Posted by Mark H. on February 22, 2005, at 14:56:10
In reply to Animal Rights, posted by alexandra_k on February 21, 2005, at 19:56:04
Dear Alexandra,
Here are some of my thoughts on the essay you quoted.
First, I think we should avoid labeling others with terms they would not use to describe themselves. We may feel emotionally justified in using terms like racist, sexist, terrorist, etc., but on a process level their use is usually prejudicial. It's wonderfully ironic that we tend to stereotype others for stereotyping others.
Second, I think it is useful to become conscious of killing in order to reduce it, but the fact remains that most of us kill other creatures every day, whether by using mouthwash or walking across the lawn, driving our cars into insects or vacuuming our rugs and carpets.
Third, strictly vegetarian diets are not healthy for everyone, especially a diet that relies on soy products to replace animal fats and proteins (see, for example, "Nourishing Traditions" for an explanation of this argument). Speaking just for myself, I tried being a non-meat-eater for about six years when I was younger and found I could not maintain good health.
Of course, I could choose to be less healthy. I know a woman, for instance, who won't take antibiotics to get rid of the intestinal parasites she picked up in South America many years ago. She also sets the vacuum bag outside after cleaning her room to let the fleas escape. And she chooses to let her animals suffer flea infestations rather than using Advantage or a similar product.
So whether or not we kill is not just a matter of "taste" or "trivial interest." I think there may be room to argue that given the choice between eating range-fed beef or a Big Mac, choosing the range-fed beef may be better for everyone. However, this choice is likely determined more by economics, education and access than by personal preference.
Fourth, even the most careful practitioners of harmlessness that I know would be reluctant to compare animal husbandry to human slavery or experimenting on animals to experimenting on "orphaned human babies." Of course, I appreciate that the author would consider this "speciesism."
Fifth, some of those who advocate for animal rights show remarkable disdain for human beings in general, and especially for those engaged in animal food production or experimentation. If one's argument is that compassion should extend to all creatures, then it is important not to exclude those with whom we disagree.
There is a middle ground. I think it's good for us to be aware of where we are in the food chain, and to acknowledge with respect and reverence the thousands of lives of other beings that have contributed to our own (as well as those that have perished simply because we're alive). I think that over time we need to make economic choices (where we can) that promote better treatment of animals used for food and medicine.
Finally, I think that the "bias in favor of our own species" is hard-wired into our brains and is at least one reason for our survival so far. As we expand our compassion to include others, including other species, perhaps we will become more conscious of our interdependence and make better choices as a society.
Best wishes,
Mark H.
poster:Mark H.
thread:461535
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050215/msgs/461819.html