Ethos: The Practical Ethics Blog

A short note to say that as of this Fall, I am joining Williams College as a Visiting Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies. Williams is a terrific liberal arts college located in the Berkshire Mountains of western Massachusetts. I could not be happier with this wonderful opportunity.

I hope you will keep in touch. My email and other contact information will remain the same, as will the Practical Ethics website (www.practicalethics.net) and Ethos blog (www.practicalethics.net/blog/).

cheers, Bill

William Lynn :: Aug.01.2008 :: Environmental Studies, Ethics, Geography, Global Studies, Human-Animal Studies :: No Comments »

I am both honoured and pleased to introduce Lori Marino as a new columnist to Ethos.

cheers, Bill

~

Lori Marino is a senior lecturer in Neuroscience and Behavioral Biology at Emory University and a faculty affiliate of the Living Links Center for the Advanced Study of Ape and Human Evolution in Atlanta.

Lori received her doctorate degree in biopsychology from The State University of New York at Albany in 1995, where she began her work on comparative brain size evolution in cetaceans and primates. Her research expertise includes the evolution of brain size and intelligence in other species, cognitive ethology, and self-awareness, as well as human-nonhuman relationships and welfare issues.

Lori is the author of over eighty scientific papers, book chapters, and popular articles. In 2001 she and Diana Reiss published the first definitive evidence for mirror self-recognition in a non-primate species – the bottlenose dolphin. She also publishes and speaks extensively on ending exploitation of dolphins and whales around the world in the dolphin-assisted therapy (DAT) and marine park industries. She has developed and teaches courses in animal welfare and non-invasive approaches to neuroscience, including Brain Imaging, and is interested in not only training students to be critical thinkers and scientists but also in providing an academic context for the study of non-invasive models of science, animal welfare, advocacy, and ethics.

Lori is the co-founder of the Atlanta Animal Studies Group (http://atlantaanimalstudiesgroup.blogspot.com/), which is focused on exploring the cultural and ethical relationship between humans and non-humans, and is also a staff member at The Kerulos Center (http://www.kerulos.org/) dedicated to the prevention and treatment of human-caused suffering of other animals.

You can contact her at:

Lori Marino, PhD
Neuroscience and Behavioral Biology Program
Emory University
1462 Clifton Road Suite 304
Atlanta, Georgia 30322
(404) 727-7582lmarino@emory.edu

Selected Publications

Marino L, Lilienfeld S (2007) Dolphin assisted therapy: More flawed data, more flawed conclusions. Anthrozoos. 20: 239 – 249.

Marino L (2007) Animal consciousness. In The Encyclopedia of human-animal relationships, M Bekoff, ed. Greenwood Publishing Group, pp. 1297-1301.

Marino L (2007) Dolphin mythology. In The Encyclopedia of human-animal relationships, M Bekoff, ed. Greenwood Publishing Group, pp. 491-495

Marino L (2007) Scala natura. In The Encyclopedia of human-animal relationships. M Bekoff, ed. Greenwood Publishing Group, pp. 220-224.

Bradshaw G and Marino L (2007) Minds of their own: The exciting new field of trans-species psychology. Best Friends Magazine, November/December: 24-26.

Marino L, Connor RC, Fordyce, RE, Herman LM, Hof PR, Lefebvre L, Lusseau, McCowan B, Nimchinsky EA, Pack AA, Rendell L, Reidenberg JS, Reiss D, Uhen MD ,Van der Gucht E, Whitehead H. (2007) Cetaceans have complex brains for complex cognition. Public Library of Science (PLOS) Biology, 5(5): e139.

Reiss D, Marino L (2001) Self-recognition in the bottlenose dolphin: A case of cognitive convergence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 98 (10): 5937-5942.

Marino L, Lilienfeld S (1998) Dolphin-assisted therapy: flawed data, flawed conclusions. Anthrozoos, 11(4): 194-199.

William Lynn :: Jul.09.2008 :: Environmental Studies, Ethics, Human-Animal Studies :: No Comments »

One of Ethos’ best known editorialists is Marc Bekoff. Marc has been an important part of Ethos from the start, sharing advice as well as content as we found our niche in the virtual Kosmos. Marc’s contributions as an academic and advocate are unsurpassed and deeply admirable. Its time I introduced him properly, a?! The following is from his website.

cheers, Bill

~

Marc Bekoff is Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and is a Fellow of the Animal Behavior Society and a former Guggenheim Fellow. In 2000 he was awarded the Exemplar Award from the Animal Behavior Society for major long-term contributions to the field of animal behavior.

Marc is also regional coordinator for Jane Goodall’s Roots and Shoots program, in which he works with students of all ages, senior citizens and prisoners, and also is a member of the Ethics Committee of the Jane Goodall Institute. He and Jane co-founded the organization Ethologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals: Citizens for Responsible Animal Behavior Studies in 2000. Marc is on the Board of Directors of The Fauna Sanctuary and The Cougar Fund and on the advisory board for Animal Defenders, the Laboratory Primate Advocacy Group, and the conservation organization WildEarth Guardians (also see SINAPU). He has been part of the international program, Science and the Spiritual Quest II and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) program on Science, Ethics, and Religion. Marc is also an honorary member of Animalisti Italiani and Fundacion Altarriba, and on the Scientific Review Board of the Great Ape Trust. In 2006 Marc was named a Fellow of the Dancing Star Foundation, an honorary board member of Captive Animals’ Protection Society. In 2005 Marc was presented with The Bank One Faculty Community Service Award for the work he has done with children, senior citizens, and prisoners.

Marc’s main areas of research include animal behavior, cognitive ethology (the study of animal minds), and behavioral ecology, and he has also published extensively on animal issues. He has published more than 200 papers and 18 books, including Species of mind: The philosophy and biology of cognitive ethology (with Colin Allen, MIT Press, 1997); Nature’s purposes: Analyses of function and design in biology (edited with Colin Allen and George Lauder, MIT Press, 1998), Animal play: Evolutionary, comparative, and ecological perspectives (edited with John Byers, Cambridge University Press, 1998), Encyclopedia of animal rights and animal welfare (Greenwood Publishing Group, 1998), and a book on the lighter side, Nature’s life lessons: Everyday truths from nature (with Jim Carrier, Fulcrum, 1996). His children’s book, Strolling with our kin was published in Fall 2000 (AAVS/Lantern Books) as was The smile of a dolphin: Remarkable accounts of animal emotions (Random House/Discovery Books). The cognitive animal: Empirical and theoretical perspectives on animal cognition (edited by Marc, Colin Allen, and Gordon Burghardt) appeared in 2002 (MIT Press), as did Minding animals: Awareness, emotions, and heart (Oxford University Press) and Jane Goodall and Marc’s The Ten Trusts: What we must do to care for the animals we love (HarperCollins). Marc has edited a three volume Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004), and a collection of his essays titled Animal Passions and Beastly Virtues: Reflections on Redecorating Nature was published by Temple University Press (2006).

A summary of Marc’s research on animal emotions titled The Emotional Lives of Animals: A Leading Scientist Explores Animal Joy, Sorrow, and Empathy and Why They Matter was published in March 2007 by New World Library and he is currently completing a book on the evolution of moral behavior with Jessica Pierce titled Wild Justice: Reflections on Empathy, Fair Play, and Morality in Animals for the University of Chicago Press. Marc has also edited a four-volume Encyclopedia of Human-Animal Relationships: A Global Exploration of our Connections with Animals for Greenwood Publishing Group (2007) and he and Cara Blessley Lowe have edited a book of readings on cougars titled Listening to Cougar (University Press of Colorado, 2007). Marc’s book Animals Matter: A Biologist Explains Why We Should Treat Animals with Compassion and Respect was also published in 2007 (Shambhala Publications) and Temple University Press will publish Marc’s children’s book, Animals at Play: Rules of the Game in 2008. He is currently working on a new book titled The Animals’ Manifesto: Ten Reasons Why Animals Are Asking Us To Treat Them Better Or Leave Them Alone (for New World Library) and revising his 1998 Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare (for Greenwood Press, 2009).

Marc’s work has been featured on 48 Hours, in Time Magazine, Life Magazine, U.S. News and World Report, The New York Times, New Scientist, BBC Wildlife, Orion, Scientific American, Ranger Rick, National Geographic Kids, on NPR, BBC, Fox, Natur GEO, in a National Geographic Society television special (’Play: The Nature of the Game’), in Discovery TV’s ‘Why Dogs Smile and Chimpanzees Cry’, and in Animal Planet’s ‘The Power of Play’ and National Geographic Society’s ‘Hunting in America’. Marc has also appeared on CNN, Good Morning America, and 20/20.

In 1986 Marc became the first American to win his age-class at the Tour du Var bicycle race (also called the Master’s/age-graded Tour de France). Among Marc’s hobbies are cycling, skiing, hiking, and reading spy novels.

William Lynn :: Jul.01.2008 :: Environmental Studies, Ethics, Global Studies, Human-Animal Studies, Wildlife :: No Comments »

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 :: Environmental Studies, Ethics, Global Studies, Human-Animal Studies, Wildlife :: No Comments »

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 :: No Comments »

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 :: Environmental Studies, Ethics, Geography, Global Studies, Human-Animal 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 :: No Comments »

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.

Next week I plan to write about the substance of the conversation for Ethos. Having the benefit of your thoughts on the Think Out Loud blog would be most helpful.

cheers, Bill

William Lynn :: Jun.26.2008 :: Environmental Studies, Ethics, Geography, Global Studies, Human-Animal Studies, Wildlife, Wolves :: No Comments »

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 :: Environmental Studies, Ethics, Global Studies, Human-Animal Studies, Politics, Social Justice :: No Comments »

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 »

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 :: Environmental Studies, Ethics, Geography, Global Studies, Human-Animal Studies :: No Comments »

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 :: Environmental Studies, Ethics, Global Studies, Human-Animal Studies :: No Comments »

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 :: No Comments »

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 :: No Comments »

I’ve said this before: industrialized animal farming involves the interlocking oppression of both humans and animals (and the environment). Congrats to the New York Times for pointing this out in today’s editorial section:

The Worst Way of Farming

Photo: Courtesy Wikimedia Commons.

Karin Lauria :: May.31.2008 :: Ethics :: No Comments »

Last fall, I graduated from Boston University School of Theology with a master’s of theological studies. I was recently honored to have been chosen as the salutatorian of the class of 2008.

Below, I share with you an annotated version of the speech I gave at the school’s commencement ceremony at Marsh Chapel on Sunday, May 18.

***********

Thank you, and good afternoon everyone.

This speech represents the very last assignment I’ll receive as a student of the school of theology, and I’m excited to have been chosen to speak to you today.

Last month marked the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Reverend Martin Luther King’s.[1] As such, I feel it is both good and right to honor him by drawing from his work for the theme of my address today.[2]

Reverend King had a vision of beloved community. By this vision, people would one day recognize themselves as existing in an integrated society of brothers and sisters committed to peace and justice, and redeemed through the transformative power of love.[3]

Today, King’s vision continues to inspire others both here and abroad toward non-violent means of achieving social justice.

Great visions, however, don’t occur in a vacuum. They arise in community with others whose visions can ignite in us our own courage and passion.

King himself was inspired by another great visionary, a man named Howard Thurman. Thurman served as the Dean of this Chapel while King was a student at the School of Theology here at BU.[4]

Thurman had his own vision of community, one in which people of all faiths would connect with each other in a common ground of religious experiences.

These two visions became intertwined here at BU. They’re part of a tradition of hopefulness and imagination.

Many of us came to the School of Theology with our own visions about how we might better ourselves and, in turn, make life better for others. We’ve come from many different places in life and traveled down many different paths.

Some of us came directly from undergraduate programs. Others left jobs in search of a more meaningful way of life. Many arrived with the intention of becoming ordained, while others came to explore how they might minister to the world in a different sort of way.

When I entered the School of Theology in 2004, I was heartened by the diversity of people I met here. There are, of course, students of different races, ethnic backgrounds, faith traditions, and ages.

But I also found that our experiences of BU have been varied as well. They’ve occurred in different contexts and on different schedules.

Many of us were full-time students who continued to stay involved in a range of social justice activities. Others worked part-time jobs while tackling demanding academic work loads, and maintaining close ties with our churches.

Some went straight through their programs without a break. Others took time off to tend to ailing family members, to earn money to pay the bills, or just to breath. Each of us has our own story.

King knew that achieving the beloved community involves a diversity of people, with a variety of life experiences and sometimes conflicting ideas. We here at BU haven’t always seen eye-to-eye. We’ve had our struggles and heated disagreements.

But on balance, we’ve been blessed in many ways—with new friendships, with a caring administrative staff, and with an amazing faculty of professors.

We’ve been enriched by new members, and diminished by the loss of others, such as our dear professor Simon Parker, who we sadly miss.[5]

Along the way, we’ve inspired and challenged each other to think more critically about what we presume to be absolute and true. We’ve perceived the plank in our own eye, and in doing so have learned to see ourselves and others more clearly.[6]

There are those who say that love is an unlimited resource. That there is enough love in the world to help everyone. A cynic might respond to this by saying, “Yes, but time is limited. Therefore, some must take priority, even if others are left behind.”[7]

I hope you don’t know anyone like that. But if you do, you might ask them, “how much time does it take to put your hand on someone’s shoulder and say ‘Great job. You’re making a difference.’”

Showing support often requires only a generous spirit towards those who’ve heard the divine call to minister to the world in their own distinct ways. Community must be built in different places, by different people, with different visions.[8]

The beloved community then, is about unity in difference. It’s about individual, embodied spirits who share a common commitment to achieving the peace of God which transcends all understanding.[9]

St Francis reminds us too that the beloved community need not be restricted to humans, but is a mixture of people, animals, and the natural world [10]. God’s blessings are more beautiful and diverse than we can ever know.

We need each other just for a glimpse.

When you leave here today, take a moment to step out into the plaza, and stop at the monument to Martin Luther King.[11] Think about the way you’re called to build the beloved community, and about all those who have inspired and supported you. May you, in turn, inspire and support others in pursuing their visions.

Say thanks to our merciful God that you are privileged to stand in a long tradition of unity, common ground, shared dreams, and hope.

God bless you all. I’m honored to be part of this community.

Thank you.
______________________________________________

1. King was assassinated April 4^th, 1968 in Memphis Tennessee. He was there to support striking sanitation workers.
2. A special thanks to Steve Chase, Director of Antioch University New England’s Environmental Advocacy and Organizing Program. It was his enthusiasm for King’s legacy, and especially for King’s vision of the beloved community, that inspired the theme of my speech. Steve recently wrote for this blog a great essay about Martin Luther King. You can read it here: “The Dream Reborn.”
3. The King Center website provides a nice introduction to the concept of the Beloved Community.
4. King received his Ph.D. from Boston University on June 5, 1955. Thurman was the first African American Dean of Marsh Chapel and a mentor to King. See Religion and Ethics News weekly for a great feature about the life and thought of Howard Thurman.  
5. Simon Parker was a professor of Hebrew Bible studies who began teaching at BU in 1981. He passed away on April 29, 2006.
6. See Matthew 7:3–5.
7. Here I’m alluding to Mary Midgley’s argument that compassion is not a “rare and irreplaceable fluid” that must be reserved for humans to the exclusion of animals (I substituted the word ‘compassion’ with ‘love’). Instead, it is a “habit or power of the mind, which grows or develops with use” (see Midgley, Animals and Why They Matter, p. 31). I’ve read and heard more times than I care to remember variations on the uncharitable and morally hollow response referenced above.
8. This is a quote from professor Norm Faramelli, a highly respected lecturer of ethics at the BU School of Theology and other Boston-area seminaries. Norm generously offered his time to help me brainstorm ideas for this speech.
9. See Philippians 4:7.
10. For more on the concept of the mixed community of people, animals, and nature, see Midgley, Animals and Why They Matter, chapter 10.
11. A beautiful sculpture, Free at Last, erected in honor of Martin Luther King, stands in the plaza in front of Marsh Chapel. See http://www.flickr.com/photos/wallyg/491106232/ for more information.

Photo: Martin Luther King, courtesy Wikimedia Commons.

Karin Lauria :: May.21.2008 :: Ethics, Religion :: No Comments »

One person I have yet to introduce is David Lavigne, a long-time advisor to Practical Ethics, and now a columnist on Ethos. His remarkably impressive biography is below. Please join me in welcoming David to Ethos!

cheers, Bill

~

David Lavigne, PhD
Senior Science Advisor
International Fund for Animal Welfare
1474 Gordon Street
Guelph, Ontario
Canada N1L 1C8
519.767.1948
dlavigne@ifaw.org
http://www.ifaw.org/

David Lavigne is science advisor to the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW). From 1973-1996, he was a professor in the Department of Zoology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. After receiving his BSc in Zoology from the University of Western Ontario in 1968, he taught high school for one year before entering graduate school at the University of Guelph, completing an MSc in 1972 and a PhD in 1974, both for work on vision in seals. Remaining at Guelph as a faculty member, his research interests shifted to problems of censusing harp seals to estimate annual pup production and population size. By 1975, the focus of his research was pinniped bioenergetics. For the latter work he earned a Dr philos degree from the University of Oslo in 1988. In 1990, he became executive director of the International Marine Mammal Association (IMMA), a not-for-profit organization concerned with the global conservation of marine mammals. Currently, his major interests are in the areas of conservation biology, wildlife management, and natural resources policy.

During his years at the University of Guelph, David taught numerous undergraduate and graduate courses including mammalogy, ecology and marine biology, wildlife conservation and management, and natural resources policy. The author of more than 100 papers and technical reports on various aspects of marine mammal biology, wildlife management, and conservation, he is also, co-editor (with J. Beddington and R.J.H. Beverton) of Marine Mammals and Fisheries (George Allen & Unwin, 1985), and co-author (with W.M. Johnston) of The Mediterranean Monk Seal: Conservation Guidelines (IMMA, 1998) and Monk Seals in Antiquity (The Netherlands Commission for International Nature Protection, 1999). From 1988-1992, he served on the editorial advisory board of the Canadian Journal of Zoology.

In addition to his published papers on various aspects of the biology and conservation of harp (and other) seals, he is also the co-author of Harps & Hoods: Ice-breeding Seals of the Northwest Atlantic (University of Waterloo Press, 1988). In the mid-1980s, his laboratory at the University of Guelph submitted a number of briefs to Canada’s Royal Commission on Seals and Sealing and he appeared before the Commission as an expert witness on two occasions. He has also testified as an expert witness before Canada’s Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (SCOFO), in 1999 and again in 2006. He has made a number of submissions to the Canadian government’s Regulatory Review Process regarding changes to Canada’s Marine Mammal Regulations, and to the Eminent Panel on Seal Management, appointed by the Canadian Government to review Canada’s commercial seal hunt, which reported in 2001. In 1999, 2000, and 2006, he was an invited participant in meetings of the Canadian government’s National Marine Mammal Review Committee.

Over the years, David has been a member of a number of international scientific committees, including: the Seal Specialist Group of the World Conservation Union (IUCN); the Pinniped-Fishery Interaction Task Force on the Sea Lion/Steelhead Conflict at the Ballard Locks, Seattle; the International Scientific Advisory Committee to the Hellenic Society for the Study and Protection of the Mediterranean Monk Seal (HSSPMS, now MOm), the Scientific Advisory Committee of the United Nations Environment Programme’s Marine Mammals Action Plan; and the European Commission/IUCN Steering Committee for the ‘Spanish Monk Seal Project’. He has also appeared before European parliamentary committees on a number of occasions and, in 2005, he testified in the Council of Europe and in the Belgian parliament when both bodies were conducting hearings into animal welfare and other aspects of Canada’s commercial seal hunt. In 2007, he served as a member of the European Food Safety Authority’s Working Group on the Animal Welfare Aspects of Sealing.

In 2001, he presented the invited keynote address – Marine mammals and fisheries: The role of science in the culling debate – at the Southern Hemisphere Marine Mammal Conference 2001, Philip Island, Victoria, Australia. He also was an invited speaker in the University of Guelph’s 2001 The Kenneth Hammond Lectures on Environment, Energy and Resources, entitled “Sustainable Development: Mandate or Mantra.” His lecture, “Ecological footprints, doublespeak, and the evolution of the Machiavellian mind” was broadcast on CBC Radio’s Ideas in May 2002. In January 2003, he spent a week at the University of Alberta, Edmonton as a “Distinguished Visitor” in the Environmental Research and Studies Centre. He was an invited participant in a consultation on future directions of marine mammal research, organized by the United States Marine Mammal Commission, in collaboration with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, which was held in Portland, Oregon, in August 2003. Later that year, he delivered the invited closing lecture to the World Wolf Congress 2003, held in Banff, Alberta. In 2004, he presented invited lectures at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Seattle (on the role of science in the formulation of public policy), and at the annual meeting of the National Agricultural Biotechnology Council (NABC) in Guelph (on reducing the agricultural eco-footprint). On behalf of IFAW, he organized an international forum entitled “Wildlife Conservation: In Pursuit of Ecological Sustainability” at the University of Limerick, Ireland, in June 2004. He also edited the book arising from that conference: Gaining Ground: In Pursuit of Ecological Sustainability (IFAW and the University of Limerick, 2006).

William Lynn :: May.03.2008 :: Environmental Studies, Ethics, Human-Animal Studies, Wildlife :: No Comments »

A 30-year-old dolphin died on Saturday at Sea World’s Discovery Cove after colliding with another dolphin while performing aerial tricks.With visitors watching, two dolphins apparently slammed into one another in mid-air and one of them, Sharky, was killed in the process. SeaWorld spokespeople called it an “unfortunate, random incident.”

Random? Baffling, maybe. I have never heard of dolphins colliding with one another under any circumstances-much less mid-air. To say such a thing is “random” is to imply that it could happen anytime; that it is part of some probability distribution-one of many events in which all outcomes are equally likely. But Sharky was in the process of performing a presumably human-crafted aerial maneuver in a concrete pool for the pleasure of human onlookers.I suppose under these circumstances crashing into your acrobatic colleague isn’t something to be too shocked about, but I can’t help but think about the tremendous athleticism, awareness, grace, intelligence, and agility of free-ranging dolphins in the open sea.I just can’t imagine something like this ever happening there.

Unfortunate? Are they kidding? Unfortunate is locking your keys in your car. Unfortunate is mistakenly hitting the send button before you actually finished typing that email. Or perhaps I’m being to loose with the word. Unfortunate is waking up with a big pimple on your wedding day. Anyway, you get my point. The violent death of a sentient, sapient creature who was kept by humans, for the pleasure of humans, and perished whiled performing tricks for those who were charged with providing his care and safety is nothing less than a tragedy.

Maybe I’m writing this too soon. Like an email dashed off in the heat of disgust, perhaps I’m pushing the send button too soon on this. But I got the news and thought it important that I share it. If I’m not as articulate as I might have been after a cooling off period, that is unfortunate. But Sharky’s death is so much more than that.

Am I making too much of words? I don’t think so. Words are powerful things. "Random and unfortunate" is what you call a paper cut or a big zit. It happens. It’s too bad. It is not this. In my view, SeaWorld screams a callouse disrespect for Sharky, the other animals under its care, and all dolphins with its words as well as its behavior.

Sharky’s death was, at the least, baffling and tragic.

For the CNN story, go to http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/28/dolphin.death/index.html

Kris Stewart :: Apr.28.2008 :: Ethics, Human-Animal Studies :: 4 Comments »

The other day, Dan Schnur had an op-ed in the New York Times on Barack Obama’s suggestion that working-class voters in Pennsylvania “cling” to religion, guns, and xenophobia to cope with bitterness over their economic conditions.

His basic argument is that the Democratic party is “continually vexed” by people who vote according to their values, even to the detriment of their economic interests. According to Schnur, Obama’s recent gaffe in Pennsylvania demonstrates that he doesn’t get it either.

Usually, I disagree with Schnur, but in this case, I think he’s right about one thing. Democratic candidates are not particularly good at understanding the relationship between values and actions.

Democrats, and in general liberal and progressive groups, tend to respond to issues. They adopt causes, which is very important. But they generally avoid investing in long-term programs focused on making sweeping shifts in individual and social values. Conservatives, on the other hand, have been putting money into think tanks for the last 40 years to do just that (the Heritage Foundation is a good example). Their patience has paid off.

I think many liberals and progressives also tend to make a sort of ’scientistic’ (not to be confused with scientific) mistake. That is, they believe that if most people were to view the ‘facts’ on the ground—the so-called practical matters—from a purely objective perspective (presumably their perspective), they would no longer be ‘distracted’ by things like religious values. Meanwhile, the values implied in their own views go largely unexamined.

Furthermore, what is practical is often narrowly construed. Thus many people (not just liberals and progressives) overlook the practical nature of values. How can values be practical? Because our values say something about what we believe it means to live a good life. And, when our values are aligned with our actions, it feels satisfying. We feel whole. Living by one’s values is so important to people that it can override some very pressing material concerns. This is true not just for the wealthy, but also for people who struggle to pay the bills.

With respect to religion in particular, I’ve spent the last three years in seminary studying a wide range of theological viewpoints. No doubt there is a coping component to religion. But many people err in assuming that that’s all religion is about, and in turn, belittle religious experience. For many people, religion is not merely or even primarily functional. It is redemptive. The feeling that one is recovering one’s spirit to become a whole human being is a powerful motivator, particularly when it so often feels like life chips away at our souls.

All that said, I doubt Obama intended to demean religious faith, and I think that the press has generally over-reacted to his comments. But unfortunately they did come across as a little condescending and maybe a bit too progressive in the sense described above.

For more on the shortage of liberal think tanks, see:

Democratic Think Tank Taking Shape (CommonDreams.org)
Rich Liberals Vow to Fund Think Tanks (Washington Post)
The Rockridge Era Ends (Rockridge Institute)

Photo: Barack Obama Shaking Hands, copyright Trilobite | Dreamstime.com

Karin Lauria :: Apr.23.2008 :: Ethics, Politics, Religion :: No Comments »

Coyotes have become a convenient scapegoat for Maine’s “deer problem.” After all, it’s much easier to point the finger at the big, bad coyote than question current forest management practices that adversely affect the size of the deer herd. Wholesale removal of forest cover by corporate landowners such as Plum Creek, combined with naturally occurring heavy snowstorms, leaves thousands of deer without food and shelter.

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife biologists report that many deer have died of starvation. As scavengers, coyotes clean up the remains of road- and winter-killed deer, offering a natural ecological service that keeps the roadsides and woods clean. Unfortunately, coyotes’ efficient, natural-born behavior gives extremists a chance to characterize coyotes as bloodthirsty deer killers.

Bob Grandchamp, in his Op-Ed “Deer herds the victim of a foreign predator” (BDN, April 9), suggests that the state enact a coyote bounty to “clean out this killer … hellbent on exterminating and consuming our native population of deer.” Mr. Grandchamp’s emotional, human-centered view of wild animals and their relationship to each other and the natural environment is shortsighted and unscientific. Even the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services, the primary coyote-killing agency, admits that coyote bounties don’t work and are counterproductive.

DIF&W doesn’t offer a bounty but does allow coyotes to be shot, trapped, baited, and hounded year-round in unlimited numbers. Now the DIF&W-sponsored Deer Task Force is advocating for denning, the killing of coyote pups in their dens, and neck snaring, a method that DIF&W acknowledges is inherently indiscriminate that can cause extreme pain and suffering. Not only are such practices ethically repugnant, they don’t work.

Under heavy pressure, coyotes will mate at an earlier age and have larger litters of healthier pups, who will be more likely to survive to breeding age. Beating down the coyote population over the long term would require killing 75 percent of the population every year. Two centuries of persistent persecution has done little to reduce coyote populations or conflicts and has likely selected for a more successful, opportunistic, resilient and adaptable species that some scientists refer to as the supercoyote.

As a top carnivore, coyotes play an undeniably vital role in their ecological communities. They competitively exclude or directly kill foxes, raccoons, skunks and feral cats — smaller predators that affect the number and diversity of ground-nesting birds. They also serve humans by eating rodents in huge numbers and even help keep Canada goose populations down in urban landscapes. Unlike humans, coyotes cull the sick, diseased and weak, thus strengthening the prey gene pool. Human hunters, on the other hand, desire the largest buck with the biggest rack, removing, if at all possible, the strongest and most robust individuals from the gene pool.

Killing coyotes in large numbers can set off ecological chain reactions with profound implications. Yet, even while research continues to highlight the important and complex role coyotes and other top carnivores play in maintaining ecological health and species diversity, many state agencies and extremist sportsmen’s groups continue to promote a view of predators that is stuck in the big-bad-wolf era. In fact, coyotes immigrated into Maine as a direct result of the same anti-predator hysteria — coyotes have successfully filled the niche left open when the wolf was systematically eliminated.

Animals living in the wild operate under their own set of rules governed by the cycles of weather and food availability. Populations fluctuate; predators eat their prey. Unlike deer that, unless culled by predators, generally breed until they exhaust resources and starve, coyotes control their own numbers.

Wild animals shouldn’t be cared for or protected during bad weather or short food years, like cattle and sheep. Imposing human values and emotions on wild animals leads to irrational and misdirected policies. Coyotes are not bad, and deer are not good. They are what they are, and they play important roles in each others’ lives.

We must move beyond the mind-set that views coyotes as evil or unnatural, as Mr. Grandchamp proposes, and recognize that they have much to offer us, not only by keeping ecosystems healthy, but by providing inspiring examples of ingenuity and adaptability in an ever-changing world.

Camilla H. Fox grew up in Maine, holds a master’s degree in wildlife ecology, policy and conservation, and is the co-author of “Coyotes in Our Midst: Learning to Live with an Adaptable & Resilient Carnivore.”

Thursday, April 17, 2008 - Bangor Daily News, http://bangornews.com.

William Lynn :: Apr.19.2008 :: Coyotes, Environmental Studies, Ethics, Human-Animal Studies, Wildlife :: No Comments »

This April 4th is the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King. I was just 12 when it happened, but I remember vividly the heartbreaking day when King was shot down in Memphis while supporting striking garbage workers standing up for their right to form a union.

I’m sure many TV news programs will mention the anniversary of King’s death on the 4th, and some will even play a short sound bite from King’s famous 1963 “I Have A Dream” speech. A few stations might even play a clip from the last night of his life, when King gave his speech about going up to the mountain top and seeing the Promised Land of an America finally and firmly dedicated to peace, economic justice, racial equality, and a real grassroots democracy.

Personally, I’m grateful for any attention paid to King and the meaning of his activism for us today. One of my favorite stories of people honoring King is from about twenty years ago. Back in the 1980s, a local coalition of churches, civic groups, and small business leaders organized a community organizing campaign in Seattle to get the city council to rename a street after King. At the time, the street they chose to rename, which was called the Empire Way, ran right through one of the city’s predominantly black neighborhoods.

After a few months of grassroots lobbying, they won their campaign and got the city council to agree to the name change. After the council’s vote, the organizers invited community members to a large Baptist church for a victory celebration. That night Vincent Harding, a long-time associate of King’s, spoke to the gathered community. He urged everyone there to fully embrace the deeper symbolism of what they had just accomplished. As he said to them, “You have now changed the road you travel from the Empire Way to Martin’s way.”

Isn’t that exactly the challenge we still face today—changing the road we travel from the Empire Way to Martin’s Way? As more and more people are coming to realize, we need to get active again in what King called “the long and bitter—but beautiful struggle” to move away from an empire of lies, militarism, illegal wars of aggression, torture, uncontrolled corporate greed, growing inequality, and the trampling of the Bill of Rights. We need to get active in the effort to create the “Beloved Community” that King so often invoked as his deepest, long-range vision.

There are many signs that this shift is beginning to happen. One important indicator of renewed movement is the innovative new coalition of religious, labor, environmental, student, and civil rights groups called Green For All. The coalition is hosting a national conference called “The Dream Reborn” in Memphis on the weekend of April 4-6. The conference is a very direct example of expanding King’s vision of the Beloved Community to include the interests of “We the People” and the planet. As Green For All’s conference invitation says:

It’s official: in Memphis from April 4-6, Green For All is bringing together the practitioners, activists, and communities at the center of the emerging green-collar economy. Join us on the 40th Anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assassination. This historic event will celebrate his extraordinary life and present positive solutions from today’s generation of visionary leaders. A bullet killed the dreamer, but not the dream. Together, we will create ecological solutions to heal the earth while bringing jobs, justice, wealth and health to all our communities.

Green For All’s mission statement goes on to say:

Green For All has a simple but ambitious mission: to help build a green economy strong enough to lift people out of poverty. By advocating for a national commitment to job training, employment and entrepreneurial opportunities in the emerging green economy–especially for people from disadvantaged communities–we fight both poverty and pollution at the same time. We are committed to securing one billion dollars by 2012 to create “green pathways out of poverty” for people in the United States, by greatly expanding federal government and private sector commitments to “green-collar” jobs.

Now, isn’t that a great way to honor King’s memory? I would go to Memphis, but I’m hosting an activist training session that weekend on Diversity and Coalition-Building right here in Keene, New Hampshire. We can’t all go to big national conferences, but we can all contribute to the movement for a Beloved Community wherever we live.

Steve Chase is the Director of Antioch University New England’s Environmental Advocacy and Organizing Program and is the editor of the EAOP’s “Well-Trained Activist” blog.

Steve Chase :: Apr.07.2008 :: Environmental Studies, Ethics, Politics, Religion, Social Justice :: No Comments »

I talk to my dogs frequently and unabashedly. Once, an electrician working on my house overheard me talking with my two labs in the back yard. Later he said to me “Wow, I talk to my dogs, but not like you do!”

I wondered, why not? I’m convinced that these “conversations,” have resulted in my dogs being much more perceptive of me (and I of them) than they otherwise would have been.  

I was equally curious when I found out recently that some novice sheep shearers are themselves sheepish about comforting nervous animals while shearing them. With a shortage of shearers in the American west, a growing number of folks, from ex marines to psychiatrists, are taking up the profession as a way to a more natural and sustainable way of life.

Many are sensitive as well to the emotions of the sheep. Good thing. For despite their reputation as virtual automatons who would follow their flock off a cliff, ethological studies have shown that sheep are actually reasonably intelligent. They have, for example, sophisticated memories and respond emotionally to familiar faces.

And yet some shearers in training are a bit shy about talking to sheep. Here’s an excerpt from a New York Times article on the subject:  

For some students, empathy was an issue, if mostly unspoken. Are the sheep stressed?…

Meagan Rathjen, 22, a ranch hand at a sheep spread near Missoula — she came west from small-town Iowa, interested in helping support sustainable agriculture — nicked her first sheep. It was nothing too serious, but enough to draw a small trickle of blood, which looked stark and red against the yearling’s white skin.

So quietly that almost no one else could hear, Ms. Rathjen bent down over the half-shorn animal, and apologized.

Why so quiet? I suspect it may have something to do with a fear that, despite the evidence of sheep intelligence and their obvious expression of certain feelings, such behavior may be criticized as inappropriately emotional. Like my electrician thinking I was a bit eccentric for speaking so enthusiastically to my dogs, it may seem slightly nutty to apologize to a frightened sheep.

A completely reasonable response suppressed. This may be partly due to a cultural suspicion of empathy for animals, handed down through scientific and religious traditions that view them as instinctual, instrumental, and soul-less.

 Sources:
“Work as Every Bit Wild as It Is Wooly,” New York Times.  
“The ‘intelligent’ side of sheep,” BBC News.
“Study Shows Sheep Have Keen Memory for Faces,” Scientific American.
“So who’s being wooly minded now?: Other animals could learn something from an intelligent flock,” New Scientist.

Karin Lauria :: Apr.05.2008 :: Ethics :: 2 Comments »

When I started Ethos, I made a decision to avoid rapid-fire blogging in immediate response to current events. I wanted a substantive blog of columns that were both reflective and critically engaged with matters of practical ethics.

Yet I find myself routinely forwarding newspaper articles to my students and colleagues. Generally I draw from national and global newspapers, podcasts, and streaming media, e.g. the New York Times, the Toronto Globe and Mail, National Public Radio, and the Canadian Broadcast Service.

For my students, these articles are a gateway to connecting the theoretical and methodological knowledge they learn in class, and the insights this knowledge brings to one’s understanding of the empirical world. For my colleagues, they are a way we keep in touch, and receive ‘heads-up’ about events and information in our sphere’s of concern.

So beginning this summer, I’ve decided to experiment with sending a subset of these articles to Ethos as well, believing they may be of interest to a wider community interested in the ethical and policy dimensions of environmental studies, human-animal studies, and global studies.

Let me know what you think, whether you find these informational posts to be a complement or distraction to the substantive columns and editorials we usually publish.

cheers, Bill

William Lynn :: Mar.28.2008 :: Art, Environmental Studies, Ethics, Geography, Human-Animal Studies, Politics, Religion :: No Comments »

If you’re interested in seeing what brazen hypocrisy looks like, here’s an article from the New York Times you can’t pass up:

Humane Society Criticized in Meat Quality Scandal

It seems the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has decided to blame the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) for the Westland/Hallmark meat recall fiasco, because, they claim, HSUS did not immediately release an undercover video of downed cattle being abused at a Westland/Hallmark site. Apparently, HSUS, and not the department itself, is responsible for failing to treat animals humanely and ensure food safety. Below is an excerpt:

At a hearing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, Representative Michael C. Burgess, Republican of Texas, assailed the Humane Society for waiting to inform the federal government.

“Why wait until February to release the video?” Mr. Burgess demanded of a Humane Society representative. “Why wait until now to bring this to our attention?”

His criticism echoed a point made last week by Ed Schafer, the secretary of agriculture, who said he was “extremely disappointed” in the Humane Society. He complained that “for four months, theoretically, animals were not being properly treated, and the Humane Society stood by and allowed it to happen.”

Let me offer a restatement of the above: “Why didn’t the Humane Society tell us to stop allowing the abuse of animals and to protect public health?”

Yes, it’s galling.

The USDA’s argument is particularly shameless because the Westland/Hallmark incident began as a humane treatment issue, not a food safety one. The case has led to the investigation of the USDA’s inspection procedures as a result of the evidence submitted by HSUS.

But I think the government is doing something here that is much more insidious than just scapegoating HSUS to cover its own embarrassing failures; it’s implying that those who care about animals are so concerned with their own agendas that they’ll sacrifice public safety to achieve their ends. No doubt some do. Most, however, do not.

Perhaps the more plausible interpretation of this story is that the USDA is so concerned with protecting agribusiness, they’ll sacrifice the safety of people and animals to do so. This is one example of how the oppression of humans and animals is tightly interlocked by those who callously industrialize creatures in the interest of profits.

The accusation by the USDA against HSUS is a classic, albeit subtle, example of how animal supporters are portrayed as hypocrites, often by hypocrites themselves. For more on this, see Animals and Why They Matter by philosopher and practical ethicist, Mary Midgley (University of Georgia Press, 1983).

Incidentally, HSUS did immediately come forth with the tape, but was asked by local prosecutors not to release it until after their investigation. So why did government prosecutors ask HSUS to delay? Sounds suspicious to me.

Painting: “The Scapegoat,” William Holman Hunt (1854). Courtesy Mark Harden’s Artchive, www.artchive.com.

Karin Lauria :: Mar.11.2008 :: Ethics, Human-Animal Studies, Religion :: No Comments »

In 2006/07 the New Zealand Centre for Human-Animal Studies administered a nationwide survey exploring the perspectives and experiences of cruelty-free consumers. New Zealand is a small country (human population just over 4 million), whose economy since European settlement around 200 years ago, has been heavily reliant on agriculture (and therefore nonhuman animal exploitation). There is a popular saying in New Zealand – it was around when I was a child and is still going strong - that “farming is the backbone of our nation”. It is also considered ‘unpatriotic’ to refuse meat or other animal products in New Zealand: you are not a ‘true kiwi’ if you don’t support the animal farming, meat, dairy and wool industries here. As a vegan kiwi, however, I have been particularly interested in the ways in which subcultural (or non mainstream) identity in New Zealand is linked to ethical consumption and the refusal to eat meat.

While the survey on ethical consumption in New Zealand attracted a few omnivores - who were mainly concerned about intensive farming practices in NZ and/or the use of animals in experimentation here (and it is perhaps not surprising to note that animal experimentation in NZ is linked predominantly to agricultural research) - the majority of respondents were vegetarian or vegan. To download and read the full 108 page report on this study, please refer to the website for the NZ Centre for Human-Animal Studies (http://www.nzchas.canterbury.ac.nz/news.shtml).

One aspect of this study generated huge media interest, both nationally and internationally around August 2007. This related to the preference of a small number of vegetarian and vegan women to be sexually intimate – or in primary relationships - only with other vegetarians and vegans. This preference, which I term ‘vegansexuality’, pertained to those who refused on ethical grounds to have intimate relations with non-vegetarians. I did not propose vegansexuality as an innate form of sexuality or desire; instead vegansexuality may be understood as a disposition (or inclination, or preference) towards those who also practice a cruelty-free lifestyle. Importantly, it is an embodied ethical form of sexuality.

The connection between food and sex is not a new phenomenon. I would argue that a spectrum exists in relation to cruelty-free consumption and sexual relationships: at one end of the spectrum, vegansexuality entails an increased likelihood of sexual attraction towards those who do not consume animals or animal products. At the other end, it manifests as a strong sexual aversion to the bodies of those who consume animals and animal products; for these people, avoidance of sexual intimacy with omnivorous bodies is manifesting at a much more visceral level.

As a vegan, it makes sense to me that some vegans might experience sexuality on a fundamentally ethical level. A person who is dedicated to cruelty-free living may well extend this ethical commitment beyond consumption of food into other aspects of their life, and especially into such an important arena as intimate relationships. It is not surprising, or extreme (as has been suggested), when considered according to such rationale. What astounded me more was the way in which mainstream and some alternative media across the world picked up on the identification of this phenomenon; and also the ferociousness of the public backlash against those vegans who stated they preferred intimate relationships with non-meat eaters (this backlash was prompted by the extensive media coverage). Overnight there were hundreds of responses posted on blogs and elsewhere, the majority of these postings were immensely negative and/or derogatory towards ‘vegansexuals’.

While there may be several reasons for such an immediate and outraged reaction from meat-eaters discovering they are off the sexual/pleasure menu for strict vegetarians (and I am currently analyzing hundreds of these disparaging responses to see what factors motivated such a reaction), it is the vehement opposition voiced by some vegans that interests me most. For example, PETA was soon brought into the picture, and asked to comment on vegans who preferred sexual relationships with non-meat eaters. A prominent PETA spokesperson declared that vegans who chose other vegans for partners were unhelpful because sex was an important strategy in the conversion of meat-eaters to veganism!

I wonder if one of the reasons some vegans were challenged by vegansexuality is that they were concerned this would become a new kind of sexual imperative: in order to be ‘truly’ vegan it would be necessary to expand their commitment to cruelty-free living to the bedroom. This kind of dilemma ultimately rests with oneself, however. As someone who is personally critical of sexual and other ‘imperatives’, it was not my intention in proposing the existence of this ethical form of sexuality that it should be viewed as, or become, a new demand on vegans; nor that all vegans should feel this way or be ultimately moving towards vegansexuality, or that vegans who are in relationships with omnivores are somehow not vegan enough! Highlighting the existence of ethical intimacy of this nature was more about allowing those participants in the New Zealand study who felt strongly about their own relationships to express their preferences for practicing cruelty-free sex as well as cruelty-free consumption. In my opinion, those who were frank and courageous in voicing their unconventional approaches to intimate relationships certainly did not deserve the malice this provoked from omnivores or other vegans.

Annie Potts :: Mar.09.2008 :: Ethics, Human-Animal Studies :: No Comments »