Posted by Benjamin on: 06.13.2007 /
A story in the New York Times today piqued my interest: it seems poachers have shot the last two white rhino’s in Zambia, killing the female and wounding the male, and taking the female’s horn with them. It caught my eye because it triggered a question that’s been bubbling on slow simmer on the back burner in my brain for quite a while now. What’s the deal with animal rights, trying to prevent extinction of species, etc. etc.? (Oh dear, I suspect I’m rather going to get in trouble here.)
On the one hand, it makes sense to me that having a compassionate, just stance toward animals, and a wise caretaker attitude towards species, will both feed and reflect a compassionate, wise, caretaking attitude towards other people and ourselves.
On the other hand, however, … I read Steve Jones’ Almost Like a Whale a few years ago (H/T Seren). It is a modern evolutionary biologist’s attempt to write an update of Darwin’s Origin of Species. He seems to be saying that from an evolutionary perspective extinction is perfectly normal, and indeed the vast majority of all species which have ever existed have gone extinct. We need not worry about species going extinct per se–apparently if the go extinct they are no longer fit to survive.
Furthermore, I rather identify with something that Dr. Paul Farmer was quoted as saying in Mountains Beyond Mountains. He was talking about what he could do for the extremely poor in Haiti and elsewhere if he just had the money that westerners spend on grooming their pets every year.
This juxtaposition really hit me back in 2000 when we sailed into Genova in Italy. Our ship, LOGOS II, had just spent 5 months in relatively very poor West African nations. A man had ridden up to the gangway once on an old, rather beat up small child’s tricycle. He had no legs. He sat on the tricycle seat and pedalled with his hands–that was how he got around. Off the tricylce he got and up the ganway he came on his hands, with a huge smile and genuinely hearty greeting for anyone he met. The engineers obtained his permission to work on his trike, and they gave it the old once over, making sure it worked to the best of their ability. He was so tickled about that and thanked them effusively.
In Genova, soon after we arrived, I saw a lady walking her German Shepherd through the port area–out on an evening stroll. The German Shepherd apparently couldn’t use it’s hind legs, and its back half was strapped onto a gleaming stainless steel precision engineered contraption with wheels on it, so that the dog could pull itself along with its front legs. When I saw this, I couldn’t help but instantly mentally superimpose the mental image of African man’s trike onto the Italian dog’s cart. It felt a bit like vertigo, like something was rather deeply wrong with the picture. It was a feeling we had again and again during that first port in Italy while we all attempted to adjust to the shock of the imbalance.
Having said all that, I’m hardly guiltless. Earlier this year we spent what amounts to more than a months wages for the poorest 1/6th of us on two Russian dwarf hamsters and their associated paraphanelia.
How are we to balance care for animals with care for humans? Or is balance even the right metaphor here? Your thoughts?
Leave a Reply
Comment by: Jim Henderson
1 06/13/07 7:23 PM | Comment Link |Bens
I wonder this same thing. Maybe if we stopped eating animals that would give us enough moral high ground to ignore them and attend to others humans.
I eat meat but if someone led this movement I could be convinced
Comment by: Rachel
2 06/13/07 8:23 PM | Comment Link |Check out this group, Jim: The Christian Vegetarian Association
Comment by: David H
3 06/14/07 9:32 AM | Comment Link |I can see taking this attitude with the speices that went extinct before the time of man and even if it occurs now because of benign neglect. However, the vast majority of animals dying in this age are because of human intervention and — in almost every case — the vast majority of people didn’t benefit from these extinction events. In most cases of which I am aware, a few get richer, a bit more have marginally improved lives, and almost everyone else experiences only the further diminishment of the world.
There is a huge disconncent in western society because we largely ignore the decimation of entire ecosystems around the world while spending millions each year on heroic means to preserve the lives of animals that are all too plentiful in this country. So plentiful, in fact, that while I spend my money to keep 15-year-old Spot alive for one more year, my county is spending my money (via tax dollars) to round up and gas hundreds of his brothers that have been abandoned.
My sister spoke to me a year or so back about Dominion Theology. She didn’t know that term, but I looked it up later and found that is what it was. Dominionists believe that when God gave Adam and Eve dominion over the earth (Gen. 1:26) that meant that a) we could use and abuse the planet and everything on it in any way we saw fit and b) we need never fear running out of anything because somehow there would always be enough (at least for us in the west). These people believe conservation of oil is ridiculous because we will never run out and they, like my sister, believe that it is not only acceptable but required that we wipe out any species that has something we need or simply poses a threat to human domination of the world. She was all for complete erradication of sharks because she had seen a TV report about a shark attack in Florida.
I argued that from a biblical perspective dominion is as much about responsibility and wisdom as it is about authority and control. Based on the model for kingship provided by God and his son, such a term may also connote a great deal of sacrifice by those in charge.
Still, one might argue that wiping out an entire speices to feed starving millions might make sense if it didn’t beg the question of what they would eat tomorrow (as a related question, what will now support the poacher’s way of life since they wiped out the white rhinos?). However, it is very difficult to jutify such extinguishment so that affluent people can have the latest haberdashery or a ready supply of a dubious aphrodisiac (can’t we just get them another does of Cialis?).
In the end, balance may be the right term because when things are right it shouldn’t be necessary to choose between serving humans and saving the world. But because the world is so unbalanced we find ourselves making poor decisions on all sides of the issue.
Comment by: Karlene
4 06/14/07 12:08 PM | Comment Link |I’ve always struggled with our rich pet care ethic in this country. What is now defined as “responsible” pet ownership goes far beyond spaying/neutering and keeping them fed. It now involves regular checkups, dental cleanings, day care, “premium” food, and when your pet ages, acupuncture, chiropractic care, and if your pet gets cancer, chemo and radiation therapy… They are pushing for pet health insurance now because all this is so expensive. I have a friend who kept an incontinent, deaf, insulin-dependant diabetic chihuaha alive for years.
There are people who would never feed their dog or cat supermarket brand food, but who will never give a thought to the tens of thousands of children who starve to death everyday. I cannot excuse myself from this hypocrisy. We adopted a dog from the pound this week. His shots, neutering, adoption fees, and basic supplies would equal many months of food/clothing and education for the child we sponsor.
About extinction, I have to agree with David. Human exploitation of creation does not equal natural selection.
Comment by: benjamin ady
5 06/14/07 5:16 PM | Comment Link |David, Karlene,
Just to play “devil’s advocate” here for a minute–how so? I mean is it not true that from an evolutionary perspective, humans are just another species, and if other species go extinct due to us, doensn’t it just mean that we are fitter to survive than they were? I’m not a biologist by any stretch of the imagination, but this has been my understanding.
The impression I got from Jones is that his attitude was one of a great deal *less* concern about the extinction of species, based on the inordinately long term view of evolution. That is to say, over *billion* of years, so many species have come and gone, and change takes place so slowly, and on such grandish time scale with so many relatively tiny or bigger changes, catastrophes, etc–but life always recovers, changes, and continues to evolves.
I’d love to hear the perspective of a biologist and/or an atheist on this whole question.
Comment by: benjamin ady
6 06/14/07 5:17 PM | Comment Link |Jim,
I’m intrigued by the idea that not eating animals would grant us a moral high ground of some sort. It sounds very … buddhist, somehow. Can you elaborate?
Comment by: David H
7 06/14/07 6:35 PM | Comment Link |The human role in extinction events may go back to the stone age according to many scientists. And in a sense, that is natural selection. However, human beings stand alone as the creatures with the ability to make intelligent choices about how we interact with the world and the animals in it. Yet up until the last 40-50 years we have mostly acted like a force of nature.
What also sets humans apart is that, according to manhy environmentalists, we may have the unique ability to extinguish all life (with the possible exception of cock roaches and bacteria). Dr. Eric Pianka, an environmentalist selected as Distinguished
Texas Scientist of 2006, said in his controversial acceptance speech that humans act more like a particularly virulent bacteria rather than an intelligent life form. He said people are much like a mindless infection intent on killing this planet. He also predicted, to wide agreement from the scientific community, that our interaction with nature would likely, in the near future, result in plague that would kill most if not all humans.
You can read a somewhat biased account of that speech here.
So sure, we could argue that any animal unintelligent enough to stay out of our way doesn’t really meet the Darwinian criteria for survival. But given the profound role humanity now plays in every aspect of life on this earth, my question is whether that qualifies as natural selection?
Comment by: Karlene
8 06/14/07 10:11 PM | Comment Link |David - well said. Thanks.
After posting on here earlier today I took our cat in to the vet to check out a lump that we recently discovered. It turns out that the lump is almost definitely an aggressive skin cancer and another small spot has started nearby. He also has some problems with his teeth and they are recommending some extractions. Leo is about 12 years old and he’s a wonderful cat. He grew up with my daughter and spent several years in doll clothes being pushed around in a stroller. He’s a sweet, precious family pet.
The bill for removing the lumps and taking care of the teeth would run between $1700 and $2300. There is no way we could justify spending that kind of money, which we don’t have, on this treatment for Leo as much as we love him. In light of the earlier conversation here, it feels rather ironic to be handed that estimate for my own cat’s health care this afternoon.
Comment by: Rachel
9 06/15/07 7:35 AM | Comment Link |Karlene, I’m so sorry to hear about poor Leo. He is a sweet kitty. Big hugs for you and Maria and Josh.
Comment by: David H
10 06/15/07 9:07 AM | Comment Link |I had a dog for years that we had to feed special food because his intestinal tract was injured by a previous abusive owner. It is hard to find balance in how to treat pets because they come to feel like members of the family. And many people and vets put an awful lot of pressure on sick pet owners to use heroic efforts to save those animal lives — even if for only a few more days. That only makes the decisions Karlene is faced with more difficult and painful. I’m fairly certain the irony of your situation is of little help at the moment.
Comment by: Karlene
11 06/15/07 9:53 AM | Comment Link |Thank you guys. It’s hard to absorb that Leo has cancer because in all other ways he seems his normal self. I hope that we still have a lot of time with him. It will get very hard when he starts getting sick.
I agree David that it is hard to find a balance with our pets. My dad, who never in his life would have justified spending money on expensive vet bills, has grown very attached to his little dog who has been his companion over years of his own serious illness. When Heidi started getting sick and seemed to be failing he broke out the checkbook and paid for specialist care. I sure couldn’t blame him.
This is one of many issues that is much easier to talk about in macro terms, but gets harder when we get down to individuals’ experiences.
Comment by: Rachel
12 06/16/07 8:39 AM | Comment Link |Speaking of people and their pets, yesterday I got to witness a lovely relationship between a man and dog… I carry snack bags in my car to give to people I see out holding signs asking for help. The snack bags are big ziplock bags with granola bars, a little bottle of juice and various other things in them.
Yesterday as I was out driving, I saw a man sitting at the corner with his dog, a beautiful, healthy looking golden retriever. The man had an old blanket spread out on the ground for the dog to lay on and he was sitting on a crate holding his sign. I pulled up to the stoplight just as it turned red, so this time I had a few moments to talk to the guy, rather than the usual handing the bag out the window and then having to drive off again in a hurry.
I asked him if he wanted a snack bag and he took it and said, “Oh, yes! This will come in handy!” He looked at what was in the bag and then said to his dog, “You’ll get the Slim Jim” (jerky). He turned back to me and said, “That’s her favorite.” Then he laughed and said, “She’s overweight and I’m underweight!”
I think I might be willing to share quite a bit of money to help that guy keep his dog healthy.