1.15 If it is ok for the lion to hunt it should be ok for me to hunt. ->

The lion hunts in his own way. So does the snake, spider, eagle, etc … also the HUMAN hunts in their own way. It is not impossible for humans to fly of spend long periods of time under water … IN THEIR OWN WAY.

a) If it is okay for you to say that you should be able to hunt if a lion does, someone else can say, using your argument, that they should be able to deal with breeding and offspring just like a lion. Male lions and grizzlies have been known to kill the offspring of rival males. Humans should be able to also – by your logic. You can’t attack someone else for using the same reasoning you employ.

b) Humans are not naturally equipped like a lion or wolf for hunting. They are born for it. If humans were born for it, all humans would be doing it. Yet they aren’t.

c) Did you suddenly become a lion?

d) The sillygism (from physics forum discussion “Should we eat meat?”)

It is moral for an animal to eat meat. \ Humans are animals. \ Therefore, It is moral for humans to eat meat

Reply 1.15.0.0.2.1 by physicsisphirst:

your 3 pt item is either incorrect or tautology. here’s why:

1: It is moral for an animal to eat meat. \ 2: Humans are animals. \ 3: It is moral for humans to eat meat.

let us consider exactly what “an animal” is. it is either a) human or b) non-human.

so if it is the latter your syllogism reads:

1: It is moral for a non-human animal to eat meat. \ 2: Humans are animals. \ 3: It is moral for humans to eat meat.

now you can probably see that 3. doesn’t follow from 1. and 2. (hence incorrectness).

and if it is the former your sillygism becomes tautology and looks like this:

1: It is moral for a human animal to eat meat. \ 2: Humans are animals. \ 3: It is moral for humans to eat meat.

which is like saying if you are redundant, then you are redundant.

Reply 1.15.0.0.2.2 from cogito:

cogito 12-17-2004, 09:10 PM

Oneeye’s amendment: \ — \ Given my clarification, I restate:

1: It is moral for any member of Animalia to kill and/or eat other members of Animalia. \ 2: Humans are members of Animalia. \ 3: It is moral for humans to kill and/or eat other members of Animalia.

How do you reply to this? \ —

This thread is so long, I’m not sure anybody has pointed out extremely obvious and equally absurd consequence of this argument, so apologies if this is redundant. This argument implies that it is permissible for humans to kill and eat other humans if they desire to. So, Oneeye, how do you reply to that?

[Editor: An observation that comes in 2022 (more that 15 yrs later) is how could oneeye make such a ridiculous absurdity? It didn’t occur to us at the time, but we think he did because the idea that meat comes from actual animals may not have quite sunk in. In other words, meat is something you eat rather than something that is taken from a living being. Carol Adams refers to this victim as the Absent Referent.]

1.16 I can’t see the difference between me eating a deer (racism by your definition) and a lion eating a deer. You apply distinctly human standards to a trans-species hypothesis.

a) A lion is biologically adapted to eat animals. No tools, no trickery. Claws, jaws, teeth, (needle-barbed) tongue. Humans dont have the equipment for it. You can say we have the brain to create tools etc..but that means we also have the brain to get food from other sources besides meat. And it is not applying distinctly human standards to other species YOUR argument does. You want lions to follow human definitions of morality, or to abandon any responsibility towards nonhumans if they cannot. Lions dont have the system of ethical reasoning that humans use. Essentially you are wondering why a blind man cant read road signs, or why a man with no arms cant catch a football.

b) The main difference is that humans have systems of ethics that say one should try to be fair and as just as possible to others. Under that belief, humans have to justify discriminating against others (human or not). Other species do not, as far as we can tell, employ systems of ethics that change over time.

c) Lions need to eat meat. Humans do not. Since eating meat involves discrimination, violence, and killing, humans cannot justify it if they say it is wrong to kill unfairly or unjustly (especially if, at the same time, they emphasize it is wrong to do the same to humans). In order to justify it, they first have to show how human supremacy and the standards of value used to defend it, are fundamentally different in principle from the arguments used to defend racial, gender, religious or any other human-centered discriminatory ethical policy. In other words, show how human supremacy is based upon absolute objective, universally-sanctioned standards of value. If they cannot, then it would be hypocritical for a human supremacist to criticize a racial/religious/gender/wealth supremacist for acting upon a belief that is no more or less subjective, biased, arbitrary and non-absolute than that of the human supremacist.

1.17 If we stopped testing on animals the products would be unsafe for humans.

a) Even with animal testing the products are not always safe for humans. In fact, there are drugs and treatments tested on animals that have proven unsafe for humans(i.e. Thalidomide).

b) Human testing is essential for human drugs etc. You can take the animal out of medical research but not the human–if you doubt that, then lets see you volunteer to test a drug that had only been tested on nonhuman animals?

c) Animals used in experiments become so stressed that their blood chemistry changes, invalidating the science.

d) Animal research can also lead to the transmission of diseases–even the creation of new ones. From the Lancet, 2004: “At the time of writing this review there have been two re-emergent cases of SARS, both from laboratory infections. One case in Singapore22 and the other in Taiwan.23 WHO must continue its efforts to promote scientific responsibility for both SARS and influenza viruses. Laboratory regulations globally are inconsistent. We now live in a global village, so universal guidelines need to be adopted. The situation with H2N2 influenza is a case in point. Although H2N2 influenza has not circulated in human beings since 1968 and everyone under the age of 36 years is susceptible, the H2N2 virus is widely distributed in laboratories and is still used in some laboratories. The re-emergence of H1N1 influenza, in 1977, that continues to circulate in human beings is another unresolved case. This H1N1 virus remained genetically conserved for 27 years.24 The most likely explanation is that the virus came from a frozen source and a laboratory seems the most probable culprit. Thus SARS CoV and many influenza viruses (eg, H2N2, H5N1, and H7N7 from human beings) must be restricted to Biosafety level 3+ laboratories.”

e) New technologies are making the animal model and animal testing obsolete (not that either were safe or effective at any time.) Look at some of the advancements at Progressive Non-animal Research Society and Animal Defence and Anti-Vivisection Society: Articles and Reports.

1.18 If your child was ill, would you sacrifice the life of a rat, or cat, or dog, or chimp etc (in medical research) to save it?

a) This hypothetical argument is intended as a catch 22 [Editor: it is the logical fallacy of false dilemma]. If the activist chooses the life of their child over that of a rat—then they are endorsing the principle behind vivisection whether they admit it or not. If it would be okay for an animal rights activist to use an animal to save their own child, then how could he or she object to the animal research industry? If they say no, then they are deemed as not loving their child and are a terrible parent. The first error with this is the unrealistic nature of the hypothetical situation. Can a cure for an illness be attained by killing one rat, without any human clinical trials? Of course not. Such a scenario is an oversimplification intended to force the validity of animal research and portray the vivisector as someone capable of making miraculous treatments if only he/she is allowed to exploit animals as they wish. It also perverts the nature of altruism and compassion by suggesting that one must prioritize the recipients of such altruism and compassion.

b) If your child was sick, would you sacrifice the life of your neighbor’s child in medical research to save it? If you say no, does that mean you don’t love your child as much as you may claim to, especially since you know that the chances for a treatment are greatly increased by using humans–and wouldn’t you want only the best for your child? If you say yes, does that mean you are going to focus on getting humans used for research so you can offer your child the best possible treatment? The answers one gives to these questions can be made applicable to the scenario involving nonhumans.

c) If it is wrong for me to exploit my neighbor’s child in order to aid my own, then it would be wrong for me to do the same if my neighbor happened to have four legs instead of two. Exploiting others in violation of consistent ethical beliefs is wrong.

1.19 If we weren’t using animals in research we wouldn’t be able to find cures for diseases and cancers./Animal research is necessary if we hope to cure diseases and help sick children.

a) Saying animal research is necessary in order to cure human diseases makes as much sense as saying that one needs to conduct research on humans in order to cure rat diseases (there would almost seem to be a Neo-Darwinian myth at work, that by testing on so called “simpler” animals one can move up the “Evolutionary ladder” until you reach the complexity of human beings). You can remove the animal from medical research but you still need humans in research. If you wanted to cure leukemia in cats–working on dogs would not help much.

b) If that’s the case why haven’t we cured the common cold? Humans have been experimenting on animals non stop for at least 150 years and yet we are still plagued by diseases. new ones surface and old ones become drug resistant. So much for success through animal research.

c) Animals used in experiments become so stressed that their blood chemistry changes, invalidating the science.

d) The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine maintains a list of non-profit medical research organizations that do not test on animals, yet do perform important and groundbreaking work - the list can be found at http://www.humaneseal.org/approved.html

e) From news.independent.co.uk (link no longer available) December 8, 2003 “A senior executive with Britain’s biggest drugs company has admitted that most prescription medicines do not work on most people who take them. Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), said fewer than half of the patients prescribed some of the most expensive drugs actually derived any benefit from them. It is an open secret within the drugs industry that most of its products are ineffective in most patients but this is the first time that such a senior drugs boss has gone public.” …..Dr Roses, an academic geneticist from Duke University in North Carolina, spoke at a recent scientific meeting in London where he cited figures on how well different classes of drugs work in real patients. Drugs for Alzheimer’s disease work in fewer than one in three patients, whereas those for cancer are only effective in a quarter of patients. Drugs for migraines, for osteoporosis, and arthritis work in about half the patients, Dr Roses said. Most drugs work in fewer than one in two patients mainly because the recipients carry genes that interfere in some way with the medicine, he said. “The vast majority of drugs - more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people,” Dr Roses said. “I wouldn’t say that most drugs don’t work. I would say that most drugs work in 30 to 50 per cent of people. Drugs out there on the market work, but they don’t work in everybody.” RESPONSE Rates: Therapeutic area: drug efficacy rate in per cent Alzheimer’s: 30 Analgesics (Cox-2): 80 Asthma: 60 Cardiac Arrythmias: 60 Depression (SSRI): 62 Diabetes: 57 Hepatits C (HCV): 47 Incontinence: 40 Migraine (acute): 52 Migraine (prophylaxis)50 Oncology(cancer): 25 Rheumatoid arthritis50 Schizophrenia: 60 CONCLUSION: if drug effectiveness among humans is so erratic and unreliable it means that the differences physically between humans and nonhumans would be far more extreme–and thus animal research is as unreliable as animal activists and responsible physicians have said for decades. [Editor: For update information on modern drug development methods go to Progressive Non-animal Research Society and Animal Defence and Anti-Vivisection Society: Articles and Reports.]

1.20 If vivisection and dissection are banned, how about those who wanted to be a veterinarian? How or what can they refer to?

I know you probably would say: “There are electronic programs which allows those students to watch what is inside the animal’s body … like computers, videos …” But then those who did these are probably cruel, right? Why how come they know the illustration of the animal’s body inside? They also did open up the animal’s body, right?

a) It is basically impossible to avoid any and all exploitation of other humans and other species(or products derived from that exploitation–i.e. for humans we are talking about paying taxes to fund wars, living on land which may have been the scene of someone’s murder in order to seize it, reckless medical experiments by companies that injured volunteer patients etc,), and those computer- video illustration programs are the perfect example. The argument can be made that since the research had already been done, we might as well use it(as was the case with the Nazi research). One could say that it would be immoral not to use it because then the animals would have suffered and died in vain. (there are however, some vegans who would disagree with this, and others would argue that using the research may encourage more experimentation).

b) it is said that countries like India have had animal hospitals for decades if not centuries(under the religion of the Jains) and have not had to resort to vivisection to treat members of other species (source: the Vegetable Passion).

c) You can not cause harm to one, in the hope of helping another, and call it true altruism or compassion. Would you help a homeless man by kicking someone else out of their house, and call that a compassionate solution? The line of Medical progress should stop at the point when it is proposed that other lives should be sacrificed –especially against their will–to foster that “progress.” Human patients may volunteer for dangerous medical research, other species do not. In other words, two wrongs do not make a right.

d) The issue of veterinary medicine is not relevant from a strict vegan philosophy which argues that humans should not have members of other species domesticated, and thus, we should not presume to be “stewards” of their well-being. Thus, veterinary research would not be an issue.

1.21 Would you accept a medical treatment that had been tested on animals if you got sick?

a) This attack is flawed because it implies that if an animal activist would use a medical treatment that had been tested on animals then the activist is guilty of hypocrisy: contradicting his/her argument, and must either refuse any future medical treatment, or abandon the animal rights cause. The activist is pressured to be a moral perfectionist before endorsing animal rights—and since perfection is not possible–then it alleged the animal rights agenda is a false one. This attack draws an unrealistic connection between the present act of vivisection, and the already existing products of that vivisection. In order for the animal activist to be guilty of hypocrisy, he or she would have to consciously participate in or endorse the present and future activities of vivisectors, not the medical treatments that resulted (in part) from policies that included animal experimentation (i.e. saying they are against vivisection, then paying a researcher to do it). The activist could counter-argue that since the research was already done, it might as well be utilized so the animals did not “die in vain.” It also makes an unrealistic demand upon the activist–to remove him/herself from a world where all governments engage in some form of exploitation (or have connections to those that do) before beginning to make protests and arguments that seek change.

b)This argument reveals how vivisectors attempt to make the recipient of their works feel guilty because he/she benefited from their research. It perverts the altruism of the medical profession by tainting the recipient with the tag of a conspirator!

c) If this “moral perfection first” approach is applied fairly and equally to human-related issues, it has the following consequences for the animal research proponent: Any patient who benefits from a procedure that was based upon the human experiments of the Nazis, effectively endorses those atrocities committed, and cannot declare otherwise. (In 1989 concentration camp survivors attempted to get Nazi research destroyed, but were rebuked by the medical establishment which argued the research could be employed for the greater good). An organ recipient, who receives a transplant from a victim of a car wreck, or shooting, cannot claim to be against such tragedies, since he/she benefited from such incidents. Furthermore, a Chinese student living in Bejing, could not protest for democratic reforms since he receives his food, shelter, and financial support through agencies of the government he is attacking. And someone in North America could not claim to be for Indian rights, unless they remove themselves from their present dwelling and let aboriginals move in. No one could protest, or seek to make reforms for any social cause unless they first removed themselves from all imperfections. Since it is impossible, all attempts to make the world a better place would have to be abandoned. In trying to portray the animal activist as a hypocrite, the animal research defender puts forth an ethical standard which they do not apply fairly and equally to themselves, thus revealing who the actual hypocrites are.

d) It is well documented that corporations past and present have been known to profit from the exploitation of others–including humans. From USAToday, Feb 21, 2002: “There is considerable evidence that proud names in finance, banking, insurance, transportation, manufacturing, publishing and other industries are linked to slavery. Many of those same companies are today among the most aggressive at hiring and promoting African-Americans, marketing to black consumers and giving to black causes. So far, the reparations legal team has publicly identified five companies it says have slave ties: insurers Aetna, New York Life and AIG and financial giants J.P. Morgan Chase Manhattan Bank and FleetBoston Financial Group. Independently, USA TODAY has found documentation tying several others to slavery:

Investment banks Brown Bros. Harriman and Lehman Bros.
Railroads Norfolk Southern, CSX, Union Pacific and Canadian National.
Textile maker WestPoint Stevens.
Newspaper publishers Knight Ridder, Tribune, Media General, Advance Publications, E.W. Scripps and Gannett, parent and publisher of USA TODAY.
Lloyd’s of London, the giant insurance marketplace, could become a target because member brokerages are believed to have insured ships that brought slaves from Africa to the USA and cotton from the South to mills in New England and Britain.

The original benefactors of many of the country’s top universities – Harvard, Yale, Brown, Princeton and the University of Virginia, among them – were wealthy slave owners. Lawyers on the reparations team say universities also will be sued.

e) A better question would be if you would accept a drug treatment that was tested on unsuspecting humans who may well have been tortured and killed for it “By the end of July a US district court will decide whether drug giant Pfizer should stand trial in the United States for presiding over a coercive, botched 1996 experiment on Nigerian children with meningitis. In a class-action suit filed last August, thirty Nigerian families say the company violated the Nuremberg Code by forcing an unapproved, risky experiment on unwitting subjects who suffered brain damage, loss of hearing, paralysis and death as a result. Globalizing clinical research solves the pharmaceutical paradox that while the average American brings home more than ten prescriptions a year, just one in 350 is willing to play guinea pig for new drug testing. An abundance of poor, undertreated and doctor-trusting patients in Eastern Europe, Latin America and Southeast Asia renders the quick, positive results corporate sponsors need to get new drugs approved fast. According to one review, a whopping 99 percent of controlled trials published in China bestowed positive results upon the treatment under investigation…..Even if Americans were willing to participate in trials, they take so many medications that they make poor lab rats anyway, clinical researchers say. To prove a new drug safe and effective, “you want patients with no other disease states and no other treatments. Then you can say relatively clearly that whatever happens to those patients is from the drug,” says MDS Pharma’s Simon Yaxley, whose company sells what industry PR folks call “patient recruitment solutions” in Eastern Europe, South Africa, Latin America and China. In developing countries, many people, because they are poor and don’t have access to clinicians and hospitals, aren’t taking any medicines for their illnesses. Conveniently, many of the FDA’s ponderous regulations stop at the border. For example, the FDA’s requirement that companies prove that their experimental drugs are safe on animals before starting tests on humans doesn’t apply for tests conducted outside the United States. And experiments on Americans must undergo painstaking, lengthy reviews by government-regulated “institutional review boards” (IRBs). But “if you go to some countries and say you want the IRB to review this, they say, ‘What is an IRB?’” comments Dennis DeRosia, chair of the Association of Clinical Research Professionals. The FDA simply requires that foreign trials conform to the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki, a series of ethical recommendations that critics call rudimentary, nonbinding and ambiguous. Scientists routinely ignore Helsinki directives to publish negative results and make study designs public, and they liken Helsinki-required ethics committees in developing countries to rubber stamps. “No ethical questions are raised at all,” one investigator admitted to the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC)…..What results is one set of acceptable risks for patients at home and quite another for patients abroad, a double standard that has left hundreds of preventable deaths in its wake. Most notoriously, in the mid- and late 1990s, the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control funded and defended studies in which Western scientists withheld treatment from HIV-infected pregnant women in developing countries, even though they knew antiretroviral drugs would reduce the rate of HIV infection in their infants by two-thirds. Hundreds of infants “needlessly contracted HIV infection” while Western doctors presided over their care, according to an incendiary New England Journal of Medicine paper by Public Citizen’s Dr. Peter Lurie and Dr. Sidney Wolfe.” Published in the July 1, 2002 issue of The Nation. Globalizing Clinical Research: Big Pharma Tries Out First World Drugs on Unsuspecting Third World Patients by Sonia Shaw.

f) Taken from (MicahBooks: Nazis and animal research link NA): “In 1987, the Supreme Court heard a case in which a U.S. soldier sued the government for having used him as a test case for LSD experiments, without his knowledge (Stanley vs. The United States). The court voted 5 to 4 against the victim. For a recent review of experiments conducted on human beings in the U.S., without their informed consent, see Clouds of Secrecy: The Army’s Germ Warfare Tests over Populated Areas, by Leonard A. Cole, Subjected to Science, by Susan Lederer, Johns Hopkins Press (This books studies experimentation on human beings between the two world wars); and Stranger at The Bedside by David J. Rothman, which studies this problem in the period after the Second World War. There are many more books on this subject. Many of them can be found on the Internet, under “Human Experimentation,” or at Amazon.com, under the same heading.”

1.22 Animal research is justified because of the benefits (to human health, happiness, knowledge, progress, science, companion animals, wildlife, etc).

a) Its basic problem is that it is stating the INTENT of the Animal research, not a moral/ethical DEFENSE of it. “Why are you torturing animals to death?” Answer: “Because we hope to benefit from it.” A casual observer would hope that they benefit from it, or why else would they be doing it? This argument is nothing more than an appeal to Selfishness.

b) A thief steals because of the benefits to him or others. A rapist rapes because of the benefits. If the rapist defended his act by pointing out that others could benefit by taking items from the unconscious victim’s house, would that justify the rape? If one accepts “benefits” as a justification for animal research, and applies it fairly and equally to human relationships, then it allows anyone to commit an act on the basis of the perceived benefits to the perpetrator or others–whether the victim is human or not.

1.23 Vivisection is justified because humans can subdue and control other creatures for whatever purpose we wish.

a) This argument would attempt to suggest that humans are following the “law of Nature.” The act of vivisection is seen as being no different than a lion chasing down a gazelle. The question poser may even concede that if an alien race were to do the same thing to humans it would be justifiable. The first problem with this approach is that it suggests vivisection serves a natural purpose, similar to the act of killing for food. Yet the act of killing for food is a primordial instinctive need shared by all life, while only a small number of modern humans engage in the practice of vivisection. It also conveniently ignores the harsh reality of life and death. One could counter-argue that disease exists to control population—a thoroughly natural process–and that the vivisectionist is deliberately obstructing that process by attempting to prolong human life-spans. What about the impact on food and natural resources? A vivisector would probably answer that the solution lies in more research, colonizing space, etc. ad infinitum. Nevertheless, the claim that vivisection is a natural process in harmony with the realities of life can be strongly protested.

b) Even if a concession is made for extraterrestrial exploitation, one does not need to go so far out to discover the unwelcome consequences of such a philosophical position. By “might means right” or “survival of the fittest,” one could then justify killing or enslaving his/her next door neighbor for the benefits.. This philosophy ordains that if one can do it, then one is justified. A thief, murderer, rapist, practitioners of any of these “professions” would find the vivisector’s reasoning to be very useful.

c) There is nothing in that defense that would keep one from applying “might makes right” to a situation where a stronger human preys on a weaker one. You would have to prove human supremacy to justify a distinction or exemption for humans. Since no supremacy exists, you cannot defend this argument. It would lead to social chaos if applied fairly.

1.24 Bioengineering may seem like mad scientist work, but its just another form of evolution.

a) Bioengineering IS mad scientist work, or as I prefer to say “moron scientist” work, because they claim to be improving things, yet they always create new problems (Thalidomide, DDTs, Industrial pollution etc). There is a fundamental logic flaw in this sort of thinking. Humans cannot even create a society free from war - and yet they think they can improve Nature. An imperfect creature creating perfection? That’s a pipe dream.

1.25 Mice, birds and rats get eaten by pythons – certainly that is just as bad as what goes on in a laboratory – or even worse.

a) Pythons need to eat birds, mice and rats to survive. It an instinctual drive. For humans, experimenting on nonhuman animals is certainly not an instinctual need.

b) Humans do not need to torture rats, mice and birds in the vain hope of curing human diseases. They need to experiment on humans if they are SERIOUS about seeking cures.

c) This argument tries to defend one form of cruelty by pointing to another unrelated one. Since humans get killed and mangled by cars, a mugger could argue, then why complain about a thief beating someone in the street? Not a logical argument (in fact, it is a logical fallacy of the form tu quoque). All Pythons need to eat, humans do not need to torture rats, mice and birds in laboratories.

1.26 If you could save countless human lives by xenotransplantation (genetically engineering non-human animals to harvest their organs for humans), isn’t that for the greater good? I mean, people eat those species every day anyway.

a) Since eating meat is unnecessary, exploiting animals for research and genetic engineering is compounding one injustice with another. It is like saying “Well, since we are planning to kill this guy, there is nothing wrong with us torturing and robbing him first”.

1.27 Didn’t the Nazis ban animal research?

a) from Nazis and animal research (link NA): ‘On April 24, 1989, Drs. Daniel Johnson and Frederick Goodwin from the National Institutes of Health, argued on the McNeil-Lehrer television program that “The only people in modern society that have not used animals for research were the Nazis.” They further contended that because the Nazis passed an anti-vivisection bill in 1933, they were led to experiment on human beings, and that there is therefore a relationship between animal rights and a loss of human rights. None of this is true. The “anti-vivisection law,” which the Nazis purported to pass, like Hitler’s vegetarianism, is filled with contradictions. A study of the law the Nazis passed shows that this law had enough loopholes in it to assure the continuation of animal research; consequently, an enormous amount of animal experimentation continued to be carried out by Nazi doctors. The Lancet, the prestigious British medical journal, reviewed the Nazis law and warned anti-vivisectionists not to celebrate because the Nazis law was no different, in effect, from the British law that had been passed in 1875, which restricted some animal research, but hardly eliminated it. Furthermore, a law passed by the Weimar government in 1931 required that all experiments on human beings be first conducted on animals. Such a requirement exists in the United States as in many countries that practice animal research. In other words, animal research is often a legal justification for experimentation on humans, as it functioned in Nazi Germany. The 1931 law in Germany was never abrogated. Nazis doctors dutifully submitted written statements when they requested “human material” for experiments which carried the legal notification that such experiments had been first conducted on animals. The first request for “test persons” was made by Dr. Sigmund Rascher to Himmler on May 15, 1941, “for two or three professional criminals” for “High-Altitude Research.” It states that human beings were needed “because these experiments cannot be conducted with monkeys, as has been tried….“Robert Proctor’s book, The Nazi War on Cancer (Princeton University Press, 1999), records Nazi animal experimentation, which should leave no one in doubt about where Nazi doctors and scientists stood on this issue. These animal experiments were often embedded in the continuum of animal research that had been ongoing for decades. By the 1920s the Germans had developed strains of mice that were “more or less receptive to the uptake of cancer tissue transplants. SS chief Heinrich Himmler was apparently intrigued by the prospect of breeding a race of cancer-prone rats; in a 1939 meeting with Sigmund Rascher, the notorious Dachau hypothermia experimenter, the SS Reichsführer proposed breeding such a race of rodents. (p. 63) “by the end of the 1920s, there was a sizable scientific literature on radiation carcinogensis, including a large body of work based on animal experiments.” (p. 83) By the mid 1930s the Nazis had formidable laboratory evidence of some the causes of cancer based on animal experiments: “Experiments were…performed that finally produced–for the first time anywhere–lung cancers in animals raised in the mines.” By 1938, Nazi scientists could produce lung cancer in 25% of the mice raised in mine shafts. “This was the first conclusive animal experimental evidence that breathing air in the mines could cause lung cancer.” (p.99). The Nazis conducted their “war on cancer” with animals as their weapon of choice. Indeed, in 1943, at the height of a world war, the Nazi government developed plans for a “’tumor farm’ to raise animals for use in experiments.” (p. 261). As Proctor states, animal experiments were vital to the ideological stance of Nazisim: “Animal experimental evidence was extrapolatedto humans, bolstered by the ideological push to see all aspects of human behavior–including purported racial differences–as rooted in “blood,” race, or genes.” (p. 63)The Nazis often did important scientific research, much of which has found its way into our own research. They developed the most extensive anti smoking legislation of any western countries; they did important research on the effects of industrial pollution on the environment, much of which found its way into Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring–which is not an indictment of Rachel Carson. When World War 11 first ended and news of the horrendous research on human beings was made public, Western scientists wanted to denounce Nazi science as “pseudo science” for fear of being tarnished by the public’s loathing of Nazi science, but Nazi science finds its way into our science all the time, including findings gained from their experiments on human beings.

1.28 Traditional Asian medicine isn’t as cruel as western medicine–and who are you to condemn them for using animal parts in healing?

a) If it’s ok for Asian traditional medicine to use animal parts, then it should be the same for humans who want to use other humans for traditional medicine. Such as practitioners of Muti. From On The Trail Of The Muti Killers 21 August 2004 By Basildon Peta, Southern Africa Correspondent “They first hit 10-year-old Sello Chokoe with a blunt instrument, causing a gash on his head. They then chopped off his penis, his hand and his ear. They were harvesting his body parts for “muti” - the murderous practice of traditional African medicine.” … The practice of muti provides a disconcerting counterpoint to the contemporary image of the new South Africa. Dr Gerard Lubschagne, who heads the investigative psychology unit of the South African police service, conservatively estimates lives lost to ritual murders at between 50 to 300 every year. “We don’t have accurate figures because most murders here are recorded in our records as murders irrespective of motive,” he says. “Most people might also not regard a murder as a muti matter but just dismiss it as the work of some crazy killers.” … How the body parts are used varies with what customers want to achieve. They are eaten, drunk or smeared over the ambitious person. Various parts are used for different purposes. A man who had difficulty in producing children killed a father of several children and used his victim’s genitals for muti. In another case, a butcher used a severed human hand to slap each of his products every morning before opening as a way of invoking the spirits to beckon customers…The screaming of a child while his body parts are being chopped off is also regarded as a sign calling customers to the perpetrator’s business, Mr Mojolela said. It is also believed that magical powers are awakened by the screams. Eating or burying the body parts “capture” the desired results. Robert Thornton, an anthropology professor at the University of Witswatersrand in Johannesburg , who has done research in traditional healing, says children like Sello are targeted because it is believed that the power of the virgin is greater than that of a sexually active adult. ..The main motivating idea is what Professor Thorntorn describes as “symbolic logic”, the idea that another person’s penis will strengthen the perpetrator’s, or that the perpetrator’s far-sightedness will be improved by devouring the victim’s eyes. Blood is thought to increase vitality…One of the few victims who lived to tell his story was Jeffery Mkhonto, who six years ago was mutilated by an organised gang set to harvest body parts. He had been lured to the house of a neighbour for food and ended up being castrated.”

1.29 Bullfights are good because they give the meat of the bull to the poor.

a) Then why were matadors protesting that they couldnt SELL the meat after the Mad Cow/foot and mouth disease crisis?

b) Citing a positive benefit of an act does not cancel out the negative. Bullfights are cruel. To say they are good because they give the meat to the poor would be like justifying a murder/robbery by saying the bandits gave some of the spoils to the needy. Al Capone opened the first soup kitchens in Chicago–using the proceeds of crime, does this mean that loan sharking and murder used to finance that charity were good?

c) if bullfighters do it for the charity, then they should be growing veggies to give to the poor.

2 Companion Animals

2.1 What about pets? Certainly there is nothing wrong with that. ->

Having animal companions teaches people to care for animals.

a) How would you feel if you were born and taken away from your mother against your will (or how would you feel if you were the mother and your offspring was taken away from you by force – just to be given to some human who may treat your child horribly?) and had your genitals cut off? The pet industry is a form of slavery. Except under the best circumstances, a pet is a prisoner of human society. A human decides where it goes, what it does, what it eats, how it lives and how it dies.

b) When humans can take care of their own offspring properly, then maybe you could make some argument for it–but until then, and until humans can stop the pet euthanasia problem and animal abuse issue you haven’t much of a leg to stand on.

c) It is debatable whether having companion animals makes one treat animals with more compassion and respect or makes humans take them for granted. We know that people abuse cats and dogs, and dump them in parks or shelters when they get tired of them. If only one human did this–it would still be worse than if pets were not bred at all.

d) One can argue that we should take care of unwanted animals that are dumped in shelters as opposed to euthanizing them. But whatever the case, we should not allow the commercial breeding of animals to be sold in stores. All should come from shelters.

2.2 Don’t you think you would be cruel to a dog if you didn’t feed it meat? ->

Surely that’s what it would eat if you left it alone to fend for itself?

a) Yes, a dog would most probably eat meat if it chose it’s own meals. Can’t deny that. But it is the cruelty issue which I would focus on with your question. If the cruelty issue is truly of concern, then what about all the other animals that will be kept in poor conditions, and made to suffer to be canned and fed to the dog? Perhaps, if it is cruel to not feed a dog meat (something i don’t actually agree with), then while keeping animals, some kind of cruelty may be unavoidable. Which is why I believe we need to reconsider our position with Companion Animals. [Editor: vegan dogs and cats have been around since the 1980s. Here are 2 companies that offer vegan pet foods (as well as research): Vecado, Compassion Circle. Vegan dogs and cats live healthy and long lives - the matter really is not even debatable.]

2.3 Does a vet have the right to neuter your dog?

a) No, since animals shouldnt be kept as pets. As a form of slavery, what right does a human have to dictate the biological health of other species? Especially when we dont force humans to have sterilization to keep human population numbers down.

b) Although keeping members of other species as “companions” is ethically problematic, the issue is, by neutering the animal, it helps to prevent the enslavement and suffering of more animals.

c) A better question is: does a breeder have a right to breed dogs? The answer is no. Cut the problem at the source and the neutering issue is rendered moot.

3 Equality

3.1 One cannot say that humans and nonhumans are equal and also say that humans and nonhumans are not bound by the same rules ->

and code of moral conduct. If humans have to respect the rights of deer then so should lions.

a) This is assumed to be a fallacy in Definition: Conflicting Conditions (see also Inflation of Conflict) – that they cannot be equal and unequal at the same time. This confuses two different definitions of “equality.” The first definition is that nonhumans and humans are equal regardless of their differences (the “Martin Luther King jr.” sense of the word: “All men are created equal.”). The second definition is not a value judgement, but an observation of the fact that everyone has different attributes. The animal rights proponent stresses equality in value while acknowledging inequality in attribute. There is no conflicting conditions. Other species are equal to humans in value, but they do not possess the attributes to think and behave the way humans do–just as the mentally retarded or children do not have the same attributes but are afforded equal moral protection and ethical regard.

b) We say a man with arms and a man without arms are equal in worth, but we don’t say because they have different abilities that the one with arms deserves more “rights” than the other. By the logic of this attack, in order for all humans to be granted equal rights and respect, they would have to possess the same attributes (mentally, physically etc).

4 Factory Farms

4.1 Factory farms are less cruel than how animals are treated in the wild.

a) The point is not whether the factory farm is less cruel than the wild but whether one needs to have factory farms in the first place and clearly we don’t since vegetarianism is a sound practical dietary lifestyle.

b) I dont think anyone sane would agree that spending your entire life in a dirty cell without sunlight or the companionship of others or freedom of movement is more desirable—if you think that then maybe you can ask to move into one.

c) A British author recently challenged people to spend a week in a typical factory farm egg laying facility. None could stand it for more 12 hours.

5 Fishing

5.1 Fish don’t have nerves in their mouths or feelings in their lips.

a) The hook still causes damage to the fish’s body. It can lead to infection (if the fish is being thrown back in the water).

b) Slave traders said the same thing about negro slaves–they don’t feel pain like we do. You can’t prove it as a 100 percent certainty that they don’t feel discomfort/pain and science may not have figured out how to measure it. Better to be safe than sorry.

c) Yeah but they sure look uncomfortable when they are being dragged from the water. So are they trying to dance when they are flipping around on a hook?

d) So if someone doesn’t feel pain we should do what they want to them? Good because there are some comatose people at the hospital that would look mighty good preserved over my fireplace mantle.

e) Fish have nerve endings near the skin which are very similar to those of humans and other mammals. We all have receptor cells (called nociceptors) near the skin, which are stimulated by events severe enough to cause damage to body tissues. The lips and mouth of fish are particularly well supplied with nerve endings. –Fish produce the same pain-transmitting chemicals as humans. There are two main chemicals involved. When a nerve ending is damaged, a substance called bradykinin is released. This causes the nerve cell to fire, sending an electrical impulse along the nerve. When bradykinin is released near the skin, a second chemical, called substance P, is released near the spinal cord. –Both substances are known to be involved in transmitting pain. For example, if bradykinin is injected in humans, it causes intense pain, even if a local anaesthetic is used. Both bradykinin and substance P are found in mammals, birds, frogs and fish. –Fish produce the same pain-blocking substances as humans. When in severe pain, humans and other vertebrates (animals with backbones) produce pain-killing chemicals called endorphins. These endorphins block pain by stopping the release of substance P. (from an article titled “Fish Feel Pain” from the November to January issue of “Animals Today” magazine (Australia)).

f) “Fish constitute the greatest source of confused thinking and inconsistency on earth at the moment with respect to pain. You will get people very excited about dolphins because they are mammals, and about horses and dogs, if they are not treated properly. At the same time you will have fishing competitions on the River Murray at which thousands of people snare fish with hooks and allow them to asphyxiate on the banks, which is a fairly uncomfortable and miserable death”. (The Advertiser, Professor Bill Runciman, professor of anaesthesia and intensive care at Adelaide University, Australia Fish Feel Pain.)

g) “I undertook a … search on pain felt by fish. I discovered that not only do fish feel the same pain as cats and dogs and humans but they are also highly intelligent. On the beach the other day I saw several fishermen with their dogs. I wanted to explain to them that the fish they were hooking felt the same anguish as would their dogs caught in the same way. Likewise when I went to New Foundland to talk to the fishermen who clubbed the baby Harp seals to death, I noticed that they too had companion dogs and cats and canaries. The most common form of cruelty in the world is fishing and why? Because most people have no idea how sensitive and intelligent fish are”. (Richard Jones, Member of the New South Wales Legislative Council Fish Feel Pain.)

h) British scientists say fish do feel pain LONDON, April 30 2003 — Anglers take note — British scientists say that after years of debate, they now have proof that fish feel pain. Animal activists are on the warpath after a study released on Wednesday showed how rainbow trout react to discomfort. They condemned fishing as cruel and demanded an end to the sport — but anglers themselves dismissed the study.THE RESEARCH FOUND that fish have receptors in their heads and that subjecting them to noxious substances causes “adverse behavioral and physiological changes.” “This fulfils the criteria for animal pain,” said Dr. Lynne Sneddon, who headed the research, published Wednesday by the Royal Society, Britain’s national academy of science. Bee venom or acetic acid was injected into the lips of some of the trout, while control groups of fish were injected with saline solution or merely handled. The trout injected with venom or acid began to show “rocking” motion — similar to that seen in stressed higher vertebrates — and those injected with acetic acid began rubbing their lips in the gravel of their tank.“These do not appear to be reflex responses,” Sneddon said. The affected fish also took three times longer to resume feeding activity, compared with those in the control groups. The team from the Roslin Institute and the University of Edinburgh found the fish had polymodal nociceptors — receptors that respond to tissue-damaging stimuli — on their heads. It is the first time these receptors have been found in fish. They have similar properties to those found in amphibians, birds and mammals including humans. Animal activists said the findings showed that fishing was cruel.”

i) This is an excellent video exploring the science - Can fish feel pain?? Here’s what SCIENCE tells us:

5.2 But wasn’t Christ a fisherman?

a) He was a carpenter by trade. He referred to himself as a fisher of men.

b) Fish was a well known mythical symbol among early christians. The greek word for fish (Ichthys) was used as an acronym whose initials in greek stood for “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.” Given how the early christians employed the term, there is therefore good historical evidence for the argument that all of the “fish stories” that managed to get into gospels were intended to be taken symbolically rather than literally.

6 Human Supremacy

6.1 But they are just animals.

a) So? And you are just a human.

b) At one time it was common to say: “just a woman,” “just a child,” “just a black,” “just a pagan,” “just a Christian,” “just a slave,” etc etc etc.

c) Um – we are animals too - although considering the dismal record of human behavior I am sure most species would rather be a remote relative.

d) What does that make you? Vegetable or mineral?

6.2 Humans can exploit animals because we are superior to animals. The reason we are superior is because we possess the capacity to reason.

Variations: When bears and ants can compose symphonies and fly airplanes, then I’ll believe they have rights. Humans have brains that can make computers and do math and build tall skyscrapers, therefore we have evolved beyond other species and are superior to them.

a) Not all humans possess reason as defined here (children, mentally retarded etc). Furthermore, why would reason be an absolute criteria? It is transitory. Arbitrary. Using reason as a criteria would be like saying “an apple is superior to a banana because its red. Red makes it superior”. WHY? What is so great about red? It is just as relative and as arbitrary as talking about skin color. If you say reason is great because it allows us to build tall buildings–why is that of absolute importance? Reason is only important as a human value, just as skin color is only important as a racial value, or a certain interpretation of the Judeo-Christian Bible is only important to particular adherents of that religious group.

b) Human rights, like animal rights, are arbitrary, subjective, and non-absolute. They are both based on value that we as humans assign and administer. There is no demonstrable natural law which we base our ethics upon. The universe does not say: “Humans have special rights because they possess faculty x, y, z.” A human does not have a universal right to life. If that were the case, it should be demonstrable in nature. We could walk safely through the path of an erupting volcano without so much as a blister. We wouldn’t need police or courts if our “rights” were some universal truth. When one looks at it reasonably, humans are just as mortal as other species. All the fruits of our labors and intellect are also mortal. How can one truly say we as a species are superior to other species as an absolute objective truth? We can’t. Just like a racist can’t say his race is superior to others as an objective absolute truth, or a sexist, or a religious extremist etc etc. Therefore, to be consistent and fair, If human rights are good, then so are animal rights and one should strive to be as compassionate as possible.

c) Since human reason originates in the brain, and the brain decays, why then is reason, a transitory aspect of human existence, so important?

d) Why would reason/building skyscrapers/airplanes/computers etc make humans superior in value as a species to other species that are incapable of doing such acts? What makes skyscrapers so great and important? Buildings fall down, planes crash, computers break. Since all are subjective and transitory, where is the superiority? Humans only think they are superior to justify their exploitation.

e) Not all humans–most in fact, do not compose symphonies or build skyscrapers. Does that mean those people are inferior to the humans that do? BTW–when was the last time you built a skyscraper?

f) It is because I have the ability to reason that I am able to understand why compassion is better than cruelty, peace is better than violence, and kindness is better than meanness; and thus I choose to live accordingly.

6.3 Humans can exploit animals because we are superior to animals. The reason we are superior is because we have a soul.

a) How do you prove humans have a soul and others don’t? And even if we did, why would that make us superior? Its arbitrary and subjective. And a human of one race could say the same thing about another human of a different race (or gender). “Members of my race have a soul but members of yours don’t.” There was a time when such beliefs were common place.

6.4 Humans can exploit animals because we are superior to animals. The reason we are superior is because God tells us we are superior.

a) How do you prove that? And even if some deity in the sky said we were superior–why would it matter? Why would that being’s judgement be absolute? Someone else can say “My god says my group is superior to this other group.” How do you refute that with this “God says so” defense? How do you prove that your god is making the “true” commandment? How do you demonstrate this to others? The very same approach could be used to justify discriminating against OTHER HUMANS. To say humans are superior as a species to other lifeforms without being able to justify it as an absolute certainty–anyone can discriminate according to whatever religious belief they hold.

b) The greatest problem with spiritual humanism is the lack of certainty inherent in the belief. One can doubt the existence and nature of the deity, doubt the uniqueness and importance of the qualities cited as making one worthy of special treatment, and doubt human possession of them (and doubt the claim that other life forms do not possess them).

c) Claiming that humans are superior according to a spiritual form of humanism is neither concrete nor conclusive. One is free to believe anything–and by this ideology one could modify the human superiority argument to assert with equal weight that some humans are superior to other HUMANS according to the dictates of their particular deity. The dispute is endless.

d) If you believe in God, then you must believe that your God is superior to humans. If your God tells you that superior beings can exploit lesser beings - then how do you think your God will treat a lesser being, such as you, in the afterlife?

6.5 Humans can exploit animals because we are superior to animals. The reason we are superior is because Nature tells us we are superior.

Variations: We are highest on the food chain and always have been.

a) Secular humanism can also be challenged by doubt. One can question the importance of free will, reason, or the evolutionary law being cited as fact. Why are these qualities important? If one acknowledges that death is the ultimate end of all life, humans included, then why the emphasis on something so transitory? One can question the notion that humans are rational–simply by reading out loud the harrowing stories on war and crime from the front page of any daily newspaper. One can argue that humans enslave, torture, kill, while no other species on earth can not even come close to exhibiting such a level of barbarism. Every criterion that humans cite as evidence of their superiority can be examined to not only negate the claim–but demonstrate the OPPOSITE with greater success. Altruism, tool making, parental nurturing…these qualities once thought to be exclusively human have been observed in wildlife.

b) One can argue that humans enslave, torture, kill, while no other species on earth can not even come close to exhibiting such a level of barbarism. Every criterion that humans cite as evidence of their superiority can be examined to not only negate the claim–but demonstrate the OPPOSITE with greater success. Altruism, tool making, parental nurturing…these qualities once thought to be exclusively human have been observed in wildlife.

c) Then there is the issue that humans are worth more according to some natural law. The ludicrousness of this belief can be easily exposed by simple observation. If a volcano erupts–does the lava flow destroy all in its path–but conveniently spare human life since it is a universal fact that they are special and not to be harmed? If a human is adrift in the ocean, and approached by a shark–do the jaws of the predatory fish lock up in paralyses when it attempts to bite the man? If the claim that “human life is superior to other life forms” was an absolute, universal fact and truth in nature–then how does one explain that humans appear to be subject to the same violence and mortality that applies to other life? One can’t, because humans are not superior according to any criteria that are cited to prove it–all examples are arbitrary, subjective and non-absolute.

d) Even the claim that humans should not enslave and kill other humans is easily challenged by observing the state of human relations over the last 10 000 years. Arguing that something is absolute and objective carries a very heavy burden of proof. Anthropocentrism is nothing more than human beings setting the standard and value system by which a life is to be viewed as special and worthy—a standard that conveniently places themselves at the top of the value system–all the while ignoring the fragile foundation that supports it. Racist and sexist doctrine does the same thing.

6.6 Even if I agreed that some things done to animals are cruel and wrong, we have to put human problems first.

a) Why? Can we not deal with all problems concurrently? If you are suggesting some victims of abuse are more important than others, do you also draw a distinction between say, victims of spousal abuse and victims of racial violence or child abuse? Which is a more pressing concern? Do the losers go on the backburner?

b) The suffering of members of others species due to deliberate and preventable human action is as important as the human equivalent forms of abuse or exploitation. One should strive to solve these problems when we can where we can without worrying that it follows some arbitrary step by step procedure.

c) That’s a cop out. You just don’t want to face up to responsibility.

6.7 Humans are unique. We are a unique species.

a) All species are unique in the world, but let us say that humans possess some quality that makes them “uniquely unique.” You still haven’t shown why that uniqueness makes them superior as a species to all other life, and deserve preferential treatment. A failure to prove human supremacy as an objective fact kills your argument, because as it stands you are simply talking as a Christian bigot or white supremacist would talk(i.e. “christians/whites are special—we deserve special treatment over non christians/whites.”). What you need to do is show how the human supremacy belief is categorically different from any other form of discrimination. Which is practically impossible.

b) Yes, humans are unique. They can be arrogant. They can take pleasure from the suffering of others to the point where they erect structures such as bull rings and coliseums to watch one subject torture and kill another. Not all the aspects of human uniqueness are positive.

6.8 Make the case that discrimination is innately wrong. Or cease trying to forge the link between racism and “speciesism”. Your entire argument there rests on discrimination being wrong in and of itself.

a) You are trying to say that I say discrimination is wrong….and I cant prove it is. You are right—the problem is, people who are against racism, sexism, religious extremism etc also think discrimination is wrong, so unless you think they should be free to do what they want to other humans–this defense isnt very sensible.

b) Nope, but it would be nice for your false attack if it were eh? Many people(those who oppose racism, sexism etc) would say that discrimination based upon unfair, biased, and subjective standards of value is wrong. The problem for you is–you want to say that racism is wrong, while speciesism is not–except that all the criteria you use to defend speciesism is also unfair, biased and subjective. That’s what the entire argument rests upon: your belief that some discrimination is good, others are bad–without being able to prove this. Sure–you can say that arguments that suggest discrimination is wrong is also subjective. The problem is–refuting that not only buries an anti-specieism argument, but it also buries anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-religious extremist etc etc arguments. Humans pay the price too. So feel free to say that you think everyone should be able to discriminate against everyone else–not all humans would like that–but racists would

c) It doesnt. It rests on what people like YOU believe. YOU believe that discrimination based on biased, subjective criteria is wrong. That includes race, gender, and species (though you would deny the last—but cant prove your case). For you to get out of the jam–you have to show how speciesism is somehow different than racism in a fundamental way–i.e. make it objective or absolute. You havent done that (because you cant). In the big scheme of things–of course one cant prove that discrimination is wrong…since all issues are subjective–they can be doubted…the problem for you is, either you prove that speciesism is somehow different in principle and design from all other forms of discrimination(which is impossible), or you would have to say that people should be free to discriminate against other humans (based on race, gender, religion as well as species). BUT YOU DONT say that–because you want to have your cake–and eat it too. But you cant.

So the only other choice is to say we should try to be as fair and as compassionate to others as possible, and lose this desire to discriminate according to biased, subjective criteria. This would help human relations with humans and nonhumans alike. Its also more consistent ethically than your view. So, in terms of logical reasoning, either you say anyone can do whatever they want to anyone else (human or not) or you expand your circle of compassion and fairness to include nonhumans).

6.9 Only humans can show compassion for other species.

a) A kangaroo named Lulu has been hailed a hero for saving an unconscious Australian farmer in Canberra by alerting the man’s wife and leading her to where he lay trapped under a fallen tree branch. Hobby farmer Leonard Richards was checking for storm damage on his property at Tanjil South, 150 km (93 miles) east of Melbourne, on Sunday morning when he was hit by a falling branch. In a story reminiscent of the long-running Australian children’s television series Skippy, in which a pet kangaroo rescued people in distress in the Australian bush, the kangaroo began barking until Richards’ wife came to investigate. She found her husband lying unconscious under a tree about 200 metres (650 feet) from the house, guarded by the grey kangaroo. Lulu was hand-reared by the Richards family, who rescued her from her mother’s pouch and fed her on bottles after her mother was killed by a car about four years ago.“Dad was totally out of it and Lulu was sitting by him in the bush making this really unusual yapping noise until Mum got there,” Richards’ 19-year-old son Luke told Reuters. “It was so lucky. Dad could have been there for hours if it wasn’t for her,” he said. Richards was taken to hospital with suspected head injuries but allowed home on Sunday night. Animal welfare group the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) called for Lulu to be nominated for its annual national bravery award. (metro UK)

b) The Dog Who Rescues Cats: The True Story of Ginny Philip Gonzalez had lost all interest in living after an industrial accident left him disabled. A friend suggested he adopt a dog.Reluctantly he went to the shelter, where Ginny, a badly abused one-year-old pup,quickly won him over. Philip realized immediately that Ginny was no ordinary dog–she had an amazing sixth sense that enabled her to find and rescue stray and ailing cats.There’s Madame,who is completely deaf; Revlon, who has only one eye; Betty Boop,who has no hind feet;and Topsy, a paralyzed kitten whom Ginny found abandoned in an empty building. Ginny and Philip have now rescued and found homes for over 200 cats, and they have over 60 “outdoor cats” whom they visit and feed twice daily. Even more than extraordinary, Ginny’s angelicmission has given Philip a sense of purpose and a new lease on life. You will never forget the true adventures of Ginny, the dog who rescues cats. (Goodreads)

Pot-bellied pig saves owner’s life by lying in front of a car Saturday, October 10, 1998 … Jo Ann Altsman attributes her Vietnamese Pot Belly Pig, Lu Lu with saving her life last month. (Annie O’Neill, Post-Gazette) OK, it was almost like that. Except that JO Ann Altsman of Beaver Falls didn’t twist her ankle, but had a heart attack. And it wasn’t in the wilderness but in the bedroom of her vacation trailer on Presque Isle. And the pet that ran – er, waddled – for help was a Vietnamese pot-bellied pig named LuLu. When you think about it, LuLu’s real-life feat the morning of Aug. 4 was much more amazing than any of Lassie’s fictional rescues because she can’t bark. That didn’t matter. Smart pig that she is, Lulu did the next best thing. She laid down in front of a car on the road outside the trailer and then led a disbelieving motorist to Altsman, whose ordeal lasted 45 minutes. Had 15 more minutes elapsed, doctors told her, she likely would have died. “Pigs are very, very smart,” Altsman, 57, said yesterday. She is recuperating from heart surgery she underwent Sept. 15. “They’re a lot smarter than dogs.” ….Enter Lulu “She looked at my head. She made sounds like she was crying,” said Altsman, who then imitated the sound – quite indescribable – of a crying Vietnamese potbellied pig. “You know, they cry big fat tears,” she noted. But the porker pulled herself together, and headed outside through the doggy/piggy door and into the fenced-in yard. Never before had Lulu left the confines of the yard – except for a leash walk – but this was no ordinary day. She somehow pushed open the gate and walked into the road. There, Lulu gave new meaning to the phrase “hogging the road.” Witnesses later told Altsman that Lulu waited until a car approached and then walked onto the road and laid down in front of it. Several times she returned to Altsman only to leave again and try to get help. One man stopped but later said he was so unsure of what the creature on the road was that he was afraid to get out. “She’s not very attractive,” Altsman allowed. But another motorist stopped for the prone pig and got out. Lulu knew just what to do. She led the man to the house and the rescue. “I heard a man hollering through the door, ‘Lady, your pig’s in distress,”’ Altsman said. “I said, ‘I’m in distress, too. Please call an ambulance.” The man, whose name Altsman never learned, did just that and medics quickly arrived. But when the pig tried to get into the ambulance with Altsman, medics gently let Lulu know she had done enough for one day. Later, it was discovered that Lulu had cut her rather pronounced stomach on the obviously too-small doggy/piggy door. “My husband keeps enlarging it but she keeps enlarging, too,” Altsman said of Lulu, who turned 1 on July 4. Lulu was purchased in Edinboro in August 1997 by Jack Altsman as a 40th-birthday present for the couple’s daughter, Jackie, of Fombell, Beaver County. Jackie, however, went on a five-day whale-watching trip to New England and asked her parents to baby-sit Lulu. Jackie really didn’t want the pig, Altsman said. “She came back on Aug. 18 and kept putting off (picking up Lulu), saying, ‘Next weekend, next weekend.’ You know how kids are.” The Altsmans became attached to the porcine house pet, even as it exploded from 4 pounds to 150. And counting. And how did Altsman thank Lulu? “She got a jelly doughnut,” said Altsman. She then made a sloshing type noise that Lulu apparently makes when she devours pastry. Edited. By Michael A. Fuoco, Post-Gazette Staff Writer (Post-Gazette or Unsolved Wiki).

7 Hunting

7.1 If we weren’t hunting deer they would overpopulate and start dying horrible deaths because of the lack of food.

a) If there is lack of food the animal population will not grow as much. If there is less food there are going to be less animals.

b) Humans have overpopulated many areas of the earth which has resulted in lack of food and poor living conditions, yet we do not hunt and execute them.

c) In recent years, deer populations have increased to numbers unsupportable by wildlife habitat alone. Many researchers believe that this increase results from continued human incursion into deer habitat, and the mismanagement of deer populations by forest and wildlife authorities who see hunting as the primary means of population control. Wildlife and land management agencies purport to effectively limit deer populations to numbers sustainable by their natural habitat. In reality, the policies of such agencies exacerbate deer overpopulation, serving only to provide a population large enough to suit sport hunters. The overpopulation of deer stems not only from the specific mismanagement of deer populations, but from them, mismanagement of our forestlands and natural areas. Currently, there are approximately eight does for every buck in the wild. Laws restrict the number of does that hunters may kill. Deer do not have monogamous mating relationships, and bucks will often mate with more than one female. As a result, the ratio of does to bucks sets the stage for a population explosion. Allowing hunters to kill more does, however, does not resolve population problems. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the open hunting of does left fawns without mothers, and removed too many females from the breeding population. Sport hunting decimated deer populations in many states. As a result, states passed laws restricting the hunting of does. These policies have contributed to the overpopulation of deer.

d) Hunting does remove some animals from the population, but it does not keep deer populations at a continually reduced level. Immediately after a hunt, the remaining animals flourish because less competition for food exists, allowing the remaining animals to live healthier lives, and resulting in a higher reproductive rate. Left alone by humans, the ratio of does to bucks would be approximately equal. In Defense of Animals believes that sport hunting is not only an ineffective wildlife management tool, but a cruel and unnecessary practice. Sport hunting should be banned, allowing deer populations to regulate themselves naturally.

e) This comes from the New Jersey Dept. of Fish and Wildlife website Note Commentary provided by BD. New Jersey offers sportsmen and women more than 500,000 acres of state-owned public open space providing a diversity of habitats from hardwood ridges and rolling hills to pine forests and salt marsh. (note: If this is PUBLIC land, why are hunters allowed to kill on this land? I’m not a hunter and strongly disagree with hunting. If it’s public land, may I hike on it? And, if so, is there a risk of me being shot by a hunter?) This total includes more than 276,000 acres in 118 Wildlife Management Areas, specifically managed to enhance wildlife populations and provide for wildlife-oriented recreation. (note 2 Ah, I see. So, you’re not REALLY trying to control wildlife populations, you’re trying to ENHANCE them. Does this not go against what hunters and the NJ Dept. of Fish and Wildlife profess? You’re not trying to keep wildlife down to ‘controllable’ numbers, you’re trying to increase numbers to ensure your revenue from hunters. Typical lies coming from anti-nature zealots. ) New Jersey offers more than a hundred days of deer hunting, including seasons for bow, shotgun and muzzleloading rifle. Multiple bag limits are the rule in most zones. The 2001-02 deer harvest was 68,669. In addition, some of the best waterfowl hunting on the East coast is found in the Garden State. Snow geese, brant, black duck, mallard, bufflehead and a variety of other waterfowl species provide extensive hunting opportunities, especially on the coastal marshes. The Rockport Pheasant Farm produces 55,000 pheasants annually for release on selected wildlife management areas. (note 3 Huh? What! The Rockport Pheasant Farm PRODUCES? But why? If there is truly an ‘overabundance’ of animals (that need ‘harvesting’) why purposely BREED animals to be killed. I also heard that New York imports pheasants for hunting. Illogical, to say the least!) The wild turkey, reestablished in the late 1970s, continues to increase throughout the state with the population now estimated at 18,000 - 20,000 with an annual harvest of more than 2,000. (note 4: (note 4: Can someone explain to me why the wild turkey needed to be reestablished? My guess is that they were hunted to such low numbers that they had to be bred and imported from other areas. AGAIN, illogical! Please, the next time you spout “conservation,” “manageable numbers” or “over population,” read you own text, FIRST!

f) Oh yeah – humans really know how to manage wildlife. Case study: “A well-meant but misguided decision by conservationists is driving a central Asian antelope to the brink of extinction, a report claims today. Poachers who were encouraged to hunt the saiga, an antelope of the steppes of Russia and Kazakhstan, to ease the pressure on rhino in Africa and Asia, have brought about a catastrophic 97 per cent fall in the animal’s numbers in a decade, according to this week’s New Scientist magazine.” “The decline from more than a million to fewer than 30,000 is through to be the most sudden and severe population crash of a large mammal. The saiga has been hunted, says the report by Fred Pearce, a science writer, because in the early 1990s the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and other conservation groups actively promoted the saiga horn as an alternative to the horn of endangered rhinos, which is used as an ingredient in traditional Chinese medicine…..“The plains used to be black with these antelopes, but now you can go out there and not see any at all,” says Dr Abigail Entwistle, director of the Eurasia programme of the conservation charity Fauna and Flora International. “This is the most sudden change in fortune for a large mammal species recorded in recent times."…According to the report, WWF began a campaign in 1991 in Hong Kong to publicise saiga horn as an alternative to rhino horn, which when ground up is widely used in traditional Chinese medicine as a remedy. Rhinoceros populations in Africa and Asia have also been devastated by poachers hunting them for their horns."…According to Eleanor Milner-Gulland, of Imperial College London, the leading Western expert on the saiga, there is no known case in biology where the sex ratio has gone so wrong that fecundity has disappeared in this way. Dr Milner-Gulland says that between 1993 and 1998, saiga numbers across central Asia almost halved, to around 600,000. Then, with most of the males gone, the population crash began in earnest, with numbers halving each year since, until last year’s census recorded just 30,000 individuals…Hunters are unlikely to drive the saiga to total extinction but without an unexpected reversal in its fortunes it will soon be confined to zoos and a few small reserves.” Rare antelope driven to edge of extinction by well-meaning conservationists (Independent, 13 Feb, 2003). Also see Mao Zedong’s inane Anti-sparrow Drive.

g) Yep–those hunters really do good. Hunters kill last brown bear Amelia Gentleman in Paris Thursday November 4, 2004 Hunters have shot dead the last female brown bear native to the Pyrenees, condemning the species to extinction and causing an “environmental catastrophe” for France, the government said. Animal protection groups were last night concerned for the survival of the bear’s 10-month-old orphaned cub which escaped unharmed, but which was barely weaned. His mother, affectionately known by game wardens as Cannelle (Cinnamon), was killed on Monday when a group of boar-hunters shot her in what they claim was self-defence. The environment minister, Serge Lepeltier, was to visit the site of the killing last night to launch an investigation into how the six experienced hunters had been allowed to organise a wild boar shoot in the area where the bear was living.

7.2 A lot of people say let the deer’s natural predators kill them, We are just that.

a) Put a toddler in a room with an apple and a hamster. If the toddler eats the hamster and plays with the apple, then humans are natural predators. (Repeat experiment with young cat for comparison).

b) If we were the natural predators of deer we should be able to run down and catch and devour a deer with only our teeth and hands–just like a lion does. If we didn’t use tools – we would be the prey!

7.3 Animals are treated terribly in the meat industry so isn’t hunting better than getting meat from the super market?

a) Maybe, but since meat eating itself isn’t justified, there is no excuse to be hunting either.

b) People who can go out and learn to use a rifle, get a hunting license, drive a car to get ammunition then drive to the forest to wait for an animal to come along, then shoot it, then take it home on the hood of the car(assuming it doesnt get away and die a slow painful death), then cut it up and skin it, then cook it—can very easily just drive or walk or bike to the grocery store and get vegetables and fruit or meat alternatives which are healthier for you. It saves time and money and it avoids the nastiness of the meat industry altogether.

c) No its not better. It is like saying: “torturing someone before you kill him is worse than just killing him.” Yeah–but its irrelevant, since the killing is unjustified to begin with.

7.4 Native peoples hunt and fish and trap, are you going to say it is wrong for them to do it? ->

[Editor: For more First Nations animal use arguments see Various section]

a) Yes, but we are not talking about native peoples, we are talking about people who can easily give up the eating of animals – like you.

b) Some people in desperate situations kill other people and steal from them to survive, are you saying that’s right?

c) Anthropological excavations of many sites all around the world have shown that native people actually survived primarily (over 70%) on foraging, not hunting. and in any case, it is no longer necessary for their survival to hunt and fish.

d) If they are human beings then they should live according to the same ethical principles as any other human. No one can justify causing unnecessary harm to others by citing tradition or racial background.

e) Modern tribal peoples (at least in North America) use guns, electronics, industrial textiles and often sell their products to westerners. They would be hypocritical to say that they are living traditionally–when they are using modern technology. If they are willing to give up the tradition of carving spears–than they should be willing to give up the tradition of cruelty.

f) Some native tribes like the Makah also kept human slaves. Others practiced human sacrifice and infanticide. Should they be allowed to re-adopt those practices too?

7.5 Your philosophy may say that it is wrong for natives/aboriginals to hunt and fish, but they regard the animals as their brothers.

a) If that is the case, then why do the Inuit, allegedly the natives of the arctic, need hides and tools to survive, while their “brothers” the wolf and polar bear, do not? Without their artificial support, humans would be the prey.

b) While some aboriginal beliefs may regard other species as their kin, they still treat them in ways that run contradictory to the way they would treat other humans in their group. Citing some brotherhood is a sentimental appeal, not based on reason or ethical consistency.

c) Oh that’s sweet. “I love you brother – that’s why I am going to drive this spear into your gut, skin you, then sell your innards for cash so I can get a better tv set.”

8 Meat Eating And Dairy Consumption

8.1 Everyone eats meat, so why shouldn’t I?

a) If everyone jumped off a cliff would you?

b) Don’t give into peer pressure!

c) If everyone thinks like that then we will never make any ethical progress on this world!

d) So you believe that you should hold yourself to the lowest common ethical standard possible?

e) Remember Socrates: Don’t Eat Animals. “Why is it so hard, seemingly impossible, for our ‘responsible’ press to convey the kinds of concerns that Socrates raised as portrayed in Plato’s Republic … [Editor: see link for Socrates-Glaucon discussion.] Today, the resources that are required to sustain this wasteful way of living (‘diet’ is Greek for ‘way of living’) include large amounts of energy (read ‘oil’) for fertilizer, pesticides, antibiotics, refrigeration, water pumping, etc. So today we go to war to maintain our access to oil supplies, but the point Socrates made 2500 years ago is still relevant today. We do not hear about these concerns he raised so many years ago. Why not?” (Originally posted in the Usenet newsgroup rec.food.veg on Nov 18, 1994 by John Champagne (jchampag@lonestar.utsa.edu). Reposted at the International Vegetarian Union website.

f) Heart disease and cancer are the leading killers of Americans - if you were to follow a vegan diet your chances of dying from heart disease or cancer is greatly reduced.

g) Humans who eat meat risk being the incubator for new diseases that may jump species. SARS, BSE (or mad cow disease), and now Asian bird flu: “Thai officials were battling yesterday to contain mounting public panic over the outbreak of avian influenza, which has left millions of chickens dead and killed at least eight people across Asia. Up to 13 deaths have been linked to the disease … However, far more worrying than the demise of the chicken industry is whether, under the right conditions, a mutant strain of airborne influenza is developing that jumps species and can be transmitted to, and between, humans. That could put the world at risk of a deadly epidemic that would dwarf the impact of Sars.” Flu panic grows as death toll rises. Who needs germ warfare labs when you have meat eaters?

h) From the Lancet 2004; 363: 234-36 “The establishment of permanent live-animal markets (wet markets) in many countries means that there is usually carry over of animals from one day to the next, and more expensive animals (eg, pheasants in poultry markets, civet cats in red-meat markets) can stay from days to weeks. Daily introduction of new animals provides optimum conditions for amplification and perpetration of disease agents such as influenza. The influenza virus has a segmented negatively stranded RNA genome with a propensity for reassortment and generation of novel agents. Add the daily human contacts (including children) with the live animals, and conditions are at an optimum for zoonotic transfer and the evolution of infectious disease agents.”

i) “Scientists have shown that the three major pandemics of human influenza in the 20th century - 1918, 1958 and 1968 - were all the result of avian virus changing its structure and becoming more infectious to people. The densely populated Far East is considered a source of new flu strains because domestic poultry and pigs are routinely reared and handled by ordinary people.” New threat feared as pigs test positive for bird flu virus. By Steve Connor, Science Editor 07 February 2004 (news.independent link NA, but see these Public Health and Challenges to Food Self Sufficiency and Reliance and Pigs test positive for bird flu.)

8.2 People from 3rd world countries have to eat meat to survive and what about the people in the Arctic?

a) People in a Third world country do not need to eat meat to survive. The grain and water used to feed livestock could easily be used to feed many times the population according to a vegetarian diet. As for people in colder climates–if they can import guns, clothing, electronics, computers etc, then they can import vegetarian food. After all, people in colder climates, unlike real natives of the colder regions–polar bears, penguins, arctic wolves, need artificial means to survive–without it–they would perish. So relying on vegetable and fruit imports is no big sacrifice if one wants to be compassionate and ethical.

8.3 Inuit in the Arctic need to eat meat to survive–just like bears and wolves.

a) People in the Arctic choose to live there–they don’t need to live there–thus they don’t need to eat meat. A bear does not choose to live there–they have to live there–thus they do need to eat whatever they can to survive.

8.4 Alright, if we’re not supposed to eat animals, how come they’re made of meat?

a) Humans are made of meat too–so that means it is ok to be a cannibal also.

8.5 If everyone stopped eating meat(and/or dairy products), then one would get all scrawny just eating a diet of vegetables.

a) Do I LOOK like I am starving?

b) Name 4 sources of calcium OTHER than dairy products.” (i love this one. most people can’t answer.)

c) Any idea why the USA has one of the highest percentages of dairy consumption AND osteoporosis?!?

d) Okay great! I have a vegetarian bodybuilder I want to arrange a death match with you. I might as well get rich off your stupidity.

e) Carl Lewis, the 9-time Olympic gold medalist shares how a vegan diet helped him achieve the best results of his career.

f) Novak Djokovic, the GOAT of tennis on his plant-based journey.

g) A documentary by James Cameron. Following James Wilks on his quest for the truth about the dangerous myth - that meat is necessary for protein, strength and health. See The Game Changers.

8.6 You only go around once, do not sacrifice your entire life for something that does not matter.

a) Oh yeah – and I guess fighting child abuse, women’s rights, crime, and injustice doesn’t matter either. Why not just become a serial killer with an attitude like that?

8.7 If everyone stopped eating meat, then what would we do with all the animals? We would be overrun by them.

a) Everyone wouldn’t stop eating animals at once. As demand drops off, so will breeding and raising of animals intended for consumption. We are breeding them at this rate, this is not their natural rate of population growth.

8.8 If everyone stopped eating meat, then the species would go extinct without us breeding them for consumption.

a) People are not going to stop eating animals all at once, it will most likely be a gradual reduction. There will also probably be a few people who will still keep them as companion animals.

b) So? if they did go extinct it wouldn’t hurt anything. They have been breed over the years to be something other than what their indigenous species originally was and all they are doing right now is causing erosion and pollution to the environment.

c) If the only way to keep your family lineage intact was to put you in extremely poor living conditions, force breed you, eat you, and then steal your children and put them through the same cycle, wouldn’t you rather go extinct?

d) They existed in the wild before they were domesticated for human consumption..

e) If we were all vegan, then organizations like Farm Sanctuary could still operate farms where chickens, pigs, and cows could peacefully and naturally live out their lives in harmony with human animals.

8.9 All the food charts, school cafeterias; our whole culture makes it appear that meat and dairy are natural and nutritious foods for you, why would everyone be wrong?

a) Have you ever looked at who sponsors those food charts? (psst! the meat and dairy industries)

b) The foods in the charts depict only the most common foods. The USDA likes to emphasize that their food guide pyramid is “well known”. But on closer inspection, even mainstream organizations like the USDA/FDA do not claim that meat and dairy are actually necessary for good health. Alternative food charts for vegetarians and vegans exist. On the other hand, evidence abounds that the current overconsumption of meat and dairy is responsible at least in part for common health problems, like heart disease, obesity, diabetes.

c) Nutrition is not an easy science. The results of mass experimentation take a long time to become clear. Mass experimentation in the developed countries with overconsumption of meat, fat and dairy has led to an epidemic of heart disease, obesity and other diseases. The official recommendations are beginning to change. But both from a medical perspective and from an ethical perspective the change is too slow.

d) You know, we are THE ONLY species that actually drinks the milk of another species. You don’t see giraffes nursing on goats, do you? That milk was made for the cow’s baby, not you.

e) See nutritionfacts.org for peer-reviewed facts on nutrition.

8.10 Humans are predators, if we were to eat veggies our eyes wouldn’t be as such. We would be more like deer or turkeys with our eyes on the sides of our heads to watch for danger.

a) Gorillas are vegetarians and they have 97.7% human DNA. Likewise, chimpanzees have 98.4% human DNA and are primarily vegetarian. (Humans and chimpanzees are more closely genetically related than an African elephant is to an Asian elephant). Chimpanzee and gorilla’s eyes are not on the sides of their heads.

b) When we have fangs, prehensile tails, and claws we can continue this conversation.

c) So, I have the means to kill you, but I am not going to.

d) Set a toddler down next to an apple and a hamster. if he/she eats the hamster and ignores the apple, then we can talk.

e) My fists have the ability to punch people but that doesn’t mean I should go around doing that.

f) So what does that make me?

g) Comparative anatomy of humans by Milton R. Mills, M.D. excerpts: In conclusion, we see that human beings have the gastrointestinal tract structure of a “committed” herbivore. Humankind does not show the mixed structural features one expects and finds in anatomical omnivores such as bears and raccoons. Thus, from comparing the gastrointestinal tract of humans to that of carnivores, herbivores and omnivores we must conclude that humankind’s GI tract is designed for a purely plant-food diet. See summary chart.

h) Humans are predators because they choose to be not because they have to be.

i) From the Christian perspective God put our eyes just where he wants them and there they will stay … 14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. 15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. 16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. (Psalm 139:14-16)

8.11 If everyone stopped eating meat, then the food would be bland.

a) There are good meat substitutes on the market.

b) The food is really anything but bland. most people find that after switching to a veg diet their food options seem to expand because they are forced to try new things and their palate no longer revolves around the same foods in every meal. it’s not just raw tasteless vegetables. you can still use herbs and spices and many sauces and pastas and breads etc. Plus there are many great substitutes for all of your old favorites.

c) Check out the items in RAW: The Uncook Book and also see this intro. There are many other books and sites containing recipes (eg Vegsource, McDougall) burying the nonsense that veg food is bland.

8.12 If everyone stopped eating meat, then you would suffer from calcium, iron, and protein deficiencies.

a) Certain fruits and vegetables are loaded with calcium.. Certain greens contain much iron. Soy products, and legumes provide ample protein plus fiber without the fat and cholesterole…..

b) Any nutrients that you find in meat can easily be found in plant foods (and without all the fat and cholesterol). If you eat a variety, there is no need to worry about vitamin or mineral deficiencies. It has actually been found that americans get 2-3 times the protein amount that is healthy for them, and this extra protein overloads the body with acid. to buffer the acid the body takes calcium out of your bones. Studies have also shown that vegetarians have stronger bones and lower cholesterol than meat eaters.

c) Soldiers in the Roman Army subsisted on a diet made up of very plain foods. Soldiers were required to pay up to one third of their wages for their food. They ate mostly bread, perhaps porridge, cheese or beans with cheap wine to wash it down (Marks, Tingay 16). Marks, Anthony, Tingay, Graham. The Romans. London. Usborne Publishing Ltd., 1990.

d) “Dupont says that a soldier’s diet was even more extremely limited. She reports that Legionaries ate only bread and drank only water plus a little vinegar when the weather was hot. It was considered that “bread was the only food “fit for a soldier, hard food for hard men”(Dupont 125). Dupont, Florence. Daily Life in Ancient Rome. Cambridge, USA. Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1992. Taken from: Social Position and Food in the Roman Empire -or- You Eat What You Are Jean Preston Roman Civilization Dr. Christine Renaud 2 December 1997

e) Roman soldiers carried their grain (high gluten wheat) and flour grindstones with them on the march. At night, after their 20 mile daily march they would have pasta and baked bread. They preferred this even over meat. When they did eat meat they considered it to be “barbarian food.” (See Food in Roman army, Becoming a Soldier.)

8.13 What about B-12?

The only reliable sources are animal products. Without it you could suffer from pernicious anemia and other neurological problems.” (also “you couldnt have been a vegan 80 years ago because you need modern technology to create fortified foods.”)

a) From: What Every Vegan Should Know About Vitamin B12 by Dr. Stephen Walsh. The only reliable vegan sources of B12 are foods fortified with B12 (including some plant milks, some soy products and some breakfast cereals) and B12 supplements. Vitamin B12, whether in supplements, fortified foods, or animal products, comes from micro-organisms. Most vegans consume enough B12 to avoid anaemia and nervous system damage, but many do not get enough to minimise potential risk of heart disease or pregnancy complications. To get the full benefit of a vegan diet, vegans should do one of the following: Eat fortified foods two or three times a day to get at least three micrograms (mcg or g) of B12 a day or Take one B12 supplement daily providing at least 10 micrograms or Take a weekly B12 supplement providing at least 2000 micrograms.

b) From: What Every Vegan Should Know About Vitamin B12 by Dr. Stephen Walsh “To be truly healthful, a diet must be best not just for individuals in isolation but must allow all six billion people to thrive and achieve a sustainable coexistence with the many other species that form the “living earth”. From this standpoint the natural adaptation for most (possibly all) humans in the modern world is a vegan diet. There is nothing natural about the abomination of modern factory farming and its attempt to reduce living, feeling beings to machines. In choosing to use fortified foods or B12 supplements, vegans are taking their B12 from the same source as every other animal on the planet - micro-organisms - without causing suffering to any sentient being or causing environmental damage.”

c) From: What Every Vegan Should Know About Vitamin B12 by Dr. Stephen Walsh: Vegans using adequate amounts of fortified foods or B12 supplements are much less likely to suffer from B12 deficiency than the typical meat eater. The Institute of Medicine, in setting the US recommended intakes for B12 makes this very clear. “Because 10 to 30 percent of older people may be unable to absorb naturally occurring vitamin B12, it is advisable for those older than 50 years to meet their RDA mainly by consuming foods fortified with vitamin B12 or a vitamin B12-containing supplement.” Vegans should take this advice about 50 years younger, to the benefit of both themselves and the animals. B12 need never be a problem for well-informed vegans. Further information: Dietary Reference Intakes for Thiamin, Riboflavin, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Folate, Vitamin B12, Pantothenic Acid, Biotin, and Choline, National Academy Press, 1998 ISBN 0-309-06554-2.

d) Excerpt from Dr. Klaper’s article ‘Nutrition for Optimum Health’ (which seems to be NA): “Let me be very clear about this, cows do not make vitamin B-12. They never have, they never will. Pigs don’t make vitamin B-12, chickens don’t make vitamin B-12, no animal makes vitamin B-12. They never have, they never will. Vitamin B-12 is synthesized by single-celled microbes (bacteria) that live in the soils of the earth. And long ago when the earth and soils were healthy, before we put all sorts of chemicals on them, the surface of the earth was covered with vitamin B-12. There used to be lots of vitamin B-12 in our lives. Even if you were a pure vegetarian 300 years ago, you could open up the back door of your cottage and outside would be a beautiful organic garden. Every carrot you pulled out of the ground would have little particles of vitamin B-12 sticking to it. When it came time to get your water, you’d take a bucket of water out of the stream, and there too you would find vitamin B-12. There would be B-12 under your finger nails from working in the garden. There would be plenty of B-12 in your life, and since you needed so little of it, concerns about deficiency would not be an issue. We’ve become very isolated from the earth and we’ve lost our natural sources of B-12. Cows have B-12 in their muscles because they’re eating grass all day and their pulling up clumps of dirt that have B-12 producing organisms clinging to the root of the grass. They eat the B-12 producing organisms who produce the B-12, which gets absorbed into their bloodstream, goes out into the muscles, and is deposited into their muscles and livers. But that is bacterial B-12 in the cow’s muscle. The cow did not make it, nor did the pig or chicken. Those same organisms are now cultured in big vats, producing their B-12 that is eventually separated out. It is then added to breakfast cereals, soy milks soy burgers, nutritional yeast, and vitamin tablets. It’s easy to get vitamin B-12 without consuming animal products and I suggest if you really want to lighten up your diet, find a non-animal source of B-12. We are evolving as a species. What our caveman ancestors ate is of little import to us now. The question is what is the best diet for modern human beings? Medical literature is clearly showing that the less animal fat and animal protein you put in your system, the healthier you are going to be.

e) Strict vegetarians (in the Jain religion) have lived for many hundreds of years in India. If B12 deficiency was such a problem, Jainism would have not have continued to this day. Also see: Buddhist Vegetarianism Dakini Translations, Ancient Vegans (Appolonius, Porphyry, Orphics), and Vegans In Ancient Times.

f) We don’t live 80 years ago – we live now. If you want to turn back the clock you can easily get your daily sources of B12. Just don’t wash your hands and avoid taking baths. Since you want to live naturally you will also want to avoid using running water, electricity, industrial clothing, etc.

g) I would rather risk the low chance of getting B12 deficiency through a vegan diet as opposed to the much greater risk of heart disease, cancer, osteoporosis etc from a meat diet.

8.14 We have been killing and eating meat for centuries, why should we stop now?

a) If you use tradition as your moral standard it allows that human slavery, the oppression of women, ethnocentricity and religious based discrimination would be tolerated. You would need to show why humans are deserving of an exemption from this ethical standard. Why a racist or a religious bigot could not discriminate on the basis of race or religion while others could discriminate on the basis of species.

b) According to spiritual and secular mythology/belief, at one point in human history we were essentially vegetarian. The world’s oldest known monotheistic religion: Zoroasterism, was a vegetarian religion. Theories of biological evolution suggest that human ancestors were plant eaters before adopting an omnivorous diet. Also, our teeth and intestines are consistent with what is known to be a herbivore physiology.

c) There are many religions that do not adhere to such a principle and in fact propose a contrary perspective:.Jainism, Buddhism, etc. Compassion for all life is a matter of doctrine. One can ask—did God create surplus compassion—or was it the Devil? Can one be too compassionate?

d) There were always a few individuals who protested against the Atlantic slave-trade right from the beginning; but governments and traders paid no attention to them during the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It was not until the late eighteenth century that serious attempts were made to put a stop to this trade. James Boswell, trying to refute the arguments of abolitionists, writes in his Life of Johnson that, “The wild and dangerous attempt which has for some time been persisted in order to obtain an act of our legislature, to abolish so very important and necessary branch of commercial interest, must have been crus(h)ed at once, had not the insignificance of the zealots who vainly took the lead in it, made the vast body of Planters, Merchants, and others, whose immense properties are involved in that trade, reasonably enough suppose that there could be no danger. The encouragement which the attempt has received excites my wonder and indignation; and though some men of superior abilities have supported it, whether from a love of temporary popularity, when prosperous; or a love of general mischief, when desperate, my opinion is unshaken. To abolish a status which in all ages GOD has sanctioned, and man has continued, would not only be robbery to an innumerable class of our fellow-subjects; but it would be extreme cruelty to the African Savages, a portion of whom it saves from massacre, or intolerable bondage in their own country, and introduces into a much happier state of life; especially now when their passage to the West Indies and their treatment there is humanely regulated. To abolish that trade would be to shut the gates of mercy on mankind. Boswell, J., Life of Johnson (N.Y.: Modern Library Edition, 1965) p. 365. (See Christians Organise Slave-Trade.)

8.15 Other animals kill other species for food.

a) They need to eat meat to survive – humans do not.

b) Some species have been known to kill members of their own species - if you are saying it is okay to kill other species because a lion does it, then a child murderer could say we have a right to kill our children because lions do it too. Some species resort to cannabilism including homo sapiens: look at these historical occurences: Parents Eating their Children, During 1958 Chinese famine, people ate people; parents their kids, Holodomor, Top 10 Historic Famines that Caused Cannibalism.

8.16 Much of the grain we feed to the animals is not edible by humans.

a) It would take much less energy to make that grain “human quality,” than it would to feed it all to cattle and then get just a little bit of beef with all of the environmental impacts that entails.

b) What about water? Think of the water shortages today. There are people in India who have to travel for miles to get daily water, while livestock in the US gets all the water they need–just to support an unnecessary diet of meat and dairy.

8.17 Meat tastes good and is good for you.

a) It’s not good for you - cholesterol, saturated fat, and no fiber.

b) The drug addict likes their drugs. They might even know the drugs are bad for them. But the excuse for not giving them up is they like them. Any rational person however will recognize the disfunctionality of this argument. The sane person gives up destructive behaviors.

8.18 If everyone stopped eating meat, then people would lose lots of jobs.

a) A lot of people would lose jobs if people stopped smoking. All those tobacco farmers and cigarette company workers would be out of jobs. Gosh, I should start smoking to help the economy! “What if world peace were achieved tomorrow? All those poor soldiers and arms manufacturers and surgeons would be out of work. Gosh, we can’t have that!”

8.19 What if you just ate a small amount of meat and you got it from an organic farm that you knew treated the animals relatively well.

a) Well, that’s better than nothing, but it’s not the best option.

b) Are you doing that?

c) What if slave traders only kept a few slaves and treated them relatively well?

8.20 What if we genetically engineered animals to have no brains and no feelings, or grew meat in jars? Then would it be ethical?

a) Well, to get to that point there has to be many animal sacrifices that do have brains and feelings. Plus, it would still be bad for your health and the environment (in the production of such a thing). Also, there are many fake meats that work just as well and don’t involve risky animal experiments. [Editor: The corpse industries will be eliminated to a huge extent by 2030 by fake meats, cultured meat and precision fermentation. This article from ReThinkX provides some details on where we are headed.]

b) What if you genetically engineered humans to have no brains and no feelings so we could use them in scientific experiments? would that be ethical?

8.21 Eating cats and dogs is no different than eating other animals such as cattle or pigs for food.

a) What other species actively eats carnivores? It is not a healthy practice, especially considering that carnivores don’t usually have long lifespans.

b) Basically when you say it is no different from eating any other animals you are right, but since eating farm animals is wrong too, how does that make eating cats and dogs right? How do two wrongs make a right?

c) Let’s say someone criticized Russia for its treatment of people in Chechnya. And let’s say that Russia replied, “Our treatment of people in Chechnya is no worse than Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.” Maybe so, but how does that DEFEND what Russia is doing in Chechnya? In order to defend the practice of eating cats and dogs, you have to use an argument that defends the practice in and of itself, not one that deflects the issue to some other exploitation [Editor: Tu quoque fallacy]. Eating domesticated cats and dogs for food is unnecessary and not consistent with a principle of trying to be as ethical and as fair as possible–period. There are healthier and less cruel alternatives.

9 Plants

9.1 Do you eat plants? Fruit? You are killing anyway. Plants feel pain.

a) This attack implies that the animal activist should not even try to stop exploitation and killing, since it cannot be avoided in all situations. It fails to consider that if killing cannot be avoided, and one should not try to stop it, the spectator is under no obligation to limit their lack of concern to nonhuman living beings. One can say: “well since I can’t stop killing why should I care about ANY killing? I might as well look the other way if my neighbor gets killed.” Why should a line be drawn at the human level and not a racial, gender, age, religion or some other line of value? People do it anyway.

b) This is an argument fallacy (specifically Tu quoque). It is an example of argumentum ad hominem. A changing the subject tactic. Instead of attacking the argument, the opponent attacks the person making the argument. People who use this approach often get hypocrisy confused with consistency.

c) Plants don’t have a central nervous system, so no, they don’t feel pain. And a plant doesn’t bleed, scream, and struggle to get away when you pick it.

d) If your lawn starts bleeding and screaming when you mow it, give me a call.

e) Take a class in biology. when you learn about the central nervous system, we can continue this conversation.

f) The best thing I found for the plants feel pain thing is that meat eaters kill way more plants than us anyway to feed to all the animals they are gonna kill. So if plants do feel pain then vegans are still the kindest lot!!

10 Religion

10.1 God meant us to eat meat.

a) Not according to the Seven Days Adventists who are vegetarian.

b) In Genesis it clearly states that the first best food for humans is vegetables and fruits.

c) Some people would say God also meant whites to rules blacks (eg see Slavery Advocate, and pdf thesis If God Is For Us Who Can Be Against Us?), that its okay to beat children and hang homosexuals. You can use God to justify any argument.

d) If God meant us to eat meat why do animals run away from us when we want to eat em?

e) Oh that’s what the devil wants you to think. Bwhahaahahahaha.

f) Well, if god put animals on the earth for us to eat and gave them feelings and emotions so they would suffer then god is an asshole.

g) It’s easier to argue that Satan meant us to eat meat, since its consumption is based on violence and destruction. Perhaps Satan altered the Bible to promote injustice and violence. How can you prove he didnt? The corrupt Roman Empire adopted the Christian religion and edited the gospels. I could point to all the modern violence and injustice committed in the name of God and the Bible–so much for mercy and compassion among its adherents. Strange that fruits and vegetables are so bright and colourful and resistant to disease while meat is the colour of excrement and full of bacteria. Odd that raising cattle for meat is incredibly destructive, wasteful of water, and time consuming while growing vegetables and fruits are much easier. After all, wasn’t Satan’s downfall the sin of pride? And aren’t you demonstrating pride when you say you are better than the rest of creation?

10.2 My god tells me that animals are here for our use. The Bible and all religions say so.

a) The Bible also contains incest, stoning adultresses to death, raping a young girl to death, and the slaughter of children. Are you saying that all of this other Biblical violence is also endorsed? The Bible has also been used to support slavery, neo-Nazism, and the Inquisition, aka the witches’ Holocaust. Do you really want to include yourself in that illustrious company?

b) In Genesis 1:29, God specifically says that S/He has given us plants, and to us they shall be as meat. Sounds pretty clearcut to me.

c) The word meat in the bible is often confused with animal flesh. It’s a translational error from the greek word for nutrition. So when Jesus goes to market for “meat” it should read nutrition. [Editor: Certain languages have a seperate word for meat eg fleisch (German)]

d) The bible also contains favorable arguments for incest and slavery. Whew! That’s great because I was planning on marrying my brother and then selling him to a sweat shop.

e) I guess you never heard of Buddhism or Jainism.

f) My god tells me that animals aren’t here for our use.

g) And there are adherents of religions who say their god tells them that their race, gender and religion allows them to exploit others who don’t (or do) follow their religion(or have their race or gender). Let’s see you get your god to speak up and prove them wrong.

h) Because anyone can claim anything by invoking the authority of a deity (or deities) such an argument is invalid. [Editor: See Joan Baez perform Dylan’s With God on Our Side.]

i) Old Testament attitudes that no longer are applicable:

On women:
1 Corinthians 11:3-15
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
And: 1 Corinthians 14:34
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
And: 1 Timothy 2:9-15
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection .
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
And about mixing races:
Numbers 25:6-9
6 And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
7 And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand.
8 And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.
9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.
And on mercy:
1 Samuel 15:1-23
1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.
2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
4 And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah.
5 And Saul came to a city of Amalek, and laid wait in the valley.
6 And Saul said unto the Kenites, Go, depart, get you down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them: for ye shewed kindness to all the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt. So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites.
7 And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt.
8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.
9 But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.
10 Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying,
11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.
12 And when Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning, it was told Samuel, saying, Saul came to Carmel, and, behold, he set him up a place, and is gone about, and passed on, and gone down to Gilgal.
13 And Samuel came to Saul: and Saul said unto him, Blessed be thou of the LORD: I have performed the commandment of the LORD.
14 And Samuel said, What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?
15 And Saul said, They have brought them from the Amalekites: for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed.
16 Then Samuel said unto Saul, Stay, and I will tell thee what the LORD hath said to me this night. And he said unto him, Say on.
17 And Samuel said, When thou wast little in thine own sight, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel, and the LORD anointed thee king over Israel?
18 And the LORD sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed.
19 Wherefore then didst thou not obey the voice of the LORD, but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst evil in the sight of the LORD?
20 And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, and have gone the way which the LORD sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites.
21 But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God in Gilgal.
22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.”
And then there’s Biblical attitudes towards mercy and equality:
Deuteronomy 7:1-11
1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.
5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.
6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:
8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
9 Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;
10 And repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy them: he will not be slack to him that hateth him, he will repay him to his face.
11 Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee this day, to do them.”

j) The same Bible that seems to condone the eating of animals flesh allows men to have hundreds of concubines to use whenever and yet will stone a woman caught in act of adultry. The same Bible that you use to teach the eating of flesh also teaches that others be used and kept as slaves. The same Bible teaches that woman can’t even pray without having long hair or their heads covered. It teaches that woman are to be in submission to men. That we are not even allowed to speak in the church. That they are to be keepers at home. How many Christian woman have left their homes for careers and the rearing of their children to others? To use the Bible to teach that the eating of meat is okay for the day in which we live is just as stupid as the above mentioned and is nothing more than modern subjectivism.

k) New Testament attitudes towards

human slavery:
Ephesians 6:5-8
5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
6 Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;
7 With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:
8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.
Colossians 3:22
22 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.
Philemon 1:10-16
10 I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:
11 Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me: (Paul is saying that Onesimus, a runaway slave converted to Christianity, was not a good servant in the past. His conversion to Christ will change that. Thus, human slavery is condoned.)
12 Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels:
13 Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel:
14 But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly.
15 For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever;
16 Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord? Paul is saying the servant is not to be received just as a servant but now as a brother in Christ).
poverty:
Matthew 26:6-11
6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,
7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.
8 But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?
9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.
10 When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.
11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. (So basically the creator or son of the creator is saying you might as well anoint me with this – because you will never get rid of poverty. So I guess we shouldn’t try?)

l) Ambiguous Biblical Terms used to Describe Slavery “In an apparent attempt to disguise the practice of slavery, some translations in the Bible translate the word slave (doulos in Greek) as servant. Casual readers of the Bible would assume that the passages refer to a hired servant (diakonos in Greek) - i.e. a butler or a maid. The King James Version of the Bible (KJV) frequently referred to slaves by various ambiguous terms, such as: bondmen, servants, maids, handmaid, manservant, maidservant, etc. For example, consider Exodus 21:2 which is part of the Laws of Moses: 21st Century King James Version “If thou buy a Hebrew servant…“King James Version “If thou buy a Hebrew servant …” Living Bible: “If you buy a Hebrew slave…“Modern Language “When you buy a Hebrew slave…**New International Version: “If you buy a Hebrew servant…” New Living Translation: “If you buy a Hebrew slave…” Revised Standard Version “When you buy a Hebrew slave…” Genesis 9:25-27: “Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, ‘Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave.’ This text was frequently used by Christians to justify negro slavery. “The Ten Commandments: Rabbi M.J. Raphall (circa 1861) commented that the 10th commandment places slaves “under the same protection as any other species of lawful property…That the Ten Commandments are the word of G-d, and as such, of the very highest authority, is acknowledged by Christians as well as by Jews…How dare you, in the face of the sanction and protection afforded to slave property in the Ten Commandments–how dare you denounce slaveholding as a sin? When you remember that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job–the men with whom the Almighty conversed, with whose names he emphatically connects his own most holy name, and to whom He vouchsafed to give the character of ‘perfect, upright, fearing G-d and eschewing evil’ (Job 1:8)–that all these men were slaveholders, does it not strike you that you are guilty of something very little short of blasphemy?“Exodus 20:17 “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.” Deuteronomy 5:21 “Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor’s wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor’s.Beating and Killing Slaves: Although an owner could beat a male or female slave, she/he would have to avoid serious injury to eyes or teeth. The owner would have to avoid beating the slave to death. But it was acceptable to beat a slave so that he/she was mortally injured and died a day or so later: Exodus 21:20-21 “And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property].” Emancipation of Slaves: Slaves in ancient Israel were automatically emancipated after 6 years of slavery, but only if they were Jewish.” “…Foreign slaves were out of luck.” (see Exodus 21:1-4, Deuteronomy 15:12-18, Leviticus 25:44-46: “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.” (NIV)“Neither Jesus nor St. Paul, nor any other Biblical figure is recorded as saying anything in opposition to the institution of slavery. Slavery was very much a part of life in Palestine and in the rest of the Roman Empire during New Testament times.Quoting Rabbi M.J. Raphall, circa 1861, “Receiving slavery as one of the conditions of society, the New Testament nowhere interferes with or contradicts the slave code of Moses; it even preserves a letter [to Philemon] written by one of the most eminent Christian teachers [St. Paul] to a slave owner on sending back to him his runaway slave.” 3 * Rabbi M.J. Raphall, “The Bible View of Slavery,” delivered in New York City, 1861. “Priests still owned slaves: Mark 14:66: “And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:” “One of the favorite passages of slave-owning Christians was St. Paul’s infamous instruction that slaves to obey their owners in the same way that they obey Christ: Ephesians 6:5-9: “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.” (from * 1 Timothy 6:1-3 “Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;” Others who believe the Bible supported human slavery: “[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God…it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation…it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.” Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America 1,(* Dunbar Rowland quoting Jefferson Davis, in “Jefferson Davis,” Volume 1, Page 286 * Jefferson Davis, “Inaugural Address as Provisional President of the Confederacy,” Montgomery, AL, 1861-FEB-18, Confederate States of America, Congressional Journal, 1:64-66.) “There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral.” Rev. Alexander Campbell “The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.” Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina “The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage.” A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA). “The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined.” United States Senator James Henry Hammond. 5(*William Lee Miller, “Arguing About Slavery: The Great Battle in the United States Congress.” Alfred A. Knopf, (1996), Page 139.)(text references from Slavery in the Bible) And unless you think Human slavery is justified: “It is hard to believe but it seems that the Roman Catholics think it quite in keeping with the teachings of their church to obtain slaves even in this era of 1970s. In August 1970 the world was shocked to hear that the Roman Catholics had purchased, at the price ranging from 250 pounds to 300 pounds each, about 1500 Indian girls to shut them into convents because European girls do not like to live as nuns. There was so much outcry in the world press that the Vatican had to establish a commission to enquire into this affair. But even before the commission started its enquire, a Vatican spokesman had to admit that there was an “element of truth” in the reports, though he dutifully condemned the Sunday Times for its sensation-mongering.Sunday Times (London) as quoted in East African Standard (Nairobi), August 25, 1970. (Churches Participate in Slave-Trade)

11 Species Unity

11.1 Instead of worrying about animals–worry about homeless people or war orphans.

a) Must one be so narrow minded that he can worry about one at the exclusion of the other?

b) Okay since you believe that compassion follows a hierarchy, tell me this. Which is more important, women’s rights or worker’s rights? Child abuse or sexual abuse? What about racial injustice vs. poverty? Religious discrimination vs. age discrimination? When you have the list in order–get back to me.

c) Who says compassion is in a finite amount? I can be compassionate towards both humans and nonhumans without it running out. I guess you are more limited in your compassion.

11.2 If you saw a burning barn/sealed car/boat filled with humans and (insert nonhuman animal), who would you save?”

a) The intention here is to force the animal activist to admit that there is a situation where he/she would choose the life of a human over a nonhuman, thus validating the animal research position. The trouble here is that even if the activist chooses to save the life of a human over a nonhuman, it does not then mean that the activist is endorsing factory farming or the vivisection industry or making any policy decision. [Editor: Also, this sort of attempt is a logical fallacy known as False Dichotomy.]

b) Rephrasing the scenario, what if the burning barn is filled with humans … half are white and half are black. If you are white—who do you save?” The animal research proponent does not intend that the burning barn scenario be considered in this way–but it must be for consistency. The original scenario attempts to prompt the activist into deciding between “us (humans) or them (nonhumans).” If the research proponent objects to the notion that one may choose between “us or them” based on ethnic or gender, or some other criteria, then he/she must first show how discrimination based on species is justified, before such an argument could even begin to be considered valid for the animal research issue. NOTE: An animal research proponent might counter that it is in the best practical interest of human beings to have respect and care for each other (Golden rule) but this would not be a necessity or a moral obligation. If someone could benefit from exploiting other humans(as we find in the real world all the time) then this argument would be invalidated. Why shouldn’t someone exploit others if they can benefit from it? This is what the animal research proponent must address .

11.3 Ethics are irrelevant.

Speciesism is not the same as racism. We have a biological drive like all species to stick together and protect our own. Humans have a natural biological drive to preserve their species over others. Humans are naturally meant to stick together. (Note: also known as the Tenacious moral instinct argument).

a) Humans have enslaved and discriminated against each other based on race, religion, gender, age, intelligence, and appearance for 1000s of years. The ideal of universal human rights is itself a new concept. Despite our laws we still have discrimination and exploitation of humans for a myriad of reasons. One doesn’t lock their doors at night to keep out pit bulls.

b) Attempting to assert that other species are also speciesists is flawed, since lions and grizzlies have been known to kill the offspring of a rival male, chimpanzee groups will war against other chimpanzee groups, etc and some members of one species have been known to adopt members of another species, both domestically and in the wild. Humans have been found living in wolf dens, piglets adopted by dogs, etc. There are cases of humans risking their lives to save nonhumans and vice versa. Wouldn’t this be impossible is tenacious moral instinct(a biological drive) were so?

c) Citing some unsubstantiated “law” of the Natural world cannot defend the argument that humans are meant to “stick together”.

d) The very fact that the concept of animal rights is accepted by some shows that there is no overriding biological drive in humans to “stick together” or avoid compassion for members of other species.

e) If you truly believe in species unity, and think it is applicable to humans, go walk through a notorious crime alley with $5000 in your hand and see how that “unity” holds up brother.

f) The species unity myth is also used to make a jump from desperate emotional choice to ethical policy. If a human chooses to save a life of a human over a nonhuman in some life and death situation( a river, a barn fire, a locked car/boat with no food etc), the argument is made that it is therefore logical to exploit nonhumans in factory farms, in laboratories etc. But if one were to apply this to a human vs human scenario–(white vs black, Christian vs non Christian, family member vs stranger) and you choose that which you regard as most familiar or valuable–then the same consequences are applicable. Will you then exploit the loser en masse? Of course not. So why would you do it to nonhumans?

12 Survival of the Fittest

12.1 Nature is cruel.

Cats will play with their food–so we should be cruel too. It’s survival of the fittest. Compassion is not natural, and other species are motivated by self interest.

a) “Survival of the fittest” would allow one to exploit and enslave other humans . You acknowledge that one animal will prey on another, but you ignore that they can also prey on members of their own species–in which case, by using this moral standard and policy, humans preying on other humans would be justified too.

b) A domestic cat is fed, and has no predators. A wild cat has to be on guard for competitors. Not catching prey means not eating. The time for playing with their food would be greatly diminished. More importantly, there is no evidence that a cat is aware of the mouse’s suffering and takes pleasure from that fact-like humans have been known to do. There are hunters who enjoy killing animals.

c) Speciesists who use this attack contradict themselves, for while they say that species have a natural tendency to stick together, they will also allege that it’s a “dog eat dog” world, compassion is not natural, and other species are motivated by self interest! In fact, other species have been known to exhibit altruism. Bats will lend food to other bats, ducks have been known to feign injury to lure a predator away from the flock. There are instances of domestic animals “adopting” the offspring of other species, and dogs rescuing humans. Feral children found living with wolves in the wild etc. And conversely, there are instances where humans have risked their own lives to help a member of another species.

e) There was an experiment conducted where monkeys were starved unless they pressed a button that would release food–AND torture a monkey wired to shock devices. It was found that the monkeys preferred to endure starvation rather than inflict pain on another–the exact opposite response anticipated by the scientists. Yet a similar experiment involving humans where neither subjects were truly being tortured(unlike the monkeys) found that most of the humans were willing to see another human suffer, just to avoid displeasing the individual giving them the orders.

13 Trapping

13.1 Leghold traps are painless and humane.

Response: a) if you think they are then try slamming your car door on your fingers, and stay there for a week.

14 Whale slaughter

14.1 It is hypocritical for North Americans …

with arable land to raise food to criticize a small country like Japan where it has to rely on the oceans for food.

a) Japan does not need to rely on the oceans for food–and certainly not by resorting to fishing/whaling. It is not possible to feed the entire population of Japan through whale meat–as it stands it is expensive and a luxury item.

b) In order to justify whaling–the Japanese must be able to defend whaling on its own merits–not by using an ad hominem attack that attempts to find imperfections in the anti-whaling critic. If one wants to discuss the negatives of cattle ranching and meat eating in general–whaling would still be condemned. So this is not a defense of whaling.

c) Japan raises cattle as well–and imports beef from the US. Thus–the Japanese whalers are hypocritical condemning North Americans for doing something that they themselves do–except, the Japanese also hunt whales–they look doubly bad.

14.2 Eating whale meat is no different than eating cattle.

a) In some sense this is true, just as homicide is in some sense no different from deer hunting, but how does that justify whaling? There are many good reasons to be against cattle ranching–and these same reasons can be used against whaling, so where is the defense of whaling by citing this as a defense?

b) Except whales are about 10 times the size of a steer and there is no natural predator for them beyond the microorganism scale. Humans must use spears and exploding guns, no other species is as cruel and crude in its killing methods. If Japanese whalers were meant to eat whales, they should be able to kill them with their bare hands and teeth like any true predator.

14.3 Minke whales are the cockroaches of the sea.

If they are not controlled they will eat fish stocks.” Attributed to Japan ministry of Agriculture official Masayuki Komatsu.

a) Minke whales live in the ocean. As ocean dwellers they feed off the oceans. Humans are land dwellers. Who has more logical and moral case to be eating in their natural habitat? It is humans that are depleting fish and it is humans that are the true pests. I won’t call them cockroaches because that would insult a species that is far more successful and restrained in its behavior than humans.

14.4 You say that nature is neither cruel nor merciful that it just is.

Since humans are part of nature, it cannot be said that they are merciful or cruel. They are the way they are. whether or not we protect animals or hurt them, we are acting perfectly within our nature.

a) Since humans have concepts of mercy and cruelty, they certainly can make judgments about their behavior using these standards of conduct(and do so all the time). This is how we form civil relations, laws etc. Where the problem arises is when a claim is made that suggests that nature itself can be proven to be one or the other as some absolute certainty. That’s tricky territory.

b) If you took this from the Q and A section page: “Nature cannot be proven to be cruel or compassionate, it just is. Anything else is a projection of human beliefs and sentiments onto a non-human subject. There is no way to make an absolute verification of such beliefs. This is what follows it: “But, for the sake of argument, let us say that Nature is inherently cruel. Then why should humans care any more about human rights than they do about nonhuman rights? There are dictators around the world that have lived very comfortable lives while they tortured and killed other humans. According to the argument of the human supremacist, they are just living according to Nature. Humans have raped, murdered, enslaved and stolen from each other for thousands of years. It is still true today. These acts would seem to be permissible according to Nature–why then should we try to stop them? If you try to argue “well, because stopping them has mutual benefit for all humans,” the fact is that some humans–those with power–have done quite well without worrying about “all humans.” So “mutual benefit” is not proven. The true harshness of Nature implied by this argument also applies to human situations. To deny this is to be either emotional (as animal activists are often accused of being), or hypocritical.” So in other words, yes, you can say humans are neither cruel nor merciful–whether they are dealing with nonhumans or humans. It makes no difference to the argument. Since human supremacy has not been proven, it allows one to use this reasoning to let humans exploit nonhumans or humans as they see fit. This is unacceptable to the human supremacist, but his or her reasoning cannot close the loophole their own belief creates.

15 Wildlife Management

15.1 If I wasn’t hunting prairie dogs and groundhogs they would ruin my crops and my cattle would step in their holes and break their legs.

a) That is nonsense. Larry Rittenhouse of Colorado State University says “it would be almost impossible for a cow to break its leg in a prairie dog hole.” He says “I study these animals behavior and they are extremely adept at placing their feet. In my 50 years around cattle and horses, I don’t know of a single incident where a horse or cow has been injured in a prairie dog hole.” Cattle seem to actually preferentially graze on prairie dog towns. It has been found that there’s a significant increase in protein content in the plants growing on prairie dog towns and they are highly nutritious for the cattle.

b) many ranchers say that the only way to make farming profitable is to work with the elements of the ecosystem, instead of against them. It’s just not economically feasible to spend precious labor and money killing wildlife. If you start killing one animal, where does it end? We don’t know what species you can eliminate and still keep the system healthy. Contrary to folklore, prairie dogs do not breed like crazy. They don’t mate until their second year and only about half of those born each year survive. As you know, prairie dogs are herbivores and eat mostly native grasses. Most ranchers have heard the “fact” that prairie dogs diminish grassland productivity by a whopping 50-75%, but no one is sure how the biologist who made this claim came up with the numbers. Since then, studies have been done that show if you get rid of prairie dogs, the amount of forage that you gain is a puny 4-7%. It does impact the rancher in dollars and cents, but the cost of poisoning prairie dogs outweigh the gains made by eliminating the animals. If you still insist on trying to “control” the prairie dog and groundhog populations, you could at least do it in more ethically sound and natural ways such as giving predators a boost by building poles for raptors and digging trenches where foxes can hide.

c) Biologists call prairie dogs a keystone species. Lose the keystone and the whole ecosystem goes crumbling down with it. Species that rely solely on prairie dogs include the endangered black-footed ferret, the mountain plover (a bird), the burrowing owl, and the ferruginous hawk which preys on them. If you change the natural disturbance regime that the “varmints” provide, you alter the ecosystem and you may start losing species (of animals and plants) because of it which in turn effects other things (like your crops). As for groundhogs, they actually improve the soil quality by digging their burrows. The burrows allow more air and water to get underground, which in turn helps breakdown the soil to form more valuable topsoil.

d) I have little sympathy for the livestock loss or damage because it wouldn’t happen if no one was eating the livestock. As for crops that go for human consumption (which the majority don’t), if everyone consumed on a veg diet, even a significant (which isn’t the case) loss of crops would be acceptable economically because you are talking about so much less of a burden on our farm system. Any shortcomings could be made up by more farmers raising more produce for human consumption. And in any case, If everyone has to deal with a problem, then the costs are passed on to the consumer. In the end, the market bears the real cost of doing business, and if everyone operated on the same ethical level and accepted crop losses via “varmints” as a natural issue to deal with, we could live in much better cooperation with our surrounding ecosystems and the natural world.

14.2 “If I wasn’t killing the bear and wolves and cougars they would kill my sheep and I would lose business or they would eat my children.” a) You should not have sheep in the first place. If you must, keep them in a fenced area..

b) so instead of killing them, if you are so worried, why don’t you work on helping protect their natural habitat so that they won’t need to invade your property and kill your livestock. and after all, you are really the one invading their territory.

c) by killing the bear, wolves, and cougars you are tampering with a very fragile thing –the ecosystem– which could very likely result in some other problem like an overpopulation of rodents or something.

d)-only in a few isolated incidences in other countries have wolves become fearless and attacked; only become fearless as result of people feeding them-India: parents were motivated to let wolves eat kids by extremely high compensation from government … up to a year’s salary.

e) -Chain reaction: in one instance, when the wolves had been killed, coyotes increased. When they were gone, foxes skyrocketed. Not only does the method of removal prove ineffective, but according to the farmer, wolves should be better as they are much less likely to feed off of the farmer’s livestock. -Farmers are compensated by govt for all losses (even though losses are extremely minimal)-WOLVES ARE ONLY RESPONSIBLE FOR .1% OF ALL LOSSES OF CATTLE, AND .3% OF SHEEP!

f) It is your own fault that your sheep get killed. The same would be true if you had chickens. They are domesticated–in the wild, predators would not have an easy time picking them off. A farm is easy pickings for a wild animal.

15.2 What about animals that are introduced by humans …

into an unnatural setting, like the broad-tail possum in New Zealand, which are overrunning the native species. Surely we have no choice but to kill them.

a) The possum are victims of human greed and stupidity(introduced into new Zealand by fur farmers)–humans just have to live with the consequences–and try not to cause more ecological disasters in the future.

b) Who appointed humans to be Nature’s exterminators?

c) So by your logic, if a group of humans are overpopulating an area and driving out native species, it should be okay for some people to go in and massacre a large number or rather, thin the populations, for the benefit of the native species.

d) Well if you are so concerned about native species being wiped out by alien species, what are you doing to stop farmers from cutting down forests or companies polluting rivers? Are you prepared to use violence against them? Or do we make an exception for the number one polluter and natural destroyer on the planet?

15.3 Humans need to manage Nature and other species.

a) Total arrogance. Nature and other species do fine when humans aren’t around to mess things up for them.

b) Oh you mean in the same way we “managed” forests, rivers, and the atmosphere by polluting them? If you call that “managing,” I’d hate to see what wanton destruction would look like.

c) Even small efforts can blow up such as the Grenfell reindeer effort: In 1907, Grenfell imported a group of 300 reindeer from Norway to provide food and serve as draft animals in Newfoundland. Unbeknownst to him, some of the animals carried a parasitic roundworm, Elaphostrongylus rangiferi, that then spread to native caribou herds. The reindeer herd eventually disappeared; however, the parasite took hold and causes cerebrospinal elaphostrongylosis (CSE) in caribou, a disease well known in reindeer in Scandinavia.[6]

d) Here are some examples of how well humans have managed Nature: World’s 100 most destructive species named (note–the number one, human, is not mentioned funny enough):

1 Nile perch: introduced to Lake Victoria, Africa, in 1954 to counteract the drastic drop in native fish stocks caused by over-fishing. Instead, it has contributed to the extinction of more than 200 endemic fish species through predation and competition for food.
3 Caulerpa: introduced to the Mediterranean around 1984, it is thought, as waste from the Monaco aquarium. Hardier than most tropical seaweeds, it has adapted well to cold waters and smothers habitats.
5 Small Indian mongoose: this voracious and opportunistic predator is native to areas as widespread as Iran and the Malay Peninsula. It was introduced to Mauritius, Fiji, the West Indies and Hawaii to control rats but has caused the local extinction of endemic birds, reptiles and amphibians.
6 Feral pig: introduced to many parts of the world, it damages crops, stock and property and transmits many diseases such as leptospirosis and foot and mouth. Diet includes juvenile land tortoises, sea turtles and sea birds.
7 Dutch elm disease: deadly fungus, spread by the elm bark beetle, which can kill an elm in three weeks by clogging its water-conducting vessels. Spread in the UK in 1968 from imported Canadian timber to deadly effect, killing more than a third of southern England’s 23 million elms.
8 Grey squirrel: the American grey has devastated Britain’s native population of red squirrels, which are barely half the size. First appeared in the English countryside between 1876 and 1929, possibly after having been accidentally released from London Zoo.
9 Japanese knotweed: introduced from Asia to Europe in the mid-19th century as an ornamental and fodder plant. Grows rapidly, prevents native seeds from germinating and thrives on being uprooted can even regrow after being rooted out and washed downstream.
10 Giant African snail: introduced to the islands of the Pacific and Indian oceans as a food source for humans but has a voracious appetite and has been recorded as attacking more than 500 different kinds of plants. Has spread to parts of South America. Tropical in origin, but copes comfortably with snow at other latitudes.

16 Zoos

16.1 Why shouldn’t we go the circus/zoo? …

Are not the animals treated better there than if they were living in the wild?

a) Well, first of all, who are we to be the all mighty ones to decide what to do with these animals lives? that would be like: aren’t children from 3rd world countries treated better when doing child labor, making purses for mere pennies, than when they are home with their families living in destruction? or weren’t black slaves better off as slaves than free because they had a means of making a living? … and really, although there are hunters and destruction of their natural habitats, I would think freedom and all the enrichment that the environment can provide would be a better life than being chained and forced to perform in stressful situations, constantly moved from place to place, and often being abused.

b) By this logic we should take natives out of the dwindling jungles of South America and Borneo and put them in zoos so their lifestyle can be preserved. Surely they would be better off than if they had to struggle in the forests.

c) Well, we humans are also staying in the house, but are we still 100% safe?

17 Various

17.1 Native hunters/whalers regard the animals they hunt as their brothers.

a) Ah yes, I love you brother. That is why I am going to harpoon and club you to death.

b) The Makah whalers say the whales they slaughter are their “brothers” – yet the Makah word for Grey whale translates as “devilfish” (since their “brothers” often defended themselves when attacked – apparently that makes them evil). Quite the endearment to call your sibling.

17.2 It’s necessary to make a qualitative distinction between whaling practices: those whose survival is completely dependent upon it, and those for whom it is merely a career.

a) While I would agree that commercial whaling is more ethically problematic than Inuit whaling, the real issue is whether whaling itself is justified. Assuming that a community’s survival is “completely” dependent upon whaling, the real question becomes: does it need to be?

b) If the “civilized” nations of the world, including the Inuit representatives, can travel by 21st century technology to meet in Japan for an IWC meeting then alternatives to whaling for survival do exist. The apologists for whaling would have us believe that we can put a man on the Moon, and design a computer that can play chess, but when it comes to providing daily sustenance for all humans, only a harpoon can accomplish the task—or in other words, that we must approach a 21st century problem with 1st century solutions.

c) while I would agree that a man who mugs people and shoots them dead is not as nasty as another man who mugs people then douses them with gasoline and lets them burn to death, this qualitative distinction on my part does not mean I endorse the actions of either man. The distinction becomes trivial in light of the greater issue: whether either man needs to engage in such behavior, and whether I should be assisting either of them in committing such acts. People do not need to kill whales to survive. Other food sources can be (and should be) provided by the patron governments of the lands in which these First nations societies live. And if they cannot, international agencies should.

17.3 To ask First nations hunters to give up their hunting and fishing and rely on international food aid would be to rob them of their independence.

a) No man is an island, and one cannot go back in time to 1000 CE. If they are able to stomach the concept of using non Inuit technology for some aspects of their lives (guns and ammunition for hunting, air travel to whaling summits etc), then why can they not stomach it for other possibilities? A fair and ethical treatment of others should trump lifestyle choices and tradition—if one wants to have a more consistent ethical philosophy.

b) None of us are truly independent from our societies, or national governments. While I believe that people should have choices in how they live their lives, the choices become a matter of ethics where the lives of others are involved. A man who wants independence cannot have his cake and eat it too. If he wants others to respect his right to independence, he has to be fair and just in the implementation of that independence.

17.4 Since the end of the seal hunt Inuit trappers and hunters have succumbed to bad health from eating junk food, alcohol abuse, poverty, even suicide. Helping animals hurt First Nations people.

a) Negro slave traders also suffered when the slave trade was stopped. Does that mean that it was wrong to abolish the slave trade? If it is okay to put slave traders out of work to liberate others, then it is okay to do the same for seals or other species.

b) Alcohol and junk food is bad for everyone. The answer is not reinstating the seal fur trade, but dealing with those problems among the Inuit community. I suppose the government would much rather return to killing seals and making profits from fur, than adopting wholesome and compassionate methods for solving these problems.

c) It is unfortunate that they have had bad times–but it wasn’t as bad as a seal being orphaned or getting shot or his/her head bashed in.

d) If Inuit people cannot live normal happy lives without going out and killing an animal then they really have problems. I suppose one would like to believe the myth that it is some natural instinct for northern human societies to hunt, trap and fish. Yet polar bears and wolves and other species are born to survive by these methods-humans on the other hand, choose to live in harsh climates. They don’t have to. Seals, wolves, bears—they are meant to live in the Arctic–but humans are not physically equipped for it. Perhaps what the depressed Inuit hunter needs is a change of scenery–and coming to realize that there is more to life than killing when one does not need to.

e) There was a time when seal hunters in the North did not have markets to sell their “wares.” Somehow they managed to live okay without an international fur trade. Is it the loss of a tradition that is the culprit for their woes or is it rather, the loss of money?

17.5 Native trappers and hunters etc are living on the planet the way we are supposed to.

a) Hey! Can you lend me your copy of “HOW TO LIVE” by Supreme Deity? I want to check the section on what to do with arrogant humans.

b) Ignoring your apparent claim of access to the divine scheme for human existence, some tribal societies had been known to sacrifice humans and keep them as slaves(such as the Makah whaling tribe). Tribal peoples are humans too–meaning they are just as capable of being cruel, greedy or deceitful as any other ethnic division of the human species. By your argument how do we know that butchering each other and other species is not the way we are supposed to live–so why bother having police to curb our violent tendencies? If it is wrong for Makah whalers to enslave and exploit other humans, than its wrong for Northern trappers to enslave and exploit other animals.

c) Much of this idea has to do with the Appeal to Nature Fallacy. For some reason, some people think that living according to nature (whatever that might mean) is a good thing. An examination of that notion, isn’t conclusive (see Nature = Good?).

17.6 there are more (enter animal species) in the wild than before the white man arrived.

a) Unless you have access to a time machine, that statement is a little hard to verify with Stats Canada in the year 1600.

17.7 Animals that we trap and hunt die from disease and starvation in the wild.

a) Wow! Imagine that, things get sick and die! And here I thought Nature worked like a Disney cartoon!

b) Humans also die from the same causes–do you suggest we hunt and trap those poor unfortunates and turn them into coats (with fur designers and hunters getting the profits)?

c) James Boswell, trying to refute the arguments of abolitionists, writes in his Life of Johnson that, “To abolish a status which in all ages GOD has sanctioned, and man has continued, would not only be robbery to an innumerable class of our fellow-subjects; but it would be extreme cruelty to the African Savages, a portion of whom it saves from massacre, or intolerable bondage in their own country, and introduces into a much happier state of life; especially now when their passage to the West Indies and their treatment there is humanely regulated. To abolish that trade would be to shut the gates of mercy on mankind.” Boswell, J., Life of Johnson (N.Y.: Modern Library Edition, 1965) p. 365. (See Christians Organise Slave-Trade.)

17.8 A Northern trapper sees himself as the “caretaker of the land”

a) How utterly arrogant. Nature does not need managing, humans do. Other species were taking care of themselves long before humans arrived on the scene and they will get along just as well when humans go the way of the Dodo bird (exterminated I might add, by “caretaker” humans).

b) And white slave traders saw themselves as caretakers for the non-white non-christian races–so should we then forgive anyone for practicing human slavery?

a) A naked polar bear, Arctic wolf, seal, or whale is born with all the equipment he or she needs to survive. But a human, even of Inuit extraction, would perish in mere minutes if left naked on the ice flows of his or her so-called native habitat. If an Inuit is naturally meant to hunt whales, as is frequently claimed by defenders of exploitation industries that use First Nations communities for supplies or propaganda (i.e. whaling, sealing and trapping), then its factual validity can be tested by simply having one courageous Inuit hunter jump naked into the Arctic sea and try to bite a whale to death with only his teeth and bare hands. The result is easily predicted. Because the Inuit need tools to survive, and those tools are now chiefly provided by outside communities (i.e. the government of Canada, Smith & Wesson), then it would be hypocritical to suggest that the best long term, ethical solution to First Nations subsistence needs cannot be based on more compassionate aid from those very same communities, whether it be food aid or subsidized relocation to climates more suited to human beings.

b) When they are born with fur and blubber and claws instead of having to take it from other Arctic natives, then I will believe that are indigenous to the climate.

17.10 They cant move anywhere else! The Arctic is their home!

a) But not in the same way it is for seals, whales, bears or wolves.

b) Why is it that of all the native inhabitants of the Arctic, only the Inuit are not born with all the physical tools they need to survive? Until they are born with a thick hide of blubber and fur from their backs, I will say that a sub-zero temperature is not their natural environment.

17.11 The trappers use all the scraps of the animal, nothing is wasted.

a) Hitler also used all the scraps of his victims – is that a defense for what he did?

17.12 To criticize First Nations people(or Japanese Whalers or Bali turtle hunters) for hunting and fishing and trapping and whaling is just cultural imperialism (aka identity imperialism, racism etc.).

You are trying to impose your beliefs on others.” [Editor: this is a form of the Moral relativism argument – which states that one cannot judge the actions of one culture (or person) by the ethical standards of another.]

a) If one applied this moral relativistic belief consistently and fairly it would mean one could not condemn someone else for discrimination against other humans based upon their own cultural and ethical beliefs. People who practice bride burning or honor killings or child labor could say it is “cultural imperialism” for outsiders to criticize their actions.

b) Activities from spousal abuse to ritual murder to cannibalism have also been defended by bogus claims of racism or “Imperialism,” and this hasn’t nullified the ethical arguments against these practices;

c) Other species can also be said to suffer under unjust, discriminatory treatment, and every human ethnic group, including First nation ones, are capable of being the oppressors.

d) We are talking about life, not a lifestyle. When the issue involves the very real harm caused to others, ethical beliefs do apply, and it is certainly within reason to make judgments based upon those beliefs. Since no human society on Earth lives in a vacuum, and all have at least some connection to other cultures, and they all expect at least some moral consideration from each other, the charge of discrimination may be leveled against any one of them. The only way an Inuit hunter or Japanese whaler (or Michigan deer hunter for that matter) could use moral relativism as a defense, is if he holds no ethical belief (such as his own right to life) that he expects should be honored by anyone else (whether Inuit or not). That possibility is very very remote.

e) Actually the true cultural imperialism is when the Inuit or the Japanese or anyone else tries to impose their culture on whales or other animals by killing them when they do not need to.

f) Ethical systems are like language systems. There are many different languages, but they all have common elements that can be used to allow interpretation and communication between them (alphabets, rules of usage etc). Systems of moral belief also have underlying common elements (social contracts, belief in the value of one’s life, respect for family, friendship etc.). It is these basic concepts to all moral belief systems that are being used to cite unjust discriminatory behavior and conduct. Therefore, when one criticizes a culture for causing unnecessary harm to others (killing whales for food), it is not a matter of “judging one culture by the standards of another,” but using the basic moral “vocabulary” common in all cultures to make a judgment that the culture is not being consistent in its ethical philosophy if it says the value of Inuit/Japanese/Bali/German etc) life as a group is superior to that of non-Inuit/Japanese/etc life, without proving the superiority as an objective truth.

17.13 Do you eat bread? Nutritional yeast is alive. You are killing bacteria.

a) Thanks! I will switch to flatbreads tomorrow, but regardless, it doesn’t excuse you from supporting meat eating, the fur industry, animal research etc etc. How does that justify you supporting the meat industry, animal research, hunting etc? By your logic, any act of killing, necessary or not(right down to the microscopic level), negates any effort to to curb it. Therefore, since we cannot avoid killing microbes just by the act of living, we shouldn’t worry about muggings, murders, wars etc. If you say yes we can worry about them, then we can also worry about meat eating, hunting, and any other practice it is possible to stop.

b) Just because I am trying to live more ethically does not mean that I am perfect. One cannot avoid all killing in life. That is not to say that animal rights and veg*anism are pointless. If I accidentally kill a bug by stepping on it, that does not mean that I should give up the whole compassionate living thing altogether. Everyone should just do as much as they can manage to aspire towards a moral life. Eating meat, buying products tested on animals, etc, these are things that can be easily avoided and are direct links to mass cruelty.

c) I think I killed about a million microbes just from gasping at the stupidity of your argument. Man, I am worse than Hitler.

d) Yeast isn’t a sentient lifeform, unless you worry about bacteria. So I take it you don’t bath because you don’t want to kill millions of them?

17.14 If we don’t consider ourselves better than animals we will treat each other terribly.

a) So does that mean that if whites consider themselves superior to blacks then they would naturally treat whites better?

b) Tell that to Stalin and Hitler.

c) ANIMAL VICTIMS / HUMAN VICTIMS: REPORTS FROM POLICE CASE FILES Russell Weston Jr., tortured and killed 12 cats: burned and cut off their tails, paws, ears; poured toxic chemicals in their eyes to blind them; forced them to ingest poison, hung them from trees (the noose loose enough to create a slow and painful death.) Later killed 2 officers at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. Jeffery Dahmer staked cats to trees and decapitated dogs. Later he dissected boys, and kept their body parts in the refrigerator. Murdered 17 men. Kip Kinkle shot 25 classmates and killed several in Springfield, Oregon. He killed his father and mother. Said he blew up a cow once. Set a live cat on fire and dragged the innocent creature through the main street of town. Classmates rated him as “Most Likely to Start World War 3.” As a boy, Albert De Salvo, the “Boston Strangler,” placed a dog and cat in a crate with a partition between them. After starving the animals for days, he removed the partition to watch them kill each other. He raped and killed 13 women by strangulation. He often posed bodies in a shocking manner after their murders. Richard Allen Davis set numerous cats on fire. He killed all of Polly Klaus’ animals before abducting and murdering Polly Klaus, aged 12, from her bedroom. 11-year-old Andrew Golden and 13-year-old Mitchell Johnson tortured and killed dogs. On March 24, 1998, in Jonesboro, Arkansas, Golden and Johnson shot and killed 4 students and 1 teacher during a fire drill at their school. After 16-year-old Luke Woodham mortally stabbed his mother, killed 2 classmates and shot 7 others, he confessed to bludgeoning his dog Sparkle with baseball bats and pouring liquid fuel down her throat and to set fire to her neck. “I made my first kill today,” he wrote in his court-subpoenaed journal. “It was a loved one … I’ll never forget the howl she made. It sounded almost human.” In June 1998, Woodham was found guilty of 3 murders and 7 counts of aggravated assault. He was sentenced to 3 life sentences and an additional 20 years for each assault. heodore Robert Bundy, executed in 1989 for at least 50 murders, was forced to witness a grandfather who tortured animals. Bundy later heaped graves with animal bones. At 4-years-old, ichael Cartier dislocated the legs of rabbits and hurled a kitten through a closed window. He later shot Kristin Lardner 3 times in the head, before shooting himself. Henry Lee Lucas killed numerous animals and had sex with their corpses. He killed his mother, common law wife, and an unknown number of people. Edward Kemperer cut up 2 cats. He later killed his grandparents, mother and 7 other women. Richard Speck threw a bird into a ventilator fan. Killed 8 women. Randy Roth taped a cat to a car’s engine and used an industrial sander on a frog. Killed 2 of his wives and attempted to kill a third. David Richard Davis shot and killed 2 healthy ponies, threw a wine bottle at a pair of kittens and hunted with illegal methods. Murdered his wife, Shannon Mohr Davis, for insurance money. Peter Kurten, the Dusseldorf Monster, tortured dogs, and practiced bestiality while killing animals. Murdered or attempted to murder over 50 men, women and children. Richard Trenton Chase, “The Vampire Killer of Sacramento,” bit the heads off birds, drained animals for their blood, killed animals for their organs, and later killed 6 people in random attacks. One police officer present at the scene of the first murder, confessed to having nightmares about the crime for months afterwards. The Kobe Killer, an as yet unnamed 15-year-old boy in Japan, beheaded a cat and strangled several pigeons, decapitated 11-year-old Jun Hase, and battered to death a 10-year-old girl with a hammer, and assaulted 3 other children in separate attacks. Richard William Leonard’s grandmother forced him to kill and mutilate cats and kittens when he was a child. He later killed Stephen Dempsey with a bow and arrow. He also killed Ezzedine Bahmad by slashing his throat. Tom Dillion murdered people’s pets. He shot and killed Jamie Paxton, aged 21; Claude Hawkins, aged 49; Donald Welling, aged 35; Kevin Loring, aged 30; and Gary Bradely, aged 44. David Berkowitz, “Son of Sam,” poisoned his mother’s parakeet out of jealousy. He later shot 13 young men and women. 6 people died and at least 2 suffered permanent disabilities. Arthur Shawcross repeatedly threw a kitten into a lake until the kitten drowned from exhaustion. Killed a young girl. After serving 15-1/2 years in prison, he killed 11 more women. Jason Massey’s killing resume began with cats and dogs; at 20 he decapitated and disemboweled a 13-year-old girl and fatally shot a 14-year old boy. He claims to have killed 37 cats, 29 dogs and 6 cows. Patrick Sherrill stole neighborhood pets, tethered them with baling wire and encouraged his dog to mutilate them. He killed 14 co-workers and himself in 1986. Keith Hunter Jesperson, “Happy Face Killer,” bashed gopher heads and beat, strangled and shot stray cats and dogs. He is known to have strangled 8 women. He said: “You’re actually squeezing the life out of these animals … Choking a human being or a cat – it’s the same feeling … I’m the very end result of what happens when somebody kills an animal at an early age.” Carroll Edward Cole, executed in 1985 for an alleged 35 murders and reputed to be one of the most prolific serial killers in U.S. history, confessed that his first act of violence was to strangle a puppy under the porch of his house. Michael Perry decapitated a neighbor’s dog. Later killed his parents, infant nephew and 2 neighbors. Robert Alton Harris murdered two 16-year-old boys, doused a neighbor with lighter fluid and tossed matches at him. His initial run-in with police was for killing neighborhood cats. At 9-years-old, Eric Smith strangled a neighbor’s cat. At 13, he bludgeoned 4-year-old Derrick Robie to death. Smith lured the little boy into the woods, choked him, sodomized him with a stick, then beat him to death with a rock

17.15 Wasn’t Hitler a vegetarian?

a) And Al Capone started the first soup kitchens in Chicago. I guess anyone who supports helping the homeless is a gangster?

b) The testimony of Hitler’s personal cook in Hamburg during the late 1930s - Dione Lucas. In her “Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook,” she records that his favorite dish - the one that he customarily requested - was stuffed squab (pigeon). “I do not mean to spoil your appetite for stuffed squab, but you might be interested to know that it was a great favorite with Mr. Hitler, who dined in the hotel often.” (Also see: ivu-hitler, Hitler was not a vegetarian.)

c) So was Gandhi – does that make him a war monger and mass murderer?

d) They say Osama Bin Laden liked hunting. So did Timothy McVeigh. So by your logic, every hunter is a terrorist!

e) “Otto D. Tolischus in 1937 in The New York Times pointed out that the Führer was a vegetarian who ‘does not drink or smoke’ but who also ‘occasionally relishes a slice of ham’ along with delicacies such as caviar and chocolates.” (Ibid.) Robert Proctor calls Hitler a vegetarian “of sorts” (The Nazi War on Cancer, p. 134) and is content to state that Hitler was a vegetarian who “occasionally would allow himself a dish of meat,” (p. 135) and quotes The New York Times as stating that in addition to ham and caviar Hitler also occasionally ate squab.”

f)His cook, an enormously fat man named Willy Kannenberg, produced exquisite meals and acted as court jester. Although Hitler had no fondness for meat except in the form of sausages and never ate fish, he enjoyed caviar. (The Life and Death of Adolph Hitler Praeger, 1973 p. 346)

g) Hitler’s reputation for being a vegetarian seems to consist solely of his not having eaten red meat. The effort to describe Hitler’s eating habits as vegetarian requires changing the definition of “vegetarian” to exclude liver, ham, and sausages from the list of meats, and changing the definition of “animal” to exclude pigs. Hitler did exhibit a sympathy with a vegetarian diet, but paradoxically, vegetarians and the vegetarian movement in Nazi Germany were persecuted. Vegetarian societies were restrained, subject to raids, and “books that contained vegetarian recipes were confiscated by the Gestapo.” Janet Barkas has a good account of this period in German history in her book, The Vegetable Passion. German vegetarian societies were forced to leave the International Vegetarian Union; they were prohibited from organizing and from publishing material, but individuals were not molested and “could exchange their credit notes for meat for dairy products. About 83,000 vegetarians participated in this program.” (See All-Creatures.)

h) Hitler and Animals. Like many of his fellow human beings, Adolf Hitler used animal epithets to vilify other people. He often called his opponents “swine” and “dirty dogs.” The Bolsheviks were “animals,” and the Russians a “bestial people” and Slavic “rabbit-family” whom Stalin had molded into a totalitarian state. After Hitler conquered Russia, he wanted “the ridiculous hundred million Slavs” to live in “pig-pens.” He called British diplomats “little worms,” and, as for the “half-Judaized, half-Negrified” people of America, they “have the brains of a hen.” Hitler had contempt for his own people, referring to them as “the great stupid mutton-herd of our sheep-like people,” and when the defeats mounted late in the war, he blamed them for not having risen to the challenge. Hitler called his own sisters “stupid geese.” Whatever deficiencies members of the Germanic Volk might possess, however, Hitler believed the Aryan/Nordic race was infinitely superior to the surrounding sea of sub-human “monstrosities between man and ape,” as he made clear in a speech in Munich in 1927: “We see before us the Aryan race which is manifestly the bearer of all culture, the true representative of all humanity….Our entire industrial science is without exception the work of Nordics. All great composers from Beethoven to Richard Wagner are Aryans….Man owes everything that is of any importance to the principle of struggle and to one race which has carried itself forward successfully. Take away the Nordic Germans and nothing remains but the dance of apes.” Charles Patterson.

i) Hitler was fond of dogs, especially German shepherds (he considered boxers “degenerate”), whom he liked to control and dominate. At the front during World War I, he befriended a white terrier, Fuchsl (Foxl), who had strayed across enemy lines. Later, when his unit had to move on and Fuchsl could not be found, Hitler became distraught. “I liked him so much,” he recalled. “He only obeyed me.” Hitler often carried a dogwhip and sometimes used it to beat his dog the same way he had seen his father beat his own dog. In the Fuhrer headquarters during World War II, Hitler’s German shepherd, Blondi, offered him the closest thing he had to friendship. “But with his dogs, as with every human being he came into contact with,” writes his biographer Ian Kershaw, “any relationship was based upon subordination to his mastery.”

j) The reputed fondness of Hitler and other top Nazis for animals, especially their dogs, has been put into perspective by Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno. For certain authoritarian personalities, they write, their “love of animals” is part of the way they intimidate others. When industrial magnates and Fascist leaders want to have pets around them, Horkheimer and Adorno maintain, their choice falls on intimidating animals such as Great Danes and lion cubs, which are intended to add to their power through the terror they inspire. “The murderous Fascist colossus stands so blindly before nature that he sees animals only as a means of humiliating men,” they write. “The Fascist’s passionate interest in animals, nature, and children is rooted in the lust to persecute.” While with their hand they might negligently stroke a child’s head, or an animal’s back, that same hand could just as easily destroy them. “The petting demonstrates that all are equal in the presence of power, that none is a being in its own right. A creature is merely material for the master’s bloody purposes.”

k) It is alleged that the Nazis revered or admired animals. Hitler’s nickname, “Wolf” is adduced as evidence for this. The Nazi interest in animals was part of their adaptation of social Darwinism to racial policies: they were fond of powerful animals, not animals they perceived as weak. Hitler’s nickname, “Wolf” is a good example. He didn’t call himself “rabbit,” or “deer.” As Kenneth Clarke points out in The History of Animals in Art human behavior towards animals is extremely paradoxical. Human beings can be fond of animals and cruel towards them. Admiration for animals often accompanies cruelty towards them. A hunter loves his hunting dog. Lion hunters admire the lion. Some Medieval barons had bears inscribed on their escutcheons, yet hunted them and tortured them, sometimes blinding them for entertainment and bear fights.

l) This is a silly effort to discredit vegetarianism by association. In fact, it is a logical fallacy known as Guilt by Association.

17.16 Other animals are sadistic too.

They will torture a mouse and know they are torturing it.

Response a) Not according to Mark Twain: “Of all the creatures that were made, man is the most detestable. Of the entire brood he is the only one–the solitary one–that possesses malice. That is the basest of all instincts, passions, vices–the most hateful. He is the only creature that has pain for sport, knowing it to be pain. Also–in all the list he is the only creature that has a nasty mind.- Mark Twain’s Autobiography; and: “Of all the animals, man is the only one that is cruel. He is the only one that inflicts pain for the pleasure of doing it. It is a trait that is not known to the higher animals.” (The Lowest Animal)

b) You say a cat knows that a mouse feels pain, that a cat knows what a mouse is feeling, and then deliberately tortures the mouse, just as we know for fact, humans such as researchers, are capable of doing (the fact that researchers will name lab animals “goner” or three animals with broken spines “snap, crackle and pop” demonstrates this). When you see cats or weasals do the same, or gather to watch other cats torture mice as a spectator sport, just as humans do in bullrings and rodeos, and in the Roman Coliseum, then you will convince me. Until then, keep fantasizing.

c) You are trying to project all the negative qualities of humans onto nonhumans, but you miss something. Only humans are capable of slander. Only a human can accuse an innocent of doing that which it does itself.

d) Humans are also capable of torturing others via language. Insults, lies etc. Can other species do that?

e) There is zero evidence that other species, unlike humans, are aware that they are causing members of other species to suffer. Do cats or weasals set up arenas or stadiums in the wild or back alleys where they sit around as other cats and weasals torture mice? Do they roll on their backs in apparent glee as they watch a mouse screaming–as humans have been known to find pleasure and amusement from watching others–human or not–suffer? For a cat to be aware that a mouse suffers, and then to derive pleasure from its suffering, would be to project very human characteristics onto the cat. And remember that there is one advantage that humans have over nonhumans in their capacity for cruelty. Only humans are capable of mental torment. Using language to tease and torture others.

17.17 Do you eat meat?/What are your shoes made of?

a) The issue of meat eating and/or animal by-products is a valid and important issue in animal rights, but it does not have anything to do with the moral and ethical problems of animal research. The fact that an animal activist making a pro-animal rights/compassion argument may be inconsistent in those ways does not in any way detract or invalidate the argument on animal research. It is a separate issue.

b) If South Africa was being criticized by the United States for their treatment of blacks, and the South African government responded by pointing out the United States’ poor treatment of tribal communities within their own country, would this mean that the treatment of blacks by South Africa was morally defensible? Of course not. It would just mean that there are other issues that need to be addressed APART FROM the treatment of blacks by South Africa.

17.18 Well you are entitled to your opinion but I am entitled to mine.

and I say … FILL IN BLANK

a) Everyone is entitled to an opinion (although some are more able to express one publicly than others) but if the opinion involves causing harm to others, there is usually a generally accepted restriction on ACTING upon such opinions. I.e. “I think Christians like me are superior to non-christians, therefore we should be able to enslave non believers.” If it is wrong for white supremacists, christian supremacists, anti-gays, male chauvinists, etc to act upon their opinion, thus it should be the same for ALL forms of unfair discrimination–including willful discrimination against animals.

b) Daniel Patrick Moynihan: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”

17.19 Mind your own business.

a) I’ll mind my own business when you let other species mind their own business.

b) If “mind your own business” wasn’t an acceptable defense from a negro slave trader or a Nazi camp guard it isn’t an acceptable defense from you either.

c) This is actually a self-annihilating imperative, since the issuer is not minding his/her own business by telling you to mind yours.

17.20 Who says you have a right to tell us what to do?

a) Who says you have a right to tell other species what to do?

b) Because, if we have a right to tell a wife beater, child abuser, Nazi or negro slave trader what to do then we have a right to tell you what to do also.

c) Again a self-annihilating effort, since we could question whether the issuer has a right to tell us what to do.

17.21 You are never going to stop …

Insert animal-environmental cause or convince people that some action is wrong.

a) We may never eradicate homicide, child abuse, spousal abuse, theft, etc. so I guess by your logic we shouldn’t even try.

17.22 Why are you Vegan?

a) Everyone is! Just some people add animal products to their diet.

b) Everything is! Just some foods have animal products added.

c) I was training my dog not to beg and got used to the diet.

d) Because god told me.

e) Because I ate part of my best friend once and that kind of put me off.

f) Why AREN’T you????

g) because I find it terrible to have thoughts of eating muscles cut from my friends’ dead bodies, and disgusting to stuff one’s face with decaying animal remains.

h) Because you aren’t.

i) Socrates, Pythagoros, Leonardo Da Vinci, H.G. Wells, Dr. Spock, Mister Spock, Einstein … either they were ones or endorsed the concept, since genius and vegetarianism seem to go together so well, I thought somebody better keep the tradition alive!

j) I don’t feel like its in my nature to kill animals for food because I know that I couldn’t kill an animal and eat it. It doesn’t seem fair to pay a corporation to take care of if for me.

17.23 How can you compare the Holocaust to the treatment of animals in farms and labs?

It is an insult to the memory of those who died in the camps to use the word in reference to animals.

a) The word “holocaust” originates in reference to the sacrifice of a male animal in Biblical times, thus, if it is fitting for humans to change its meaning to highlight a mass slaughter committed against humans, then certainly it is fair and just to use the word in reference to the slaughter of the subjects in its original meaning.

b) Groups and individuals who discuss the Nazi Holocaust often refer to “cattle cars” and comparing Auschwitz victims to “lab animals,” therefore they themselves are acknowledging that nonhuman animals are treated in horrible and atrocious ways–the proof is that they use them as examples of how not to be treated!

c) If anything, it is an insult to the billions of nonhuman animals that have been slaughtered, since their victims far outnumber that of any human tragedy. And unlike humans, the victims of animal holocausts are incapable of ever being the victimizers. Not true of Jews, Armenians, Cambodians, etc.

d) Who says humans have a monopoly on suffering and injustice?

e) To think it is an insult is to demonstrate the same sort of arrogant supremacy mindset that the Nazis showed, valuing the suffering of some over others.

Marc Bekoff

Tue, 01 Mar 2022 10:32:31 -0800

Marc Bekoff is Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder. An internationally prominent lecturer on animal behavior, cognitive ethology and behavioral ecology, Marc has contributed immensely to these fields via original papers, books and even videos. Additionally, he was a competitive cyclist winning the Tour du Haut Var for his age group in 1986!

This is a link to his website.

Links

Wikipedia: Marc Bekoff

Literati: Marc Bekoff

Animal Consultants International: Marc Bekoff

Huffington Post: Marc Bekoff

EnlightenNext Magazine: Marc Bekoff Biography and Resources

University of Colorado: Marc Bekoff Professor Emeritus

Psychology Today Experts: Marc Bekoff

Boulder Masters Cycling: Marc Bekoff

Vegan Sporting Association: Marc Bekoff

Marc Bekoff - Gentle Giant of the Animal World

Marc Bekoff’s work at the Boulder County Jail (as part of Jane Goodall’s Roots & Shoots program)
(pdf article from Camera paper)
(pdf article from New Scientist 21 March, 2009)

Kids & Animals by Marc Bekoff, foreword by Jane Goodall
follow above link for more details then click on image to download pdf book
or get the pdf book directly

Marc Bekoff’s moon bear rescue work with Animals Asia
(pdf article from New Scientist 2009/05/02)

(pdf)
Treat us better or leave us alone! Marc Bekoff explains

(pdf)
Animals are rarely violent and never to the extent we are. We can learn a lot from them - if we only open our minds and hearts to who they really are, writes Marc Bekoff.

Organizations

Co-founder with Jane Goodall:
Ethologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals: Citizens for Responsible Animal Behavior Studies in 2000

Board of Directors:
The Cougar Fund, The Fauna Sanctuary

Advisory Board Member and/or Council:
Living with Wolves, Greenvegans, Animal Defenders, Project Coyote, National Museum of Animals & Society, Laboratory Primate Advocacy Group

Honorary Board Member:
Rational Animal

Honorary Member:
Animalisti Italiani, Fundacion Altarriba

Patron:
Captive Animals’ Protection Society

Scientific Expert Advisory Panel Member:
Voiceless, The Animal Protection Institute

Faculty Member:
Humane Society University

Awards

2005 The Bank One Faculty Community Service Award 2009 St. Francis of Assisi Award by the Auckland (New Zealand) SPCA

Videos

Animal Emotions - An interview with Professor Marc Bekoff

An interview with Professor Marc Bekoff on RTE Radio 1’s Pat Kenny Show (September 3rd, 2008).

Marc Bekoff–Animal Sentience

Insights into animal intelligence and feeling.

Science & Animal Activism with Marc Bekoff

Marc Bekoff shares insights drawn from a lifetime studying animals.

Marc Bekoff - Animal Behavior and Emotions

Video is unavailable presently.

Insight into the Emotional Lives of Animals with Dr. Marc Bekoff

This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated.

Marc Bekoff speech at 2010 Voiceless Awards

Here, he delivers the keynote address at the 2011 Voiceless Awards, which celebrate animal proteciton in Australia. Marc reflects on the need to give animals respect and compassion.

Edwin Rutsch & Marc Bekoff: Dialogs on Building a Culture of Empathy and Compassion

There is a video embedded in the page.

Books

The Emotional Lives of Animals
Beckoff
Skillfully blends extraordinary stories of animal joy, empathy, grief, embarrassment, anger, and love with the latest scientific research confirming the existence of emotions that common sense and experience have long implied.

Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals
Bekoff, Pierce
We argue that animals feel empathy for each other, treat one another fairly, cooperate towards common goals, and help each other out of trouble. We argue, in short, that animals have morality.

Encyclopedia of Human-Animal Relationships
Bekoff, Nystrom
Humans and animals live together on earth, but as we increasingly reshape ecosystems to accommodate larger populations, technology, and increased consumption, animals are greatly affected.

Listening to Cougar
Bekoff, Lowe
Spellbinding tribute to Puma concolor honors the big cat’s presence on the land and in our psyches.

Animals Matter
Bekoff
A biologist explains why we should treat animals with compassion and respect.

Animals at Play: Rules of the Game
Bekoff
Emphasizes how animals communicate, cooperate and learn to play fair and what happens when they break the rules.

Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare Vol 1
Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare Vol 2
Bekoff
Remains the only reference to cover the entire scope of animal rights and welfare from a global interdisciplinary perspective, with an international team of contributors assembled by Marc Bekoff covering animal treatment issues in the United States, China, India, Kenya, Australia, and many other nations.

The Animal Manifesto: Six Reasons For Expanding Our Compassion Footprint
Bekoff
Driven by moral imperatives and pressing environmental realities, Bekoff offers six compelling reasons for changing the way we treat animals.

The smile of a dolphin
Bekoff
A fascinating look at the complex emotional lives of animals presents firsthand accounts by leading animal behavior researchers that offer a compelling argument that humans are not the only creatures to experience emotion.

Minding animals: awareness, emotions, and heart
Bekoff
An exhilarating tour of the emotional and mental world of animals, where we meet creatures who do amazing things.

Animal passions and beastly virtues
Bekoff
Draws world-wide attention for its originality and its probing into what animals think about and know as well as what they feel, what physical and mental skills they use to live.

The Ten Trusts
Goodall, Bekoff
Addresses various aspects of animal welfare, animal rights and what can be done to assist in providing a better life for the animals of the world.

Animal play: evolutionary, comparative, and ecological perspectives
Bekoff, Byers
Careful, quantitative studies of social, locomotor and object play behaviour are now beginning … to shed light on many other aspects of both animal and human behaviour.

Species of Mind: The Philosophy and Biology of Cognitive Ethology
Allen, Bekoff
A philosopher and a cognitive ethologist, approach their work from the perspective that many animals have minds and rich cognitive lives.

The cognitive animal: empirical and theoretical perspectives on animal cognition
Bekoff, Allen, Burghardt
A comprehensive overview of the interdisciplinary field of animal cognition. The contributors include cognitive ethologists, behavioral ecologists, experimental and developmental psychologists, behaviorists, philosophers, neuroscientists, computer scientists and modelers, field biologists, and others.

Suburban Howls: Tracking the Eastern Coyote in Urban Massachusetts
Way, Way, Bekoff
This book is about the experiences and findings of a biologist studying coyote ecology and behavior in urbanized eastern Massachusetts.

Angel Dogs with a Mission: Divine Messengers in Service to All Life
Anderson, Anderson, Bekoff
This fascinating book puts the spotlight on working dogs – those heroic canines who have found ways to give back more than sloppy kisses and happy snuggles.

Coyotes: Biology, Behavior and Management
Bekoff
a classic of the canid literature. Originally published in 1978, Coyotes: Biology, Behavior and Management pulled together much disparate research in coyote evolution, taxonomy, reproduction, communication, behavioral development, population dynamics, ethology and ecological studies.

Strolling with our kin: speaking for and respecting voiceless animals
Bekoff
Bekoff takes the reader on a philosophical and ethical odyssey examining how We can all live in harmony with our fellow kin. He asks us to explore our thoughts and expand our views of a world made up of many species, only one of which is human.

Nature’s Life Lessons: Everyday Truths from Nature
Carrier, Bekoff
Using everyday behaviors in Nature, this delightful and whimsical book celebrates the link between the natural world and quirky humans.

Integral Ecology: Uniting Multiple Perspectives on the Natural World
Zimmerman, Esbjorn-Hargens, Bekoff, Hochachka, Tissot, Riddell
Unites valuable insights from multiple perspectives into a comprehensive theoretical framework-one that can be put to use right now.

Selected blog post titles from Psychology Today

These are various articles by Marc posted in his Psychology Today blog. The short descriptions are provided too. Some of these articles can serve as introductions to various academic papers by Marc. You can subscribe to his blog via rss feed.

Baboons Distinguish Real Words From Nonsense Words
Non-reading baboons can learn to distinguish written real words from nonsense words. Recognizing visual word forms is a key component of literacy and these data provide the first animal model. Once again, we learn that we are not alone in demonstrating some fascinating and sophisticated cognitive skills.

Bowerbirds: Do They Have Green Thumbs?
Male bowerbirds appear to grow a garden to attract females. What they do seems to be cultivation, the result of which is increased mating success. The more we learn the more blurred is the border between “us” and “them”.

The National Museum of Animals & Society
The National Museum of Animals & Society (NMAS), the first of its kind, centers on the full spectrum of human-animal studies (anthrozoology, our relationships with, and perceptions of, other animals) including the history of protecting animals and the importance of humane education in their collections, exhibitions, and programs.

Friends With Benefits
Nonhumans show us why we all need others we can count on. They help in times of need, it feels good to have close friends, and it’s good for an individual’s health and well-being. The more we study other animals the more we learn about their fascinating lives and about ourselves. We should be proud of our animal heritage.

Our Complex and Contradictory Relationships with Other Animal Beings
Just about every day is a mixed bag for nonhuman animals. To wit, we’ve recently learned that dolphins are more socially complex than previously recognized and that St. Jude Hospital plans to raise money from horrific raccoon hunts using coondogs. We need to, and easily can, change our ways.

The Superior Human? Who Do We Think We Are?
This fascinating documentary is well worth watching. While we are unique and special so too are other animals. Human exceptionalism that translates into supposed superiority and domination over “lower” species is based on bad biology and this film dismantles specious speciesism.

Humans Help Stranded Dolphins: Some Much Needed Good News
Watch humans help save stranded dolphins in Brazil. I hope this wonderful story will help to maintain or restore your faith in the goodness and decency of humans who choose to help, rather than to harm, other animals.

Trapped Wolf Used for Target Practice
Wolf torture continues and is praised by some while critics’ lives are threatened. This story of a trapped wolf who was also used for target practice (teaser image) should outrage people and get them to do something to stop this reprehensible behavior.

Wicked Tuna: NGS Supports Killing These Majestic Beings
The NGS glorifies killing these majestic fish for unneeded meals. What’s to be admired for causing incredible pain and suffering to these imperiled sentient beings, all in the name of entertainment and money? What did the tuna do to deserve the label “wicked”? Why are they the evil ones in this one-sided slaughter?

Dolphin Confidential: A Woman and the Dolphins She Loves
“Dolphin Confidential” is an inspirational book about a woman scientist and the “urban” L. A. dolphins she comes to love. Maddalena Bearzi shows that bonding with animals does not preclude doing solid science and serves as a role model for those who want to become scientists and feel free to display feelings for the animals they study.

Killing Other Animals For Food Does Not Make us Human
There’s nothing spiritual about killing innocent animals for unneeded meals. The claims hunters, who are meat-eating zealots, put forth using flowery prose about how hunting makes us human and that those who don’t hunt are “missing something” are self-serving and ignore what the hunted animals are thinking and feeling.

A Dog and a River Otter: a Most Amazing Friendship
Watch Rio, a dog, play with his wild river otter friend. The river otter comes to visit Rio everyday and they frolic wildly and obviously enjoy it immensely. This incredible video will make your day.

Bonobos Rescue Friends in Need Because Females Lead
These amazing apes travel long distances to find and help lost friends. It’s suggested this is because their social groups are led by females for whom the unity of the group is very important. This is another example showing animals are far more caring, compassionate, and kind than we give them credit for.

It’s Coyote Killing Time Once Again
Utah and Nova Scotia wage war on these fascinating native animals using programs that have been scientifically proven not to work. The wanton, senseless, and merciless killing of coyotes and other animals is ineffective and must be stopped. Why is it that some people enjoy killing other animals?

Trumping Wildlife: Heinous Trophy Hunting, Not Conservation
Donald Trump’s sons clearly enjoy going on very expensive canned trophy hunts. These macho boys write off their heinous and sick killing spree in the name of conservation as if it’s good for the animals, their habitats, and local people, as they proudly pose with corpses and body parts.

Thrill-seeking Bees, A Bathing Bear, and Chimpanzees In the News
Bees are wired for adventure and a bear takes a bath using a tool. A new movie called “Chimpanzee” will be airing soon and Disneynature will contribute 20 cents per ticket to the Jane Goodall Institute for the Disneynature Tchimpounga Nature Reserve Project with a minimum of $100,000 pledged to this program.

Elephants Mourn Loss of “Elephant Whisperer” Lawrence Anthony
Elephant grief and mourning include the loss of their human friend. Broken-hearted elephants visited the home of Lawrence Anthony, known as the elephant whisperer, to express their sorrow. They had not been seen there for a very long time. Clearly we’re not the only animals who possess the cognitive and emotional capacities for suffering the loss of others.

Flies On Booze and Apes On Apps
Flies drink alcohol to ward off parasites and live longer than teetotallers, and captive orangutans use iPads to enrich their lives. They may even communicate with others over long distances using FaceTime or Skype.

Green: Environmental Devastation and the Last Hours of an Orangutan’s Life
A heart-wrenching documentary about the last hours of a female orangutan’s life. Some people deny the devastating and violent impacts we have globally, and few have the opportunity to see them first hand, but they are realities we must, and can, reverse now. It’s very easy to avoid products that cause unspeakable harm to innocent animals and their homes.

Is Chimpanzee Research Necessary? No, Say Many Scientists
Rigorous reviews of available data on the use of chimpanzees and other animals in biomedical research show that we actually learn very little about treating human disease from these models. Wide-ranging support to remove chimpanzees from laboratories and place them safely in sanctuaries upholds these conclusions.

The Need for “Wild” Play: Let Children Be the Animals They Need to Be
A new book called “Evolutionary Playwork” shows that youngsters need to “get down and dirty” and engage in “wild” play, but they’re not. According to play expert Bob Hughes, “ג€¦ if the activity is bounded by adult rules, if it is stiff, formalised and dominated by the need to score points and flatter one’s ego, that is not play, it is something else.” The same for adults.

Say It Isn’t So: Major Atrocities Against Animals
Canadian conservation officers slaughter 145 bears and numerous dead animals discovered at Oregon State University. The teaser image is of a live raccoon caught by its rear leg and attempting to escape by weaving itself through a fence. Wildlife Services left it to die after illegally setting traps and snares. You can stop this violence.

Animals: A New Ethics (Resurgence Magazine)
In this special edition of Resurgence magazine you’ll read new wide-ranging essays by animal advocates including campaigners, activists, authors, philosophers, scientists, lawyers, charity heads, poets, and artists. It’s truly an up-to-date landmark publication.

Makin’ Bacon: Unspeakable and Grisly Abuse On a Pig Farm
Pigs on pig farms suffer greatly despite supposed concerns for the welfare. They’re shot, tossed around as if they’re mere objects, forced to live without proper veterinary care, and slapped, kicked and beaten into submission with the use of pig boards, iron bars, and gate rods. This reprehensible abuse must be stopped and you can help do this at your next meal.

Wearing Pain: Canada Goose’s Fur Policy Is Lame and Self-Serving
There is no reason to kill animals for clothing. In the process of becoming a coat or trim, the bones of coyotes and many other animals go snap, crackle, and pop as they’re tortured unrelentingly. Canada Goose’s fur policy is laden with self-serving justifications and errors all in the name of money and the unnecessary slaughter of animals for clothing.

Dogs, Homeless People, and Love: A Picture Is Worth Many Many Words
The photos to which I refer here show clearly that dogs are our best friends. They’re able to love with no or very few holds barred and bring much joy and warmth to those who are down on their luck. We’re so lucky to have dogs in our lives. We should embrace and celebrate their willingness to share love and learn from them.

Social Dominance Is Not a Myth: Wolves, Dogs, and Other Animals
Social dominance is a real phenomenon but has been widely misunderstood and misused. Nonhuman (and human) animals dominate one another in a number of ways, but simple and narrow explanations of what dominance is, how it’s expressed, and how it influences behavior don’t necessarily hold across species, within species, or across different contexts.

Nika and Her Animal Friends: A Most Inspirational Rescue
Meet Nika and her animal friends who rescued her from a life of hell. After years of abuse and neglect Nika has made a remarkable recovery in the company of some wonderful nonhuman animal “therapists” and loving human animals.

Chancer and Iyal: A Dog, His Boy, and His Dog
Chancer, a golden retriever, takes care of a youngster with severe cognitive disabilities. Chancer is one of many dogs who give hope to those who need it. The reciprocal bond, the life line, formed between humans and their canine companions is awe-inspiring and win-win for all. Bless all the dog beings and human beings who work in these wonderful programs.

Chimpanzee Abuse: Extreme Cruelty Caught on Tape
If you doubted that chimpanzees are horrifically abused in laboratories, watch this short video. To quote the head of the center, Thomas Rowell: “There were five minutes or less of video where you said to yourself, you know, I wish so and so hadn’t said this … Or I wish they’d have been more careful here.” Imagine what the chimpanzees were feeling.

Chimpanzees Should Not Be Treated as Books in a Library
Chimpanzees are sentient beings who should not be stockpiled and kept in tiny cells as if they’re mere objects because they may have to be used in horrific research in the future. They are making small gains in the on-going, and often deceptive battle, to keep them locked up, but they need all the help we can offer.

Hunters Upset When Dogs Are Trapped, but Still Want to Hunt
Trapping animals causes intense and enduring pain, suffering, and death. Hunters who are opposed to trapping, as many are, also want to be able to kill other animals but get very upset when their dog(s) is harmed, as they should. Why don’t the pain, suffering, and death of other animals matter?

Close Encounters of the Gorilla Kind
A video well-worth watching to see friendly and inquisitive gorillas pet and groom a human. The portrayal of animals as being mean and violent is simply wrong. It’s a misrepresentation of who they really are. Sit back and enjoy this amazing encounter between a human ape and one of our close relatives.

“What Were Wars?” Don’t Blame Other Animals For Human Violence
Human war is a choice and non-human animals should not be blamed for our violent leanings. Scientific data show clearly that other animals are predominantly peaceful beings and we must factor this into our attempts to justify war-mongering, but more importantly to stop it. We need to develop a science of peace and build a culture of empathy.

“The Grey” Has It All Wrong About Wolves
Media, this time “The Grey”, once again misrepresents and vilifies animals. In this movie wolves are the victims of sensationalism and long-dead myths that can hurt efforts to protect and conserve these endangered animals. Actors also ate two wolves who were brought to the set to get them in the mood for the wild. No joke.

Empathic Rodents Get a Wee Bit More Protection Sort Of
New guidelines recommend larger cages for families of mice and rats who are used in invasive research. But the recommended sizes are ridiculously small and are not hard-and-fast rules. Yet researchers are in a tizzy about the added costs to their work. Mice and rats are highly sentient and emotional beings who display empathy. They deserve far more protection.

A Snowboarding Crow Playing and Having Fun
Watch a “snowboarding crow” obviously having fun. Many animals love to play and when they can’t find a friend with whom to romp they entertain themselves. We can learn a lot about ourselves by watching other animals play.

Whales and Dolphins at Play: A Great Lift That’ll Make Your Day
Watch wild humpback whales and bottlenose dolphins play with one another and smile, smile, smile. This is a great example of cooperation between two amazing species.

They Kill Sheep, Don’t They? My Deep Apologies
A video showing a soldier ruthlessly beating a sheep, most likely to death, has surfaced. My deep regrets and apologies for posting it - I admit I sobbed when I saw it - but something has to be done about this horrific event. It is an insult to all human beings, especially those who honorably serve our country.

“Are You with the Right Mate?” The Media’s Misuse of Chimpanzees
The misrepresentation of animals influences how they are perceived and these misperceptions are known to be harmful to the conservation status of these endangered beings.

Drowning Rats and Human Depression: Positive Psychology for Whom?
Does exposing rats to aggressive encounters and making them swim until they give up hope and drown really have anything to do with human depression? Not really, yet horrific experiments continue under the guise of positive psychology.

Chimpanzees: I Know What You Don’t
During the past few years we’ve learned amazing facts about the astonishing cognitive, emotional, and moral lives of other animals. And 2012 is starting off with a bang as we learn that chimpanzees know what others don’t know and tell them about the presence of dangerous snakes. These field data suggest that chimpanzees have a theory of mind.

Dead Cow Walking: The Case Against Born-Again Carnivorism
Cows, pigs, chickens, and other animals raised for food are sentient beings who have rich emotional lives. No matter how “humanely” they’re raised, their lives can be cashed out simply as “dead cow/pig/chicken walking.” Whom we choose to eat is a matter of life and death.

Heartless Hunting: Maiming Then Killing Deer With No Remorse
The writer of a failed attempt at a poetic essay claims “I hate to kill” but nonetheless does it thoroughly irresponsibly.

Primate Social Behavior: Nature “Versus” Nurture Once Again?
Genes seem to play a large role in the social behavior of many nonhuman primates but not for other other species including coyotes and wolves. Much more research is needed to see just how far these new findings apply as they surely will inform future studies of animal behavior and conservation projects. Is it nature and nurture or nature or nurture?

Mathematical Pigeons Are Amazing But Not So Surprising
Pigeons can learn abstract rules about numbers and these new and exciting data support what’s long been known about the numerical competency or “counting ability” of other captive and wild birds. Clearly, calling someone a birdbrain is a compliment. Bird brains are very active and their cognitive abilities rather remarkable and highly evolved.

Rewilding Our Hearts: Maintaining Hope and Faith in Trying Times
In troubled times it’s difficult to remain hopeful and positive. Here I offer some practical guidelines for a new positive and personal social movement that is based on rewilding our hearts. Not only will nonhuman animals and their homes benefit, but so will we as we make a major paradigm shift

Empathic Rats and Ravishing Ravens
Rats and ravens caution us about proudly tooting our “aren’t we special” horn. A new study shows rats display empathy-driven behavior to help other rats in distress while another has demonstrated that ravens use body language and gestures to communicate with other ravens.

Tool Use by a Dingo and a Dog
Read about and watch Stirling, a young male dingo, use a tool, and also about Grendel, a dog, make and use a back scratcher from a bone. As time goes on more and more animals are observed making and using tools.

Chimpanzees in Research: Lies, Lies, and More Lies
Researchers who abuse chimpanzees act as if moratoriums and agreements don’t matter, as if they’re above it all. They’re not and each of us can easily do something now to stop the continued abuse of chimpanzees in invasive research.

Grief, Mourning, and Broken Hearted Animals
There’s no doubt many animals grieve the loss of family and friends. Mounting evidence clearly shows we’re not the only animals who possess the cognitive and emotional capacities for suffering the loss of others.

Minding Animals as Persons: Beatrice, My Mother, and Jethro, My Dog
My mother Beatrice and my dog Jethro shared many traits that warrant calling a being a person. When my mother suffered serious physical and psychological decline she was still considered a person as she well should have been. Yet Jethro and other animals do not warrant that status. Nothing is lost by viewing nonhuman animals as persons.

“What In the World Do My Essays Have To Do With Psychology?”
Knowing about nonhuman animals has everything to do with human psychology. What we think, know, feel, and believe about animals should strongly influence how we interact with them but often it doesn’t. Animals are merely property in the eyes of the law and enjoy little to no legal standing. This, in and of itself, tells us lots about human psychology.

Circuses: Wild Animals Do Not Belong in the Cruelest Show on Earth
Circuses do nothing for the animals themselves or for other members of their species despite claims to the contrary. Circuses make no contributions to conservation. They serve no purpose other than “entertainment” if you dare to call watching abused and terrorized animals performing stupid and unnatural tricks “entertainment”.

What Makes Us Uniquely Human?
Are we the only animals who mentally time travel and have a theory of mind? Some people think so but there are data that suggest we’re not. Are we exceptional in some ways? Yes we are but so are other animals.

Rampant Wolf Killing Makes Some People Happy
In just 2 weeks 44 wolves have been killed, or as some say “bagged,” in Montana. Some people actually find the deplorable slaughter of these magnificent animals makes them happy and to be encouraging. How in the world did such shameful and sick attitudes toward sentient beings ever evolve? Would they kill their dog? I’m afraid to ask.

Whales in Captivity: Are They Legally Slaves?
Does keeping whales (and perhaps other animals) in captivity violate the 13th Amendment ban on slavery? A pending lawsuit can change how we perceive and use other animals. It surely will lead to much needed discussion about the ways in which humans wantonly and routinely use and abuse animals in entertainment and in other venues.

Fish Don’t Like Being Hooked
Fish are sentient beings who don’t like being hooked either in their mouth by a human or by other fish whom they punish when they steal their food.

Is Eating Dogs Different from Eating Cows and Pigs?
A cancelled dog-eating festival in China has raised strong world-wide protest as it should. And so should the horrific conditions in which factory farmed animals are forced to live before they go to slaughter and as they’re being killed. We must face our choices in food head-on and be consistent about who winds up in our mouth.

Bloodbath in Ohio: Numerous Exotic Animals Killed After Being Freed
Numerous exotic animals were killed in Ohio after they were released from a private reserve. No humans were attacked. It’s too late to bring these animals back and give them the life they deserved. But regulations and laws about keeping unprotected exotic animals must be implemented and vigorously enforced.

9/11 Dogs: The Devoted Dozen Who Still Bless Our Lives
Twelve rescue dogs who worked tirelessly and selflessly during the chaos of 9/11 still survive. Say hello, read about them and see wonderful portraits in a collection called “Retrieved”, and send your very best wishes to these amazing dog beings.

Moon bears, wasps, and sexy seals: Animals aren’t dumb
Doctors call for the closure of cruel bear farms across Asia, wasps recognize individual faces, and female sea lions appear to be more in control of sex than previously thought. Animals are not dumb. They’re sentient, smart, and emotional, and can reason about the effects of their behavior. This is a photo of Jonah, a moon bear on his way to freedom.

Chimpanzees In the Crossfire: Are They Cleverer Than Us?
We shouldn’t be asking who’s cleverer than whom. Rather, we should ask what individuals of different species need to do to be card-carrying members of their species. This information will help us learn more about who we are and who “they” are and help us protect them in captivity and in the wild.

Animal and Humans: Meaningful Meetings of Common Minds
International meetings and growing general interest show that animals matter. A recent gathering concerned with social justice and the treatment and conservation of great apes, hosted by the Arcus Foundation, made it abundantly clear that we all must be concerned with how these and other amazing beings are treated and do something now to improve their (and our) lives.

Boobies In the News (Birds That Is)
Abused baby boobies grow up to be abusers themselves. This is the first evidence from a wild animal that, as in humans, abuse can be socially transmitted to future generations.

Animal Minds and the Foible of Human Exceptionalism
Human exceptionalism, the belief that human beings have special status based on our unique capacities, is misleading and has serious social, political, and environmental consequences for how we treat other animals and their homes. We need to be more humble and act with greater compassion and empathy for other beings.

Slaughtering Sentience: Rampant killing of wildlife by our government continues
Wildlife Services, a branch of the United States Department of Agriculture, ruthlessly kills millions of animals. In 2010 they slaughtered more than five million animals and spent more than $126 million to do so with no concern for the well-being of their victims. The amount of pain, suffering, and death for which they’re responsible is reprehensible.

Are great apes “ultraviolent”?
Sensationalist media often misrepresents other primates as violent beings, but available data show this is not the case. Across the board, great apes and other animals are predominantly cooperative. Of course, there are very rare examples of what could be called evil violence, but we should not use nonhumans to justify our evil ways.

Emotional honeybees and brainy jellyfish: More “surprises” in animal behavior
Honeybees display pessimism and jellyfish make complex decisions using a brain. The more we study fascinating animals the more we learn about their cognitive and emotional capacities.

Animals in the news: Self-aware chimpanzees, doomed wolves, and retired race horses
We continue to learn fascinating facts about the cognitive and emotional capacities of other animals and continue to mistreat them with little or no concern for their well-being. It’s time for a widespread social movement, a revolution of sorts. It ain’t rocket science. Other animals truly depend on our goodwill and we can all do something to help them along.

Dog Killed by Wildlife Services: The Horrific War On Wildlife Knows No Bounds or Decency
Government workers continue to ruthlessly kill wildlife and domesticated animals, showing no regard for the safety of people, including children, and their companion animals. Bella, a dog who died because Wildlife Services blatantly ignored EPA directives, would still be alive if they showed any common sense and decency.

The human-animal bond revisited: Power is not license to do what we please because we can
Wayne Pacelle’s book about our kinship with other animals is a must read. Readers will learn a lot about the other beings with whom we share Earth and also about the issues with which we must deal as we move into the 21st century. Every individual counts and each of us can easily make positive differences in the lives of animals with little effort.

The moral lives of animals: What did Herman Melville have to say about animals?
Many animals display moral intelligence in various social situations. This new and highly original book summarizes what we know and also provides numerous exciting ideas for future research and debate. It’s no longer nature red in tooth and claw.

Caring about animal abuse has a lot to do with human psychology
Our relationships with other animals require psychological studies. Conservation psychology, conservation education, and humane education can help us further our understanding of how we relate to other animals and what we can and must do to improve these interactions for their well-being and ours. When animals lose, we lose.

Victims of vanity: Wearing animals is donning pain and suffering
The fur industry is guilty of untold torture and tries to hide it. There are numerous and easy ways to buy non-animal clothing alternatives and each of us can remove reprehensible cruelty from the world if we made more humane and ethical choices. There is no reason at all to wear animals.

Empathic chickens and cooperative elephants: Emotional intelligence expands its range again
Chickens feel one another’s pain and elephants know when they need help and cooperate with one another to obtain a reward. When you eat chicken you’re eating pain and misery and it’s a matter of who’s for dinner, not what’s for dinner, because these amazing birds are highly sentient beings, as are elephants and numerous other animals.

Killing animals redux: Animal damage control means unrelenting slaughter and a huge waste of money
The 80th anniversary of the Animal Damage Control Act is a time for mourning. Animal genocide continues and the “problems” that prompt this wanton killing aren’t solved. What a waste of $120 million. Community-based programs, such as the Marin County Strategic Plan for Protection of Livestock and Wildlife, are more humane and more effective alternatives.

Wolves in the crosshairs once again: Politicians attempt to sidestep the Endangered Species Act
Attempts to fast track delisting wolves crosses party lines and conveniently ignores science. Montana Democratic senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester have proposed another delisting bill despite a federal court ruling that said that wolves should be protected by the Endangered Species Act.

Whipping horses doesn’t work and new observations of grief in chimpanzees
Research shows that whipping horses doesn’t make a difference in races and new observations show that chimpanzees mourn dead infants. Once again science shows how we can improve our relationships with animals who we use for entertainment and how remarkable other animals are.

Kids & animals: What are they thankful for and what are their dreams?
Kids can tell us how we should treat other animals. We should listen to them. A new book offers a unique glimpse of what kids around the world are thankful for and what their dreams and hopes are. The book centers on the guiding principles of Jane Goodall’s world-wide Roots & Shoots program.

Animal genocide government style: Our tax dollars at work
Our government wantonly and discompassionately slaughters millions of animals a year using our tax dollars. Ecosystems are also destroyed by this horrific and reprehensible killing. We need to stop this unrelenting war on wildlife and foster coexistence.

“Do fish feel pain?” redux: An interview with the author who shows of course they do
Fish feel pain and are far more intelligent than previously thought. The United States is ten years behind Europe concerning the keeping and killing of fish claims the author of “Do Fish Feel Pain?”, who supports sport fishing and eats fish. This is important to note because caring about animal welfare is not a “radical” point of view as some claim.

Dog learns more than 1000 names and chimpanzees make dolls
Increasing evidence shows just how smart and creative animals can be. It’s best to keep an open mind about the cognitive skills of other animals because “surprises” are regularly forthcoming.

Cruelty can’t stand the spotlight: Ending animal abuse is merely a click away so let’s make it a New Year’s resolution
It’s easy to end animal abuse with a few clicks of your mouse. Cruelty can’t stand the spotlight and each of us can make a positive difference in the lives of billions of animals. Please place ending animal abuse high among your New Year’s resolutions.

Kangaroos: These iconic animals are relentlessly slaughtered throughout Australia and they shouldn’t be
These iconic animals deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. They’re not. Kangaroos, including young joeys, are killed by the millions each year. Scientists have shown there’s little evidence to support this wanton slaughter. Let’s stop the slaughter and make this the century of compassion.

Dead Cow Walking
National Hamburger Day is a celebration that shouldn’t happen. Eating cows causes unnecessary suffering and death and is risky because of the serious diseases they carry from their lives on factory farms. Benefits of making humane choices are supported by solid scientific research.

Jane Goodall: A brief glimpse of a most amazing woman
What an amazing and unanticipated life was awaiting Jane Goodall after she arrived at the Gombe Stream reserve 50 years ago. It frightens me to think where we would be if she hadn’t made that fateful trip to East Africa in 1960.

Motherhood: Lessons from dolphins
Good mothering in dolphins is socially determined not genetic. Social factors rather than genes influence reproductive success in dolphins.

Crows and tools: Calling someone a birdbrain can be a compliment
Young crows learn to make complex tools in ’tool school’ by watching adults. Being a birdbrain isn’t really an insult.

Bees versus computers: Pea-brained bees win the “traveling salesman problem”
Tiny bee brains beat computers in solving the “traveling salesman problem.”

Compassionate Conservation Finally Comes of Age: Killing in the name of conservation doesn’t work
Compassionate conservation is no longer an oxymoron. Ethics must be firmly implanted in conservation biology, even if difficult questions move us outside of our professional and personal comfort zones. Ethical questions must be addressed, even if asking them means some projects might be put on hold temporarily or abandoned.

“Oh, I know animals suffer, but I love my steak”: The self-serving resolution of the “meat paradox”
Many people continue to eat animals knowing they suffer before they wind up at the end of their fork. A new study shows that the “meat paradox” is resolved for some by denying moral status and emotions to meat animals.

Dogs know what others know: Some new and exciting findings about our best friends
Dogs show evidence of having a theory of mind in that they are able to attribute beliefs and knowledge to others.

Demonic, Warlike Animals Are the Rare Exception, Not the Rule: Wild Justice In Animals Redux
There is no evidence that animals are inherently warlike. We need to stop using animals to justify our own cruel, evil, and warlike behavior.

Compassionate squirrels and good people helping oiled and other wildlife
Squirrels and people display compassion and Zimbabwe calls off a wildlife trade deal with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

Meat for sex? A blown “fact”
Male chimpanzees don’t trade meat for sex as previously assumed. So, bartering for sex in humans might be a more recent phenomenon.

Animals, kids, and slaughterhouse effects on crime: Some recent findings
Kid’s reasoning about animals is not universal and research shows a relationship between the presence of slaughterhouses and an increase in local crime.

Apes say “no” with a head shake, animals are lefties and righties, and getting out in nature is good. Duh!
Animals say “no” by shaking their head and show handedness. While we are different from other animals we are also rather similar. And, being “out in nature” is good for us. Duh!

Using hamsters to save ferrets: The need for compassionate conservation
Hamsters for dinner? Golden hamsters are bred solely to be used to train black-footed ferrets to kill. The harm done to hamsters violates ethical principles because it constitutes premeditated and intentional harm that could easily be avoided.

Fish do feel pain: Yes they do, science tells us
Fish do feel pain, so they do not like being hooked even if they’re tossed back in the water

“Mice are lousy models for clinical studies”: Animal models in biomedical research
Publication bias leads to major overstatement of efficacy. It’s time to develop non-animal models that are more reliable and more ethical

Animal Abuse: The Need For a Registry
Much research has shown a close relationship between animal and human abuse.

Going to slaughter: Should animals hope to meet Temple Grandin?
The lives of slaughterhouse animals are marked by constant fear, terror, and anxiety and cannot be made humane by any acceptable definition of the word

Tool use in animals: Mammals, birds, and other animals make and use tools and do other “surprising” things
Mammals, birds, and other animals make and use tools and show many other complex patterns of behavior

Who’s moral? We’re not alone in the moral arena
We’re not alone in the moral arena - a follow-up

Are nonhuman animals more moral than human animals? Yes they are
Humans and nonhuman animals are highly cooperative and empathic, more so than we’ve previously believed. And you donג€™t find mass warfare in animals as you do in humans so if you want to cast it that way, you could say animals are more moral.

Do Less Harm: Ants and a Simple New Years Resolution
Ants are amazing animals. Cutting off their legs isn’t a mere “makeover.” What did the ants think and feel about being mutilated?

Who we eat is moral question: Vegans have nothing to defend
Vegans don’t have to apologize for, or defend, their humane and ethical choices of who to put in their mouth

Do animals have spiritual experiences? Yes they do
Available evidence says “Yes, animals can have spiritual experiences.” We are not alone in the emotional, moral, or spiritual arenas.

Animal love: Hot-blooded elephants, guppy love, and love dogs
Love is a troubling, confusing, and mysterious emotion in humans but maybe less so in animals. People don’t hesitate to say they love another individual - human or nonhuman - and then intentionally harm them.

Grief in animals: It’s arrogant to think we’re the only animals who mourn
There is no doubt that many animals experience rich and deep emotions. It’s not a matter of if emotions have evolved in animals but why they have evolved as they have. We must never forget that our emotions are the gifts of our ancestors, our animal kin. We have feelings and so do other animals.

Morality in Tooth and Claw
Animals are “in.” This might well be called the decade of the animal. Research on animal behavior has never been more vibrant and more revealing of the amazing cognitive, emotional, and moral capacities of a broad range of animals. It’s becoming clear that animals have both emotional and moral intelligences.

Animal Emotions, Animal Sentience, Animal Welfare, and Animal Rights
Labeling an individual an animal “welfarist” or “rightist” connotes important messages about their views on animal exploitation and animal protection.

Factory Farming Without Animal Suffering Isn’t Okay
Even if animals don’t feel pain that’s no reason to keep them on factory farms or even to eat them.

Animals Feelings and Fur: Who (Not What) We Wear is An Ethical Choice
If one doubts that animals have deep feelings consider what they endure as they become unnecessary clothing. It’s easy to say that animals used for fur (and leather) don’t like how they’re treated.

Individual Animals Count: Speciesism Doesn’t Work
Spare the chimps, boil the shrimps, shock the mice, kill the lice, eat the hogs, pith the frogs, blind the rabbits, what drives these habits? Much animal use is driven by the similarities rather than the differences between humans and other animals. Philosopher Lynne Sharpe points out that how we explore and ponder the similarities and differences among animals depends on how we define ourselves.

Conservation Psychology and Animal and Human Well-being
Our relationships with animals are frustrating, challenging, paradoxical and range all over the place. We love animals and harm them in a myriad of ways and many people wonder not only why we continue to do this but also what we can do to give animals the respect, compassion, and love they deserve. A relatively new and rapidly emerging field called conservation psychology can help us improve our relationships with other animals.

A fox, a cougar, and a funeral
Many animals have rich and deep emotional lives. A few years ago I was lucky enough to observe a funeral ritual by a female red fox. Others have also seen similar events. In 1947 a naturalist on the East Coast saw a male fox lick his mate as she lay dead, and the male also protected his mate quite vigorously.

Do Animals Know Who they Are?
Did David Graybeard, the chimpanzee who was first observed to use a tool by Jane Goodall, have any idea of who he was? Do elephants, dolphins, cats, magpies, mice, salmon, ants or bees know who they are? Was Jethro, my late companion dog, a self-conscious being? Do any of these animals have a sense of self? What do these animals make of themselves when they look in a mirror, see their reflection in water, hear their own or another’s song or howl, or smell themselves and others? Is it possible that self-awareness “Wow that’s me!” is a uniquely human trait?

Stalking, Hunting, Stress, and Emotion
Let’s face it, “gone huntin’” and “gone fishin’” usually mean “gone killin’.” But death is often a blessing, a relief from the pain and suffering of being stalked, crippled or mutilated, and dying agonizingly slowly. Some who hunt and fish truly enjoy the richness of the experience, but they don’t want to make animals suffer. Perhaps if they fully realized the intense pain and suffering for which they’re responsible while stalking, they’d forego the emotional rush of the experience. And, there are lots of ways to experience nature and have quality time with family and friends without intruding on, and stressing, injuring, or killing, other animals.

Animals’ lives matter: Sentience and feelings count
Nonhuman animals have many of the same feelings we do and share the same neural structures that are important in processing emotions. So, why do we unrelentingly slaughter sentience? Animals experience contagious joy and the deepest of grief, they get hurt and suffer, and they take care of one another. They have a point of view on what happens to them, their families, and their friends.

Animal Emotions and Beastly Passions: We’re Not the Only Emotional Beings
As a scientist who’s studied animal emotions for more than 30 years, I consider myself very fortunate. I love what I do. I love learning about animals, and I love sharing what my colleagues and I discover with others. Whenever I observe or work with animals, I get to contribute to “science” and develop social relationships same time, and to me, there’s no conflict between these activities. Emotions are the gifts of our ancestors. We have them and so do other animals. We must never forget that.

Anthropomorphic Double-Talk: Can Animals Be Happy But Not Unhappy? No!
Over the years Iג€™ve noticed a curious phenomena. If a scientist says that an animal is happy, no one questions it, but if a scientist says that an animal is unhappy, then charges of anthropomorphism are immediately raised. This “anthropomorphic double-talk” seems mostly aimed at letting humans feel better about themselves. It is very misleading.

Wild Justice and Moral Intelligence in Animals
Do animals have a sense of morality? Do they know right from wrong? In our forthcoming book, Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals, philosopher Jessica Pierce and I argue that the answer to both of these questions is a resounding “yes.” “Ought” and “should” regarding what’s right and what’s wrong play important roles in the social interactions of animals, just as they do in ours.

Papers (with abstracts)

Some of these items have been found through Google Scholar.

Canis latrans
Bekoff - Mammalian Species, 1977 - JSTOR Canis latrans Say, in James, 1823: 168.
Type locality Engineer Cantonment, about 19.2 km SE present town of Blair, Washington Co., Nebraska. Canis ochropus Eschscholtz (1829: 1). Type locality Sacramento River Valley near Sacramento, California. Lyciscus cagottis …

Mammalian dispersal and the ontogeny of individual behavioral phenotypes
Bekoff - American Naturalist, 1977 - JSTOR
Explanations of dispersal mechanisms in mammals that have stressed the importance of aggression by dominant (?) individuals as the immediate cause of the dispersal of less aggressive (more subordinate?) individuals are insufficient for explaining recent data collected on a variety of mammals. In fact, avoidance of social interaction at the time of dispersal is more characteristic of some species in which individuals emigrate. Studies that have investigated genetic correlates of dispersal in rodent populations that undergo regular cycles are few and have not provided any “causative” explanations. In various canids and rodents, behavioral interactions at the time of dispersal do not appear to provide the necessary stimuli for dispersal. These observations suggest that knowledge of the behavioral interactions that occur before dispersal may provide a key to understanding both interspecific and intraspecific differences in social organization and dispersal patterns. It is suggested that individuals who have the most difficulty interacting with littermates will not develop strong social ties with their siblings and will be the most likely individuals to disperse of their own accord. This hypothesis is testable by collecting data on the social interaction patterns of individual littermates throughout early development and during dispersal. In this way, the importance of a heretofore neglected factor in dispersal-namely, the relationship between the behavioral antecedents of dispersal and which individuals disperse at what age, and in what manner can be assessed.

Mammalian play: training for the unexpected
RC Newberry, Bekoff - Quarterly Review of Biology, 2001 - JSTOR
In this review, we present a new conceptual framework for the study of play behavior, a hitherto puzzling array of seemingly purposeless and unrelated behavioral elements that are recognizable as play throughout the mammalian lineage.Our major new functional hypothesis is that play enables animals to develop flexible kinematic and emotional responses to unexpected events in which they experience a sudden loss of control. Specifically, we propose that play functions to increase the versatility of movements used to recover from sudden shocks such as loss of balance and falling over, and to enhance the ability of animals to cope emotionally with unexpected stressful situations. To obtain this “training for the unexpected,” we suggest that animals actively seek and create unexpected situations in play through self-handicapping; that is, deliberately relaxing control over their movements or actively putting themselves into disadvantageous positions and situations. Thus, play is comprised of sequences in which the players switch rapidly between well-controlled movements similar to those used in “serious” behavior and self-handicapping movements that result in temporary loss of control. We propose that this playful switching between in-control and out-of-control elements is cognitively demanding, setting phylogenetic and ontogenetic constraints on play, and is underlain by neuroendocrinological responses that produce a complex emotional state known as “having fun.” Furthermore, we propose that play is often prompted by relatively novel or unpredictable stimuli, and is thus related to, although distinct from, exploration. We present 24 predictions that arise from our new theoretical framework, examining the extent to which they are supported by the existing empirical evidence and contrasting them with the predictions of four major alternative hypotheses about play. We argue that our “training for the unexpected” hypothesis can account for some previously puzzling kinematic, structural, motivational, emotional, cognitive, social, ontogenetic, and phylogenetic aspects of play. It may also account for a diversity of individual methods for coping with unexpected misfortunes.

The development of social interaction, play, and metacommunication in mammals: an ethological perspective
Bekoff - Quarterly Review of Biology, 1972 - JSTOR
Analysis of the dynamics of the ontogeny of social interaction is of critical importance in order that behavioral development may be comprehended in its own right, and the relationship between infant and adult behavior understood.In this review, general concepts of behavioral development in mammals are discussed and analyzed, and the many variables that are involved are considered. When it is impossible to control or observe the social interaction of the developing organism in its natural environment, captive subjects should be used. There is increasing evidence that results obtained with the latter are related to social organization observed in the wild. Play behavior is operationally defined on the basis of a comprehensive review of the literature and of personal observations of the social development of canids. The essential “need” for social interaction during infant life is discussed, as is the phenomenon of behavioral neoteny. The concept of metacommunication, and its relationship to social development are analyzed, and the role of ritualization in the evolution of metacommunicative signals is considered.

Social play and play-soliciting by infant canids
Bekoff - American Zoologist, 1974 - Soc Integ Comp Biol Abstract
The development of social interaction was studied in infant coyotes, beagles, and wolves. In this paper, social play behavior is discussed. Social play may be characterized in a number of ways: (i) actions from various contexts are incorporated into labile (unpredictable) temporal sequences; (ii) the play bout is typically preceded by a metacommunicative signal which indicates what follows is play; these signals are also observed during the bout; (iii) certain actions may be repeated and performed in an exaggerated manner; (iv) the activity appears pleasurable to the players. By comparing these three species, some insight into the dynamics of social play may be gained. Coyotes were the least successful in soliciting play. When they did play, 90% of all bouts had been previously solicited. Coyotes also tended to use the most successful signals most frequently. This trend was not observed in the beagles or the wolves. By taking into account the fact that infant coyotes are significantly more aggressive than either infant wolves or beagles, the differential ontogeny of social play can be explained. Some of the functions of social play in canids are discussed, and it is concluded that social play is a valid class of social behavior and lends itself nicely to quantitative study.

Play signals as punctuation: The structure of social play in canids
Bekoff - Behaviour, 132, 1995 - ingentaconnect.com
Actions called play signals have evolved in many species in which social play has been observed. Despite there being only few empirical demonstrations, it generally is accepted that play signals are important in the initiation (“I want to play”) and maintenance (“I still want to play”) of ongoing social play. In this study I consider whether a specific and highly stereotyped signal, the bow, is used to maintain social play in adult and infant domestic dogs, infant wolves, and infant coyotes.To answer this question the temporal placement of bows relative to actions that are also used in other contexts (dominance or predatory encounters) such as biting accompanied by rapid side-to-side shaking of the head was analyzed to determine if bows performed during ongoing social play are used to communicate the message “I want to play despite what I am going to do or just did - I still want to play”. The non-random occurrence of bows supports the hypothesis that bows are used to maintain social play in these canids when actions borrowed from other contexts, especially biting accompanied by rapid side-to-side shaking of the head, are likely to be misinterpreted. (see html))

Life history patterns and the comparative social ecology of carnivores
Bekoff, Daniels, Gittleman - Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1984 - JSTOR
The mammalian order Carnivora is characterized by a great range of behavioral, ecological, and morphological adaptations, as well as substantial intraspecific variability (ie behavioral scaling; see 324).

[Social ecology and behavior of coyotes](http://www.rockies.ca/coyotes/files/social behavior and ecology of coyotes - beckoff.pdf) (pdf)
Bekoff, Wells - Adv. Stud. Behav., 1986 - rockies.ca
Coyotes, Canis latrans, are medium-sized members of the order Carnivora (weight: about 8-20 kg; length: approximately 1-1.4 m) that range from as far south as Costa Rica and Panama (Vaughan, 1983), throughout the continental United States and Canada, to northern Alaska (Young and Jackson, 1951; Gier, 1968; Bekoff, 1977a, 1978a, 1982). Within, and perhaps outside of, these gener- al boundaries the range of coyotes appears to be expanding due primarily to their high reproductive potential, great dispersal ability, and opportunistic food habits (Vaughan, 1983). Coyote expansion has also been facilitated by the elimination of large competitors such as gray wolves (Canis lupus), with whom they usually compete unsuccessfully (Gier, 1975; Carbyn, 1982) and avoid (Fuller and Keith, 1981). Furthermore, coyotes show a marked ability to compensate for increased human exploitation (Knowlton, 1972; Sterling et al., 1983). They are able to exist and reproduce successfully in extremely diverse habitats ranging from sea level to 2000-3000 m, including deserts, open grasslands, broken and dense forests, and large cities such as Los Angeles, California (Howell, 1982; Wirtz et al., 1982). As Gier (1975) stressed, neither altitude, latitude, nor vegetation restricts their survival.

Intentional communication and social play: how and why animals negotiate and agree to play
Bekoff, Allen - Animal play: Evolutionary, comparative, and ג€¦, 1998 - books.google.com
To return to our immediate subject: the lower animals, like man, manifestly feel pleasure and pain, happiness and misery. Happiness is never better exhibited than by young animals, such as puppies, kittens, lambs, &c., when playing together, like our own children. Even insects play together, as has been described by that excellent observer, P. Huber, who saw ants chasing and pretending to bite each other, like so many puppies. (Charles Darwin 1871/1936, p.448)\\ Pierre Huber (1810, p. 148), in his book about the behavior of ants, claims that if one were not accustomed to treating insects as machines one would have trouble explaining the social behavior of ants and bees without attributing emotions to them. (see html))

Simulation analyses of space use: home range estimates, variability, and sample size
Bekoff, Mech - Behavior Research Methods, 1984 - Springer
Simulations of space use by animals were run to determine the relationship among home range area estimates, variability, and sample size (number of locations). As sample size increased, home range size increased asymptotically, whereas variability decreased among mean home range area estimates generated by multiple simulations for the same sample size. Our results suggest that field workers should ascertain between 100 and 200 locations in order to estimate reliably home range area. In some cases, this suggested guideline is higher than values found in the few published studies in which the relationship between home range area and number of locations is addressed. Sampling differences for small species occupying relatively small home ranges indicate that fewer locations may be sufficient to allow for a reliable estimate of home range. Intraspecific variability in social status (group member, loner, resident, transient), age, sex, reproductive condition, and food resources also have to be considered, as do season, habitat, and differences in sampling and analytical methods. Comparative data still are needed.

Vigilance, flock size, and flock geometry: information gathering by western evening grosbeaks (Aves, Fringillidae)
Bekoff - Ethology, 1995 - Wiley
Online Library Vigilance (scanning) and other behavior patterns were studied in free-ranging Evening Grosbeaks (Coccothraustes vespertinus) at feeders to assess how flock size and flock geometry influenced the behavior of individual birds. The present results indicate that the way in which individual grosbeaks are positioned with respect to one another effects many aspects of their behavior, especially when a flock contains four or more birds. Birds in a linear array who have difficulty seeing one another, when compared to individuals organized in a circle who can easily see one another, are (1) more vigilant, (2) change their head and body positions more often, (3) react to changes in group size more slowly, (4) show less coordination in head movements, and (5) show more variability in all measures. These differences in behavior can be explained from a cognitive ethological perspective that favors intentional or representational explanations. Specifically, the data suggest that individual grosbeaks, when scanning and moving about, are visually monitoring the flock in which they are feeding and gathering information about a number of variables including flock size, what others are doing, where others are, which individuals are present, phenotypic features of flock members, food resources, or the location of potential predators. Individuals likely use visual records of the behavior and perhaps the phenotypic features of others, and this information influences various aspects of their behavior. (see html))

Social communication in canids: Evidence for the evolution of a stereotyped mammalian display
Bekoff - Science, 1977 - sciencemag.org
The variability in the duration and form of the canid play bow was studied in infant coyotes, wolves, wolf-dog hybrids, beagles, and adult free-ranging dogs. Both duration and form showed marked stereotypy. It appears that the role of this context-specific social signal in the communication of play intention has been fostered by selection for “morphological” stereotypy.

Social play behaviour. Cooperation, fairness, trust, and the evolution of morality
Bekoff - Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2001 - ingentaconnect.com
Here I briefly discuss some comparative data on social play behaviour in hope of broadening the array of species in which researchers attempt to study animal morality. I am specifically concerned with the notion of ג€˜behaving fairly’. In the term ג€˜behaving fairlyג€™ I use as a working guide the notion that animals often have social expectations when they engage in various sorts of social encounters the violation of which constitutes being treated unfairly because of a lapse in social etiquette. I will cash this out below in my discussion of social play behaviour. (get pdf)

Group size and vigilance in pronghorns
Lipetz, Bekoff - Zeitschrift Tierpsychologie, 1982 - Wiley Online Library
The relationship between group size and vigilance in pronghorn antelopes (Antilocapra americana) was examined. As group size increased, the proportion of vigilant pronghorns decreased. Individuals in larger groups foraged longer than those in smaller groups. However, only solitary individuals foraged for significantly less time than individuals in all other group sizes. Solitary females with fawns present foraged for significantly less time than solitary males; solitary females without fawns present had intermediate foraging times. Peripheral individuals appeared to be more wary than those in the center of groups; the first two individuals to lift their heads were more likely to be on the periphery. Individuals lifted their heads at random with respect to one another.

Biological function, adaptation, and natural design
Allan, Bekoff - Philosophy of Science, 1995 - JSTOR
Recently something close to a consensus about the best way to naturalize the notion of biological function appears to be emerging. Nonetheless, teleological notions in biology remain controversial.

An observational study of scent-marking in coyotes, Canis latrans
Wells, Bekoff - Animal Behaviour, 1981 - Elsevier
Urination and defaecation patterns of free-ranging coyotes (Canis latrans) were studied in the Grand Teton National Park, Jackson, Wyoming, for two years. The vast majority of urinations by adult males and females were involved in marking, and differentiating between marking and elimination may not be necessary. Our results may be summarized as follows: (1) raised-leg urinations (RLU) performed by males were most frequently used in marking. (2) Females marked throughout the year using the squat (SQU) posture. (3) Snow tracking and reading snow sign resulted in a gross underestimate of the relative frequency of SQU’s and a large overestimate in the relative frequency of defaecations (DEF) when compared to results obtained by direct observation. (4) There was sexual dimorphism for the contexts in which marking occurred. Overall, marking by males was associated with courtship and mating, with travelling, and with aggression. Marking by females was associated with the acquisition and possession of food and with the denning season. (5) Marking rates per coyote increased in groups larger than two animals. (6) RLU marking rates were greatest in areas of high intrusion when compared to denning areas and areas in which non-group members infrequently tresscent odours are important in orienting individuals in space but do not represent in and of themselves barriers to movement.

Kin recognition in vertebrates: what do we really know about adaptive value?
Blaustein, Bekoff, Byers, Daniel - Animal Behaviour, 1991 - Elsevier
The ability of an animal to discriminate between kin and non-kin (kin recognition) has been the subject of numerous recent investigations. Grafen (Anim. Behav., 1990, 39, 42ג€“54) recently reported that the evidence in support of kin recognition is weak and the data illustrating a preference for kin to associate in the laboratory may be more consistently explained as species recognition. It is suggested here, however, that in many cases it may be impossible to distinguish between species recognition and kin recognition, but in some cases, kin recognition seems apparent. It is also emphasized that very little is known about the adaptive value of kin recognition.

Ecology and social responsibility: the re-embodiment of science
Bradshaw, Bekoff - Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2001 - Elsevier
As global environmental problems intensify, ecology is increasingly drawn into the social arena, and many ecologists feel caught between two competing models of science: a science apart from society and a science directly engaged with society. Interdisciplinary research and integrative theories are helping resolve this conflict by providing a common framework for both biophysical and social sciences. The incorporation of the human dimension into ecology is reversing a century-old trend of separation and reintegrating science into the human experience. ([get pdf](http://www.kerulos.org/learn_more/pubs_trans_assets/TREE-2001B and B.pdf))

Cognitive ethology: Slayers, skeptics, and proponents
Bekoff, Allen (1997) Cognitive Ethology: Slayers, Skeptics, and Proponents.
In this paper we identify three major groups of people (among some of whose members there are blurred distinctions) with different views on cognitive ethology, namely, slayers, skeptics, and proponents. Our analyses are based on our reading of some published reviews of Donald Griffin’s works in cognitive ethology and other clearly stated opinions concerning animal cognition, in the sense of attribution of mental states and properties such as beliefs, awareness, and consciousness. Slayers Slayers deny any possibility of success in cognitive ethology. In our analyses of their published statements, we have found that they sometimes conflate the difficulty of doing rigorous cognitive ethological investigations with the impossibility of doing so. Slayers also often ignore specific details of work by cognitive ethologists and frequently mount philosophically motivated objections to the possibility of learning anything about animal cognition. Slayers do not believe that cognitive ethological approaches can lead, and have lead, to new and testable hypotheses. They often pick out the most difficult and least accessible phenomena to study (e.g. consciousness) and then conclude that because we can gain little detailed knowledge about this subject, we cannot do better in other areas. Slayers also appeal to parsimony in explanations of animal behavior, but they dismiss the possibility that cognitive explanations can be more parsimonious than noncognitive alternatives, and they deny the utility of cognitive hypotheses for directing empirical research. Skeptics Skeptics are often difficult to categorize. They are a bit more open-minded than slayers, and there seems to be greater variation among skeptical views of cognitive ethology than among slayers’ opinions. However, some skeptics recognize some past and present successes in cognitive ethology, and remain cautiously optimistic about future successes; in these instances they resemble moderate proponents. Many skeptics appeal to the future of neuroscience, and claim that when we know all there is to know about nervous systems, cognitive ethology will be superfluous (Bekoff, 1993a; it should be noted that Griffin, 1992 also makes strong appeals to neuroscience, but he does not believe that increased knowledge in neurobiology will cause cognitive ethology to disappear). Like slayers, skeptics frequently conflate the difficulty of doing rigorous cognitive ethological investigations with the impossibility of doing so. Skeptics also find folk psychological, anthropomorphic, and cognitive explanations to be off-putting. Proponents Proponents recognize the utility of cognitive ethological investigations. They claim that there are already many successes and they see that cognitive ethological approaches have provided new and interesting data that also can inform and motivate further study. Proponents also accept the cautious use of folk psychological and cognitive explanations to build a systematic explanatory framework in conjunction with empirical studies, and do not find anecdotes or anthropomorphism to be thoroughly off-putting. Some proponents are as extreme in their advocacy of cognitive ethology as some slayers are in their opposition. But most proponents are willing to be critical of cognitive ethological research without dooming the field prematurely; if cognitive ethology is to die, it will be of natural causes and not as a result of hasty slayings. (see html)

Population and social biology of free-ranging dogs, Canis familiaris
Daniels, Bekoff - Journal of Mammalogy, 1989 - JSTOR
Population size and density, age structure, survivorship patterns, sex ratios, and social organization of urban, rural, and feral dog (Canis familiaris) populations were examined in Cd. Juarez, Mexico (urban site) and on the Navajo reservation (rural and wild sites) between June 1983 and December 1984. Urban and rural dogs were less social than expected whereas feral dogs characteristically lived in packs. Seasonal variation in the structure of feral dog packs was influenced by reproduction, both directly (pups born into the pack) and indirectly (pregnant females may temporarily emigrate form the pack to give birth).

Social play behavior
Bekoff - Bioscience, 1984 - JSTOR
Recent studies clearly indicate that animal play is an important behavioral phenotype, and that detailed analyses of the phenomenon are useful for furthering our understanding of the evolution of social behavior and the interaction of phylogeny, ecology, and behavioral development. This article is concerned mainly with evolutionary, ecological, and developmental aspects of social play behavior in mammals.

Social, spacing, and cooperative behavior of the collared peccary, Tayassu tajacu
Byers, Bekoff - Journal of Mammalogy, 1981 - JSTOR
Social behavior of the collared peccary was studied on the lower, eastern slopes of the Mazatzal Mountains, Arizona. The social unit in this species is a cohesive herd, in which small inter-individual distances are maintained. Two conspicuous acts, one olfactory and one auditory, functioned to maintain close spacing. Social interactions were brief but tended to synchronize the activities of animals and also to bring them closer together. Amicable and neutral actions occurred far more frequently than agonistic interactions. Most agonistic behavior did not involve physical contact. Cooperative nursing, predator defense, and feeding occurred; all adults were tolerant of young, and males showed little overt competition over estrous females. The absence of sexual dimorphism, the 1:1 sex ratio within social groups, and the small, precocial litters in this species suggest an evolutionary history of pronounced sociality. Kin selection possibly was important in the evolution of social behavior in peccaries.

On aims and methods of cognitive ethology
Jamieson, Bekoff - Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association ֲ© 1992
Philosophy of Science Association In 1963 Niko Tinbergen published a paper, “On Aims and Methods of Ethology,” dedicated to his friend Konrad Lorenz. Here Tinbergen defines ethology as “the biological study of behavior,” and seeks to demonstrate “the close affinity between Ethology and the rest of Biology.” Tinbergen identifies four major areas of ethology: causation, survival value, evolution, and ontogeny. Our goal is to attempt for cognitive ethology what Tinbergen succeeded in doing for ethology: to clarify its aims and methods, to distinguish some of its varieties, and to defend the fruitfulness of the research strategies that it has spawned.

Behavioral ecology of coyotes: social organization, rearing patterns, space use, and resource defense
Bekoff, Wells - Zeitschrift fֳ¼r Tierpsychologie, 1982 - Wiley Online Library
Two groups of coyotes in which genealogical relationships were known were studied in the Grand Teton National Park, outside of Jackson, Wyoming, U.S.A., from 1977ג€“1982. One group, a pack consisting of parents and some non-dispersing and non-breeding offspring, defended a territory and the food (mainly elk carrion) contained within it, especially during winter, and also had helpers at den sites (5 of 6 were males). The other group, a mated resident pair, all of whose young dispersed during the first year of life, did not defend a territory and never had helpers at dens. Delayed dispersal and retention of some offspring as helpers was related to the presence of an abundant, clumped, and defendable winter food resource. Dispersing yearlings suffered higher mortality than did non-dispersing individuals.
Litter size was the same for the pack and resident pair; litter size was not significantly correlated with number of adults in the group or with the number or percentage of pups that survived to 5ג€“6 months of age. The presence of pack helpers was not significantly correlated with pup survival, although there was a positive correlation (rs = +0.37) between the number of adults attending a den(s) and pup survival. Helpers rarely fed pups and their presence had no appreciable effect on juvenile weight. Helpers partook in den-sitting (pup-guarding), but they did not reduce the amount of time that parents spent at den sites. Helpers also actively initiated and took part in territorial and food defense. The proportion of times that pack members initiated defense was inversely related to intruder density (r = ג€“0.94).

Wild justice and fair play: cooperation, forgiveness, and morality in animals
Bekoff - Biology and Philosophy, 2004 - Springer
In this paper I argue that we can learn much about lsquowild justicersquo and the evolutionary origins of social morality ג€“ behaving fairly ג€“ by studying social play behavior in group-living animals, and that interdisciplinary cooperation will help immensely. In our efforts to learn more about the evolution of morality we need to broaden our comparative research to include animals other than non-human primates. If one is a good Darwinian, it is premature to claim that only humans can be empathic and moral beings. By asking the question lsquoWhat is it like to be another animal?rsquo we can discover rules of engagement that guide animals in their social encounters. When I study dogs, for example, I try to be a lsquodogocentristrsquo and practice lsquodogomorphism.rsquo My major arguments center on the following lsquobigrsquo questions: Can animals be moral beings or do they merely act as if they are? What are the evolutionary roots of cooperation, fairness, trust, forgiveness, and morality? What do animals do when they engage in social play? How do animals negotiate agreements to cooperate, to forgive, to behave fairly, to develop trust? Can animals forgive? Why cooperate and play fairly? Why did play evolve as it has? Does lsquobeing fairrsquo mean being more fit ג€“ do individual variations in play influence an individual’’s reproductive fitness, are more virtuous individuals more fit than less virtuous individuals? What is the taxonomic distribution of cognitive skills and emotional capacities necessary for individuals to be able to behave fairly, to empathize, to behave morally? Can we use information about moral behavior in animals to help us understand ourselves? I conclude that there is strong selection for cooperative fair play in which individuals establish and maintain a social contract to play because there are mutual benefits when individuals adopt this strategy and group stability may be also be fostered. Numerous mechanisms have evolved to facilitate the initiation and maintenance of social play to keep others engaged, so that agreeing to play fairly and the resulting benefits of doing so can be readily achieved. I also claim that the ability to make accurate predictions about what an individual is likely to do in a given social situation is a useful litmus test for explaining what might be happening in an individual’’s brain during social encounters, and that intentional or representational explanations are often important for making these predictions. ([get pdf](http://animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Morality/Speciesism/Wild Justice.pdf))

Reflective ethology, applied philosophy, and the moral status of animals
Bekoff, Jamieson - Perspectives in ethology, 1991 - agris.fao.org
Currently there is an unprecedented interest in ethological studies of nonhuman animals. Much of this interest is motivated by a desire to learn more about animals themselves. For scientists assuming this stance, a secondary goal is to use this knowledge to assess the place of humans in the natural order of things, stressing continuity or discontinuity depending on one’s views. Others, however, study animals primarily to apply this knowledge to human behavior. We argue that behavioral research demands the rigorous application of methods that are minimally harmful to the animals being studied. We argue for a moderate, but rigorous and uncompromising, position on issues of animal welfare. A number of areas that in our opinion require careful scrutiny before research should be permitted are identified. It is a privilege to study nonhumans even in what seem to be noninterventive situations, and we should reflect on what we are doing by empathizing with the animals that are being studied. From this point of view, ethological interest and philosophical concerns with morality, mind, and science complement one another. Thus, ethology and philosophy should inform one another with respect to the way in which animals are studied, and how data are analyzed, applied, and disseminated.

[[http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050%5B0861:AEEPN%5D2.0.CO;2][Animal emotions: exploring passionate natures]]
Bekoff - BioScience, 2000 - BioOne
Current interdisciplinary research provides compelling evidence that many animals experience such emotions as joy, fear, love, despair, and griefג€”we are not alone. ([get pdf](http://sobek.colorado.edu/~irvinel/Animals and Society Readings/Bekoff Animal Emotions.pdf))

Avian play: comparative evolutionary and developmental trends
Ortega, Bekoff - The Auk, 1987 - JSTOR
Classified 26 extant avian orders as having species with either primarily altricial or precocial young. 10 of the 12 of these orders in which play has reportedly occurred were comprised of altricial species. Findings are related to the development of the avian forebrain.

Predation by wild coyotes: behavioral and ecological analyses
Wells, Bekoff - Journal of Mammalogy, 1982 - JSTOR
Predatory behavior of coyotes (Canis latrans) was studied between 1977 and 1980 in the Grand Teton National Park, Jackson, Wyoming. Major prey were voles (Microtus spp.), Uinta ground squirrels (Spermophilus armatus), pocket gophers (Thomomys talpoides), and grasshoppers (Locustidae). Coyotes typically rushed and ran down squirrels; when hunting mice, coyotes pounced and stabbed at them with their forepaws. Sequence structure was similar, though sequences directed to squirrels were significantly more variable. When juvenile coyotes hunted mice, sequences were similar to those performed by adults that hunted mice. Adults and juveniles were about equally successful. The size of prey last eaten influenced the interval until the next search was initiated; the larger the prey, the longer the interval. However, the time interval since the last capture and the outcome (capture or failure) of the next predatory attempt were not correlated. Durations of search, orient, and stalk were longer in short (< 10 cm) grass than in tall grass; stalk, orient, and total durations also were more variable in short grass. Coyotes that hunted in short grass were more successful. Durations of all acts were shorter and coyotes were more successful in snow less than 10 cm deep than in deeper snow. Mean orient and total durations were more variable in deep snow. Height of ground-cover apparently affected coyote movements and the way in which cues from prey were perceived. Local wind conditions did not affect capture success. Coyotes were least successful when they hunted mice and more successful when they hunted squirrels. More time was spent searching and stalking squirrels.

Predicting flock vigilance from simple passerine interactions: modelling with cellular automata
Bahr, Bekoff - Animal behaviour, 1999 - Elsevier
Vigilance in flocks can be described and modelled as a plausible set of local interactions between neighbouring birds. Each bird in the modelled flock chooses to feed or to scan based solely on whether or not its neighbours are feeding or scanning. This simple model has the ability both to reproduce observations that have not been previously explained and to predict flock behaviours that might be confirmed with future field studies. Examples include simulations showing decreased vigilance with increased flock size (as observed in the field), greater time spent scanning when obstacles such as trees are present (as observed) and a coordinated feed/scan pattern (that is predicted to become increasingly coordinated when the birds look up from feeding more frequently). The numerical model also predicts that flock geometry influences vigilance. If two flocks are the same size, individuals in the one with the larger perimeter will spend more time scanning. This prediction could be tested with field studies and already has been observed empirically for two limiting cases: birds arranged in a line (high perimeters, high scan times) and birds in a circle (lower perimeters, lower scan times). As demonstrated by its multiple successes, cellular models of this type are a powerful new approach to understanding bird flock behaviours.

What Does Kin Recognition Mean?
Byers, Bekoff - Ethology, 1986 - Wiley Online Library
The phenomenon of kin recognition has gained much attention, because of HAMILTON’S (1964) now famous prediction, that an animal ideally should base its treatment of another conspecific on the degree to which it is related to that individual. Most authors working in this field have been careful to state that, in studying “recognition”, they do not imply any kind of cognition. Nevertheless, the way in which the word “recognition” is used in many papers, implies, if not cognition, at least some kind of as yet unobserved neural activity.

Reflections on animal selves
Bekoff, Sherman - Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2004 - Elsevier
Is self-cognizance a uniquely human attribute, or do other animals also have a sense of self? Although there is considerable interest in this question, answers remain elusive. Progress has been stymied by misunderstandings in terminology, a focus on a narrow range of species, and controversies over key concepts, experimental paradigms and interpretations of data. Here, we propose a new conceptual and terminological framework, emphasizing that degrees of self-cognizance differ among animals because of the cognitive demands that their species-specific social structures and life-history characteristics have placed upon them over evolutionary time. We suggest that the self-cognizance of an organism falls at a point on a continuum of social complexity and conscious involvement.

Cognitive ethology and the explanation of nonhuman animal behavior
Bekoff - 1995 - cogprints.org
In this paper I attempt to provide a convincing case for the importance of cognitive ethological investigations for advancing our knowledge of animal cognition. Cognitive ethology is broadly defined as the evolutionary and comparative study of nonhuman animal (hereafter animal) thought processes, consciousness, beliefs, or rationality, and is an area in which research is informed by different types of investigations and explanations. After (1) a brief discussion of the agenda of cognitive ethology, in which three different views of cognitive ethology are considered as is the relationship of cognitive ethology as a science to other branches of science, I (2) argue that folk psychological explanations and empirical data both are important to cognitive ethological research and conclude that the former are not as weak and as dispensable as some claim; (3) appeal to some case studies in recent analyses of social play behavior and antipredatory behavior (vigilance against potential predators) to make the point that folk psychology works well with empirical data and to provide examples in which the cognitive ethological perspective has proven to be a good heuristic; and (4) make some suggestions for future research. Cognitive ethology is alive, has a bright future, and has much to gain from a broad interdisciplinary perspective. Comparative approaches to cognitive science are very fruitful and have much to offer. (see html)

Physical development in coyotes (Canis latrans), with a comparison to other canids
Bekoff, Jamieson - Journal of Mammalogy, 1975 - JSTOR
Few detailed data are available on physical development in members of the family Canidae and there are few published papers that include information on the coyote (Snow, 1967; Gier, 1968; Bekoff, 1974a).

An Observational Study of Coyote (Canis latrans) Scentmarking and Territoriality in Yellowstone National Park
Allen, Bekoff, Crabtree - Ethology, 1999 - Wiley Online Library
Free-ranging coyotes (Canis latrans) living in neighboring packs were observed in the Lamar Valley of Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, from Jan. to May 1997. Through direct observation, we recorded the location of coyote scent marks and information regarding the identity of the marking animal. Patterns of scent-marking were then analyzed spatially and demographically. All of the evidence from the present study supports a strong relationship between scent-marking and territoriality in these coyotes, and all predictions were met. A preponderance of scent marks was found in the periphery of territories. Most of those marks were raised-leg urinations (RLUs) and forward-lean urinations (FLUs), postures associated very strongly with males, particularly dominant individuals. Ground-scratching was also closely associated with these types of marks and was performed more on the periphery of territories than in the interior. A complete lack of overlap of adjacent territories and very limited overlap of movements into territories fits classic definitions of territory and home range. Scent-marking seems to be strongly associated with the establishment and maintenance of these boundaries between packs of coyotes competing for the same resources in a limited space.

Intentional icons: Towards an evolutionary cognitive ethology
Bekoff, Allen - Ethology, 1992 - Wiley Online Library
In most species in which social play has been observed, play-soliciting signals have evolved. These social signals appear to be important in communicating play intention. Here, using the work of Ruth Millikan as a working guide and canid play bows as an example, we argue that (i) some play signals may be simple intentional icons and (ii) senders and receivers are cooperating devices, in that the disposition of senders to produce play-soliciting signals and the disposition of receivers of play signals to respond appropriately to play invitations, have evolved together. Millikan’s views of social communication are difficult to render and are virtually untested. However, her stance, while philosophically controversial, is somewhat consistent with early ethological views of social communication. Thus, in combination with classical ethological positions, Millikan’s position could serve as a useful guide not only to inform and motivate future empirical research in cognitive ethology, but also to stimulate ethologists to reconsider, in innovative ways, nonhuman animal cognition. To reject the empirical utility of Millikan’s theory because of its difficulty or on philosophical grounds would be premature and would represent a confusion of empirical with philosophical issues.

Precopulatory and copulatory behavior in coyotes
Bekoff, Diamond Journal of Mammalogy Vol. 57, No. 2 (May, 1976), pp. 372-375
Little is known about the behavioral aspects of reproductive biology in coyotes (Canis latrans), but there is a considerable amount of information concerning reproductive anatomy and physiology (see Bekoff, 1974, 1976; Diamond, 1976, for reviews).

Social play in coyotes, wolves, and dogs
Bekoff - BioScience, 1974 - JSTOR
In this paper, the development of social play behavior in coyotes, wolves, and beagles is discussed, as are the ways in which “play intention” is communicated and a “play mood” maintained. Coyotes were observed to fight more and play less than wolves or beagles of the same age, and the differential development of social behavior in these canids may play some role in determining the later species-typical social organization observed in adults.

Motor training and physical fitness: Possible shortand longterm influences on the development of individual differences in behavior
Bekoff - Developmental Psychobiology, 1988 - Wiley Online Library
Individual differences in the behavior of young and adult animals have been documented in diverse species. Possible sources of such variation are of interest to scientists representing many disciplines, including behavior, genetics, and population and evolutionary biology. Two variables that may be important in the ontogeny and maintenance of behavioral differences are (1) individual physical (aerobic and anaerobic) fitness and (2) possible genetic variations underlying individual abilities to engage in, and to benefit from, motor training early in life. The differential development of aerobic and anaerobic capacities may play a significant role in the ontogeny of individual differences in the performance of various motor skills. There also may be short- and long-term consequences of variations in physical fitness that influence individual abilities to perform energy demanding acts during aggressive encounters, interactions with prey or predators, and courtship and breeding. Genetic studies of a limited number of species indicate that specific genotypes are correlated with individual variations in motor performance, even among conspecifics. Multidisciplinary research concerning possible relationships among the ontogeny of physical fitness, genetics, and variations in behavior is needed. Recent work on the relationship between individual differences in physical fitness and variations in the behavior of adult cold-blooded vertebrates provides a good model for comparative research on warm-blooded species.

Cognitive ethology and the treatment of non-human animals: How matters of mind inform matters of welfare.
Bekoff - Animal Welfare, 1994 - psycnet.apa.org
Anthropocentric claims about the ways in which non-human animals interact in their social and non-social worlds are often used to influence decisions on how animals can or should be used by humans in various sorts of activities. Thus, the treatment of individuals is often tightly linked to how they are perceived with respect to their ability to perform behavior patterns that suggest that they can thinkג€”have beliefs, desires, or make plans and have expectations about the future. This article reviews some basic issues in the comparative study of animal minds and discusses how matters of mind are related to matters of welfare and well-being. Much comparative research still needs to be done before any stipulative claims can be made about how an individual’s cognitive abilities can be used to influence decisions about how she or he should be treated. The author stresses the importance of (1) subjectivity and common sense along with the use of empirical data in making decisions about animal welfare, and (2) viewing subjective assessments in the same critical light that is used to evaluate supposedly objective scientific facts. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)

Wild justice, cooperation, and fair play: Minding manners, being nice, and feeling good
Bekoff - The origins and nature of sociality, 2004 - mendeley.com
(From the chapter) In this chapter I consider various aspects of the evolution of cooperation and fairness using social play behavior in animals, especially mammals, as my exemplar of an activity in which one would expect to see ongoing negotiations of cooperation and agreements to behave fairly because the social dynamics of play require that players agree to play and not to fight or to mate with one another. I am specifically concerned with the notion of “behaving fairly.” By “behaving fairly” I use as a working guide the notion that animals often have social expectations when they engage in various sorts of social encounters the violation of which constitutes being treated unfairly because of a lapse in social etiquette. I conclude that social play might be a “foundation of fairness.” I also argue that it is through social cooperation that groups (communities) are built from individuals agreeing to work in harmony with other individuals. Whether or not individuals lose various “freedoms” when balanced against the benefits that accrue when they work for the “good of a group” is unknown and needs to be studied more carefully in various species. Further, based on recent research on the neurobiology of human cooperation, I argue that “being fair” may feel good for animals as well. Lastly, I stress that in our efforts to learn more about the evolution of social morality we need to broaden our comparative research to include animals other than nonhuman primates. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved)

Quantitative analyses of the ontogeny of predatory behaviour in coyotes, Canis latrans
Vincent, Bekoff - Animal Behaviour Volume 26, Part 1, February 1978, Pages 225ג€“231
Four infant coyotes (Canis latrans) were studied in order to describe quantitatively the development of predatory behaviour. Our results indicated that prior play and agonistic experience had virtually no effect on later predatory success. Also, there was no relationship between an individual’s social rank and its prey-killing ability. Latency to kill was shortened when animals were tested in, pairs and hunger level was not related to latency to kill. The results are discussed with respect to current functionalist theories of play behaviour and Leyhausen’s concept of the relative hierarchy of moods. The practice theory of play should be reconsidered in light of the results of this and other recent studies.

Behavioural budgeting by wild coyotes: the influence of food resources and social organization
Bekoff, Wells - Animal Behaviour Volume 29, Issue 3, August 1981, Pages 794ג€“801
Daytime behavioural budgets of coyotes (Canis latrans) living in the Grand Teton National Park, Jackson, Wyoming, were analysed in order to determine how activity patterns were influenced by food resources and social organization. In winter, coyotes rested more and hunted less than in other seasons. Pack-living coyotes rested more and travelled less than resident pairs or solitary residents or transients during winter months when the major food resource was ungulate (predominantly elk, Cervus canadensis) carrion. A mated female living in a pack rested significantly more and travelled significantly less than a mated female living only with her mate (as a resident pair) during winter. We predict that in times of food shortage, pack-living coyotes, and particularly reproductive females, might be at an advantage when compared to resident pairs and solitary individuals.

Play and the evolution of fairness: a game theory model
Dugatkin, Bekoff - Behavioural Processes Volume 60, Issue 3, 31 January 2003, Pages 209-214
Bekoff [J. Consci. Stud. 8 (2001) 81] argued that mammalian social play is a useful behavioral phenotype on which to concentrate in order to learn more about the evolution of fairness. Here, we build a game theoretical model designed to formalize some of the ideas laid out by Bekoff, and to examine whether fair strategies can in fact be evolutionarily stable. The models we present examine fairness at two different developmental stages during an individual’s ontogeny, and hence we create four strategies fair at time 1/fair at time 2, not fair at time 1 not fair at time 2, fair at time 1/not fair at time 2, not fair at time 1/fair at time 2. Our results suggest that when considering species where fairness can be expressed during two different developmental stages, acting fairly should be more common than never acting fairly. In addition, when no one strategy was evolutionarily stable, we found that all four strategies we model can coexist at evolutionary equilibrium. Even in the absence of an overwhelming database from which to test our model, the general predictions we make have significant implications for the evolution of fairness.

Cognitive ethology, vigilance, information gathering, and representation: Who might know what and why?
M Bekoff - Behavioural processes, 1995 - Elsevier
Cognitive ethology, a relatively new interdisciplinary and integrative science, is under attack with respect to its scientific status. However, there also are strong supporters of research in this area. In this paper I consider (1) some of the topics in which cognitive ethologists are interested, (2) possible connections between cognitive analyses of social behavior and philosophical concepts including intentionality and representation, (3) recent work on vigilance or scanning behavior in highly social birds, Evening Grosbeaks (Coccothraustes vespertinus), that benefits from taking a cognitive perspective, and (4) what may be gained by taking a cognitive approach to the study of social behavior and what may be lost by not doing so. My study of vigilance indicates that the way in which individuals are positioned with respect to one another influences their behavior, and that when a flock contains four or more birds there are large changes in scanning and other patterns of behavior that may be related to how grosbeaks attempt to gather information about other flock members. When birds are arranged in a circular array so that they can see one another easily compared to when they are arranged in a line that makes visual monitoring of flock members more difficult, birds who have difficulty seeing one another are (i) more vigilant, (ii) change their head and body positions more often, (iii) react to changes in group size more slowly, (iv) show less coordination in head movements, and (v) show more variability in all measures. These differences in behavior argue against the pooling of data collected on individuals feeding in different geometric arrays. The variations in behavior also may say something about if and how individuals attempt visually to represent their group to themselves–how they form, store, and use records of the behavior of others to inform their own future behavior. (see html)

Animal consciousness
Allen, Bekoff - The Blackwell Companion to 2007 - Wiley Online Library
There are many reasons for philosophical interest in nonhuman animal (hereafter animal) consciousness. First, if philosophy often begins with questions about the place of humans in nature, one way humans have attempted to locate themselves is by comparison and contrast with those things in nature most similar to themselves, i.e., other animals. Second, the problem of determining whether animals are conscious stretches the limits of knowledge and scientific methodology (beyond breaking point, according to some). Third, the question of whether animals are conscious beings or mere automata, as Cartesians would have it, is of considerable moral significance given the dependence of modern societies on mass farming and the use of animals for biomedical research. Fourth, while theories of consciousness are frequently developed without special regard to questions about animal consciousness, the plausibility of such theories has sometimes been assessed against the results of their application to animal consciousness.

Intentionality, social play, and definition
Allen, Bekoff - Biology and Philosophy Volume 9, Number 1, 63-74
Social play is naturally characterized in intentional terms. An evolutionary account of social play could help scientists to understand the evolution of cognition and intentionality. Alexander Rosenberg (1990) has argued that if play is characterized intentionally or functionally, it is not a behavioral phenotype suitable for evolutionary explanation. If he is right, his arguments would threaten many projects in cognitive ethology. We argue that Rosenberg’’s arguments are unsound and that intentionally and functionally characterized phenotypes are a proper domain for ethological investigation.

Postnatal neural ontogeny: Environmentdependent and/or environmentexpectant?
Bekoff, Fox - Developmental psychobiology, 1972 - Wiley Online Library
Recent advances in the study of postnatal neural development, an adaptive process dependent on an intimate interplay of both genetic and environmental factors, are reviewed in mouse, rat, cat, and man. Since developmental neuroanatomical studies provide a useful and relevant way of approaching the much belabored and controversial nature-nurture issue, behaviorally oriented workers should be made aware of the heuristic value of the field as both an impetus and a guide for future research, and as a means for providing explanations for observations unexplainable at the ethological or behavioral descriptive level. The conclusion reached in this review is that postnatal neural ontogeny is both environment-dependent and environment-expectant. To divide the process into mutually exclusive halves is indefensible.

The variability of some motor components of social play and agonistic behaviour in infant eastern coyotes, Canis latrans var.
Hill, Bekoff - Animal Behaviour, 1977 - Elsevier
The duration and stereotypy (in terms of duration) of three actions, stand-overs (SO), general-bites (GB), and scruff-bites (SB), were measured during social play and agonistic interactions in infant eastern coyotes (Canis latrans). The rate of biting was also calculated. We found: (1) SO’s and GB’s lasted a significantly shorter time during play; (2) when performed during playful interactions, all three acts showed more stereotypy; (3) there was no significant difference between the rates of occurrence of biting during the two situations. A discussion of the exaggerated nature of play behaviour is presented, particularly concerning the form of the motor actions that are used during this activity.

Nonrandom nest-site selection in Evening Grosbeaks
Bekoff, AC Scott - Condor, 1987 - JSTOR
Nest-site selection was studied in Evening Grosbeaks (Coccothraustes vespertinus) living in two areas (Eldora and Wild Basin) of the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. One hundred and twenty-nine original variables were reduced to compare nesting (NS; n = 49) and nonnesting control (NNS; n = 10) sites using multivariate and univariate statistics. Overall, four of the five variables best discriminating between NS and NNS were measures of habitat density (deciduous stem intersect, deciduous canopy cover) or shrub dispersion (large clumps, irregular matrix). Although there were distinct differences between the two NS with respect to shrub dispersion, canopy cover, and the relative proportion of major vegetation, NS were more open than NNS within the same area. In both Eldora and Wild Basin, grosbeaks showed a preference for ponderosa pines (Pinus ponderosa) in which to build high camouflaged nests, close to the main tree trunk, predominantly with southern or northern exposures. We suggest that these nest locations provide (1) high visibility for detection of potential predators, (2) the opportunity for grosbeaks to see their nests from a distance, (3) easy access for departure and arrival, (4) aid in thermoregulation, and (5) protection from wind and rain and increased nest stability. (get pdf)

Aggression, dominance, and social organization in Evening Grosbeaks
Bekoff, Scott - Ethology, 1989 - Wiley Online Library
Relationships between social behavior and ecology are of great interest to ethologists and behavioral ecologists. For example, limited comparative data have already resulted in the development of broad explanations for possible interrelationships between patterns of social interaction and food supply in diverse species. Here, we analyzed agonistic behavior, dominance relationships, and social organization in evening grosbeaks (Coccothraustes vespertinus) living near Boulder, Colorado U.S.A. We found marked seasonal variations in mean rates of agonistic behavior, mean sex ratios, and mean flock sizes. Rates of agonistic encounters were positively correlated with group size and the number of adult males present. Generally, adult males dominated (>>) adult females, young males, and young females; young males >> adult and young females; and young females >> adult females. Adult males were most aggressive during the beginning of the breeding season.
The formation of large flocks of grosbeaks most likely facilitates locating the dispersed and locally irruptive food on which these birds depend, and may also confer protection against predators. We suggest that flocks of grosbeaks composed of mainly transient birds are maintained by (1) low rates of noncontact aggressive encounters and (2) the rare occurrence of potentially disruptive fights, both of which appear to result from birds’ being able to assess the likely outcome of an encounter with another animal using phenotypic cues such as wing length, weight, and especially plumage. The ability to predict the outcome of an aggressive encounter may also be important in the integration of young birds into flocks.

Time, energy and play
Bekoff, Byers - Animal behaviour, 1992 - psycnet.apa.org
Makes suggestions for evaluating the amount of time and energy young mammals devote to social and nonsocial play. Suggestions include considering how the percentage of energy expended in play is expressed and expressing the cost of play in terms of alternative uses for the time and energy invested in play. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)

Spatial and temporal resource use by feral and abandoned dogs
Daniels, Bekoff - Ethology, 1989 - Wiley Online Library
We compared spatial and temporal patterns of resource use by feral and abandoned domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) on the Navajo reservation in Arizona and New Mexico. Community dumps provide locally abundant food resources utilized both by feral dogs and dogs abandoned at the dump site. Although population parameters were much the same for feral and abandoned dogs, the use of space varied distinctly and reflected behavioral differences in the way each population responded to the absence of human control, the need to acquire food, and the developmental state of pups. Temporal use of resources by feral dogs varied seasonally with the age of pups in one pack, but not in a second pack. Priority of access to local resources may be influenced by aggressive interactions among dogs at a dump. Barking may serve to warn dogs already present at a dump that competitors have arrived.

Naturalizing anthropomorphism: behavioral prompts to our humanizing of animals
Horowitz, Bekoff - Journal of The Interactions of People ג€¦, 2007 - ingentaconnect.com
Anthropomorphism is the use of human characteristics to describe or explain nonhuman animals. In the present paper, we propose a model for a unified study of such anthropomorphizing. We bring together previously disparate accounts of why and how we anthropomorphize and suggest a means to analyze anthropomorphizing behavior itself. We introduce an analysis of bouts of dyadic play between humans and a heavily anthropomorphized animal, the domestic dog. Four distinct patterns of social interaction recur in successful dog-human play: directed responses by one player to the other, indications of intent, mutual behaviors, and contingent activity. These findings serve as a preliminary answer to the question, “What behaviors prompt anthropomorphisms?” An analysis of anthropomorphizing is potentially useful in establishing a scientific basis for this behavior, in explaining its endurance, in the design of “lifelike” robots, and in the analysis of human interaction. Finally, the relevance of this developing scientific area to contemporary debates about anthropomorphizing behavior is discussed. (get pdf)

Vole population cycles: kin-selection or familiarity?
Bekoff - Oecologia, 1981 - Springer
The recent paper by Charnov and Finerty (1980) on Vole population cycles offers a unique view of population fluctuations in these rodents. These authors invoke kin-selection as a factor that may contribute to vole cycles …

Behavioral taxonomy in canids by discriminant function analyses
Bekoff, Hill - Science, 1975 - psycnet.apa.org
Applied the technique of linear discriminant function analysis to behavioral data that were collected on infant canids. The method was first tested with a known cross between a wolf and a dog and proved to be valid, indicating that quantitative analyses of behavioral phenotypes can be used in assessing taxonomic relationships. In addition, the controversial New England canid was determined by behavioral analysis to be more closely related to coyotes than to wolves. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)

The social deprivation paradigm: Who’s being deprived of what?
Bekoff - Developmental Psychobiology, 1976 - Wiley Online Library
Abstract unavailable.

Ecological analyses of nesting success in evening grosbeaks
Bekoff, AC Scott - Oecologia, 1989 - Springer
We studied the nesting success of Evening Grosbeaks (Coccothraustes vespertinus) inhabiting two areas of the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains of Colorado from 1983ג€“1987. Sixty-four nests were followed during building, incubating, brooding, and fledging; 54.7% were successful (young fledged). The largest number of nests failed during incubation. Nests started later were more successful than nests begun earlier in the season. Failure was most likely due to severe weather, abandonment during building, or predation. Specific habitat characteristics of grosbeak nesting sites and where nests were placed in trees were consistently associated with nesting success. Successful nests, when compared with nests that failed, were: (1) built in more open areas characterized by dispersed vegetation and a higher minimum canopy, (2) oriented in more southerly directions, (3) built closer to the main trunk of the nest tree, and (4) built in larger trees. Current ideas about whether or not birds actually select nest-sites are briefly discussed. We conclude that some grosbeaks ldquooptimally selectrdquo nest sites where the likelihood of producing fledglings is higher than in other areas.

Animal passions and beastly virtues: Cognitive ethology as the unifying science for understanding the subjective, emotional, empathic, and moral lives of animals
Bekoff - Zygonֲ®, 2006 - Wiley Online Library
In this essay, my response to four papers that were presented at the 2004 annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion in a session devoted to my research on animal behavior and cognitive ethology, I stress the importance of interdisciplinary research and collaboration for coming to terms with various aspects of animal behavior and animal cognition. I argue that we have much to learn from other animals concerning a set of big questions including who we are in the grand scheme of things, the role science (science sense) plays in our understanding of the world in which we live, what it means to know something, what some other ways of knowing are and how they compare to what we call science, and the use of anecdotes and anthropomorphism to inform studies of animal behavior. I ask, Are other minds really all that private and inaccessible? Can a nonhuman animal be called a person? What does the future hold if we continue to dismantle the only planet we live on and persecute the other animal beings with whom we are supposed to coexist? I argue that cognitive ethology is the unifying science for understanding the subjective, emotional, empathic, and moral lives of animals, because it is essential to know what animals do, think, and feel as they go about their daily routines in the company of their friends and when they are alone. It is also important to learn why both the similarities and differences between humans and other animals have evolved. The more we come to understand other animals, the more we will appreciate them as the amazing beings they are, and the more we will come to understand ourselves. (get pdf)

Nesting behaviour of Abert squirrels (Sciurus aberti)
Bekoff - Ethology, 1994 - Wiley Online Library
Nesting behaviour of Abert squirrels (Sciurus aberti), including site selection and use, was studied in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains in Boulder County, Colorado. Only females were observed building nests, although both males and females maintained nests once they were built. Communal nesting by Abert squirrels was rare, but the majority of observed nest sharings involved unrelated male and female pairs. A total of 14 variables were used to evaluate the nests (n = 49) inhabited by Abert squirrels from May 1988 to Jun. 1991. All nests were located in Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) trees. The majority of nests were constructed of twigs and located in the upper one-third of the canopy, near the trunk, on the south-east side of the tree. Trees with nests were predominantly located in closed stands. Nest trees, when compared with unused control trees that were equally accessible to squirrels, were significantly different from control trees in five of nine variables. Nest tree crowns intertwined with a larger number of adjacent tree crowns than did control tree crowns. Nest trees were also significantly taller than control trees, but subdominant to adjacent trees within a stand. Seasonal and diurnal patterns of nest use indicate that Abert squirrels do not choose nest locations on the south-east sides of trees to facilitate behavioural thermoregulation. Rather, Abert squirrels select nest site locations to (1) maximize accessibility and (2) maximize structural stability which may provide protection from wind and rain.

Playing with Play What Can We Learn About Cognition, Negotiation, and Evolution?
Bekoff - The evolution of mind, 1997 - cogprints.org
In these papers we mainly consider how analyses of social play in nonhuman animals (hereafter animals) can inform inquiries about the evolution of cognitive mechanisms. Social play is a good behavioral phenotype on which to concentrate for when animals play they typically perform behavior patterns that are used in other contexts (e.g. predation, aggression, or reproduction). Thus, individuals need to be able to tell one another that they do not want to eat, fight with, or mate with the other individual(s), but rather, they want to play with them. In most species (primarily mammals) in which play has been observed, specific actions have evolved that are used to initiate or to maintain play. Furthermore, sequences of play usually differ from nonplay sequences (within species) and self-handicapping has also been observed, in which, for example, dominant individuals allow themselves to be dominated only in the context of play. In our consideration of how play is initiated and maintained, we discuss issues including the evolution of play, the ecology of play, the sorts of information that are shared during play, what cognitive psychologists who study humans can learn from cognitive ethologists who study other animals, and what play can tell us about the emergence of mind in animals. These essays draw on literature from ethology, psychology, and philosophy. (see html)

Teleology, function, design and the evolution of animal behaviour
Bekoff, Allen - Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 1995 - Elsevier
Concerns about teleological language in evolutionary biology focus on the notions of function, design and adaptation. Accounts that naturalize these ideas are currently popular. In keeping with recent developments in evolutionary theory and philosophy of biology, three naturalistic analyses of function ג€” current utility, historical function, and functions as capacities ג€” should be differentiated. All have roles to play in biology, although the historical conception seems the most central to evolutionary theory. While rarely distinguished from function, design should be regarded as an extension of historical function. We consider the utility of this distinction for the study of behaviour.

Observations of scent-marking and discriminating self from others by a domestic dog (Canis familiaris): tales of displaced yellow snow
Bekoff - Behavioural processes, 2001 - Elsevier
Little is known about what stimuli trigger urinating or scent-marking in domestic dogs, Canis familiaris, or their wild relatives. While it is often suggested that the urine of other animals influences urinating and scent-marking patterns in canids, this has not been verified experimentally. To investigate the role of urine in eliciting urinating and marking, in this pilot study I moved urine-saturated snow (yellow snow) from place-to-place during five winters to compare the responses of an adult male domestic dog, Jethro, to his own and others’ urine. Jethro spent less time sniffing his own urine than that of other males or females, and that while his interest in his own urine waned with time it remained relatively constant for other individuals’ urine. Jethro infrequently urinated over or sniffed and then immediately urinated over (scent-marked) his own urine. He marked over the urine of other males more frequently than he marked over females’ urine. The method used here can be extended to other species for which experimental data are lacking. Though based on one dog, these novel data may further our knowledge of the role of scent-marking in territorial behavior and of sex differences in territory acquisition and maintenance.

Animals in science: some areas revisited
Bekoff, Gruen, Townsend, Rollin - Animal behaviour, 1992 - Elsevier
Science is a human activity, and as such, it is not value-free. Not only do subjective views permeate all types of science, they also prevail in many moral debates concerning how animals are used for primarily anthropocentric ends, even when formal philosophical argument is put forth. Four issues are addressed that demand closer attention by those who are seriously engaged in the collection, interpretation, and explanation of behavioural data. (1) It is important to recognize that an animal’s point of view is actually an animal’s point of view from a human’s point of view. (2) Attempts to quantify pain and suffering in animals are fraught with difficulties, and despite the best intentions, do not eliminate human responsibilities. (3) Appeals to science to resolve difficult questions concerning animal suffering must be combined with other factors including common sense and moral and ethical commitments. (4) When in doubt, err on the side of the animals. Those who study animal behaviour and behavioural ecology need to be particularly aware of problems of animal welfare for these types of research involve field observations, studies of captive animals, and experiments. In addition, findings from cognitive ethological investigations are used to inform and motivate discussion of human moral and ethical obligations to animals.

Predation and aversive conditioning in coyotes
Bekoff, Gustavson, Kelly, Garcia - Science (New York, NY, 1975 - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Abstract unavailable.

Experimentally induced infanticide: the removal of birds and its ramifications
Bekoff - The Auk, 1993 - JSTOR
There currently is great interest in the ethical issues surrounding research on nonhuman animals (hereafter animals), including field studies of behavior and behavioral ecology (American Society of Mammalogists 1987, Oring et al. 1988, Michener 1989,Animal Behavior Society 1991, Bekoff and Jamieson1991, Cuthill 1991, Bekoff et al. 1992). Thus, a study (Emlen et al. 1989) of experimentally induced infanticide in Wattled Jacanas (Jacana jacana) deserves scrutiny, for there are some matters of concern centering on: (i) the review process for publication; (ii) the methods used to remove two adult female jacanas; (iii) the maiming and killing of seven their infants by replacement females a direct result of the deliberate removal of the mothers the young birds (for further discussion some ethical implications of infanticide studies, see Elwood 1991; for recent review of studies of cognition, pain,and stress in birds,see Elzanowsk and Abs 1991, Gentle 1992); and (iv) questions con- cerning trade-offs between the importance acquir ing different types of knowledge and the types of animal research that are permissible in the pursuit of this knowledge. (get pdf)

Cognitive ethology and applied philosophy: the significance of an evolutionary biology of mind
Bekoff, Jamieson - Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 1990 - Elsevier
The broad field of cognitive ethology, in which internal mental states are inferred from the behavior they explain, is receiving increased attention nowadays from diverse scientists and philosophers. The nature of the results and how they are presented greatly influence how humans assess their place in the natural world and how they view other animals. The attribution of consciousness and intelligence to other animals suggests that they have moral rights. The results of comparative cognitive ethological analyses and how they are presented may play a large role in defining the domain of morally permissible research, and in the development of research strategies including decisions on feeding and housing, treatment, handling, and what happens to animal subjects when the research is completed. Scientists and philosophers interested in the evolution of behavior and mental continuity can have a significant impact on how others view the world.

Cognitive ethology and the intentionality of animal behaviour
Allen, Bekoff - Mind & language, 1995 - Wiley Online Library
Cognitive ethologists are in need of a good theoretical framework for attributing intentional states. Heyes and Dickinson (1990) present criteria that they claim are necessary for an intentional explanation of behavior to be justified. They suggest that questions of intentionality can only be investigated under controlled laboratory conditions and they apply their criteria to laboratory experiments to argue that the common behavior of approaching food is not intentional in most animals. We dispute the details of their argument and interpretation of the laboratory experiments. While criteria such as those suggested have a role to play in comparative studies of cognition, both laboratory and field studies are important for assessing the applicability of intentional explanations across different taxa.

Prenatal motility and postnatal play: Functional continuity?
Bekoff, Byers, Bekoff
Behavioral continuity is a current topic of major interest in developmental psychobiology.

Possible functions of predator harassment in pronghorn antelopes
Lipetz, Bekoff
Predator harassment (Berger, 1979) usually is a rarely observed form of defense in ungulates that involves chasing of a predator by members of prey species.

Development, the conveniently forgotten variable in" true kin recognition."
Byers, Bekoff
Points out that in his sweeping dismissal of the existence of kin recognition (because kin recognition should be restricted narrowly to instances of apparently innate kin recognition), A. Grafen (see record 1990-16435-001 ) ignores a large body of information concerning behavioral development. He also ignores the strongest cases of kin recognition: offspring recognition. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)

Integrating humans and nature: reconciling the boundaries of science and society
Bekoff - Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2000 - elibrary.ru
abstract unavailable

Consciousness and self in animals: some reflections
Bekoff - Zygonֲ®, 2003 - Wiley Online Library
In this essay I argue that many nonhuman animal beings are conscious and have some sense of self. Rather than ask whether they are conscious, I adopt an evolutionary perspective and ask why consciousness and a sense of self evolvedג€”what are they good for? Comparative studies of animal cognition, ethological investigations that explore what it is like to be a certain animal, are useful for answering this question. Charles Darwin argued that the differences in cognitive abilities and emotions among animals are differences in degree rather than differences in kind, and his view cautions against the unyielding claim that humans, and perhaps other great apes and cetaceans, are the only species in which a sense of self-awareness has evolved. I conclude that there are degrees of consciousness and self among animals and that it is likely that no animal has the same highly developed sense of self as that displayed by most humans. Many animals have a sense of body-ness or mine-ness but not a sense of I-ness. Darwin’s ideas about evolutionary continuity, together with empirical data (science sense) and common sense, will help us learn more about consciousness and self in animals. Answers to challenging questions about animal self-awareness have wide-ranging significance, because they are often used as the litmus test for determining and defending the sorts of treatments to which animals can be morally subjected. (get pdf)

Carruthers on nonconscious experience
Bekoff - Analysis, 1992 - analysis.oxfordjournals.org
In a recent article Peter Carruthers claims that ‘in the case of brutes: since their pains are nonconscious (as are all their mental states), they ought not to be allowed to get in the way of any morally-serious objective’ (p. 269). We believe that Carruthers’s argument for this conclusion involves both fallacious reasoning and false premisses. (get pdf)

Virtuous nature
Bekoff - New Scientist, 2002 - csa.com
It is generally believed that humans are the only creatures on Earth with a moral sense. The author disagrees and argues from observations of animals living in the wild that animals living in groups have a sense of fair play built on moral codes of conduct that help cement their social relationships. Draws heavily on recent reviews of research by Stephanie Preston and Frans de Waal, from the Yerkes Primate Center, Atlanta and Stanley Kuczaj’s group at Southern Mississippi University in Hattiesburg which shows that empathy is more widespread among animals than is generally accepted and a wide range of species behave in ways that support the claim that empathy has its roots in evolution. The recognition that animals have a moral dimension to their existence strengthens the case that the human race should accept its moral responsibility towards other animals.

The evolution of social play: Interdisciplinary analyses of cognitive processes
Bekoff, Allen - The cognitive animal, 2002 - books.google.com
Progress in understanding animal cognition requires interdisciplinary collaboration, among biologists, psychologists, cognitive scientists, neuroscientists and philosophers. In our own case, as a biologist and philosopher, our work has combined empirical and conceptual studies of social play. In this chapter we describe how our personal interests have contributed to our cooperative efforts. Our work is rooted in a series of long-term empirical studies of social play. When he decided to study social play for his doctoral research, many people told Marc that it was a waste of time for it was impossible to define and many others before had tried to study it and failed. While this provided the perfect challenge for a graduate student who had the full support of his advisor, Michael W. Fox, Marc frankly thought that his research on play would end when he received his degree. He was very wrong indeed. (get pdf)

Deep ethology, animal rights, and the Great Ape/Animal Project: Resisting speciesism and expanding the community of equals
Bekoff - Journal of Agricultural and environmental Ethics, 1997 - Springer
In this essay I argue that the evolutionary and comparative study of nonhuman animal (hereafter animal) cognition in a wide range of taxa by cognitive ethologists can readily inform discussions about animal protection and animal rights. However, while it is clear that there is a link between animal cognitive abilities and animal pain and suffering, I agree with Jeremy Bentham who claimed long ago the real question does not deal with whether individuals can think or reason but rather with whether or not individuals can suffer. One of my major goals will be to make the case that the time has come to expand. The Great Ape Project (GAP) to The Great Ape/Animal Project (GA/AP) and to take seriously the moral status and rights of all animals by presupposing that all individuals should be admitted into the Community of Equals. I also argue that individuals count and that it is essential to avoid being speciesist cognitivists; it really doesn’t matter whether dogs ape or whether apes dog when taking into account the worlds of different individual animals. Narrow-minded primatocentrism and speciesism must be resisted in our studies of animal cognition and animal protection and rights. Line-drawing into lower and higher species is a misleading speciesist practice that should be vigorously resisted because not only is line-drawing bad biology but also because it can have disastrous consequences for how animals are viewed and treated. Speciesist line-drawing also ignores within species individual differences.

Empathy: Common sense, science sense, wolves, and well-being
Bekoff - Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2002 - Cambridge Univ Press
Empathy is likely more widely distributed among animals than many researchers realize or perhaps are willing to admit. Studies of social carnivores, other group-living animals, and communication via different modalities will help us learn more about the evolutionary roots and behavioral, sensory, and cognitive underpinnings of empathy, including what it means to have a sense of self. There are also important implications for debates about animal well-being.

Predation by “shooting” in archer fish, Toxotes jaculatrix: Accuracy and sequences
Bekoff, Dorr - Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1976 - psycnet.apa.org
Studied 4 adult shooting archer fish in a captive situation. The accuracy with which they “shot” for prey and the sequences that they performed during shooting were analyzed. Ss were successful in shooting at suspended prey 25.5% of the time. Shooting was preceded by a series of 6 acts. The typical sequence, based on an analysis of transition probabilities, was Orient, Swim, Rotate Vertically, and Shoot. Leaping out of the water and a 2nd vertical rotation were also observed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)

Awareness: Animal reflections
Bekoff - Nature, 2002 - nature.com
Researchers are interested in animal awareness because they are curious to discover what animals might know about themselves. There are, however, long-held and polarized views about the degree of self-awareness in animals.

The evolution of animal play, emotions, and social morality: on science, theology, spirituality, personhood, and love
Bekoff - Zygon, 2001 - Wiley Online Library
My essay first takes me into the arena in which science, spirituality, and theology meet. I comment on the enterprise of science and how scientists could well benefit from reciprocal interactions with theologians and religious leaders. Next, I discuss the evolution of social morality and the ways in which various aspects of social play behavior relate to the notion of behaving fairly. The contributions of spiritual and religious perspectives are important in our coming to a fuller understanding of the evolution of morality. I go on to discuss animal emotions, the concept of personhood, and how our special relationships with other animals, especially the companions with whom we share our homes, help us to define our place in nature, our humanness. It is when we take the life of another being in the ritual of compassionately euthanizing them (putting them to sleep) that who we are in the grand scheme of things comes to the fore. I end with a discussion of the importance of ethological studies, behavioral research in which a serious attempt is made to understand animals in their own worlds, inquiries in which it is asked, What is it like to be another species? Species other than nonhuman primates need to be studied. I plead for developing compassionate, heartfelt, and holistic science that allows for interdisciplinary talk about respect, grace, spirituality, religion, love, Earth, and God. (get pdf))

Interactions among dogs, people, and the environment in Boulder, Colorado: A case study
Bekoff, Meaney - Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals, 1997 - ingentaconnect.com
From September 1995 to April 1996 we studied interactions among dogs, people, and the environment in Boulder, Colorado. Data on behavioral disturbances by off-leash dogs who were accompanied by a person were collected with respect to dog-dog and dog-human interactions, dog-wildlife encounters, dogs trampling vegetation, and dogs entering and disturbing bodies of water. A questionnaire also was administered. Behavioral data showed that off-leash dogs generally did not travel far off trail, that when they did it was for short periods of time, and that they rarely were observed to chase other dogs, disturb people, chase wildlife, destroy vegetation, or enter bodies of water. Results from analyses of the questionnaire (skewed toward non-dog owners) showed that dog owners and non-dog owners agreed that people were more disruptive to the environment than dogs and that unruly people were more problematic than unruly dogs. We conclude that the well-being and interests of dogs should not summarily and dismissively be compromised when dogs and people attempt to share limited space that can be used by all parties for recreational purposes. Indeed, a higher percentage of people reported that the quality of dogs’ experience of the outdoors would be compromised more than their own enjoyment if dogs could not walk off-leash in areas where this is currently permitted. The methods used and the results from this case study can serve as a model for other locations in which dogs and people compete for limited spatial resources. (get pdf))

Animal Play and the Evolution of Morality: An Ethological Approach
Allen, Bekoff - Topoi, 2005 - Springer
In this paper we argue that there is much to learn about wild justice and the evolutionary origins of morality behaving fairly by studying social play behavior in group-living mammals. Because of its relatively wide distribution among the mammals, ethological investigation of play, informed by interdisciplinary cooperation, can provide a comparative perspective on the evolution of ethical behavior that is broader than is provided by the usual focus on primate sociality. Careful analysis of social play reveals rules of engagement that guide animals in their social encounters. Because of its significance in development, play may provide a foundation of fairness for other forms of cooperation that are advantageous to group living. Questions about the evolutionary roots of cooperation, fairness, trust, forgiveness, and morality are best answered by attention to the details of what animals do when they engage in social play how they negotiate agreements to cooperate, to forgive, to behave fairly, and to develop trust. We consider questions such as why play fairly? Why did play evolve as it has? Does being fair mean being more fit? Do individual variations in play influence an individuals reproductive fitness? Can we use information about the foundations of moral behavior in animals to help us understand ourselves? We conclude that there is likely to be strong selection for cooperative fair play because there are mutual benefits when individuals adopt this strategy and group stability may also be fostered. Numerous mechanisms have evolved to facilitate the initiation and maintenance of social play, to keep others engaged, so that agreeing to play fairly and the resulting benefits of doing so can be readily achieved.

Aquatic animals, cognitive ethology, and ethics: questions about sentience and other troubling issues that lurk in turbid water (pdf)
Bekoff - Diseases of aquatic organisms, 2007 - i-mar.cl
In this general, strongly pro-animal, and somewhat utopian and personal essay, I argue that we owe aquatic animals respect and moral consideration just as we owe respect and moral consideration to all other animal beings, regardless of the taxonomic group to which they belong. In many ways it is more difficult to convince some people of our ethical obligations to numerous aquatic animals because we do not identify or empathize with them as we do with animals with whom we are more familiar or to whom we are more closely related, including those species (usually terrestrial) to whom we refer as charismatic megafauna. Many of my examples come from animals that are more well studied but they can be used as models for aquatic animals. I follow Darwinian notions of evolutionary continuity to argue that if we feel pain, then so too do many other animals, including those that live in aquatic environs. Recent scientific data (‘science sense’) show clearly that many aquatic organisms, much to some people’s surprise, likely suffer at our hands and feel their own sorts of pain. Throughout I discuss how cognitive ethology (the study of animal minds) is the unifying science for understanding the subjective, emotional, empathic, and moral lives of animals because it is essential to know what animals do, think, and feel as they go about their daily routines. Lastly, I argue that when we are uncertain if we are inflicting pain due to our incessant, annoying, and frequently unnec- essary intrusions into the lives of other animals as we go about ‘redecorating nature’ (removing animals or moving them from place to place), we should err on the side of the animals and stop engaging in activities that cause pain and suffering. (get pdf))

Variations in avoidance responses to humans by black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus)
Lengas, Bekoff - Journal of mammalogy, 1987 - JSTOR
Black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludomcianus) are gregarious rodents that typically live in large colonies (Hoogland, 1979; King, 1955, 1959). The characteristic avoidance response displayed by these small mammals to the approach and presence of nonhuman predators (King, 1955) consists of an alarm bark that servers to warn other group members of impending danger, followed by running to the burrow and hiding (for details see Waring, 1970).

Cheek rubbing as grooming by Abert squirrels
Halloran, Bekoff - Animal behaviour, 1995 - Elsevier
Cheek rubbing is thought to be a form of active scent marking in many terrestrial and arboreal sciurids. However, some observations of arboreal sciurids suggest that cheek rubbing may also be a form of self-grooming. The purpose of this study was to examine possible functions of cheek rubbing by free-living Abert squirrels, Sciurus aberti. When the frequencies of behaviour patterns that occurred within a cheek-rubbing sequence were compared to the frequencies of acts that occurred at other times, grooming and alert behaviour patterns had a higher probability of occurring, whereas travelling, nesting, and various social behaviour patterns (such as chasing) had a significantly lower probability of occurring during cheek-rubbing sequences. Food-related behaviour patterns or grooming usually preceded cheek rubbing. Cheek rubbing also did not predominantly occur at home-range boundaries or at nest sites. Although passive scent marking cannot be ruled out, these results suggest that cheek rubbing by Abert squirrels has evolved more as a form of self-grooming to remove food residue, rather than as active scent marking.

Animal minds, cognitive ethology, and ethics
Allen, Bekoff - The Journal of ethics, 2007 - Springer
Our goal in this paper is to provide enough of an account of the origins of cognitive ethology and the controversy surrounding it to help ethicists to gauge for themselves how to balance skepticism and credulity about animal minds when communicating with scientists. We believe that ethicists arguments would benefit from better understanding of the historical roots of ongoing controversies. It is not appropriate to treat some widely reported results in animal cognition as if their interpretations are a matter of scientific consensus. It is especially important to understand why loose references to cognitive ethology by philosophers can signal ignorance of the field to scientists who are more deeply immersed in the relevant literature. Understanding the variety of approaches to cognitive phenomena in animals is essential if such capacities are to form the foundation of scientifically-informed ethical reasoning about animals. (get pdf))

Animal welfare and individual characteristics: A conversation against speciesism
Bekoff, Gruen
It seems impossible for a human being not to have some point of view concerning nonhuman animal (hereafter animal) welfare. Many people make decisions about how humans are permitted to treat animals using speciesist criteria, basing their decisions on an individual’s species membership rather than on that animal’s individual characteristics. Although speciesism provides a convenient way for making difficult decisions about who should be used in different types of research, we argue that such decisions should rely on an analysis of individual characteristics and should not be based merely on species membership. We do not argue that the concept of species is never useful or important. To make our points, we present a conversation among a skeptic, an agnostic, and a proponent of the view that our moral obligations to an animal must be based on an analysis of that individual’s characteristics. In the course of the discussion, concepts such as personhood, consciousness, cognitive ability, harm, and pain are presented, because one’s understanding of these concepts informs his or her ethical decisions about the use of animals by humans. ([get pdf](http://home.ku.edu.tr/canerdogan/public_html/comm/animal welfare.pdf)))

Fighting patterns in young coyotes: initiation, escalation, and assessment
Bekoff, M Tyrrell, VE Lipetz, Jamieson - Aggressive Behavior, 1981 - Wiley Online Library
The fighting patterns of young coyotes were studied and 2,350 fights were analyzed. Our results can be summarized as follows: 1) No major injuries were sustained by any of the infants, even in unritualized bouts. 2) In pairs, there was no relationship between social rank and the proportion of fights that were initiated by either animal. 3) Dominant animals were more likely than subordinate individuals to escalate first (perform the first unprovoked dangerous move) during short interactions and to escalate and then subsequently win short fights. 4) Highest-ranking (alpha) individuals in litters did not fight the most. 5) Alpha individuals initiated 73% of the fights in which they partook. Alpha coyotes initiated and then won 86% of the contests that they initiated. 6) For fourth-ranking coyotes in litters, there was a perfect positive correlation between the proportion of times that they initiated fights and the proportion of times that they initiated and then won encounters. They initiated interactions least with the first- to third-ranking animals. 7) Alpha and fourth-ranking animals escalated about the same proportion of the time, but alpha coyotes escalated and then won a greater proportion of fights. 8) Both alpha and fourth-ranking animals initiated and then escalated the greatest proportion of time with individuals nearest in rank, with whom they may have experienced the greatest difficulty in assessing relative social standing. 9) Our data suggested that individuals, especially in litters, were able to make pre-fight assessments but that they were not perfect with respect to this ability. During-fight assessments appeared to be easier to make, using escalation to test an opponent.

Cognitive ethology: The comparative study of animal minds
Bekoff - Blackwell Companion to Cognitive Science, 1995 - cogprints.org
Cognitive ethology is the comparative, evolutionary, and ecological study of nonhuman animal (hereafter animal) minds including thought processes, beliefs, rationality, information-processing, and consciousness. It is a rapidly growing interdisciplinary field of science that is attracting much attention from researchers in numerous and diverse disciplines including those interested in animal welfare (Cheney and Seyfarth, 1990; Ristau, 1991; Griffin, 1992; Allen and Bekoff, 1995, 1997; Bekoff and Allen, 1996; Bekoff and Jamieson, 1996). Cognitive ethology can trace its beginnings to the writings of Charles Darwin, an anecdotal cognitivist (Jamieson and Bekoff, 1993), and some of his contemporaries and disciples. Their approach incorporated appeals to evolutionary theory, interests in mental continuity, concerns with individual and intraspecific variation, interests in the worlds of the animals themselves, close associations with natural history, and attempts to learn more about the behavior of animals in conditions that are as close as possible to the natural environment where selection has occurred. They also relied on anecdote and anthropomorphism to inform and to motivate more rigorous study. In addition, cognitive ethologists are frequently concerned with the diversity of solutions that living organisms have found for common problems. They also emphasize broad taxonomic comparisons and do not focus on a few select representatives of limited taxa. Many people inform their views of cognitive ethology by appealing to the same studies over and over again (usually those done on nonhuman primates), and ignore the fact that there are many other animals who also show interesting patterns of behavior that lend themselves to cognitive studies. (see html))

Resisting speciesism and expanding the community of equals
Bekoff - BioScience, 1998 - JSTOR
Resisting speciesism and expanding the community of equals he issues with which those interested in nonhuman animal (hereafter “animal”) protection must deal are numerous, diverse, difficult, and extremely contentious; interdisciplinary work is needed to try to come

Redecorating nature: reflections on science, holism, community, humility, reconciliation, spirit, compassion, and love (pdf)
Bekoff - Human Ecology Review, 2000 - Citeseer
Numerous humans - in my opinion, far too many - con- tinue to live apart from nature, rather than as a part of nature. In this personal essay I discuss various aspects of traditional science and suggest that holistic and heart-driven compassionate science needs to replace reductionist and impersonal science. I argue that creative proactive solutions drenched in deep caring, respect, and love for the universe need to be developed to deal with the broad range of prob- lems with which we are confronted. Simply put, I have had enough. I want the world to be a better place for all of its inhabitants and time is not on our side. I feel a deep sense of urgency and passionate impatience. We are worrying about wildness as it is disappearing right in front of our eyes - as I write and we discuss. Thus, I am willing to open myself to criticism, to be vulnerable for expressing views that are not part of main-stream science. Rather than take a doomsday view that the world will not even exist in 100 years if we fail to accept our unique responsibilities, it is more disturbing to imagine a world in which humans and other life coexist in the absence of any intimacy and interconnectedness. Surely we do not want to be remembered as the generation that killed nature. To illustrate some of my points, I discuss various aspects of translocation studies in which animals are moved about from one place to another in humans attempts to redecorate nature. In these projects interdisciplinary collaboration is necessary and disciplinary boundaries must be trespassed. I also emphasize the importance of teaching chil- dren well for their and our futures rest on their developing a deeply-rooted caring ethic. My vision is to create a world- wide community in which humans perceive themselves as a part of nature and not apart from her, in which humans who are overwhelmed and whose spirits and souls have been robbed and squelched by living in and amongst steel, con- crete, asphalt, noise, and a multitude of invasions of their pri- vate space reconnect with raw nature - with the wind in their faces, the odors of wild flowers, and the sounds, sights, odors, and touch of other animals and inanimate environs. A world in which sensing is feeling. Nature is our uncondi- tional friend and reconnecting with nature can help overcome alienation and loneliness. The power of love must not be underestimated as we forge ahead to reconnect with nature. (get pdf))

Feralization: the making of wild domestic animals
Bekoff - Behavioural processes, 1989 - Elsevier
The widely accepted viewpoint that feralization is the reverse of domestication requires that the feralization process be restricted to populations of animals and, therefore, cannot occur in individuals. An alternative, ontogenetic approach is presented in which feralization is defined as the process by which individual domestic animals either become desocialized from humans, or never become socialized, and thus behave as untamed, non-domestic animals. Feralization will vary among species and, intraspecifically, will depend upon an individual’s age and history of socialization to humans. Because feralization is not equated with morphological change resulting from evolutionary processes, species formation is not an accurate indicator of feral condition.

Deep ethology
Bekoff - Intimate relationships, embracing the natural world, 1997 - cogprints.org
The first four quotations make me ill – the fifth make me feel good. I continually ask myself how in the world can anyone who has any – even minimal – grounding in the world, write so coldly and objectively about the pain and suffering that they produce in nonhuman, not subhuman, animals (hereafter animals), or be so arrogant as to make claims like those of Professor Howard, a biologist who often appeals to his lifelong work with animals to motivate his positions on animal welfare. How are they able to detach themselves from themselves and the animals about whom they are trying to learn. Research should be fun; are they really having fun? And, if so, then how can producing pain and suffering be fun? Respecting all individual’s lives and treating them with dignity should direct every single one of our interactions with the animals with whom we share the planet. (see html))

Minding animals, minding earth: Old brains, new bottlenecks
Bekoff - Zygon, 2003 - Wiley Online Library
I emphasize the importance of broadening behavioral, ecological, and conservation science into a more integrative, interdisciplinary, socially responsible, compassionate, spiritual, and holistic endeavor. I stress the significance of studies of animal behavior, especially ethological research concerned with animal emotions in which individuals are named and recognized for their own personalities, for helping us to learn not only about the nonhuman animal beings with whom we share Earth but also about who we are and our place in nature. We are best understood in relationship with others. To this end I develop the notions of minding animals and deep ethology. Animals are sources of wisdom, a way of knowing.
We are all citizens of Earth, members of a global community in which intimate reciprocal and beneficent peaceful relationships are mandatory. A world without cruelty and with boundless compassion, respect, grace, humility, spirituality, and love would be a better world in which to live. We have compelling responsibilities for making Earth a better and more peaceful habitat for all beings. It is essential that we do better than our ancestors. We must reflect and step lightly as we redecorate nature. Time is not on our side.
I plead for the development of heartfelt and holistic science that allows for joy and play. Science need not be suspicious of things it cannot fully understand. We must not avert our eyes or other senses from the eyes and voices of other beings who urgently need our uncompromising and unconditional aid and love. We can do much more than we have done for animals and the Earth.

The ontogeny and organization of comfort behavior in Adelie penguins
Bekoff, Ainley - The Wilson Bulletin, 1979 - JSTOR
The development of comfort behaviors in Adֳ©lie Penguins and the organization of comfort activities in adults, were studied at Cape Crozier, Ross Island, Antarctica. Non-oiling and dry-oiling (feathers not wet) comfort sequences were compared to one another; these results were then compared to data collected by Ainley (1974) on wet-oiling by adults immediately after they emerged from the sea. For purposes of analyzing the ontogeny of non-oiling comfort activities, chicks were grouped into 3 groups: 7-13, 14-20 and 21-28 days of age. Dry-oiling was observed in chicks 35-43 days of age. Our results were as follows. (1) Only yawning occurred on the day after hatching. The earliest preening movements appeared on day 7 (breast and belly preening). Oil distribution behaviors appeared between days 30-33, the same period during which the oil gland became functional. The first dry-oiling sequence was observed on day 35. (2) There was no difference in the duration of non-oil comfort sequences between chicks over 13 days of age and adults. Chicks performed fewer acts per min than did adults and therefore the mean number of acts per sequence was lower in chicks. (3) In general, behaviors were randomly distributed throughout comfort sequences. Exceptions include oiling by adults and chicks, bill-to-wing-edge by adults, and back preening by chicks. (4) During transitions from 1 act to another, chicks aged 21-28 days remained on the same side of the body and in the same area with the same relative frequency as non-oiling adults. (5) Dry-oiling by chicks and adults shared many common characteristics: (i) oiling occurred non-randomly in the beginning of the sequences, (ii) the relative frequency of occurrence of breast and belly preening was the same, (iii) during transitions from 1 act to another, the groups did not differ with respect to remaining on the same side of the body and in the same body area, (iv) actions leading to and immediately following oiling occurred very frequently (> 78%) on the same side of the body to which the head was turned when gathering oil in the bill. (get pdf))

Animal Emotions and Animal Sentience and Why They Matter: Blending ‘Science Sense’ with Common Sense, Compassion and Heart (pdf)
Bekoff - Animals, Ethics and Trade. London: Earthscan, 2006 - landofpuregold.com
Discussions of animal emotions and animal sentience are wonderful for raising difficult and frustrating questions. This chapter is intended to be a non- traditional essay and I hope it generates kind discussion and that what I talk about is not dismissed on the grounds that Im simply losing my mind. I assure you Im not. Well, at least I think Im not. I simply want to put forth some ideas that some might find controversial. Throwing caution to the wind is a good thing to do from time to time. It makes us dig deeply into our minds and hearts to see who we are and what we think about matters at hand. And sometimes we dont like where we end up, which can be outside of our com- fort zones. (get pdf))

Translocation effects on the behavior of black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus)
Farrar, Coleman, Bekoff, Stone - Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactios of People & Animals, 1998 - ingentaconnect.com
We examined the effects of translocation on Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) anti-predator behavior by recording response distances and response times to a human intruder in three colonies containing native, translocated, and combined native and translocated prairie dogs. The translocated prairie dogs barked alarms and concealed themselves at significantly greater intruder distances than mixed or native colonies. However, individuals in different colonies did not differ in the time taken to return to a burrow, to conceal themselves after a human approached the colony, or in the time elapsed after concealment until an animal reappeared. Translocated prairie dogs exhibited nearly twice the distance sensitivity to intrusion as native prairie dogs. Increased sensitivity to disturbance complicates management considerations of translocated populations that are subject to human traffic. This increase in sensitivity may necessitate translocation to isolated or undisturbed sites, protecting sites from disturbance, translocating larger groups of prairie dogs, or all three in order for translocated populations to persist.

Social cognition: Exchanging and sharing information on the run
Bekoff - Erkenntnis, 1999 - Springer
In this essay I consider various aspects of the rapidly growing field of cognitive ethology, concentrating mainly on evolutionary and comparative discussion of the notion of intentionality. I am not concerned with consciousness, per se, for a concentration on consciousness deflects attention from other, and in many cases more interesting, problems in the study of animal cognition. I consider how, when, where, and (attempt to discuss) why individuals from different taxa exchange social information concerning their beliefs, desires, and goals. My main examples come from studies of social play in mammals and antipredator behavior in birds. Basically, I argue that although not all individuals always display behavior patterns that are best explained by appeals to intentionality, it is misleading to argue that such explanations have no place in the study of animal cognition.

Animals, nature, and ethics
Bekoff, Hettinger - Journal of mammalogy, 1994 - JSTOR
Recently, Howard (1993, Journal of Mammalogy, 74:234-235) argued for the defensibility of research on nonhuman animals (hereafter animals). Unfortunately, his essay is unnecessarily combative, lacking in detail, unbalanced, and poorly argued. Howard (1993) unfairly and mistakenly stereotypes as biologically naive anyone who rejects his position that nature’s poor treatment of wild animals justifies animal research. Those interested in the morality of animal research deserve better guidance than what Howard (1993) provides. Here, we analyze Howard’s (1993) claims and their implications, present relevant literature on ethics and animals, and conclude that much work remains to be done to understand and properly appreciate the moral dimensions of animal research. The questions raised about uses of animals by humans in various activities, including research, are difficult and demand careful interdisciplinary analysis. Simple answers should not be expected. We explore some of the issues and make them accessible to a wide audience, including practicing scientists.

Measuring dominance and constructing hierarchies: an example using mule deer
Tomback, Wachtel, Driscoll, Bekoff - Ethology, 1989 - Wiley Online Library
Important issues that are still unresolved in the study of animal social groups are how dominance is measured and how individuals are ranked. Based on observations of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus hemionus), we constructed hierarchies for the same 26 bucks using five potential correlates of dominance and three measures based on the outcome of agonistic interactions. Data for each of six behavior measures were converted to ranks by six different numerical techniques.
Different measures of behavior resulted in different hierarchies. This was especially so when the hierarchy based on sparring rates was compared to hierarchies based on other criteria. Although our results showed that dominance is not a unitary concept, several measures of dominance were highly correlated with one another. Thus, one measure, in some instances, may be a good but imperfect predictor of dominance defined by other criteria.
For data sets based on index scores or rates of performing behavior, the mean difference and standard-error difference ranking methods had distinct advantages. Both produced equally weighted ranks that minimized the effects of sampling errors.

Why Good Welfare Isn’t Good Enough: Minding Animals and Increasing Our Compassionate Footprint
Bekoff - Annual Review of Biomedical Sciences, 2008 - arbs.biblioteca.unesp.br
In this brief essay I take a broad perspective on the notion of unraveling welfare and consider animals living in different conditions ranging from caged individuals in laboratories and zoos to free-living or almost free-living wildlife. Ill step outside of the laboratory because billions of animals are slaughtered for food in an industry that tortures them on the way to their reprehensible deaths and at the places at which they are slaughtered. Furthermore, government agencies around the world kill millions of free-living and wild animals because theyre supposedly pests. This is a different sort of essay but I hope it will stimulate people to rethink what we mean by the phrase animal welfare in a broad and constructive ways because the way people interact with animals in laboratories is influenced by how they see animals in other contexts including outside of caged environments. Unraveling animal welfare means unscrambling our interrelationships with other animals by asking difficult questions about who we think we are, who we think they are, what we think we know, what we actually know. Ill argue that good welfare isnt good enough because existing laws and regulations still allow animals to be subjected to enduring pain and suffering and death in the name of science, which really means in the name of humans. We must do better for all animals and we can do so by taking into account the perspective of the each and every individual who we use for research, education, amusement, and for food and clothing. We must also consider individuals who we house in zoos and move around as if theyre pieces of furniture, for example, when zoos redecorate themselves because they need an ambassador for a given species or because an individual no longer brings in money. And we must also consider the fate of individuals when we redecorate nature by moving animals here and there for our and not their benefit; is it permissible to trade off the life of an individual for the good of their species? The emotional lives of animals are not all that private, hidden, or secret and animal emotions and sentience force us to care for them and to protect them from pain, suffering, and death. I conclude that everyone can do more to increase their compassion footprint and list ten reasons why animals are asking us to treat them better or leave them alone, and these reasons also bear on the unraveling of animal welfare. (get pdf))

Effects of serial lesions in cat visual cortex on a brightness discrimination
Bekoff, Lockwood, - Brain Research, 1973 - psycnet.apa.org
Reports the effects on a dark-light discrimination of serial unilateral lesions of the visual cortex of cats and compares these results with the previously reported effects of simultaneous, bilateral lesions.

Collecting birds: The importance of moral debate
Bekoff, Elzanowski - Bird Conservation International, 1997 - Cambridge Univ Press
In a recent article in this journal, Remsen (1995) attacked moral (and other) objections to killing birds for museum collections, objections that are frequently raised by the general public and scientific community alike. The only grounds for moral objections against killing birds that Remsen considers and rejects are reverence for all life or personal (p. 157; all page references refer to Remsen 1995), that is sentimental (p. 165) reasons. What Remsen ignores is avian sentience and the moral imperative of respecting it.

[[http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050%5B0635:RNDSHF%5D2.0.CO;2][Redecorating nature: Deep science, holism, feeling, and heart]]
BEKOFF - BioScience, 2000 - BioOne
Back off, man, I’m a scientist. I’ve been haunted by this bumper sticker for many years. I’m a scientist. I love what I do.Doing science is fun. When I first saw this slogan, it bothered me because I thought it sent a false message concerning the arrogance of scientists …

Behavioral interactions and conflict among domestic dogs, black-tailed prairie dogs, and people in Boulder, Colorado
Bekoff, Ickes - Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals, 1999 - ingentaconnect.com
Interactions among domestic dogs (Canis familiaris), black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus), and people were studied at Dry Creek, Boulder, Colorado. Our objective was to develop a basic understanding of the nature of dog-prairie dog interactions in this recreational area, because this is an issue that has high visibility and over which there is conflict in Boulder: There are those who want dogs to run free regardless of their impact on the behavior and lives of prairie dogs and those who want to protect prairie dogs and have dogs restrained or go elsewhere. We found that dogs clearly influenced the behavior of prairie dogs, however, no prairie dogs were known to be caught or killed by any dog during the course of study. Prairie dogs disturbed by dogs were more alert (vigilant) and wary of dogs and played less than undisturbed individuals. However, disturbed prairie dogs were less wary of the presence of humans than undisturbed animals. People tried to stop dogs from harassing prairie dogs only 25% of the time. A survey showed that 58% of people polled at Dry Creek (all dog owners) did not believe that prairie dogs should be protected even if dogs are a problem. Increased human responsibility would likely go a long way towards reducing existing conflict among people wanting to protect prairie dogs and those who do not. Boulder city officials have not yet incorporated our data into their immediate management plans. However, by identifying the nature of dog-prairie dog encounters and specific areas of conflict among people who side either with dogs or prairie dogs, in the future, proactive strategies grounded by empirical data can be developed and implemented so that the interests of all parties can be accommodated.

Too stressed to work
Baldwin, Bekoff - The New Scientist Volume 194, Issue 2606, 2 June 2007
Scientists must provide lab animals with decent living conditions or accept that their results could be useless

Social play and physical training: When not enough may be plenty
Bekoff - Ethology, 1989 - Wiley Online Library
HOLE’S (1988) detailed analysis of temporal aspects of social play in laboratory rats (Rattus norvegicus) is an excellent example of what is needed in play research. Nonetheless, I believe that his and others’ (McDonald 1977; also see Fagen 1981) rejection of the importance of social play for physical training based on the duration of play bouts is premature …

Home range use by Abert squirrels: a comparative analysis
Bekoff - The Southwestern Naturalist, 2000 - JSTOR
We compared data from an analysis of space use by Abert squirrels (Sciurus aberti) performed in 1991 with data from a previous study performed in 1971 at the same study site (Farentinos, 1979). In both studies, home range estimates based on the 100% minimum convex polygon (MCP) method were positively correlated with sample size. The number of home range sightings used for calculations in the current study was significantly larger for both males and females when compared to that used by Farentinos (1979), as were estimates of home range. Results from the current study also contradict Farentinos’ earlier findings that males have larger home ranges during the breeding season than the nonbreeding season, and that males have larger home ranges during the breeding season than females year around. The method used to estimate home range sizes may have influenced the results, and the 100% MCP method may be of limited use for drawing meaningful biological comparisons, unless sample size is held constant.

Beyond monkey minds: Toward a richer cognitive ethology
Bekoff, Townsend, Jamieson - Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1994 - Cambridge Univ Press
The stimulating discussions presented in the BBS target article by Cheney & Seyfarth (C&S) (1992) and in the commentaries concerning their book, How monkeys see the world (C&S 1990b), clarify many issues in the growing field of cognitive ethology.

The public lives of animals (pdf)
Bekoff - Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2006 - blueskybroadcast.com
A few years ago I visited a major American university where I was asked to give a talk on the nature of animal emotions. My colleague, Bill, came up before the lecture to say hello and I asked him how his dog Reno was doing. For more than five minutes Bill extolled Renos deep emotional life he loves to play with his friends, misses Bill when hes gone, has separation anxiety and tears up garbage and books when hes alone, and a few days ago Reno got jealous when Bill gave his daughter attention … Following my talk Bill accused me of being too anthropomorphic and too sure of myself. He did it in a sort of light-hearted academic way. When he was done I simply asked him to recall for the audience the conversation that we had before my lec- ture about Renos emotional life. Bill turned slightly red … (get pdf))

The other side of silence: Rachel Carson’s views of animals
Bekoff, Nystrom - Zygon, 2004 - Wiley Online Library
The publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962 is widely regarded as one of the major events that launched the modern environmental movement. Silent Spring is a compelling blend of stories, natural history, human val- ues, and biological facts. In this essay we consider Carsons attitude toward animals in Silent Spring and in other texts. Despite the facts that she was raised to love Nature and ani- mals, little direct attention has been given to Carsons views about our moral responsibilities to, and the moral standing of animals. Carson favored responsible stewardship, was more of an animal welfarist and environmentalist/conservation biologist who privileged ecosystems and species than an ani- mal activist who privileged individuals, and she did not advo- cate an animal rights agenda. There is clear tension in Carsons text. Often she seemed troubled by attempting to come across as a moderate and practical scientist and some of her words, when considered out of context, could lead one to label Carson as an animal rightist. While some of Carsons text favors human-centered interests, she did not believe that only humans counted. Her warnings about silent springs silent seasons must be taken seriously, perhaps even more seriously than when they were penned more than four decades ago. Surely, on the other side of silence, await magic, awe, and Natures cacophony of sounds along with a panoply of innumerable other sensory (visual and olfactory) experiences that help us to feel at one with all of Nature. We must be careful never to allow Nature to be silenced. Carson was a passionate and extremely influential activist, and there is no doubt that if there were a world of Rachel Carsons in charge of our global environmental policies, we and our fellow animals would surely be in much better shape than we currently are. (see pdf))

Feeding decisions by Steller’s jays (Cyanocitta stelleri): The utility of a logistic regression model for analyses of where, what, and with whom to eat
Bekoff, C Allen - Ethology, 1999 - Wiley Online Library
It is widely recognized that animal behavior is simultaneously affected by many variables. Both the study of interactions between these variables under naturalistic conditions and the proper statistical analysis of data derived from such studies remain particular problems for ethologists. In the present study we investigated choices by Stellers jays (Cyanocitta stelleri) selecting between two feeding locations under a variety of conditions. A multifactor logistic regression analysis of our data showed that the jays behavior was simultaneously affected by several variables, including proximity of the feeding site to cover, food preferences, and the presence of conspecifics and other animals. We found that (1) jays strongly preferred an unoccupied feeder over one occupied by another jay or a sympatric mammal with the effect of squirrels being much greater than that of other jays, (2) contrary to our expectations, in the absence of a reason to prefer the other feeder, the jays generally selected the feeder that was further from nearest cover, and (3) the presence of sunflower seeds on one feeder but not on the other provided a reason to prefer the feeder offering sunflower seeds. The logistic regression analysis provided a more complete and integrated model of the birds behavior than more commonly used univariate methods. Our approach and results are also applicable to studies of other animals. While univariate analyses are useful in some instances, multifactor procedures reveal more details about the interactions of single factors and future experimental studies can take advantage of this additional knowledge.

The animal’s point of view, animal welfare and some other related matters
Bekoff - Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1991 - Cambridge Univ Press
To study animal welfare empirically we need an objective basis for deciding when an animal is suffering. Suffering includes a wide range of unpleasant emotional states such as fear, boredom, pain, and hunger.

Do Dogs Ape–or Do Apes Dog–and Does it Matter–Broadening and Deepening Cognitive Ethology
Bekoff - Animal L., 1997 - HeinOnline
In Rain Without Thunder, Gary Francione raises numerous important issues and takes on many important people. The phrase “rain without thunder” made me think about the notion of animals without minds - animals without thoughts or feelings. This idea is troublesome …

Are you feeling what I’m feeling?
Bekoff - The New Scientist, 2007 - Elsevier
If you doubt that non-human animals have emotions, just look at them, listen to them and inhale the odours that pour out when they interact with friend or foe. I believe that what you see on the outside speaks volumes about what is happening inside an animal’s head and heart. Not long ago, the notion that animals have emotions was considered subversive, but opinion is changing. In recent years, reputable scientific journals have published research about moral dogs and chimps, joyful rats, grieving elephants, empathetic mice and fearful fish. Just watching a frolicking wolf, a whimpering dog, or a squealing piglet having his tail and testicles cut off without an anaesthetic is enough to convince me that these are emotional beings. The evidence of a single anecdote may not be very scientific, but as philosopher Dale Jamieson says, the plural of anecdote is data. What’s more, anecdotes such as those I recount in this article can also inspire new research.

Animal emotions, wild justice and why they matter: Grieving magpies, a pissy baboon, and empathic elephants
Bekoff - Emotion Space and Society, 2009 - mendeley.com
In this article regarding comparative and evolutionary research on animal emotions and morality, the author holds that non-human animals have emotional lives, and considers human emotions as gifts from other animals. Emotions serve as a social glue to bond animals with one another, catalyze and regulate a wide variety of social encounters among friends, lovers, and competitors, and permit animals to behave adaptively and flexibly using various behavior patterns in a wide variety of venues. In addition, emotions are also important in nonsocial situations and influence how humans and other animals relate to their wider environment. The author asserts that non-human animals have a kind of moral intelligence, and presents scientific theory, experimental evidence, and anecdotal evidence to support that view.

Intentionality, Social Play, and Definition
Bekoff - Bekoff/Jamieson, 1996 - books.google.com
Many behavioral biologists consider play an important behavioral phenotype. They have a hard time, however, coming up with a consensus definition of play. Most biologists who have observed mammals in the field can give examples of behaviors they consider to be playful …

SPACE-OUT: graphics programs to study and to simulate space use and movement patterns
Bekoff, Wieland, Lavender - Behavior Research Methods, 1982 - Springer
Recent reviews (Koeppl, Slade, & Hoffmann, 1975; Michener, 1979; Waser & Wiley, 1980, and references therein) have stressed the importance of spatial analyses for furthering our understanding of the ways in which space use and movements within an animal’s home …

The question of animal emotions: an ethological perspective
Bekoff - Mental Health and WellBeing in Animals, 2004 - Wiley Online Library
It is hard to watch elephants’ remarkable behavior during a family or bond group greeting ceremony, the birth of a new family member, a playful interaction, the mating of a relative, the rescue of a family member, or the arrival of a musth male, and not imagine that they feel …

Group living, natal philopatry, and Lindstroem’s lottery: It’s all in the family
Bekoff - Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 1987 - en.scientificcommons.org
Group living, natal philopatry, and Lindstrom’s lottery: It’s all in the family (1987).

Increasing Our Compassion Footprint: The Animals’ Manifesto
Bekoff - Zygon, 2008 - Wiley Online Library
Our relationships with animals are wide-ranging. When people tell me that they love animals and then harm or kill them I tell them I’m glad they don’t love me. Many individuals, including scientists, ignore their responsibility when they interact with animals and fail to recognize that doing something in the name of science, which usually means in the name of humans, is not an adequate reason for intentionally causing suffering, pain, or death. Good welfare usually is not good enough. Existing regulations allow animals to be treated in regrettable ways that demean us as a species. Compassion is the key for bettering both animal and human lives. A good way to make the world a more compassionate place for animals is to increase our compassion footprint. We could begin by deciding that we will not intrude on animals’ lives unless our actions are in the best interests of the animals irrespective of our desires. It is simple to make more compassionate choices about what we eat and wear and how we educate students, conduct research, and entertain ourselves at the expense of animals. The time to make these changes is long overdue. ([get pdf](http://literati.net/Bekoff/Increasing our compassion footprint.pdf)))

Feeding behavior in Steller’s jays (Cyanocitta stelleri): effects of food type and social context
Bekoff, Allen, Wolfe - Bird Behavior, 12, 1997 - ingentaconnect.com
In this study we analyzed various factors affecting the activities in which Steller’s jays (Cyanocitta stelleri) engaged while feeding. We found that the rate of pecking at seeds by jays was affected by available seed type and the presence and activity of nearby conspecifics. Jays at an artificial feeding platform seemed to pay attention to other individuals, in that they pecked at a lower rate when another jay was nearby, except when the otherjay was feeding at a different platform. The decreased feeding rate when twojays shared the same feeding platform is contrary to the widely reported pattern of increased feeding and decreased scanning correlated with increased group size in various species. Our analysis suggests that this pattern of behavior fits with observations that Steller’s jays show site-specific dominance, mutual interference at a concentrated food source, and do not live in structured flocks with consistent membership.

Afterward: Ethics and the study of animal cognition
Jamieson, Bekoff - Readings in Animal Cognition, 1996 - books.google.com
In the heyday of logical empiricism (circa 1930-1960), science was seen as the purest of human activities. There was a single thing that was" the scientific method"; observations were distinct from and unaffected by theoretical commitments; theories were “sets of sentences” that made no essential referenc to knowers; explanation and prediction were regarded as formal relations between sentences that in principle could be made mechanical, and all of this theorizing, explaining, and predicting was thought to be uncontaminated by values.

Should scientists bond with the animals who they use? Why not
Bekoff - Psycoloquy, 1993 - en.scientificcommons.org
This volume is a rare find, an edited volume that is worth reading in its entirety. A combination of information from studies on captive and wild animals is needed to come to a fuller understanding of the many different aspects of scientist-animal interactions.

Cunning coyotes: Tireless tricksters, protean predators
Bekoff - Model systems in behavioral ecology, 2001 - books.google.com
Coyotes (Canis latrans) are amazing carnivores. They are many things to many people. They wear many faces that affect different people in different ways. They are victims of their own success.

Breeding behavior of evening grosbeaks
Bekoff - Condor, 1991 - JSTOR
From 1983-1987 we studied the breeding behavior of Evening Grosbeaks (Coccothraustes vespertinus) living in the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. These birds were typically monogamous; at only one of 64 nests (1.6%) was polygny documented. Reproductive behaviors performed by adult males and females were first analyzed across all mating seasons and then with respect to five consecutive nest stages (build/egg laying, incubate, brood, brood/fledge, fledge) and the outcome (success or failure) of individual nests. Adult males and females contributed unequally to the ten most frequently observed behaviors; half were performed almost exclusively by one or the other sex. Males typically fed and protected their mates and what we presumed to be their young; whereas females usually built the nest, incubated, brooded, and also fed their young. Feeding, soft calling from the perch, and fecal removal were performed relatively equally by adult males and females. The success or failure of nests was not associated with patterns of parental behavior. Our results indicate that Evening Grosbeaks formed a partnership in which they divided the effort involved in nest preparation and raising the young at the high altitude where this population was observed.

Functional aspects of play as revealed by structural components and social interaction patterns
Bekoff - Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1982 - Cambridge Univ Press
Functional aspects of play as revealed by structural components and social interaction patterns.

Where’s the brain? Geometric and cognitive underpinnings of group-size effects on vigilance
Bekoff - Behavioural processes, 2003 - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Where’s the brain? Geometric and cognitive underpinnings of group-size effects on vigilance.

Life-history patterns and sociality in canids: body size, reproduction, and behavior
Bekoff, Diamond - Oecologia, 1981 - Springer
Empirical associations among co-adapted traits such as body size and patterns of reproduction, development, and behavior are unknown for most animal species, despite numerous theories suggesting otherwise. One way to study these complex relationships is first to consider closely related species and then to generalize findings to other groups. In the present study, relationships among body size, reproductive patterns, development, and sociality were examined in 17 members of the family Canidae (canids). Large canids are more social than smaller species, and offspring of large species achieve independence and tend to breed first at a later age. Large females give birth to absolutely larger young, but relative to their own body weight they allocate fewer resources to bringing a large pup to term. Overall, sexual dimorphism in size is small to moderate, and this is associated with monogamous mating habits and paternal care of young.

[[http://www.jstor.org/stable/info/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051\0171:SRCASM\2.0.CO;2][Science, religion, cooperation, and social morality]] BEKOFF - BioScience, 2001 - JSTOR
Few scientists and religious scholars have seriously pondered how science and religion can be reconciled. But times are changing. Not long ago I attended two meetings that brought together scientists, theologians, and religious scholars to discuss just that issue. The first gathering was part of the Science and the Spiritual Quest II program () sponsored by the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences in Berkeley, California. The other was organized by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Participants at both of these meetings spoke freely about science (evolutionary biology, ethology, neuroscience, anthropology, psychology), theology, religion, and God, and made a lot of progress in their interdisciplinary efforts to address the confluence of religion and science. Social morality is a subject at the intersection of religion and science, one that can unite people from different disciplines. Many peoplelaymen, theologians, scientistswonder whether some nonhuman animal beings (hereafter animals) have codes of social conduct that regulate their behavior during social encounters. Charles Darwin’s ideas about evolutionary continuitythat behavioral, cognitive (intellectual), and emotional variations among different species are differences in degree rather than in kindare often invoked in such exercises.

But is it research? What price interdisciplinary interests?
Bekoff - Biology and Philosophy, 1994 - Springer
That interdisciplinary work has become the rule, rather than the exception, in many branches of science and in many areas of the humanities, is a gross understatement. One needs only to consider the rifles of various journals, the names of various professional societies, or peruse the shelves of book stores to see that interdisciplinary interests abound.

A method for the analysis of activity and spatial relations in animal groups
Bekoff, Corcoran - Behavior Research Methods, 1975 - Springer
Scientists interested in animal social organization frequently need to ask questions concerning the interindiual spatial relations among members of a group (the use of space), but often omit consideration of the ways in which interindividual spatial relations and individual activity patterns are related to one another.

Considering Animals Not Higher Primates
Bekoff - Zygon, 2003
In this essay I argue that many nonhuman animal beings are conscious and have some sense of self. Rather than ask whether they are conscious, I adopt an evolutionary perspective and ask why consciousness and a sense of self evolved - what are they good for? Comparative studies of animal cognition, ethological investigations that explore what it is like to be a certain animal, are useful for answering this question. Charles Darwin argued that the differences in cognitive abilities and emotions among animals are differences in degree rather than differences in kind, and his view cautions against the unyielding claim that humans, and perhaps other great apes and cetaceans, are the only species in which a sense of self-awareness has evolved. I conclude that there are degrees of consciousness and self among animals and that it is likely that no animal has the same highly developed sense of self as that displayed by most humans. Many animals have a sense of body-ness or mine-ness but not a sense of I-ness. Darwin’s ideas about evolutionary continuity, together with empirical data (science sense) and common sense, will help us learn more about consciousness and self in animals. Answers to challenging questions about animal self-awareness have wide-ranging significance, because they are often used as the litmus test for determining and defending the sorts of treatments to which animals can be morally subjected. (get pdf))

Animal play and behavioral diversity
Bekoff - The American Naturalist, 1975 - JSTOR
Fagen’s (1974) recent paper concerning selective and evolutionary aspects of animal play provides very interesting reading for those scientists interested in this category of behavior.

Ignoring nature: Why we do it, the dire consequences, and the need for a paradigm shift to Save animals, habitats, and ourselves
Bekoff, Bexell - Human Ecology Review, 2010 - humanecologyreview.org
We live in a wounded world that is in dire need of healing. We all should be troubled and terrified by what we have done and continue to do. Humans have made huge and horrific global messes that need to be repaired now. The overrid- ing sense of turmoil is apparent to anyone who takes the time to pay attention. Researchers and non-researchers alike are extremely concerned about unprecedented global losses of biodiversity and how humans suffer because of our destruc- tive ways. We are animals and we should be proud and aware of our membership in the animal kingdom. However, our unique contribution to the decimation of the planet and its many life forms demeans us. (get pdf))

Minding animals, minding earth: Science, nature, kinship, and heart
Bekoff - Human Ecology Review, 2003 - humanecologyreview.org
This paper emphasizes the importance of broadening behavioral, ecological, and conservation science into a more integrative, interdisciplinary, socially responsible, compassionate, spiritual, and holistic endeavor.2,3 I will stress the significance of studies of animal behavior, especially ethological research concerned with animal emotions, in which individuals are named and recognized for their own personalities and temperaments, for helping us not only to learn about the nonhuman animal beings (hereafter animals) with whom we share Earth, but also for learning about who we are, our place in Nature, our humanness. We can be best understood in relationship to others. I will also develop the notions of minding animals and deep ethology. Animals are a way of knowing; sources of wisdom. I am an optimist, a hopeful human being. I never say never. I ache with the pains of other beings and also feel pangs when I feel inanimate landscapes being destroyed. Surely we do not want to be remembered as the generation that killed Nature. Now is the time for everyone to work for universal planetary peace. There is no alternative to world peace and we must sow seeds without hesitation to accom- plish this urgent goal. It is essential that we do better than our ancestors. No one could argue that a world with significantly less, rather, no cruelty and boundless compassion, respect, grace, humility, spirituality, peace, and love would not be a better world in which to live and raise our children and theirs. We are all citizens of Earth, members of a global community in which intimate reciprocal and beneficent peaceful relationships are mandatory. We have compelling responsibilities for making Earth a better and more peaceful habitat for all beings. Time is not on our side. We must reflect and step lightly as we redecorate Nature. I yearn for a seamless tapestry of oneness, a warm blan- ket, a soul-scape, of deep and reciprocal friendships in which all individuals count, a single community in which individuals are at one with all others, in which the seer and the seen are one, a community in which it feels good and makes indi- viduals happy to be kind to others. My own dreams and spirituality are based on a deep and passionate drive for reconciliation, a seamless unity a wholeness and oneness motivated by trust, compassion, respect, grace, humility, and love. I plead for developing heartfelt and holistic science that allows for fun, joy, and play, along with interdisciplinary talk about kindness, generosity, compassion, respect, grace, humility, spirituality, peace, and love. Science need not be suspicious of things it cannot fully understand. We must never avert our eyes or our other senses from the eyes and voices of all other beings, our kin, our friends, who urgently beg for and truly need our immediate, uncompromising, and uncon- ditional aid and love. We are obliged not to do so. We certainly can do much more than we have done for animals and Earth. (get pdf))

Predatory Strategies and Behavioral Diversity
Bekoff - American Biology Teacher, 1983 - eric.ed.gov
Briefly discusses the view that behavior may be thought of as a phenotypic adaptation that can be quantitatively studied, and then considered in more detail ways in which predatory animals, especially mammals, satisfy their need for food. Topics covered include predatory behavior, hunting modes, prey selection, hunting success, and others. (JN)

The view from Japan
Bekoff, Goodall - Nature, 2001 - nature.com
The past decade has seen enormous growth in the study of animal cognition. Anecdotal reports and detailed observational experiments abound for many species and for diverse cognitive skills.

Action in Cognitive Ethology
Bekoff - A Companion to the Philosophy of Action, 2010 - Wiley Online Library
Understanding the actions that animals perform during different contexts is central to learning about what animals know, desire, intend, believe, and feel. While philosophical discussions of action theory focus almost exclusively on humans, there is quite a lot of information …

The great divide
Bekoff - A review of Wynne, 2004 - americanscientist.org
Do animals think? Well, surely some do, you may think. And an increasing number of researchers across disciplines would agree with you: They are trying to determine hownot whetheranimals consciously process information about their social and nonsocial environments. What is going on in the minds of animals? Do they have desires and beliefs? Zealots abound at both ends of a spectrum that ranges from those who believe that animals are merely thoughtless robotic automatons to those who argue that all are thinking creatures with rich cognitive lives. I imagine that the truth lies somewhere in the middle: A number of animals have the capacity for thinking about certain situations and showing flexible, adaptable behavior, whereas others may behave reflexively, with little or no thought at all.

Integrating Values and Ethics into Wildlife Policy and Management Lessons from North America
Fox, Bekoff - Animals, 2011 - mdpi.com
Few animals provoke as wide a range of emotions as wolves. Some see wolves as icons of a lost wilderness; others see them as intruders. As the battle continues between wolf proponents and opponents, finding solutions that resolve conflicts while supporting the integrity of nature is challenging. In this essay we argue that we need to make room for wolves and other native carnivores who are re-colonizing areas from which they were extirpated. Strategies that foster coexistence are necessary and wildlife agencies must consider all stakeholders and invest adequate resources to inform the public about how to mitigate conflicts between people/domestic animals, and predators. Values and ethics must be woven into wildlife policy and management and we must be willing to ask difficult ethical questions and learn from past mistakes. (get pdf))

Jonathan Balcombe

Tue, 01 Mar 2022 10:15:58 -0800

Jonathan Balcombe holds three biology degrees and specializes in the study of ethology with a PhD in this area of study. A leading animal behavior researcher he is also an author and speaker.

Below are excerpts from Alexandra’s excellent article about Jonathan:

“It’s easy to come away with a sense that it’s a hard-struggled life out there, but it’s a life worth living,” observes Dr. Balcombe. He has found that many species share related physiologies and behavior patterns as humans, and are thus able to feel such emotions as pain, pleasure, and passion.

What’s more, Dr. Balcombe firmly believes that animals have many lessons that we humans can learn from. “I am an avid animal watcher… they teach me new things every time I watch them carefully and the more I understand the more there is to learn,” says Balcombe.

This is the link to his own site, jonathan-balcombe.com which contains information about his books, writings, courses etc.

Biographical Profile

Jonathan Balcombe was born in England, raised in New Zealand and Canada, and has lived in the United States since 1987. He has three biology degrees, including a PhD in ethology (the study of animal behavior) from the University of Tennessee, where he studied communication in bats. He has published over 40 scientific papers on animal behavior and animal protection.

He is the author of four books, including Pleasurable Kingdom: Animals and the Nature of Feeling Good, Second Nature: The Inner Lives of Animals, and The Exultant Ark: A Pictorial Tour of Animal Pleasure (pdf).

Formerly Senior Research Scientist with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, he is currently Chair of the Animal Studies Department with the Humane Society University.

Jonathan lives with his family in Germantown, Maryland. In his spare time he enjoys biking, baking, birdwatching, piano, and trying to understand his two cats.

Links

Jonathan Balcombe
This is the main site and contains information about Jonathan’s books, writings, courses etc.

MacMillan Speakers: Jonathan Balcombe
Animal behavior expert Jonathan Balcombe is a passionate advocate for animals and their living spaces. His highly acclaimed books Pleasurable Kingdom and Second Nature present animals in a new light and presage a revolution in the human-animal relationship. His most recent book, The Exultant Art: A Pictorial Tour of Animal Pleasure (2011), received a glowing review in the New York Times. A PhD scientist and vegan, Balcombe’s dynamic message resonates with timely issues that affect everyone, including climate change, biodiversity, and personal health. He has given lectures and presentations on six continents.Jonathan Balcombe was born in England and raised in New Zealand and Canada. He studied biology at Canada’s York University and Carleton University before earning a PhD in ethology (animal behavior) from the University of Tennessee. He has written over 40 scientific papers and book chapters, and many lay articles on animal behavior and animal protection.

PCRM: Jonathan Balcombe, Ph.D., M.S.
Jonathan Balcombe, Ph.D., M.S., is a research scientist with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a nationwide organization of physicians and laypersons that promotes preventive medicine, especially good nutrition, and addresses controversies in modern medicine, including ethical issues in research …

TEM Style: Jonathan Balcombe, ethical man
TEM is proud to present Jonathan Balcombe (seen here with Lucy, the rat) as the first-ever feature in our Ethical Men series. Congrats, Jonathan!

New Zealand Center for Human-Animal Studies: Dr Jonathan Balcombe (USA)
Jonathan Balcombe was born in England, raised in New Zealand and Canada, and has lived in the United States since 1987. He studied biology at York University and Carleton University in Canada before earning his doctorate in ethology (animal behavior) from the University of Tennessee, studying communication in bats. He has written many scientific papers and lay-articles on animal behavior, humane education, and animal research …

Free From Harm: Interview with Jonathan Balcombe
Author, ethologist and biologist Dr. Jonathan Balcombe is breaking new ground in our understanding of and appreciation for animals.

OneKind: Jonathan Balcombe on The Exultant Ark
Jonathan Balcombe is an academic and also a successful author of a number of popular books about animals emotions: specifically animals' pleasure.

Blogspot: Jonathan Balcombe
The musings and reflections of a biologist as enthralled with animal life as he is dissatisfied with humanity’s current relationship to it.

Jonathan Balcombe: A Passionate Ethologist
An excellent, concise essay about ethologist Dr. Balcombe and some of his remarkable work.

Humane Society University, a pioneer in the animal studies movement
Moody octopuses, altruistic bats and honeybees that vote are academic fodder for Washington’s newest university.

Media Press

Farm animals deserve humane treatment (Washington Post)
One often sees the term “extremism” applied to certain acts of animal activism, but never is it used in reference to the extreme cruelties routinely carried out by the animal industries themselves [“As eco-terrorism threat diminishes, governments keep eyes on activists,” front page, March 11]. To list just a few: We take newborn calves from their mothers so that the latter may be milked, crowd hens into tiny cages for egg production, sear off the sensitive beak tips of female chicks, toss the male chicks into meat-grinders or into bins to suffocate, and consign pregnant sows to metal-and-concrete stalls in which they can barely move for weeks.

That these practices remain legal makes them no less cruel. Fortunately, consumers can make the non-extreme decision to refrain from funding factory farming by choosing to purchase alternative products.

Jonathan Balcombe, Germantown

Jonathan Balcombe: ‘Stop being beastly to hens’ (The Guardian)
Animal behaviour scientist Jonathan Balcombe says that our treatment of animals remains medieval despite a flood of studies shedding light on how they experience the world

How to Have Fun Like Monkeys, Whales and Foxes (Wired Science)
Balcombe surveys a new generation of studies into animal feelings, especially animal pleasure. Accompanying the scholarship are photographs of animals seeming to enjoy themselves: hippos and flying foxes, zebrafish and sharks, parrots and polar bears, a whole animal kingdom of pleasure.

Jonathan Balcombe: “Second Nature” (Diane Rehm Radio Show)
Humans aren’t the only beings who communicate, feel emotions and have self-awareness. Drawing on the latest research, an animal behaviorist explains why people need to change the way they treat other living creatures.

Videos

Why Vegan? Lessons From An Animal Scientist

As a scientist who chooses a plant-based diet, Jonathan Balcombe is not your typical biologist. In this riveting, richly-illustrated presentation, Balcombe reveals startling new discoveries in the realms of animal cognition and emotional complexity–from optimistic starlings, to choosy fishes, to dogs who object to unfair treatment.

Interview - Jonathan Balcombe

Second Nature: The Inner Lives of Animals
Interview with Jonathan Bascombe author of “Second Nature: The Inner Lives of Animals” recorded May 29, 2010 in Seattle.

Dr. Jonathan Balcombe on Our Relationship to Animals

Second Nature: The Inner Lives of Animals
“Jonathan Balcombe is a rare being, a scientist who has escaped the narrow orthodoxies of institutional science, an intelligent human being who is more than ready to recognize intelligences of other kinds, an intuitive and empathetic observer who nevertheless does not abandon the highest standards of intellectual inquiry.”
–from the Forward by J.M Coetzee, winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature

Dr. Jonathan Balcombe at the 2010 VSDC Life-Affirming Thanksgiving celebration

Jonathan Balcombe as guest speaker at the 2010 Vegetarian Society of DC Life-Affirming Thanksgiving celebration.

Friends for Life (Jonathan Balcombe)

Composed and performed by Jonathan Balcombe.

Dr. Jonathan Balcombe on Individuality in Fish

Second Nature: The Inner Lives of Animals
Bshary, R. “Machiavellian Intelligence in Fishes.” In Fish Cognition and Behavior , edited by C. Brown et al., pp. 223-242. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2006.

Dr. Jonathan Balcombe on Animal Virtue and Fairness

Second Nature: The Inner Lives of Animals
Brosnan, S.F., and F.B.M. de Waal. “Monkeys reject unequal pay.” Nature 425 (2003): 297-299.

Books and Reviews

The Exultant Ark - A Pictorial Tour of Animal Pleasure

Jonathan P. Balcombe

Nature documentaries often depict animal life as a grim struggle for survival, but this visually stunning book opens our eyes to a different, more scientifically up-to-date way of looking at the animal kingdom. In more than one hundred thirty striking images, The Exultant Ark celebrates the full range of animal experience with dramatic portraits of animal pleasure ranging from the charismatic and familiar to the obscure and bizarre. These photographs, windows onto the inner lives of pleasure seekers, show two polar bears engaged in about of wrestling, hoary marmots taking time for a friendly chase, Japanese macaques enjoying a soak in a hot spring, a young bull elk sticking out his tongue to catch snowflakes, and many other rewarding moments. Biologist and best-selling author Jonathan Balcombe is our guide, interpreting the images within the scientific context of what is known about animal behavior. In the end, old attitudes fall away as we gain a heightened sense of animal individuality and of the pleasures that make life worth living for all sentient beings.

The Exultant Ark - A Pictorial Tour of Animal Pleasure

Review in NY Times

True to its subtitle — “A Pictorial Tour of Animal Pleasure” — “The Exultant Ark” showcases surprising, funny, touching, sad, heartwarming pictures by photographers all over the world. Dr. Balcombe’s text is a serious examination of the subject of animal pleasure, a study that “remains nascent and largely neglected in scientific discourse.” But it also delights us along the way with Dr. Balcombe’s observations and examples.

Second Nature: The Inner Lives of Animals

Jonathan P. Balcombe

For centuries we believed that humans were the only ones that mattered. The idea that animals had feelings was either dismissed or considered heresy. Today, that’s all changing. New scientific studies of animal behavior reveal perceptions, intelligences, awareness and social skills that would have been deemed fantasy a generation ago. The implications make our troubled relationship to animals one of the most pressing moral issues of our time. Jonathan Balcombe, animal behaviorist and author of the critically acclaimed Pleasurable Kingdom, draws on the latest research, observational studies and personal anecdotes to reveal the full gamut of animal experiencefrom emotions, to problem solving, to moral judgment. Balcombe challenges the widely held idea that nature is red in tooth and claw, highlighting animal traits we have disregarded until now: their nuanced understanding of social dynamics, their consideration for others, and their strong tendency to avoid violent conflict. Did you know that dogs recognize unfairness and that rats practice random acts of kindness? Did you know that chimpanzees can trounce humans in short-term memory games? Or that fishes distinguish good guys from cheaters, and that birds are susceptible to mood swings such as depression and optimism? With vivid stories and entertaining anecdotes, Balcombe gives the human pedestal a strong shake while opening the door into the inner lives of the animals themselves.

Second Nature: The Inner Lives of Animals

Review by Kim Stallwood

Balcombe’s writings are a carefully crafted balance of academic rigor and empathic wisdom.

Pleasurable Kingdom: Animals and the Nature of Feeling Good

Jonathan P. Balcombe

Pleasurable Kingdom presents new evidence that animals - like humans - enjoy themselves. From birds to baboons, insects to iguanas, animals feel good thanks to play, sex, touch, food, anticipation, comfort, aesthetics, and more. Combining rigorous evidence, elegant argument and amusing anecdotes, leading animal behavior researcher Jonathan Balcombe shows that the possibility of positive feelings in creatures other than humans has important ethical ramifications for both science and society. For more information please visit the author’s website at www.pleasurablekingdom.com

The Use of Animals in Higher Education: Problems, Alternatives, & Recommendations

Jonathan P. Balcombe

The Use of Animals in Higher Education is well-researched and annotated and international in scope, with a primary focus on the US. It addresses secondary education as strongly as higher education, with quite a focus on elementary education as well. (get pdf)

Beyond Animal Research Articles at PCRM

Heart Attack Experiments in Animals
Heart attacks are virtually unknown in mice and rats, probably because their natural life spans are just two to three years, their heart physiology is different from that of humans, and, of course, they avoid fast-food restaurants. But, unfortunately, some animal experimenters have nonetheless attempted to artificially induce heart problems in these hapless creatures.

Animal Research and Mobile Phones: Getting a Bad Connection
A recent article in the British Medical Journal asks “Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?” The authors examined systematic reviews of six areas of animal research and presented evidence that it had not informed human medicine. For two of the six areas, clinical trials were conducted at the same time as the animal studies, and for three others, clinical trials went ahead despite evidence of harm from the animal studies. Overall, the analysis reveals both a practical and a perceived disconnect between animal and human studies. The authors conclude that “new animal studies should not be conducted until…their validity and generalisability to clinical medicine has been assessed.”

Bone-Breaking Experiments
Understanding how bones break and heal and developing treatments are all important and worthwhile medical endeavors. Unfortunately, some experimenters deliberately break healthy animals’ bones. Each year dozens of such studies are published; these experiments are conducted on many different animals, including dogs, rats, mice, rabbits, pigs, sheep, and goats.

The Misunderstood Rat
Rats are one of the world’s least understood creatures. Stigmatized as filthy “pests” for centuries, these inquisitive opportunists are actually naturally sociable and make excellent companions. New scientific studies show that there is more to rats than laboratory supply companies would have us believe.

Animal Smoking Experiments
Scientists like to joke that smoking is a leading cause of statistics. It’s an amusing observation, but sadly, when it comes to animal experimentation, it’s all too true. Despite the failure of numerous animal studies during the 1950s and 1960s to reveal a clear link between cigarette smoking and cancer—and despite our established knowledge from human clinical data that smoking is deadly - smoking experiments on animals continue.

Animal Smoking Experiments: Part II
Scientists have known for decades that smoking can have devastating effects on human health. Yet researchers continue to conduct smoking experiments on animals. Do such experiments offer new insights? In an earlier column (Part I), I discussed several recent animal smoking experiments that appear merely to confirm what is already known from human studies. To investigate further, I followed up on four of these animal studies (all published in 2004) using the National Institutes of Health’s online PubMed database.

The Guinea Pigs Deserve a Hearing
Many years ago I remember seeing in a physiology textbook two photographs of a guinea pig’s inner ear, taken under a microscope before and after exposure to destructively loud noise. The first image showed the sensitive cochlear hairs arranged in neat rows; in the second they looked like a stand of trees flattened by a violent hurricane.

Animals Still Used in Motion Sickness Experiments
If you’ve ever suffered motion sickness, you know that it’s a miserable feeling. Other animals are also vulnerable, and for at least 50 years scientists have been subjecting monkeys, dogs, cats, rats and other species to experiments designed to make them ill.

Migraine Research, Part 1
According the UK-based Migraine Trust Association (www.migrainetrust.org), migraine is the most common neurological condition in the developed world … There is no cure, but there are many available treatments. Despite this, animals bear the brunt of scientific curiosity about migraine. Cats, monkeys, pigs, guinea pigs, and rats are all being used in headache research. These experimental subjects are not suffering from migraines (at least not that we can tell), but their skulls are opened up and their brains tweaked, probed and drugged in a parade of experiments designed, it seems, more to advance scientific careers than useful knowledge.

Migraine Research, Part II
In last month’s column, I described a small sampling of “migraine” studies on animals, involving usually terminal, invasive procedures on unconscious (anesthetized) animals (cats, monkeys, rats, etc.) who have no way of communicating symptoms. But other researchers are pursuing very different paths. The following sampling of recent studies underscores the broad range of human clinical methods available for advancing our understanding of this important condition …

A Stunning Waste of Pigs
A recent story appeared in New Scientist concerning the use of stun guns for immobilizing dangerous persons … The New Scientist report mentioned that, in response to concerns about human deaths associated with Taser use, animal tests were being initiated to assess their effects on the hearts of anesthetized pigs.

Confining Rodents in Laboratory Cages Has Troubling Consequences
Throughout history, human societies have dealt with criminals by confining them in small cells. Not only does imprisonment remove the offender from daily life, but by taking away the inmate’s freedom and autonomy it constitutes punishment … Animals caged in laboratories find themselves in comparable circumstances.

Chimeras: Beyond Our Moral Depth?
The chimeras I learned about as a biology student—obscure, strange-looking fishes of the ocean depths—are not the same as the ones now at the center of a debate in medical ethics. These chimeras are made by man, not by nature. As stem cell technology marches ahead, science now has the means to create creatures that blur the line between humans and other animals. The specter of a half-chimp/half-man or a mouse with a human brain is no longer the stuff of science fiction.

Sarin: Terror in the Laboratories
Originally developed as a chemical warfare agent in 1938, the nerve gas sarin became a household word when it was used in a terrorist attack on the Tokyo subway system in March 1995 (one of three such incidents in Japan between 1994 and 1998). Long-term health effects on Gulf War veterans have also been attributed to possible low-level sarin exposure. Despite the pitfalls of trying to extrapolate across species, animals have been exposed to sarin in hundreds of laboratory experiments dating back at least to the late 1950s.

Anorexia Nervosa and Animal Experiments
Anorexia is a terrible illness that afflicts some two million Americans, mostly young women. Not surprisingly, there is a concerted effort to understand and address anorexia and other eating disorders. A search for “anorexia nervosa” on the NIH’s PubMed online database yielded more than 8,600 studies. Most are human clinical studies—but not all. Many researchers are being funded to perform experiments on animals, usually (male) rats. But because rodents don’t spontaneously develop eating disorders, experimenters must create “animal models” of the condition.

Anorexia Nervosa: The Potential of Nonanimal Research
In last month’s column, I presented some examples of studies in which rats are starved and exercised in a futile attempt to model anorexia nervosa (AN), a uniquely human condition. As I researched these studies, I also encountered numerous human clinical studies. The following recent examples illustrate just some of the broad range of research strategies available for human-based research into eating disorders.

Homeopathy: Healing Some, Harming Others
My local paper recently profiled the Samueli Institute for Information Biology (SIIB), a nonprofit medical research organization that emphasizes complementary medicine, such as acupuncture and homeopathy, a system of medical practice that treats a disease especially by the administration of minute doses of a remedy that would in healthy persons produce symptoms similar to those of the disease. The organization’s stated mission is strongly geared towards healing, and its goals include alleviating suffering, enhancing well being, and establishing sustainable healthcare approaches. So far, so good. Then I noticed that the article mentioned animal studies.

Homeopathy Research: Efficacy Studies
Because homeopathy involves giving vanishingly small quantities of ingredients to patients, side effects are rare and treatments essentially harmless. That does not mean they are effective, however. The animal studies I described in last month’s column were trying to address efficacy, not safety. As the following examples from 2005 show, researchers have a variety of means for assessing alternative treatments in humans without resorting to cruel animal studies.

Mice on Soy
A recent study from the University of Colorado made headlines when it was reported that a soy-based diet worsened heart disease in male mice carrying a mutation for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM).

Depressed Mice Study Is Inhumane and Clinically Irrelevant
A study published in the prestigious journal Science reported on the apparent role of a protein (called p11) in fighting depression. However, most of the depressed subjects in this study weren’t people—they were mice.

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) is implicated in about 5,000 to 7,000 infant deaths yearly in the United States … A considerable amount of this research is in the clinical setting … There are also many animal studies …

Blogs and Opinions at firstscience.com (selected)

(Unfortunately, the links to these items are unavailable at firstscience.com presently.)

Cultured Sparrows
… one enterprising sparrow had probably stumbled on this available food source (perhaps by accident while trapped?), and it was adopted by other birds. Sparrow culture.

Steve Irwin Stung by the Press
… I think Irwin would have objected to those headlines announcing his death by stingray, in which the ray was said to have “attacked” him. The animal acted in defense. With its poor word-choice, the press succumbed to the lure of sensationalism, or maybe just ignorance, and undid some of the good that Irwin had done.

Empathic Mice
A widely reported recent study documented evidence that house mice show empathy …

Animal Testing my Patience
A recent BBC news article on the rise in animal use in UK labs contained the following statement from a pro-vivisection spokesperson. “Animal testing for medical research is unavoidable.” The person who said this needs an English lesson.

Bird-Brains Not
A new study of bird behavior [www.sciencenews.org/articles/20061118/fob6.asp] adds to a burgeoning body of evidence that birds aren’t the bird-brains they were once thought to be.

Fish Scale New Heights of Social Sophistication
These studies add to a growing body of evidence that fishes are nothing like the thoughtless, unfeeling automatons they were once thought to be. That’s no comfort to anyone concerned about humankind’s voracious plundering of the world’s fish populations, but nature has her own agenda, and easing humanity’s conscience isn’t on the list.

One Man’s Waste
We owe a lot to insects for helping to keep the world clean. Were it not for the flies and beetles, the world would soon be awash with organic waste, and disease and squalor would run rampant.

Tea: Black is Beautiful
A new study reported in the European Heart Journal finds that adding milk to one’s tea may blunt its cardiovascular benefits

An Elephant Talks - Are We Listening?
The English intellectual Cyril Connolly once quipped that: “imprisoned in every fat woman [or man] a thin one is wildly signalling to be let out.” I find that sentiment rather apt for a teenaged elephant who made international news last week for having mastered eight words of human speech

A Negative Review Ain’t Necessarily So
I consider myself fortunate that nearly a year passed before my latest book (www.pleasurablekingdom.com) received a negative review. BioScience [Vol. 57(1): Pp. 83-84] has published a review titled “Feelings do not a science make” by Oxford University biologist Marian Stamp Dawkins which takes me to task for a variety of perceived mis-steps. A colleague posted Dawkins’s review on his list-serve and it generated a fusillade of responses in defense of animal experiences …

Sharp Weapons, Sharp Minds
Recent news of chimpanzees fashioning and using deadly weapons grabbed headlines last week … Less headline-grabbing was the latest in a series of elegant studies of food caching and recovery in scrub jays …

It’s Time the Fur Flew
Each time I see someone wearing fur, a little bit of my faith in humanity dies … Perhaps there’s still hope for the demise of an industry that should have gone out with the arrival of the loom.

What Does A Rat Know, Anyway?
Those who defend animal research often like to point out that about ninety percent of the animals used are rodents, namely mice and rats. The upshot is that we should all breathe a sigh of relief. “Oh, they’re just rodents. Why should we be concerned?”

A Chimp Haven
Earlier this week I visited a facility for chimpanzees given over to retirement by research laboratories that no longer want them.

A Dog Named Chester
What is special about this “dog” is that he isn’t the coddled canine whose ancestors barked at lurking predators and accepted scraps at stone-age firesides … He is a rodent … When I think of Chester’s cousins being obliterated for someone’s amusement, I wonder which species is more noble: ours or his. For all our technology and culture, humankind has a knack for moral fickleness.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for apes?
In late April, an Austrian judge denied personhood status and legal guardianship for 26-year-old Matthias Pan, who was kidnapped as an infant in Sierra Leone after his mother was shot. Brought to Austria illegally, Pan was sold to a research laboratory where he lived alone in a cage and was experimented on for many years before finally being released to a sanctuary. In her concluding statement, the judge explained that she never doubted that Pan should be considered a person, but she did not want to set a precedent that might weaken the case of humans with legal guardians.

Man Bites Shark, Apes Publish Paper
I recently reviewed a book (Anthrozoos, Vol. 20(1)) with the charmingly buoyant title of “Killing Animals.” The book’s introduction includes the sobering news that we humans kill more animals today than we have at any point in history.

Siding with the Amphibian
… as I stood there looking at this frog and contemplating her grim outlook in this man’s clutches, empathy for the frog overcame me and I quickly released her in the grass … Last week my 13-year old daughter spared another leopard frog through a noble act of conscience. She asked to use alternatives instead of dissecting a dead leopard frog in her 7th grade science class.

Blogs from Psychology Today (selected)

Falling for Birds, One at a Time
Nearly 3,000 Red-winged Blackbirds fell dead from the sky in Beebe, Arkansas on New Year’s Eve.

From Skinny Bitch to Bill Clinton: The Rise of Veganism
Have you noticed the word “vegan” lately? If you live in America and you read a newspaper or popular magazines, the chances are you have. If you watch television, you probably even know how to pronounce it properly.

Extinction Folly - Review of Paper Tiger: A Visual History of the Thylacine
Today, rewards offered for a living specimen seem like wishful thinking.

Man vs. Wild, Bear Grylls, and the Violent Nature Myth
A few months ago, surfing the television, I happened upon a scene in which a fit-looking young man forcibly removed a rattlesnake from beneath a shrub and smashed its head in with a rock. As he did so, he warned of the danger posed by these reptiles. How ironic.

Peter Singer, Vioxx, and the Future of Animal Testing
No human enterprise illustrates our deep-seated sense of superiority than the use of animals in product and drug testing.

It’s Time (magazine) to Respect Cows
Animal minds made big news this month with Time magazine dedicating its cover story to the topic. “Inside the minds of animals,” by Jeffrey Kluger, provides an engaging glimpse into some of the exciting recent discoveries in animal cognition. That title is an improvement over that of a February 2006 Scientific American article which asked meekly, “Do Animals Have Feelings?” as if there should remain any doubt about that.

Jane GoodAll Things Wonderful
I dedicate this blog entry to Jane Goodall on the 50th anniversary of her groundbreaking research on wild chimpanzees.

Whales, Whaling, and Humanity
In Morocco this week, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) decided to uphold its international moratorium on commercial whaling. That decision just might be a litmus test for the evolution and maturity of humankind. Lifting the ban would have been a symbolic reminder that we remain mired in a way of thinking that sees other sentient animals merely as resources for humans to treat as we please-a recapitulation of an arcane might-makes-right mindset that justified colonialism and slavery, the subjugation of women, and the denial of civil rights.

Beneath the Surface of an Oil Spill
As the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico hemorrhages toward its third month, there’s a big question about which very little is being said: How is it making the fish feel? How is the quality of life for individual fishes being impacted by this latest marine ecological disaster?

Sometimes it hurts when you duck
I walked into the office of the owner of Hudson Valley Foie Gras (HVFG). Since opening in 1989, HVFG has become America’s largest producer of the fatty duck livers treasured by gourmets and reviled by animal advocates. I wasn’t there to purchase foie gras. I was there on a covert assignment for PETA … But like slavery and the denial of votes to women before it, foie gras is vulnerable to exposure as an abomination in civilized society.

Vulture Culture
I met a vulture once. She had been on the losing end of a collision with a car. Unable to fly again, she went on occasional outings where people could see her up close. I met her at an animal welfare fair in a high school gymnasium. She was a black vulture, Coragyps atratus. She stood on a wooden perch, and seemed perfectly at ease in these unnatural surroundings. She was remarkably unlike my preconceptions of vultures. She had deep, black eyes. She blinked. She moved her head slowly to observe the goings on. She wasn’t smelly or scruffy as I had shallowly imagined vultures to be. She looked immaculate. She had a presence. If I had to choose one word to describe her it would be dignified. She wasn’t an object but a subject – a thinking, feeling being.

Papers (with abstracts)

Some of these items have been found through Google Scholar. Certain links are unavailable, but we will try to locate the articles through other means.

Laboratory routines cause animal stress
Balcombe, Jonathan P.; Barnard, Neal D.; Sandusky, Chad
Eighty published studies were appraised to document the potential stress associated with three routine laboratory procedures commonly performed on animals: handling, blood collection, and orogastric gavage. We defined handling as any non-invasive manipulation occurring as part of routine husbandry, including lifting an animal and cleaning or moving an animal’s cage. Significant changes in physiologic parameters correlated with stress (e.g., serum or plasma concentrations of corticosterone, glucose, growth hormone or prolactin, heart rate, blood pressure, and behavior) were associated with all three procedures in multiple species in the studies we examined. The results of these studies demonstrated that animals responded with rapid, pronounced, and statistically significant elevations in stress-related responses for each of the procedures, although handling elicited variable alterations in immune system responses. Changes from baseline or control measures typically ranged from 20% to 100% or more and lasted at least 30 min or longer. We interpret these findings to indicate that laboratory routines are associated with stress, and that animals do not readily habituate to them. The data suggest that significant fear, stress, and possibly distress are predictable consequences of routine laboratory procedures, and that these phenomena have substantial scientific and humane implications for the use of animals in laboratory research.

Vocal recognition of pups by mother Mexican free-tailed bats, Tadarida brasiliensis mexicana
JP Balcombe - Animal Behaviour, 1990 - Elsevier
The ability of Mexican free-tailed bat mothers and pups to recognize vocalizations of their presumptive kin (pup isolation calls and mother echolocation calls, respectively) was tested using playbacks of recorded calls. Captive individuals were presented with calls of two bats, one presumptive kin and the other a stranger, from opposite sides of a circular wire arena. Response was determined by amount of time spent on each side of the arena, time spent in contact with a cloth bat model in front of each speaker, and number of separate contacts with each model. For the latter two measures, mothers showed a significant preference for the calls of their presumptive pups. Pups were attracted to adult echolocation calls, but did not show preference for calls of different mothers. The ages of pups appears to have had no effect on the responsiveness of either pups or mothers to the playbacks. This study demonstrates vocal kin recognition by mothers, and suggests an important role for acoustic cues in mother-pup reunions in this species. The findings do not preclude the possibility that vocal recognition of mothers by pups also occurs.

Vocal recognition in Mexican free-tailed bats: Do pups recognize mothers?
JP Balcombe, Gary F. McCracken - Animal Behaviour, 1992 - Elsevier
Mother Mexican free-tailed bats, Tadarida brasiliensis mexicana, produce ‘directive’ calls while searching for pups inside cave maternity roosts. These calls consist of highly repetitive pulses of sound uttered in rapid sequence. Calls are sufficiently intense that they are perceptible above the substantial background noise within roosts at distances of at least 1 m. Calls are stereotyped within individuals, and statistically discriminable between individuals. These characteristics are expected for vocalizations that function for mother—pup reunions, and are shared with directive calls described previously in other bats. Mother T. b. mexicana directive calls are statistically no less discriminable than are the isolation calls of pups. Playback experiments, using recordings made inside the cave colony, show that pups perceive directive calls and are strongly attracted to them.

Eavesdropping by bats: the influence of echolocation call design and foraging strategy
JP Balcombe, M. Brock Fenton - Ethology, 1988 - Wiley Online Library
We used playback presentations to free-flying bats of 3 species to assess the influence of echolocation call design and foraging strategy on the role of echolocation calls in communication. Near feeding sites over water, Myotis lucifugus and M. yumanensis responded positively only to echolocation calls of conspecifics. Near roosts, these bats did not respond before young of the year became volant, and after this responded to presentations of echolocation calls of similar and dissimilar design. At feeding sites Lasiurus borealis responded only to echolocation calls of conspecifics and particularly to “feeding buzzes”. While Myotis, particularly subadults, appear to use the echolocation calls of conspecifics to locate feeding sites, L. borealis appears to use the calls of a foraging neighbour attacking prey to identify opportunities for ‘stealing’ food.

Student/teacher conflict regarding animal dissection
J Balcombe - The American Biology Teacher, 1997 - JSTOR
IN 1993, a medical student at the University of Colorado was compelled to transfer to another university when she failed a course for refusing to participate in a required laboratory exercise that involved performing lethal procedures on anesthetized dogs.

Animal carcinogenicity studies: 1. Poor human predictivity (pdf)
Andrew Knight, Jarrod Bailey and Jonathan Balcombe
The regulation of human exposure to potentially carcinogenic chemicals constitutes society’s most important use of animal carcinogenicity data. Environmental contaminants of greatest concern within the USA are listed in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) chemicals database. However, of the 160 IRIS chemicals lacking even limited human exposure data but possessing animal data that had received a human carcinogenicity assessment by 1 January 2004, we found that in most cases (58.1%; 93/160), the EPA considered animal carcinogenicity data inadequate to support a classification of probable human carcinogen or non-carcinogen. For the 128 chemicals with human or animal data also assessed by the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), human carcinogenicity classifications were compatible with EPA classifications only for those 17 having at least limited human data (p = 0.5896). For those 111 primarily reliant on animal data, the EPA was much more likely than the IARC to assign carcinogenicity classifications indicative of greater human risk (p < 0.0001). The IARC is a leading international authority on carcinogenicity assessments, and its significantly different human carcinogenicity classifications of identical chemicals indicate that: 1) in the absence of significant human data, the EPA is over-reliant on animal carcinogenicity data; 2) as a result, the EPA tends to over-predict carcinogenic risk; and 3) the true predictivity for human carcinogenicity of animal data is even poorer than is indicated by EPA figures alone. The EPA policy of erroneously assuming that tumours in animals are indicative of human carcinogenicity is implicated as a primary cause of these errors.

The future of teratology research is in vitro
Bailey, Jarrod; Knight, Andrew; Balcombe, Jonathan
Birth defects induced by maternal exposure to exogenous agents during pregnancy are preventable, if the agents themselves can be identified and avoided. Billions of dollars and manhours have been dedicated to animal-based discovery and characterisation methods over decades. We show here, via a comprehensive systematic review and analysis of this data, that these methods constitute questionable science and pose a hazard to humans. (get pdf)

Animal carcinogenicity studies: 2. Obstacles to extrapolation of data to humans (pdf)
Andrew Knight, Jarrod Bailey and Jonathan Balcombe
Due to limited human exposure data, risk classification and the consequent regulation of exposure to potential carcinogens has conventionally relied mainly upon animal tests. However, several investigations have revealed animal carcinogenicity data to be lacking in human predictivity. To investigate the reasons for this, we surveyed 160 chemicals possessing animal but not human exposure data within the US Environmental Protection Agency chemicals database, but which had received human carcinogenicity assessments by 1 January 2004. We discovered the use of a wide variety of species, with rodents predominating, and of a wide variety of routes of administration, and that there were effects on a particularly wide variety of organ systems. The likely causes of the poor human predictivity of rodent carcinogenicity bioassays include: 1) the profound discordance of bioassay results between rodent species, strains and genders, and further, between rodents and human beings; 2) the variable, yet substantial, stresses caused by handling and restraint, and the stressful routes of administration common to carcinogenicity bioassays, and their effects on hormonal regulation, immune status and predisposition to carcinogenesis; differences in rates of absorption and transport mechanisms between test routes of administration and other important human routes of exposure; 4) the considerable variability of organ systems in response to carcinogenic insults, both between and within species; and 5) the predisposition of chronic high dose bioassays toward false positive results, due to the overwhelming of physiological defences, and the unnat- ural elevation of cell division rates during ad libitum feeding studies. Such factors render profoundly difficult any attempts to accurately extrapolate human carcinogenic hazards from animal data.

Alternatives to the use of animals in higher education (pdf)
Jan van der Valk, David Dewhurst, Ian Hughes, Jeffrey Atkinson, Jonathan Balcombe, Hans Braun, Karin Gabrielson, Franz Gruber, Jeremy Miles, Jan Nab, Jason Nardi, Henk van Wilgenburg, Ursula Zinko and Joanne Zurlo
This is the report of the thirty-third of a series of workshops organised by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM). ECVAM’s main goal, as defined in 1993 by its Scientific Advisory Committee, is to promote the scientific and regulatory acceptance of alternative methods which are of importance to the biosciences and which reduce, refine or replace the use of laboratory animals.

Dissection: The scientific case for alternatives
J Balcombe - Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 2001 - Taylor & Francis
This article presents the scientific argument that learning methods that replace traditional nonhuman animal-consumptive methods in life science education-so-called alternatives to dissection-are pedagogically sound and probably superior to dissection. This article focuses on the pedagogy, a learning method’s effectiveness for conveying knowledge.

Animal carcinogenicity studies: 3. alternatives to the bioassay (pdf)
Andrew Knight, Jarrod Bailey and Jonathan Balcombe
Conventional animal carcinogenicity tests take around three years to design, conduct and interpret. Consequently, only a tiny fraction of the thousands of industrial chemicals currently in use have been tested for carcinogenicity. Despite the costs of hundreds of millions of dollars and millions of skilled personnel hours, as well as millions of animal lives, several investigations have revealed that animal carcinogenicity data lack human specificity (i.e. the ability to identify human non-carcinogens), which severely limits the human predictivity of the bioassay. This is due to the scientific inadequacies of many carcinogenicity bioassays, and numerous serious biological obstacles, which render profoundly difficult any attempts to accurately extrapolate animal data in order to predict carcinogenic hazards to humans. Proposed modifications to the conventional bioassays have included the elimination of mice as a second species, and the use of genetically-altered or neonatal mice, decreased study durations, initiation–promotion models, the greater incorporation of toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic assessments, structure-activity relationship (computerised) systems, in vitro assays, cDNA microarrays for detecting changes in gene expression, limited human clinical trials, and epidemiological research. The potential advantages of non- animal assays when compared to bioassays include the superior human specificity of the results, substantially reduced time-frames, and greatly reduced demands on financial, personnel and animal resources. Inexplicably, however, the regulatory agencies have been frustratingly slow to adopt alternative protocols. In order to decrease the enormous cost of cancer to society, a substantial redirection of resources away from excessively slow and resource-intensive rodent bioassays, into the further development and implementation of non-animal assays, is both strongly justified and urgently required.

Non-breeder asymmetry in Florida scrub jays
JP Balcombe - Evolutionary Ecology, 1989 - Springer
The data of Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick (1984) show a statistically significant asymmetry in the sex ratio of non-breeders when one of the breeders is not the non-breeder’s parent. I propose that the asymmetry is attributable to a combination of two factors acting on non-breeders: the value of inheriting a territory, and incest avoidance. Although natal territories are only occasionally inherited by non-breeders, and then apparently only by males, therate of inheritance is significantly higher for parent/step-parent breeders (n=6) than when both breeders are the non-breeder’s parents (n=1). An alternative hypothesis, that stepparents determine the non-breeder asymmetry by ousting potential rivals, might also explain the data, but evidence is currently lacking.

Animal pleasure and its moral significance
J Balcombe - Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 2009 - Elsevier
This paper presents arguments for, and evidence in support of, the important role of pleasure in animals’ lives, and outlines its considerable significance to humankind’s relationship to other animals. In the realms of animal sentience, almost all scholarly discussion revolves around its negative aspects: pain, stress, distress, and suffering. By contrast, the positive aspects of sentience – rewards and pleasures – have been rarely broached by scientists. Yet, evolutionary principles predict that animals, like humans, are motivated to seek rewards, and not merely to avoid pain and suffering. Natural selection favours behaviours that enhance survival and procreation. In the conscious, sentient animal, the drives to secure food, shelter, social contact, and mates are motivated by desire (appetitive behaviour) and reinforced by pleasure (consummative behaviour). This is reflected in animals’ behaviour in the realms of play, food, sex, and touch. Despite the heuristic value of interpreting animal behaviour through the proximate (experiential) lens, scholarly study of animals remains entrenched almost exclusively in the ultimate (evolutionary) sphere. Not just science but also ethics suffer for this, for when we see animals as only the products of a competitive struggle for survival, we risk overlooking the positive qualities of their lives. Pleasure has moral import for such practices as factory farming and laboratory research, for it amplifies the moral burden of depriving animals the opportunity to lead fulfilling, enjoyable lives.

Animals Society Courses: A Growing Trend in Post-Secondary Education
J Balcombe - Society and Animals, 1999 - ingentaconnect.com
A survey of college courses addressing nonhuman animal ethics and welfare issues indicates that the presence of such courses has increased greatly since a prior survey was done in 1983. This paper provides titles and affiliations of 67 of 89 courses from the current survey. These courses represent 15 academic fields, and a majority are entirely devoted to animal issues. The fields of animal science and philosophy are proportionally well represented compared with biology and wildlife-related fields. An estimated 5000 or more North American students are now receiving instruction in these issues each year. While the availability of courses in animal issues is still sporadic, it is unprecedentedly high and seen as an important component of changing social values toward nonhuman animals.

Animal carcinogenicity studies: implications for the REACH system (pdf)
Andrew Knight, Jarrod Bailey and Jonathan Balcombe
The 2001 European Commission proposal for the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) aims to improve public and environmental health by assessing the toxicity of, and restricting exposure to, potentially toxic chemicals. The greatest benefits are expected to accrue from decreased cancer incidences. Hence the accurate identification of chemical carcinogens must be a top priority for the REACH system. Due to a paucity of human clinical data, the identification of potential human carcinogens has conventionally relied on animal tests. However, our survey of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) toxic chemicals database revealed that, for a majority of the chemicals of greatest public health concern (93/160, i.e. 58.1%), the EPA found animal carcinogenicity data to be inadequate to support classifications of probable human carcinogen or non-carcinogen. A wide variety of species were used, with rodents predominating; a wide variety of routes of administration were used; and a particularly wide variety of organ systems were affected. These factors raise serious biological obstacles that render accurate extrapolation to humans profoundly difficult. Furthermore, significantly different International Agency for Research on Cancer assessments of identical chemicals, indicate that the true human predictivity of animal carcinogenicity data is even poorer than is indicated by the EPA figures alone. Consequently, we propose the replacement of animal carcinogenicity bioassays with a tiered combination of non-animal assays, which can be expected to yield a weight-of-evidence characterisation of carcinogenic risk with superior human predictivity. Additional advantages include substantial savings of financial, human and animal resources, and potentially greater insights into mechanisms of carcinogenicity.

Which drugs cause cancer? For and against: Cancer bioassays
Andrew Knight, Jarrod Bailey, Jonathan Balcombe
FOR Despite President Nixon’s War on Cancer, launched in 1971, and billions of dollars spent since then, cancer remains the second-leading killer of Americans. Around 40% of us will get cancer, and half of us will die from it. 1 This cease-less tide of human suffering …

Medical training using simulation: Toward fewer animals and safer patients (pdf)
J Balcombe - ATLA-NOTTINGHAM-, 2004 - Citeseer
This paper presents the current status of computer-based simulation in medicine. Recent technological advances have enabled this field to emerge from esoteric explorations in academic laboratories to commercially available simulators designed to train users to perform medical procedures from start to finish. Today, more than a dozen companies are producing virtual reality simulators and interactive manikins for training in endoscopy, laparoscopy, anaesthesia, trauma management, angiography, and needle insertion. For many of these procedures, thousands of animals are still being used in training. Yet simulation has many advantages that can transcend scientific, ethical, economic and logistical problems that arise when using animals. The first validation studies of medical simulators began appearing in the late 1990s, and the early results indicate that these devices measure what they are intended to, and that they can improve performance relative to traditional learning methods. In addition to expanded use for new and existing minimally invasive procedures, medical simulators began appearing in the late 1990s, and the early results indicate that these devices measure what they are intended to, and that they can improve performance relative to traditional learning methods. In addition to expanded use for new and existing minimally invasive procedures, medical simulators will probably soon be used in physician credentialing, and they may someday allow surgeons to rehearse procedures in a patient-specific operating environment. Replacing animals with simulators in medical training is limited no longer by technical feasibility but by a willingness of the medical community to embrace it.

Laboratory rodent welfare: Thinking outside the cage
J Balcombe - Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 2009 - Taylor & Francis
This commentary presents the case against housing rats and mice in laboratory cages; the commentary bases its case on their sentience, natural history, and the varied detriments of laboratory conditions. The commentary gives 5 arguments to support this position: (a) rats and mice have a high degree of sentience and can suffer, (b) laboratory environments cause suffering, (c) rats and mice in the wild have discrete behavioral needs, (d) rats and mice bred for many generations in the laboratory retain these needs, and (e) these needs are not met in laboratory cages.

Verbal Vivisection
J Balcombe - Organization & environment, 2000 - oae.sagepub.com
This commentary revisits and provides some further analysis on Dunayer’s critique of language use by the animal research community. Without question, such language is often used to distort and soften certain harsh realities of vivisection. The commentator elaborates on the terms consent, sacrifice, euthanasia, and vivisection and reflects on the particular challenges faced by any writer who sets out to assail the use of language by another interest group. For in doing so, the writer risks falling into the same traps of manipulative or prejudicial language that are being denounced. Dunayer is not immune to this, but she raises some valid and provocative points along the way.

Animal Dissection
J Balcombe - 1998 - eric.ed.gov
Killing animals for classroom dissection causes animal suffering, cheapens the value of life, and depletes wild animal populations, yet it remains commonplace. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) addresses the issue in this information packet which includes a fact sheet and three resource lists “on Dissection.” The fact sheet discusses the numbers of animals killed for dissection in schools, kinds of animals used, sources of animals, industry methods, lack of industry oversight, student feelings, legislation, available alternatives, educational pros and cons, and suggestions for student action. An annotated list of studies on attitudes toward dissection includes 13 studies of student attitudes from elementary school through medical school. A second annotated bibliography addresses comparative studies of dissection and other animal uses in education. These studies include comparisons of student performance between groups performing dissection and those learning using models, computer simulation, lecture, or sequential slides. The studies also review field-based animal research as opposed to laboratory-based studies of animal behavior.

Intelligent, social rat can find joy in a hostile world
J Balcombe - Nature, 2005 - nature.com
One has to admire the guile and tenacity of the lone rat described by James Russell and colleagues (“Intercepting the first rat ashore”, Nature 437, 1107; 2005). This rat lived for ten weeks on a small, booby-trapped island, visited by trained rat-killing dogs, before swimming a quarter of a mile to a neighbouring island, where he survived a further two months of concerted efforts to eliminate him.

EuroNICHE 10th Anniversary Conference
J Balcombe - Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 1998 - Taylor & Francis
The European Network of Individuals and Campaigns for Humane Education (EuroNICHE) held its 10th conference November 28 through 30 in Hoek van Holland, The Netherlands. EuroNICHE describes itself as" an international network of students, teachers, and other …

Laboratory animals deserve better legal protection
J Balcombe - Nature Medicine, 2008 - nature.com
Given that she is head of the National Association for Biomedical Research, Frankie Trull’s professed concern for animal welfare in her interview is disingenuous considering her organization’s history of campaigning to ensure that rats, mice and birds be excluded from Animal Welfare Act (AWA) protections. The idea that these animals are not worthy of AWA coverage is unscientific and unethical. Rats and mice, in particular, continue to be exposed to such torments as inescapable electric shocks and force-feedings. Are these really what anyone would consider “the most humane conditions”?

Dissection: The Scientiﬁc Case for Alternatives (pdf)
J Balcombe - 2001 - my.psychologytoday.com
This article presents the scientiﬁc argument that leaming methods that replace tradi-tional nonhuman animal-consumptive methods in life science education——so-called alternatives to dissection-are pedagogically sound and probably superior to dissection.

ECVAM Workshop on Alternatives to the Use of Animals in Higher Education
J Balcombe - Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 1999 - Taylor & Francis
The movement for alternatives to the use of animals in laboratories has focused primarily on testing and research and relatively little on education, yet educational use of animals is substantial-numbering annually many millions of animals worldwide. The potential for …

Humane Science Projects: Suggestions for Biology Studies
Balcombe, Jonathan P., Comp.
This paper lists 35 studies in biology which can be tailored to suit the full range of student age groups and are designed to involve most or all of the key elements of the scientific process (study design, data collection and presentation, and experimental manipulation). Examples of some studies are: (1) study the growth of molds on food items under different growing conditions; vary foods and growing conditions; (2) study absenteeism in school; relate to colds, flu, other illnesses; (3) visit a local pond where bats forage at dusk; time of arrival of the bats on different nights and compare with time of year; estimate insect abundance by counting sudden changes of flight direction; and (4) conduct a behavioral study of your companion animal(s) at home: e.g., to what sounds do they respond; compare response to different vocal inflections; examine play behavior, etc. (get pdf)

Toward Genuine Rodent Welfare: Response to Reviewer Comments
J Balcombe - Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 2009 - Taylor & Francis
I’m grateful to the editors for soliciting critiques of my commentary and for the opportunity to respond. Because one of the respondents (Patterson-Kane, 2010 12. Patterson-Kane, E. 2010/this issue. Thinking outside of our cages. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science …

Self-Harm in Laboratory-Housed Primates: Where Is the Evidence That the Animal Welfare Act Amendment Has Worked?
J Balcombe, H Ferdowsian,D Durham - Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 2011 - Taylor & Francis
The 1985 amendment to the United States Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to promote psychological well being of primates in the laboratory represents an acknowledgment of an important welfare problem concerning nonhuman animals. How effective has this amendment been? Perhaps the best-known contributor to psychological distress in primates in the laboratory is nonsocial housing; yet, available analyses suggest that little progress has been made in avoiding single-caging of these animals. Another way to assess psychological well being is to examine rates of self-abusive behavior in laboratory primates. If the AWA has been effective, then post-AWA self-harm rates might be lower than pre-AWA rates. However, when we attempted to determine those rates from published studies, data were too sparse to allow a rigorous statistical analysis; of 139 studies reporting primate self-harming behavior, only 9 contained data allowing estimation of self-harming behavior rates. We conclude that the current system of laboratory animal care and record keeping is inadequate to properly assess AWA impacts on primate psychological well being and that more is required to ensure the psychological well being of primates.

Nutrition Facts

Tue, 01 Mar 2022 01:52:05 -0800

This is one of the best sites on the internet! Dr. Michael Greger has made serious nutrition science available to the layperson through videos that delve into the huge number of published papers on diet.

Find out what the latest science is saying about your favorite foods to help you make the healthiest choices for you and your family.

Watch our free videos on more than 2,000 health and nutrition topics with new videos and articles uploaded every day.

Go to nutritionfacts.org and also check out Greger’s own site.

Crueltyfree Beauty Shopping

Sun, 06 Feb 2022 15:31:36 -0800

Many products in our everyday life are tested on animals. This testing involves cruelty to the animals who are imprisoned, exploited, and eventually killed. Skin-care products and makeup do not need testing since they can be made with safe ingredients.

Some companies are working to make sure all of their products are cruelty-free, and if you want to convert your future purchases into only those that are cruelty-free, there are many resources available in the following guide from The Parlor, to help you do so …

A Guide to Cruelty-Free Beauty Shopping

Booklicious

Sun, 06 Feb 2022 15:28:59 -0800

Are you a lover of books? Are you a parent looking for book recommendations for your young child or teenager? If so, you’ve come to the right place!

LouAnne Taylor has put together a wonderful website for children and parents alike, to find age appropriate books and learning about the importance of literacy …
Booklicious

Animal Liberation

Thu, 13 Jan 2022 14:49:50 -0800

The classic which is considered to be the beginning of animal liberation.

Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals is a 1975 book by Australian philosopher Peter Singer. It is widely considered within the animal liberation movement to be the founding philosophical statement of its ideas. Singer himself rejected the use of the theoretical framework of rights when it comes to human and nonhuman animals. Following Jeremy Bentham, Singer argued that the interests of animals should be considered because of their ability to experience suffering and that the idea of rights was not necessary in order to consider them. He popularized the term “speciesism” in the book, which had been coined by Richard D. Ryder to describe the exploitative treatment of animals …
Wikipedia

The Book That Started A Revolution. Since its original publication in 1975, this groundbreaking work has awakened millions of concerned men and women to the shocking abuse of animals everywhere – inspiring a worldwide movement to eliminate much of the cruel and unnecessary laboratory animal experimentation of years past …
Goodreads

First published in 1975, Animal Liberation was a philosophical bombshell. It forever changed the conversation about our treatment of animals. It made people—myself included–change what we ate, what we wore, and how we perceived animals… (Ingrid Newkirk, PETA) PETA

V03 of Mice and Bread

Mon, 10 Jan 2022 21:05:31 -0800

Every Monday morning I look forward to stopping at BreadSmith, our local bakery, on my way to work. Walking into the aroma of fresh baked bread and hearing the laughter and chatter of the employees has always been a welcomed joy for me. Today, however proved to be a rather negative experience.

All of the employees know that I am vegan so they offer me samples of vegan breads as well as muffins or scones. A woman whom I like quite a bit offered me a new type of bread that had chips in it stating how delicious it was. Another employee jumped into the conversation telling me that they weren’t non-dairy chips so I would most likely not want to sample the bread. I thanked her and then she asked me specifically what the difference was between a vegetarian and a vegan. As I proceeded to explain the difference to her the manager walked out onto the floor and spoke loudly as she was exiting “Are we talking about vegetarianism again”? Then she said “Well I’m a proud carnivore”. I had so many thoughts run through my mind I didn’t know how to respond so I said “just what part of the suffering of animals makes you most proud”? Her response “All of it”! She then left the store as a coward would normally do. I wanted to tell her that she should go vegan for 30 days to try to lose the extra 100 pounds she carries around and if she didn’t feel better we would gladly refund her misery, but she was gone and I was left feeling sick at the encounter.

I went to work feeling awful that I wasn’t prepared for a better response, but she was walking out the door anyway and wasn’t interested in a conversation about veganism. When I arrived at work hungry and hurt I thought of how a slice of my multi-grain bread with strawberry preserves would soothe my bruised ego. I took a slice of bread and cut it in half noticing a seemingly long and large grain I had never seen before. Aha it was a piece of mouse dirt or worse yet rat dirt. Now I would get that manager back for being so crude and heartless about animal suffering. I will call the health department and tell them there are rats and mice in their kitchen, then I will call the employees and tell them how disgusting their operation is. As I started to look up the telephone number for the Health Dept. I thought of how they might remedy this problem. Then it dawned on me that they might put out glue traps and I stopped dead in my tracks and closed the phone book. Surely the mice and rats have a right to eat some of the flour and any little fecal matter that might have got into the flour was baked at a high enough temperature so that the germs were gone and it might even add a little protein to the bread. I picked the piece of dirt from the bread and decided I would toast the bread thus killing any germs that may have been lingering. Realizing the bread was fine and had I not seen the the dirt I probably would have never known the difference I ate the toast, but decided maybe it was time I start to make my own bread.

V02 Do We Have the Right?

Mon, 10 Jan 2022 21:05:16 -0800

Yesterday, while shopping at a major supermarket, I kept noticing obese women with shopping carts filled from top to bottom with every type of meat. One woman had sausage, bacon, hot dogs, chicken, bologna, pot roast, spare ribs, and pork chops in her cart; these were just the animals that I had a chance to observe, there may have been more mangled corpses.

I seldom shop anywhere other than our Natural Outpost, but I needed a few items that this store carries for a lesser price and it is located nearby. As I walked down aisles jam packed with people with over flowing baskets of meat and junk food, I had almost an uncontrollable urge to start talking animal rights. I wanted to interview people and ask them if they had any idea of how the meat they were purchasing arrived to the store all neatly wrapped in plastic. I thought I should tell them of the suffering of animals, the impact on the environment, and the devastating affect eating meat has on their health. There were also many women wearing fur coats and fur items. Are these women aware of the suffering of animals for their vanity? As an animal activist do I have to wait for an appropriate time to present itself for me to inform people of the horrors of factory farming and slaughterhouses? How can I stand by and watch people fill their bags, carts and bellies with unimaginable suffering and say nothing? Do we as animals activists need a platform to plead our case for those without voices?

I felt guilty seeing firsthand the disregard for animal suffering while saying and doing nothing for those who are defenseless against the atrocities committed by humans.

A01 Happy Easter Dear Emma

Mon, 10 Jan 2022 21:01:59 -0800

Today, Easter Sunday, we are celebrating life with our real Easter Bunny named Emma. It was just about one year ago on a cold and rainy day I decided to venture off into a rough part of town to check on a dog who seemed to be neglected. While driving in a downpour I asked myself why on earth I was going into a rough neighborhood to pretend to be interested in getting a dog that I had no intention of adopting.

Several times I attempted to turn back, but the car seemed to have a mind of its own and kept pushing onward toward our destination. Upon arriving I was greeted by a large and disgruntled woman who led me into her tiny backyard. She brought the dog to me who was frantic from lack of exercise and kept running in circles around me. I noticed a group of small boxes and inquired as to what they were. Mary, the woman, told me that they contained rabbits. I asked her to lift up the wooden doors so that I could see them and I was shocked to see rabbits of all different breeds in tiny wire cages with no amenities whatsoever. One in particular was cowering and shaking staring at me with a plea for help. When I told Mary that I saw no food, water or bedding and was concerned of the rabbits trembling, she said they would get a few pellets and some water at the end of the day. I asked why they had no bedding or hay and her response was they were breeders not pets. When she shut the door to the cages I felt sick that once again they were in the dark and cold in complete isolation. I drove home and did not sleep for 2 nights as I could not get the vision of these terrified rabbits out of my head. Finally I called Mary and asked if I could adopt the little gray bunny who was trembling so. She yelled that she was a breeder and paid good money for her. I offered her more than she paid and picked her up the next day. I felt guilty as though I was supporting a mill, but I had to save this precious little rabbit. Having never had a rabbit before, I didn’t know exactly what she needed, but after looking on line had everything ready for her when she arrived at her new home. We had her spayed, litter trained her and she now sleeps on a soft bed compared to wire, has full run of the house and is a companion to our dogs and cats. She has not been in a cage since after the first week we brought her home. She lives life to the fullest and entertains us daily with her ballet leaps and spins and her hilarious antics. She was 2 years old when she came to live with us and her past life has finally vanished. She is no longer timid or anxious and greets us every morning with love and joy. So today we say Happy Easter to our dear little Emma who will live out her life free of oppression and dominance and will continue to be the bunny she was meant to be.

You Just Made It My Business!

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:37:05 -0800

I came across this comment the other day: “You shouldn’t be so judgmental! Everyone should be allowed to eat whatever they want without worrying about some vegan nut judging them. It’s none of your business what I eat! Each to their own I say!”

No!!! Wrong!!!! I’m going to tell you why that’s a load of …

You share this world! You share this world with other people! What you do impacts on other beings! Animals. The planet. It’s not each to their own, buddy.

You live in a world of seven billion people!

There are these people saying “Oh! I’m not judgmental. I don’t wanna judge. I don’t judge people. So don’t judge me.”

Everybody judges!
It’s just that some people pretend they don’t judge.
Are you one of them?

You’re judging me.
I’m judging you.
Let’s just get over it and get on with it. Ok?

You may like to think that what you do is none of my business, but you’re wrong! Here’s why.

When you eat in a way that leads to the starvation of a child every two seconds - you just made it my business!

When you smoke and you pollute my air - you just made it my business!

When you eat in a way that leads to the extinction of 137 plant and animal species every single day - you just made it my business!

When how you eat leads to an innocent, voiceless animal getting a meathook in its face or its throat slit violently - you just made it my business!

When the murder-burger you are stuffing in your gob leads to the destruction of 67 square feet of rainforest everytime - you just made it my business!

When my taxes have to pay for your disease care, your diabetes medication, your kemo, your heart disease operation, your pharmaceutical allowance! I don’t want my taxes to go to that! - you just made it my business!

When we have water-shortages due to you wanting to eat your grassfed meat and dairy products - you just made it my business!

When your mindless corpse-crunching and pus-slurping leads to the abuse and slaughter of one million animals every single hour - you just made it my business!

When your diet requires the most inefficient, wasteful, environmentally destructive method of producing food imaginable - you just made it my business!

When your fat, sweaty, meaty spare tires begin to consume my side of the airplane seat - you just made it my business!

When the way you eat leads to 90% of the amazon rainforest destroyed forever - you just made it my business!

When the excrement you literally eat from feces in-fused meat put me at risk from e. coli and samonella poisoning from cross contaminating - you just made it my business!

When you know diddly-squat about nutrition, but instantly become an expert when you hear the word veganism mentioned - you just made it my business!

You’re going to hear from me.
I’m going to speak up.
I’m going to tell you where you are full of it.

The only reason you feel judged is because you’re doing the wrong thing.

Here is Freelee’s video of this post:

Tribute by Twyla Francois

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:37:04 -0800

Editor’s introduction: Below is the tribute written by Twyla Francois, received June 20 2008, after the intensive media coverage that followed from the Canadian Horse Defense Coalition’s 2008 Horse Slaughter Investigation. It is a reminder that there is still much to do … and that there actually exist those who are willing to march into hell for a heavenly cause.]

I hope you’ll all indulge me for a minute but I can’t help seeing all this media success as a partial tribute to Beth, Sarah, Emily, Jonathan Livingston, Aaron and all the other nameless animals who’ve died without governmental recognition.

Thoughts from Toronto Airport - Thursday, June 19, 2008

I’m so happy I’m near tears. Anything will set me off - the Hare Krishna devotional hymn on the taxi drivers’ stereo, a smiling service person.

My mind keep returning to the lovely female reporter from yesterday whose eyes brimmed over interviewing me to the CBC radio show Here and Now host opening with “It’s hard to imagine anything but a warm nuzzle from a horse but …”.

This is for the pigs who were recorded dying so terribly in 2005 and 2006 that CFIA did nothing about. It’s their day as much as it is the horses.

It’s for Beth …

the downer sow who was chased with electric prods until she passed out in her own vomit

It’s for Sarah …

the downer sow who was beaten, dragged by her ears and trampled in a hot ring for over 2 hours (until I finally was able to convince the auction vet to euthanize her)

It’s for Emily …

the dairy cow with the twisted stomach whose udder was nearly on the ground as mastitis had become so painful and debilitating it caused the ligaments holding it in place to rupture

It’s for Aaron …

the calf who was left to hobble in pain with his broken leg

It’s for Jonathan Livingston …

the foie gras duck force-fed with a steel tube and choking on his own vomit

… and all the future animals that will needlessly suffer.

THEY WILL NOT BE IGNORED ANYMORE.

Now it’s time to be strong and intensify the fight; to take advantage of this new-found kindness and expose the suffering of all farm animals …

Vivisection Science or Insanity

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:37:04 -0800

Many caring and concerned individuals both from the medical and local communities are asking if animal experimentation is beneficial to human health and medical research. (Ruesch 36) Because animal experimentation focuses on artificially inducing disease in perfectly healthy animals, and is undermined by the vast differences of non-human-animals versus humans anatomically, physiologically and pathologically, “it is inherently an unsound way to investigate the human disease process” (MMC 1)

Approximately two hundred years ago the practice of vivisection began when religious leaders prohibited the dissection of human corpses. When this taboo was lifted, animals were continued to be used since the idea had become so entrenched in the minds of researchers.(Kupsinel 2) Every year in America, over 100 million animals are used for experiments. Their use is currently increasing every year worldwide by 6%.(Kupsinel 2)

Vivisectors would like to reject the charges that their driving motives are avarice, ambition, or sadism disguised as scientific curiosity. On the contrary, they present themselves as altruists who are entirely dedicated to the benefit of mankind. (Ruesch 6) Intelligent and historical humanitarians such as Leonardo Da Vinci, Voltaire, Goethe and Schweitzer “have passionately declared that species worth saving through such barbaric means isn’t worth saving at all.” (Ruesch 6) There is presently crushing evidence which proves that this dehumanizing and inhumane practices have grievously damaged true science and the health of humanity at large. (Ruesch 6)

Contrary to popular belief, the use of animals in experimentation is not needed, in fact such practices can be detrimental to human health. In comparing the physiology of a rat to that of a human, we see many biological differences: mice live for 3 years and require massive doses of drugs (more than humans will ever use) before an over-dose occurs, they have very different bodily functions and get cancer for different reasons than human would. These differences between a rat and a human prove that it is unreliable and misleading to extrapolate results from rats onto people. When a non-human animal is treated for a disease or a drug, the results can vary dramatically. Some of the differences occur also in how an animal and a human react to different drugs. Aspirin, Tylenol, Dristan and Advil have produced severe reactions in animals, but do not produce such results in humans. (Kupsinel 1) Many people believe that drugs tested on animals are proven to be safe, and therefore are safe on humans. These individuals are unfortunately unaware that arsenic has been found safe for sheep, cyanide safe for chickens, and poisonous mushrooms safe for rabbits. If these results had been extrapolated to humans, the effect on our population could have been devastating. For this reason over 52% of all drugs (AAVS Website) that enter the market have to be re-labeled or pulled off the shelf due to harmful side effects in humans. Even then, over 2 million people suffer severe side-effects. Additionally, the number four killer in America is drugs which have been found safe for animals, but have killed over 100,000 people every year. (PETA Website)

The U.S. has been experimenting on animals for over 200 years, and is 20th in infant mortality rate and 19th in life expectancy. The standard of living has improved, not due to animal research but due to changes in our environment, life style and hygiene. (AAVS Website) Cancer rates continue to rise as we spend billions of dollars on finding cures; the World Health Organization says that 90% of all cancers are preventable with lifestyle changes, yet the Cancer Institutes spends less than 1% on prevention tactics and programs. (Cruelty- Free Charities brochure)

While the Cancer Institutes spend little money on prevention, $5 billion of taxpayers money funds general animal research. There should be a redistribution of this money, from the hands of animal vivisectors into the hands of caring health professionals who see the value in education and prevention. Money is being misdirected, while drug treatment centers, community clinics, trauma units and prenatal centers are being shut down for lack of funds. (PETA Website)

Beside the scientific arguments, ethical reasons for adopting human scientific practices exist. Animals experience much pain throughout their captive lives. When tested on, they may be forced to inhale harmful gases, have harsh chemicals dripped into their eyes, or have irritating substances rubbed on their raw skins.(PETA Website). Animals suffer tremendously, and are rarely given anasethics or pain killers. Many times they are put into restraining devices and cannot escape the pain. (PETA Website).

There is much commotion in the medical community now about the sanity of vivisection. As Dr. E.D Marshall has pointed out in the Journal of the American Medical Association:

Even when a drug has been subjected to a complete and adequate pharmacological investigation on several species of animals and found to be relatively non- toxic, it is frequently found that such a drug may show unexpected toxic reactions in diseased human beings. This has been known almost since the birth of scientific pharmacology. (Kupsinel 3)

Also, Dr. Paquet, formerly doctor-inspector of the Enfants Assiste de la Seine has this to say about animal testing:

Vivisection is useless for the study of medical science. It is also useless for the study of physiology, for, if we are today cognizant of the functions of the organs, it is through having treated them when injured. In order to study the action of medicinal matters, would it for a moment enter into the head of a serious practitioner to imagine that what passes in the body of a healthy animal would be the same as in that of a sick person.? (Kupsinel 3)

Many alternatives to animal experimentation are available. Numerous technologies have been discovered where animals are not being used. Scientists are finding that these tests are efficient, effective, and cheap compared to animal studies, which can take years of testing, hence costing taxpayers millions of dollars. (MMC 9)

As times change, many more non-animal technologies come in to the market. Of the many alternatives, a few include; non-invasive electronic scanning such as CAT, MRI, PET and SPECT scans, which have revolutionized clinical investigations. (MMC 9) These devices allow for the study on ongoing human diseases in human patients, rendering the use of animals obsolete. For instance, these scans have helped early diagnosis and knowledge of Alzheimer’s disease, Huntington?s disease, and musculokeletal tumors; and have contributed much to knowledge in basic science.( MMC 9) Another powerful tool is in-vitro cell and tissue cultures, which are beginning to replace mice in testing for carcinogenic substances. The results are cheaper, and more effective and more accurate. (Jasper and Nelkin 103) A third method is the use of mathematical models using human clinical and epidemiological data to generate and test hypotheses on various disease. (MMC 9) These new methodologies and many others are becoming more and more available to the medical community to help replace animal testing.

The value of animal experimentation has been grossly exaggerated by the scientific community which has financial and other vested interests in it?s preservation. The billions of dollars spent yearly on animal research would be better spent humane, effective and efficient use if the funds are redirected to human studies through the vast alternative technologies, clinical studies and public education on prevention tactics. If only humane science is embraced, healthy solutions beyond the dreams of the vivisection community, are a realistic possibility.

TODO …
links of relevance
library references

Whales and Turkeys a Personal Observation

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:37:04 -0800

I was encouraged by a recent editorial denouncing whaling as cruel. I have also read that 70% of Canadians agree, including such local public figures as Reform MP, Gary Lunn. I wondered, though, if there is an inconsistency with the fact that most of us eat animals regularly. My first thought was that whales are killed in a cruel way, but that animals are raised for food in a humane manner.

So I asked myself if I would prefer life as a whale or a domestic turkey. In order to answer, I did a little digging. I found an article explaining that turkeys get stunned, have their throats slit and then are boiled. This sounds relatively humane, but only 30% remain unconscious for the throat-slitting and boiling. Furthermore, in nature turkeys live for 15 years and need to run. For consumption, they are meat machines, pumped with hormones to be slaughtered after only a few months of life. A life of packed, confined, dung littered quarters with more than half dying from disease, stress, and transportation.

Many agree whaling is cruel, but the fact is that raising and killing turkeys on the massive scale we do is worse. I would certainly rather live free as a whale and die a cruel death than suffer as a domestic turkey. I suspect other meat industries are no more humane in their treatment of animals than the turkey industry. A well-researched series of articles on the conditions of animals in the meat industry would be an excellent addition to any newspaper’s columns.

Most of us can do little about whaling. But, we can make a difference to animal cruelty by reducing or cutting out meat and dairy. If we use our purchasing power this way, perhaps conditions for food animals will improve in the same way consumers favouring cosmetics “not tested on animals” has reduced animal cruelty in that industry.

The Myth of the American Dream

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:37:03 -0800

Success is what the American Dream is all about. Many people are motivated by the promise of a better life, hence they chase dollar bills all their lives in the hopes of living out the American Dream - a fantasy which only money can buy. The American economic system is designed to meet the needs of the upper class, as it ignores problems of ethnic minorities.

The American Dream is a fantasy that has not come true for the millions that are toiling in the system hoping to get a piece of the wealth which America so liberally shares with its rich upper class. Mansions, expensive cars, a happy family and of course lots of money. These images adorn the minds of the less privileged of this nation.

For many this dream soon becomes a nightmare. With the cost of living becoming so high and lack of medical care or job security, minimal pay and an expensive education system are just some the hurdles that people have to jump over to reach the American Dream. Therefore it is fair to say that it is almost impossible for numerous people to make a decent living. Many people in America are earning minimum wage which is $5.65 a hour, and contrary to popular belief, they are not middle-class teenagers working for gas money. Most minimum wage earners in the United States are adults, more than half are female, and about half work full time. ([Epinet](http://epinet.com))

America’s economic system is flawed as there is unequal distribution of its wealth. When we examine where America’s wealth lies we see that it certainly not in filling the bellies of countless hungry babies in this country. The wealth is filling the pockets of the rich:

Wealth inequality has grown in the 1990s. As of 1997 (the latest year for which data is available), the top 1% of U.S. households controlled 39.1% of all wealth. When comparing the changes in wealth distribution over the 1983-97 period, the large shift in wealth primarily benefited the top 1% (rising from 33.8% to 39.1% of all wealth). In comparison, the bottom 95% of the wealth distribution experienced flat or falling growth in wealth over the same period. The explosive growth of the stock market further concentrated wealth at the top of the income scale between 1995 and 1997. Projections suggest that the share of wealth controlled by the top 1% increased by 1.5 percentage points (from 37.6% to 39.1%) in just the past couple of years.(Epinet)

Behind the people who are making all the money, there is a task force of thousands of overworked and underpaid individuals. It seems that the people who don’t count in this country such as the racial minorities are left to do this country’s dirty work. In the following excerpt we can get a glimpse of who really does the work in America.

The population of this country is 337 million, 154 million are retired. That leaves 183 million to do the work. There are 85 million in school, which leaves 98 million to do the work.. Of this total, there are 29 million employed by the federal government. That leaves 69 million to do the work. Four million are in the Armed Forces, which leaves 64 million to do the work. Take from that total the 24,800,000 people who work for state and city Governments and that leaves 39,200,000 of us to do the work. At any given time there are 24,000,000 in hospitals, so that leaves 15,200,000 to do the work. Now, there are 15,199,998 people in federal and State prisons. That leaves just two people to do the work, you and me.(LinkAmerica)

Approximately thirty-two years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. launched the “Poor People’s Campaign”. This was a far-reaching plan to lift the economic conditions of underprivileged Americans of all classes and races. The heart and soul of the campaign was the progressive demand for full employment – that the opportunity to secure jobs be extended to all in order to lift people above, as King termed, “the curse of poverty.” (Epinet)

Presently, African Americans are not much better off than they were in King’s time. In 1968, the income of a typical black family was 60 percent of whites. Median Income grew slowly throughout the 1970s and 1980s, and much more gradually for blacks than for whites. As of 1997, the ratio stood at 61 percent. For all the progress of the past few years, the income gap has closed by all of one percent - from 60 to 61 percent - since 1968. (Epinet)

Other racial discrimination can be seen through a study done by The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), which demonstrates increasing racial disparities in the home purchase mortgage market.

In a study covering all lenders in thirty-five cities over three years, ACORN found that African Americans and Latinos are rejected more frequently than white applicants for both conventional and government-backed mortgages and that this disparity is rising. The growth in conventional mortgages for African Americans between 1995 and 1997 was modest, under 5%, but the increase in lending to white borrowers was nearly five times as large. Over the same period, conventional home purchase lending to Latinos declined by more than 1%. (ACORN)

Over a hundred years ago Asians were told that the streets were paved in gold in America. They were promised some of this gold, but in reality companies just wanted cheap labor. (Chang 366) Nowadays the media portrays the Asians as having found that gold. (Chang 366) According to a U.S Censor Survey Asians average income was $22,713 whereas the whites were $20,800 (Chang 367). The media took this statistic and announced to America that Asians were achieving the American Dream.(Chang 367)

Such statements bring to light aphorisms such as “Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.” (Chang 367) Unfortunately the media failed to examine these statistics closely. A close examination of these will reveal that Asians usually have more children or live-in relatives therefore more mouths to feed, they also have more than one income earner in the family to make ends meet and many live in areas where the cost of living is very high. (Chang 367) According to Dr. Robert S. Mariano, professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania, who has calculated that

When such appropriate adjustments and comparisons are made, a different and rather disturbing picture emerges, showing indeed a clearly disadvantaged group … Filipino and Chinese are no better off than black men a with regard to median incomes.(Chang 367)

Along with other minorities Asians are only getting the crumbs of the economic pie. The City University of New York constructed fake resumes for Asians and for whites. Both resumes had similar education and work experience except that some had an Asian name and others had a white name.(369) They concluded that the resumes meant for whites got 5 times the interviews than the Asians. Another U.S Census showed that Chinese and Filipino males only earned 75% and 52% respectively as much as their equally educated white males. (Change 369) It is obvious that economic discrimination is coupled with racial discrimination making it very difficult for racial minorities to climb up the financial ladder.

In order for change to take place, people need to get together to make changes in our economic system. One such group is ACORN, who has started the living wage campaign.

In short, living wage campaigns seeks to pass local ordinances requiring private businesses that benefit from public money to pay their workers a living wage. Commonly, the ordinances cover employers who hold large city or county service contracts or receive substantial financial assistance from the city in the form of grants, loans, bond financing, tax abatements, or other economic development subsidies. The concept behind any living wage campaign is simple: Our limited public dollars should not be subsidizing poverty-wage work. When subsidized employers are allowed to pay their workers less than a living wage, tax payers end up footing a double bill: the initial subsidy and then the food stamps, emergency medical, housing and other social services low wage workers may require to support themselves and their families even minimally. Public dollars should be leveraged for the public good – reserved for those private sector employers who demonstrate a commitment to providing decent, family-supporting jobs in our local communities.(LivingWages)

There needs to be a larger public outcry against this “institution of wealth”. As more and more people demand changes to occur, we will still be living under the golden rule: “The one’s who have the gold, make the rules.” (Howard Lyman speech). The curse of poverty is far from lifted as there is much work to be done to bring about economic equality for racial minorities. We, as a nation, have far to go before we arrive at King’s vision of economic justice.

The Science of Compassion

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:37:03 -0800

Chapter One: Dissecting Conservation’s Biggest Myth

I care deeply about the survival of the earth. Even as I write these words, I know that this exquisite jewel of a planet is at unprecedented risk. The land, air and seas cry out as they have never done before; the seeds of destruction have been planted by humankind and they are germinating and growing at a monstrous rate. As many have foretold, we seem to be on the eve of destruction. We can speculate that it may take a miracle to turn such a resistant, self-mutilating society around, stopping the cycle of abuse and beginning the slow process of rehabilitation.

Yet I can’t help but believe that there is a solution to this downward spiral that has so far eluded the traditional scientific community. This solution entails shifting away from what is conventional and measurable in a clear-cut physical, quantitative sense. Perhaps the time has come for science to evolve to that new level, to seek an alternate paradigm. Such a perspective would enable humans to discover a basic and simple logic, a global key to survival.

This evolution involves a new science: compassion.

The conservation movement in particular has, with troubling consistency over the decades, focused on the importance of species for survival and has downplayed the role of the individual. But just as leaves, bark, branches and roots are crucial to the growth and survival of a tree, so does an individual unit contribute to the integrity of the whole. Interwoven in the fabric of successful co-existence is compassion, the tie that binds together individuals, families, and communities. The huge global response to natural disasters in Indonesia, Haiti, and Japan (to name a few countries devastated in recent years) is evidence of the fact that compassion can have world-wide reach.

Agencies involved in “science-based” conservation have long been regarded as the natural world’s Messiah, the whip that keeps species in control by supporting the demise of certain animals through hunting. In addition, these agencies have been inclined to prohibit the public from sheltering injured and orphaned wildlife, thereby shackling the compassion righton of individuals whose hearts are driven to do the right thing. Yet it should be noted that even dictionary definitions of “conservation” are in conflict. Further, it appears that the definition of the word has either evolved or dissolved over the ages—depending on what side of the fence one is on. Consider the meaning of the word “conservation” in 1828: “The act of preserving, guarding or protecting; preservation from loss, decay, injury, or violation; the keeping of a thing in a safe or entire state; as the conservation of bodies from perishing; the conservation of the peace of society; the conservation of privileges. (Source: (Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary)

Now let’s examine a few modern definitions of the word from the same webpage noted above. Definitions of “conservation” are grouped in categories, for instance, agriculture, environment, technology and so on. This one in particular (environment) is of interest: “A philosophy of natural resource management that ensures their availability in the future by not being too greedy in the present. Conservation practices, by preserving land for future use by humans (the technical definition of conservation) has the secondary benefit of providing habitat and thus survival for many plants and animals not commonly thought of as resources, such as songbirds and wildflowers. The intelligent use of natural resources.”

Please note the ample reliance on such phrases as “management”, “use by humans”, and “resources”. Preservation of habitat for songbirds and wildflowers is termed a “secondary benefit”. The following definition on the same list pertains to conservation in agriculture: “In farming, conservation entails matching cropping patterns and the productive potential and physical limitations of agricultural lands to ensure long-term sustainability of profitable production.” Again, we note the words “sustainability” (on the surface, an innocuous word, yet often used by conservationist word dressers in order to legitimize and elevate the status of their activities) and “profitable production”.

So what happened to the simple concepts of protection and preservation? The words “guarding or protecting” from the 1828 version of Webster’s Dictionary conjure up images of a mother lovingly defending her young, while the other more modern definitions point to human management of resources, not only to preserve the environment for future generations of humans, but also for the sake of profit.

With all this in mind, we are left to wonder how one word has become so completely distorted over the centuries. Could it be that certain humans, masters of manipulation, once twisted the meaning of the word “conservation” to suit themselves, and the passage of time allowed the shift to remain, even to be reproduced in the online version of Webster’s dictionary?

Then, from Wikipedia’s science page, emerges this gem: “Many recent thinkers, such as Carolyn Merchant, Theodor Adorno and E. F. Schumacher considered that the 17th century scientific revolution shifted science from a focus on understanding nature, or wisdom, to a focus on manipulating nature, i.e. power, and that science’s emphasis on manipulating nature leads it inevitably to manipulate people, as well.” Since conservation principles are essentially considered to be science-based, it follows that we may have found an explanation for the shift in definition discussed above.

Let’s focus now on the area of “conservation” known as hunting. Truth be known, every Conservation Officer I’ve ever dealt with has proudly admitted to killing as a pastime—in the name of food procurement, of course. But wait. Some have also confessed to the killing of bears and less succulent-tasting wildlife, because those animals “were a danger to society”. Others approve of trapping as a legitimate way to “manage” certain species of fur-bearing animals. Many hide behind a word curtain of “sustainability”, “good management” and “environmental stewardship”. It appears that destruction of individual living beings has become acceptable and very much the norm from a conservationist standpoint.

I am reminded of a rural neighbourhood incident, where a local Conservation Officer was called to the scene of a wounded six-month-old deer fawn. Unfortunately, while the mother and her other fawn had safely cleared a wire fence and landed on the other side without mishap, one youngster had managed to get tangled in the wire, damaging a leg in the process. A large group of neighbours quickly gathered around the injured fawn and kept the CO at bay until a representative from the animal protection community arrived. A battle of wills ensued, with the CO insisting that the fawn should be shot, the animal protection volunteer stating that she would be willing to transport the deer to a wildlife veterinarian for assessment instead, and the group of neighbours demanding that the fawn should be allowed to live. In the face of such staunch support for the fawn, the CO hesitated. In those moments, a brawny man stepped forward to initiate the process of lifting the wounded deer into the back of his pickup. Outnumbered, the officer from Conservation could do nothing but watch. His pragmatic, science-based approach was no match for the groundswell of compassion from the concerned neighbours. The fawn was safely transported to a nearby clinic.

I would like to say that the youngster survived and recuperated, but that was not the case. In spite of excellent care, he died of toxic myopathy just two days later. This condition is also called “capture myopathy” and is stress- related. The clinic veterinarian suggested that older fawns (rather than newborns, who do not know yet to be afraid) are more prone to succumbing to this.

With such a sad outcome, one might argue that the CO had been right, as the fawn died anyway. The official may have stated that a bullet in the head would have been preferable to two days of suffering and fear. But a woman representing the group of concerned citizens who had lobbied for the life of the fawn had this to say: “That animal’s life was worth fighting for. It was just the right thing to do. You know, where there’s life, there’s always hope.”

Meanwhile, the neighbours learned that there is power in numbers, and with their staunch commitment, they were successfully able to exercise their compassion righton. The Conservation Officer attending the scene learned about the tremendous power of compassion, that it is a driving force, and that it does not easily back down when threatened with legislation, policies, or other rulings that characterize modern society. It does not succumb to bullying tactics.

Perhaps he learned that compassion is contagious, and the cumulative power of its sources should not be underestimated.

Next chapter: Why is Compassion a Science?

The Supremacy Myth Animal Rights Argument

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:37:03 -0800

All arguments are not created equal. There are differences in their intent and the degree to which they impact an audience’s psyche. If you wish to make the strongest case for justice and respect towards nonhuman beings, then destroying human arrogance is crucial and human nature is your greatest ally in the cause.

Why is it acceptable to routinely treat nonhumans in ways that would be considered atrocities if done to the most hated criminals? An answer resides in the belief taken as self-evident absolute objective certain truth: humans are better, worth more, superior in value to other life forms because of some attributes or slogans (intelligence, a soul, favoritism by a Divine creator or Nature, might makes right, etc.). When examined, every one of these traits are subjective and biased personal opinions like a belief in the importance of skin color or gender or a particular interpretation of scripture. Nature (and/or deities) cannot be proven to care or judge, as humans are just as mortal and subject to weather and physics as all other living beings. The fact that humans can and do exploit other humans and always have, is the best evidence that human superior worth is not absolute truth but merely opinion. It also means that if someone wants to justify discrimination towards humans based on race or gender or religion etc., they can use the same excuse (subjective and biased personal opinions) as used by those who deny nonhuman rights.

Any argument put forth to justify meat and dairy farms, vivisection labs, hunting, fishing, etc. can be countered by pointing out that human supremacy is a myth and that the only way to avoid moral double standards which would allow humans to justify exploiting other humans is to shun unfair discrimination/exploitation as much as possible. Humans create and use moral laws, nonhumans do not and deserve respect and compassion by default as it is unfair to punish them for being unable to follow human morality - it would be like demanding a blind man to read a warning sign and punishing him when he cannot. Humans who cannot follow moral laws (or even refuse to) are treated with far more respect and compassion.

The inability to be morally perfect - respecting all life at all times does not mean we draw the line at humans since that is a moral double standard based on the human supremacy myth and if you say the accidental death of insects justifies vivisection labs then the inability to stop homicide and child abuse would justify genocide and concentration camps (since human exploitation of humans is natural and chronic). It is ultimately about fairness and ethical consistency.

This is a simple yet forceful ethical argument for animal rights. You can argue for compassionate social policy or the Golden Rule or use scientific studies, but without addressing the mythical belief in human superiority and its double standards you leave gaping holes that opponents will seize upon if you allow them to. The argument stated above puts the most hostile opponent into a corner from which they cannot escape unless they accept the concept of nonhuman rights or admit that every kind of human exploitation of humans should also be justified.

In the following essay we will examine animal rights arguments and how to increase the effectiveness of your presentation by utilizing the Supremacy Myth Animal Rights Argument.

“Religion is a great force - the only real motive force in the world; but you must get at a man through his own religion, not through yours.” George Bernard Shaw

If you want to make the strongest moral case for animal rights, you need to go outside of your own emotions and beliefs and understand what motivates the viewpoint of the most hostile opponents in order to transform the viewpoint, or failing that, injure it. Any debate that ends with them feeling confident in their beliefs is a failure for the animal rights side. You not only need to know their beliefs, but be able to gauge how they are understanding your arguments and learn to spot the weaknesses in your approach so that you are the one speaking with authority and confidence.

In general, many animal rights activists are sensitive and compassionate, seeking to reduce harm in society, but they can be at a disadvantage in debate situations because of these traits.

They often wish to persuade an audience with kindness - appeals to what they assume or hope are a shared equal sensitivity and compassion in all people. Furthermore, unlike someone acting on behalf of themselves or a family member in a civil rights cause, advocates for other animal species are not considered members of the particular group being victimized - and the greater their outrage about the victimization, the more they can be perceived as overly emotional or zealous, or even a traitor to their kind. To avoid this perception, they may adopt apologetic and timid approaches which can make them more vulnerable to bullying and allowing the opposition to dictate the debate parameters. And because they are often accused of being guided by emotion instead of reason, activists can overcompensate by adhering to elitist intellectual theories on animal rights - esoteric and complicated academic formulas instead of common sense layman arguments that are easily communicated. In addition they may not properly estimate how successfully their arguments impact their audience and dismiss anyone who does not immediately show sympathy as being beyond persuasion. And finally, the tendency to use any argument that is in favor of animal rights (or failing that, animal welfare) and a heavy dependence on scientific data (especially in vivisection arguments) can stem from insecurity and desperation - and a subconscious but nagging feeling that somehow, someway, the moral correctness of an animal rights argument is not as obvious and certain as an anti-racism or anti-sexism position even though they know intuitively that it is.

There are many ways to present an animal rights position, but the strongest argument in terms of impact uses factual observations about human nature against those who believe in human supremacy or superiority which is the motivating idea behind the systematic discrimination/exploitation of nonhuman lives through hunting, fishing, the meat and dairy industries, medical research, circuses, zoos, etc. Even when it is denied, the false belief in human superiority to other beings is the foundation of the double standard morality that condemns or excuses violent behavior, misery, and death depending on the worth given to the victim and victimizer.

In place of the usual strategy of trying to show that nonhuman lives are worthy of moral consideration alongside humans, you force the audience to prove why humans are worthy of special moral status.

When this question is raised and examined, it puts the most hostile opponent on the defensive and exposes the obvious: that claims of human supremacy are just as much biased personal opinion as claims of racial or religious or gender supremacy and that extending moral concern to nonhumans is not only fair and just but a necessity - in order to prevent some humans from exploiting an ethical loophole unwittingly and inevitably created by a human supremacist position, one that would excuse violent behavior against other humans, given the fact that human intraspecies predation (aka exploiting and killing other humans) is a chronic natural occurrence across the world and has been since the beginnings of recorded history, and is one supported by supremacy beliefs based on factors besides species - such as race, gender, religion, wealth etc.

Debunking the claim of human superiority by pointing out the perpetual reality of human exploitation towards other humans does not require that one cite scientific studies or go into lengthy philosophical digressions. It uses common sense observation and the beliefs of the audience against the audience. It is simple, but can be immensely effective.

This is a more aggressive debating stance which will not appeal to those who prefer only positive reinforcements and compassionate persuasion, and will offend those who hold to a human supremacist animal welfare ideology that masquerades as an animal rights position.

But in considering this approach, you can ask yourself which aggression is more offensive to you, the kind that is expressed through words for the cause of fairness and justice, or the kind carried out on the minds and bodies of innocent nonhuman animal lives for entertainment, greed, and maniacal arrogance. It can be said that the truth hurts, but not as much as it does for the mass victims of humanity’s false and delusional beliefs.

In persuasive argument you should believe you are right and state the truth - and you should also be able to show the opposition that they are wrong. It is not enough to defend your views from attack; you should also be dismantling the beliefs of the opposition. In animal rights this is crucial because the gulf between those who can reluctantly appreciate an animal welfare position and sincerely accept an animal rights one can be vast.

In animal rights debate, it is far too often the situation that an advocate merely defends a position or responds to resistance and does not actively seek to undermine the opposition’s deepest held convictions. If you truly want to persuade and convince people that animal rights is correct, you must attack the beliefs that uphold the values you oppose.

Using this approach, you can leave any debate or conversation with the most unsympathetic members of the audience unable to refute your position as if they were saying 2 plus 2 equals 5 and you keep presenting them with evidence to prove the correct number is 4. Animal rights can be as easy as that, but it requires that one abandon vulnerable arguments and the mindset that encourages them.

The popular argument for animal rights may be called the suffering/sentience/speciesism approach.

It uses descriptions of suffering to shock the audience and appeal to their sense of compassion. It highlights sentience - a general capacity for awareness and feeling pain - to be the shared quality between humans and nonhuman animals that is the true standard for bestowing moral value instead of one considered uniquely human and it characterizes opposition to this view as speciesism, usually defined as a species-centered, unjust attitude that is the counterpart to racism or sexism.

This argument can be intellectually lazy and not persuasive. A failure to recognize these deficiencies and compensate accordingly serves the agenda of exploiters and bigots, not that of the victims and social justice.

The expression “treated like an animal” is shorthand for being treated very badly since everyone knows that nonhuman animals are treated in ways we would not want to be subjected to ourselves. Even the most hated criminals are usually given better care than nonhuman animals.

Therefore, while there are people who are entirely ignorant of what nonhuman animals experience in farms or laboratories, and learning of these atrocities can lead to an immediate moral transformation to either a welfare or abolition philosophy, there are many others who can easily piece together that being born in confinement, and forced to live and die by the whims of an animal species capable of deranged violence and sadistic cruelty is a very bad thing. It can amount to stating the obvious and missing the bigger picture: the beliefs that defend and excuse these atrocities.

Compassionate appeals are sometimes dismissed by pointing out the suffering that exists in Nature among other life forms. Human exploitation of nonhuman beings is defended by suggesting that if humans are animals, they should be able to behave as other animals do for survival. While this is not a strong defense especially as most systemic human exploitation of nonhumans is not even remotely connected to survival or necessity but choice and desire, it is enough of a response to distract and waste time.

And people become immune to shocking imagery and testimonials. The motto that everyone would be vegetarian if slaughterhouses had glass walls is naive given that there are societies where animal slaughter occurs openly without mass conversion to a plant-based diet. It even gets flaunted in blood sports for public entertainment. Thus an over reliance on the suffering issue and appeals to compassion may be ineffective, encouraging advocates to rattle off an endless catalog of atrocities instead of destroying the belief that excuses them.

The focus on sentience can divert the discussion from issues of morality into questions of whether sentience is applicable to some animals more than others, and invites the use of vivisection to probe whether a subject is worthy of moral inclusion and/or to attempt to create nonhuman life forms that feel no pain for food purposes. Furthermore, it fails to address the beliefs of those who do not value sentience and prefer some other quality alleged to be unique to humans (intellect, creativity, moral reciprocity, a soul or Divine favoritism etc). Such perspectives are often dismissed without specifically explaining why they are false and being aggressive in criticizing them.

Given the fact that vivisectors will engage in mental torment of specimens as in learned helplessness experiments and circus trainers will deliberately torment infant elephants so they are psychologically terrified of humans and that the deliberate abuse of animals to increase adrenaline for altering the flavor of their flesh is common knowledge to the meat industry, it is evident that most victimizers believe the victim is sentient, but inferior in value for other reasons.

One should never underestimate the wickedness of human nature. While this may seem to promote misanthropic cynicism, the purpose is to ensure that your debating stance does not leave any weakness that can be exploited to the detriment of your cause. You need to see the whole problem before you can effectively correct it.

And the word speciesism is vague and subject to misinterpretation which opponents seize upon, wasting time in discussion on the false claim that all species are inevitably species-centered thus there is nothing wrong with it. The reality is that while people of any race or gender can be racist or sexist, only humans can be characterized as what we call “speciesist”. The belief in the superiority of one’s defined group to others and discriminating systemically in ethics and policy according to that belief is a uniquely human phenomenon and this is the most important issue in animal rights and human rights. The word speciesism does not adequately define it.

It is an observable tendency of humans to create personal preferences and develop an inflated sense of importance without factual evidence to support the claim. An individual claiming to be superior to everyone else is usually described as an egomaniac, but when an individual professes to be part of a group of allegedly superior beings, then those who are considered “a member of the club” can be far more tolerant of such a view. And yet, these days many would agree that someone who believes that some races are categorically superior in value to others (Social Darwinism, Manifest Destiny etc.) is a bigot, since skin colour or gender are widely regarded as trivial criteria for bestowing moral value.

But when it comes to believing that human lives are naturally superior in value to nonhuman lives, this claim is usually taken as if a self-evident axiom - something known to be true without needing examination - and despite (or possibly due to) the fact that it collapses under the available evidence and common sense. It can be a core religious belief to some people and questioning it can arouse great discomfort in those who hold it dear.

The human supremacy myth is the “pink elephant in the room.” It is the imposing but imaginary belief that motivates the arguments of exploiters and their supporters. To ignore it is to focus on symptoms and not the cause of the problem.

Human supremacists (also known as human exceptionalists in an effort to disguise the bigoted nature of the belief) justify their discrimination and systemic exploitation according to an assumption of absolute certainty based upon criteria of value such as a faculty of reason, a soul, divine or evolutionary favor, moral reciprocity, survival of the fittest, might makes right, individual selfishness, a bundle of characteristics or vaguely defined ones which cannot be proven to be shared by all humans or lacking in all nonhumans. i.e. some humans are more intelligent or creative than others, some nonhumans are more rational than some humans, humans can and do willfully break laws and yet the most despised of criminals is usually given more care and respect than the most innocent nonhuman beings.

And the importance of such criteria can be doubted - shown not to be absolute objective truth, but subjective arbitrary personal opinions conveniently determined by those who stand to benefit from the discrimination they wish to justify. Nature (and/or deities), through environmental phenomenon, like weather, earthquakes, gravity, and most telling, the actions of other human beings, cannot be shown to care or favor humans over other life forms as an absolute objective fact.

An absolute is something beyond all doubt and question, the final answer to everything. If it can be questioned it cannot be absolute. If one states that humans are superior as a group to other life forms according to any defined criteria, whether theistic or atheistic in origin, it can be questioned. For secular humanists it is the “absolute certain truth” of a supposedly mindless universe that yet can judge some as more important than others through an evolutionary version of the Great Chain of Being. For spiritual humanists it is one or more divinities that do not make their presence known to doubters in direct ways and have encouraged violent conflict among those that are supposedly the “chosen” people.

The inability to prove human superiority as anything other than a biased personal opinion means that a human supremacist, who wants to exclude nonhumans from equal and fair moral consideration, is using the same kind of belief structure/biased personal opinion that a racial supremacist uses. Without intending to, the human supremacist is providing the racial bigot with the justification to defend their own discrimination, focused on race not species. The same holds true for humans who may care most about gender or religion or age or wealth or class or appearance or all the other criteria and characteristics which humans have and do use to discriminate and exploit other humans. Wishful thinking, best intentions, idealistic moral principles, and laws have not changed this reality since the beginning of recorded history.

Even the most delusional human supremacist who makes the ridiculous claim that humans have a “tenacious moral instinct” to favor humans over nonhumans will lock their doors or have security because they have a far more tenacious moral instinct that they cannot trust all humans. We call the actions of these untrustworthy humans criminal or abnormal behavior depending on victim and victimizer status - but if it occurs frequently enough that we have police and laws in an effort to discourage such phenomenon then how can it be unnatural? In wars, such behavior is not only tolerated, but encouraged.

The consequences of this fact of human nature is routinely overlooked (by all sides) resulting in a double standard moral blind spot in the arguments of those who reject animal rights which can be exposed by repeatedly addressing the issue of human exploitation of other humans. In other words, rubbing their faces in the truth.

And the systemic exploitation of nonhumans is too important for you not to educate on these matters.

A common myth of modern times is that cruelty and sadistic violence are primal behaviors - wild, beastly, inhuman, while compassion and moderation are “humane” traits - the gift of lofty intellect evolving and progressing to a better existence.

These are slogans humans use to set themselves apart from the mortal universe and the eventual death and decay that is the destiny of all living beings. It also demonstrates the human supremacy mythology in vocabulary.

The human supremacist will boast about the exceptional nature of humanity and that humans are different from nonhumans not only in degree but kind. It can be demonstrated that they are right, but not in the way they boast. Observable reality shows us that the most sadistic acts, physical or mental cruelty in history are perpetuated by humans alone, and humans are the only animal that can be proven without a doubt to take pleasure from knowing that they are making others suffer, either mentally or physically. Some even derive sexual arousal from it.

We know that there are tribes that have engaged in sadistic cruelty against humans and nonhumans such as insertion of long sticks into the hearts of domesticated pigs in order that they slowly and painfully bleed to death (Tribal pig ritual: Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse 1991).

The Roman Coliseum was a great architectural project created for the staging of cruelty and death to amuse up to 80 000 people. Every kind of animal in addition to human (from child to elderly, able-limbed or handicapped) were tortured and killed in canned hunts. Even acts of bestiality based on myths were staged.

Some humans will claim that human superiority is shown by the ability to compose a symphony or build a rocket even though only a small number of humans engage in such practices. By the same token, they will not assume that all humans are depraved psychotics just because there have been murderers and world leaders who have created war and destruction. That is an example of cherry picking. The same phenomenon occurs in how humans regard nonhuman behavior.

We know that the domesticated cat, being fed and with idle time, will exhibit predatory behavior towards mice. There are humans who eat meat by choice and assume they are civilized who will claim the cat is sadistic - enjoying the suffering they inflict on a mouse. They will ignore the fact that a domestic cat did not ask to be domesticated nor did a mouse ask to be in man-made environments such as a kitchen or a yard where they are at greater risk from a natural born predatory animal.

It is highly speculative if not outright ludicrous and malicious in an all too human way to interpret that natural predator/carnivore behavior to suggest cats enjoy the suffering they cause a small animal, knowing that they cause them suffering. By such logic they must assume a cat thinks a ball of string is alive and be contemplating politics and religion. These malicious assumptions are not far from the idea that nonhuman animals are demons, as was believed by some in the Middle Ages - and used to justify torturing them in witch trials.

An animal can enjoy aggressive behavior without thinking about the mental state and bodily feelings of another. Humans can as well, but we also know that humans can and do take pleasure from the suffering of others. They will design elaborate tortures either for scientific trivia or for public amusement.

Even the most aggressive of felines have not been observed staging mouse torture exhibitions for the amusement of other cats.

Nonhuman animals in their natural habitat are moderate in their use of violence, mostly restricted to observable survival-related behavior.

If we were fair and rational the definitions of humane and inhumane would be reversed so as to correct the twisted delusional reality created by a human supremacy belief.

One merely needs to read the daily news to find examples of sadistic human behavior - torture, murder, cruelty, against family members and strangers. No matter how pessimistic one may be about human nature, you are bound to find some news item that will shock you for its details on atrocious human behavior.

The same capacity for “reason” that allows one to do mathematics can be used to design a torture device or urge a suicidal person to jump from a building or to tie a child to a bed, starving them and abusing them for years. We could list endless examples of humans torturing nonhumans (just the act of confining them to a cage or chain for their entire lives qualifies) but the human supremacist bigot may not only dismiss such atrocities, but mock them. If you cite examples of human exploitation of humans from the news or history, it can be useful in diminishing the arrogance of that type of supremacist and at the very least, take away their humorous attitude when discussing animal rights issues.

Concern for the lives of nonhuman animals is ancient, co-existing with other social concerns and found among the works of literature in Ancient Greece and Rome and extending to the Eastern religions of Buddhism and Jainism. From Homer to Shakespeare to Al-Maʿarri to Oliver Wendell Holmes, you find examples of “animal rights” belief - even the Frankenstein Monster states he is a vegetarian.

This runs contrary to a widespread neo-Darwinian urban legend that suggests “animal rights” belief only came into existence after the Industrial revolution, when technological luxuries afforded so-called trivial reflections on human relations with Nature. At its most absurd, the birth date for animal rights is listed as somewhere in the 1960s, starting with the coining of the word “speciesism” by former vivisector Richard Ryder and then the mid-1970s publication of Animal Liberation by Peter Singer, a welfarist who is called the “father” of Animal Rights by the sensational media. He was followed by Tom Regan, and there is an entire generation of philosopher/animal rights experts who each have their own special “recipe” for animal rights theory and a selection of disciples.

No one owns common sense and the truth. This argument for animal rights belongs to everyone and is rooted in ideas that date back to ancient times. The atrocities committed against inhabitants of the world are far too serious to reduce to trivial intellectual exercises and thought games. Who owns the argument against racism? What special recipe is considered the best for gender equality?

Singer and others are often easy targets for the opposition because they present arguments that can be attacked and/or they do not articulate themselves in ways that are easily accessible to the public.

It is all too common for animal activists to take the path of least resistance and let the opponent dictate the talking points and framing of issues in discussion and debate. This can create a weaker and defensive posture which is not ideal for successful persuasive argument. If you know the facts and how the opposition is wrong you can shape the debate so that you are constantly challenging their beliefs, forcing them to prove their validity (when they cannot). This is not difficult to do, but it requires that you know how debates are framed and looking beyond the specific point being discussed to understand what your audience’s mindset is and the true beliefs motivating them.

Not all arguments are the same. Their impact on an audience can vary depending on the person and the phrasing. This can be demonstrated.

When someone mentions famous vegetarians as a way of showing that it is a good thing, it is almost inevitable that “wasn’t Hitler a vegetarian?” will be thrown into the discussion. [Editor: By the way, Hitler was not even close to being vegetarian.]

Peter Singer’s response to this is recorded to be: “Just because Hitler had a nose doesn’t mean we should cut off ours.”

We will examine this response - but first let us think about the Hitler was a vegetarian attack. Why does someone say this? The gist is usually to make vegetarians look bad or mad - by linking them to someone considered popularly to be the worst human being in history. If Hitler was a vegetarian it not only makes vegetarians negative by association, but could lead to other slanders like Hitler hated humans, preferred nonhuman animals, outlawed vivisection except on humans. These accusations have been debunked - Hitler ate meat, the Nazis did not ban nonhuman vivisection, Hitler’s inner staff included a trophy hunter, but simply stating such facts is not the only way to make an answer. You can also attack the opponent’s beliefs at the same time.

Singer’s answer comparing vegetarianism to a nose is adequate but not strong. It is a defensive response. He is not disagreeing with the assertion that Hitler was a vegetarian, merely saying that we should not let his association with it influence our own actions. By comparing vegetarianism to a body part, it also takes the discussion out of the realm of animal rights and into detached philosophical academia. It may seem like a common sense comparison, but it is not addressing the beliefs of the person who is posing the question.

Here are some other responses one could say:

“Gandhi was a vegetarian - so you think he was a warmongering Nazi?”

This answer doesn’t confirm or deny Hitler was a vegetarian but it uses another historical figure with a positive reputation, and mocks the idea that vegetarianism equals evil. It is not just a defense but a counter- attack.

“Al Capone started the first soup kitchens in Chicago so you must think poverty workers are gangsters too.”

This answer does not deny Hitler was a vegetarian but attacks the intention by using a human-focused alternative to expose the same absurdity that Singer was trying to expose - that the benign attributes of an individual known for destructive attitudes and behavior reflect negatively on others who share the same benign attribute.

“Stalin was a meat eating hunter whose actions killed many more than Hitler.”

This answer does not deny Hitler’s vegetarianism or mock the intention behind the suggestion, instead it shows how someone associated with meat eating or hunting can be even more destructive. This is not a strong answer because the association between meat eating or hunting and destroying humans is not really denied - people have assumed the truth of “violence begets violence” since ancient times. It also requires that one trust the numbers on Stalin’s killing as well as invites challenges that Hitler’s policies were more widespread and cruel even if the death toll was less.

“Hitler was actually a meat eating catholic.”

This answer denies the vegetarian claim and counters it by associating Hitler not only with meat eaters but widely accepted organized religion so there is an extra charge for the person who made the statement to contend with.

It requires that one fact check the information for validity, but the “Hitler was a vegetarian” claim is also based on unsubstantiated facts. Because many people believe in a deity and many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, the assumption that Hitler was religious is easy to accept on a gut level - even more so than his vegetarianism.

“Do you really think a moral vegetarian would start wars that kill wildlife and destroy the environment?”

This answer does not rely on a fact check - instead it questions the idea that Hitler could have been a true vegetarian and directly challenges the intent of the original statement by pointing out the common sense absurdity of someone committed to nonviolence engaging in mass warfare.

The “Hitler was a vegetarian” issue is trivial. Now we will look at a more central kind of argument situation.

“If humans are equal to animals they should be able to behave as other animals do and exploit other animals.”

A common response to this is to say that nonhumans do lots of things like urinating in open spaces or running around naked, therefore we are already selective in what traits we choose to emulate.

While this answer counters the claim that true equality is intended or desired, and that we already choose what traits we follow or ignore, it is not a totally satisfying response as it does not directly challenge the beliefs of the person making the statement.

Although it speaks of human equality to nonhumans this is not the true motive in the statement. The goal is to argue that humans are superior in worth - deserving of special rights. How do we know this? We know this because it says nothing about humans being able to exploit other humans, which is also natural.

Now we will show how one can respond specifically using the approach we advocate.

The Supremacy Myth Animal Rights Argument: If the person truly wants humans to be able to behave as nonhumans do, then human exploitation of other humans should be justified since nonhumans do not use laws and have been known to exploit each other (i.e. eating their young, abandoning sick offspring etc). Why conveniently stop the exploitation at nonhuman relations? This shows that the person believes in human superiority and a moral double standard. We have already shown that human superiority beliefs are personal opinion like racial superiority claims, thus someone can justify exploiting other humans by the same belief system. This answer not only counters the idea that humans seek to behave like other animals, but forces the person to accept that the exploiting of nonhumans cannot be justified IF one wishes to curb exploitation of humans in moral policy.

Perhaps the most routine way that the opposition dictates the debate is in the expectation that animal rights advocates must have perfect morality. They must not harm any living creature or contribute to such harm. Even the issue of Hitler’s vegetarianism and ignoring his religious beliefs is an example of this - a vegetarian animal rights supporter is expected to be perfect, a religious person is not held accountable for inquisitions or other personal failings much of the time.

Any perceived lapse by the advocate is called hypocrisy (a misuse of the word since a hypocrite is someone who claims to believe something but actually does not - i.e. a minister who preaches against marital infidelity and is found in the company of a prostitute - inconsistency is more often the case with animal rights advocates rather than hypocrisy).

The perfection demand provides a means of shifting the discussion to the personal conduct of the advocate instead of the issues they are protesting.

Some in the animal rights community reinforce this expectation of perfection when they are evangelical and judgmental about moral lapses by other advocates. They can appear to care more about criticizing fellow animal advocates for lifestyle imperfection than they are in challenging those who are most strongly opposed to animal rights causes.

It is unreasonable to expect perfection when we live in societies where it is not remotely possible i.e. when you are accused of acquiring plant-based food that kills animals in fields during mechanized crop gathering, you can answer this by suggesting that unavoidable killing is not the same as deliberate killing or that less harmful means of acquiring plant-based foods is possible. These are adequate responses although they do not address the core belief that motivates the attack, which is the belief in human supremacy and the ethical double standards that arise from it.

The Supremacy Myth Animal Rights Argument: advocates for human rights causes are not held to the same demand of perfection.

They are not expected to stop every homicide or act of child abuse or live on land that was not taken by force from other humans in a territorial war in the distant past. Perfection is not a requirement for human rights. The common view is that while car accidents and wars happen it does not mean that ethical concern for humans is forfeit and pointless and that concentration camps are justified. The same standard should apply for nonhuman causes if we are fair. An accidental death of an insect does not justify factory farms or vivisection labs - which do not happen by accident or sprout naturally like flowers. They require immense energy and time to design and build and maintain which makes the excuses for them all the more ridiculous.

Animal rights activists are also vulnerable to accusations of being a misanthrope or human hater - a traitor, or accused of putting nonhumans ahead of human lives.

In response to this advocates may well qualify their beliefs in obedient ways and state that meat eating or hunting is wrong now, but was necessary a thousand years ago, and that if one is stranded in some remote situation - on a boat at sea or in the Arctic, that it would be justified to exploit other animals to survive.

The Supremacy Myth Animal Rights Argument: human history is built upon wars, crime, rape, and slavery. By the same standards one could say that human slavery was justified at one time to build human civilization (as was argued by pro-slavery writers through the 19th century). If one needs to survive in the Arctic (what one is doing in such a place where they are at risk of resource scarcity is a moral question in itself) then exploiting other humans would also be justifiable if one is just and not blinded by delusions of human importance in Nature when no evidence exists for it - least of all in human behavior.

It should be noted that some advocates do mention that humans would be eligible for exploitation in a desperate survival situation but it is often stated in passing or after conceding that the exploitation of nonhuman animals is justifiable. It is better to state this reality before making any concession that nonhumans can be exploited for it makes the point stronger.

You are either with us or against us is another common demand when animal rights issues are raised. The way this usually gets expressed is with a hypothetical “would you sacrifice the life of a human (your child, a stranger) to save a nonhuman?” The situation may be a burning building, or a river, or a lifeboat.

This attack is intended to force the animal rights advocate into an ethical contradiction. Many take the path of least resistance and attempt to answer it in a non-threatening way. They may cite utilitarian calculations to indicate why they may save humans over nonhumans or vice versa - based on “needs of the many” ideology or maximizing happiness doctrine. Some touch upon the double standard of the supremacy myth and human exploitation of humans in non- aggressive ways - using another hypothetical example of comatose patients and healthy individuals, and suggesting that a decision to save healthy individuals over sick ones does not mean that concentration camps are justified.

The Supremacy Myth Animal Rights Argument: There is a stronger way of responding, one that puts the question poser on the defensive.

Ask them who they would save if the choice was a family member or a stranger? Would they choose the more familiar person? If they choose the more familiar, does that mean the loser deserves to be put in laboratories or concentration camps? If they do not choose the familiar, does that mean they love a stranger more than their own child?

Fair is fair. This response exposes the human supremacy blind spot and puts humans on an equal footing with nonhumans as it should be in ethics and justice.

As indicated before, some will deny that human supremacy beliefs are a factor, and claim on one hand that survival of the fittest is the true basis for the discrimination/exploitation, while on the other that human rights law is in everyone’s best interest.

The Supremacy Myth Animal Rights Argument: The “dog eat dog” philosophy conveniently ends at a human line, even though daily news indicates that Nature does not honor that border when it comes to human behavior.

The double standard morality is also evident in the argument that it is in one’s best interest to accept human rights beliefs for your own protection. There are tribes, dictators, and social classes who have done quite well without caring about the rights of all humans. Does a family living in the Appalachian Mountains need to care about the rights of a villager in Lebanon? In practical terms most people go about their lives with little contact with humans in the rest of the world, and could well be a dictator in their own house without ever facing justice for it. Nature does not cause a storm of hail to descend upon these violators of the absolute truth of human supremacy. The earth does not open up and swallow them. But citing survival of the fittest leads to another contradiction, some will say the reason we should respect other human beings is strictly for self interest, the Golden Rule: “do under others as you would have them do unto you,” not out of a concern for the species. Once again the best argument against the claim of human supremacy is human behavior.

There is the argument that even if nonhumans deserve moral concern, human problems must always come first.

The Supremacy Myth Animal Rights Argument: If you claim morality follows such a hierarchy of importance, then one could further refine and prioritize morality based on the importance of race, gender, age, religion, family, language, territory, etc. since any such boundary is based not on fact but personal opinion. Many would say we should not prioritize morality and charity based on bias and personal opinions but follow the general aim of doing good in any situation, and if we agree with this, then nonhumans are just as valid for equal consideration.

The flip side to the “human problems first” argument is to remind the animal rights advocate, sometimes with a detectable gloating posture, that meat eating, hunting or other nonhuman exploitation will never be stopped (and thus we should not even try).

The Supremacy Myth Animal Rights Argument: We must conclude that human rights causes are just as unlikely to be eliminated completely and in some ways even less so than nonhuman rights ones.

The failure to eliminate homicide or child abuse does not seem to foster a view that we should not even try to curb them. In fairness the same should be true for nonhuman rights issues.

Nonhuman exploitation by humans is due in large part to domestication which requires immense effort to maintain. By contrast, human slavery, child abuse, and homicide have existed as long as humans have, and will likely continue to do so in some form as long as humans can reproduce. The elimination of the former is actually a more realistic hope when you consider it from a practical standpoint.

Another tired human supremacist response to animal rights activists is that if humans have to recognize rights for nonhumans, then nonhumans have to recognize rights for humans.

The Supremacy Myth Animal Rights Argument: This concept of reciprocal moral regard or contractualism is, however, another subjective, personal opinion criteria conveniently determined by those who stand to benefit from the discrimination they wish to justify. There are humans (children, mentally handicapped, criminals) who receive rights even though they cannot reciprocate (or refuse to).

If humans want laws to curb their behavior they must extend this to other beings out of fairness. Only humans require such laws and can be held to them - nonhumans obviously cannot, and to punish them because they cannot do something you know they cannot do is as fair as demanding a blind man to read a warning sign or an armless man to grab a drowning person and punishing them when they fail.

It is dubious to assume that humans have moral codes because they alone understand the importance of morality or lofty concepts of good vs. evil. The universe can not be shown to care about human morality, but for humble practical reasons, humans need moral codes because they can be irrational, unruly, prone to acts of violence and stupidity that risk their survival, or behavior which a fair number of individuals agree should be discouraged through laws. Nonhumans observed in their natural habitats do not behave the same way. Lions do not appear to need codes in their daily lives, but they happen to benefit from the problem inherent in human concepts of moral rights that requires they be considered as beneficiaries of moral concern as a matter of consistency, fairness, and justice (and in order to avoid giving an excuse to humans who do not care about human rights to discriminate as they see fit).

And it can be noted that in a way nonhuman animals do respect our rights, if unwittingly, by not imprisoning us, exploiting us, torturing us, enslaving us, or breeding us for food and entertainment as we do to them.

Another common expression of human supremacist nonsense is to claim humans are sitting top of the food chain-whatever that is. Hierarchies in Nature are human created. For some it is “top of the food chain.” For those more inclined along racial or religious preferences it is “Manifest Destiny.” Medieval Christian philosophers called it the “Great Chain of Being.” Humans just love to feel superior, but the fact is that humans when alive are constantly attacked by microorganisms that eat them, and when dead, are food for maggots and all sorts of other so-called lower organisms.

The Supremacy Myth Animal Rights Argument: it can be asked, are humans who prey on other humans (some for cannibalistic dietary preferences) “more” on top of the food chain than other humans?

Although common sense observation shows us that nonhumans must feel pain if they can scream or recoil from attacks, there are humans who are very stupid and follow the ravings of the deranged sadist Rene Descartes, who believed nonhuman animal screams were merely the disruption of mechanical gears.

The Supremacy Myth Animal Rights Argument: If we can believe that an animal scream is merely an illusion of pain, then we can also make the same assumption about other humans. We cannot be sure that what we perceive as an individual is true reality - thus we can easily claim that other humans are just soulless mechanical objects for our use. If one wants to have human rights, or believe that other human-like beings have souls and can feel pain, the same courtesy must be extended to nonhumans to close this “anything goes” loophole.

The issue of pain and suffering is not the central issue in animal rights - it is unnecessary exploitation. The cruelty issue is secondary to this and much like the issue of sentience, can be given too much weight - leading to animal welfare ideology instead of an animal rights agenda.

Of course part of the reason for this focus on pain and suffering and sentience is to create a boundary since the argument we present leaves the door open for giving rights status to plant life and even inanimate objects (if one wants to claim that being alive is also a subjective personal opinion criteria which it is). Ultimately rights status is decided by a consensus of individuals who agree to the belief - and if a society wishes to grant moral worth to plants or inanimate objects they can, the practicability of it is another matter. As mentioned before, moral perfection is impossible - the Supremacy Myth Animal Rights Argument dictates that the inability to be morally perfect does not mean one draws the line at humans anymore than it would mean we draw the line at race, gender, family, religion etc. Acknowledging moral status for pigs or rats and refraining from putting resources into building a slaughterhouse or vivisection lab is much easier to accomplish than determining how best to respect the rights of inanimate objects. We shall leave it to those who wish to contemplate such issues.

One can claim anything when it comes to invisible mute deities, but we know that humans are mortal and subject to the natural phenomenon as other life forms. There is no evidence that humans have a special quality or soul that leaves the body upon death which nonhumans do not possess. Faith is not fact.

Also, there are religious views that believe nonhumans have souls and deserve respect and compassion. In the end you have a “my god said this and your god said that” disagreement which has been the basis for endless violence and warfare in the name of invisible mute deities.

The Supremacy Myth Animal Rights Argument: If someone can say that their deity sanctions the systemic exploitation of nonhumans than someone else can justify the systemic exploitation of humans by claiming their deity gave them dominion over other humans. There are cultures that have and continue to do this. Whether secular or spiritual you cannot have human rights without nonhuman rights since human supremacy cannot be proven. We do not allow people to justify human slavery even though the Bible supports it, therefore nonhumans are just as worthy of moral respect.

Note: although one can find passages in religious books like the Bible that have vegetarian or animal rights friendly wording, there are others that are clearly not sympathetic thus one ends up in a he said/she said situation with battling scripture references. In the final analysis the Bible supports many things we do not consider just nowadays - that is enough reference to use to show why we need not follow the Bible when it comes to violence.

Some proponents and opponents of animal rights causes claim that humans are meant to be custodians or managers of Nature. While it can be motivated by benevolent intentions, it can also derive from malicious arrogance. For the sake of humility or sanity it can be pointed out that a common worm is more of a steward of Nature than a human being. Insects are called low and worthless yet they help pollinate flowers (occasionally they might get acknowledged for their usefulness to humans, but not to themselves). The majority of so-called stewardship that humans do is actually damage control, cleaning up rivers polluted by other humans, restoring habitats destroyed by other humans, helping wildlife or domestic animals left homeless by other humans, and that does not include efforts that backfire, like the World Wildlife Fund’s attempt to curb the hunting of rhinos for traditional Chinese medicine by encouraging the hunting of the Saiga instead, which reportedly led to a 90 percent decline in the latter.

The Supremacy Myth Animal Rights Argument: If it is acceptable to kill members of other species to keep them from crowding out other species, then the same should apply to humans if we were fair and just since humans are incredibly destructive.

How can humans claim they are managers when they cannot even manage themselves?

Sometimes the belief in human supremacy or universal morals is denied and the motto of survival of the fittest or individual selfishness is used to defend the systemic exploitation of nonhumans.

The Supremacy Myth Animal Rights Argument: Even though it is denied, the belief in human supremacy and a moral code is demonstrated by the convenient oversight that such a motto of survival of the fittest etc. would have for humans. It should justify exploiting other humans just as mercilessly as nonhumans since Nature does not prevent it and humans have routinely done it regardless of laws or social consequences.

One can force the person who believes “Might Makes Right” to concede publicly that randomly killing strangers or setting babies on fire is acceptable behavior to them. If they refuse, then it proves they do believe in the human supremacy myth, which is the same as a belief in racial supremacy, and therefore their ethical beliefs are founded on an unfair double standard.

Arguments to excuse hunting are numerous, so we will focus on the basics and how the supremacy myth animal rights argument is employed to answer them.

A long standing fable is that humans are natural predators like a wolf or tiger, but the opposite is easy to prove. Real predators face a difficult lifestyle. They have to chase their food, risk injury which can be lethal, deal with competitors, and be thwarted by the prey themselves.

Humans are not born with the tools to chase down, rip apart, and devour prey. They require externally manufactured instruments such as spears, stones, and projectile weapons. Without these humans, being so physically weak, would be barely able to capture a sick bird.

The routine answer for this is that the human mind and the tools they create are the equivalent of fangs and claws.

The Supremacy Myth Animal Rights Argument: we realize that the same tool- making ability that is used for hunting non human animals can also be used for digging in the soil to plant seeds or to kill other human beings. You do not often hear about tigers and wolves planting gardens or killing other tigers and wolves. Thus humans are not natural predators unless humans are included as among their natural prey.

In addition, humans also accidentally kill themselves or other humans when hunting. This can occur with guns or spears. It is unlikely that true predator animals accidentally kill themselves on their own claws or mistake a fellow lion for a gazelle. Natural predators have no “hunting seasons.” It can also be pointed out that the dismissive regard for the “accidental” deaths of non- hunting humans killed in proximity to hunting areas suggests that the lives of humans are considered less important than preserving the activity of recreational killing of nonhumans. Once more the human supremacy myth is debunked using the routine reality of human exploitation of humans.

Animal Rights advocates can get particularly timid when it comes to the issue of non European cultures and those with limited economic resources who systematically exploit nonhumans. Usually it is considered a minor concern when compared to exploitation carried out by urban dwellers or ignored due to fears of being labeled a racist, privileged colonial trouble maker etc.

But if you do not express a consistent ethical view that evaluates these issues with fairness and justice, you leave a back door open in your ethics which invites all exploiters to cite these exceptions as proof that they should be exempt as well, and undermining the animal rights argument in general.

The basic idea: the closer a human lives to Nature without industrial means, the more one is entitled to commit acts of violence and discrimination against members of other species.

The Supremacy Myth Animal Rights Argument: If one is poor and of any racial extraction, it is not usually considered permissible for the person to exploit and kill other humans for subsistence or basic survival. If one lived in an environment where a need to kill other humans for survival was a routine occurrence, then it would be strongly encouraged or demanded that the person or persons relocate or alter their survival patterns to be in harmony with accepted moral standards. The morality of exploiting other humans when it is not absolutely necessary would trump any lifestyle or tradition argument. Even a Caucasian critic would not usually have to worry about being called a racist because they oppose these activities of non-whites.

If we are to be fair and just in our moral principles, then racial character and economic status would not be deemed an excuse for harming innocent lives when alternatives exist.

If a tribe was killing humans for food, we would offer support to stop this from happening. Ideally, this should be the same principle when dealing with any human group in their systemic exploitation of nonhuman animals if we regard all humans as equal.

This is not extreme or unreasonable; it is merely exercising fairness and consistency in moral policy.

This basic concept of morality is like the sun - people in different regions have different words for it, but they all mean the same object. The moral principle of regarding yourself and others as equal and deserving of respect is universal to any human society on earth - we are simply refining it for consistency and fairness. If a member of a pre-industrial tribe would say that it is wrong for anyone to harm their tribal group while at the same time claiming it is morally justified for the tribe to systemically harm nonhumans, they are guilty of the same double standard morality and bigoted views demonstrated by their urban counterparts.

The practicality of implementing a more ethical lifestyle is not relevant to the ethical argument. As we pointed out - morality is not perfect and one can only do the best we can, but systemic exploitation is not doing the best you can.

We know that humans of any racial heritage are capable of discrimination, unfairness, bigotry, and exploitation. We also know that humans of any ancestry have dealt with wars, crime, slavery, illness, disability, and injustice. We do not allow someone descended from a family who was slaughtered in a war to justify their own behavior against others because of their ancestor’s plight. Thus to be fair and just, someone descended from a designated ethnic group that experienced slavery does not mean they have the right to justify their own discrimination and exploitation of others by citing this link.

Human societies that have access to industrialized technology, and in fact live in association with urban societies while at the same time seeking to maintain pre-industrial lifestyles, exhibit a double standard in their moral values. They are willing to embrace modern technology and instruments but reject any notion that they should give up violent behavior that arises from their own particular version of Manifest Destiny.

If they are willing to give up human slavery or human sacrifice (which was also practiced by some tribes) than surely it is no outrage to suggest they treat other living beings as they would wish to be treated themselves. An Inuit would no doubt say that a Canadian of European descent has no moral right to exploit them, so what right do they have to do the same to seals, polar bears, elk etc? They cannot claim they are natives of the Arctic as a polar bear is, since the latter requires no artificial means to survive-while humans do.

If one truly believes that humans are equal then race is irrelevant. To suggest that some humans deserve special consideration or moral exemptions because of their ethnic or cultural background is to endorse an ethical double standard.

Vivisection, when stripped of the window dressing and excuses, is the practice of torturing captive animals in ways that would be considered atrocities if done to the most hated criminals. The only release from this suffering is death and if the tormentors had the power to prevent it you can be certain some would be keeping them alive to study the long term effects of pain and misery. There are no boundaries in vivisection. Any and every kind of torture has been conducted and new ones are contemplated every day.

Humans have always gravitated towards sadistic behavior against those they could exploit for reasons that had nothing to do with basic survival. There are Stone Age tribes that have been documented torturing other animals for ritualistic purposes. Such behavior continues to the present in many cultures. The excuses may vary and the tools change, but the behavior remains the same.

Vivisectors are not experts at preventing harm, they are experts at causing it. People who want to heal become doctors, not torturers.

To make the strongest case against vivisection you must understand what motivates those that support it and be able to see past their verbal explanations and excuses to observe the scope of the problem. You want to dissect their beliefs and show them that they are wrong. They may still deny the truth but you can present your case in a way that makes their excuses as logical as 2 + 2 = 5.

The motivating belief in vivisection is the myth that humans are superior in value as a group to other beings.

Human supremacy beliefs are biased personal opinion just like a belief in racial, gender, or religious supremacy. Any trait, criteria, or attribute cited to confirm this alleged superiority, whether mind, intelligence, soul, creativity, Divine or Biological specialness, survival of the fittest, tenacious moral instinct, moral reciprocity, or an unspecified faculty X, are as much subjective personal opinion as the importance given to skin colour or gender. Nature does not confirm this alleged superiority through natural phenomenon like weather, gravity, earthquakes etc and the constant routine natural exploitation of humans by other humans.

If you claim humans can justify the systemic exploitation of nonhumans based on biased personal opinion then another human can justify the systemic exploitation of humans using biased personal opinion. Nature cannot be shown to care. Invisible supreme deities are mute on the subject and allegedly indisputable religious texts are constantly disputed. If you want human rights you must accept nonhuman rights to close this loophole.

Only humans can be shown to use laws in an effort to control their behavior thus they are the only ones obligated to follow them, nonhumans benefit without needing to reciprocate out of fairness and consistency, since punishing them for being unable to follow human laws when you know they cannot would be like punishing a blind man for not reading warning signs or an armless man for not grabbing a drowning swimmer.

Moral perfection is impossible; you only do the best you can in any given situation. The failure to stop homicide or child abuse does not justify concentration camps, thus the failure to stop the accidental death of microbes or plants does not justify the construction and maintenance of vivisection labs.

That in essence is the irrefutable argument that explains why vivisection is wrong. But it is common for the animal rights activist to let the opposition lead the discussion and focus on particulars that are not as relevant.

It is valuable in a debate situation for the speaker to state the strongest case of the opposing side and dismantle it at the same time. That way the opponent cannot do anything but restate what you have already debunked, which puts them in a weak position.

In the typical debate, the researcher will say vivisection is justified because of the alleged benefits, which is a robotic and obvious answer that is devoid of moral justification; as if a thief or murderer stated that their acts were justified because of the material benefits to themselves or their family.

And they will say that vivisection is necessary for medical progress and that differences between humans and nonhumans are minimal (except when it comes to moral value). Or they will say they have to use nonhumans because experiments done on humans would be unethical (you will notice that when it comes to nonhumans the word “cruel” is thrown around, while for humans it is “immoral” or “unethical.” That is welfarist thinking - as nonhumans are not considered worthy enough for respect or rights). At this point the animal rights advocate will disagree and turn to experts on the anti-vivisection side to argue the case that nonhumans are not necessary for human research and can even be counter productive (as in the often mentioned case of Thalidomide-proven to be safe on nonhumans but not for humans).

While the argument can be compelling it has weaknesses in its power to persuade which is why it should never be the main argument. One must look at the issue from the motivations and beliefs of the audience. The main problem is that the audience is expected to decide that a doctor representing the animal rights side cares more about human health than a researcher who is backed by the medical establishment. No matter how corrupt or sociopathic or foolish a vivisector may be, they have that public relations advantage, especially when scientific information is being discussed which often goes over the heads of the audience.

And by entertaining a discussion on usefulness, you invite, as George Bernard Shaw observed, the idea that if animal experimentation was shown to be useful, it would be justifiable. The key issue is the morality - the right and wrong of the act - based on the false belief in human superiority. Debunk this by exposing how human superiority is nothing but biased personal opinion like racial superiority beliefs and that an acceptance of such biased personal opinions for moral policy would allow one to justify human exploitation of humans by the same logic. You cannot have human rights without accepting nonhuman rights.

The claim that vivisection is a necessity or useful is not the real motivation for vivisection. Common sense shows us that it is a choice not a need by the very fact that only a tiny fraction of humans engage in the practice. It is not comparable to requiring food or water for daily survival. Disease is unpleasant but natural. Death is natural. Also, there are many examples of exploitation of nonhumans which everyone knows is far removed from any concept of necessity or usefulness and yet exists. Why assume vivisectors would operate differently from hunters, rodeo performers, or zookeepers simply because some claim they are motivated by (grossly misguided) altruism when they engage in extreme torture of innocent beings?

Even if the research was not useful there would still be those who say it is perfectly acceptable (given that nonhuman lives are inferior and disposable). It is seriously naïve to assume that any reported breakthrough in research technology will lead to an end to vivisection. This assumes that vivisectors respect nonhuman lives - if they did, they would not be doing any vivisection.

It is a perversion of altruism and compassion - you claim that you are attempting to heal Peter by torturing and killing Paul, Pat, and countless others and calling it an act of kindness. Some accept it with vivisection primarily because the assumption of human superiority to the victims and the blatant moral double standard is unquestioned.

If you would not think it is rational to find a cure for diseases in giraffes by experimenting on elephants why would you think it is rational to cure disease in humans by using mice, rats, dogs or chimps? Common sense indicates there are anatomical differences internally and externally between individuals and species just as there are similarities. Humans are still the best and true model for research. Nonhuman animal research is big business for scientists, breeders, and cage manufacturers, and the former have a vested interest in conjuring up new experiments on “disposable” life forms to keep their paychecks, while telling the public that the research is important and a “breakthrough.” A week does not go by without another report of a “scientific miracle” thanks to non human animal experiments; although usually with the caution that human trials are years away.

It shares some similarities with ancient augury and the practices of witch doctors. Pagan priests would cut open live animals and read their entrails to encourage the hope and health of society (a good harvest, easy childbirth). Those that opposed it endangered society by angering the gods. Today, researchers claim that if nonhuman animal research stopped, the world would descend into a hell of disease and misery (without explaining why society and culture endured even during the Bubonic plague). By such logic, humans should have been extinct eons ago. Animal researchers promote the view that life works according to a quasi-Darwinian “Great Chain of Being” hierarchy where animals follow a ladder of complexity - starting with worms and ending with humanity, and that you can take them apart and reassemble them as easily as a jigsaw puzzle. If nonhuman animal research is necessary for producing safe drugs and treatments why then do we need clinical trials on humans? Why does Pfizer have to conduct medical trials in Africa? Why do drugs like Thalidomide get pulled after being shown to be safe in nonhuman animals?

The Supremacy Myth Animal Rights Argument: The ridiculousness of the claim that nonhuman research is necessary is demonstrated if you ask the research supporter this question: If they had a choice between a drug tested only on rats or chimps, and a drug tested only on humans, which would they deem safer for human use? The answer determines one’s actual belief in the importance of nonhuman animals in research.

The only reason this logical hypothetical is not asked is because of the double standard morality created by the human supremacy myth and intellectual blindness to it.

Such discussions never go far without someone saying: “if you had to save the life of your child, would you not sacrifice a rat?” Ignoring the fact that scientists cannot find cures for illnesses by simply torturing one or a few or thousands of rats to death no matter how much they want people to believe they can perform magical miracles, the answer to this should be no less controversial than the following alternative scenario.

The Supremacy Myth Animal Rights Argument: If you had a choice between your child and a neighbor’s who would you choose?

If you chose your child, does it mean you want the neighbor’s child to be tortured in a lab? If you refuse to choose, does that mean you do not love your child as much as your neighbor’s? This type of question is not raised, even when common sense tells us that the best and safest research model for human disease is another human. If finding a cure for disease is so important, why aren’t scientists and patients advocating the use of criminals or volunteers in medical experiments? Humans are the best and safest model for research, and we send healthy people off to be maimed and killed in wars for natural resources, religion and political ideology, and yet the war against cancer is only considered of dire importance when it comes to the discussion of abolishing nonhuman animals in research. This exposes how the double standard of the human supremacy myth is the driving force in defenses of vivisection. The more recent claims that genetic engineering can alter the physiology of nonhuman animals so they are better models for human research also exploits public ignorance since it requires faith that scientists understand Nature so well that they can predict how the physiology of other species will react to the altered genetics. But even if they could turn a nonhuman into a perfect copy of human anatomy with the same responses to chemicals, the torture and death could not be justified by the discriminatory ethical arguments based on the false belief in human supremacy as mentioned earlier. Citing alleged benefits of an action is not the same as providing ethical justification for it.

As a bullying tactic, researchers and their proponents will say that animal rights activists cannot protest animal research if they have benefited from research that has been linked to nonhuman animal research experiments.

The Supremacy Myth Animal Rights Argument: They ignore that research on humans against their consent has also been done and the research preserved. Do they make the same demand of human rights activists that they cannot use anything that may be traced back to human experimentation? The work of Joseph Mengele is well known, but there is also James Marion Sims, former head of the American Medical Association who experimented on black slaves and was awarded for his humanitarian efforts by a statue in New York’s Central Park. And there is Jonas Salk, reported to have deliberately infected patients at mental hospitals with influenza.

Researchers say they need to use nonhuman animals for research because they are like us - and yet they say they deserve no rights because they are not like us. This highlights the real issue: the motivation for animal research beyond money and sociopathic tendencies is an arrogant belief that humans as a species are superior in value to all other life, based upon biased personal opinion criteria conveniently determined by those who stand to benefit from the discrimination and exploitation. Sims and Mengele and Salk thought the same way about the use of humans they deemed inferior.

If one cannot be against vivisection if they were unwitting patients of corporate medicine, then the same is true for those using Pfizer drugs (who experimented on humans in the 90s). Or those using any medication that can be linked to the Nazi research (which was kept for human medicine). Or anyone with medication treatments linked to Jonas Salk or James Sims. Beyond that one should not be advocating for human rights if they live on land that was taken in a war - or pay taxes to governments that finance human rights abuses or warfare. No one can be perfect in an imperfect world. If human rights supporters are not expected to be perfect than the same holds true for supporters of nonhuman animal rights causes.

If we say that someone who is ill does not have the moral right to demand that other humans be used for research to find a cure (even though the results would be far more beneficial than using nonhumans) then logically since humans cannot be shown to be superior to other beings (as all standards and criteria are based on biased personal opinions like they are for racial supremacy etc.) they cannot make the same demand when it comes to nonhumans used in vivisection. It is not complicated - it simple and fair morality.

Some will charge that the animal rights advocate must come up with alternatives to nonhuman research. This is an example of a bullying tactic and upside down view of fairness.

If one seeks to find cures for human illness, the onus is on them to do it in a way that does not violate basic and consistent standards of moral conduct, not the animal advocate for pointing out the immorality of a practice.

The problem of evil is a philosophical issue that focuses on reasons why a seemingly all powerful, all knowing, all compassionate deity could create a universe with evil. The answer often given is that such a being could have made a universe without evil, but it would require that it be populated with innocent automata - for free will creatures (humans) to exist, the choice of evil had to be present. One can debate the merits of this answer, but more important to our discussion is that the answer attempts to solve the problem by appealing to human self-interest and supremacy beliefs - the observer is expected to agree that a universe without humans and without evil is a worse reality than a universe with evil and humans.

Given the prevalence of human supremacist thinking, it may be surprising to learn that the belief in the superiority of nonhumans to humans has been articulated. Theriophily or animalitarianism is defined as the belief in the superiority of nonhuman animals to humans - that other living beings are happier and more in harmony with Nature. Jonathan Swift entertained the idea in Gulliver’s Travels and Mark Twain, often characterized as a misanthrope in his later years, expressed support for the concept:

“Man is the Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. I think it is open to dispute. Indeed, my experiments have proven to me that he is the Unreasoning Animal. Note his history, as sketched above. It seems plain to me that whatever he is he is not a reasoning animal. His record is the fantastic record of a maniac. I consider that the strongest count against his intelligence is the fact that with that record back of him he blandly sets himself up as the head animal of the lot: whereas by his own standards he is the bottom one.”

Twain used the newspaper of his day to make the argument that when it comes to human nature there appears to be no limits to human violence, human irrationality, and human arrogance. Many people would likely agree with this - it becomes a controversial issue only when one voices the opinion that nonhumans are better by our own standards of moral conduct and fairness.

If you look at human history it is hard not to come to the conclusion that humans have always been maniacally violent and destructive despite noble ideals to reign in human excesses and control human behavior so it is more moderate like other species.

Humans can and do engage in violent behavior, even to self-destructive extremes, for reasons that have nothing to do with practical survival.

Whether one believes in Biblical or scientific claims on human origin the consensus is that at one time humans did not exist - meaning that the type of extreme violence and misery humans have introduced into the world did not exist. I.e. a leg hold trap which forces a captive animal to chew their own leg off or attempts to genetically alter a species to give them human-like illnesses or psychological torture caused by a lifetime of isolated imprisonment.

In addition to biological conditions that make one either empathetic or sociopathic, there are numerous complex layers of customs and ideology in societies that reinforce violent behavior and people are often at the mercy of what culture and beliefs their society has fostered on them from birth. To oppose these beliefs is to risk one’s social comfort and at the most extreme, to become a victim of human violence and mania.

Seeing the contradictions in moral beliefs - i.e. claiming to be compassionate by torturing a nonhuman animal in a lab in ways that would not be done to the most despised criminal is not to be a traitor to your kind, it is rather, to be true to a fair and consistent concept of justice.

If it is wrong to stand up for justice in dealings with a nonhuman animal tortured in a lab, then it is also wrong to stand up for justice in dealings with a human victimized by other humans. Nature cannot be shown to judge given how common human exploitation of humans is in the world.

The logic is irrefutable. The double standard morality is due to a belief in human superiority which can easily be shown to be based on personal opinion and not fact. It is no different in structure than a belief in racial or gender superiority based on personal opinion. We call such people bigots. We know that humans have always been irrationally violent against anyone they can victimize. Thus, if we want laws to control human behavior and support fairness and justice and compassion, then nonhumans must be given full moral consideration. If you attempt to exclude them you invite humans to exploit other humans (which they have been doing regardless of laws and moral edicts).

You cannot have human rights without accepting nonhuman rights.

Appeals to kindness and compassion can succeed but they do not work with everyone and those that do not respond favorably to them should not be ignored. Either an effort should be made to persuade them with another approach, or at least, demonstrate why their beliefs are false even if it will do little more than irritate them. The situation for nonhuman victims is far too serious to leave to passive pleas and resignation, or for advocates to fail to examine their own beliefs and the effectiveness of their tactics.

The Supremacy Myth Animal Rights Argument dissects the basic beliefs that individuals hold to in order to justify systemic exploitation of nonhumans (and humans). The more people use this iron clad common sense argument, the harder it will be for opponents to have a safe harbor and deny the truth.

If you use inferior arguments that the opposition feels confident in attacking, you help them in falsely believing that they are right. The opposition will attack the weaker argument and ignore the stronger one - if you allow them to. You can control the debate and force the opponent to go where you want them to and corner their false beliefs to expose them for what they are: the last refuge of the bigot.

In the end this does not guarantee that you will persuade the person, especially if they have a vested personal interest or financial stake in maintaining the exploitation, but if enough people are pointing out that 2 +2 = 4, then at least you can feel certain that you have morality on your side and perhaps, build momentum among those who can be persuaded to care about justice and fairness and compassion and make policy changes that help those who desperately need it.

A Bird Shot by an Arrow

A bird by well-aimed arrow shot,
Dying, deplored this cruel lot
And cried: “It doubles every pain,
When from one self the cause of ruin came.
Ah cruel men, from our wings you drew,
The plume that winged the shaft that slew.
But mock us not you heartless race,
You too will sometime take our place.
For half at least of Japheth’s brothers,
Forge swords and knives to slay the others.
Jean de La Fontaine

This article appears in KG’s blog: The Supremacy Myth Animal Rights Argument
The strongest debating posture does not merely state a position you believe to be right, it also forcefully shows why the opponent’s argument is wrong.

The Truth About Stripping

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:37:03 -0800

As the strip club business is becoming more widely accepted around the world, this industry is also proving to have harmful effects on our population. The laws set for strip clubs are too lenient. My concern regarding these establishments can be mocked by those claiming that bars offering stripteases are entertaining and that it is our choice to attend or work at them or not. However, for the sake of our future - entertainment for the human race should be beneficial, not superficial.

A man or woman who chooses to apply for a position at a club where they will be expected to dance in the nude has done exactly that - made the choice. Our decisions in life are influenced by one thing or another and in the case of which career we choose, money is usually a major influence. People have been lured into this career perhaps because of their social status in some countries, or because of their will to survive in this greed infested world. Whatever their reason is for making that decision, they do not deserve to be objectified simply for the entertainment of others.

Since the majority of strip clubs worldwide cater to straight men, most strippers are women. Women are not forced to dance in the nude for money; however, they’re often forced to raise their children alone, which can leave them desperately searching for a supportive career. While women are still fighting to gain the equality of men’s righton in the workforce around the world, it’s clear to see why so many would choose stripping as an attempt to rise above poverty. In the U.S. for example, businesses are not required to pay women while on leave due to pregnancy. If there were more laws that protected working women, many women would not choose stripping as a means of survival. By allowing strip clubs to flourish, we are allowing women’s righton to become less important.

To lure individuals to strip for a living, club owners advertise the job as being easy and high paying; requiring no education and with the only stipulation that your appearance should be pleasing to others. This sounds enticing for a man or woman who has little educational background and is in need of “easy money”. The promises made by strip club owners are far from the truth. In the U.S., the majority of strip bar owners hire strippers to work as independent contractors without any benefits or federal employment protection. Strippers work only for tips and they must pay the club owners a large percentage of those tips. If the club does not bring in a large amount of high paying customers, there is no guarantee that the dancers will bring home any money. While there are some talented dancers that do bring home a generous amount of money, there are more that don’t. People are attracted to this line of work by the deceitful club owners who are not required to financially protect their workers.

Adding to the demands from club owners, strippers are subjected to abuse in both upscale and lower-class nude clubs. The protection that bouncers are said to provide is minimal due to the fact that bouncers are essentially paid by the customers; so the best interest of the stripper is not always in mind. Strippers are propositioned for prostitution often and harassed when they don’t do what is demanded of them. The lack of having government-paid law enforcement inside these clubs makes it easier for abusers to go unpunished. When someone commits a crime without getting caught or having consequences, they are more likely to perpetrate again. Individuals who endure physical, verbal, or sexual abuse most commonly feel worthless and used. Once a stripper has been lured into this depreciating means of making a living, many of them turn to alcohol and drugs to escape reality. The faÃ§ade of the wealthy life of stripping is causing many of the world’s youth to enter what in reality is a vicious trap.

There is no question as to the importance of entertainment for the human race. As far as history shows, we have never existed without some form of it. It is sadistic when we allow one’s idea of entertainment to humiliate and degrade the life of another. Strippers are not just exotically dancing on poles a good distance from others – as some might say. To keep the acts fresh, club owners have invented many different ways to entice their customers. Lap dances are customary to most nude bars and depending on the bar, the dances are either monitored by a bouncer, or they aren’t. Behind the walls of the V.I.P. rooms or even out in open areas, strippers are pressured to do so much more than dance. Some states in the U.S. regulate how many feet away a stripper must be to perform a lap dance, while some don’t. This leaves a large window of opportunity for club owners to encourage illegal behavior in order to satisfy the paying customer. Due to the safety issues within the walls of these erotic environments, there is no justification for there existence.

While some may argue that it is our human right to be sexually enticed or to be the sexual enticer as a form of enjoyment, there is no place for these acts in the career world. The laws are too negligent, and the effects are too drastic on individuals turning to this career. People that defend the importance of strip clubs are only defending their right to sit back and watch as another human being is degraded.

The Common Sense Animal Rights Argument

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:37:02 -0800

The foundation of the ethical arguments used to defend vivisection, the meat industry, and other forms of exploitation protested by animal righton campaigners is the belief in human supremacy. It is generally taken for granted by both sides of the issue and left unchallenged. Advocates would discover they can make a stronger case if they relied less on the three S words (suffering, sentience and speciesism), and more on common sense, clear language and a frontal assault on human pride. It shifts the energy of the debate from a defensive posture (an effort to persuade the listener to embrace compassion and/or respect for non human life forms) to one that forces the most hard line adversary into a choice - either accept nonhuman righton as a necessary condition of a fair ethical system or concede that their own belief would allow humans to discriminate against other humans in unpleasant ways.

Suffering, sentience and speciesism have problems. One may use visual testimonials of the suffering experienced by the victims of human exploitation to great effect, but the old adage that everyone would be vegetarian if slaughterhouses had glass walls ignores the human capacity to condition themselves to violence or make excuses for exploitation (a bullfight being just one example where cruelty does not lead to a widespread conversion to vegetarianism). It can also encourage the suggestion that unnecessary enslavement or killing isn’t the problem, but only how the killing is done - welfare instead of abolition, or the dismissive reply that since Nature is cruel, humans shouldn’t care if they are the same. The designation of sentience as the true criteria of moral consideration emulates the example of racial and gender equality advocacy by “moving the goal post,” highlighting an attribute possessed by both the victim of discrimination and the victimizer that is intended to bolster the value of the former in the eyes of the latter. Instead of maleness or whiteness, it was the faculty of reason and the ability to worship a deity/in place of reason or a soul, it is sentience or the capacity to suffer. But it often leads to the counter that scientific tests need to be done to be sure a species meets the qualification of sentience, or another more human-specific type of sentience is defined to muddle the issue, or the opponent claims to adhere to reciprocal moral contracts or theological arguments instead. Speciesism is widely in use as the equivalent to racism and sexism. It is generally defined as “species-centered” thinking and linked to ethnic or gender based discriminatory beliefs. But opponents of animal righton often embrace it, claiming that speciesism is natural and all species do the same. The term is an inaccurate and misleading description of the biased attitudes that dictate human ethical policy and belief towards nonhuman lifeforms. While members of any race or both genders can be racist and or sexist, only humans can be observed to be “speciesist.” Lions cannot be shown to hold to a belief that they are superior in moral value as individuals and a group to gazelles, and therefore have a right to kill gazelles but no one has a right to kill them. Humans, however, do it all too frequently in the defense of their exploitation practices. It isn’t “centeredness,” it is superiority, arrogance, pride, a belief in supremacy. Not speciesism, but supremacism.

Human supremacists will often assert they are top of the food chain, even though corpse-eating bacteria might have a different perspective. They say they are custodians of Nature, even though most of what they characterize as stewardship is actually damage control, attempting to correct mistakes, such as oil spills and extinction, caused by human action. They designate insects as low and worthless, although it is these creatures that cultivate top soil and pollinate flowers, true acts of management. Human language contains many insults derived from the distorted antagonistic understanding of the Natural world. Humane is defined as another word for compassion, and inhumane or inhuman or nonhuman, another word for wicked, and yet, when it comes to cruelty, sadism and taking pleasure from causing misery while knowing that one is causing it, humanity is the supreme role model. Cats do not build arenas in which other cats can watch mice being tortured. The same capacity for intellectual expression that allows one to compose a symphony or do mathematics can be used to design a torture device or urge a suicidal person to jump from a building, while supremacists will downplay the unique abilities of nonhuman animals to predict earthquakes, or instinctively swim.

The insane, sadistic experiments which demonstrated that a monkey or rat would refuse to harm another even if they faced electrocution or starvation as reward for their altruism may be contrasted with Milgram’s studies that showed people were willing to shock another human simply to spare themselves discomfort by displeasing an authority figure. So much for humanity’s innate species-centeredness or the lofty claims of nobility over savagery. And the supremacist retreat to ideals of romantic primitivism may also be countered with reality, as vicious cruelty is noted in pre-industrial cultures, from the various mutilation rituals in animal sacrifice around the globe to the stampeding of herds off cliffs in order to pick at the mass of dead and crippled buffalo.

Human supremacists justify their discrimination and systemic exploitation according to an assumption of absolute certainty based upon criteria of value such as a faculty of reason, a soul, divine or evolutionary favor, moral reciprocity, survival of the fittest, might makes right, individual selfishness, a bundle of characteristics or vaguely defined ones which cannot be proven to be shared by all humans or lacking in all nonhumans. i.e. some humans are more intelligent than others, some nonhumans are more rational than some humans, humans can and do willfully break laws and yet the most despised of criminals is usually given more care and respect than the most innocent of beings.

And the importance of such criteria can be doubted - shown not to be absolute objective truth, but subjective arbitrary belief conveniently determined by those who stand to benefit from the discrimination they wish to justify. Nature (and/or deities), through environmental phenomenon, like weather, earthquakes, gravity, and the actions of other human beings, cannot be shown to care or favor humans over other life forms as an absolute objective fact. The ability of a very small number of humans to compose a catchy tune or place a rubber ball in a suspended basket with a hole in it does not appear to cause a halo of specialness to descend from the sky and blanket humanity in its Divine embrace. An absolute is something beyond all doubt and question, the final answer to everything. If it can be questioned it cannot be absolute. For every why there is a because, for every because, another why. If one states that humans are superior as a group to other lifeforms according to any defined criteria, whether theistic or atheistic in origin, it can be questioned. For secular humanists it is the absolute certain truth of a supposedly mindless universe that yet can judge some as more important than others through an evolutionary version of the Great Chain of Being. For spiritual humanists it is one or more divinities that do not make their presence known to doubters in direct ways and have encouraged schisms among those that are supposedly chosen.

But the ultimate disobedience to this fantasy is the continuous predation by humans on other humans. War, famine, theft, rape, child abuse, and numerous varieties of discrimination based on race, gender, class, religious belief, appearance, language, age, height, economic status, and this despite all the laws and philosophical lectures about why humans are deserving of special treatment.

This subjectivity means that someone who may discriminate against other humans using criteria that is just as subjective (skin colour, gender, class, religion, survival of the fittest, individual selfishness, etc.) cannot be effectively condemned by a human righton advocate who denies righton to nonhumans, since both are discriminating according to subjective criteria of value they deem to be important. Pragmatic appeals to self-interest and the Golden Rule are also dubious, since a dictator or criminal may exploit and kill and never need to care about the righton of others or face prosecution, and a man living on one side of the globe does not necessarily have a practical reason to care what happens to humans in another far away country. The self-professed egoists who claim they aren’t human supremacists can prove it by conceding that child rape is permissible in their worldview as long as it doesn’t impact them.

The only way for a human supremacist to consistently argue that one ought to have universal human righton and an ethical code based upon this idea is to extend the concept of fairness and justice to nonhumans as much as possible. Because humans develop ethical codes to govern human behavior, and nonhumans do not appear to employ or require such codes in their social interactions, they benefit from the consistency requirement in human concepts of fairness and justice without needing to reciprocate. In addition to the exemptions given to children, the mentally impaired or criminals, to expect nonhumans to adhere to human ethical contracts in order to be eligible for moral regard is like expecting a blind man to be able to read and then punishing him for not doing so. It is common sense unfairness to penalize nonhumans who in many situations would avoid conflicts with humans if the latter would take responsibility for their behavior and not put themselves in situations where they know they are likely to cause problems.

That moral regard may not be possible or practical in all situations due to particular factors (such as scale or absentmindedness or the inability to be perfect), but since the same is true of inter-human relations, it does not invalidate the merits of the argument or provide a loophole for humans to justify systemic exploitation of nonhuman life forms. If one tries to argue that an inability to prevent the accidental killing of microbes justifies factory farming then concentration camps would also be permissible for the same reasons. If it is deemed easier and more convenient to draw the line at species, then drawing it at race or class or family is even easier and more convenient.

Basic morality can be likened to the sun - the words for it may differ in language, but in translation mean the same thing. The principle of showing compassion for others and a concept of justice is universal to many if not all humans living within a society. An Inuit hunter or Japanese dolphin fisherman is just as vulnerable to this charge of unfair and biased discrimination as his suburban counterpart. To suggest that some fully functional humans have the right to subsist as they did 1000 years ago and reject modern concepts of fairness and justice (while using non-traditional technology such as television, textiles and guns), is to advocate a double standard moral system. One can debate practicalities and implementation of moral beliefs, but the common sense logic of it is difficult to refute.

This subjective belief in supremacy and the consequences of human predatory behavior is applicable to any animal righton issue.

In hunting debates when one says that humans are not naturally born hunters like a tiger or wolf, the familiar reply uttered is that the human brain and its tool making ability is the equivalent of fang and claw. Human supremacists overlook that the human brain and tool making ability can also be used for horticulture and killing other humans, activities that natural-born hunters don’t engage in very often. If deer hunting is natural for humans then so is human hunting.

“If you had to choose between saving the life of a drowning man or a rat/dog/pig, which would you save?” The most practical answer is whoever you can save. If it was a choice between two humans, only a supremacist with a preference for race, gender or misc. discrimination would ask such a question. In vivisection framing: “your child v.s. a rat,” it should be no less controversial than if you had a choice between your child and a neighbor’s. If you chose your child, does it mean you want the neighbor’s child to be tortured in a lab? If you refuse to choose, does that mean you do not love your child as much as your neighbor’s?

The charge of hypocrisy leveled against those using products that may be linked to nonhuman exploitation (medicine etc), should also be true for human supremacists who benefit from Pfizer drugs that were tested in Africa or the medical legacy of human slave experimenter and AMA president J Marion Sims, or live on land that may have come through wars of aggression. Human supremacists demand that animal righton activists hold themselves to a different standard of conduct and perfection than they hold themselves, which makes them serve as a more accurate example of hypocrisy than those they accuse of the same.

And the pessimistic send off for many a discussion, “you’ll never see the end of meat eating or animal abuse,” may be returned with the similarly dire observation that as long as humans breed, child abuse and homicide are likely to continue.

People who are aware of the double standards and injustice in human interactions with the rest of the natural world often have difficulty expressing themselves without leaving some means by which an opponent can respond critically. Any argument that ends close to a stalemate is a defeat for the animal righton side since the aim is to change the status quo. To those who are motivated by a sincere and humble interest in justice and not a supremacist belief in stewardship that masquerades as a righton position, it is hoped that they study and make use of this approach, for it removes the limitations, confusion and diversions associated with suffering, sentience and speciesism. While it may not be enough to bring about the closure of slaughterhouses and laboratories, it has been known to cause immense frustration for their most ardent supporters and taint their arrogance with a much-needed dose of uncertainty.

Pink Elephant in the Room

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:37:01 -0800

The basic animal righton position is that moral regard should not be based on any characteristic alleged to be uniquely human but instead be a general compassion principle using sentience - a basic interest in living, avoiding pain, maximizing pleasure - as the standard by which we determine the moral worth of others.

This effort to extend moral concern beyond humans rests upon the other person sharing the same sense of compassion and agreeing that the uniquely human traits (real or imagined) that are often considered praise-worthy are in fact insignificant when compared to this alternative criteria.

Animal righton advocates spend a great deal of time defending their position from criticism, which is peculiar when they are the ones seeking to change the status quo.

There is an easy way to make a strong case for nonhuman righton without using sentience as criteria. It is a “Golden Rule with force” argument that shifts the burden of proof to the person who opposes nonhuman righton. The stronger their opposition to it, the stronger the requirement to prove their pov is true.

It should not be a revelation to anyone that the fundamental issue in animal righton that always comes up in any defense of an exploitation practice is the delusional belief that humans have superior moral worth as a group, claimed as an absolute universal truth without evidence, which leads to grotesque double standards in moral conduct. This is how racism or sexism or religious intolerance works, and how we arrive at the situation where it is acceptable to torture innocent nonhuman lives worse than the most despised criminals. To treat them in ways that nonhumans do not treat humans. And yet, we associate the word humane with goodness and the word inhumane with evil.

This superiority belief is not, as some assume, a biological instinct. If that were the case we would not have homicide or child abuse or war or even be having this conversation. How could we when human moral supremacy is an absolute universal truth? Something beyond all doubt or questioning?

We won’t call it speciesism because the word implies that it is analogous to racism and sexism, even though it is a fact that while a member of any race or gender can be racist or sexist or both, only humans can be shown to be “speciesist,” according to the definition of believing in the unfair and unjust superior moral worth of humans. If you call it speciesism you invite the dumb defense that lions and gazelles are speciesist too even though they can easily be shown to engage in violent behavior for survival purposes and cannot be shown to hold to moral codes that invite the accusation of a double standard.

A myth in human moral supremacy is taken for granted and left unexamined. It is like Manifest Destiny or a Chosen People myth. Incredibly, animal righton campaigners, even academic philosophers, tend to overlook this themselves and not consider it an essential part of the problem. They talk about sentience, or suffering, or the importance of compassion, but overlook this basic would- be-laughable-if-it-didn’t-justify-hell-on-earth delusion.

When discussing racism or sexism, we are quite aware of this issue of arrogant self-importance. We understand what “white Christian supremacist” means, or “male supremacist,” but when we say speciesist we are using a polite euphemism instead of being blunt.

Consider the absurd hypothetical demands human righton extremists and supremacist bigots make on campaigners for nonhuman righton. They ask them to choose who we would save in an emergency situation involving a human and nonhuman. They don’t consider the consequences of such a scenario if changed to an entirely human predicament. If you have to choose between a familiar human and a stranger, does your choice determine which one deserves to be systemically exploited in a lab or farm? This is a double standard that exists entirely because of the blind acceptance of human superior moral worth even though the universe doesn’t validate it and supposedly supreme deities are conveniently mute and invisible on the subject.

Or they demand that an animal righton activist be perfect - divorce themselves from society by magic and live on the moon, or be guilty of hypocrisy (a word very often misused). Such a demand is not made of a human righton activist - they are not expected to have not participated in society where things they oppose have happened. They can be against war and homicide and still live on land taken in war - they can use medicine that was lethally tested on slaves, prisoners, mental patients or African villagers.

The human supremacist bigot is often a bully - they want to browbeat the advocate into submission. Thus we have insecure activists who buy into the idea that humans have an instinct for choosing humans over nonhumans even though we know that this is a complete absurdity every time we look at crime news, or lock our door at night, or see a bottle with an anti-tampering cap, or smile in agreement at an ad that says: “the more people I meet, the more I love my cat.”

This belief in humanity’s superior moral worth is not scrutinized - if it were, it would become obvious that human superior moral worth is as much biased personal opinion as an argument to defend racial, gender, or religious superior moral worth.

The criteria cited to prove human supremacy include mind, intelligence, soul, creativity, Divine specialness, Evolutionary specialness, survival of the fittest, moral reciprocity, or an unspecified faculty X. They are all as much subjective personal opinion as the importance given to skin colour or gender or a particular interpretation of scripture. It either cannot be proven that all humans possess this supposedly important quality or that all nonhumans lack them. And Nature does not confirm this alleged superiority through natural phenomenon like weather, gravity, earthquakes etc. and the constant routine natural exploitation of humans by other humans.

Humans do not serve a stewardship function like worms or bees - the world would be fine without them.

If the world lost worms and bees, life systems would collapse. It is no surprise people have to claim an invisible mute deity or deities has ordained humans superior in moral value even though we have countless examples of humans slaughtering each other in the name of those same deities due to differences of opinion on religious trivia.

So much for the “rational” animal.

Ultimately, the moral argument against human supremacy is: if you want human righton, you must have nonhuman righton if for no other reason than to close a loophole that would allow humans to justify exploiting humans. There is no way around this problem.

If you claim humans can justify the systemic exploitation of nonhumans based on biased personal opinion (mind, soul etc) then another human can justify the systemic exploitation of humans using biased personal opinion since you cannot prove these opinions to be absolute, fair objective truth.

It is common sense that only humans can be shown to use moral codes and laws in an effort to control their behavior thus they are the only ones obligated to follow them, nonhumans benefit without needing to reciprocate out of fairness and consistency, since punishing them for being unable to follow human laws when you know they cannot would be unfair. It would be like punishing a blind man for not reading warning signs or an armless man for not grabbing a drowning swimmer.

Besides, nonhumans do not put us in cages, torture and kill us for choice, and other non-survival related activity. It may be argued that they already follow our moral codes. Criminals who we do claim can choose moral actions may deliberately violate such codes and are afforded far more compassion.

The simple truth of existence is that one is born, lives, and dies. During that time individuals will seek out survival-related interests and trivial past times. Success, failure, does it really matter in the long run? How can we prove that life is a contest or a race and if it is, where do the winners collect their prizes?

This is fact for humans and all life. If a single individual claimed they were superior in moral worth to all other humans and said this was a divine or evolutionary truth, we would regard such a person as arrogant or crazy or both. But when the claim is made about an entire species it suddenly doesn’t appear insane (when it should).

Human supremacist bigots, anti-Nature fanatics, and/or human righton extremists are those who holds to a malicious deranged worldview where the universe and life exists as a play thing for a small group of weak and finite creatures, whining in protest when they are subjected to such treatment themselves, and boast of personal moral conduct and fairness that they do not live up to, unlike the very same species that they consider inferior.

Season for Non Violence

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:37:01 -0800

This is an article written by the San Diego organizer of the 1998 Season for Non-Violence event.

I would like to inform you if you do not know already about an exciting and uplifting time of the year- it is called the Season for Non-Violence. January 30 and April 4, 1998 mark the 50th and 30th anniversaries of the assassinations of Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The days between these memorial anniversaries are being hailed as A Season for Non- Violence - a time to raise awareness about the principles and practices of nonviolence, to highlight the local ‘heroes’ and initiatives that are putting them into practice, and to honor the legacies of two great men who taught the world an alternative means for defusing conflict and transforming communities.

In keeping with the spirit of this time communities are offering workshops on how to live compassionately. We would like to teach and inspire the world to live an existence that is in harmony with a peaceful planet.

As individuals and as a society, we have evolved to the point where violence is no longer recognized as a viable solution to chaos we have created and the consequences of which we now face. Violent actions and reactions are the scars of social, educational and economic wounds… the voices of a spiritually inarticulate culture. The practice of nonviolence is initiated by choice and cultivated through agreement. The time has come to agree on this as a global community - as if our lives and those of our children’s children, depended on it.

Our vision is of a better world for all human beings. Further, we are determined to base our actions on values firmly rooted in our diverse inner beliefs and traditions. To this end, we undertake “Gandhi/King: A Season for Nonviolence” by applying our efforts and resources to identifying, then bringing into full public focus the rich spectrum of grassroots projects and programs by individuals and organizations who are pro-actualizing a culture of peace.

Our purpose is to create an awareness of nonviolent principles and practice as a powerful way to heal, transform and empower our lives and communities.

We are demonstrating that every person can move the world in the direction of peace through their daily nonviolent choice and action.

If you would like more information about the Season or would like to initiate some awareness raising events, I would be honoured to assist you in any way that I can.

Also, please check out www.GandhiKing.com for more information about the season.

If you are in the San Diego area, please come to our event in March. There will be a special concert featuring Karl Anthony on March 12 followed on March 13 with a conference on non-violence. The event will take place at the Naval Training Center (off Rosecrans St) in San Diego.

Negative Preference Morality

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:37:00 -0800

The Golden Rule is the only moral principle that grounds itself in objective observation. The primary three systems of normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics, all share the common failure to conclusively answer the question “Why should I care?” when they make claims of how individuals ought to behave. The Golden Rule, however, does not even ask that we care about the principle at all, it simply explains that when we act in a manner toward others that is inconsistent with how we would like to be treated, then we are being hypocritical and unfair. This replaces opinion with fact, so that the desires of individuals cannot be held above it. However, the Golden Rule does have some loopholes that ought to be addressed in order to form a more solid basis for morality.

One common criticism of the Golden Rule is that it permits those with self- harming preferences, such as masochism and suicide, to commit harm to others. But this is only true if we take the Golden Rule to mean that we should treat others with the same actions that we desire. But to say that individual A deserves action X because individual B desires X is a non sequitur, since if A does not desire X, then B is violating A’s preferences, which B would not want for himself. The criticism actually implies its own solution: instead of treating others with the same actions we want to be treated with, we should instead uphold a respect for others’ preferences. By the very nature of a preference, everyone wants theirs to be treated well, since you cannot hold a preference that you do not want to be fulfilled.

Another important issue to cover is that of conflicting preferences. Ideally, everyone could satisfy all their preferences without infringing upon those of others, but there are some preferences (i.e. bigotry) that are violated simply by existing or by not sacrificing oneself for others (i.e. slavery). However, the only way to enforce such positive preferences (desires to be accommodated) is by violating the negative preferences (desires not to be invaded upon) of others. For example, a slave owner’s positive preference to keep slaves is unjustified, as it violates the negative preferences of those who do not wish to be enslaved. The slave owner could then restate his desire as a negative preference: “I don’t want to have my slaves taken away from me”, but this would just be rewording the initial statement. Once the enforcement of that preference is put into action, it becomes evident that it’s just a positive preference in disguise, since the initial act of enslavement was theirs. That aggressive act was driven by the positive preference “I want to have slaves”, which could only be reworded as “I don’t want to not have slaves”, which is a blatant double negative. Since the enforcement of a positive preference over a negative preference is in itself a violation of the Golden Rule, only negative preferences are morally viable.

When an individual violates the negative preferences of others unjustly, they lose the right to have their own preferences protected to the same degree that they committed a violation, as demanding righton for yourself when you break those of others is hypocritical and therefore invalid. Since preferences cannot be measured, the amount of force we can justifiably use to punish criminals for their actions is also indeterminable, and since excess punishment harms criminals worse than what their crimes deserve, we should keep force to the minimum necessary to make them stop and make amends for their actions. This way, the more that a criminal threatens (verbally or otherwise) to repeat their actions and resist consequence, the more force we can rightfully use to make them comply.

From these conclusions, we can now restate the Golden Rule as, “Do not violate the valid negative preferences of others”. This can be expressed

in deontology as “We have a duty not to harm the preferences of others”,
in consequentialism, “We ought to avoid outcomes that contradict preferences”,
in virtue ethics, “Those who respect preferences are of pure moral character”

So depending on the individual circumstance (i.e. personal decisions versus social/organizational policy-making versus character assessment), we may use this principle differently, but the underlying moral remains the same.

No Kill Shelter Debate

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:37:00 -0800

Nathan Winograd Hates Peta So Much He Loves Vivisectors and the Meat Industry.

Among the conflicts between animal righton and animal welfare is the issue of euthanasia.

Nonhuman animals are killed by the millions in shelters every year. Although this is called mercy killing in some cases, or a necessary evil, the means of execution can be far removed from anyone’s concept of compassion.

Often the “right to life” is not even considered applicable when it comes to non humans, the main dispute is the method in which the killing is carried out and how to deal with the failure to apply proper care and diligence in doing so.

This disagreement extends to the systemic exploitation of non humans in industry, and in recent decades the traditional vegetarian philosophy of seeking to avoid unnecessary killing has competed for ground with a welfare- oriented view that suggests the wrongs of the meat industry has less to do with whether one needs to eat meat at all but more to do with how it is conducted.

“Compassionate killing” is deemed the answer, not eliminating an unnecessary, unethical, and destructive dietary choice. Thus the development of “Happy meat” and “Humane farming” campaigns have resulted in an odd situation where some animal advocates advise people to purchase meat from small farms instead of going vegan and inadvertently help exploitation industries to score PR points for addressing auxiliary cruelties and injustices that they should have dealt with on their own if they were so interested in nonhuman welfare.

One may point a disapproving finger at Peter Singer, the so-called father of Animal Rights by the uninformed media for encouraging this welfarist perspective in recent decades. Many unnecessary disputes and confusing debates have resulted because welfare ideology dominates, often aided surreptitiously by the exploitation industries themselves.

The main philosophical point in animal righton is the false belief in human superiority to other lifeforms, and this central issue is the basis to counter all objections and construct the most logical, practical, common sense, and fair ethical policy for dealing with others (human and nonhuman). This has been repeatedly addressed in previous articles.

The systemic mass killing in shelters of nonhuman animals, the victims of domestication, is a moral catastrophe, however it should be criticized and dealt with by those who have sincere interest in compassion and justice, not by those who use the issue for slandering animal righton activism and supporting the exploitation industries that create and perpetuate the problem.

The No Kill shelter movement as it may be called has been aggressive in attacking groups like Peta for what it alleges is a conspiracy of deliberate and callous killing of non human animals who they suggest could be housed alive indefinitely, using the donations the group receives. Nathan Winograd is the poster boy for this movement and the most vehement critic of Peta. He claims to be a vegan animal activist who successfully converted shelters to a no kill policy, over the objections of Peta.

His allegations must be regarded with derision for a few reasons.

The “Peta hates animals” line of attack has been used by vivisectors and others to divert from their exploitation practices for at least two decades. If a vivisector is capable of torturing and maiming innocent lives one can surely expect them to be as willing to mutilate the truth for their own agenda.

While a charity organization can become bureaucratically rigid, incompetent, or corrupt, Winograd’s worst allegations against Peta require that one believe their principle motivation is not sincere concern for nonhumans, but making money while conducting torture and killing in secret.

In other words being exactly like vivisection labs and the meat and dairy industry.

Regardless of whether or not a shelter could save an animal from death or works hard enough to prevent it from occurring, it is not the same moral obscenity as a vivisection laboratory or cattle ranch that tortures and kills animals by design and intention.

It may be flattering that exploitation industry representatives assume that animal righton activists are capable of moral perfection, but they must contend with day to day reality and their own capacity for mistakes and misjudgment as human righton advocates do. Just as daily homicides and wars don’t mean we shouldn’t endeavor to manage and solve human righton issues, accidental or negligent nonhuman animal deaths do not justify vivisection torture chambers and farms.

Winograd has claimed that there is no overpopulation epidemic and that groups like Peta are deliberately and maliciously denying this truth for nefarious reasons. Thus he apparently has no venom for animal breeders and pet stores, and is so comfortable with vivisection and the meat and dairy industry that he does book interviews with the Center for Consumer Freedom, a propaganda front group for exploitation businesses.

A so-called vegan animal activist who is more hostile towards an animal righton charity than exploitation industry proponents is either stupid, mentally disturbed, or a liar - or a combination case, which as we know isn’t an uncommon personality profile among exploitation apologists.

Also, the term “No Kill” shelter is a misnomer, for either they will euthanize animals that they consider too sick or aggressive for adoption, or they turn them away which means the animals end up at another shelter where they are killed. Just because they do not do the killing themselves does not mean they do not make life or death decisions for them. They pass on the problem. Or they are indiscriminate in who they give adoptable animals to, including vivisection labs. The No Kill shelter faction cannot and should not deny the reality of error and abuse in their own solution to unwanted victims of domestication.

Winograd’s deception is further exposed by his failure to demand that businesses that service companion animal interests, such as pet stores and food conglomerates, help foot the bill to house these shelter animals permanently. Only animal righton charities are expected to provide money. Only animal righton charities are to blame. There is no problem but the animal righton charity. A vivisector could not have said it any better.

Winograd and his corporate handlers use the shelter animals as fodder for their propaganda games against animal righton activism. They do not care what happens to the animals they are merely pawns in the effort to discredit the most visible groups in advocacy and distract from efforts to curb cruelty and injustice.

But there is a silver lining in the existence of such a calculated and long term strategy by exploitation industry PR apologists, for it shows clearly that no matter how well paid, they are not able to make persuasive arguments and must resort to lies and tricks to sway public opinion.

It is important to scrutinize and critique any large or small animal charity when justified, but one must separate legitimate grievances from dishonest, childish, and pathetic distraction tactics by those who have no sincere interest in nonhuman righton or welfare.

Note: Some who claim to know him personally have characterized Winograd, a former prosecutor and corporate lawyer, as an egomaniac. While it is possible, that would suggest that his claims are sincere. In weighing the evidence one must decide between two conspiracy theories, either Peta hates nonhuman animals and seeks to destroy them any way they can while doing anti- vivisection and other campaigns as a ruse to draw in money, or, that Winograd the animal activist who does interviews with pro-vivisection organizations and has no criticism of anyone but animal charities, is actually funded by exploitation industries to push a disinformation campaign as a PR distraction since they are unable to defend their practices. One is more far-fetched than the other.

Nobody Is Vegan

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:37:00 -0800

In regards to the “nobody’s vegan” idea, I’ll attempt to demonstrate why it is flawed in its essence.

The “nobody’s vegan” idea stems from the delusion that there is ever an absolute manifestation of anything within a universe constructed on a foundation of relativity combined with the delusion that it is those absolute’s we are talking about when we identify something with a label. No absolute ideal is ever fully, 100%, completely manifest. All manifstation is a construction of degrees, of spectrum. Just as there is no absolute light, nor absolute dark, so too is there no absolute manifestation of anything within an essentially duality-based existence, and when we use the term ’light’ we do not mean absolute light, but instead we mean some level of light beyond a minimum marker on the spectrum of light to dark.

If we liken veganism to light and non-veganism to dark, we can see that while there is no absolute light or dark, there is a very apparent and obvious difference between light and dark, which we can easily identify. There are also degrees of light and degrees of dark. Let those degrees, in the analogy, equal the degrees of practice of veganism or non-veganism. Then we see the uselessness in saying that because absolute light does not exist, noon-day light is no different or brighter than dawn light.

So, the very definition of “being vegan” is something that occurs within relativity - it is both an ideal and a minimum requirement, defined as anything past a certain point on the spectrum of exploitation to non- exploitation (just as we label ’light’ as anything past a certain point on the spectrum of dark to light).

The minimum requirement to be vegan is to no longer directly, actively, knowingly participating in the exploitation and imposed-suffering of sentient beings. Let this=X and let Y=disregard for any exploitation of sentient beings. Between these we have a spectrum (represented by vegetarianism in terms of dietary considerations, by animal welfare in terms of being’s rights, etc.). But as we see, there is no final or maximum marker or final attainment of being vegan and the definition of vegan is not to be found at that imaginary absolute.

So, being Vegan means to be living at or beyond that minimum requirement and to be ever striving to reach an ideal that is essentially unreachable, but always increasingly approachable. This idea is at the core of non-violence, veganism and AR, and, imho, at the core of a life well lived. We identify the ideals we wish to live, and then we spend our lives approaching but never fully reaching those ideals (and thus humanity as a whole can follow the same progress). Along the journey we pass definite markers (the “knots on an endless string” of eastern traditions). And this is also, imho, the greatest gift of life - infinite perfectibility.

Thus, “nobody’s vegan” is based on an incorrect notion of the existence of absolutes within manifestation and/or a mistaken notion of what is meant by the marker ‘vegan’. The only way the statement could be true is to say that “Nobody has reached the ideal represented by the term vegan”. And that is true, as it is true for every ideal within manifestation. But many are living beyond that minimum marker - many have passed that particular knot on the string.

It is said that life is about the journey not the destination, but few really question why this is. The answer is because there is no destination. Veganism is such a journey.

Martial Arts and Animal Liberation

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:36:59 -0800

I think that there is a lot to be said in terms of how martial arts philosophy applies to life in general, and in regards to the animal righton movement it is especially pertinent and beneficial.

Many martial arts, such as Okinawan Karate and Capoeira, were developed and practiced so that oppressed people would have a means of defending themselves in lieu of access to arms.

Others, such as Tanglang Quan and Aikido, were designed with the explicit intention of giving a smaller or otherwise physically disadvantaged combatant an advantage over larger and stronger adversaries, and even greater numbers of adversaries.

The animal righton movement is currently in a position somewhat similar to both: there are no vast animal righton armies or police forces that can enforce compassion for animals with overwhelming artillery, and the movement itself represents a minuscule opponent going up against a much greater enemy, which is of course the status quo of mass apathy, prejudice, and abuse toward animals.

Lacking both firepower and numbers, the ostensible bleakness of our situation may make our ends seem impossible, or at least horribly distant. But this is only the case if we charge into our problems head-on; with the strategic mind of a good martial artist, we can find and utilize opportunities to give us an advantage, no matter how outnumbered we may be.

Leverage in Martial Arts

Since each joint is a lever, and since each martial art requires movement of the joints, leverage is a physical concept ubiquitous in the principles of all martial arts. However, one martial art that comes to mind that I have substantial experience in and exploits the concept of leverage extensively is Hapkido, a Korean martial art that is renowned for its hellishly painful joint manipulation techniques (believe me, I know).

The Ancient Greek scientist Archimedes famously said, “Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.” While he may have been disappointed to find out that attempting such a thing would quickly see him killed in the vacuum of space, this does serve well to explain the magnitude to which even small forces can have a great effect, provided that they find the right leverage with which to express their potential.

Getting to an advantageous point of leverage can be a challenge in itself, but it often proves to be a more worthwhile effort than colliding force with force, especially when you simply don’t have the mass to overpower what you’re colliding with.

Hapkido means “the way of coordinating energy”, which can be done by intercepting the energy of an opponent’s attack and then redirecting that momentum in a way that is disadvantageous for them, or by initiating an attack that manipulates their body into a position where you can exert an extraordinary degree of stress on their joints with only the slightest of effort.

Clearly, if we can extrapolate these tactics from Hapkido and apply them to animal righton, we can then bolster the effectiveness of our efforts considerably.

One very effective avenue for animal righton, that I think could be utilized much more, is lobbying. There are some instances in which something as simple as being friendly to a singular, tie-breaking legislator can determine decades worth of large-scale legal ramifications for animal righton.

This is a very strong example of both utilizing leverage to supersede a problem greater than yourself, as well as redirecting the momentum of a powerful force to gain an advantage.

Soft vs Hard Attacks

Another way in which we can utilize martial arts concepts, is the theory of meeting hard attacks with soft counters, and hitting soft spots (pressure points) with hard counterattacks, which is a strategy employed extensively in T’ai Chi Ch’uan. In martial arts, this could mean lightly parrying a straight punch, then using one’s spare hand to punch into the armpit that one’s opponent left exposed while extending out the straight punch.

When we apply this to animal righton, we may find that the difficulty lies in finding an adequately analogous situation, as there are no literal armpits to punch without the likelihood of subsequent incarceration.

In order to identify an appropriate analogy, we must first be willing to receive a hard attack from our opponents, such as a scathing criticism in a debate. This hard attack can then be made to look ridiculous by receiving it with a calm and intelligible response, and when their arguments inevitably reach a contradiction (i.e. humans deserve righton vs animals do not, minus any sort of logical justification for this [as of course there is none]), we can prey upon that weak spot with a scathing criticism of our own.

Facing Multiple Opponents

There are a few different routes we could take with this one. Leopard Kung Fu deals with this by leaping from one attacker to the next to focus on one opponent at a time, while Choy Li Fut uses multidirectional strikes that hit various attackers simultaneously. If done well, both methods are valid, effective, and certainly applicable to animal righton.

There are some who take a focused approach to animal righton, dedicating themselves to a singular subset of the issue although they may attribute equal or even greater importance to other issues as well. On the polar opposite end of the spectrum, there are those who choose to tackle as many animal righton and in fact social justice issues as they possibly can.

Both approaches have their pros and cons, and both types of people are certainly necessary in our movement. We need those who are willing to labor over a hyper-specific issue to see progress in the details, and those people need colleagues who can maintain a full view of the big picture to keep our varying purposes unified.

But for most people a middle ground can be met, where we keep our minds open to opportunities to do good whenever we can, while still staying mostly focused on a specific path.

When I have asked my martial arts instructor about strategies for fighting multiple opponents, he gave me the following advice (paraphrased): “It’s usually best to go for the toughest guy first, because then you can take out the biggest threat while you’re still fresh, and conserve your endurance for the less-dangerous opponents.”

This typically makes sense, and it does help in animal righton to see even a minor victory in a big battle, since a minor victory can have such a widespread impact for the welfare of animals. After we hit the big targets, working out the details becomes easier, since the core of the beast has been vanquished and the opposition’s morale suffers.

Although there was one exception to this strategy that he recommended (this time, not paraphrasing): “Sometimes it helps to beat the crap out of the weakest guy first, because then you can use him as a body shield against all the other guys.”

This is totally valid as well. For example, killing animals for fur is becoming more widely accepted as passé these days, you really have to be a jerk to go out of your way and waste money on making sure that your clothing suffered a horrible death. Although the fur trade is alive, well, and prosperous, in terms of mass public perception it is “the weak guy” in the multiple-attacker war against animals.

If we can beat the crap out of that issue until hatred for the fur trade is ubiquitous, then when people try to go back and justify similar abuse i.e. leather, then we can refer them to their opposition to fur (metaphorically using a “body shield” out of the “guy we just beat the crap out of”) and point out the contradiction.

Again, it’s nice that there are many people in the animal righton movement, and many different types of people as well. So where the martial arts analogy fails (which is the fact that we aren’t just one individual combatant) is actually a great thing, since it allows for the division of labor and the employment of multiple effective strategies at once.

Conclusion

When one embarks on the journey of fighting for the righton of animals, it’s wise to use some outside-the-box thinking so that the problems we face never feel insurmountable, just sometimes challenging to hit the right pressure points. As I’ve demonstrated, martial arts have a lot to teach us here, and even if you yourself do not practice a combative discipline, you can still borrow the same concepts to amplify your effectiveness as an animal righton proponent.

Martial Arts Diversity and Animal Rights Strategy

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:36:59 -0800

As a martial artist, I used to wonder if there was one ultimate way to focus one’s combat skills, if a style could be developed that took out all the stylistic frills and utilized scientific principles to form a perfect combat system. My reasoning was, if most human bodies are essentially the same, surely there’s one specific method of fighting that’s superior, and the plethora of styles within martial arts are just culturally-influenced deviations from this hypothetical one-true-way.

There is some degree to which the cultural and geographic background of martial arts contribute to their variation for practical purposes. For example, Capoeira was developed in Brazil by slaves as a rhythmic dance to disguise its combative purpose (since such practice was forbidden for obvious reasons), and its development helped contribute to a successful slave rebellion. In the Phillipines, the various forms of its native martial art of Eskrima differ from one island of origin to the next depending on the landscape, since some terrain requires higher or lower stances for stability purposes.

But the truth is that martial arts are arts for a reason. No “martial science” can ever be fully developed for the simple reason that combat contains so many potential variables in circumstance that no one singular way could ever account for all possible conflict scenarios. The evolution of martial arts thrives on its own diversity and differences in order to account for an infinite variety of situations.

In the application of any martial technique, one item of particular importance is the ability to catch one’s opponent off-guard, and to avoid being caught off-guard oneself, since most any attack that can be predicted can be quite easily defended against. Accomplishing this combination of spontaneity and preparedness is something that may require more than one approach, since if one’s opponent is familiar with one’s martial style, they are much less likely to be taken by the element of surprise. So while it can be beneficial to dedicate oneself to developing a specific set of skills, for those opponents who have developed an immunity to one’s tactics, it may become necessary to either develop a new skill set or recruit the assistance of someone who already has in order to defeat them.

There are some instances in which a showy, visual art like Capoeira can be impractical, but there are also cases where its exotic movements can catch people off-guard to great effect. Sometimes the receptiveness of Aikido can be beneficial for containing an attacker while minimizing damage, while at other times initiating the attack with an overwhelming offense, as is done in Tiger Kung Fu, can prove more effective.

This is where is the parallels between martial arts theory and animal righton activism come into play, as they often do. In the AR movement, there are those who claim that anything but demanding total abolition of animal abuse is treachery to the cause, while others insist that abolition is too distant a goal to even start fighting for yet. There are those who feel that a compassionate, caring approach and living by positive example is the only way to sway the masses toward a vegan lifestyle, while others feel that it’s necessary that we confront and challenge as many people as we can with great fervor until they get the point.

Yet all of these people share the same ultimate goal, that of animal liberation, and despite the infighting amongst them as to which approach is superior, different circumstances will inevitably necessitate varying approaches, and in the instances where one method fails to succeed, the others ought to follow up immediately to hit the issue from a different angle until any combination of strategies manages to succeed. In this way, animal righton activists can work side-by-side, without necessarily working hand-in-hand.

Valid comparisons to biological evolution and ecology and open-source software development can be drawn here as well. In evolution, subspecies variation provides additional bulletproofing for the species as a whole, helping to ensure that the weakness of one specimen does not lead to the downfall of all of them in the event of disease, scarcity, predators, pollution, and so on. Biodiversity reinforces the likelihood of an ecosystem’s ability to thrive for similar reasons, offering a great range of species within itself in order to prevent a macro-level cataclysm spiraling from the loss of one species, such as a key member of a particular food chain for example. In open-source software, a vast plethora of developers from a great variety of backgrounds contribute ideas and modifications freely, working toward a common cause of cybernetic advancement through different methods to create an ocean of ever- improving opportunities for software users to choose from.

But simply because we rely on a diversity of approaches to accomplish our ends does not mean that we must always exhaust every possible strategy available in every situation, as this would be far too great a waste of resources. Despite the unpredictability of conflict, martial arts can be methodical, and animal righton can as well. The general strategy is simple: implement what you have practiced the most until it becomes evident that that approach has fully used up its usefulness in that situation, then switch to a different approach to catch the opposition off-guard. Once a weakness is discovered, drive the attack forward until victory is attained, or the opponent catches on, at which point switch to yet another strategy and continue onward.

This is easier said than done though, and requires great persistence as well as creativity. If you’re creative enough (and with persistence you can develop that skill too), you will find yourself innovating new approaches to surprise and overwhelm the opposition with. And when others use approaches you’re not fond of, it is often best to leave them to it, provided they are not causing unnecessary harm in the process. Should their efforts fail, the results will urge them to stop, and the movement will be able to grow from the future avoidance of such efforts. And should they succeed, as long as they are pushing for the benefit of the animals, their efforts will become an example to emulate, as well as get us closer toward our final goal.

As long as we keep driving on for the betterment of all animals, our disagreements will not be a weakness of division, but a strength of diversity.

It Takes a Community to Raise Our Children

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:36:58 -0800

This is true for all our communities’ children, regardless of species! A perfect example is the story of Cathy Page and a duck family.

Cathy was driving home along the Trans Canada Hwy when she spotted a mother duck and her brood zig zagging between the barriers on the northbound side of the highway. They were trapped and the mother was trying to lead her line of babies to safety.

Cathy slowed down to see if she could help. Luckily, traffic was sparse allowing Cathy the time to observe and assess the situation. Soon a car came up behind her and then tried to pass. When the driver saw the ducks, she ,too, slowed down. The two cars formed an effective shield.

Cathy rolled down her window and called out to this new found partner that if they could give the ducks enough time there would be a break on the right side barrier that the ducks could use to get off the highway.

The two women kept guard while traffic piled up behind them.

Cathy, noting the traffic and seeing that the ducks were not moving towards the clearing told her partner she would stop and get out of her car to usher the ducks off the highway. With her partner holding fort, Cathy, arms outstretched, quietly escorted the mother duck and her babies to the clearing where they happily ran into the grass, out of harms way.

As Cathy rushed back to her car, she saw the waiting drivers clapping. Everyone was pleased to have been part of this rescue.

Traffic resumed and life became normal again. But Cathy was filled with the joy of having helped this mother keep her children safe. Though the moment was over, all the people involved, could keep the warm glow that comes from contributing to the well-being of a vulnerable other.

And somewhere there is a mother duck whose children are safe because of the support of a caring community.

Human Exceptionalism

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:36:57 -0800

Human Exceptionalism is the latest term to buzz around to describe the phenomenon of human supremacy. It is a clever term I would say, as it doesn’t have the bigot aura that supremacist carries. But in essence it means the same thing even if its users deny it.

Exceptionalism suggests uniqueness. Many animal righton arguments seek to downplay human uniqueness and trivialize it in order to boost the moral position of nonhumans. Exceptionalism counters that human uniqueness is real and significant.

I agree. So did Mark Twain:

Man is the Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. I think it is open to dispute. Indeed, my experiments have proven to me that he is the Unreasoning Animal. Note his history, as sketched above. It seems plain to me that whatever he is he is not a reasoning animal. His record is the fantastic record of a maniac. I consider that the strongest count against his intelligence is the fact that with that record back of him he blandly sets himself up as the head animal of the lot: whereas by his own standards he is the bottom one. (The Lowest Animal)

The fact that humans can torture and take pleasure from knowing they are causing others pain and misery and erect stadiums where they observe others committing tortures - that is also an example of human exceptionalism. The gang of youths who tricked their way into someone’s house and forced a mother and son to engage in a sex act and poured toxic chemicals in the son’s eyes, that’s human exceptionalism too. Exceptionalism doesnt necessarily mean superiority but the proponents of human exceptionalism intend it that way. In the final analysis its the same ol human supremacy belief and can be refuted the same way as every other kind.

So let’s do it!

Any quality you put forth to claim humans are special and deserve a double standard morality has TWO problems.

The first is that no matter how you slice it, that quality is subjective personal opinion and not absolute truth/fact. Nature and or invisible deities cannot be shown to care or make judgements. If humans were truly deserving of special treatment, would not Nature demonstrate this in some fashion? Wouldn’t gravity or the weather exhibit different characteristics towards humans than nonhumans? How in the world could we claim that this superiority is anything other than personal bias when we have no concrete evidence for it any more than we would have for racial exceptionalism or gender exceptionalism or religious exceptionalism?

I am ignoring all the examples where nonhumans are exceptional at qualities humans lack. This is ultimately window dressing and the diehard stubborn thick-headed human supremacist will simply dismiss such things as trivial since it goes against their narrow delusional world view. The most obvious proof that human supremacy is a fraud and last refuge of an idiot is that humans prey on other humans. Anyone who locks their door at night is not really a human supremacist. They do not trust other humans to respect this so- called superior worth of humans. Deep down we know this is just a fantasy story well tell ourselves to boost confidence or justify exploiting others.

This leads to the second problem.

Since humans do prey on other humans in a regular fashion, and since human supremacy cannot be proven to be anything other than personal opinion, it means that a racial supremacist/exceptionalist or a religious supremacist/ exceptionalist or a gender supremacist/exceptionalist or any other kind of supremacist/exceptionalist besides a human supremacist/exceptionalist can justify their favorite type of discrimination/exploitation against humans by using the talking points of . wait for it a human supremacist/exceptionalist. You cannot very well claim that humans are special and deserving of double standard morality as a personal opinion, and then expect other humans who have different personal opinions from yours to tow the line when there is no absolute or objective reason to do so. Even with all the laws and religious teachings in place, humans still find every excuse to steal, attack, rape, kill other humans.

Always have - probably always will!

The reason you have to, MUST acknowledge equal consideration status for nonhumans, if you are too selfish or callous to do so for compassion or respect of an equal, is to close this loophole that would let people you disagree with from justifying their position using your own impossible to prove beliefs.

It’s that simple.

Morality is not perfect. The inability to avoid all harm to nonhumans does not negate the principle. The failure to eliminate homicide or child abuse (or choosing to save the life of a familiar over a stranger in an emergency situation) does not justify concentration camps. The same can be said for farms and vivisection labs. If humans want laws to curb their behavior they must extend this to other beings out of fairness. Only humans require such laws and can be held to them-non humans obviously cannot, and to punish them because they cannot do something you know they cannot do is as fair as expecting a blind man to read a warning sign.

Morality does not follow a human created hierarchy. If human problems always come first then one could further refine and prioritize them based on the importance of race, gender, age, religion etc. That self-predatory human problem hangs on the neck of a human supremacist like the proverbial albatross.

Buddha and the Limping Lamb

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:36:56 -0800

There are many stories told about Buddha the Compassionate One. They carry the eternal message with a simplicity that any child can understand. Here is one of those gems.

The Buddha is taking a walk. He gazes at the beauty of the flowers of the field and says: “O trees and flowers of the field! How trustfully you turn your faces to the sun! And how trustfully nightingales and doves take shelter in you! Alas! man hurts the birds and slays the animals! The wisdom of man is drenched in blood!”

A herd of goats and sheep passes by. The Buddha finds that the herdsman is driving them with difficulty: there is an injured lamb who is limping and slowing the herd down. Affectionately, the Buddha takes the limping lamb on his shoulder. The herdsman tells him that the animals, 100 goats and sheep in total, are being taken to the king for sacrifice this evening. The Buddha, carrying the lamb, chooses to accompany the herdman.

At the place where sacrifice is to happen, the man in charge is about to strike the sword against the first goat, when suddenly the Buddha exclaims “Great king! let not the man strike! Take my life as a sacrifice, O king! and spare the goat!”

The words of the holyman move the heart of the king, who then asks the Buddha to speak to the people. And the Buddha says:

“O men! you can take life easily but, remember, none of you can give life! So, have mercy, have compassion! And, never forget, that compassion makes the world noble and beautiful. Remember, too, that all living beings are linked together in maitri [friendliness, compassion]. Therefore, resolve that you will live on bloodless diet. Verily, in gentleness is the crown of life!”

The next day, a decree is proclaimed by the king. The order goes forth that none shall henceforth kill for sacrifice or for private pleasure. For life is one through mercy and compassion.

Canadian Horse Defence Coalition

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:36:56 -0800

The Canadian Horse Defence Coalition was founded in 2004 for the sole purpose of ending the horrific practice of horse slaughter in Canada and the export of live horses for the same purpose.

As a committed vegan, I am opposed to the exploitation of any living being, so it was after a great deal of thought that I decided to develop a campaign to specifically help the horse. There were several reasons for my decision. One, I had been involved in the rescue of PMU (Pregnant Mare Urine) foals since 1997 and had horses of my own. These animals had touched my heart simply because I spent a lot of time observing their ways and trying to learn their language. They had impressed me as being intelligent, intuitive, and loyal. I could tell many stories about how wonderful they are, but one easily illustrates the depth and sensitivity of horses:

On a cold, slippery winter day, I slid down to the paddock to give my horses, Montana and Misty, their feeding of hay. Right after I had thrown the flakes of hay into the feeder, I slipped and fell on my back. Misty, who had grabbed a mouthful of hay as it was dropped, stopped in mid-chew and left the feeder to lean over the fence toward me. When I eased myself to my feet, she carefully inspected my back, up and down. It was clear that she was concerned about the accident and wanted to make sure that I was not badly injured. Of course, horses themselves, being “prey” or “flight” animals, are extremely concerned about falling, thereby making themselves vulnerable to predators. She had extended that concern to me. I then realized that I was part of the herd.

I also felt that stopping the slaughter of horses (possibly humankind’s “third best friend” after the dog and the cat) seemed to be an easier battle than asking the country to stop eating meat altogether. Of course, there is nothing less cruel about the mass butchery of cows, pigs, sheep, and other sentient beings, I argued with myself. But horses are “flight” animals with long, mobile necks; they become agitated very easily, and are thus extemely difficult to kill humanely. For this reason, their suffering in the stun box, I reasoned, may be more prolonged than that of other species. But, in truth, they ALL suffer and are terrified, I countered. Slaughter is inherently wrong, no matter who the target. It is the ultimate act of betrayal toward another living being with whom we share the earth.

The horse won, at least for the time being, because I had to start somewhere.

First, I decided to gauge public opinion in Canada on the topic of horse slaughter. In May 2004, an Ipsos-Reid poll showed that 2/3 (64%) of Canadians are opposed to the slaughter of horses for human consumption. This was a healthy majority (even with very little public awareness work having been conducted in Canada up to that point), so I knew that a campaign could be launched with confidence. The next job at hand would to let the world know how Canadian citizens feel about horses being slaughtered for meat, so a media release was sent out and a website started, Canadian Horse Defence Coalition. The response was nothing short of amazing. E-mails and telephone calls began to pour in. Horse lovers from all over the country, even from the United States (where the battle to stop horse slaughter had already been raging for years) contacted CHDC to offer their help and support. The movement to stop horse slaughter seemed to develop a power of its own. It would be several years before the coalition would become a dissemination arm for undercover work conducted at Canadian equine slaughterhouses. In the meantime, we organized ourselves with a board of directors and several strong writers who cranked out articles and letters to government and to other organizations. Some excellent donors stepped forward with their support. We started to send out “alerts” in order to let supporters know how they could help. Through the assistance of an international society called WildAid, we were able to do a launch of our campaign to end horse slaughter in Canada: the spokesperson was actor Bo Derek, well-known for her advocacy work for horses and wildlife. By this time we had secured hundreds of supporters, and their numbers continue to grow.

I’m proud to be working with the amazing group of people who form the board of directors of CHDC. Although differences of opinion can occur, decisions are quickly made after democratic discussion, and no one is left feeling like they are “not heard”. There appear to be no ego issues within the group. These are mature, sensitive - yet logical - individuals who share the same goal. Over the years, we have developed pat answers to deal with those from the other side of the fence who attempt to undermine our work. For example, pro-slaughter people are forever trying to pummel us with their propaganda, somehow thinking perhaps that we will cave to their arguments. A favourite question is, “What will happen to all the unwanted horses if you succeed in stopping horse slaughter?” We respond with a long list of where the so-called unwanted horses can go, but the most important point is the fact that an end to slaughter will automatically result in a reduction of careless breeding practices since the slaughter option will have been removed. We usually don’t hear from those folks again, because they are often breeders who send their “culls” to slaughter.

When horse slaughter becomes a chapter in Canada’s history books, we will still be working. CHDC runs a program called “Horse Protection Initiatives”, which encourages the adoption of horses from qualified rescue centres (rather than from breeders), and assists with euthanasia costs for elderly, lame, sick and otherwise compromised horses who would benefit from a quiet, peaceful ending to life. We have talked about expanding this program to include assistance with gelding (castration) costs. There will be plenty to do when the gruesome, cruel practice of horse slaughter grinds to an end.

We have learned many things while running this campaign. These points seem to have worked for CHDC:

Pick your battle. There are many issues out there
pick one and vow to give it all you’ve got.
Remain focused on your goal. There will be many diversions
stay with it.
Create a website.
Gather your supporters by sending out alerts and involving media when you can.
When you ask for donations, show your supporters how the money will be spent and what has been done with it in the past. A good track record of hard-hitting campaign work is effective. The public will appreciate those efforts and will know that if they donate to you, they will get results. This works better than begging for money.
If your campaign involves lobbying the government, do it relentlessly. Write letters to the editor (and ask your supporters to) in order to create a good, strong grassroots presence. Arrange meetings with elected officials. Start a petition, but make it official
stick to the government’s rules if you want the petitions read in Parliament. Online petitions are great for public awareness.
Don’t give up. Remember what Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi said: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win”.

Choosing

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:36:56 -0800

For the first time in my life, I questioned my faith in the innate goodness/beauty of all humans. I have seen and felt painful and cold aspects of being human in myself and others but nothing really shook a basic trust I had for limitless beauty in this world. Are the questions now … so what? Or what the heck are you talking about?

I am talking about what I have been learning about globalization and capitalism. It’s weird, that I have lived in a country, a ’third world' country none the less (Sri Lanka), which was immersed in a violent civil war. I have felt what it like to have machine guns pointed at me wherever I go and know that I wasn’t liked because of the culture and heritage I was born into, in some sense because of who I was.

Maybe, I was too young to feel the craziness of the situation. Maybe I was ’naive’?! Maybe, it was because I could look into the eyes of the young men and women who were holding the machine guns aimed at me. That I still saw, in their eyes, their fear and power, they were still vulnerable as humans.

I was in Quebec city a few weekends ago (April 20, 2001) demonstrating against the FTAA summit. At the beginning of the weekend I was aware of the three zones that had been designated by the organizers of the protests. Green for the persons interested in expressing themselves through the arts and those who were not willing to risk arrest. Yellow for the more aggressive but with he understanding of commitment to non-violence, but willing to risk arrest. The red would be the zone that was committed to bringing the 9 ft. wall constructed in Quebec City down.

It’s unclear to me at this point how much detail i should go into. i do not know how much you guys know of the events that happened around the summit. Well, I am going to assume that you guys know quiet a bit, otherwise this will be a very very long letter.

I was drawn to the yellow zone but with a firm commitment to non-violence. I did not want to be anywhere near the ‘violent’ actions. However, it did not take very long to figure out who was violent and who wasn’t. Even the most padded and gas masked protesters were no match for the officers in riot gear. I was right up at the perimeter more than once and the officers had no eyes, no face. They were protected head to foot. I got to witness what can happen when justice lies in the hands of a military state.

There is so much I want to write but I don’t know how much of what I am writing is coherent to you guys?!

One personal account is that, on the third day after repeated exposure to tear gas, I was part of a peaceful sit-in on a vacated street a block away from the perimeter and everyone involved was very clear that it was peaceful, including the armed riot police surrounding us on two sides. Two tear gas canisters landed an arm’s reach away from me. I had severe breathing problems and found myself spiting up a cleaning solution from a medic a few block from the incident when the riot police started advancing down the street with more tear gas. I had chest pains for many many hours following that incident. That was by no means the worst scenario that weekend for many others. There was pepper spray, water hoses and rubber bullets as well. There were times when the whole downtown area was immersed in tear gas Aren’t I lucky that I reside in a democratic first world country?

I guess what I am trying to say is that, the weekend in Quebec City dispelled many myths I had about Canada. About what it means to have freedom in North America. We have the freedom to be consumers and be ignorant to the injustices we perpetuate. We have the freedom not to stand in the way of capitalism.

I don’t know what to make of it. I don’t feel righteous. I don’t feel defeated. I feel like I don’t know much. I do know that I have a lot to learn in the next while that follows about globalization. I know that I have to re- evaluate conveniences in my daily life. I do know that the weekend in Quebec city radicalized a lot of people. I think it important that there be dialogue and action about our lifestyles and compassion.

The scope of the control and power available and exercised by organizations like WTO and certain ‘first world’ countries is somehow incomprehensive to me at present. I have been told it’s important to break down the stories and not be overwhelmed by them. That it is possible to examine aspects of globalization and make sense of it. That it’s not beyond understanding.

I am going to end it there for now, but what do you guys know?

Dogs in Heaven

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:36:56 -0800

There is a very beautiful story from the Hindu mythology’s Mahabharata that provides an insight to the meaning of our existence.

Five brothers who were kings and their wife, the queen (this happened through a misunderstanding of the concept of ‘sharing’ as expressed by their mother) after a long reign were embarking on their final journey - to heaven. To do so they had to trek up a mountain and along the way they were joined by a dog. The climb was so arduous they began to die off. Even the second oldest brother, the ‘hercules’ of his era, fell.

However, the eldest, Yudhishthira and the dog made it to the top where they were greeted by Indra the king of the gods. He congratulated Yudhishthira and told him to get into his chariot to go to heaven, but the dog walked in first.

Indra was infuriated (he had this tendency): “I will not tolerate a dog in my chariot! Get him out and let’s go.”

Yudhishthira said, “Through my journey up the mountain, my queen and my brothers left me. Only this dog stayed with me - I cannot leave him now.”

Indra exclaimed, “What! Are you mad? Dogs do not belong in heaven! Do you want to give up your place for a dog?”

Yudhishthira replied, “The dog stayed faithfully by me, I will not desert him - even for heaven.”

Just then the dog transformed himself into Yama the god of the underworld and spoke: “You have chosen rightly, my son. In life all shall leave us, our passions, our acquaintances and even those we love dearest. Only our Dharma, like the dog, stays with us regardless. To this Dharma, we must be true.”

Dulse

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:36:56 -0800

There is a tasty seaweed
On which I like to feed
Mineral rich, purple and salty dulse is
Good on salads, grains and pulses

I feel like a mermaid
Eating an Atlantis dish
To add a sea-like flavour
I needn’t hurt a fish!

I sprinkle flakes on salad
Mix it into hearty stew
Blend it into veggie soup
Or snack on a piece or two!

I have two bits of pet dulse
Floating contentedly in a jar
Above a bed of stony gravel
In veganism… let’s raise the bar!

Aquariums of sea plants
Are beautiful and kind
To our sea-life friends
And to our peace of mind!

Eat healthy vegan meals
Made of fruit and veg
And protect the animals
Today make this pledge!

Not only better for your health
And delicious choices wide
This way we join the animals
And are all on the same side!

Environmental Racism

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:36:56 -0800

“We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (Columbo 685)

The powerful words of The Declaration of Independence were announced some two hundred years ago, yet this country still toils with the problem of racial discrimination. Racism comes in many forms such as employment, wages, housing etc. There is yet another facet of racism which is being recognized called environmental racism. This is racial discrimination in environmental policymaking, law and regulation enforcement, and the deliberate targeting of people of color for toxic waste facilities. (Bullard)

Racism is defined by the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination as:

Any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human righton and fundamental freedoms in political, economic, social, cultural or any fields of public life.

The problem of racism has become so widespread in this country that it is hard to keep track of where the battles are being fought. Minorities are the unheard and unseen in this country, and are therefore taken advantage of by big money enterprises such as governments, industries and other corporations.

Many industrial companies are choosing to build their facilities in low-income neighborhoods where there is little regulation and cheap labor. The companies think that they can get away with endangering the public?s health because the people living in these communities are mostly uneducated and would not know what to do and who to complain to about the pollution problems. The industry leaders are also well aware of the fact that these people are often alienated from the political process due to language barriers, and socio/economic issues. Hence, they pose the least risk of resistance and taking public action. (UIA)

This problem exists all over this country from Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley” to South Central Los Angeles and from Native American reservations to Brooklyn and Chicago’s South Side, millions of Americans live in housing and physical environments that are over- burdened with environmental problems, hazardous waste sites, incinerators, petrochemical plants, lead contamination, dirty air and drinking water, and other threats to the public health. (Bullard)

According to Robert D. Bullard, a member of the Clinton Administration’s Environmental Justice Transition team and author of Unequal Protection: Environmental Justice and Communities of Color, environmental laws have been inconsistently applied, so that low- income communities and people of color suffer disproportionately from public health hazards. (Bullard)

Everyone has a right to live in a toxic free neighborhood, regardless of race, ethnicity and culture. No one should have to bear an undue burden of environmental pollution, yet the fact remains that toxic racism exists. Studies done on national, regional and local levels have shown a strong correlation between ethnicity and environmental hazards such as landfills, polluting factories and toxic waste dumps. (Toxcity Project)

This problem is certainly prevalent in Southern California. Though the U.S and Mexican borders are steel fenced, polluted air and water are traded freely along with other manufactured goods. The 10 mile section of the US/Mexico border which separates San Diego and Tijuana is one most heavily industrialized, populated, and polluted.(Environmental Health Coalition)

The maquiladoras, companies which operate on the U.S/Mexican border, are negatively affecting the environment and damaging peoples health with industrial pollutants. According to The Environmental Health Coalition which is based in San Diego, hazardous waste sites dot the border area like cancerous warts. Heavy heyyools, acids, solvents, and other industrial poisons pour out of company pipes and air stacks and into the surrounding communities. (Environmental Health Coalition)

Every year more and more companies are rushing to take advantage of the cheap labor and loose environmental regulations on the US/Mexican border area. For this reason there is a free flow of poisonous run-off directly into the nearby communities due to a lack of regulation and pre-treatments of toxic waste. Unfortunately the public is at a disadvantage for there is a lack of information available about chemical use, storage and disposal. Attaining this information would allow for the Mexicans to initiate protective measures. Hiding this information puts the public at high risk, but keeps the companies from public scrutiny and possible government action.

Huntington Park is another place where many racial minorities live, and where the dangerous practices of environmental racism are in effect. Recycling has an environmental-friendly image in L.A. Since consumption is very high there the reuse of basic resource materials creates hope for a sustainable future. Therefore recycling is the city’s big growth industry.(EcoNet)

People living in low-income communities do not share the same sentiments towards recycling. They are having a hard time seeing recyclings green image. The reason for the animosity towards recycling is that they live right next to these plants. (EcoNet) Local residents living near a glass recycling plant complain that there is always glass in the air. Mercedes Arumbula, a mother whose house is kitty-corner from the glass recycling plant says that the since the plant set foot in her neighborhood her kids have developed asthma and her little daughter is always sick. She says, I feel like my lungs are filling up with glass. (EcoNet)

A little further down the road is a heyyool recycling plant which crushes cars and heyyool appliances. The houses of these residents are cracking due to the earth shaking from the bone-jarring thumping of the heyyool crusher. Besides the many problems they are facing, their children are developing skin rashes in which they have found that heyyool granules are pushing up through their skins. Angry mothers went to the city authorities to complain, but were defeated due to city zoning regulations. In a nutshell, the city told them that they were living in the wrong place in town and that they should move. (EcoNet)

Such problems are unimaginable in places such as Hollywood. These places have too many wealthy families in the neighborhoods, and city official would not want to upset them or put them in any kind of danger. Besides, these well educated families have the clout and money to stop it from happening.

All is not lost for the people. There have been many victories in communities where plants have been shut down due to the dangers that they possess towards the environment and the people. Though there is still a long way to go to bring about racial and environmental harmony, peoples faith in hope of change still continues. Through community organizing and lobbying, people are standing up for their right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (Columbo 685)

TODO
links of relevance
library references

Fifth Column Veganism?

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:36:56 -0800

No one is perfect. Everyone is open to criticism. Any individual or group can be examined and criticized where appropriate and fair. The misery and death perpetrated against nonhuman animals is an unfathomable catastrophic hell, and one should seek to improve the lives of victims whenever possible while pursuing an end to the practices. This is what we would do with a human rights situation and nonhumans deserve no less.

In the 1980s and well into the 1990s, the conflicts between “animal rights” and “animal welfare” centered on disagreements between those who sought only to improve the lives of victims of exploitation and those who sought to end it, as well as disputes over illegal methods of protest (as was the case with efforts to end the slave trade). But any improvements in the wellbeing of nonhuman animal victims were not seen as a bad thing - except by the exploitation industries and their supporters. This is what we would do if the victims were human. Anti-death penalty advocates would welcome changes in policy that eliminated more sadistic forms of execution. We would not say: “Who cares if they suffer when they are going to be killed anyway?”

In recent years there are individuals who repeatedly declare their support for non-human rights and vegan goals but have been intensely critical of traditional tactics and campaigns, as well as the advocates themselves. And yet, so strong is their criticism that the exploitation industries are given much gentler treatment if not ignored completely.

It is reasonable to assume that someone who is very harsh on advocates would be as hard on the exploitation side they claim to oppose - the cause of the problem. If not, then one can ask this question: Why are you agreeing with the anti-AR arguments of those who engineer and profit from maintaining and increasing the exploitation of nonhuman animals?

There are a few beliefs being circulated by vegan animal rights advocates which originated from the mouths of the most hostile opponents to veganism and animal rights:

“big activist groups that oppose vivisection and other industry exploitation needlessly kill shelter animals when they can use donated money to keep them housed indefinitely”

“protests (aka single issue campaigns), ballot initiatives, and legislative changes by activists are useless, and will only increase not decrease animal exploitation”

“we can trust exploitation industry to make reforms according to consumer demand”

“a vivisector is more ethical than a non-vegan anti-vivisection campaigner”

“activists must be morally perfect–they must be against all exploitation of human and nonhuman animals”

“anti-fur campaigns are motivated by hatred of women”

“animal rights activists are racist”

“single issue campaigns only serve as fundraisers for big charities”

Every single one of these statements essentially mean: Exploitation isn’t the problem, the activists are the problem.

If you are a vegan or animal rights advocate, do you want to be agreeing with the side that opposes your goals?

This is what needs to be asked of supporters of Nathan Winograd and Gary Francione.

Nathan Winograd

Who cares if they suffer as long as they aren’t killed?

Nathan Winograd advocates no kill shelters claiming that the overpopulation of cats and dogs is a myth and that PETA and HSUS are maniacally committed to killing healthy animals (for monetary or nefarious ideological reasons), when the animals can be housed indefinitely through donations (a charge that was made against PETA in the early 90s by vivisectors facing criticism for animal torture).

He emphasizes a “let the market decide” view, claiming that if all shelters were no kill, this would drive animal breeders and pet stores out of business.

Regardless of whether PETA and HSUS can be criticized on ideology or policy, Winograd portrays PETA and HSUS as the problem, not any other factor or entity. He talks about PETA and HSUS having the budgets to house shelter animals indefinitely, but interestingly, does not make such a demand for financial assistance to shelters from the pet/companion animal industry such as food manufacturers or big chain stores, who help engineer and profit from the problem. Winograd does not offer solutions for how to avoid animals crammed into cages for their entire lives or ending up in abusive situations.

On his blog he speaks in vague terms on his opposition to nonhuman animal exploitation, but when doing a major media piece with a wide audience, he goes for the most savage sensational attack on his target: animal charities that oppose vivisection and meat industry business practices.

One could assume the purpose was to damage the public image of the organization in order to divert from exploiters, the source of the problem, as well as distract, divide, and demoralize advocates. But Winograd claims to be a 20 year vegan, and yet his first book interview was granted to the Center for Consumer Freedom, a widely criticized “astroturfing” group for major exploiters, including vivisection and the meat industry. He has responded to this lapse of integrity by comparing his interview with CCF to Fox News, equating a giant media corporation with a tiny obscure industry front group that opposes everything he claims to stand for.

Nathan Winograd recently announced that he had been denied his request to participate in a vegan conference where he intended to debate Gary Francione.

Gary Francione

He wants you to eat like you care but when you stop eating, not care?

Gary Francione is a law professor and author opposed to all forms of nonhuman animal exploitation for human use, while apparently focusing a great deal of his energy on criticism of animal rights advocates and organizations. He bases his “animal rights” argument on the property status of nonhuman animals and the arbitrary nature of criteria used to defend human superiority, maintaining that sentience is the only criteria that matters for determining moral value and that veganism (as he defines it) should be the baseline.

He has long been critical of the concept of “animal welfare” (as he defines it) and criticizes Peter Singer, who has defended some vivisection and non-vegan food consumption in accordance to his utilitarian moral philosophy, for not being a true proponent of animal rights/veganism.

In the 2000s Francione began criticizing “happy meat” welfare reforms, especially after a well-publicized agreement with Whole Foods which was supported by PETA and other organizations, and expanded his opposition to any single issue campaigns (with one exception).

He has regularly attacked PETA and Mercy for Animals among other groups. Like Winograd, he proposes a “let the market decide” solution to nonhuman animal exploitation and is consistently vague and brief on the wrongdoing of industries, sometimes appearing to agree with them in attacks on advocates who support legislation and protests that targets industry or groups.

Here are some examples:

He has said single issue campaigns and legislative efforts are not only useless but counter–productive (and immoral), fueling a demand for animal products (i.e. a ban on foie gras would encourage people to eat other meat, improvements to the treatment of calves would encourage people to eat more veal).
He alleges that if people engage in direct on the street vegan advocacy the types of reforms people want to see in farms will happen anyway as industry conforms to public sentiment (but without legislation or protest).
He has said that there is more fur visible on the streets of London than when he visited it in the 1970s. He has said anti-fur campaigns encourage (if not being motivated by) hatred of women and has hinted that advocates are cowardly for not confronting motorcycle gangs for their use of animal hides in clothing.
He has implied animal rights advocates who are not purely vegan are hypocrites and should be morally perfect.
He has said 200 years of welfare reform in the treatment of nonhuman animals has been a total failure.
He has implied campaigns against dolphin slaughter in Japan are racist and protests of Jewish ritual animal slaughter anti-semitic.
He has said those opposed to speciesism must also be against racism, sexism, and all other human rights concerns, however, he does not bother to say that an anti-racism or anti-sexism advocate must also be opposed to speciesism, nor does he say someone opposed to racism must also be opposed to sexism etc. (i.e. someone campaigning to end child abuse in Africa is not expected to also advocate for an end to sexism or discrimination against homosexuals at the same time - they are permitted to use single issue campaigns).
Moral perfection is not demanded of human rights advocates, but it is demanded of nonhuman rights activists.
This is a common double standard found in the arguments of those who say humans are morally superior in value (which as we have repeatedly said in other articles, falls apart quite easily after you examine the “Supremacy Myth”).
When Francione says a campaign that targets practices of a particular group promotes or encourages racism, he is saying in essence that the suffering and deaths of the nonhuman victims is not as important as hurting the feelings of the victimizers. In other words, humans are superior in value to nonhumans (aka adhering to the myth of human superiority).

His rhetoric is almost identical to comments and attacks made by supporters of exploitation industry dating back well before the 1980s. Every one of these claims has been made by those who engineer and profit from nonhuman animal suffering and death. At the same time, despite his support of a total vegan message, he is surprisingly soft on anti-vegans (those who are aggressively hostile to all aspects of veganism and nonhuman animal rights), often using defensive arguments (i.e. if someone challenges him to choose between a human and a nonhuman he answers by suggesting that if the choice were between a healthy human and a comatose person, just because he may choose the healthy individual does not mean the comatose person should be used in farms or labs. This does not make a strong case for why nonhumans should not be used in farms or labs, but it does counter the Peter Singer view that some nonhumans would be more deserving of moral regard than some humans).

He has also pushed the term “abolitionist” and linked the vegan philosophy to efforts to abolish the African slave trade, implying that abolitionists were not doing a single issue campaign, did not seek incremental change and sought immediate uncompromising abolishing of the slave trade. He ignores that the word abolitionist was a slander term used by pro-slavery interests to label anyone who criticized slavery as an extremist, or that abolitionists split on the issue of including women in leadership positions, and that they included John Brown, who advocated killing slavery supporters.

He has repeatedly equated current public attitudes towards human rights issues with nonhuman rights, ignoring the fact that acceptance of human rights did not happen immediately and came about through incremental changes (racial equality, children’s rights, etc) as public awareness and acceptance of these new ideas overcame ignorance and peer pressure among other obstacles. As we know, a perfect human rights society does not exist even today. His claim that 200 years of welfare reform has been a total failure conveniently ignores increases in world population and the role of exploitation industry in aggressively pursuing greater and greater profits during this time. He employs a glaring double standard, demanding that advocates ignore current abuse of nonhuman animals in society even though, if humans were the victims, such a position would be considered callous and immoral. Interestingly, his implied belief that universal human rights existed as a concept in society in the time of the African slave trade also echoes sentiments by nonsensical anti-animal rights parties that try to romanticize “human supremacy” as something universal and eternal instead of the reality: a recent conceptual development no different in design from racial supremacy or other bigoted harmful beliefs.

Despite his use of the term abolitionist, he is fiercely opposed to ALF activities as well, and when a pro-vivisection writer opined that an increase in UK experiments may have been due to the acts of a small number of “violent” activists - Francione was quick to agree in full, ignoring other factors like the greed of vivisectors or the callous disregard of institutions. Apparently only the advocates are to blame, and if they cannot police their own ranks (something no social movement has ever been able to do successfully) then they are responsible for the exploitation.

Francione’s hostility towards single issue campaigns that do not emphasize veganism has one exception: the adoption of cats and dogs from shelters, an issue that is completely removed from advocating vegan philosophy and one that is not opposed by anti-animal rights interests since taking an animal from a shelter does not challenge exploitation businesses.

On one hand he promotes a naively idealistic vegan “domino effect” conversion and on the other he consistently seeks to divide and demoralize activists, slandering them in public media, and steering them away from advocacy that would champion campaigns that exploitation industries oppose while demanding they seek vegan personal purity. It must be noted, exploitation industries do not oppose his “domino effect” vegan advocacy or his demand that vegans be morally perfect since a boycott of products with stearic acid by vegan individuals will do nothing to affect their businesses.

Like Winograd, he blames activists for imperfection in dealing with a problem although Francione avoids claiming there is no problem except the actions of advocates as Winograd does. However, he also goes very soft on exploiters, stating it as a matter of fact that exploitation is wrong without a detailed reason as to why for the benefit of any non vegans. And like Winograd, he ignores the role of exploitation supporters in maintaining or increasing cruelty and injustice. And rather incredibly, Francione suggests that industry can be trusted to make compassionate improvements on the road to vegan utopia without any kind of legislation or protest as they will apparently gladly concede to change (despite all news reports of them aggressively lobbying to prevent changes in law except for such things as criminalizing undercover investigations into the meat and dairy or vivisection industries).

Francione has not appeared to comment on Winograd’s single issue campaigning efforts or criticized him for not promoting a vegan message. But he has shared Winograd’s hysterical attacks on PETA through his internet media pages.

Francione has related anecdotes of his alleged encounters with single issue campaign protestors who gave up protesting on seal killing or hunting because they concluded they were in no position to protest when they weren’t vegan aka morally perfect. In almost every case Francione adds a comment such as: “they’re right” or “I absolutely agree.” Does he convert them to veganism after announcing his agreement with exploiter’s demoralizing and diversionary rhetoric?

Francione’s advice for advocates is to ignore stubborn nonvegans and concentrate on people who show compassion for nonhuman animals. And yet he has compared meat eaters to serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer or convicted dogfighter Michael Vick, speaking in a cavalier presumptive fashion which is sure to alienate people unless a detailed explanation is given for the morality behind extending concern to nonhumans (it is like shouting: “We are all Pol Pot!” during a discussion of genocide in Rwanda). A detailed explanation he does not bother to provide.

Also, he avoids going into compassionate appeals or detailed examples of exploitation - sticking to a mechanical recitation of an ethics formula adapted from Singer and Regan but more inclusive than theirs. This would suggest he is even more of an animal rights champion than they are, and yet, he consistently spreads a message of discouragement and divisiveness.

In the final analysis it does not matter what motivates Winograd and Francione to behave as they do, what is important is the message they convey, who benefits, and who doesn’t. The victims of vivisection, the meat and dairy industry, and other exploitation are not served by those who declare to be on their side while naively working to distract, divide, and demoralize the advocates challenging the institutions that create and profit from suffering and death. Nathan Winograd and Gary Francione may have the very best of intentions, but by being the unwitting mouthpiece of the injustices and industries they oppose, they harm more than they help.

Please, don’t be a fifth column vegan.

NOTES

There are endless examples of curious statements and behavior by Winograd and/or Francione. Here is a tiny sample (boldface is not in source text):

Nathan Winograd

Victim of censorship?

You would think if he, a “20 year vegan”, regarded vivisection as important he would start off an interview by declaring his firm opposition to it and other exploitation instead of adding it as an after thought on his blog with far less public reach:

I just did a radio interview on PETA’s campaign of companion animal extermination, based on my Huffington Post expose. Toward the end of the interview, the host asked me about killing rats for medical research and when I tried to speak out against that, too, I was cut off. (Blog)

Anti-PETA tirade

Here he goes into a hyperbolic tirade against PETA as usual and someone asks what they can do about a no kill shelter that abuses the animals. Instead of telling her how awful that is or to take the matter to the police or other authorities, he makes a short dismissive comment and directs her to a PR pamphlet for his site. This is Nathan Winograd, the animals’ savior. Also notice he deleted all negative comments.

Sherry M: “I’ve got a question. Is there any oversight for Rescues? Ran into one, very bad! Does anyone check on these rescuers? I’m all for no kill, but don’t want to see dogs tortured either…. So if a rescue takes in dogs, collects the donations, but doesn’t feed, socialize, exercise, clean them, what as a citizen can I do? I had rented my house to a rescue and witnessed this. As far as anyone was concerned this was legal. They would let things go just long enough. The dogs were adopted, without the new owners, knowledge of this, and no home checks either. Some were aggressive, and just might wind up in shelters again, because they didn’t socialize them. Scary to think it could be a cycle.”

Nathan Winograd: Sherry M It depends on the state, but as you know, it is not an either-or proposition. In other words, the choice is not death at the pound or torture. (Facebook)

Nathan Winograd says don’t blame breeders or the pet industry

“To continue to reduce every issue to a failure to spay/neuter is exactly what the regressive shelter director and the large, national groups which fight No Kill want animal activists to do: point the finger of blame anywhere but on those who are actually doing the killing. Those who love animals must stop giving them the luxury of this out. We don’t need animals to disappear from the Earth before we can do right by them. Instead, we should be demanding that those we pay to care for homeless animals with our tax and philanthropic dollars provide them the care, kindness, and a loving home that is their birthright.” (Blog)

(see previous item where he doesn’t appear to care about oversight of no kill shelters)

To Nathan Winograd, CCF = Fox News in media value?

Fox News is a giant media company that is impossible to avoid (even if you want to). CCF is a tiny obscure front group for industry that is easy to ignore (if one wants to).

During the same period, I did an interview on Fox News. For those who know me, my politics are different than theirs. I voted for Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich in the last two presidential primaries, not exactly the candidates embraced by Fox News. But I did the interview, not because I am caught in a “web of corruption” with Fox News, but because I know that when it comes to saving dogs and cats from death in shelters, all those things that separate us as Americans don’t apply. Red states or blue, rich or poor, black or white, Democrats or Republicans, we all love animals. (Blog)

Gary Francione

Gary Francione appears to throw some support towards a single issue campaign

“And it is time for New York City shift toward a progressive no-kill shelter situation. This can be achieved if New Yorkers have political will to make it happen.” (Website)

Gary Francione: Industry is not the problem/vivisectors aren’t so bad either?

The institutional exploiters are not “the enemy”. We are the ones who demand animal products. If we stopped consuming animal products, institutional users would shift their capital elsewhere. (Website)

Let the market decide!

Gary Francione: vivisection is so wrong that vivisectors are right?

Here he seems to make the assumption that many nonvegan anti-vivisection supporters have thought about their diet and the suffering and death it brings to nonhuman animals and deliberately and callously dismissed such concerns. He then suggests that a vivisector who directly and knowingly tortures an animal is morally superior to such protestors. He denies the anti-vivisection supporter the possibility of being kind but ignorant and gives the vivisector, who knowingly engineers torture of victims, the credit of noble social intentions.

“Many ‘animal people’ are not even vegan and are willing to tolerate and support the torture of nonhuman animals simply because they like the taste of animal products and just cannot give up the cheese, ice cream, or whatever animal products it is that they eat. How are these people any different in a moral sense from vivisectors? At least some vivisectors think that they are performing some social good. As I have indicated in my writing, I do not agree that the use of animals is necessary as an empirical matter and, like Penman and others, I maintain that vivisection is often clearly counterproductive.”

Gary Francione: Those who give up on protesting injustice are right?

I was talking with someone recently who was involved with a campaign against hunting in a particular park. He withdrew from the campaign and explained to me that he decided that what the hunters were doing was really no different from what he was doing in buying and eating meat from his local supermarket and since he certainly was not about to give that up, he couldn’t see the logic in opposing hunting.

And, of course, he was right.

I was talking with another person who had, for years, been involved in the campaign to stop the clubbing of seals. She withdrew from that campaign because she decided that there really was no difference between seal fur and the fur, wool, or skin of any other animal and since she wasn’t going to give up all animal clothing, the seal campaign was really just based on the fact that animal groups could cash in on the fact that seals were adorably cute and that really was not a good basis for a moral position.

And, of course, she was right. (Website)

Then did he convert them to veganism???

Gary Francione on Karen Davis and UPC

Let me be clear: I oppose the use of chickens as Kapparos–or for any other purpose. And I like Karen Davis personally ; I am glad that she was out there beginning in the mid-1980s trying to sensitize people to the plight of chickens, who are, with fish, the animals most exploited by humans but were often overlooked even by animal advocates. I appreciate that she promotes veganism more than many other charities do but I disagree with some of the welfarist campaigns she has supported and I am bothered by the anti-Kapparos campaign.

This is a perfect example of what is wrong with single-issue campaigns: they encourage the idea that what some group does is worse than what the rest of us do. A single-issue campaign focused on fur lets everyone who wears wool or leather off the hook and gives them an excuse to hate or attack those (mostly women) who wear fur. A single issue campaign about the dolphins at Taiji allows people, many of whom are not even vegan, to engage in vile ethnocentric and xenophobic hate speech against the Japanese. A single-issue campaign against a squirrel-shooting in a rural community encourages people to call those involved “rednecks” and “backward” when they are doing nothing different from what any non-vegan does or supports. And a campaign focused on Kapparos gives people an excuse to segregate the Jews as “bad people.

Single-issue campaigns are, on many levels, a very bad idea. They serve one primary purpose: fund-raising devices for animal charities. This is not to say that animal charities intentionally embrace campaigns that they know to be counterproductive in order to make money. It is, however, to explain the practical motivation that helps to account for why such welfare reform campaigns and single-issue campaigns are chosen and the failure to see how counterproductive they are. (Website)

Gary Francione: PETA and exploitation industries are collaborators?

Although Newkirk’s praise for Grandin is ostensibly bewildering, it makes perfect sense. There is a symbiotic relationship here. Industry needs welfarists like Newkirk to provide a positive moral characterization of their efficiency efforts. Industry needs to have its efforts to achieve efficiency, resulting in largely minor changes to the institutions of animal exploitation, declared “humane” by those identified as animal advocates. But PETA needs industry as PETA uses these efficiency measures to proclaim “progress” and to fundraise. For the most part, the campaigns of animal welfare organizations target economically vulnerable industry practices for precisely that reason. These practices are “low hanging fruit,” so there is an easy “victory” for fundraising purposes.

As I have written in connection with this debate and elsewhere, including my academic work and blog essays, I regard the actions of groups like PETA to be problematic. I think that it is terribly wrong under any circumstance to say that some form of “better” exploitation should be normatively endorsed when the resulting situation still involves a violation of fundamental rights. To say that a slave owner who beats his slaves five times a week is “better” than one who beats his slaves six times a week does not mean that the former is practicing “humane” slavery, or that the “better” slavery is morally acceptable, or that the “better” slave owner ought to be declared a “Visionary.” (Website)

Gary Francione: They are right but hypocrites?

Here he has a major media platform to speak out as a vegan and animal rights supporter why horse carriages are wrong - instead, he does a brief “Oh yes it is wrong of course” and attacks the horse carriage opponents for moral imperfection as any supporter of horse carriages would do.

So it’s apparent that our thinking about animals is very confused. Given the grand scheme of animal use, it is somewhat arbitrary to target the carriage-horse industry. Indeed, opposition to that industry by those who criticize it while chomping down on their burgers is based on nothing more principled than that we fetishize horses but not cows. It is like sitting around the dinner table eating animals while we discuss what a bad person Michael Vick was for fighting them. (NYTimes)

Gary Francione: Veganism and child abuse?

Gary Francione posted an article link at his facebook page 27/06/14: It may not seem so at first glance, but this is a rather demoralizing item about veganism in the news and also provides a poor response to use on others when such an issue is raised. Who would feed their infant child hard boiled eggs or steak? If he is inviting people to use this answer it would set the vegan advocate up for ridicule. Also, in the original fb post he doesn’t say he will write to Salon and set them straight or urge others to do the same.

Is veganism child abuse? A mother is arrested for infant neglect after a hospital crisis that began with her veganism. (Salon)

These parents limited an infant’s diet to “soy milk and apple juice.” That’s not a vegan diet. That’s a stupid diet. If the parents fed the child nothing but hard boiled eggs or steak that the child could not chew or digest, we would not be reading some article titled, “Is feeding animal products to an infant child abuse?” This is appallingly biased and just plain bad journalism.

Gary Francione on Vegan Outreach

Getting people to accept the beliefs and ideology of veganism is not easy especially as industry and social culture maintain so much peer pressure against it, and when you sincerely wish to get people to change it is probably not a good idea to badger them with a “you must be morally perfect” right from the start. You can run the risk of sabotaging the effort and making them regard all future vegan entreaties with hostility (as well as spreading bad publicity to others about veganism). And yet, here we see Francione chime in to support a demand for vegan perfectionism in advocacy, just as a proponent of exploitation industries would demand of animal rights protestors.

While Donald Watson, who coined the word “vegan,” was not advocating personal purity or moral perfection, Francione has a different view (in line with the views of exploitation supporter attacks on animal rights advocates).

“Vegan” Outreach maintains that it’s okay to eat meat and other animal products on occasion and we should not seek personal purity. (VO pdf) In my view, that’s not vegan outreach-it’s vegan bashing. If you care about veganism, consider whether supporting “Vegan” Outreach is a good idea. (Facebook)

Gary Francione: Vegans must be morally perfect? What about human rights activists?

Getting the public to pay attention to vegan/animal rights messages is difficult, and for those who think that the torture and death of billions of nonhumans is an infinitely greater concern than the risk of offending some people’s beliefs on race and gender in advertising imagery, the use of nudity or comparisons to racial injustice is considered acceptable and/or necessary. Whether such imagery is effective is another debate entirely. Francione is demanding that animal rights activists strive for moral perfection and avoid anything that would violate total allegiance to human rights beliefs. But does he make the same demand that human rights advocates avoid speciesism? He does not say, but his demand is exactly what supporters of exploitation industries have demanded of animal rights activists.

2. Those who reject speciesism are committed to rejecting racism, sexism, heterosexism, and other forms of discrimination as well.

Explanation: Some animal advocates maintain that the “animal movement” does not take a position on other forms of discrimination. That is not correct. Those of us who want justice for nonhumans are necessarily committed to justice for humans and for an end to human discrimination as well as discrimination against nonhumans. The animal movement should not, for example, be perpetuating sexism as a means to the end of animal rights. Sexism involves the commodification of women. Commodification is the problem, and not the solution. (Website)

Additional Critiques of Nathan Winograd and/or Gary Francione

Why PETA Euthanizes
Website devoted to answering Winograd’s attacks, not to be confused with Why PETA Kills although that is what Winograd likely hopes will happen as he created that website in response to the other.

Dr. David Sztybel Blogs:
Negativism in Francione, and Avoiding Negativism towards Francione
Playing into the Hands of Animal Exploiters
The Test Period
Demolishing the Absurd Myth of Complacency with 10% Support
Am I Obsessed with Gary Francione? No.

I’m Vegan: Gary Francione

Are No-Kill Shelters Good for Cats and Dogs?

Animal Rights and Wrongs

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:36:55 -0800

For centuries people have exploited, mutilated and abused animals in countless ways, oblivious of animal’s sentience. Today a new movement rising is questioning societies use and abuse of non-human animals.

The animal righton movement states that animal have a right to swim if they have fins, fly if they have wings, and run if they have feet. From killing animals for experimentation or for food, using them to do silly tricks, putting them on display, or hunting them for fun and alleged sport, animals bear the brunt of society’s violence. If only we can realize the value of all life, and see animals as sentient and necessary in the web of life, the world can then see that when we live in harmony with nature, we can find peace.

Animals have won the affection of millions in America. The media exposes an image of animals as cute, cuddly and furry creatures. However, many people do not know that animals are sentient beings with complex lives and deep emotions. (Montgomery 257) There has been a provocative dialogue between those who use animals for perceived human benefits, and those that are fighting for the freedom of animals from use and abuse by humans. (Nelkin and Jasper 9) This beautiful poem captures the essence of what the animal righton movement is trying to portray (Newkirk 3):

Coat with fur
Hat with feathers,
Lobster broiled alive,
Shoes and bags in sundry leathers
Of animals who’ve died.

Hunted, trapped, and torn apart
For me to satisfy

And, who am?
And what my rank?
That I may live
And they must die?

Skeptical individuals who do not know much about animal righton often bombard activists with many questions about ethics. A common asked is, “What if a house was burning down, whom would you save, a baby or the dog?” This all or nothing attitude serves neither side. Rights activists can come back and say “Well, if you were in a burning house with Lassie in one room and baby Hitler in another, who would you save?” Rather than playing analytical word games, we can join together to stand up for injustice to all living beings. As Chief Seattle so eloquently put it, “All things are connected… Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.” (Robbins 381) So the question is not a dog versus a baby, rather it is humanity versus insanity.

The ‘other side’ will argue that they are only animals, what do they know. They believe animals are stupid and we as humans are intelligent therefore we are superior. If we look at retarded children, they certainly do not have the same thinking abilities of able-children, but that does not make them any less sentient, or any less able to deal with pain. Since when has intelligence been an excuse for violence? After all we are the only species to ever devise nuclear weapons, the only species to put our own kind in concentration camps.

Research has proven time and time again that animals are able to feel similar emotions to humans. The work of Jane Goodall has opened the eyes of the world to the inner life of our closest relatives- chimpanzees. She found that they could be sad, angry, jealous, playful and most importantly show much compassion to each other (Goodall 249) This fact is often erroneously argued that emotions may apply to primates, but rats and fish don’t feel pain. A biologist at Cornell University of said that " The nervous system of a fish is similar to that of any other mammal, hence fish do feel pain." (Save Our Schools) As for rats, well ask anyone who has had a pet rat. They love to be petted and loved, and they can even do little chores for you. Rats, cats and dogs have been known to go into a burning building several times even when they get severe burns, to save their own babies. (Newkirk 45)

Another argument that is used is that animals cannot talk. They can’t talk like humans because they do not have human vocal cords. Some animals have learned to communicate through sign language, but can we communicate like animals? Many animals have such sophisticated means of communicated that they would leave us in the dust.

“Dolphins, for example, use echo location, bats use sonar, octopuses and cuttle fish use fantastic color waves and patterns that ripple through their bodies, and bees flap their wings at varying speeds to give complicated directions to flower beds.” (Newkirk 12)

Since through the facts we have established some forms of intelligence and emotional abilities in animals, it is reasonable to assume that they are indeed sentient and thinking beings worthy of our respect. Animal righton is based on the philosophy and the belief of the inherent value of all living beings: a value in their own right which is not reducible to their usefulness to human beings. All species should be treated with respect. We must break the barriers that we have built between ourselves and the rest of creation to extend love and compassion to all.

Many philosophical theories imperil animals. The Natural Law Theory is one which states that we should promotes basic human good and never violate it. (Reagan 147) According to this theory an animal can be used by humans if it can somehow promote the good of human beings. Some of the ways that humans use animals for their own benefit are the following:

In circuses animals are trained, rather forced to learn tricks that they would not naturally do out in the wild. Are we really that desperate to have a laugh at the price of another’s suffering? (Nelkin and Jasper 157)
Animals are caught in dangerous and extremely painful traps for their furs. People wear these furs as a fashion statement. Never knowing that it can take about 40 -100 animals to make one fur coat. But in recent times many models are realizing that compassion is in fashion. They are realizing that fur coats cost many animals aCari and want no part in it. (Nelkin and Jasper 138)
Millions of innocent animals are shot for a cruel and a poor excuse for a sport -hunting. This activity is certainly not a sport because there is only one player- the hunter. The animals definitely are not willing candidates. (Nelkin and Jasper 82)
Over 8 billion animals are slaughtered every year in America alone for human consumption. Maternal deprivation, loneliness, pain and constant confinement are just some of the items on the “menu.” Medical research for years has shown that a vegetarian diet is the ideal diet for all humans. (Nelkin and Jasper 147)

These are just a few of the ways that humans have used animals. We have exploited animals in every way possible, without ethical justification and feelings of remorse. Humans still have to learn how to live in peace with themselves, as well as all creation.

As Albert Schweitzer puts it, “Until he extends his circle of compassion to all living things, man will not find peace.” (PETA). Also, the great philosopher and scholar Pythagoras says, “As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings, he will never know health or peace. Indeed, he who sows the seeds of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love.” (Newkirk 57) The future for animals is looking bright now that many people are becoming aware of the suffering of animals, and are joining in a movement of millions raising their voices for peace for all living beings.

TODO
links of relevance
library references

Anti-Human Supremacy Animal Rights Argument

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:36:55 -0800

This essay is intended to offer a stronger alternative argument in accessible language for extending ethical regard and rights to nonhuman life forms than the “speciesism equals racism” and sentience/suffering criteria approach that is widely used in the animal rights debate.

It is an examination of what secular and spiritual beliefs motivate human discrimination against non humans, and the arguments employed to defend it. The approach is rooted in a variant of individualist ethical subjectivism, and uses the lack of an absolute, objective certainty in the claim of human supremacists and the reality of human discrimination against and predation upon other humans to force the observer into a choice, either extend rights to non humans, or accept that their belief allows humans to discriminate against anyone, including other humans, thus undermining their desire for an application of universal human rights.

Summary version

Humans who believe in a moral code of universal human rights but deny extending rights to nonhumans have two problems. The criteria(s) they use to justify this discrimination (faculty of reason, a soul, divine or evolutionary favor, moral reciprocity, survival of the fittest, individual selfishness, a bundle of characteristics or vaguely defined ones etc.) cannot be proven to be possessed by all humans or lacking in all nonhumans. Secondly, the importance of such criteria can be doubted– shown not to be objective absolute truth, but subjective arbitrary criteria conveniently determined by those who stand to benefit from the discrimination they wish to justify. Nature(or deities), through environmental phenomenon, weather, earthquakes, etc. cannot be shown to care or favor humans over other lifeforms as an absolute objective fact. This subjectivity means that someone who may discriminate against other humans (which happens despite the laws and philosophy designed to curb such incidents) using criteria that is just as subjective (skin colour, gender, class, religion, survival of the fittest, individual selfishness, etc) cannot be effectively condemned by a human rights advocate who denies rights to nonhumans, since both are discriminating according to subjective criteria of value they deem to be important. The only way for a human rights advocate to consistently argue that one ought to have systemic universal human rights and an ethical code based upon this idea is to extend the concept of fairness and justice to nonhumans as much as possible. Because humans develop ethical codes to govern human behavior, and nonhumans do not appear to employ or require such codes in their social interactions, they benefit from the consistency requirement in human concepts of fairness and justice without needing to reciprocate. To expect them to adhere to human moral contracts in order to be eligible for moral regard is like expecting a blind man to be able to read and then punishing him for not doing so. That moral regard may not be possible or practical in all situations due to particular factors (such as scale or absentmindedness or the inability to be perfect), but since the same is true of human on human interactions, it does not invalidate the merits of the argument or provide a loophole for humans to justify systemic exploitation of nonhuman lifeforms (since one could then justify the same for humans). The common argument for animal rights that values sentience as the criteria of moral worth and attempts to define human discrimination against other species as speciesism, analogous to racism and sexism, does not fully address the philosophical nature of human attitudes towards non human lifeforms, or provide sufficient arguments to counter most if not all attempts at refutation as does the formula presented above.

Essay: The Anti-Human Supremacy Animal Rights Argument

Morality is like the sun. Anyone who lives above ground has a word for it. They may be spelled differently but in translation mean the same thing. The principle of showing compassion for others and a concept of justice is universal to many if not most human beings living within a society or family unit, although who and what constitutes the right of being shown compassion and justice has been subject to debate, change, and circumstance.

Systemic discrimination based upon arbitrary or subjective criteria of value that is conveniently determined by those who stand to benefit from the discrimination would commonly be considered unfair. An example of arbitrary criteria is skin hue, gender, height, weight, age, language or the ability to play basketball. Many people prefer certainty, the feeling that right and wrong is based upon some absolute objective impartial unquestionable truth. A criteria of value that is uncertain and dubious leaves the door open for people to decide that the particular criteria is not important to them, and that some other criteria is more so, and may lead to disagreement and social inequality. In order to have a moral code and laws, you need the agreement of as many people as possible about what is right and wrong, fair and unjust.

At one time human slave trade abolitionists were mocked and called misguided, traitors, and enemies to mercy and civilization. James Boswell wrote: “To abolish a status which in all ages GOD has sanctioned, and man has continued, would not only be robbery to an innumerable class of our fellow-subjects; but it would be extreme cruelty to the African Savages, a portion of whom it saves from massacre, or intolerable bondage in their own country, and introduces into a much happier state of life; especially now when their passage to the West Indies and their treatment there is humanely regulated. To abolish that trade would be to shut the gates of mercy on mankind."(1)

Historically, racism and sexism were attacked by challenging the perceived inferiority of other races and women, and nCarid superiority of the victimizer. Activists would highlight common traits that were put forth as more important than skin colour or gender, such as the ability to reason, or to worship a deity. They endeavored to widen the circle of compassion and respect by emphasizing the similarities not differences.

Animal rights activists use the same tactic and the most popular argument may be summarized in this way: Humans feel pain, non human animals feel pain, therefore we ought to treat the latter with respect and concern for their well being and not expose them to unnecessary cruelty through systematic industrial exploitation. Sentience and not reason is the true criteria for moral consideration and many species share this attribute (while some humans do not possess it and are yet afforded rights). Therefore, extending at least some rights to non humans is a moral obligation, a duty. Just. Fair. To deny this is to be speciesist, the equivalent of being racist or sexist.

But the popular animal rights argument does not address the full spectrum of philosophical motives of humans who are either ignorant of, or opposed to animal rights. Some might say scientific research needs to be done to be sure a species meets the qualifications of sentience, or they may say sentience does not matter to them, only a specific kind of reason/intelligence, or an “immortal soul,” or the fancy of an invisible creator, or, they might say life is full of pain and cruel, and why should we care about reducing suffering when it goes on unabated in the wild? Or they might say that ethics are irrelevant, every species is speciesist and humans have a natural gut instinct to stick together. Often, the animal rights debater requires that the listener accept their own ethical system, even if it requires abandoning a theistic world view for a secular one. George Bernard Shaw observed: “Religion is a great force - the only real motive force in the world; but you must get at a man through his own religion, not through yours."(2)

Lurking behind every single type of argument used to defend human exploitation of Nature and non human lifeforms is what may be called a common religious notion, that humans as a group, are better as an absolute objective unquestionable truth to all other life, according to criteria that is conveniently determined by those who stand to benefit from the claim and discrimination/exploitation of other life. This belief is often taken for granted as if an axiom, and usually not expressed in precise terms, with good reason, as it leads to the Regress argument. An absolute is the final answer to a question. If you can question it, how can it be absolute? For every why there is a because and for every because another why. A belief in human supremacy is subject to many a why.

Despite this doubt, it is so accepted that it permeates the language. To be kind is to be humane, to be evil is to be inhumane, or nonhuman. You are a pig, a rat, a dog, a wolf in sheep’s clothing. A weasel. A stool pigeon. If you are not human you are subhuman, a monkey, a snake in the grass, a cockroach. A worm. Either wicked, stupid, irrational or useless.

If you are a Theist you call it Dominionism or the Great Chain of Being. If you are a Darwinist you call it evolution, or Top of the Food Chain. Animal welfarists and hunters will claim they are meant to be Stewards or Managers of the natural world. If you are treated like an animal it is bad. Or you behave like an animal it is bad. To compare non human suffering to the Holocaust is called insulting and obscene(although the word holocaust in Hebrew meant “the sacrifice of a male animal on the altar of God” - ironic that it can be used to suggest victimization of humans but not for the originally defined victims). Humans are higher animals, the rest are lower. Animals are an “it.” You do not execute them in shelters, you “destroy” them, like furniture.

Some have criticized the concept of human superiority. Jonathan Swift lampooned it in Gulliver’s Travels.(3) Mark Twain did the same in the Damned Human Race and satirically noted that it was humans who were inferior to other animals: “Man is the only animal that blushes, or needs to."(4) This view is often called misanthropic, which usually carries the definition of hatred. It is very often compared to racism or declared an irrational, anti-social philosophical stance, and rarely defined as a belief that humans cannot be trusted, or as a critical appraisal of human nature (one could ask whether white abolitionists who criticized the actions of their race and class would also be called hateful).

In animal rights language this supremacy belief is sometimes called Specieism but that is an inaccurate and problematic description. Speciesism (like the term Anthropocentrism) invites dubious suggestions that it is unavoidable, other species do the same, and that it is not necessarily negative or connected to an articulated belief in supremacy. As far as we can observe, only humans can engage in it. We have no proof that lions walk around thinking: “Lions are better than everything else. We deserve special rights.” This fact will be of importance to the animal rights argument that is to follow.

The concept of supremacy extends beyond humans believing they are better as a species to all others. Despite their promotion of democratic ideals, the ancient Greeks considered those who did not speak their language to be barbarians. Many people, from the Inuit to Jews to the Chinese to Germans to Serbians to the Japanese at one time or another have regarded their group as better or more worthy of special consideration than others, based on race, or language, or religion or a myriad of criteria. Although there are laws in place to discourage discrimination against and predation upon other humans, it still occurs. This fact will become of vital importance to the animal rights argument that is to follow.

The concept of universal human rights did not exist until the 20th century, and even today, despite efforts to promote it as a unifying moral code, many humans continue to think they are better than other humans according to race, or skin colour, or class, religion, appearance, wealth, or ideology, and take actions based upon such thinking. We still have war, crime, injustice, human slavery. All based upon one or more humans who think their interests are more important than another.

Those that champion human rights will agree that being white or Christian or male is trivial and subjective. But, if they oppose non human rights, they still hold to another criteria-some attribute that they deem as being important, just as the pro slavery white Christian male did 200 years ago.

Definitions for this criteria of value include the faculty of reason or some kind of special intelligence, a soul, the blessing of a divine creator(s), essential goodness(as opposed to non human life’s alleged essential wickedness), the ability to comprehend moral concepts, or reciprocity in moral conduct, creative ability(even though a tiny minority compose symphonies and some paintings by elephants can be difficult to distinguish from those by abstract expressionists), or a bundle of special qualities, or a faculty x which is never specifically defined beyond A (human) is greater than B (nonhuman).

All of these criteria and any other brought forth to suggest human supremacy have two inherent problems.

One is that often the criteria meant to distinguish humans from non humans cannot be universally applied to humans and/or excluded from non humans. Case in point, some humans are more intelligent than others. Does that mean the ones who are less intelligent deserve fewer rights if “intelligence” is so important? If not, then why? Usually the fall back is to another criteria, which can then be questioned, and another fall back criteria may be highlighted which is again questionable.

Some claim that humans possess a faculty of reason-or cognitive ability to control and govern their behavior that “irrational” non humans do not possess (i.e. the ability to understand rules, duties, obligations, and causality, as well as having a theory of mind). And yet-who starts wars for ideology or non essential resources? Who pollutes rivers? Who overpopulates itself without natural checks? Who will engage in violence for recreation, or commit dangerous even self destructive acts? Gophers? Spider Monkeys? It is always one species-human. The stupidest acts committed on this planet are done by human beings. The cruelest acts are committed by humans. It may be true that some humans will self sacrifice to save another-but other humans will do the opposite, save themselves by putting someone else into harm’s way. And non humans have been documented exhibiting altruistic behavior (both within species and beyond). In vicious experiments conducted on rats(4) and Rhesus monkeys(5), the victim would spare themselves from a shock if they performed an act that would harm another of their kind, and yet they refused to do so. However, humans in similar situations such as the Milgram experiment(6), were willing to (simulated without them knowing it) shock another human simply because they were told to by an authority figure. The most violent domestic cat does not erect arenas or stadiums designed so that other cats can watch and take pleasure from the suffering of mice, knowing that they are causing suffering. As Mark Twain observed: “Of all the animals, man is the only one that is cruel. He is the only one that inflicts pain for the pleasure of doing it."(7) Humans are capable of mental torment, verbal abuse, and taking pleasure from knowing that they are causing suffering to someone else. This is uniquely human. It is true of a child tormenting flies in a jar, or a scientist with a PHD who gives a rat advanced notice before being shocked in a learned helplessness experiment. The same capacity for “reason” that allows one to do mathematics can be used to design a torture device or urge a suicidal person to jump from a building.

Then there is the claim that humans are meant to be custodians or managers of Nature. Basic observation proves otherwise. A common worm is more of a steward of Nature than a human being. Insects are called low and worthless yet they help pollinate flowers (occasionally they might get acknowledged for their usefulness to humans, but not to themselves). The majority of so-called stewardship that humans do is actually damage control, cleaning up rivers polluted by other humans, restoring habitats destroyed by other humans, helping wildlife or domestic animals left homeless by other humans, and that does not include efforts that backfire, like the World Wildlife Fund attempting to curb the hunting of rhinos for traditional Chinese medicine by encouraging the hunting of the Saiga instead(8), which led to a 90 percent decline in the latter.

Damage control is not stewardship. Worms and bees are stewards - even a wild bison urinating on grass is more of a steward of Nature than a human being. Some “mainstream” environmental groups like the WWF actively encourage the killing of so-called invasive species (i.e. the broadtail possum in New Zealand(9), introduced by the Australian fur industry, and in case of the Nature Conservancy, hire hunters to kill them (the pigs and goats that were abandoned on the California Channel Islands by farmers)(10). Once again there is a double standard. Supposedly protecting native species is so important that it requires lethal means, and yet when it comes to the most destructive of all species, lethal means of protecting the environment is no longer an imperative. Even the use of the term “protecting the environment” is imbued with human arrogance-first the idea that Nature is fragile and needs governing from humans, and secondly that humans exist apart from the environment. Sometimes the notion that humans live in Nature is used to claim that humans should be able to exploit and kill as they see fit…excluding other humans of course.

The second problem is that like the value placed on skin colour or maleness or the ability to juggle, it is subjective-determined by humans who conveniently stand to benefit from the claim of superiority.(14,15) The universe or Nature or an invisible deity cannot be shown to acknowledge such criteria as important or favor humans above all other life by direct evidence (instructions written in allegedly divine-inspired books dictated by humans who stand to benefit from the claims in those books also are dubious). Erupting volcanos do not disperse their lava flows in ways that spare humans. Man-eating sharks do not get paralysis if they attempt to bite a human swimmer. Earthquakes and hurricanes do not make special alterations to spare humans-and ironically, non humans are often aware of approaching disasters before humans are. They have their own unique abilities, but since humans lack them, you do not see “the ability to predict earthquakes and avoid destructive weather” highlighted as a valuable quality in determining the criteria for moral value.

Any criteria of value humans use to suggest their superiority can be questioned. Why is it important? If it is so important, why doesn’t the universe and Nature acknowledge it with easily perceived actions or rewards? If it can be questioned - it cannot be absolute.

If it is not absolute, if it is not impartial objective truth, then it cannot stop other humans from deciding to base a criteria of value on something else that they deem more important that discriminates against fellow humans - which they have been doing since the beginning of recorded history and continue to do despite the laws designed to curb such actions. This fact is extremely important because often the notion that humans have a right to freedom from discrimination and exploitation is accepted as an unquestionable truth and taken for granted, by both sides in the animal rights issue. It, like human supremacy itself, is treated as an axiom. Humans do not have a demonstrable “right” to life. If they did, Nature would surely exhibit some evidence of this truth. Those that argue that Nature does not recognize a non human right to life conveniently overlook the full picture. If you want universal human rights in your moral code, you need nonhuman rights, at the very least, for the sake of consistency and self-interest if not actual concern for the well being of non humans. You can not say you oppose discrimination based upon arbitrary subjective criteria by shunning it in one example, but encouraging it in another. And most people who adhere to a belief in ethics and compassion will want some consistency and fairness, a sense that they are adhering to something that is as close to being as absolute and impartial as possible.

The spiritual humanist will say a deity gives them special regard according to a belief in specific revelatory theism. But how do you prove that beyond a book written down by those who stand to benefit from it? And if one person can say “my Deity says this”-another can say the opposite. And if caring about nonhuman life is wrong, who came up with surplus compassion, the Devil? If an immortal soul can not be detected in a corpse of a man, how can it be denied in the corpse of a dog? Supposedly man is created in the image of God, and yet traditionally woman was seen as a secondary creation, and other nations inferior to the Chosen people. If biblically sanctioned discrimination such as dominion over women or human slavery(17) can be revisited, there is no absolute, unquestionable or practical reason to stop there. Secular humanists will say that humans are better than non humans, and this is assumed(without proof) to be objective truth, but if Nature is non judgmental, and has no human-like mind, then why are they assuming it can make a judgement (through ideologically driven biology) about one species being better than another? That is the equivalent of saying a chair has no mind, and then declaring that an apple is superior in value to an orange according to the chair. It is Specific Revelatory Secularism. Secularists have housekeeping to do with their beliefs if they want to distinguish themselves from Specific Revelatory Theists.

Some have said that if humans have to recognize rights for lions, then lions have to recognize rights for humans-but this concept of reciprocal moral regard or contractualism is another subjective criteria. There are humans (children, mentally handicapped, criminals) who receive rights even though they cannot reciprocate (or refuse to in the case of criminals). One would not expect a blind man to be able to read road signs, so why would one expect a lion to be able to understand human concepts of morality? It is a double standard, and if anyone thinks they can get lions and spiders to follow human concepts of morality, best of luck in trying.

It is dubious to assume that humans have moral codes because they understand the importance of morality or lofty concepts of good vs evil. The universe can not be shown to care about human morality, but humans need moral codes because they can be irrational, unruly, prone to acts of violence and stupidity that risk their survival-behavior which a fair number of individuals think should be discouraged through laws. Non humans observed in their natural habitats do not behave the same way. Lions do not appear to need codes, but they happen to benefit from the consistency problem inherent in human concepts of moral rights that requires they be considered as beneficiaries of moral concern as a matter of consistency, fairness and justice (and in order to avoid giving an excuse to humans who do not care about human rights to discriminate as they see fit).

Faced with such threats to a human belief in supremacy, some will deny it or say they are motivated by survival of the fittest and that it is a “dog eat dog” world. And yet, if you say that such a belief means people would have the right to prey on each other (as they always have despite laws designed to curb such behavior), usually they will protest.

They want to have their cake and eat it. They are unwilling to be consistent. They always have the double standard and the fall back to a subjective belief in supremacy without absolute justification. There are tribes, dictators, and classes who have done quite well without caring about the rights of all humans. Does a family man living in the Appalachian mountains need to care about the rights of a villager in Lebanon? Why should he? In practical terms most people go about their lives with little contact with humans in the rest of the world, and could well be a dictator in their own house without ever facing justice for it. And that is another contradiction-some will say the reason we should respect other human beings is strictly for self interest-the Golden Rule: “do under others as you would have them do unto you,” not out of a concern for the species.

You cannot claim you are against injustice or unfair discrimination based upon arbitrary subjective partial standards or criteria of value committed against one when you are condoning it against another.

Or they will say humans have an emotional bonding or moral intuition or tenacious moral instinct for taking care of their own-but if that were so then surely we would not be discussing it. Animal groups would not exist. We would not have crime, wars, injustice against humans, and we would not need laws to stop humans from violating this alleged instinct or intuition. Anyone who believes humans have an instinct to watch out for other humans are free to wander through a dangerous part of town with a $1000 in their hand and see how well an instinctual drive to care for other humans comes into play. One does not usually lock their doors at night to keep out pit bulls. And if one claims there is a moral intuition to rescue a human before a dog, essentially “familiarity,” then a claim of instinct or emotional bonding can apply to human relations. One could have a closer intuitive bond to a drowning person who speaks the same language, or has the same appearance. Familiarity by humans is not restricted to a species line.

Humans do not even have an instinct for self-preservation that cannot be overridden. Humans have been known to risk their lives for non humans, ideology, or even inanimate objects (money, religious symbols etc).

Another tactic is to say that one cannot be perfectly moral when it comes to dealings with non human life, thus we should not even try. The issue is not moral perfection, but trying the best one can (and certainly factory farms, zoos, research labs and other massively organized and complicated structural entities for exploitation and discrimination are not as difficult to avoid as scratching your arm and killing a microbe or accidentally stepping on an insect). No ethical view can take into account the interests of everyone at all times. And one can certainly argue the line of moral regard is not drawn at animals-that it is wrong to exploit trees and other plants. Sentience is as much a subjective criteria as any other. If there are problems in implementing an ethical policy that includes non-animals, then it is true of all potential beneficiaries of moral conduct (i.e. you may live on land that was once occupied by others who were driven off or killed due to colonial aggression; or pay taxes to a government that uses the money to finance wars, or use drugs that were tested on unwilling human patients in Africa etc.). No one can be perfect, either in compassion or cruelty, but the failure to be morally perfect does not then mean one has to fall back to some line like species to focus one’s discrimination. If you argue for that-then there is no reason why someone else cannot draw the line at race, or religion, or intelligence instead of, or, in addition to species (which many people do already). In fact, if one attempts to argue from convenience, then committing a homicide is much more practical than establishing a factory farm or stalking through a forest with a rifle in search of an elusive animal. No matter how one looks at it, the reality of human predation hangs on the neck of the anti- animal rights position like an albatross.

Recently, there has been a movement that romanticizes early agriculture and subsistence hunting. They focus on cruelty not rights, and think the solution is to replace factory farming with more traditional agriculture or a return to subsistence hunting. Never mind that factory farming grew out of small farming (and if it can happen once, could happen again). Never mind that small farms and pasture grazed animals contribute to ecological problems like global warming and the wasting of crops and water (a very old human rights-centered argument for being vegetarian) and the killing of wildlife (i.e. wolves, as natural predators, dare to intervene with the production of human dietary choices by attacking herds). The “happy meat” movement as it has been called is somewhat akin to saying that you are 100 percent against cockfighting, but thinking the only possible way to deal with it is to promote groups that use dull spurs on their birds, and actively telling people to patronize “dull spur” events instead of telling them to avoid cockfighting altogether.

As for hunting, a long standing fable has been that humans are natural predators like a wolf or tiger, but humans are not naturally born predators and this is easy to prove. Humans are not born with the tools to chase down, rip apart, and devour prey. They require spears, stones, and projectile weapons. The idea that a man who aims a device at a deer and presses a button is the same as a cheetah chasing a gazelle is part of the delusional contradictory attitude that humans have about Nature. On one hand they will say that Nature is evil (in traditional Judeo-Christianity the domain of Satan, Lord of Nature) and that non human life is essentially cruel, savage, mean, uncivilized. And yet, they will glamorize and worship predator animals like the wolf and tiger. But humans are weaklings, and real predators face a difficult lifestyle. They have to chase their food, risk injury which can be lethal, deal with competitors, and occasionally be thwarted by the prey themselves. If someone says tools are the equivalent of fangs and claws then there is a little problem, the same tool-making ability that is used for hunting non human animals, can also be used for tilling the soil to plant seeds or to kill other human beings. You do not often hear about tigers and wolves planting gardens or killing other tigers and wolves, and they do not get sophisticated in how they “play with their food” the way humans do. Decorative masks or malanggans of New Ireland(12) used boar teeth which required forcing a domestic animal’s tusks to grow in spirals, causing much distress to the animal. Another ritual by a tribe in the same region involves inserting long thin sticks into the hearts of pigs(13), which causes them to experience a slow, excruciatingly painful death. Nonhuman carnivorous predator animals do not have time or interest to engage in such calculated cruelty.

And this reality is true for both the city dweller and the aboriginal, who often get a pass from ecological groups due to some sort of politically correct colonial guilt or romance with pre-industrial cultures and the concept of the natural man or “noble savage” which can be taken as derogatory and placing some humans on a different level. This overlooks that so-called subsistence hunters like the Inuit have access to electricity, firearms, and other industrial inventions at the same time they want to pick and choose their traditional lifestyle choices. If the Inuit are meant to live in the Arctic like a polar bear or seal, why are they not born with all they need to survive in the climate? Since humans do not need to live in these climates (biologically, their bodies are not equipped for it), they do not need to hunt or fish. If an Inuit is naturally meant to hunt in the Arctic, as is frequently claimed by defenders of exploitation industries that use First Nations communities for supplies or propaganda (i.e. whaling, sealing and trapping), then its factual validity can be tested by simply having one brave Inuit hunter jump naked into the Arctic sea and try to bite a seal to death with only his teeth and bare hands. The outcome would speak for itself on the issue of whether First Nations people or any humans should, by biological design and necessity, hunt and fish.

As for the argument that killing is acceptable if you eat what you kill - it is the same as saying it is acceptable to murder someone if you rob them at the same time.

This is not to say that subsistence hunting is as systematically cruel as factory farming (being burned alive may not be as bad as being skinned alive either), but it is not ethical or non destructive. The term “buffalo jump” refers to the practice of stampeding herds of buffalo off cliffs so that tribal hunters of the American plains could take what they want and leave the rest to rot. Lions are not so ecologically wasteful and unfriendly. The Makah tribe of the Pacific Northwest had two traditions-human slavery and whaling. They wanted to revive one but not the other. Is it not forcing Western values on them to say they do not have a right to keep slaves like they did prior to colonial times? Furthermore, you often hear that subsistence hunters regard non humans as their brothers - and yet in the case of the Makah, the word phrase for Grey whale means “big backs are bad,” or devilfish. It is a strange endearment for your brother (not to mention firing a harpoon into him).

If one regards non colonial societies as human, then they should be subject to the same rights and obligations as any other humans, according to basic principles of fairness and justice. If a human group, whether in the Sahara, a coastal Japanese fishing community, the Arctic, or some isolated island can hold to a moral view that they deserve special regard at the same time they declare themselves to have a right to systematically kill for sustenance, then they can be criticized for adhering to an unfair moral system, according to their own understanding of right and wrong. The concept of being fair and compassionate to others is universal, and the most basic animal rights argument is merely a logical extension of that principle. If it is ethically wrong for human groups to engage in human slavery, cannibalism, oppression of women and children, then the same should be true for their interaction with other species, to be fair and consistent in ethical policy. No human group in the 21st century needs to kill other animals for food-period. If we can put a man on the Moon, and design a computer that can play chess, then we can provide daily sustenance for all humans without resorting to harpoon, hook, and gun. The issue of practicality or implementation is a separate affair. Loss of traditional independence is a trivia disagreement. It can be assumed that many would agree that life should trump lifestyle.

Sometimes animal rights activists are accused of anthropomorphizing Nature - i.e. they want to paint non humans as essentially good and humans as essentially wicked. Given the fact that the definition of the word humane is to be good, and the word inhumane (or non human) is to be evil, it is about time we shifted the bias in the other direction. The fact is that humans anthropomorphize Nature even when they claim they do not, it is just a matter of how one perceives it. For the human supremacist, they will regard Nature as wicked, cruel, savage, and downplay those qualities in human beings, suggesting that they arise from our primitive heritage, not as a result of our brain capacity as it is. Mental cruelty is a human trait. Taking pleasure from the suffering you know to be causing to others is a human trait. As mentioned earlier, only humans have arenas for blood sport. Only humans will mock their victims, or laugh at the suffering of others, or be fascinated by road accidents. Only humans have been known to get sexual pleasure from violence, or deliberately having intercourse with corpses. A male lion or grizzly may be known to kill the offspring of a rival male-but do they rape them as well as humans have done? Have they set their own offspring on fire out of spite, or injected them with AIDS to get out of alimony payments? If one says some human-like cruel behavior has been observed in chimpanzees-then what does that prove given that we are told that they are our closest relatives?

Nature can not be shown to play favorites. An elephant does not have to worry about being stepped on like an ant-but if both fell off a cliff the disadvantage can be for the elephant. Nature may be called cruel, yet it gives bulls and elephants a tail with hair to brush away flies and not a fly swatter as many humans would surely prefer, given their indifference to insect life.

And once again you have contradictions. Zoo keepers will say that animal activists do not recognize the harshness of Nature-and yet they treat whales and seals in marine parks like Disney mascot performers, training them to nod their heads and do tricks for the crowd. If an elephant or whale attacks a trainer, the circus officials will feign shock-and claim it is not possible that the happy, human-loving animal captive was capable of acting like a wild (non Disney-like) animal.

Some (usually white men) have attempted to attack animal rights philosophy by claiming it is mainly a white upper middle class interest, and that other races are too busy fighting off discrimination themselves to care about non human life. And yet many animal activists are women, who do know something about discrimination. Animal groups exist in many non European countries, including ones with internal strife like China and Mexico, so the idea that one cannot be concerned about discrimination against someone else if you are a victim of it yourself says more about a pundit’s lack of desire to help others if he was a victim of discrimination than how the majority of others behave.

But the idea that we need to deal with human problems first suggests that compassion and social activism must follow a hierarchy - if that is true, then which is a greater priority-racism or discrimination against the homeless? Discrimination against gays and lesbians or discrimination against handicapped people? In practical terms people do not follow a road map for compassion. It only gets highlighted by supremacists in the discussion of non human rights. Utilitarian attempts to calculate precise figures for who suffers and who gains are academic exercises which have little practical value given that it cannot be demonstrated that the moral system is the correct one. The same is true for Ethical Egoism, especially when it denies that by following its logic, discrimination against other humans should be permissible.

Sometimes one will get the question, but if you had to choose between saving the life of a drowning man or a rat/dog/pig, who would you save? The most practical answer would be whoever you can save. If it was a choice between two humans no one would ask who do you save first (unless one was a racial supremacist). Once again it is the double standard based upon an assumption of human superiority. If you chose to save an individual human that you had more familiarity with-does it mean that the loser deserves being enslaved in a factory farm or a laboratory?

Nowhere is the contradictory logic demonstrated more plainly than in how humans defend research on non human animals. Someone will say: but if you had to save the life of your child, would you not sacrifice a rat? The answer to this should be no less controversial than if you had a choice between your child and a neighbor’s. If you chose your child, does it mean you want the neighbor’s child to be tortured in a lab? If you refuse to choose, does that mean you do not love your child as much as your neighbor’s? This type of question is not raised, even when we know that the best research model for human disease is another human. To suggest that a rat is the best model for human illness would be like saying you can cure diseases in elephants by using giraffes. It is not as if scientists can torture a few rats and find a cure (if that was the case cancer would have been cured in the 19th century). Scientists take advantage of a publicly accepted quasi Darwinian/Great Chain of Being/Food Chain myth-that life can be broken down into components and a rat is a simpler version of a human, as opposed to being a separate species with no hierarchy beyond the subjective one created by humans. Additionally, there is a problem with treating innocent non human animals in a way that would be considered an atrocity if done to the most despised criminals. If finding cures for diseases was of such importance, and not partly motivated by financial interests (few drugs are offered for free), then why not use criminals or volunteers in medical research? It is strange that people will be sent off to be maimed and killed in wars for natural resources, religion or political ideology and yet the war against cancer is only considered of dire importance when it comes to abolishing non human animals in research.

Scientists in animal research also benefit from public faith in science, and salvation through technology (while ignoring such unsavory realities as Thalidomide or the over the counter cough syrup turned narcotic plagues Heroin and Cocaine). The worst of them will cut or burn victims, inject them with chemicals that cause painful birth defects, deliberately drive subjects insane (even when they claim they have no minds), and many other atrocities for monetary and career reasons since they know that cures for Death do not fall off the tree like apples, but promises of a “breakthrough” guarantee grant money. However, those that engage in such actions with the heartfelt claim that they only want to heal show a twisted sense of morality. Animal researchers tend to have an extremely poor grasp on ethics and will attempt to justify their actions by citing benefits (with such logic a thief might cite the benefits to his family by stealing from someone). Animal research is a perversion of common sense altruism, attempting to help one by causing misery to another. Imagine trying to alleviate a homeless man’s plight by kicking a family out of their house and calling it an act of compassion. And if you criticize them, they may either accuse you of wanting to plunge humanity into the Dark Ages (they share some similarities with Voodoo witch doctors and ancient priests of augury-making money by cutting open and reading the entrails of animals and using fear as a persuasion tactic) or call you a hypocrite if you benefited from any sort of drug that had also involved non human research. Never mind that drug companies continue to do experiments on humans in Africa (since they know that they need human test subjects), or that the medical research done by J Marion Sims (the former head of the American Medical Association honored with a statue in New York’s Central Park who helped find human treatments through experiments on human slaves ) and Josef Mengele, was kept and used (in the late 1980s camp survivors tried to have Nazi research destroyed but were told it could be useful to human health). Apparently one can be against human experimentation and still benefit from it, but not so with nonhuman animal research. The double standard is in full display.

This author is of the opinion that if one is serious about advocating for the improvement of circumstances for non human life forms that come into contact with human beings, and supporting a concept of fairness and justice for them that cannot be easily denied, then a new approach to animal rights argument is required to address important areas of the discussion that are omnipresent and left unanswered by the cruelty/sentience criteria and “speciesism equals racism” position. Specifically, it requires an approach that directly challenges the human belief in supremacy, and highlights the fact of human predation upon other humans as a natural phenomenon. At the very least, it can be a plainly spoken alternative that does not require that one adhere to a specific traditional ethical system, religion or subjective criteria of value for determining moral worth (i.e. Utilitarianism, secularism, sentience/reason), but uses the beliefs of the listener as well as the reality of human nature in order to make the case for expanding moral regard to nonhuman life forms as a matter of common sense ethical consistency. While the argument facilitates the extension of moral regard beyond animals, a failure to practically or consistently implement such an ethical policy to all possible beneficiaries does not negate the validity of the approach, since the lack of moral perfection already exists in human conduct towards other humans, and any effort to draw the line at humans as a matter of practicality or convenience does not stop another from arguing that race, gender, or any other subjective non species criteria is even more practical/convenient. The freedom of human behavior to be as discriminatory as possible to other humans as a matter of observable fact and history is the ultimate thorn in the side of those who argue for exclusively human-centered rights. The fact that it utilizes a harsh observation of human existence and behavior in Nature against those who use a similarly harsh view of Natural phenomenon to dismiss claims of nonhuman rights makes it especially potent. It is hoped that among animal rights debaters, those who may be disturbed by a lack of absolute certainty or possibility of attaining moral perfection in the ethical system, or cling to some concept of human supremacy as a personal comfort, would not outnumber those who can embrace it. Numerous field tests of the approach against hard line opponents of animal rights has shown that it succeeds in frustrating their efforts to go on the offensive and often removes a desire to continue the debate.

Notes

(1) Boswell, J., Life of Johnson (N.Y.: Modern Library Edition, 1965) p. 365.

The wild and dangerous attempt which has for some time been persisted in order to obtain an act of our legislature, to abolish so very important and necessary branch of commercial interest, must have been crus(h)ed at once, had not the insignificance of the zealots who vainly took the lead in it, made the vast body of Planters, Merchants, and others, whose immense properties are involved in that trade, reasonably enough suppose that there could be no danger. The encouragement which the attempt has received excites my wonder and indignation; and though some men of superior abilities have supported it, whether from a love of temporary popularity, when prosperous; or a love of general mischief, when desperate, my opinion is unshaken. To abolish a status which in all ages GOD has sanctioned, and man has continued, would not only be robbery to an innumerable class of our fellow-subjects; but it would be extreme cruelty to the African Savages, a portion of whom it saves from massacre, or intolerable bondage in their own country, and introduces into a much happier state of life; especially now when their passage to the West Indies and their treatment there is humanely regulated. To abolish that trade would be to shut the gates of mercy on mankind. Christians Organise Slave-Trade

(2) Shaw, G.B. Getting Married, 1908

(3) Swift, J Gulliver’s Travels Book 4, A Voyage to the Country of the Houyhnhnms. Chapter XII

My Reconcilement to the Yahoo-kind in general might not be so difficult if they would be content with those Vices and Follies only, which Nature has entitled them to. I am not in the least provoked at the Sight of a Lawyer, a Pick-pocket, a Colonel, a Fool, a Lord, a Gamester, a Politician, a Whore-Master, a Physician, an Evidence, a Suborner, an Attorney, a Traitor, or the like: This is all according to the due Course of Things: But when I behold a Lump of Deformity, and Diseases both in Body and Mind, smitten with Pride, it immediately breaks all the Measures of my Patience; neither shall I be ever able to comprehend how such an Animal and such a Vice could tally together. The wise and virtuous Houyhnhnms, who abound in all Excellencies that can adorn a Rational Creature, have no Name for this Vice in their Language, which has no Terms to express anything that is Evil, except those whereby they describe the detestable Qualities of their Yahoos, among which they were not able to distinguish this of Pride, for want of thoroughly understanding Human Nature, as it sheweth itself in other Countries, where that Animal presides. But I, who had more Experience, could plainly observe some Rudiments of it among the wild Yahoos.

(4) Twain, M. Following the Equator

(5) Altruism in rats using shock experiment: Animals Can Tell Right From Wrong, by Richard Gray, Science Correspondent. May 23, 2009.

(6) , Jules Masserman 1964:

(7) Milgram Experiment

(8) Twain, M. The Lowest Animal

(9) Rare antelope driven to edge of extinction

A well-meant but misguided decision by conservationists is driving a central Asian antelope to the brink of extinction, a report claims today. Poachers who were encouraged to hunt the saiga, an antelope of the steppes of Russia and Kazakhstan, to ease the pressure on rhino in Africa and Asia, have brought about a catastrophic 97 per cent fall in the animal’s numbers in a decade, according to this week’s New Scientist magazine. The decline from more than a million to fewer than 30,000 is through to be the most sudden and severe population crash of a large mammal. The saiga has been hunted, says the report by Fred Pearce, a science writer, because in the early 1990s the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and other conservation groups actively promoted the saiga horn as an alternative to the horn of endangered rhinos, which is used as an ingredient in traditional Chinese medicine…..The plains used to be black with these antelopes, but now you can go out there and not see any at all, says Dr Abigail Entwistle, director of the Eurasia programme of the conservation charity Fauna and Flora International. This is the most sudden change in fortune for a large mammal species recorded in recent times….According to the report, WWF began a campaign in 1991 in Hong Kong to publicise saiga horn as an alternative to rhino horn, which when ground up is widely used in traditional Chinese medicine as a remedy. Rhinoceros populations in Africa and Asia have also been devastated by poachers hunting them for their horns….According to Eleanor Milner-Gulland, of Imperial College London, the leading Western expert on the saiga, there is no known case in biology where the sex ratio has gone so wrong that fecundity has disappeared in this way. Dr Milner-Gulland says that between 1993 and 1998, saiga numbers across central Asia almost halved, to around 600,000. Then, with most of the males gone, the population crash began in earnest, with numbers halving each year since, until last year’s census recorded just 30,000 individuals….Hunters are unlikely to drive the saiga to total extinction but without an unexpected reversal in its fortunes it will soon be confined to zoos and a few small reserves.
(Rare antelope driven to edge of extinction by well-meaning conservationists - Michael McCarthy Thursday 13 February 2003)

(10) The broadtail possum in New Zealand - introduced by the Australian fur industry

(11) Nature Conservancy and the hunting of pigs: Island Pig Eradication Spurs Wild Controversy, Clodfelter, L. March 2 2005.

(12) Tusk decorated masks or malanggans of New Ireland: (New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, Crescent ISBN: 0517004046. 1987. Page 437 ).

(13) Tribal pig ritual: Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse 1991.

(14) Washington, H.A. Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present, Knopf Doubleday, 2006

(15) Big Pharma Tries Out First World Drugs on Unsuspecting Third World Patient

By the end of July a US district court will decide whether drug giant Pfizer should stand trial in the United States for presiding over a coercive, botched 1996 experiment on Nigerian children with meningitis. In a class- action suit filed last August, thirty Nigerian families say the company violated the Nuremberg Code by forcing an unapproved, risky experiment on unwitting subjects who suffered brain damage, loss of hearing, paralysis and death as a result…….Globalizing clinical research solves the pharmaceutical paradox that while the average American brings home more than ten prescriptions a year, just one in 350 is willing to play guinea pig for new drug testing. An abundance of poor, undertreated and doctor-trusting patients in Eastern Europe, Latin America and Southeast Asia renders the quick, positive results corporate sponsors need to get new drugs approved fast. According to one review, a whopping 99 percent of controlled trials published in China bestowed positive results upon the treatment under investigation…..Even if Americans were willing to participate in trials, they take so many medications that they make poor lab rats anyway, clinical researchers say. To prove a new drug safe and effective, “you want patients with no other disease states and no other treatments. Then you can say relatively clearly that whatever happens to those patients is from the drug,” says MDS Pharma’s Simon Yaxley, whose company sells what industry PR folks call “patient recruitment solutions” in Eastern Europe, South Africa, Latin America and China. In developing countries, many people, because they are poor and don’t have access to clinicians and hospitals, aren’t taking any medicines for their illnesses…Conveniently, many of the FDA’s ponderous regulations stop at the border. For example, the FDA’s requirement that companies prove that their experimental drugs are safe on animals before starting tests on humans doesn’t apply for tests conducted outside the United States. And experiments on Americans must undergo painstaking, lengthy reviews by government-regulated “institutional review boards” (IRBs)…The FDA simply requires that foreign trials conform to the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki, a series of ethical recommendations that critics call rudimentary, nonbinding and ambiguous. Scientists routinely ignore Helsinki directives to publish negative results and make study designs public, and they liken Helsinki-required ethics committees in developing countries to rubber stamps. “No ethical questions are raised at all,” one investigator admitted to the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC)…..What results is one set of acceptable risks for patients at home and quite another for patients abroad, a double standard that has left hundreds of preventable deaths in its wake. Most notoriously, in the mid- and late 1990s, the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control funded and defended studies in which Western scientists withheld treatment from HIV-infected pregnant women in developing countries, even though they knew antiretroviral drugs would reduce the rate of HIV infection in their infants by two-thirds. Hundreds of infants “needlessly contracted HIV infection” while Western doctors presided over their care, according to an incendiary New England Journal of Medicine paper by Public Citizen’s Dr. Peter Lurie and Dr. Sidney Wolfe..” Published in the July 1, 2002 issue of The Nation. Globalizing Clinical Research: Big Pharma Tries Out First World Drugs on Unsuspecting Third World Patients by Sonia Shaw.

(16) Example of government agencies breeding wildlife for hunting:

New Jersey offers sportsmen and women more than 500,000 acres of state-owned public open space providing a diversity of habitats from hardwood ridges and rolling hills to pine forests and salt marsh. This total includes more than 276,000 acres in 118 Wildlife Management Areas, specifically managed to enhance wildlife populations and provide for wildlife-oriented recreation."…New Jersey offers more than a hundred days of deer hunting, including seasons for bow, shotgun and muzzleloading rifle. Multiple bag limits are the rule in most zones. The 2001-02 deer harvest was 68,669. In addition, some of the best waterfowl hunting on the East coast is found in the Garden State. Snow geese, brant, black duck, mallard, bufflehead and a variety of other waterfowl species provide extensive hunting opportunities, especially on the coastal marshes. The Rockport Pheasant Farm produces 55,000 pheasants annually for release on selected wildlife management areas. The wild turkey, reestablished in the late 1970s, continues to increase throughout the state with the population now estimated at 18,000 - 20,000 with an annual harvest of more than 2,000.
New Jersey Dept. of Fish and Wildlife website

(17) Biblical attitudes disavowed today:

NT pro-slavery:
Ephesians 6:5-8 5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; 6 Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; 7 With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: 8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.*Colossians 3:22 22 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:”

Indifference to Poverty:
Matthew 26:6-11 6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, 7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat. 8 But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste? 9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor. 10 When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. 11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

Beating and Killing Slaves:
An owner could beat a male or female slave but would have to avoid serious injury to eyes or teeth and beating the slave to death unless they died a day or so later: Exodus 21:20-21 “And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property].”

A Long Long Time

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:36:54 -0800

Until we are compassionate to all beings, including ourselves, we are doomed to repeat the lines ’lest we forget’, ‘stop racism’, ’equality for women’, ‘keep our ancient forests’, ‘reduce reuse recycle’, ‘do not eat our friends’, ‘rats have righton’, and so on so forth.

Some are under the impression that they are superior somehow. This is apparently a justification for the presumed dominance and ill treatment of others. It has been suggested that some are more intellectual, can reason better, can control and manipulate their environment. My question would be to what end? Ultimately, whatever we do to our environment, we do to ourselves.

Same could be said for oppression. With the various forms such as the African slave trade to the Americas, women’s lack of equality, the treatment of the Jews under the Nazi government, the cutting down of old growths, the destruction of eco-systems, the experimentation on chimps and rats, the eating of cows and chickens, there always has to be an oppressor and the oppressed. For you cannot beat and abuse another being if you are able to acknowledge their capacity to suffer.

However, if they weren’t up to your standards, if they weren’t rational, if they didn’t feel pain the same way you did, if they were ‘heathens’ or ‘barbaric’ and if you could go so far as to objectify them, then heck, get out the whips and let’s reap the rewards in gold and silver.

Greed seems the common theme, be it the slave owner getting hard labor from his slaves, men not sharing their position and privileges in society, Hitler confiscating Jewish property, lumber magnates doing as they please with our forests, industry heads getting away with using water bodies as garbage dumps, the factory farmers being able to butcher their ‘property’, or researchers justifying the use of their grants.

It’s hard to give up unless we know what it’s really costing us. History shows we repeat atrocities and injustices over and over. There is a phrase that goes ‘if we forget our history we are destined to repeat it’ and Bruce Cockburn put in another way “Why does history take such a long, long time?”

Perhaps we never learned that the lesson was not just that racism, sexism, or speciesism are unjust, but oppression itself against any individual is intolerable.

Analysis of Vivisection Argument

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:36:54 -0800

Vivisection is the practice of torturing and killing innocent lives, allegedly in the name of altruism and compassion. This is why it has been criticized as far back as Shakespeare, formed the inspiration for Frankenstein, and why the likes of Mark Twain, Leo Tolstoy, and Gandhi were opposed to it strictly on moral grounds.

Intuitively we know that if you seek to help someone, torturing innocent bystanders is morally perverse, like saving a village by destroying it. We don’t help a homeless person by massacring a family and call it kindness.

Vivisection is defended according to the belief that human animals have superior moral worth to the nonhuman animals being tortured and killed in ways we would generally consider extreme punishment if carried out on the most despised criminals in history.

This can be called a belief in human supremacy or human exceptionalism (in an effort to disguise the “bigot” connotations of a superiority complex).

Human supremacy is assumed to be an absolute objective truth - without proving it to be so. In fact, in reality, human supremacy beliefs are biased personal opinion just like beliefs in racial, gender, or religious supremacy. Any trait, criteria, or attribute cited to confirm this alleged superiority, whether mind, intelligence, soul, creativity, divine or biological specialness, survival of the fittest, tenacious moral instinct, moral reciprocity, an unspecified faculty X, or a bundle of them, are as much subjective personal opinion as the importance given to skin colour or gender. Not only can one question that all humans possess the attributes or that all nonhumans lack them, but Nature does not confirm this alleged superiority through natural phenomenon like weather, gravity, earthquakes etc and the constant routine natural exploitation of humans by other humans - which does include experimentation on humans without their consent.

Nature cannot be shown to validate this allegedly “objective and absolute” superior moral status of humans. And invisible supreme deities are conveniently vague and mute on the subject as so-called indisputable religious texts are constantly disputed- to the point of human bloodshed. If you claim humans can justify the systemic exploitation of nonhumans based on biased personal opinion then another human can justify the systemic exploitation of humans using biased personal opinion since you cannot prove these opinions to be absolute, fair objective truth. In short, if you want human righton, you must accept nonhuman righton to close this ethical loophole.

It is common sense that only humans can be shown to use moral codes and laws in an effort to control their behavior thus they are the only ones obligated to follow them, nonhumans benefit without needing to reciprocate out of fairness and consistency, since punishing them for being unable to follow human laws when you know they cannot would be like punishing a blind man for not reading warning signs or an armless man for not grabbing a drowning swimmer.

Those that claim nonhuman experiments are necessary can be asked which drug or treatment would they consider safer - one only tested on rats or monkeys, or one only tested on humans? Their answer will reveal the truth on the importance of nonhuman animals in human medicine.

Common sense tells us that if you seek to find medical treatments for elephants, you do not focus on giraffes. We overlook this in human medical research because we consider nonhumans inferior in value (based on biased personal opinions).

Nonhuman animal research is big business for vivisectors (how many do you know that live in poverty?), breeders, and cage manufacturers, and the former have a vested interest in conjuring up new experiments on “disposable” life forms to keep their paychecks, while telling the public that the research is important and a “breakthrough”. A week does not go by without another report of a “scientific miracle” thanks to nonhuman animal experiments; although with the caution that human trials are years away.

In ancient times, temple priests and witch doctors would cut open live animals to read their entrails to encourage the hope and health of society (a good harvest, easy childbirth). Those that opposed it endangered society by angering the gods and betraying their community. Today, some researchers will claim that if nonhuman animal research stopped, the world would descend into a hell of disease and misery (without explaining why society and culture endured even during the bubonic plague). By such logic, humans should have died out thousands of years ago. Animal researchers promote the view that life works according to a quasi-Darwinian “Great Chain of Being” hierarchy where animals follow a ladder of complexity- ending with humanity, and that you can take “lower animals” apart and reassemble them as easily as a jigsaw puzzle.

If nonhuman animal research is necessary for producing safe drugs and treatments why then do we need clinical trials on humans? Why does Pfizer have to conduct medical trials in Africa? Why do drugs like Thalidomide get pulled after being shown to be safe in nonhuman animals?

Such discussions never go far without a vivisector using the desperate emergency situation - burning barn, house, boat - where you have to choose to save either a human or a nonhuman.

Ignoring the fact that scientists cannot find cures for illnesses by simply torturing one or a few or thousands of rats to death no matter how much they want people to believe they can perform miracles, the answer to this should be no less controversial than if the choice was between two humans. One familiar, one not.

If you chose the familiar human, does it mean you want the loser to be tortured in a lab? If you refuse to choose, does that mean you do not love the familiar as much as the stranger? This question is not raised because it reveals the bias and double standard in the myth of human supremacy.

Common sense tells us that the best and safest research model for human disease is another human. If finding a cure for disease is so important, why aren’t scientists and patients advocating the use of criminals or volunteers in medical experiments? Humans are the best and safest model for research, and we send healthy people off to be maimed and killed in wars for natural resources, religion, and political ideology, and yet the war against cancer is only considered of dire importance when it comes to the discussion of abolishing nonhuman animals in research.

This exposes how the human supremacy myth is the driving force in defenses of vivisection.

Another vivisector argument is to condemn a critic of vivisection for having had any medical treatment that can be linked to vivisection. The moral perfection demand.

They conveniently ignore the work of Dr James Sims, Dr Joself Mengele, Dr Jonas Salk or the Pfizer researchers among others.

Ancient Vegans Porphyry

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:36:54 -0800

As a continuation of our series on ancient vegans, we’ll attempt here to take into consideration Porphyry’s essay On Abstinence from Animal Food, written in the third century CE, and translated into English by Thomas Taylor in 1823. A full pdf of the essay is provided here.

Porphyry (234-305 CE), the student of Plotinus, and elder contemporary of Iamblichus, plays a central role in the Neoplatonism of the early centuries CE. He is perhaps best known for his compilation of his teacher’s works, which are today known as the Enneads , but he was also a voluminous writer in his own right. Among his writings is the famous Life of Pythagoras , from which we gain many insights into the way of life prescribed by that great philosopher, which we touched on in our article on Apollonius of Tyana. It was this way of life that influenced Porphyry and other Neoplatonists in their adoption of a diet including no animal foods. Porphyry’s strong position on animal rights and veganism is demonstrated aptly in the following quote:

… to deliver animals to be slaughtered and cooked, and thus be filled with murder, not for the sake of nutriment and satisfying the wants of nature, but making pleasure and gluttony the end of such conduct, is transcendently iniquitous and dire.

In his essay on abstinence from animal foods Porphyry takes on several key arguments brought against veganism and animal rights with in-depth and beautifully reasoned responses. The work is composed as a letter to a friend, and former vegan, who had returned to the consumption of animal products, from which Porphyry attempts to “disclose his friend’s errors”. However, the essay is clearly written with other readers in mind, being addressed to all philosophers and to “those who have arranged their life conformably to truth”.

The essay runs to almost 60,000 words, dedicated primarily to the defense of animal rights from the standpoint of Neoplatonic and Pythagorean philosophy. It is, therefore, one of, if not the most complete and exhaustive treatise on this subject predating the 20th century, and yet, sadly, it remains largely overlooked.

We will divide our treatment of this essay into five parts:

Part 1: The Opponents of Veganism

Porphyry’s essay opens with an address to his friend:

Hearing from some of our acquaintance, O Firmus, that you, having rejected a fleshless diet, have again returned to animal food, at first I did not credit the report, when I considered your temperance, and the reverence which you have been taught to pay to those ancient and pious men from whom we have received the precepts of philosophy. But when others who came after these confirmed this report, it appeared to me that it would be too rustic and remote from the rational method of persuasion to reprehend you . . . I have therefore thought it worthy of the friendship which subsists between us, and also adapted to those who have arranged their life conformably to truth, to disclose your errors through a confutation derived from an argumentative discussion.

Like so many vegans and vegetarians, our philosopher is confronted with a friend who has decided to forgo a “fleshless diet” and to fall back into the consumption of animal products. Holding himself up to the high standards of both the philosopher and the vegan, Porphyry takes it upon himself to show his friend the error in his ways through logic and rational argument.

What we also find in this opening statement is the hint that the vegan lifestyle Porphyry enjoyed came to him (and to his friend, Firmus) through the precepts of the philosophy of “ancient and pious men”. This is a recognition that is not unique to Porphyry, as in previous blogs we have established the existence of veganism among the philosophers of more than one Greek school of philosophy, existing many centuries before the time of this essay. In fact, Porphyry devotes considerable space in his essay to the history of both veganism and animal consumption, which we’ll explore in part 5.

Porphyry continues to address his friend:

For when I considered with myself what could be the cause of this alteration in your diet, I could by no means suppose that it was for the sake of health and strength, as the vulgar and idiots would say; since, on the contrary, you yourself, when you were with us, confessed that a fleshless diet contributed both to health and to the proper endurance of philosophic labours; and experience testifies, that in saying this you spoke the truth.

This might as well be from the mouth of a modern vegan, and not an ancient philosopher, as today we are constantly confronted by the same “vulgar and idiots” who in their ignorance insist that the consumption of animal products is the only way to gain strength and health. Porphyry echoes the truth that all long-term vegans come to recognize - that a vegan lifestyle leads “both to health and to the proper endurance of philosophic labours”, (i.e. contributes both to physical and mental health). Thus we see that this debate - of whether or not veganism is healthy - which may seem amplified in our age, has been with us for many long centuries.

With apparent difficulty in understanding his friend’s choice, Porphyry reasons:

It appears, therefore, that you have returned to your former illegitimate conduct, either through deception, because you think it makes no difference with respect to the acquisition of wisdom whether you use this or that diet; or perhaps through some other cause of which I am ignorant.

This, it would seem, is a very important statement. As we’ve seen in previous blogs, the ancient philosophers of these schools considered a vegan diet not only necessary on moral and health grounds, but a requirement for the attainment of wisdom or the true practice of philosophy. Porphyry, who is among the wisest thinkers of his age, and a respected Platonist, is clear that if indeed his friend believes that wisdom can be attained on a non-vegan diet, he is mistaken. We see this idea reflected in many ancient and modern schools of philosophy, from Pythagoras and the Orphics in Greece, to the Bramins in India, the Northern Buddhists in Tibet, and so on. The equation of veganism and wisdom is, it seems, one that has existed from time immemorial among the wise men of many nations.

But when I was also informed by certain persons that you even employed arguments against those who abstained from animal food, I not only pitied, but was indignant with you, that, being persuaded by certain frigid and very corrupt sophisms, you have deceived yourself, and have endeavoured to subvert a dogma which is both ancient and dear to the Gods.

This “dogma which is both ancient and dear to the Gods” is, of course, veganism (recall Apollonius’s description (from a previous blog) of a “god”, being the appellation due to anyone truly Good). This lifestyle, Porphyry says, is not new; on the contrary, it has formed part of the precepts of the philosophy of the ancients and is renowned among all good men.

Hence it appeared to me to be requisite not only to show what our own opinion is on this subject, but also to collect and dissolve the arguments of our opponents … and thus to demonstrate, that truth is not vanquished even by those arguments which seem to be weighty, and much less by superficial sophisms. For you are perhaps ignorant, that not a few philosophers are adverse to abstinence from animal food, but that this is the case with those of the Peripatetic and Stoic sects, and with most of the Epicureans; the last of whom have written in opposition to the philosophy of Pythagoras and Empedocles, of which you once were studiously emulous. To this abstinence, likewise, many philologists are adverse, among whom Clodius the Neapolitan wrote a treatise against those who abstain from flesh. Of these men I shall adduce the disquisitions and common arguments against this dogma, at the same time omitting those reasons which are peculiarly employed by them against the demonstrations of Empedocles.

When Porphyry speaks of “our own opinion”, who is he speaking on behalf of? From what he says after we can easily see that there were schools of thought both for and against veganism, just as there are in today’s world. The schools of Pythagoras and Empedocles (among others) firmly promoting veganism and animal rights, while those of the sophists - the Peripatetic and Stoic sects, and the Epicureans, etc. - along with certain philologists, actively arguing against veganism. This clearly demonstrates that the debate between vegans and their counterparts has been with humanity for ages. There is, as they say, nothing new under the sun.

Porphyry was a Platonist, and also a follower of Empedocles and Pythagoras (and his, then famous, code of conduct). When he speaks of “our own opinions”, he speaks on behalf of those schools, and in the fine style of vegans everywhere (and everywhen) thus sets out to “collect and dissolve the arguments of our opponents”. And from this we have his dissertation of over 60,000 words on the subject!

He begins (and so will we) with the arguments of his opponents, who would seek to justify the exploitation and murder of animals for all manner of human uses through a variety of excuses and twists of logic. Among these arguments are many quite familiar to us in modern times.

We summarize the arguments given in his essay thus:

That there is no reason to extend justice to “the irrational” (i.e. animals) but only to the “rational” (humans), which clearly demonstrates that the speciesism of today was alive and well in his day, and that animals were then considered non-sentient (irrational), as many today continue to try to convince themselves, despite growing scientific knowledge to the contrary.
That “if we spare, and do not employ them, that it will be impossible for us to live. We shall also, after a manner, live the life of brutes, if we reject the use of which they are capable of affording.” A classic argument, founded in a rural society accustomed to the habits of exploiting animals for personal use, and unable to imagine a world in which this ’norm’ is absent.
That “what work would be left for us on the earth or in the sea, what illustrious art, what ornament of our food would remain, if we conducted ourselves innoxiously and reverentially towards brutes, as if they were of a kindred nature with us?” An argument that remains with us today, among those whose livelihood depends on the exploitation and slaughter of animals, who complain that veganism will strip them of their means of survival.
That “our nature, not being sufficient to itself, but indigent of many things, would be entirely destroyed, and enclosed in a life involved in difficulties . . . if excluded from the assistance derived from animals.” Essentially, we are too weak and feable to live without the help of animals - an obviously flawed argument, and of course, one no longer even remotely valid in our modern times.
And “what greater injury does he do, who cuts the throat of an ox or a sheep, than he who cuts down a fir tree or an oak?” A classic argument, demonstrating the extreme of sophistry, or twisted logic based wholly outside of reality.

“These,” Porphyry says, “are the principal arguments of the Stoics and Peripatetics.” He continued then, to the Epicureans and their chief arguments against veganism:

Firstly, that “those . . . who first defined what we ought to do, and what we ought not, very properly did not forbid us to kill other animals.” This argument (of which Porphyry goes on in length) springs from a recognition of the justness of the other laws in which the society (of Porphyry’s time and place) lived (i.e. that men should not kill one another, etc.), and concludes that because those laws are just and well reasoned therefore if it were just and well reasoned to not kill animals surely the lawmakers would’ve included laws to that end. A beautifully woven fallacy, if ever we’ve heard one!
Secondly, and as a continuation of the appeal to existing law, they state that “it is not possible that men could be preserved, unless they endeavoured to defend those who are nurtured with themselves from the attacks of other animals,” and “it was not only found to be useful for men not to separate from each other, and not to do any thing injurious to those who were collected together in the same place, for the purpose of repelling the attacks of animals of another species; but also for defence against men whose design was to act nefariously.” Etc.
The core of the Epicurean argument is an appeal to community and the notion that the community should do that which aids the community and refrain from doing what does it harm. From this they deduce that it is beneficial to the community to allow for the slaughter of animals (and other tribes), but not to allow for the slaughter of those who belong to their community, mostly for reasons of safety and defense. It is a well arranged argument that can be easily reduced to the corrupt idea of “us” and “others”, and that our laws apply to each other but not to others (animals being squarely relegated to the latter). Porphyry sums this up nicely with the Epicurean sentiment that “the destruction of every thing noxious, and the preservation of that which is subservient to its extermination, similarly contribute to a fearless life.” The Epicureans seem to be arranging their argument from a purely fear-based position, selfishly seeking to keep the scary world relegated to lands outside their walls and/or to maintain utter control over it. Thus, maintaining forceful dominion over animals is seen (by them) to lend itself to the good of the community.
That “if we suffered them [animals] to increase excessively, they would become injurious to us. But through the number of them which is now preserved, certain advantages are imparted to human life. For sheep and oxen, and every such like animal, when the number of them is moderate, are beneficial to our necessary wants; but if they become redundant in the extreme, and far exceed the number which is sufficient, they then become detrimental to our life. . .”. This is a common argument in our time as well, which is founded upon a grave misunderstanding of how holistic ecosystems (like the Earth) work. Imagining that it is our job to maintain the order of the ecosystem and to keep the animals in appropriate numbers, through imprisonment and slaughter, is a serious corruption of human supremacy syndrome and an example of extreme arrogance.
Also that “the slaughter of animals of this kind [i.e. those of use to mankind] is not prohibited, in order that as many of them as are sufficient for our use, and which we may be able easily to subdue, may be left. For it is not with horses, oxen, and sheep, and with all tame animals, as it is with lions and wolves, and, in short, with all such as are called savage animals, that, whether the number of them is small or great, no multitude of them can be assumed, which, if left, would alleviate the necessity of our life. And on this account, indeed, we utterly destroy some of them; but of others, we take away as many as are found to be more than commensurate to our use.” This argument - a continuation of the last - would see no use for so-called “savage” animals and would therefore rather “utterly destroy” them. It is, as is obvious to any thinking person, a shallow and baseless and incredibly ignorant argument. It rests wholly on a foundation that assumes the inherent right of man’s dominion over animals.
Lastly, the Epicureans, in their appeal to the institutions of the law, argue: “If, therefore, it was possible to make a certain compact with other animals in the same manner as with men, that we should not kill them, nor they us, and that they should not be indiscriminately destroyed by us, it would be well to extend justice as far as to this; for this extent of it would be attended with security. But since it is among things impossible, that animals which are not recipients of reason should participate with us of law, on this account, utility cannot be in a greater degree procured by security from other animals, than from inanimate natures. But we can alone obtain security from the liberty which we now possess of putting them to death.” The essential argument is that since we cannot strike up a human peace treaty with the animals, we are left only with the option to kill them to secure ourselves. One can only find pity for the state of mind that would live so fearful a life.

Porphyry sums up the Epicurean position with the following statement:

On this account … it is similarly requisite to think, that what pertains to the eating of animals, was ordained by those who from the first established the laws; and that the advantageous and the disadvantageous were the causes why some animals were permitted to be eaten and others not. So that those who assert, that every thing beautiful and just subsists conformably to the peculiar opinions of men respecting those who establish the laws, are full of a certain most profound stupidity.

Using the very argument of the Epicureans, Porphyry subtly points out that:

It is not necessary, however, that these institutes [of laws] should be preserved by us, because we do not dwell in the same place as those did by whom they were made.

The Epicureans, it seems, were all about the existing laws, respecting them and their authority as just and wise, and yet, as their argument insists (point #6 above), if it were possible to modify these laws and still maintain the safety of the community, it ought to be done. Therefore, as Porphyry has them say, we need not, after all, maintain laws simply for the sake of tradition - that if found to be unjust laws may be necessarily changed. This is a position very familiar to modern animal rights activists and composes a central point of the movement, namely that new laws are demanded by the progress of humanity, that our existing laws are simply not good enough when the morality in our hearts outgrows them.

Porphyry, leaving behind the arguments of the Epicureans, moves on to the increasingly absurd arguments of Claudius the Neapolitan, who had published “a Treatise against Abstinence from Animal Food”. We may summarize Claudius’s arguments as follows, using his words as much as possible:

That “… the ancients abstained from animals, not through piety, but because they did not yet know the use of fire; but that as soon as they became acquainted with its utility, they then conceived it to be most honourable and sacred … and afterward they began to use animals. For it is natural to man to eat flesh, but contrary to his nature to eat it raw. Fire, therefore, being discovered, they embraced what is natural, and admitted the eating of boiled and masted flesh.” And furthermore, that “at first, therefore, men did not eat animals, for man is not [naturally] a devourer of raw flesh. But when the use of fire was discovered, fire was employed not only for the cooking of flesh, but also for most other eatables. For that man is not [naturally] adapted to eat raw flesh, is evident … that man, however, is adapted to feed on flesh, is evident from this, that no nation abstains from animal food.” This beautifully absurd fallacy, appealing to the argument that since everyone does it, it must be natural and right, is one that is maintained even in our time. It is, of course, baseless and believed in only by the most ignorant, as there is simply no logic to be found in it. Similarly, the notion that man is meant to eat flesh, just not raw, stands in stark contrast to absolutely everything observable in Nature. Porphyry addresses both of these at length.
That “… an innate and just war is implanted in us against brutes. For some of them voluntarily attack men, as, for instance, wolves and lions; others not voluntarily, as serpents, since they bite not, except they are trampled on. And some, indeed, attack men; but others destroy the fruits of the earth. From all these causes, therefore, we do not spare the life of brutes; but we destroy those who commence hostilities against us, as also those who do not, lest we should suffer any evil from them. For there is no one who, if he sees a serpent, will not, if he is able, destroy it, in order that neither it, nor any other serpent, may bite a man. Etc.”. One is reminded of a child pitifully crying out “but he started it!” One is also reminded of the fallacy of pre-emptive war given support by the idea that if we do not kill “them” first they
Next, an argument that strikes at the very core of diseased human thinking, that “the Greeks do not feed either on dogs, or horses, or asses … nevertheless, they eat swine and birds. For a hog is not useful for anything but food.” Not useful for anything but food. It brings a tear to our eyes to think that any human being is capable of such a thought.
Claudius then appeals to the familiar: “But why should any one abstain from animals? Is it because feeding on them makes the soul or the body worse? It is, however, evident, that neither of these is deteriorated by it. For those animals that feed on flesh are more sagacious than others, as they are venatic, and possess an art by which they supply themselves with food, and acquire power and strength; as is evident in lions and wolves. So that the eating of flesh neither injures the soul nor the body. This likewise is manifest, both from the athletae, whose bodies become stronger by feeding on flesh, and from physicians, who restore bodies to health by the use of animal food.” Convinced, as many are, that a human eating flesh will be strong just as a lion eating flesh is, Claudius puts forth this tired and outworn argument. A human is, of course, not a lion.
Another familiar argument follows: “Let it, however, be admitted that all men are persuaded of the truth of this dogma, respecting abstinence from animals. But what will be the boundary of the propagation of animals? For no one is ignorant how numerous the progeny is of the swine and the hare. And to these add all other animals. Whence, therefore, will they be supplied with pasture? … And the earth will not be able to bear the multitude of animals.”
And “…what will husbandmen do? For they will not destroy those who destroy the fruits of the earth.” Both are arguments shared by the Stoics and Peripatetics and both are addressed by Porphyry.
Claudius continues: “How many … will be prevented from having their diseases cured, if animals are abstained from? For we see that those who are blind recover their sight by eating a viper. A servant of Craterus, the physician, happening to be seized with a new kind of disease, in which the flesh fell away from the bones, derived no benefit from medicines; but by eating a viper prepared after the manner of a fish, the flesh became conglutinated to the bones, and he was restored to health. Many other animals also, and their several parts, cure diseases when they are properly used for that purpose; of all which remedies he will be frustrated who rejects animal food.” His examples of cures from animal products are as unbelievable as those of today’s pseudo-doctors and nutritionists.
Claudius continues to reach, taking up next the all too familiar: “if as they say, plants also have a soul, what will become of our life if we neither destroy animals nor plants? If, however, he is not impious who cuts off plants, neither will he be who kills animals.”
He then embarks on a most incredible argument, based on the theory of the transmigration of souls, in which, in the corrupted understanding of non-philosophers, it was believed that the soul, in the process of reincarnation passes through the animal kingdom before returning as a human. Claudius claims: “But if they [souls] enter voluntarily … and pass through every species of animals, they will be much gratified by being destroyed. For thus their return to the human form will be more rapid.” And “… if the souls of men are immortal, but those of irrational animals mortal, men will not act unjustly by destroying irrational animals. And if the souls of brutes are immortal, we shall benefit them by liberating them from their bodies. For, by killing them, we shall cause them to return to the human nature.” Aside from the obvious absurdity of this argument, it is also easily seen by one familiar with the theory of the transmigration of souls to be based upon a complete and utter misunderstanding and corruption of the idea. Claudius’s attempt here to not only defend killing animals, but to twist it into something noble and exalted is nothing short of disgusting. He also claims, amazingly, that “the bodies also which are eaten will not produce any pain in the souls of those bodies, in consequence of the souls being liberated from them…”. Such “logic” can only issue forth from a profoundly disturbed and disfigured mind.
That “If … we [only] defend ourselves [in putting animals to death], we do not act unjustly, but we take vengeance on those that injure us… . And if we defend ourselves against them, how is it possible that in so doing we should not act justly. For we destroy, indeed, a serpent and a scorpion, though they do not attack us, in order that some other person may not be injured by them; and in so doing we defend the human race in general.” The appeal to defense seems a common theme in those days.
That “Co-operating also with the Gods themselves in what contributes to piety, we sacrifice animals: for … the Gods … Demi-gods likewise, and all the heroes who excel us both in origin and virtue, have so much approved of the slaughter of animals…”. Even in our day we continue to see the appeal to religion as either approving of, or at the very least not denying, the slaughter of animals. The argument is, for obvious reasons, quite ineffectual to thinking human beings.
And finally, that “… if we abstained from animals, we should not only be deprived of pleasure and riches of this kind, but we should also lose our fields, which would be destroyed by wild beasts … the scattered seeds would immediately be gathered by the birds; and all such fruits as had arrived at perfection, would be consumed by quadrupeds. But men being oppressed by such a want of food, would be compelled, by bitter necessity, to attack [and eat] each other.” Can we help but laugh at a mind that could convince itself that if we stop eating animals we will somehow, out of our own ineptness and inability to find anything else to eat, end up resorting to cannibalism?

Thus is the extent of Claudius’s position against veganism, and thus closes Porphyry’s summary of his opponent’s arguments.

In fairness to Claudius, Porphyry does have him make one extraordinary statement which we can fully agree with as vegans, wherein he (perhaps inadvertently) demonstrates the essential problem with vegetarianism. Claudius admits, that:

If, however, some one should, nevertheless, think it is unjust to destroy brutes, such a one should neither use milk, nor wool, nor sheep, nor honey. For, as you injure a man by taking from him his garments, thus, also, you injure a sheep by shearing it. For the wool which you take from it is its vestment. Milk, likewise, was not produced for you, but for the young of the animal that has it. The bee also collects honey as food for itself; which you, by taking away, administer to your own pleasure.

Thus Claudius echoes what many of us have come to accept, that there is no middle ground when it comes to the exploitation of animals. He, like many others, is fully willing to admit to himself that if we do indeed deem it wrong to kill animals we should also consider it wrong to injure them in any way and to exploit them in any way. As vegans, this is at the very core of our way of life.

Claudius makes it clear, however, that he believes these things (wool, milk, honey, etc.) to be within our right to take for ourselves, being unable or unwilling to see the error in his logic or the gaping whole in his heart. And sadly, there are two instances within his essay where Porphyry himself seems to forgive two specific acts, one being the shearing of sheep for wool and the other being the milking of cows. Several other statements, however, seem to counter this forgiveness or allowance of such uses, such that we get the feeling Porphyry may have been working through these aspects of his stance at the time of the composition of his essay.

Having completed our summary of his opponent’s arguments, it seems important now to explore the philosophy underlying Porphyry’s perspective, as this philosophy is woven throughout his essay and supports his many arguments. He did, after all, credit his veganism to the system of philosophy he learned from those who came before him and, as we’ll see, this philosophy builds a solid foundation for animal rights, both in ancient times and in modern. After elucidating several basic tenets of his philosophy, we’ll proceed to the arguments Porphyry presents against his opponent’s positions.

Part 2: The Philosophy Underlying Porphyry’s Arguments

Having summarized the arguments against veganism and animal rights, Porphyry addresses his friend (and his readers).

As, however, I intend to oppose these opinions, and those of the multitude, I may reasonably premise what follows. In the first place, therefore, it must be known that my discourse does not bring with it an exhortation to every description of men. For it is not directed to those who are occupied in sordid mechanical arts, nor to those who are engaged in athletic exercises; neither to soldiers, nor sailors, nor rhetoricians, nor to those who lead an active life. But I write to the man who considers what he is, whence he came, and whither he ought to tend, and who, in what pertains to nutriment, and other necessary concerns, is different from those who propose to themselves other kinds of life; for to none but such as these do I direct my discourse.

In short, he is directing his arguments towards philosophers, to thinkers specifically, to those who wish to reason and to understand themselves and their reality through such faculties. He, as with other philosophers in our history, addresses himself primarily to those who share his love of wisdom (philo-sophia). He’s not so concerned with whether or not one can build muscle or run a marathon as a vegan, but far more so with the simple truth of its rightness based on philosophy and reason.

And in addressing the goal (felicity) of this philosophy, Porphyry explains:

The contemplation which procures for us felicity [joy, bliss], does not consist, as some one may think it does, in a multitude of discussions and disciplines; nor does it receive any increase by a quantity of words… . If … felicity consisted in literary attainments, this end might be obtained by those who pay no attention to their food and their actions. But since for this purpose it is requisite to exchange the life which the multitude lead for another, and to become purified both in words and deeds, let us consider what reasonings and what works will enable us to obtain this end.

The felicity of the philosopher requires, as Porphyry and many others before and after him have insisted, an exchange of one life (that of the multitudes) for another (that of the philosophers). We not only see this among Pythagoreans, Platonists, Orphics, Brahmins, Buddhists and others, but even from the mouth of Jesus in the gospels, when he says: “For whosoever will save his [current] life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his [current] life for my sake [i.e. for the sake of true wisdom, or Christos] shall find it [i.e. the life of wisdom].” (Matthew 16:25)

There are many ways in which we can approach the philosophic and religious/spiritual ideas of our ancestors. Some favor dead-letter literalism in their interpretations, others prefer to see but (equally dead) myth, but it is to those of us who see both allegory and metaphor, and seek to understand the inner meaning, that the philosophers of old addressed their writings. Porphyry is no different in this respect. He says,

we [humans] resemble those who enter into, or depart from a foreign region, not only because we are banished from our intimate associates, but in consequence of dwelling in a foreign land, we are filled with barbaric passions, and manners, and legal institutes, and to all these have a great propensity. Hence, he who wishes to return to his proper kindred and associates, should not only with alacrity begin the journey, but, in order that he may be properly-received, should meditate how he may divest himself of everything of a foreign nature which he has assumed.

And furthermore:

… it is necessary, if we intend to return to things which are truly our own, that we should divest ourselves of every thing of a mortal nature which we have assumed, together with an adhering affection towards it, and which is the cause of our descent and that we should excite our recollection of that blessed and eternal essence, and should hasten our return to the nature which is without colour and without quality, earnestly endeavouring to accomplish two things; one, that we may cast aside every thing material and mortal; but the other, that we may properly return, and be again conversant with our true kindred, ascending to them in a way contrary to that in which we descended hither.

We may interpret this on the religious level, as looking towards the eternal nature of Spirit, or spiritual life, as contrasted with the ephemeral nature of matter, or material life, but we may also interpret this on a regular human level, in which many of us will be able to relate.

What is meant by “dwelling in a foreign land”? We were all born into this world and as we developed we took on or inherited certain ideas - from our parents, siblings, teachers, society - we leave our “native land” (or state, noticeable in the infant) and come into a foregin land of concepts and ideas that have little to do with reality. These ideas color who we are, or rather, who we are capable of being. In our vegan journey many of us can relate to the process of “divesting ourselves of everything of a foreign nature which we have assumed” - these things being our assumptions about life, about diet, health, about humanity and ourselves. Our brains have become so full of assumptions that our journey becomes as much about unlearningas about learning.

Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 18:3)

This is what the journey of the philosopher is all about: returning to our native state, but not in the sense of going backwards, or reverting to the blank slate of the infant, but of clearing ourselves of the crud unnecessarily gathered as we develop as a unit of society, so as to approach life with clarity of mind. Porphyry therefore precedes his arguments for veganism with an injunction to us to begin the process of returning to this, our true nature.

For we were intellectual natures, and we still are essences purified from all sense and irrationality; but we are complicated with sensibles, through our incapability of eternally associating with the intelligible…

We were once pure and untarnished intellects, our minds were once like the waters of a clear, calm lake, until we began to crowd our minds with assumptions, beliefs and ideas inherited from our collective society (the ‘mortal’ or ‘material’) which muddied our waters. That it’s ’normal’, and ‘acceptable’ to imprison, exploit and consume animals is an example of one of these collective assumptions, which become an inseparable part of our self- identity, both individually and culturally.

For all the powers which energize in conjunction with sense and body, are injured, in consequence of the soul not abiding in the intelligible; (just as the earth, when in a bad condition, though it frequently receives the seed of wheat, yet produces nothing but tares), and this is through a certain depravity of the soul, which does not indeed destroy its essence from the generation of irrationality, but through this is conjoined with a mortal nature, and is drawn down from its own proper to a foreign condition of being.

Remember that the Greek word we translate into English as “Soul” is psyche , which we sometimes equally translate as Mind, and which essentially indicates the reasoning faculty, that which is capable of truly understanding, of recognizing the Good (i.e. the divine) within. We are, in our essence, a pure psyche, uncoloured by erroneous ideas and conceptions, untarnished by false beliefs, and it is this ideal and ‘flawless’ condition that is potential in each of us. The journey Porphyry would have us take is that journey by which we begin to strip ourselves of everything erroneous that we might return once again to our native state, which he equates with pure intelligence. The Soul not abiding in the intelligible is the Mind not abiding in itself (i.e. unconnected to true understanding or wisdom), but instead filling itself with falsities and living in them, or imagining them to be reality.

In veganism we take a similar (if not the very same) journey. We are not simply refraining from exploiting animals, we are endeavoring to clean ourselves outwardly and inwardly, to get rid of all the crud we have accumulated over the years - the physical and metaphorical fat we wear, the baggage we carry with us. Porphyry addresses his essay to all those who wish to undertake this process and thus discover who they truly are, which is the true path of the philosopher, the lover of wisdom. As he says, the soul (psyche) “does not indeed destroy its essence from the generation of irrationality” - i.e. the psyche (Mind, Intelligence) remains pure and available, just waiting for us to drop all the stuff we’ve covered it over with. We have not, in this view, lost our true self, but have merely covered it up, clouded it or “conjoined it with a mortal nature,” which is to say corrupted our true intelligence with false notions, unfounded concepts and twisted logic.

… if we are desirous of returning to those natures with which we formerly associated, we must endeavour to the utmost of our power to withdraw ourselves from sense and imagination [false conceptions], and the irrationality with which they are attended … but such things as pertain to intellect should be distinctly arranged, procuring for it peace and quiet from the war with the irrational part; that we may not only be auditors of intellect and intelligibles, but may as much as possible enjoy the contemplation of them, and, being established in an incorporeal nature, may truly live through intellect; and not falsely in conjunction with things allied to bodies. We must therefore divest ourselves of our manifold garments, both of this visible and fleshly vestment, and of those with which we are internally clothed, and which are proximate to our cutaneous habiliments; and we must enter the stadium naked and unclothed, striving for (the most glorious of all prizes) the Olympia of the soul.

It’s important to ask ourselves what Porphyry means when he says “garments”. We must remember that he is a philosopher and a metaphysician and is therefore speaking often in subtle terms, by way of allegory and symbol. When we wake up in the morning do we not “put on” our garment of flesh? Do we not also put on our “garments” of Mind - our ideas about ourselves and the world, our identities, our personalities, our habits? These are that “with which we are internally clothed”, and as he says, to return to our true natures we must “enter the stadium [of life] naked and unclothed [i.e. without the baggage of our false ideas, our inner garments]”. This also applies to meditation, wherein we “procure for it [the mind, soul, Self] peace and quiet from the war with the irrational part”, i.e. that part of us that we’ve accumulated over the years, that doesn’t actually (or natively) belong to us, but is simply (mental) baggage that we’ve decided to carry around from day to day.

The importance of this is stated plainly by Porphyry:

The first thing, however, and without which we cannot contend, is to divest ourselves of our garments.

We must divest ourselves, we must rid ourselves of the mental fat we wear around our minds every day. We must begin to let go of our mistaken ideas and to slowly return to our true selves, i.e. to “associate with the intelligible”.

But since of these [garments] some are external and others internal … one kind is through things which are apparent, but another through such as are more unapparent. Thus, for instance, not to eat, or not to receive what is offered to us, belongs to things which are immediately obvious; but not to desire is a thing more obscure; so that, together with deeds, we must also withdraw ourselves from an adhering affection and passion towards them. For what benefit shall we derive by abstaining from deeds, when at the same time we tenaciously adhere to the causes from which the deeds proceed?

Porphyry touches on something of profound importance here. It is not enough to simply divest ourselves of our outer garments and continue to wear our inner ones. It is not enough, for instance, to forcefully stop consuming animals but to continue inwardly to desire or crave animal products. If we are to be truly free, to truly return to our native state, we must divest ourselves of all the inward ideas, passions, etc., that bind us to our past habits. It is easy to see that the most successful vegans, as the most successful philosophers, are those who have truly cleansed themselves inwardly, who are vegans and philosophers straight through to the very core of their being. This is what Porphyry is telling us: we must reach within and really begin that cleaning process in earnest.

… this separation [the departure from sense, imagination, and irrationality] is introduced by a continual negligence of the passions. And this negligence is produced by an abstinence from those sensible perceptions which excite the passions, and by a persevering attention to intelligibles.

The way to begin this process, this withdrawal from irrationality, etc., which is the cleaning up of ourselves, is through “negligence of the passions”, through “abstinence” from that which excites those passions, and by keeping ourselves focused on that which is intelligible. If we wish to rise above some unwanted part of ourselves, if we want to strip off one of our inner garments, we must maintain abstinence from those specific passions that are associated with that particular garment - i.e. that “adhere” us to it. We cannot, for instance, divest ourselves of the inner garment associated with alcoholism without first addressing and thenceforth abstaining from the passions associated with the drink. The former requires the latter.

This comes into full effect in our vegan journey, as well as with the journey of the philosopher. Continuing to ‘feed’ the passions associated with our inner garments (false beliefs, ideas, etc.), and thus to actively maintain them, will do nothing but keep us imprisoned by them. In veganism this is plainly seen, as our indulgence in non-vegan lifestyles does nothing but keep our feet firmly locked where we are, holding us back from truly living a vegan lifestyle. We cannot put one foot in the door and keep one outside; we must step fully away from our past bad habits and move fully into our truer nature, thus dropping off those garments that have served only to weigh us down.

And Porpyry makes it clear that:

… among these passions or perturbations, those which arise from food are to be enumerated.

These passions are like the glue which binds the “garments” to our Self. We wake in the morning, or come out of meditation, and immediately that glue takes hold and our very sense of self becomes interlocked with all our self- identified garments. To take them off we must loosen the glue, which is to eliminate the passions surrounding each one.

If one is addicted to a harmful substance, one must abstain from it while also replacing it with beneficent substances (to trade the bad for the good), and the longer one does this the weaker the passion for the harmful substance becomes. Similarly, if one is addicted to a harmful idea or belief, one must abstain from it, while focusing on beneficent ideas (by looking only towards truth), and slowly the glue binding one to that harmful belief will weaken until the garment can be taken off completely. Applying this to veganism, we can see that one must adopt it fully, absolutely, leaving entirely behind all non-vegan activities, and slowly, over time, the passions and habits that bound one to the old lifestyle will fade and one will find a new life awaiting them.

“We should therefore abstain, no less than from other things, from certain food, viz., such as is naturally adapted to excite the passive part of our soul [psyche] … these, the passions being excited, and the whole of the irrational nature becoming fattened, the soul [psyche] is drawn downward, and abandons its proper love of true being.

Anyone familiar with addiction can recognize in these words a true understanding of the process by which one forms an addition. That process of being “drawn downward” can be seen both spiritually and practically. We (the person we truly are) are drawn down into the habits we’ve gathered to ourselves over the years, we are drawn into believing that we are those habits , when in reality they are but a temporary passenger, so to speak, in our life-journey. We are no more our habits than the fire is the smoke it produces.

Thus we lose our “proper love of true being” in favor our our habitual life of day-in and day-out self-identification. We think we are all these ideas we hold about ourselves and the world, but Porphyry is telling us that this is but the irrational nature becoming “fattened” by feeding it too much nonsense, just as our bodies become fattened by feeding them too much unhealthy food. And food, he makes clear, is one of those elements that excites this part of our nature and keeps us stuck in it. We are what we eat, as the old saying goes, so that what we eat lends itself to either the path of the philosopher or to the state of the multitudes, in which we remain confused about who we truly are. The choice between the two is ours to make.

Porphyry proceeds to examine how the passions are excited by each sense, and when he comes to the sense of taste, we find him saying:

But what occasion is there to speak of the passions produced through the taste? For here, especially, there is a complication of a twofold bond; one which is fattened by the passions excited by the taste; and the other, which we render heavy and powerful, by the introduction of foreign bodies (i.e. of bodies different from our own). For, as a certain physician said, those are not the only poisons which are prepared by the medical art; but those likewise which we daily assume for food, both in what we eat, and what we drink, and a thing of a much more deadly nature is imparted to the soul through these, than from the poisons which are compounded for the purpose of destroying the body.

Not only are the passions (those associated with whichever foods we choose to consume) excited, but we may also slowly poison ourselves through that consumption. As we know in our time, this is absolutely true. A whole host of diseases are associated with the consumption of animal products, and we see every day around us the negative health effects of poor dietary choices. However, an oft neglected effect is that which these foods have on the Mind, or Soul (psyche). Porphyry goes as far as to say that these poisons are far worse for the soul than those designed to kill the body. Killing the body does no further damage to the Soul, as is evident by the ceasing of life (or association between soul (psyche) and body) - regardless of what we believe may or may not happen after death - but slowly poisoning the psyche through the consumption of such foods does continual and long-term damage to the mind.

Clear thinking is essential if we are to drop our old garments, and clear thinking becomes hampered by the consumption of unhealthy foods, as they restrict the body and brain of essentials, but also because we continue to train and enhance and maintain our old mental habits - we continue to apply more and more glue to the garments we wrap ourselves in, thus making the journey to discover who we truly are that much more difficult.

Hence, to be purified from all these [the passions that bind us] is most difficult, and requires a great contest, and we must bestow much labour both by night and by day to be liberated from an attention to them, and this, because we are necessarily complicated with sense. Whence, also, as much as possible, we should withdraw ourselves from those places in which we may, though unwillingly, meet with this hostile crowd [of passions].

Our senses provide the means by which the passions are excited and thus the means by which we continue to strengthen the glue binding us to the garments we wish to let go of (those that are keeping us unhealthy and restraining us from knowing our true selves), therefore we must be careful what we do with our senses, and careful as to what environments we put ourselves in. If one wants to quit drinking, hanging out in a bar is a bad idea. If one wants to be vegan, going to a steakhouse is a bad idea. If we indulge one sense, it is likely to lead to the indulgence of another. Thus, if we indulge an enjoyment of the smell of cooked meat, it only strengthens the passion that will inevitably lead to the indulgence of the taste of cooked meat. However, if we abstain all senses from this, and indulge them only in healthy vegan foods, in time the passion associated between smell or taste and cooked meat will vanish - we will simply not enjoy it anymore, because the enjoyment was only a trained or learned thing, not a natural thing essential to who we are.

… intellect, indeed, is present with itself, though we are not present with it. But he who departs from intellect, is in that place to which he departs; and when, by discursive energies, he applies himself upwards and downwards by his apprehension of things, he is there where his apprehension is.

This is an age-old philosophical assertion, that where the mind directs itself so follows the perceived “reality” of that mind. Thus, what we focus on becomes (to us) our reality. If we focus on the negative, we become absorbed by it, it fills our view of all things. If we focus on the positive, likewise we become absorbed by it. If we place our focus entirely upon aspects of ourselves that we dislike, our reality will become that of one who dislikes themselves. When we depart from intellect (i.e. when we indulge ourselves in false ideas and beliefs) that “place” to where we go becomes our reality - we will see the world only through those goggles, but never with our naked eyes (i.e. never clearly, truthfully, accurately).

He, therefore, who submits to the assumption of (every kind of) food, and voluntarily betakes himself to (alluring) spectacles, to conversation with the multitude, and laughter; such a one, by thus acting, is there where the passion is which he sustains.

Our passions are much more than simple indulgences; they color our entire sense of reality when we follow them. We not only begin to see the world through the coloring of those passions, but we also draw ourselves into environments associated with those passions. We thus create a sort of self- fulfilling prophecy (for ourselves), when we believe something to be true we will continue to reinforce that belief by drawing ourselves to things that verify (feed) it. We must be very careful then, in considering “where” we wish to focus our attention, and this applies to both outer environments and inner ones (i.e. where we wish to spend our time and on which ideas we wish to dwell).

… through ignorance of, and abstaining from sensible concerns, he (the delirious man) is unacquainted with them.

Just as abstaining from the passions will slowly lead to our detachment from them, so too abstaining from “sensible concerns” (i.e. from true reason, rationality, logic, intelligence) will cause a detachment in us from our true nature (clarity of Soul, psyche or Mind). By living only in the passions associated with our false sense of self, our beliefs, habits and all the garments we wear, we also deprive ourselves of the opportunity to be who we truly are, in our truest self. Thus, in taking up the journey of the philosopher, it is as important to leave behind who we were as it is to begin finding who we are. In veganism this is equally applicable: we must both leave behind our old habits and begin finding healthy ones. We cannot maintain both our old self and our new self: one of the two must perish.

So that to the attainment of a life according to intellect, it is requisite to abstain from all these [base passions] … for it is not possible for us to be borne along to this place and to that, while we are here, and yet be there, (i.e. be present with an intelligible essence). For our attentions to things are not effected with a part, but with the whole of ourselves.

Or in other words, we must give ourselves fully to where we lend our attention, we must commit all of ourselves to where we choose to focus, and not be scattered, having only part of our attention on one thing and another part on another. In veganism this is evident: we cannot be partly vegan. In the life of the philosopher it is even more so: we cannot live two lives: one rational and one irrational. Because our focus determines what we perceive as our reality, we cannot expect to live in the reality of the person we truly are if we continue to focus on the person we know to be a fiction made up of societal assumptions, habits and expectations. We must let that person go and give our full attention to the person we know we are (and can be).

The man … who is cautious, and is suspicious of the enchantments of nature [of the passions], who has surveyed the essential properties of body, and knows that it was adapted as an instrument to the powers of the soul [psyche], will also know how readily passion is prepared to accord with the body, whether we are willing or not, when anything external strikes it… . the irrational part [our confused self] verges downward, thither it is borne along, without any power of governing itself in things external. Nor does it know the fit time or the measure of the food which should be taken, unless the eye of the charioteer [the Soul, our real Self, the “intelligence”] is attentive to it, which regulates and governs the motions of irrationality … But he who takes away from reason its dominion over the irrational part, and permits it to be borne along … such a one, yielding to desire and anger, will suffer them to proceed to whatever extent they please. On the contrary, the worthy man will so act that his deeds may be conformable to presiding reason …

This, therefore, is the cause why the multitude err in words and deeds, in desire and anger, and why, on the contrary, good men act with rectitude, viz. that the former suffer the boy within them to do whatever it pleases; but the latter give themselves up to the guidance of the tutor of the boy, ( i.e. to reason) and govern what pertains to themselves in conjunction with it. Hence in food, and in other corporeal energies and enjoyments, the charioteer being present, defines what is commensurate and opportune …

Hence, to worthy men, abstinence in food [i.e. abstaining from animal products, wine, etc.], and in corporeal enjoyments and actions, is more appropriate than abstinence in what pertains to the touch … Since … a prolongation of time in cooking and digesting food, and together with this the co-operation of sleep and rest, are requisite, and, after these, a certain temperament from digestion, and a separation of excrements, it is necessary that the tutor of the boy within us should be present, who, selecting things of a light nature, and which will be no impediment to him, may concede these to nature, in consequence of foreseeing the future [i.e. understanding the effects of his actions], and the impediment which will be produced by his permitting the desires to introduce to us a burden not easily to be borne, through the trifling pleasure arising from the deglutition of food.

In short, we must allow ourselves to be governed by the highest in us, i.e. by reason , that faculty of the soul (psyche) which allows us to know what is rightful and beneficial and what is not. In regards to food (as to all of life), we mustn’t allow ourselves to be “borne away” by the “boy” in us (i.e. the irresponsible and irrational), but must allow the “tutor” to govern, such that we will select the most appropriate foods in the proper amounts and live a healthy life. This philosophy is found clearly also in the Bhagavad Gita wherein we are shown the importance of allowing “Krishna” (our true Self) to guide Arjuna (the boy) - indeed Porphyry uses the exact same analogy of the charioteer as used in the Gita. This need for the assertion of the higher over the lower is found among nearly all philosophical systems.

The importance of reason and intelligence cannot be understated, and as Porphyry explains, this is of immense import when it comes to food.

Reason, therefore, very properly rejecting the much and the superfluous, will circumscribe what is necessary in narrow boundaries, in order that it may not be molested in procuring what the wants of the body demand… . nor (will it) endeavour to receive much pleasure in eating, nor, through satiety, to be filled with much indolence; nor by rendering … the body more gross, to become somnolent; nor through the body being replete with things of a fattening nature, to render the bond more strong, but himself more sluggish and imbecile in the performance of his proper works.

It is reason, therefore that should guide us in our selection of food, not the runaway passions. Reason will do the job right; the irrational in us will do nothing but harm.

This forms the central recurring theme underlying Porphyry’s philosophy, which is the dominion of the rational over the irrational within us, the need of the higher, noble, reasoning ability to take precedence and thus rule over the lower, base, passionate and unreasonable within us. This central pillar of his system of thought becomes interwoven with his definition of justice, from which he will then argue that justice ought to be extended equally to animals as to humans. The exposition of his philosophy, then, builds up the foundation upon which his chief arguments for animal rights will rest.

… the essence of justice consists in the rational ruling over the irrational, and in the irrational being obedient to the rational part [in each being]. For when reason governs, and the irrational part is obedient to its mandates, it follows, by the greatest necessity, that man will be innoxious [harmless] towards every thing.

Justice thus, springs naturally when the rational is asserted over the irrational. In short: when we begin to exercise clarity of mind, with true reason and rationality, we begin naturally to embody and exemplify justice, which arises from a true perception of morality.

Hence, the just man appears to be one who deprives himself of things pertaining to the body; yet he does not (in reality) injure himself. For, by this management of his body, and continence, he increases his inward good, i.e., his similitude to God. … By making pleasure … the end of life, that which is truly justice cannot be preserved … For, in many instances, the motions of the irrational nature, and utility and indigence, have been, and still are the sources of injustice. For men became indigent (as they pretended) [partook] of animal food, in order that they might preserve, as they said, the corporeal frame free from molestation, and without being in want of those things after which the animal nature aspires. But if an assimilation to divinity [i.e the inward good] is the end of life, an innoxious [harmless] conduct towards all things will be in the most eminent degree preserved.

Within each of us, then, we have this power-struggle between the ‘irrational’ and the ‘rational’, between what might be called our ‘desire-nature’ and our ‘divine-nature’. If we follow purely the dictates of our passions and desires, without a care for what is truly good, then injustice follows, as is evident from countless examples in our society. If, however, the rational within us is asserted as primary and of most importance, and we are led not by blind passions, habits, appetites or false conceptions, but by our highest reason, then justice naturally follows.

As, therefore, he who is led by his passions is innoxious [harmless] only towards his children and his wife, but despises and acts fraudulently towards other persons, since in consequence of the irrational part predominating in him, he is excited to, and astonished about mortal concerns; but he who is led by reason, preserves an innoxious conduct towards his fellow-citizens, and still more so towards strangers, and towards all men, through having the irrational part in subjection, and is therefore more rational and divine [good] than the former character; - thus also, he who does not confine harmless conduct to men alone, but extends it to other animals, is more similar to divinity; and if it was possible to extend it even to plants, he would preserve this image in a still greater degree.

This then, is the primary situation in which we find ourselves, raising always the question: which part of ourselves will we allow to dominate, the rational or the irrational? The logic and reason, not to mention the ethics and morality underlying Porphyry’s philosophy and his arguments, is apparent to those who exercise their reason. The arguments of his opponents, however, are discovered to be founded upon irrational prejudices, distorted logic and the desire to maintain one’s existing habitual or societal life, i.e. the status- quo both within ourselves and within our culture.

For custom is most powerful in increasing those passions in man which were gradually introduced into his nature.

And as Porphyry will argue (see Part 5), both the killing (for sacrifice or otherwise) and the consumption of animals is not something natural to us, but something that was introduced, and thus seeped its way into the culture, becoming over time an indistinguishable part of it, and sadly, something we have come to identify as part of our nature. We can, however, remove this “garment” of our culture, and this false identity by recognizing it as the foreign element it is, in the exact same way as we can remove our individual garments. And this must be accomplished through the exercise of the highest reason.

He … who is indigent [in need] of a greater number of externals, is in a greater degree agglutinated [adhered] to penury [need]; and by how much his wants increase, by so much is he destitute of divinity [good], and an associate of penury. For that which is similar to deity, through this assimilation immediately possesses true wealth. But no one who is (truly) rich and perfectly unindigent injures any thing. For as long as any one injures another, though he should possess the greatest wealth, and all the acres of land which the earth contains, he is still poor, and has want for his intimate associate. On this account, also, he is unjust, without God, and impious, and enslaved to every kind of depravity, which is produced by the lapse of the soul into matter, through the privation [lack] of good. Every thing, therefore, is nugatory [worthless] to any one, as long as he wanders from the principle of the universe; and he is indigent of all things, while he does not direct his attention to Porus (or the source of true abundance). He likewise yields to the mortal part of his nature [the irrational], while he remains ignorant of his real self [the rational]. But Injustice is powerful in persuading and corrupting those that belong to her empire, because she associates with her votaries in conjunction with Pleasure.

Thus we see that, to Porphyry, there was a much deeper philosophical and psychological aspect to the condition of animal exploitation and consumption. To him, the disease went much deeper into Man’s psyche. For the ancient philosophers, divinity is exemplified by goodness - the two being essentially one. To be divine was to be good and vice versa. To ascend to our “true self” is to embrace and activate that which is already latent within us, being the goodness that exists in us, even if only in potential. To stray from divinity, or to degrade ourselves into our “mortal” or “material” self is to stifle the good in us in favor of the purely (blind) passionate nature that thrives when reason is absent.

Porphyry, along with the Neoplatonists and Pythagoreans, explains that one who would rise to the good within them, and thus come to know their own divinity (their “true self”), will naturally embody justice and harmlessness to all sentient beings, as this quality is native to the divine in us (i.e. it is inherently of the good ).

We will see, as we now proceed to Porphyry’s arguments, the role this philosophy will play in his stance for animal rights. Particularly, we will notice the universality of justice in Porphyry’s conception. We will also see the concepts of virtue and vice addressed, as intimately connected with rationality and irrationality and these will play a central role also in his chief argument. Thus the conceptual framework, briefly explored here, becomes the weapon of true reason with which Porphyry will dismantle his opponent’s arguments.

Part 3: Porphyry’s Central Argument

Having thus touched on the philosophic foundations underlying his position, we can now proceed to Porphyry responses to his opponent’s arguments. Two arguments constitute the core of Porphyry’s essay, and it is during those arguments that he is able, also, to tackle the several minor arguments of his opponents. These two central arguments are (1) against the opinion that animals are not rational (sentient) and therefore need not be extended justice, and (2) against animal sacrifice and its relation to the consumption of animal products. We will structure our review of his arguments beginning with the first of these, then into the several minor arguments presented, and lastly into the arguments related to animal sacrifice and history.

Argument against the opinion that animals are irrational (non-sentient) and thus that justice need not be extended to them.

This is a most important argument, and one that is at the cornerstone of the modern animal rights movement, namely that animals are sentient, rational, capable of feelings akin to those of human beings, including pleasure and pain, desire for life, and so on and thus ought to be protected from forceful suffering, just as we endeavor to protect humans from forceful suffering.

To Porphyry, this argument is intimately connected with his definition of justice. He opens his argument thus:

We shall pass on, therefore, to the discussion of justice; and since our opponents say that this ought only to be extended to those of similar species, and on this account deny that irrational animals can be injured by men, let us exhibit the true, and at the same time Pythagoric opinion, and demonstrate that every soul [psyche] which participates of sense and memory is rational. For this being demonstrated, we may extend, as our opponents will also admit, justice to every animal.

From this, he proceeds to explain that his opponents imagine there to be two kinds of reason; (1) internal reason (i.e. internal thought ) and (2) external reason (i.e. reason exhibited by voice or speech), and furthermore that reason itself can be distinguished as either reason or right reason. Porphyry approaches this latter distinction first, wherein he argues that his opponents:

… appear, indeed, to ascribe to brutes an entire privation [lack] of reason, and not a privation of right reason alone. For if they merely denied that brutes possess right reason, animals would not be irrational, but rational beings, in the same manner as nearly all men are according to them. For, according to their opinion, one or two wise men may be found in whom alone right reason prevails, but all the rest of mankind are depraved; though some of these make a certain proficiency, but others are profoundly depraved, and yet, at the same time, all of them are similarly rational. Through the influence, therefore, of self-love, they say, that all other animals are irrational; wishing to indicate by irrationality, an entire privation of reason. If, however, it be requisite to speak the truth, not only reason may plainly be perceived in all animals, but in many of them it is so great as to approximate to perfection.

In short: if reason is qualified in this manner (the way his opponents wish to qualify it), then we can only say that animals lack “right reason”, being the capacity to correctly understand certain complexities (i.e. complex mathematics, sciences, philosophies, etc.), but that we cannot deny them reason itself, of ordinary degree, as even among humans there are many who lack entirely “right reason” but are still said to have reason itself (i.e. to be sentient, thinking beings, however flawed or limited their thinking might be).

For reason, indeed, is ingenerated by nature; but right and perfect reason is acquired by study and discipline. Hence all animated beings participate of reason, but our opponents cannot mention any man who possesses rectitude of reason and wisdom (naturally), though the multitude of men is innumerable. But as the sight of one animal differs from that of another, and the flying of one bird from that of another, (for hawks and grasshoppers do not similarly see, nor eagles and partridges); thus, also, neither does every thing which participates of reason possess genius and acuteness in the highest perfection.

We are all, animals included, born with the capacity of reason, never with “right reason” (genius) innately available, but only attained through “study and discipline”, something that applies equally to birds learning to fly as it is to humans learning to read, the variety of ability (both in sense and reason) covering a vast spectrum of degrees.

We will now see how beautifully woven is Porphyry’s argument, as he strips apart the views of his opponents, and their two-fold concept of reason. These two types of reason, they claim, manifest as internal and external (i.e. “the silent discourse which takes place in the soul” and that “consisting in external speech”). Porphyry explains that speech, of any kind, “whether in a barbarous or a Grecian, a canine or a bovine mode” is always linked to internal reason, for “do they [animals] not discursively perceive the manner in which they are inwardly affected, before it is vocally enunciated by them?” (i.e. do they not inwardly perceive and cognize prior to expressing that cognition through speech?). If there were no internal process of reason (thought), animal speech would be utterly meaningless, but, as we know, it is far from it.

But if we do not understand what they [animals] say, what is this to the purpose? For the Greeks do not understand what is said by the Indians, nor those who are educated in Attica the language of the Scythians, or Thracians, or Syrians; but the sound of the one falls on the ears of the other like the clangor of cranes, though by others their vocal sounds can be written and articulated, in the same manner as ours can by us. Nevertheless, the vocal sounds of the Syrians, for instance, or the Persians, are to us inarticulate, and cannot be expressed by writing, just as the speech of animals is unintelligible to all men.

Thus, simply because the speech of animals is unintelligible to us does not indicate that it is unintelligible to them. Modern scientific studies verify, of course, that animals do indeed intelligently communicate, often in quite complex ways, with one another. There is no logic, therefore, in assuming that because we don’t understand it, it is meaningless or an indication that there is no reason or cognitive process associated with it. Thus, his opponent’s argument that animals have no reason, whether internal or external, will be seen to be deeply flawed.

Indeed, the variety and difference in the vocal sounds of animals, indicate that they are significant. Hence, we hear one sound when they are terrified, but another, of a different kind, when they call their associates, another when they summon their young to food, another when they lovingly embrace each other, and another when they incite to battle. And so great is the difference in their vocal sounds, that, even by those who have spent their whole life in the observation of them, it is found to be extremely difficult to ascertain their meaning, on account of their multitude.

And furthermore:

… when animals speak to each other, these sounds are manifest and significant to them, though they are not known to all of us. If, however, it appears that they imitate us, that they learn the Greek tongue, and understand their keepers, what man is so impudent as not to grant that they are rational, because he does not understand what they say?

A profoundly important point. Not only are animals capable of understanding one another, but are also capable of understanding humans, something that by all accounts requires a good deal of reasoning ability.

But what about those animals who do not vocalize, do they have reason (cognition)?

It is also narrated, that some dumb animals obey their masters with more readiness than any domestic servants… . Many likewise relate that the eels in Arethusa, and the shell-fish denominated saperdae, about Maeander, are obedient to those that call them. Is not the imagination, therefore, of an animal that speaks, the same, whether it proceeds as far as to the tongue, or does not? And if this be the case, is it not absurd to call the voice of man alone reason, but refuse thus to denominate the voice of other animals? For this is just as if crows should think that their voice alone is external reason, but that we are irrational animals, because the meaning of the sounds which we utter is not obvious to them …

We can certainly admire the soundness of Porphyry’s reasoning, which corresponds in our day to the reasoning of animal rights activists who maintain that all animals are sentient, whether we can understand them or not, on similar grounds of argument, except now backed by a myriad of scientific studies to support the clear logic of it.

Porphyry continues with further examples:

The hunter … from the barking of his dog, perceives at one time, indeed, that the dog explores a hare, but at another, that the dog has found it; at one time, that he pursues the game, at another that he has caught it, and at another that he is in the wrong track, through having lost the scent of it. Thus, too, the cowherd knows, at one time, indeed, that a cow is hungry, or thirsty, or weary, and at another, that she is incited to venery, or seeks her calf, (from her different lowings). A lion also manifests by his roaring that he threatens, a wolf by his howling that he is in a bad condition, and shepherds, from the bleating of sheep, know what the sheep want.

Neither … are animals ignorant of the meaning of the voice of men, when they are angry, or speak kindly to, or call them, or pursue them, or ask them to do something, or give something to them; nor, in short, are they ignorant of any thing that is usually said to them, but are aptly obedient to it; which it would be impossible for them to do, unless that which is similar to intellection energized, in consequence of being excited by its similar. … For they do not hear our voice as if it was a mere sound only, but they also perceive the difference in the meaning of the words, which is the effect of rational intelligence.

Regardless of their ability in terms of voice, the very fact that an animal is capable of understanding and following orders proceeding from human language demonstrates that they must indeed have cognitive abilities (intellection) at least somewhat similar to human beings. Without a quite high degree of cognitive ability, how would an animal process the information embodied in the sounds of our voice, and from that both understand and follow the instructions?

Porphyry then wonderfully demonstrates the reasoning capacity of dogs thus:

… dogs have a knowledge of dialectic, and make use of the syllogism which consists of many disjunctive propositions, when, in searching for their game, they happen to come to a place where there are three roads. For they thus reason, the beast has either fled through this road, or through that, or through the remaining road; but it has not fled either through this, or through that, and therefore it must have fled through the remaining third of these roads.

This process of reasoning is essentially the same mental process as the dialectic of the philosopher who moves from one proposition to another, eliminating options until the true one is discovered; the difference between the philosopher’s and the dog’s reasoning being not of kind but of degree.

These arguments are simple and logical enough, and yet even in our world of so-called ’enlightenment’ the bulk of humanity seems to shrug them away and continue to insist upon Man as the only reasoning being on Earth. At the very least, we can see that vegans have been making these arguments for many centuries, sadly falling most often on the deaf ears of the ignorant.

Porphyry moves on from external to internal reason:

But it is now requisite to show that brutes have internal reason. The difference, indeed, between our reason and theirs, appears to consist, as Aristotle somewhere says, not in essence, but in the more and the less …

This statement is of profound importance. It becomes essential, in examining the sentience of animals, to realize that the consciousness operating within them and within us is not different in type but only in degree. And just as among humanity the degree varies immensely from an Einstein down to a so- called ‘savage’, but we refrain from calling one sentient and the other not, so when we extend this to animals we are forced to admit their sentience (and reason).

… indeed, so far as pertains to sense and the remaining organization, according to the sensoria and the flesh, every one nearly will grant that these are similarly disposed in us, as they are in brutes. For they not only similarly participate with us of natural passions, and the motions produced through these, but we may also survey in them such affections as are preternatural and morbid. No one, however, of a sound mind, will say that brutes are unreceptive of the reasoning power, on account of the difference between their habit of body and ours, when he sees that there is a great variety of habit in men, according to their race, and the nations to which they belong and yet, at the same time, it is granted that all of them are rational.

He proceeds to point out that not only is the underlying reasoning ability of the same kind in animals and humans in relation to the senses, but that many animals exhibit far greater sensory perception, and thus on the whole they may be said to be superior to us in this regard. Our ability to cognize our environment comes through our senses and is processed by our reasoning faculty, but our senses report hardly a fraction of what many animal’s do, and thus our reasoning ability is limited by this lack of sensory ability \ limits which do not similarly exist in many animals, who may see or smell or hear with far greater accuracy and thus who may perceive far more of reality than we.

As a verification of animal reason, Porphyry later states:

… nature … did not make an animal sensitive merely that it might be passively affected, and possess sensible perception; but as there are many things which are allied and appropriate, and many which are foreign to it, it would not be able to exist for the shortest space of time, unless it learnt how to avoid some things, and to pursue others. The knowledge, therefore, of both these … the apprehension and pursuit of what is useful, and the depulsion and avoidance of what is destructive and painful, can by no possible contrivance be present with those animals that are incapable of reasoning, judging, and remembering, and that do not naturally possess an animadvertise power.

Thus we see the utility and purpose of sensory perception and its relation to reason. The use of sensory perception to successfully navigate the world itself demonstrates that underlying the perceptions is an active reasoning capacity.

Citing a work available in his day, he concludes:

There is … a treatise of Strato, the physiologist, in which it is demonstrated, that it is not possible to have a sensible perception of anything without the energy of intellection. … For the objects which fall on the eyes and the ears do not produce a sensible perception of themselves, unless that which is intellective is present.

This is an obvious assertion to the philosopher, and one that is backed by modern scientific studies. Our senses, without the mind to interpret them are useless. It is the mind that gives meaning to the input given it by the senses, and it is through a complex inner process that understanding of the information is gained. Animals, thus, demonstrate by their use of their senses that they too have this inner process of mind.

Moving steadily from reason towards the subject of justice, Porphyry observes:

… with respect to other animals, in the same manner as with respect to men, many things are taught them by nature, and some things are imparted by discipline. Brutes, however, learn some things from each other, but are taught others, as we have said, by men. They also have memory, which is a most principal thing in the resumption of reasoning and prudence. They likewise have vices, and are envious; though their bad qualities are not so widely extended as in men …

In light of what we witness daily in the “world of men” today we can certainly agree with this last statement. Animals certainly seem much less “vice ridden” than humans. And yet we are superior, many insist!

This point, that animals exhibit vice, is exceedingly important when looked at in combination with its opposite, virtue - these two opposites being paramount to the concept and exercise of justice. Porphyry thus proceeds to the subject of justice in relation to animals, supported by his arguments for their rationality (sentience).

Who likewise is ignorant how much gregarious animals preserve justice towards each other? for this is preserved by ants, by bees, and by other animals of the like kind. And who is ignorant of the chastity of female ringdoves towards the males with whom they associate? for they destroy those who are found by them to have committed adultery. Or who has not heard of the justice of storks towards their parents? For in the several species of animals, a peculiar virtue is eminent, to which each species is naturally adapted; nor because this virtue is natural and stable, is it fit to deny that they are rational? For it might be requisite to deprive them of rationality, if their works were not the proper effects of virtue and rational sagacity; but if we do not understand how these works are effected, because we are unable to penetrate into the reasoning which they use, we are not on this account to accuse them of irrationality …

Demonstrating first that justice exists in the animal kingdom, by way of examples (and many more exist that could be used, particularly, as we know in modern times, among species that exhibit complex social orders), he argues that this very act of justice demonstrates the existence of virtue among animals, and from this we can surmise the ability to discern between virtue and vice, something we humans consider a product of high reasoning!

Upon an examination of their vices and virtues, Porphyry then demonstrates that their vices are less than men’s and that many of their virtues are greater. His prime example of this is in regards to those animals who are held as slaves.

But many brutes are slaves to men, and, as someone rightly says, though they are in a state of servitude themselves, through the improbity of men, yet, at the same time, by wisdom and justice, they cause their masters to be their servants and curators. Moreover, the vices of brutes are manifest, from which especially their rationality is demonstrated. For they are envious, and the males are rivals of each other with respect to the favour of the females, and the females with respect to the regard of the males. There is one vice, however, which is not inherent in them, viz., acting insidiously towards their benefactors, but they are perfectly benevolent to those who are kind to them, and place so much confidence in them, as to follow wherever they may lead them, though it should even be to slaughter and manifest danger. And though some one should nourish them, not for their sake, but for his own, yet they will be benevolently disposed towards their possessor. But men [on the contrary] do not act with such hostility towards any one, as towards him who has nourished them; nor do they so much pray for the death of any one, as for his death.

We would argue, alongside Porphyry that this benevolent disposition that countless animals maintain, even towards their captors, is a demonstration of virtue rarely found among humans. How then, with such exhibitions of virtue, can we deny them either justice or reason?

Porphyry also examines, in light of the philosophy covered in Part 2, the importance of experiencing both the irrational and the rational as a means of growth and learning (and in its relation to virtue and vice), which leads to the proper exercise of reason (i.e. from reason to right reason).

… he who lives according to intellect, will more accurately define what is eligible [rightful to do] and what is not, than he who lives under the dominion of irrationality. For the former has passed through the irrational life, as having from the first associated with it; but the latter, having had no experience of an intellectual life, persuades those that resemble himself, and acts with nugacity [worthlessness], like a child among children.

As stated earlier, we are not born with “right reason”, but only with “reason”, which holds within itself the capacity for or potential of right reason. It takes discipline and study to ascend to right reason, which brings with it the benefit of knowing, from direct experience, both the irrational and the rational. And it is essentially this knowing (in whatever degree) that allows for one to distinguish between virtue and vice, and to act accordingly. Thus, the rational man understands both himself and the irrational man, but the irrational man understands only his own irrationality.

This is important in the application to animals, since Porphyry demonstrates earlier that animals possess both virtue and vice, and are able to distinguish between the two and thus incorporate justice into their social systems. This, in itself is a powerful argument for the reasoning capacity of animals, which, it may be argued, may exceed that of many humans, who are as yet unable to distinguish between virtue and vice and thus maintain quite confused notions of justice. It becomes difficult, in the light of these arguments, to maintain the concept of human superiority - we may be superior in potential , but have we yet demonstrated ourselves to be superior in actuality?

Porphyry continues on to dismantle several of his opponents arguments which suppose to prove that animals are not rational, among them being:

that brutes do not consult, nor form assemblies, nor act in a judicial capacity,

to which he replies:

But tell me whether all men do this? Do not actions in the multitude precede consultation? And whence can anyone demonstrate that brutes do not consult? For no one can adduce an argument sufficient to prove that they do not. For those show the contrary to this, who have written minutely about animals.

In modern times we, of course, know animals to consult with one another, in one manner or another, particularly among anthopoids and other social animals in regards to their social structure and communal decisions. Porphyry continues:

As to other objections, which are adduced by our adversaries in a declamatory way, they are perfectly frivolous; such, for instance, as that brutes have no cities of their own. For neither have the Scythians, who live in carts, nor the Gods. Our opponents add, that neither have brutes any written laws. To this we reply, that neither had men while they were happy. For Apis is said to have been the first that promulgated laws for the Greeks, when they were in want of them.

This is quite important, as it can be seen, upon reflection, that the need for legal laws arises only due to the want of them - i.e. only because we have proven ourselves incapable of living in harmony without exterior laws to enforce the self-control and right reason that we evidently lack. Animals, having no such laws, demonstrate not an incapacity, but a lack of need of such laws, and thus can be seen to surpass humans in their ability to live naturally in harmony.

In regards to equal justice to animals, Porphyry observes:

… is it not absurd, since we see that many of our own species live from sense alone, but do not possess intellect and [right] reason, and since we also see, that many of them surpass the most terrible of wild beasts in cruelty, anger, and rapine, being murderous of their children and their parents, and also being tyrants, and the tools of kings (is it not, I say, absurd,) to fancy that we ought to act justly towards these, but that no justice is due from us to the ox that ploughs, the dog that is fed with us, and the animals that nourish us with their milk, and adorn our bodies with their wool? Is it not such an opinion most irrational and absurd?

One after another, his opponents arguments are shown to be unfounded and illogical.

Following this, and directly towards the application of justice to all animals, he rightly observes:

… all men [are allied] to each other; for one of these two reasons, either because they originate from the same ancestors, or because they participate of the same food, manners and genus. Thus also we must admit that all men have an affinity, and are allied to each other. And, moreover, the principles of the bodies of all animals are naturally the same… . But animals are much more allied to each other, through naturally possessing souls, which are not different from each other … in the reasoning faculty, and, above all, in the senses. But as with respect to bodies, so likewise with respect to souls, some animals have them more, but others less perfect, yet all of them have naturally the same principles… . And if this be admitted, the genus of other animals has an affinity, and is allied to us… . Hence, since animals are allied to us, if it should appear … that they are allotted the same soul [psyche] that we are, he may justly be considered as impious who does not abstain from acting unjustly towards his kindred.

And

Through these arguments, therefore … it is demonstrated that brutes are rational animals, reason in most of them being indeed imperfect, of which, nevertheless, they are not entirely deprived. Since, however, justice pertains to rational [sentient] beings, as our opponents say, how is it possible not to admit, that we should also act justly towards brutes?

The question ought to hang in the air for a while, to be considered fully in light of the sound arguments that preceded it.

It is beneficial for us to close this section by considering, as Porphyry does, the effect engendered by one who does extend justice to all animals.

Pythagoras said, that to injure no one, and to be exhilarated with justice, is the sweetest sauce; as the avoidance of animal food, will also be the avoidance of unjust conduct with respect to food.

And indeed we agree. This exhilaration with justice lends itself to joy, bliss, or what Porphyry calls “felicity”, which is again what eastern philosophers might call Anand. It exists together with compassion and empathy and all other noble virtues, which exist potentially in all sentient beings but are activated in but a few.

For he who abstains from every thing animated [i.e. from exploitation of animals] … will be much more careful not to injure those of his own species. For he who loves the genus, will not hate any species of animals; and by how much the greater his love of the genus is, by so much the more will he preserve justice towards a part of the genus, and that to which he is allied. He, therefore, who admits that he is allied to all animals, will not injure any animal. But he who confines justice to man alone, is prepared, like one enclosed in a narrow space, to hurl from him the prohibition of injustice.

Justice breeds justice, as love breeds love and compassion does compassion. Our recognition that animals are “allied to us” by shared principles and reason, by genus (kind), lends itself to an expansion of justice not just externally, but within ourselves, which carries with it profoundly beneficent results. We become, as Porphyry explained earlier, increasingly divine (Good) by the practice of goodness.

Porphyry closes book three of his discourse with the following profound statement, addressing directly the inherent problem of the irrational (passionate) nature - a problem existing in excess in our consumerist world.

If, however, say our opponents, all men were persuaded by these arguments, what would become of us? … But now this question is just the same as if men should be dubious what the life of the Danaids would be, if they were liberated from the employment of drawing water in a sieve, and attempting to fill a perforated vessel. For they are dubious what would be the consequence if we should cease to replenish our passions and desires, the whole of which replenishing continually flows away through the want of real good; since this fills up the ruinous clefts of the soul more than the greatest of external necessaries. Do you therefore ask, O man, what we should do? We should imitate those that lived in the golden age, we should imitate those of that period who were (truly) free. For with them modesty, Nemesis [harmony], and Justice associated, because they were satisfied with the fruits of the earth.

The fertile earth for them spontaneous yields abundantly her fruits.

But those who are liberated from slavery, obtain for themselves what they before procured for their masters. In like manner, also, do you, when liberated from the servitude of the body, and a slavish attention to the passions produced through the body, as, prior to this, you nourished them in an all-various manner with externals, so now nourish yourself all-variously with internal good, justly assuming things which are (properly) your own, and no longer by violence taking away things which are foreign (to your true nature and real good).

This visual of trying to “fill a perforated vessel” or of “drawing water in a sieve” is immensely profound. It is an illustration of how the passionate nature within us operates, wherein it seeks more and more of that which it is associated with, but remains always empty, ever unfulfilled. Our reasoning nature - our higher self, our Soul (psyche) in its highest degrees - is capable, however, of “nourishing us all-variously with internal good”, thus truly fulfilling us. It is entirely our choice which of these paths we will take - the one of blind and irresponsible passions, mistaken beliefs and ignorance, or the other of mindful responsibility, true perception and understanding, compassion and wisdom. The latter is that which is associated with animal rights, the former is that which is associated with the status-quo of exploitation, destruction and suffering.

Part 4: Additional Arguments

In his essay, Porphyry weaves his several arguments together into a single stream, but we will here make selections in relation to the primary arguments presented by his opponents. As we saw in his primary argument, Porphyry’s underlying philosophy will continue to support his positions, thus it will be helpful to reflect upon this philosophy while considering each argument presented. When we have finished with these additional arguments, we’ll proceed to his second chief argument which relates to animal sacrifice (and which we may relate to modern animal testing), and to a consideration of vegan history according to Porphyry.

Addressing the fallacy that consuming animal products is healthy, Porphyry argues:

Again, neither does animal food contribute, but is rather an impediment to health. For health is preserved through those things by which it is recovered. But it is recovered through a most slender and fleshless diet; so that by this also it is preserved.

… that which is especially preservative of health, is an undisturbed state of the soul [psyche] … For much benefit is from hence derived to the body, as our associates have demonstrated from experience. Hence some who have been afflicted with the gout in the feet and hands, to such a degree as to be infested with it for eight entire years, have expelled it through abandoning wealth, and betaking themselves to the contemplation of divinity. At the same time, therefore, that they have abandoned riches, and a solicitude about human concerns, they have also been liberated from bodily disease. So that a certain state of the soul greatly contributes both to health and to the good of the whole body. And to this also, for the most part, a diminution of nutriment contributes… . And in this manner those are affected, who are vehemently desirous of such nutriment, and through it are involved either in great expense, or in disease, or repletion, or the privation of leisure.

In short: remove stress and add proper nutrients (while eliminating unhealthy nutrients) if one desires health. Just as vegans today appeal the many examples of reversal of disease and of long-term health on a whole foods, vegan and simplified (non-stressful) lifestyle, so too did Porphyry appeal to the same in his day.

Expanding on health and the role of reason, he says:

Hence also, in simple and slender food, repletion is to be avoided, and every where we should consider what will be the consequence of the possession or enjoyment of it, what the magnitude of it is, and what molestation of the flesh or of the soul it is capable of dissolving. For we ought never to act indefinitely, but in things of this kind we should employ a boundary and measure …

Later he touches on another aspect of health, explaining something many modern vegans, particularly high carb raw vegans, have come to recognize.

It is also necessary to accustom the body to become alienated, as much as possible, from the pleasure of the satiety arising from luxurious food, but not from the fullness produced by a slender diet, in order that moderation may proceed through all things, and that what is necessary, or what is most excellent, may fix a boundary to our diet.

As many vegans come to recognize, there is an essential difference between the fulness of fruits and vegetables and the satiety and heaviness of consuming animal products. One essential challenge in adopting a vegan lifestyle is to let go of the unnatural desire for this heaviness, which we have unfortunately, through habit, come to crave and to mistake for fulness.

Furthermore, Porphyry relates the opinion of the priests of various traditions who abstained from animal foods (see also history in Part 5).

For holy men were of opinion that purity consisted in a thing not being mingled with its contrary, and that mixture is defilement. Hence, they thought that nutriment should be assumed from fruits, and not from dead bodies, and that we should not, by introducing that which is animated [i.e. food from animals] to our nature, defile what is administered by nature. But they conceived, that the slaughter of animals, as they [animals] are sensitive, and the depriving them of their souls, is a defilement to the living; and that the pollution is much greater, to mingle a body which was once sensitive, but is now deprived of sense, with a sensitive and living being.

And:

… the mixture of dead with living bodies, and the insertion of beings that were once living and sentient into animals, and of dead into living flesh, may be reasonably supposed to introduce defilement and stains to our nature…

From this mingling, as we now know, arises all manner of physical disease. But the problems resulting are not solely physical, as our mental state is likewise effected.

The soul [psyche], likewise, is polluted by anger and desire, and the multitude of passions of which in a certain respect diet is a co-operating cause.

The consumption of animals, according to Porphyry, and supported by many others in modern times, contributes to mental imbalances or pollutions that manifest in all manner of human vice. The passions we associate with the consumption of animal products also lends themselves to other aspects of our lives, creating people in whom the irrational consistently overshadows the rational. Their lives become dictated not by reason, nor by compassion or morality, but by their own limited passions and desires, the habits of consumption, etc..

But purification consists in a separation from all these [defilements], and the wisdom which is adapted to divine concerns, is a desertion of every thing of this kind. The proper nutriment likewise, of each thing, is that which essentially preserves it… . It is one thing, however, to nourish, and another to fatten; and one thing to impart what is necessary, and another to procure what is luxurious.

… the soul which administers its own affairs in a body that is dry, … [i.e.] is not moistened by the juices of foreign flesh, is in a more excellent condition, is more uncorrupted, and is more prompt for intellectual energy.

In addition to feeding ourselves with the proper nutrients and avoiding defiling ourselves through animal foods, it is important, Porphyry explains, to also feed our minds through study and inner discipline.

Hence, the nutriment of the rational soul is that which preserves it in a rational state. But this is intellect; so that it is to be nourished by intellect; and we should earnestly endeavour that it may be fattened through this, rather than that the flesh may become pinguid through esculent substances… . the body when fattened causes the soul to be famished, through its hunger after a blessed life not being satisfied, increases our mortal [irrational] part, since it is of itself insane, and impedes our attainment of an immortal condition of being. It likewise defiles by corporifying the soul, and drawing her down to that which is foreign to her nature.

We return once again, then, to the philosophy underlying Porphyry’s arguments. The dragging down of the psyche into “foreign lands” - false ideas, beliefs, as well as the resulting unhealthy and unsuitable bodies - is an inevitable result of “fattening” ourselves through improper diet and lifestyle (both mental and physical). The rising up into our true nature, our real self, the rational, reasoning mind, which gives rise to understanding, wisdom, compassion and morality is the inevitable result of living well, eating a proper diet physically and engaging our minds in a proper diet mentally. Health, Porphyry argues, alongside modern vegans, comes naturally and easily from the vegan lifestyle.

Addressing the Epicurian’s fear-based positions, Porphyry argues:

It is necessary however to preserve health; not by the fear of death, but for the sake of not being impeded in the attainment of the good which is derived from contemplation.

And,

… he who fears to abstain from animal food, if he suffers himself to feed on flesh through pleasure, is afraid of death. For immediately, together with a privation [lack] of such food, he conceives that something indefinitely dreadful will be present, the consequence of which will be death. But from these and similar causes, an insatiable desire is produced of riches, possessions, and renown, together with an opinion that every good is increased with these in a greater extent of time, and the dread of death as of an infinite evil. The pleasure however which is produced through luxury, does not even approach to that which is experienced by him who lives with frugality. For such a one has great pleasure in thinking how little he requires… . He will likewise thus be truly rich, measuring wealth by a natural bound, and not by vain opinions. Thus too, he will not depend on the hope of the greatest pleasure, the existence of which is incredible, since this would be most troublesome. But he will remain satisfied with his present condition, and will not be anxious to live for a longer period of time.

This goes straight to the point made earlier about the “inner garments” we wear. The ideas and assumptions we live by will color many aspects of our lives. In this case, Porphyry explains how the mistaken idea that we need animal products to survive may be associated with a fear of death that intermingles with other areas of our life, thus informing and amplifying our consumerist needs. In short, certain inner assumptions we hold may feed both our consumption of animal products and our overall consumerism - the two being essentially the same type of activity, i.e. an attempt to ward off death and cling (fearfully) to life, attempting to extract as much as possible from it, an activity which is an unhealth of the soul [psyche], which manifests as unhealth in the body.

We find here the essential problem of the insatiability of human desires - once certain passions are stirred up and amplified they tend to infect every aspect of our lives. Thus, the distorted assumption that death is to be feared and thus that life is to be frantically clung to lends itself to all manner of harmful consumptions, as the infected mind attempts to fill the imaginary void it has itself created.

The Epicurians demonstrate by their arguments a preoccupation with fears of various kinds, basing their entire argument on the several imagined calamities that will result if they change their ways. We may recall their summarizing statement that:

… the destruction of every thing noxious [harmful], and the preservation of that which is subservient to its extermination, similarly contribute to a fearless life.

But while the Epicurians keep themselves firmly imprisoned to their own fears,

The contemplative philosopher, however will invariably adopt a slender diet. For he knows the particulars in which his bond consists, so that he is not capable of desiring luxuries. Hence, being delighted with simple food, he will not seek for animal nutriment, as if he was not satisfied with a vegetable diet.

One of the principle attributes of the philosopher is that of contentment, directly antithetical to the ever-unsettled nature that arises from fear.

Two other Epicurian arguments are briefly addressed and dismissed and promptly dismissed by Porphyry.

Addressing the fallacy that animal populations would overrun the world, he argues:

For if all men conceived rightly, there would be no need of fowlers, or hunters, or fishermen, or swineherds. But animals governing themselves, and having no guardian and ruler, would quickly perish, and be destroyed by others, who would attack them and diminish their multitude, as is found to be the case with myriads of animals on which men do not feed.

Ecosystems have an in-built balance, which maintains itself through a multiplicity of mechanisms, and contrary to human arrogance, it does not need us to force it into balance.

Argument to the appeal to existing law:

We’ll remember that the Epicurian argument appealing to law was based on the the idea that because the laws established for their society were deemed to be just, that it must then follow that because those laws don’t demand abstinence from animal foods, that animal consumption must be right and just. To this absurdity, Porphyry argues that:

… the law grants to the vulgar many other things (besides a fleshly diet) … [for example] the law does not forbid the vulgar from associating with harlots … but thinks that it is disgraceful and base for men that are moderately good to have any connexion with them. Moreover, the law does not prohibit a man from spending the whole of his life in a tavern, yet at the same time this is most disgraceful even to a man of moderate worth. It appears, therefore, that the same thing must also be said with respect to diet. For that which is permitted to the multitude, must not likewise be granted to the best of men.

These examples make it clear that the existing law doesn’t necessarily represent perfect morality, allowing for many things that are recognized as immoral, and likewise to things not yet recognized (by the multitudes) as immoral. One underlying point is, of course, that no system of law is infallible, and appealing to fallible law to uphold immorality is an incredibly weak argument, as has been demonstrated in the many rights movements of our recent generations. Even if the current multitudes imagine something to be just this in no way makes it just per se. Appealing to law as justification, while ignoring inner morality is to replace internal truths with static external structure.

Argument against the fallacy that eating plants is equal to eating animals:

Some one, however, perhaps may say, that we also take away something from plants [when we eat, and sacrifice them to the Gods]. But the ablation is not similar; since we do not take this away from those who are unwilling that we should. For, if we omitted to gather them, they would spontaneously drop their fruits. The gathering of the fruits, also, is not attended with the destruction of the plants, as it is when animals lose their animating principle.

A sound argument shared by modern fruitarians. Later, amid his discussion of reason and justice, Porphyry again addresses the fallacy:

… we do not extend justice to plants, because there appears to be much in them which is unconnected with reason; though of these, we are accustomed to use the fruits, but not together with the fruits to cut off the trunks. We collect however, corn and leguminous substances, when, being efflorescent, they have fallen on the earth, and are dead. But no one uses for food the flesh of dead animals, that of fish being excepted, unless they have been destroyed by violence. So that in these things there is much injustice.

He then makes a point that addresses itself both to the fallacy at hand and to several of his opponent’s arguments, returning to the theme of both health and justice.

As Plutarch also says, it does not follow that because our nature is indigent of certain things, and we use these, we should therefore act unjustly towards all things. For we are allowed to injure other things to a certain extent, in order to procure the necessary means of subsistence (if to take any thing from plants, even while they are living, is an injury to them); but to destroy other things through luxury, and for the enjoyment of pleasure, is perfectly savage and unjust. And the abstinence from these neither diminishes our life nor our living happily. For if, indeed, the destruction of animals and the eating of flesh were as requisite as air and water, plants and fruits, without which it is impossible to live, this injustice would be necessarily connected with our nature. But if many priests of the Gods, and many kings of the barbarians, being attentive to purity, and if, likewise, infinite species of animals never taste food of this kind, yet live, and obtain their proper end according to nature, is not he absurd who orders us, because we are compelled to wage war with certain animals, not to live peaceably with those with whom it is possible to do so, but thinks, either that we ought to live without exercising justice towards any thing, or that, by exercising it towards all things, we should not continue in existence?

This touches on a central foundation of the modern vegan movement, namely the steady destruction of the myth that consuming animal products is necessary for either survival or health. As Porphyry says, and as many of us rightly echo today, the proof that we do not need animals to survive, or thrive, is demonstrated by those who abstain and yet maintain their health. In his day these were to be found chiefly among the priests and philosophers (which we will discuss in part 5), but also among certain kings (as we saw in our investigation of Apollonius of Tyana).

Porphyry also explains, as is the case with, for example, lettuce and other vegetables, that it is required to injure the plant “to a certain extent” in order to procure the food, but that this is a necessity of our nature, exactly as with any herbivore, and needed for our health (a built-in aspect of our relation to the ecosystem), but that the injury of animals by humans is solely out of “luxury” and not necessity \ a central argument of modern animal rights activists as well. In short: we eat animals (and sacrifice them) only because we desire to, not because it is in any way necessary for our health (it is, in fact, a detriment to it), and thus the practice is absolutely devoid of justice. As Porphyry rightly observes:

… he who acts in this manner through the acquisition of wealth, or through satiety or luxurious pleasure, and for the purpose of satisfying desires which are not necessary, appears to be inhospitable, intemperate, and depraved.

And,

… to deliver animals to be slaughtered and cooked, and thus be filled with murder, not for the sake of nutriment and satisfying the wants of nature, but making pleasure and gluttony the end of such conduct, is transcendently iniquitous and dire.

Returning to the central issue of justice, we later read:

By admitting, therefore, that pleasure is the end (of our actions) justice is evidently destroyed.

Our treatment of animals, from Porphyry’s perspective, shared by modern vegans and animal rights activists, is that because there is no necessity in harming animals, nor in consuming them, our choice to do so is seen to arise solely from our desire for the so-called benefits that arise (gluttonist pleasure, corruption, greed, etc.). This complete and utter obeisance to the worst in us is therefore easily seen by any thinking, feeling person to be the very epitome of injustice.

Porphyry further elucidates the distinction between animals and plants, thus:

… we do not say that one tree is more ignorant than another, as we say that a sheep is more stupid than a dog. Nor do we say that one herb is more timid than another, as we do that a stag is more timid than a lion. For, as in things which are immoveable [i.e. non-sentient], one is not slower than another, and in things which are not vocal, one is not less vocal than another: thus, too, in all things in which the power of intellection is wanting, one thing cannot be said to be more timid, more dull, or more intemperate than another. For, as these qualities are present differently in their different participants, they produce in animals the diversities which we perceive.

And concluding the argument, Porphyry cuts straight to the central point:

To compare plants … with animals, is doing violence to the order of things. For the latter are naturally sensitive, and adapted to feel pain, to be terrified and hurt; on which account also they may be injured. But the former are entirely destitute of sensation, and in consequence of this, nothing foreign, or evil, or hurtful, or injurious, can befall them.

In short: it comes down to the ability to self-consciously experience suffering. Animals are capable of this, as are humans. Plants are not. The difference is evident to any who give this a modicum of rational thought.

Argument against the opinion that animals were created with no other purpose than to be of use to humans:

[It] is considered by our opponents to be very probable, that the Gods made us for the sake of themselves, and for the sake of each other, and that they made animals for the sake of us; horses, indeed, in order that they might assist us in battle, dogs, that they might hunt with us, and leopards, bears, and lions, for the sake of exercising our fortitude. But the hog … was not made for any other purpose than to be sacrificed; and God mingled soul, as if it were salt, with the flesh of this animal, that he might procure for us excellent food. In order, likewise, that we might have an abundance of broth, and luxurious suppers, divinity provided for us all-various kinds of shell- fish, the fishes called purples, sea-nettles, and the various kinds of winged animals; and this not from a certain other cause, but only that he might supply man with an exuberance of pleasure; in so doing, surpassing all nurses [in kindness], and thickly filling with pleasures and enjoyments the terrestrial place.

This, sadly, is the position taken by many, if not the majority, of monotheistic religionists even in our modern world, imagining that their God created all of this for our use and nothing more. The idea is, of course, to any thinking person, not only absurd, but disgusting and depraved. Porphyry gives his reply:

… if God fashioned animals for the use of men, in what do we use flies, lice, bats, beetles, scorpions, and vipers? of which some are odious to the sight, defile the touch, are intolerable to the smell, and in their voice dire and unpleasant; and others, on the contrary, are destructive to those that meet with them.

And if our opponents should admit that all things were not generated for us, and with a view to our advantage, in addition to the distinction which they make being very confused and obscure, we shall not avoid acting unjustly, in attacking and noxiously using those animals which were not produced for our sake, but according to nature [i.e. for the sake of the universe], as we were.

A wonderful argument! If animals were created for our use, what of those that we find no use in? And if we find no use in some animals, then it is unjust to destroy them, as then we are robbing them of their actual purpose, whatever that be. Based on his opponent’s position then (assuming, for the moment, that it were even remotely plausible), we can surmise that we ought not kill any animal that we do not have a use for, which forces his opponents to admit to the justice in not killing the vast majority of animals. Continuing to use his opponent’s arguments against them, he makes the wonderful point:

… that if we define, by utility [i.e. the purpose of a thing], things which pertain to us, we shall not be prevented from admitting, that we were generated for the sake of the most destructive animals, such as crocodiles, balaenae, and dragons. For we are not in the least benefited by them; but they seize and destroy men that fall in their way, and use them for food …

His opponents, it would seem, inadvertently place Man somewhere in the middle of the spectrum of utility, and not, as they would love to have it, at the pinnacle. Let any modern monotheistic religionist who takes up the position that animals were created for Man address these arguments and escape without entangling themselves in their own twisted logic!

Furthermore,

those, however, who speak stupidly about these things, assert that animals are neither delighted, nor enraged, nor terrified, nor make any provision for what is necessary, nor remember; but they say that the bee as it were remembers, that the swallow as it were, provides what is requisite, that the lion is as it were angry, and that the stag is as it were afraid. And I know not what answer to give to those who say that animals neither see nor hear, but see as it were, and as it were hear; that they do not utter vocal sounds, but as it were utter them; and that, in short, they do not live, but as it were live. For he who is truly intelligent, will readily admit that these assertions are no more sane than the former, and are similarly destitute of evidence.

This addresses directly the religious sentiment that animals are devoid of soul and thus do not live as humans live, but are merely automatons, seemingly exhibiting similarities to human emotions, reason, etc.., but in reality only do so automatically and without individuality or mind (psyche, soul). It is, as Porphyry says, unfounded and illogical and “destitute of evidence”.

We thus return to the concept of justice, as:

… this [that animals are automatons] to our opponents does not appear to be at all absurd. For as they admit that the love of parents towards their offspring is the principle in us of association and justice; yet, though they perceive that this affection is abundant and strong in animals, they nevertheless deny that they participate of justice …

This, as we can see, is entirely erroneous and irrational. There is no logic in assuming that animals exhibit the same behavior as humans and yet somehow do not contain the same principles or faculties that are associated with that behavior in humans. As argued earlier, animals display a wide variety of sentient (rational, intelligent, reasoning) capabilities, and thus must be concluded to be possessed of the same animating principles, namely soul or psyche (mind). Logic, however, seems to escape Porphyry’s opponents as widely as it escapes ours.

Having summarized the secondary arguments weaved by Porphyry throughout his essay, it remains yet to explore two related issues covered at length in it, these being Animal Sacrifice and the dual history of both veganism and animal consumption. We will consider these, then, in our final section.

Part 5: On Sacrifice and History

Having covered the bulk of Porphyry’s arguments against the opponents of animal rights and veganism, we will now take into consideration the second of his central arguments, which comprises a large portion of his essay. This argument, as we will see, is interwoven with Porphyry’s treatment of the history of animal consumption and its counterpart, veganism. His examination of history is worth serious consideration, as it stands in contrast to conventional modern theories but in direct correlation with alternative theories put forward in recent years.

Addressing the argument of the need to sacrifice animals to the gods and its relation to the consumption of animal products:

Porphyry speaks at length on the subject of sacrifice, but it will serve us best here to make a few selections as a summary. Prior to entering into his argument, however, let us understand that while we may not actively sacrifice animals on the alters of religious institutions in our modern times, we are very far from abolishing the underlying practice. On the contrary, we have simply replaced religion with science, and its gods with ourselves, having continued the practice of sacrifice under the name of vivisection and all manner of animal testing. We sacrifice countless animals annually to ourselves, the ‘gods’ of science, to please our own desires for knowledge, for medicine, fashion and so on. Let us then, read the following with this in mind, and not detach ourselves from this portion of Porphyry’s essay by perceiving this to be solely an archaic practice. The act of carelessly sacrificing animals, and its underlying brutality of thought, is alive and well in our day and needs to be fought as strongly as it was in Porphyry’s.

The argument Porphyry presents, opens with a little display of simple logic to separate and target the issue.

Firstly,

… it does not follow because animals are slain that it is necessary to eat them. Nor does he who admits the one, I mean that they should be slain, entirely prove that they should be eaten.

Secondly,

… the laws permit us to defend ourselves against enemies who attack us [by killing them]; but it did not seem proper to these laws to grant that we should eat them, as being a thing contrary to the nature of man.” And “… it does not follow, that because it is proper to sacrifice certain animals to daemons, or Gods, or certain powers, through causes either known or unknown to men, it is therefore necessary to feed on animals.

“For these things not being confused, but distinguished in a proper manner, most of the opposing arguments will be found to be vain. For the greater part of them endeavour to show, either that it is necessary to slay animals, on account of the injuries sustained from them, and it is assumed as a thing consequent, that it is proper to eat them; or because animals are slain in sacrifices, it is inferred that therefore they may be eaten by men. And again, if it is requisite to destroy certain animals, on account of their ferocity, it is conceived, that it must follow, that tame animals likewise ought to be slain… . all these inferences are bad, and are incapable of exhibiting any necessity for their adoption. And, indeed, that all of them are bad, will be immediately evident to men that are not contentious.”

This is important at the outset, that we separate the act of consuming an animal from the act of killing them (for whatever reasons we conceive). The two acts must be addressed individually, as one does not follow from the other. In this way, we can easily see that the argument for sacrificing animals, even if it were successful, in no way leads to the conclusion that we ought to eat animals. However, as Porphyry will explain, the two acts are related in their historical context.

So, in moving forward from this logical separation, Porphyry proceeds to trace the history of sacrifice, demonstrating that the original sacrifices made to the gods consisted of burning grasses, flowers, leaves, or by presenting fruits, cakes made of wheat, etc., but that:

This mode … of offering first-fruits in sacrifices, having, at length, proceeded to great illegality, the assumption of immolations, most dire and full of cruelty, was introduced; so that it would seem that the execrations, which were formerly uttered against us, have now received their consummation, in consequence of men slaughtering animals, and defiling altars with blood; and this commenced from that period in which mankind tasted of blood, through having experienced the evils of famine and war.

Religious sacrifice, then, was not originally meant to consist of something as cruel the slaughtering of animals, this being only a later development, spawned by the trauma of human experience.

The sacrifice, therefore, through animals is posterior and most recent, and originated from a cause which is not of a pleasing nature, like that of the sacrifice from fruits, but received its commencement either from famine, or some other unfortunate circumstance.

In terms of modern practices (vivisection, animal testing, etc.), we may likewise say that scientific observation of animals began in their natural environment and without injury to them, and only later did it devolve into capturing, imprisoning, torturing, murdering and dissecting them, as our thirst for knowledge and power (over nature) overpowered our morality.

The practice of sacrifice, according to Porphyry, began as a simple showing of gratitude and respect for the gods (the embodiments of the forces of nature) - a basic act of thanking Mother Earth for supplying us with our needs - and only later was it degraded to the killing of animals to please supposedly vengeful gods (imagined to be the cause of human plight). These sacrifices, Porphyry tells us,

… had their beginning, either in ignorance, or anger, or fear…

While this specific type of animal sacrifice (to the gods) is, as said, no longer a direct concern in our current societies (though its morphed ‘brother’ is), what is of great important in Porphyry’s treatment of this issue is his explanation of the history underlying animal sacrifice - and it is important because he traces not only the history of animal sacrifice, but the history of animal consumption itself. He begins this by recounting specific instances of the first animal sacrifices, after which he concludes that:

All of them however, are full of explanations that are not holy. But most of them assign famine, and the injustice with which it is attended, as the cause. Hence men having tasted of animals, they offered them in sacrifice, as first- fruits, to the Gods; but prior to this, they were accustomed to abstain from animal food.

Here Porphyry agrees with several modern historians, taking the position that the consumption of animal products is a relatively recent adaptation, and that humans were once “accustomed to abstaining from animal food,” and he is clear on the cause of this transition to eating animals:

… pestilence and war were the causes that introduced the necessity of eating them [animals].

We must also recognize that even his opponent, Claudius, himself verified this tradition - that humanity was once accustomed to abstaining from animals (see Part 1, Claudius’s first argument).

Furthermore, Porphyry relates:

… at first, indeed, sacrifices of fruits were made to the Gods; but, in the course of time, men becoming negligent of sanctity, in consequence of fruits being scarce, and through the want of legitimate nutriment, being impelled to eat each other, then supplicating divinity with many prayers, they first began to make oblations of themselves to the Gods, not only consecrating to the divinities whatever among their possessions was most beautiful, but, proceeding beyond this, they sacrificed those of their own species.

We can imagine the process: the trauma and desperation of famine and pestilence leading men to face the choice of death or such acts as cannibalism. This history (as we’ll discuss later) is pre-agricultural, wherein the skills to grow and harvest were not utilized, and given that, according to Porphyry, they were “accustomed to abstaining from animal foods” the skill of hunting was likewise absent, and thus in the advent of famine humanity found themselves rather helpless.

To appreciate this process, the trauma of famine must be fully recognized, understood and appreciated for its magnitude. The psychological effect of starvation, without the prospect of availability of food has, throughout human history, led to many terribly difficult decisions, cannibalism among them. And according to Porphyry, with many historical records at his disposal that are unavailable today, humans were first accustomed to abstaining from animal foods, but then faced the trauma of famine, pestilence and war, which led some to adopt, out of desperation, the practice of sacrificing and eating each other.

Proceeding therefore from hence, they made the bodies of other animals supply the place of their own in sacrifices, and again, through a satiety of legitimate nutriment, becoming oblivious of piety, they were induced by voracity to leave nothing untasted, nothing un-devoured. And this is what now happens to all men with respect to the aliment from fruits. For when, by the assumption of them, they have alleviated their necessary indigence [need], then searching for a superfluity of satiety, they labour to procure many things for food which are placed beyond the limits of temperance. Hence, as if they had made no ignoble sacrifices to the Gods, they proceeded also to taste the animals which they immolated; and from this, as a principle of the deed, the eating of animals became an addition to men to the nutriment derived from fruits.

So men began by sacrificing vegetation and “first-fruits” to the gods - i.e. they sacrificed that which they also ate - and when they began eating animals (which started only as a response to pestilence, famine and war) they continued the habit of sacrificing that which they ate. But more importantly, the consumption of animal products, while it started as a reaction to harsh conditions, became a habitual part of human life, even when conditions improved and fruits were again in plentiful supply.

From here, Porphyry cuts straight to the point of the issue, making his position on animal sacrifice absolutely clear.

But the most beautiful and honourable of those things, by which the Gods benefit us, are the fruits of the earth. For through these they preserve us, and enable us to live legitimately; so that, from these we ought to venerate them. Besides, it is requisite to sacrifice those things by the sacrifice of which we shall not injure any one… . if someone should say, that God gave animals for our use, no less than the fruits of the earth, yet it does not follow that they are, therefore, to be sacrificed, because in so doing they are injured, through being deprived of life. For sacrifice is, as the name implies, something holy. But no one is holy who requites a benefit from things which are the property of another … for how can this be holy, when those are injured from whom they are taken? … In sacrifices, therefore, we should abstain from animals.

From his arguments we can see that the sacrifice of animals is firstly not holy or necessary, even from the perspective of one steeped in the holy life, as Porphyry was, and secondly that even if one does insist on the practice of sacrificing animals (or killing them for any reason) there is no logic in the sentiment that they then ought to be eaten. Indeed, he takes the position that the consumption of animal products began only as a response to imminent starvation and only later did it become habitual. Therefore, neither act, animal sacrifice or animal consumption, need play a role among humanity, as both are artificial additions to human life.

In relation to modern practices we may say that the study of animals need not include harm to any animal. In this case also “it is requisite to sacrifice [only] those things by the sacrifice of which we shall not injure any one.” In seeking the abandonment of cruelty to any animal, we must fully remove any injury resulting from scientific study as well as the practice of consumption.

Porphyry moves to an explanation of the proper substance to be sacrificed and the proper state of mind from which real sacrifice naturally arises in the form of gratitude:

… the benefit derived from fruits is the first and the greatest of all others, and which, as soon as they are matured, should alone be offered to the Gods, and to Earth, by whom they are produced. For she is the common Vesta of Gods and men; and it is requisite that all of us, reclining on her surface, as on the bosom of our mother and nurse, should celebrate her divinity, and love her with a parental affection, as the source of our existence.

This is sacrifice: gratitude. It is an offering of our thanks to the Earth that sustains us and gives us life. As she supplies us with fruits for our sustenance, it is fruits that constitute the most noble objects of our gratitude, being the symbol and source of our health and of our Mother Earth’s love.

Argument against the fallacy that consuming animal products is natural because all nations engage in it:

Following his arguments on sacrifice, Porphyry expands upon the history of veganism, which we will summarize here. He does not bother to directly counter the very obvious fallacy that because something is customary it is right, but simply illustrates that not all nations or individuals do engage in the consumption of animal products, which in itself dismantles the fallacy.

He begins:

… we shall confute the assertion of our opponents, that no wise man, nor any nation, has rejected animal food, as it leads those that hear it to great injustice, through the ignorance of true history …

And continues:

… we shall begin from the abstinence of certain nations, in the narration of which, what is asserted of the Greeks will first claim our attention, as being the most allied to us, and the most appropriate of all the witnesses that can be adduced. Among those, therefore, that have concisely, and at the same time accurately collected an account of the affairs of the Greeks, is the Peripatetic Dicaearchus, who, in narrating the pristine life of the Greeks, says, the ancients, being generated with an alliance to the Gods, were naturally most excellent, and led the best life; so that, when compared to us of the present day, who consist of an adulterated and most vile matter, they were thought to be a golden race; and they slew no animal whatever. The truth of this, he also says, is testified by the poets, who denominate these ancients the golden race, and assert that every good was present with them.

We must again remember that Porphyry had many works available to him that we no longer have, many of these having been destroyed by the budding Christian Church in the centuries after his time. Our approach to Greek history is, therefore, almost surely lacking in comparison to the history available to Porphyry. And while we explored, in a previous blog, the Orphics - the most ancient of philosophers of Greece - who were known to have eaten no animal products, the prehistoric Greece described here as the “golden age” would refer to far more distant eras, indeed, as we’ll see, to the pre- argricultural Greeks.

All things, therefore, are very properly said to have been then [in Prehistoric Greece] spontaneously produced; for men did not procure any thing by labour, because they were unacquainted with the agricultural art, and, in short, had no knowledge of any other art. This very thing, likewise, was the cause of their leading a life of leisure, free from labours and care; and if it is proper to assent to the decision of the most skilful and elegant of physicians, it was also the cause of their being liberated from disease… . For they neither assumed such food as was stronger than the nature of the body could bear, but such as could be vanquished by the corporeal nature, nor more than was moderate, on account of the facility of procuring it …

Moreover, there were neither any wars among them, nor seditions with each other. For no reward of contention worth mentioning was proposed as an incentive, for the sake of which some one might be induced to engage in such dissensions. So that the principal thing in that life was leisure and rest from necessary occupations, together with health, peace, and friendship.

Truly a picture of Eden, corresponding to many other versions of prehistoric humanity found throughout religious and ancient philosophic literature. And, parallel to other traditions, Porphyry then recounts the “fall” from this condition:

But to those in after times, who, through aspiring after things which greatly exceeded mediocrity, fell into many evils, this pristine life became, as it was reasonable to suppose it would, desirable … A pastoral life succeeded to this, in which men procured for themselves superfluous possessions, and meddled with animals. For, perceiving that some of them were innoxious [harmless], but others malefic and savage, they tamed the former, but attacked the latter. At the same time, together with this life, war was introduced. And these things, says Dicaearchus, are not asserted by us, but by those who have historically discussed a multitude of particulars. For, as possessions were now of such a magnitude as to merit attention, some ambitiously endeavoured to obtain them, by collecting them (for their own use), and calling on others to do the same, but others directed their attention to the preservation of them when collected. Time, therefore, thus gradually proceeding, and men always directing their attention to what appeared to be useful, they at length became conversant with the third, and agricultural form of life.

The historical documents Porphyry had at his disposal seem to have been quite clear on this process, notwithstanding modern theories. Those documents give light to the idea that animal consumption is a recent addition to human life, and thus unnatural and capable of being discarded.

And this [history] is what is said by Dicaearchus, in his narration of the manners of the ancient Greeks, and the blessed life which they then led, to which abstinence from animal food contributed, no less than other things. Hence, at that period there was no war, because injustice was exterminated. But afterward, together with injustice towards animals, war was introduced among men, and the endeavour to surpass each other in amplitude of possessions.

We can certainly see the logic in these assertions. Infant human civilization undoubtedly had less possessions in much narrower variety; there is no indication of war among “pre-civilization” humanity - war going hand in hand with both the increase of possession and the accompanying desire for more (i.e. the “attempts to fill a perforated vessel” from Part 2). Indeed, Porphyry is clear that, according to these historical records:

… together with the slaughter of animals, war and injustice were introduced.

There is, according to this history a correlation and commonality in the adoption of cruelty to animals and the adoption of war and a consumerist mentality. And, if we reflect on the sound philosophy underlying Porphyry’s arguments, we can see clearly why these things correlate with one another.

Moving on from the ancient Greeks, Porphyry then recounts a portion of the history of Lacedaemonia (Laconia, Sparta).

Hence, this [the relation of possessions, slaughter of animals, war and injustice] being afterwards perceived by the Lacedaemonian Lycurgus, though the eating of animals then prevailed, yet he so arranged his polity, as to render food of this kind requisite in the smallest degree. For the allotted property of each individual did not consist in herds of oxen, flocks of sheep, or an abundance of goats, horses, and money, but in the possession of land, which might produce for a man seventy medimni of barley, and for a woman twelve, and the quantity of liquid fruits in the same proportion. For he thought that this quantity of nutriment was sufficient to procure a good habit of body and health, nothing else to obtain these being requisite.

He further explains how this leader created policies to lessen the negative effects that he had observed in the “fall” into vice throughout and surrounding his region, and that this led to a most peaceful, frugal and temperate kingdom.

As the exploitation and consumption of animals became more and more ingrained into society, we see that veganism and animal rights became increasingly relegated to the priests and priestly organizations. Porphyry relates several of these bodies of holy men in regards to their abstinence of animal foods, wherein the degrees of initiation into such a life were often accompanied by increased abstinence, such that the higher degrees absolute veganism was demanded.

He speaks at length on the Egyptian priests and their strict lifestyle, saying that:

… they were studious of frugality in their diet and apparel, and also of continence and endurance, and in all things were attentive to justice and equity.

And that:

… they abstained from all the fish that was caught in Egypt, and from such quadrupeds as had solid, or many-fissured hoofs, and from such as were not horned; and likewise from all such birds as were carnivorous. Many of them, however, entirely abstained from all animals; and in purifications this abstinence was adopted by all of them, for then they did not even eat an egg.

We get a sense here then, that even during times when animal consumption was common, there were orders of men, considered by the Platonist philosophers to be of great wisdom, who practiced varying levels of vegetarian and even vegan lifestyles. He relates that:

… though they neither exercised themselves in walking or riding, yet they lived free from disease, and were sufficiently strong for the endurance of modern labours. They bore therefore many burdens in the performance of sacred operations, and accomplished many ministrant works, which required more than common strength.

Furthermore, he relates that:

… the Egyptian priests, through the proficiency which they made by this exercise [of their lifestyle], and similitude to divinity, knew that divinity [the Good] does not pervade through man alone, and that soul [psyche] is not enshrined in man alone on the earth, but that it nearly passes through all animals. On this account, in fashioning the images of the Gods, they assumed every animal, and for this purpose mixed together the human form and the forms of wild beasts, and again the bodies of birds with the body of a man… For they venerated the power of God which extends to all things through animals which are nurtured together…

An unlearned man, however, does not even suspect that they [the priests], not being borne along with the stream of the vulgar who know nothing, and not walking in the path of ignorance, but passing beyond the illiterate multitude, and that want of knowledge which befalls every one at first, were led to reverence things which are thought by the vulgar to be of no worth.

Thus, while the multitudes fell into all manner of depraved living, seeing animals (among other things) as of no inherent worth (except as of utility to Man), the proper and natural human lifestyle and diet remained among the wise, who continued to hold much reverence for animals.

Another example given of those who abstained from animal foods is the Essenes, which account Porphyry bases on the historian Josephus. The Essenes, however, in Porphyry’s account, abstained from certain animals, but not entirely from animal products.

He moves on:

Farther still, it is likewise related that the Syrians formerly abstained from animals, and, on this account, did not sacrifice them to the Gods; but that afterwards they sacrificed them, for the purpose of averting certain evils; yet they did not at all admit of a fleshly diet.

He then relates how the Syrians devolved into the practices of both animal sacrifice and animal consumption, along the same general outline as covered in his general history.

Moving eastward, he touches on the Magi among the Persians.

Eubulus … wrote the history of Mithra, in a treatise consisting of many books. In this work he says, that the first and most learned class of the Magi neither eat nor slay any thing animated, but adhere to the ancient abstinence from animals. The second class use some animals indeed [for food], but do not slay any that are tame. Nor do those of the third class, similarly with other men, lay their hands on all animals.

Porphyry continues to India, where, like Apollonius before him, he credits the tradition of the Brahmins as including no animal foods. The average Bramins, however, may be said to be vegetarians, not necessarily vegans, as many (though not all) of them condone the consumption of milk. Porphyry relates:

A Bramin … is not a subject of any government, nor does he contribute any thing together with others to government. And with respect to those that are philosophers, among these some dwell on mountains, and others about the river Ganges. And those that live on mountains feed on autumnal fruits, and on cows’ milk coagulated with herbs. But those that reside near the Ganges, live also on autumnal fruits, which are produced in abundance about that river. The land likewise nearly always bears new fruit, together with much rice, which grows spontaneously, and which they use when there is a deficiency of autumnal fruits. But to taste of any other nutriment, or, in short, to touch animal food, is considered by them as equivalent to extreme impurity and impiety.

Having completed a brief and basic survey of several vegan and vegetarian men and groups, Porphyry describes that the common groups of nomads, etc., that:

… were brought to the necessity of eating animals through the infecundity of the region they inhabit, which is so barren, that it does not even produce herbs, but only shores and sands. And this necessity is indicated by their not being able to make use of fire, through the want of combustible materials; but they dry their fish on rocks, or on the shore. And these indeed live after this manner from necessity. There are, however, certain nations whose manners are rustic, and who are naturally savage; but it is not fit that those who are equitable judges should, from such instances as these, calumniate human nature …

It is not fitting of those of us who are “equitable judges” (of what is right and wrong) to imagine that because some peoples, either out of necessity or savagery, consume animal products, that we also ought to do so. On the contrary, as many of the wisest men among humanity have maintained, even while the multitudes continued their unjust practices, we must follow our own sense of reason, compassion and justice and to do what we know, in our hearts, is rightful to do. As Porphyry says:

… he who is perfectly legal and pious ought to abstain from all animals. For if some who are only partially pious abstain from certain animals, he who is in every respect pious will abstain from all animals.

And this is the stance of modern vegans. We have come to recognize that true justice must be extended to all sentient beings, that to be “perfectly legal and pious” is to abstain from causing harm to any of our kin, and we have learned that animals are our kin. Indeed, we agree with Porphyry when he asks:

… how is it possible not to lament the condition of the generality of mankind, who are so involved in darkness as to cherish their own evil, and who, in the first place, hate themselves, and him who truly begot them, and afterwards, those who admonish them, and call on them to return from ebriety to a sober condition of being?

We too can but lament this condition, wherein the most depraved vices rule our actions, wherein humanity demonstrates itself to be so full of hatred and cruelty. And we agree with that great mind who first envisioned the existence of the atom, for:

Democrates says, that to live badly, and not prudently, temperately, and piously, is not to live in reality, but to die for a long time.

We, however, wish to live, to truly live, and to be truly human. We wish to be reasonable, rational, intelligent and compassionate beings, and it is this wish that underlies our veganism and our action as animal rights activists. We wish to walk the age-old path of the philosopher, to rise into our truest self, thus embody all that is good , all that is divine.

As vegans, our closest kindreds in human history are to be found among the (oft concealed) wise ones of every age and region, among the philosophers and spiritually minded, who despite the fall of the multitudes into unpardonable sin, continued to “adhere to the ancient abstinence from animals.”

There have been vegans and animal rights activists throughout human history, Porphyry (and his predecessors) among them. But while these have for long centuries been relegated to the few, before us today stands the opportunity to rescue the most natural and just lifestyle from the hidden corners of humanity and restore it to its rightful place among the majority. Porphyry used all the means available to him to defend the animals in his day, and it is our duty to do the same in ours.

A Song for Bloody Geoff

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:36:53 -0800

There once was a sealer named Bryce
Whose heart was as frigid as ice.
He clubbed ’em and snagged ’em
Then brutally dragged ’em;
Of mercy he didn’t think twice.

Now Bryce had some friends, it’s been told
Whose souls had long since been sold.
They pandered and lied,
Geoff Regan at side:
A leader with morals “on hold”.

Geoff’s greed was well-known in the land
(He refused to have the slaughter banned.)
He sent the Coast Guard
To where ice floes were marred
And more innocent deaths had been planned.

The sealers did torture and plunder;
Their savagery echoed like thunder.
The crimson blood flowed
Under death’s heavy load;
Of justice - one can only wonder.

And Regan of Fisheries fame
So willing to play the cruel game,
A killer at heart,
From his office took part
And shoulders the brunt of the blame.

They say wickedness does have a price.
Thus, the crimes that have happened on ice
Will always be there
For history to share
And the world will remember the vice.

Where Bryce and his buddies will go
Is a place of incredible woe.
Yet try to compare
What their leader will bear
Since his callousness funded the show.

Said the Devil, “I’ll trade my whole choir
For one white-collar thug, brute and liar.
How they pine for tradition;
Soon they’ll howl in perdition
With ol’ Geoff at the heart of my fire.”

Permission granted by author to forward this limerick widely and to share with Fisheries, the Canadian Prime Minister, the Queen of England, and anyone else on our planet who may be remotely interested. Anyone musically inclined could add a tune to it and sing it at demos, particularly in front of DFO offices.