Ethos

Marc Bekoff is a prolific writer and speaker in cognitive ethology and behavioural ecology. In a recent editorial to the Daily Camera, he makes an analogy between the carbon and compassion footprints of humanity.

Compassion is the key for bettering animal and human lives. People all over the globe are talking about ways to lighten our carbon footprint and accrue carbon credits. But what about our compassion footprint and compassion credits?

A good way to make the world a more compassionate and peaceful place for all animals, to increase our compassionate footprint, is to “mind” them. “Minding” animals means that we must “mind” them by recognizing that they have active minds and feelings. We must also “mind” them as their caretakers in a human dominated world in which their interests are continually trumped in deference to ours.

To mind animals it’s essential for people with varied expertise and interests to talk to one another, to share what we know about animals and use this knowledge for bettering their and our lives. There are many ways of knowing and figuring out how science and the humanities, including those interested in animal protection, conservation, and environmentalism (with concerns ranging from individuals to populations, species, and ecosystems), can learn from one another is essential.

You can read the entire essay at www.dailycamera.com.

cheers, Bill

William Lynn :: Jun.30.2008 :: Animal Studies, Environmental Studies, Ethics, Global Studies, Wildlife :: Comments Off

As I suggested in a previous post, having to choose between a life of public service and financial success is part of the ethos of our culture.

Harvard students too are feeling the pull of doing good or doing well. You can read about it here:

Big Paycheck or Service? Students Are Put to the Test

Letters to the editor in response to the article further reveal the frustrations around this issue.

Image: Courtesy Wikimedia Commons.

Karin Lauria :: Jun.29.2008 :: Ethics, Politics, Social Justice :: Comments Off

The Spanish parliament’s decision to extend certain political rights to great apes is sparking a renewed debated about the meaning of a mixed community of people, animals and nature.

You can read more about the decision at Reuters.

cheers, Bill

William Lynn :: Jun.27.2008 :: Animal Studies, Environmental Studies, Ethics, Geography, Global Studies, Wildlife :: 1 Comment »

Dear Ethos readers:

I thought this issue addressed an interesting nexus between ethics, science, culture, and public policy, so I wanted to share it with you. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

Best -

Jared Milrad

Our Common Concern.com

—–

Sometimes it seems that blood drives are everywhere — at school, work, you name it. If seems that way, it’s because the need for them couldn’t be greater: of the 37% of adults eligible to give blood in this country, only 5-10% actually do. In fact, 2007 was reportedly one of worst years on record for blood availability. Most hospitals only have half a day’s supply of blood on hand, when experts say they should have at least a 3-5 day reserve.

Not only does this shortage mean extended waits for patients with non-life threatening diagnoses, but it may mean a potentially dangerous situation for those in need of immediate care.

Ready to help? If you’re eligible, go for it. If you’re gay, well, think again.

That’s because since 1983, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has had a blanket policy banning all potential gay male donors who have had sex with another man after 1977 (when HIV was first identified in the U.S. population).

The FDA cites significantly higher rates of HIV and Hepatitis B and C in the gay male population as its justification, saying blood reserves should not be unnecessarily compromised. Fair enough. But some experts and lay persons call the policy — which is replicated in Canada and some European countries — blatantly discriminatory.

For example, blood tests can now identify HIV-positive blood in as little as 10 days, making the process of screening blood much more efficient and accurate than it was in 1983. Others argue that gay men in committed, monogamous, and long-term relationships should be not excluded from donating blood simply simply because of their sexual orientation. And major blood banks such as America’s Blood Centers have revised their policy on the issue in light of new tests.

In California, activists have boycotted some blood drives and/or started their own. Most recently, the FDA rejected a request to amend the policy by allowing gay men who have not had sexual contact within the past twelve months to donate.

And so the debate rages on, albeit quietly (and gay blood-free, of course).

Our Common Concern
:: a socially conscious blog ::

Jared Milrad :: Jun.27.2008 :: Ethics, Social Justice :: Comments Off

Last week I participated in a live broadcast that focused on the ethics and politics of killing some animals for the benefit of others.

For example, should we kill sea lions to save salmon, coyotes to protect sheep, wolves to safeguard cattle, or cats to preserve song-birds? These are the kinds of questions we addressed.

Hosted by Emily Harris and David Miller, ‘Playing God?’ was an episode of Think Out Loud, a fascinating programme of Oregon Public Broadcasting.

You can visit the ‘Playing God?‘ webpage to listen to the show, as well as add your comments to the interactive blog.

cheers, Bill

William Lynn :: Jun.26.2008 :: Animal Studies, Environmental Studies, Ethics, Geography, Global Studies, Wildlife, Wolves :: Comments Off

One of my greatest pleasures on Ethos is introducing new columnists to our readers. Today I want to welcome Jared Milrad.

Jared was born in New York City and raised both in New York and central New Jersey. Vegan since the age of 14, Jared has been intensely interested in animal welfare for most of his life, rescuing everything from finches to feral cats as a teenager. While a freshman at North Carolina State University in 2002, Jared became the first student in the school’s history to publicly challenge its policy on animal dissections, leading to a national outcry of support for his beliefs and a significant revision of the school’s Student Choice policy.

Jared later graduated from N.C. State with a B.S. in Fisheries & Wildlife Sciences and, most recently, from Tufts University with a M.S. in Animals and Public Policy. His thesis at Tufts, entitled A Fundamental Nexus: Animals and Genocide From An International Policy Perspective, advocated for revised genocide prevention and response policies that account for the many complex roles of animals during such crises.

Beyond human-animal studies, Jared has long been interested in finding common ground among people. Having visited four continents and advocated for a variety of groups, Jared is a strong believer in the intersections between social causes. He is the Founder and Editor of a socially conscious blog, Our Common Concern (http://ourcommonconcern.com), which highlights pressing social issues — from human rights to environmental justice to animal protection — in hopes of inspiring a dialogue for change.

Jared is also a long-time organizer for the Obama Campaign, and part of the team organizing New Hampshire for the presidential election in 2008.

You can contact Jared at ourcommonconcern@gmail.com.

William Lynn :: Jun.25.2008 :: Animal Studies, Environmental Studies, Ethics, Global Studies, Politics, Social Justice :: Comments Off

June 22, 2008

In “The dumbing down of voters” (Op-ed, June 15) Rick Shenkman attributes Americans’ political ignorance to television and the collapse of labor unions. I think there is a deeper problem: The United States tends to raise employees, not citizens.

Our culture emphasizes so-called practical skills, while we thumb our noses at theory, as if theory had no practical effect. Education is being reduced to job training. The humanities suggest pleasant ways to spend our “free time,” as if literature, art, philosophy, and religion had nothing to teach us about how we ought to live.

Work is supposed to be hard, or it’s not work. To commit your life to service means taking a vow of poverty, as if one cannot do good and do well. In short, we are encouraged to act without deep reflection, to toil away without questioning. And, sadly, I suspect that’s how politicians like it.

Karin Lauria

Source: www.boston.com

William Lynn :: Jun.22.2008 :: Ethics, Politics :: 4 Comments »

News is breaking today that Des Moines County sheriffs in Iowa shot about 10-16 pigs who presumably had escaped a factory farm, swam through a massive flood, and found safety atop sandbag levees. County officials feared that the pigs would cut the levees with their hooves or root there.

I am not one to criticize the actions of county officials who, according to their own best judgment, made a difficult decision in an emergency situation. After all, animals are killed in these situations all the time — including a bear who recently strayed into a populated area in Boston. And as one official points out, pigs are killed in slaughterhouses everyday — particularly in Iowa, where there were 15.5 million pigs on over 10,000 farms in 2002.

But the question must be asked: would we have had the same reaction to these animals if they were dogs instead of pigs? What about wolves instead of pigs?

For example, when family pets are shot, county officials often have a different reaction: offer up a reward for the killer. A $4,000 reward is being offered for a dog who was shot to death in Maryland.

In the case of the flooded pigs, what was the true motivation for shooting them? Was it, as one official argued, fear for people’s property? Or was it simply that we value different animals differently?

Some or all of the above may be true. But I for one believe that we should think very, very critically before we take a life, and minimize harm whenever possible. Moreover, while we may value different animals differently, each is still a sentient being who deserves our utmost respect.

We would ask nothing more for our dog, so why not for our pigs?

—–

Our Common Concern :: a socially conscious blog

Jared Milrad :: Jun.19.2008 :: Animal Studies, Practical Ethics :: 2 Comments »

Donovan’s younger brother was 13 when he was diagnosed with HIV. He did all he could to save his little brother, even working in HIV/AIDS prevention and supporting his single mom. Yet, after the teenager’s condition deteriorated and forced him to quit school, he lost his health insurance and died just shy of his 24th birthday at the age of 23.

Donovan’s younger brother did not live in some hidden, forgotten corner of the developing world. He lived in the United States of America. And he is one of over 500,000 people who have died from AIDS since the disease was formally recognized by the United States in 1981.

Recent events in my life have reminded me that those who live with HIV/AIDS are all around us, and all too often face societal stigmas that can cost them their home, job or more. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that as of 2003 (the most recent data available), over 1 million people were living with HIV/AIDS in the U.S. alone. Nearly three-quarters of this population are men, nearly half are black, and approximately the same number are men who have sex with men (MSM). Disturbingly, one-fourth do not even know they’re infected.

The National Association of People With AIDS (NAPWA), which told Donovan’s story above, prefers that those living with HIV/AIDS be described as what they are — people, not “patients” or “victims”. NAPWA is the oldest national AIDS organization and “the first network of people living with HIV and AIDS in the world.”

Clearly, we could all do more for our fellow Americans who live with HIV and AIDS. More on the continuing (and often bumpy) search for viable treatments and the importance of accurate reporting.

—–

Our Common Concern :: a socially conscious blog

Jared Milrad :: Jun.16.2008 :: Practical Ethics, Social Justice :: Comments Off

Have you ever paged (or surfed) through the New York Times and noticed the variety of news stories involving animals? Once you start to notice, it is hard to stop. Indeed, there are moments when I think I could build a career commenting on just these stories!

For instance, over the last several days the New York Times printed a number of stories where animals are a central conccern. The international section reported Korean protests (and broader Asian concerns) over the safety of US beef, and the associated politics of industrial agriculture and animal welfare. Ironically, there is also a dining column with advice on how to cut back one’s use of meat, and cook a more vegetable based (and healthier) diet. If we turn to the Science section, we find that Horseshoe crabs are in decline, and Fisher’s are reinhabiting American suburbs. This does not even begin to touch the steady flow of news articles on global warming and its impact on endangered species, migrating birds, etc. Finally, the editorial page features an essay about the recently adopted national bird of Israel. The Hoopoe, as it turns out, is a creature long associated with cross-cultural and inter-religious dialogue. If there was ever a time to thinking about the political and cultural symbolism of animals, this would be one of them.

To be sure, these and other stories focus on human concerns — agricultural, economic, gastronomic, environmental, political, etc. And the focus on animals is sometimes inadvertent (they are props in the story) and frequently speciesist — the only moral beings who count are human. Even so, the presence of wild and domestic animals in our everyday life and discourse is ever present.

Watch for it!

cheers, Bill

William Lynn :: Jun.12.2008 :: Animal Studies, Environmental Studies, Ethics, Geography, Global Studies :: Comments Off

Wendy Lochner is Senior Executive Editor for Religion, Philosophy and Animal Studies at Columbia University Press (CUP).

Last week she posted a blog reflecting on animal ethics and social change, as well as her intentions to foster interdisciplinary work on human-animal relations.

We recently received permission from Ms Lochner to publish the whole essay here. (Thank you!) You can read Ms Lochner’s essay below, or view it on the CUP Blog.

For a list of related titles from CUP, visit the Animal Studies series. It is a wonderful, diverse and growing body of scholarship, and well represents the emerging discourse of animal studies in the academy.

cheers, Bill

~

June 3rd, 2008 at 9:28 am

Why Animal Studies Now?:
A Short Personal Note from the Editor

The following post is by Wendy Lochner, senior executive editor for Religion, Philosophy, and Animal Studies

Why animal studies now? Like many people who are interested in the fate of animals and of the Earth, I came to this issue from an activist animal-rights perspective. My background is in philosophy, and I eagerly read and absorbed the arguments of Peter Singer and Tom Regan. As I read further I became hungry for approaches that moved even further toward commonality, and I embraced the absolutist views of scholars such as Gary Francione.

But still I was troubled by the indifference of most people to the conditions of animal life. They can know about deplorable factory-farm conditions, for example, and yet not incorporate that knowledge into their behavior or ethical views. A winning argument, I felt, was not rooted in rational discourse alone; it needed to change hearts and minds by appealing to humans’ emotional connections to, love for, and kinship with animals.

I began to read work by Cora Diamond, Cary Wolfe, John Coetzee, Alice Crary, and others, who convinced me of the power of literature to advance the animal issue. Soon I discovered that many ethologists, religion scholars, and sociologists were also committed to showing the scientific, social-scientific, and humanities bases for a loving involvement with animals as part of a worldview in which the “question of the animal” becomes a fundamental concern of critical inquiry, one in which the terms, concepts, and forms of evidence that we use can themselves be questioned in terms of the presuppositions they make about animals and human—and nonhuman—animal relationships. What is required is no less than a radical rethinking of the nature of humanity itself as inextricably cojoined with our nonhuman kin and in common cause with them.

It is this point of view that I (and many others) call animal studies, and it is my intention as an editor to foster interdisciplinary work from all fields that considers these and many other interrelated questions.

William Lynn :: Jun.09.2008 :: Animal Studies, Environmental Studies, Ethics, Global Studies :: Comments Off

Henry Fair’s photographs of degraded yet beautiful landscapes are on view at MassMoca. Fair’s New Horizons in Landscape is part of the Badlands exhibit curated by Denise Markonish. Visit www.massmoca.org for more information.

You can view more of Henry’s work at Muse (the Practical Ethics gallery).

William Lynn :: Jun.08.2008 :: Art, Environmental Studies, Ethics :: Comments Off

A couple of days ago, Brian Greene of string theory fame contributed an op-ed for the New York Times called “Put a Little Science in Your Life.”

The subtext is overflowing with opportunities for interpretation about ethics, the place of humans in the universe, the nature of reality, theories of knowledge, and much, much more.

I responded with a letter to the editor (couldn’t resist!), which the Times ran today. See the last letter on the page.

Some questions:

Why does Greene assume that our engagement with the world as children makes us “little scientists.” Why not little poets, authors, artists, ethicists, or (gasp!) theologians?

Why does awe and wonder for the universe make one a scientist first?    

Photo: Henry David Thoreau, courtesy, Wikimedia Commons.

Karin Lauria :: Jun.04.2008 :: Ethics, Religion :: Comments Off

WHAT is human-animal studies (HAS)? This is a question that scholars continue to debate, without much consensus. In my mind, HAS is an interdisciplinary perspective that examines the relationships between humans and other animals. More specifically, it is (ideally) a perspective that values the experiences and intrinsic worth of both humans and animals. HAS embraces art, literature, science, social science, philosophy … all with an eye towards a greater understanding of animals, and our interactions with them.

WHO are animals? Who are we as nonhuman animals? And who are we to each other?

WHERE, WHEN and WHY: One way to begin answering these questions is by exploring the literature that deals with this broad range of topics.

HAS scholar Wendy Lochner (the Columbia University Press animal studies editor) has written a post for the Columbia University Press blog. In it, she briefly explores what HAS means to her, and how the literature she reads deepens her scholarship. An excerpt from her blog entry reads:

I began to read work by Cora Diamond, Cary Wolfe, John Coetzee, Alice Crary, and others, who convinced me of the power of literature to advance the animal issue. Soon I discovered that many ethologists, religion scholars, and sociologists were also committed to showing the scientific, social-scientific, and humanities bases for a loving involvement with animals as part of a worldview in which the “question of the animal” becomes a fundamental concern of critical inquiry, one in which the terms, concepts, and forms of evidence that we use can themselves be questioned in terms of the presuppositions they make about animals and human—and nonhuman—animal relationships. What is required is no less than a radical rethinking of the nature of humanity itself as inextricably cojoined with our nonhuman kin and in common cause with them.

Lochner’s short essay can be read in full by going to Why Animal Studies Now? A Short Personal Note from the Editor.

A list of animal studies titles available from Columbia University Press can be accessed on their website.

Lisa Brown :: Jun.03.2008 :: Animal Studies :: Comments Off