Joshua McCracken on Nov 05, 2007 at 03:59 PM:

One key point here that I feel needs to be mentioned is that my editorial centered completely around the practice of hunting, which is big business in this state. The main game is in fact deer, hence their focus in the editorial. I respect the points of view expressed here, however it should be noted that human beings do not have canine teeth for the purpose of tearing apart plants--we are natural carnivores. Do I feel any disrespect or hostility towards those who indulge in vegetarianism? Absolutely not, however as I noted in an earlier article, certain things in our society are unfortunately sacrificed in the name of capitalism. Slaughter house kills may be inhumane, and on that same note making human beings work for less than the average American makes in an hour over the course of the day in order to provide the clothes on the backs of 99% of us is as well. We live in a capitalist society, there is no getting around it, and humanity tends to get caught in the machine every now and then. Another key difference which I outlined in my article is that these animals are killed for sport, not food. The animals killed in slaughterhouses are used for food, and though the practices that occur in between their deaths and eventual consumption by the consumer are inhumane, it is being done so that others may eat. We are very clever animals, we have managed to turn killing for food into a very well oiled machine. It is not right, and hopefully people like Ms. Pires will play a role in changing the situation. Animals kill each other in nature, pure and simple. Can you haul a tiger into court for mauling a gazelle? No, it is nature. Ms. Pires makes many excellent points, but it seems like the general point behind this editorial was lost in translation at some point.

Louisa Pires, RN BSN on Nov 06, 2007 at 12:07 AM:

I support Elena Pires's response to Joshua McCracken's original article. I believe it is unfair for humans to emotionally value one species of animal over another. Farm animals suffer and feel pain just the same as deer and other wildlife. Mr. McCracken claims that the only time it is "excusable to kill an animal is if you are starving and are left with no other option," but justifies the killing and eating of farm animals. Most people in the United States are not "starving." Humans do not need meat, especially considering the plethora of soy and wheat meat replacements that are plentiful in today's society. In fact, it would be beneficial to many of the overweight and obese members of our society to eat less meat and consume a plant-based diet. Despite what Mr. McCracken claims, many hunters eat the animals they kill for food. I do not see how Mr. McCracken can critize hunters, but still continue to eat meat. I applaud Mr. McCracken for addressing some of the issues surrounding humans' cruel treatment towards animals, but I encourage him to expand his views towards farm animals as well. In Mr. McCracken's repsonse to Ms. Pires's article, he speaks of animals killing each other in nature. I would like to know what is "natural" about our factory farming system today. Animals in most farms tend to be given prophylactic antibiotics and other medications to keep them alive in infested, crowded conditions. They are then slaughtered in hectic and rushed environments that cause the animals to undergo much physical and emotional suffering. Again, I encourage Mr. McCracken's exposal of the unnecessary brutality surrounding the treatment of animals, but I would like to see more people consider the often unseen and hidden cruel treatment of animals in factory farms and slaughterhouses. Louisa Pires, RN BSN

Joshua McCracken on Nov 06, 2007 at 08:20 AM:

Biology tends to disprove the "humans don't need meat" thesis. As I mentioned earlier, our canine teeth are there to tear apart meat, a holdover from our hunter and gatherer days in which humans pretty much subsisted exclusively on meat. I did not say that the method of killing these animals is natural, however the act itself is very much a part of nature. Again, I do not approve of it, however just like any other animal, we kill animals around us for food. I would go so far as to say that humans eating exclusively of one food group or another is unnatural, as our bodies evolved with the help of both plants and meat, which was mostly consumed from roots and other animals, respectively. What I want to again point out is that the original column was not centered around the slaughterhouse industry, and having grown up around many hunters, I have yet to meet more than a handful who actually consumed any part of the kill, and even those shouldn't be counted because most of the carcass still ended up on the wall. In my article about the Che shirts, I made the point that there are certain things in life that cannot be changed right now, and that it is cruel to flaunt our exploitations. My problem with hunting is with the fact that these animals are killed to perpetuate outdated misogynistic ideas of what men are and what they do, and these creatures have to die for such a pointless cause. Our bodies need the fat that much meat gives to us, in the early days of humanity we needed to build fat and muscle in order to stay warm in the winter. We have a luxury right now of being able to refrain from meat, our ancestors did not. The fashion in which these animals are killed is not natural, but the fact that they are being killed IS natural. It is unfortunate, and hopefully people with as much empathy for animals will one day help to change the situation. However, forcing others into your point of view simply because you feel otherwise about something is fascism, and if people like you do one day get into the position to do something about this, I hope that you remember that changing systems is admirable, noble and good, but forcing people to do something that they don't want to do (i.e. no longer eating meat because you don't like it) is inexcuseable.

Erik Grau on Nov 06, 2007 at 02:07 PM:

As a vegan, I also agree with the general sentiment that hunting deer is an inexcusable way to prove manhood, however, I think it is just as inexcusable as the sexual politics that perpetuate the belief that eating meat in general makes you masculine. By condemning deer hunting as an outdated way of proving masculinity, one must also agree that men eating meat to prove their manhood and power is just as absurd. A look at our popular culture shows these sexual politics at work. Most commonly in fast food commercials, men are depicted as reclaiming their masculinity by eating meat. Mr. McCracken cannot argue that hunting is the only food-related, wasteful, misplaced representation of masculinity in our culture.

I would also like to point out that humans are not carnivorous. Humans have the capacity to be omnivorous. If humans were completely carnivorous there would be serious health issues. I would like to see the scientific sources Mr. McCracken used when writing his article and rebuttals.

I would also like to mention the fact that hunting deer is a much more natural way of obtaining dietary meat than factory farming is. In most of human history dietary meat has been obtained by hunting animals in natural environments, not by storing a cache of "ready to kill" farm animals in filthy metal sheds. If Mr. McCracken cares to appeal to natural ways of life, he must acknowledge that hunting wild game is much more natural than intensive agriculture. A tiger does not mass produce and confine gazelle for future use.

I try to be morally consistent in my lifestyle and beliefs. My veganism is essentially a boycott of the factory farming system, because I feel it is unnatural, cruel, and unsustainable. I don't participate in hunting for similar reasons. Mr. McCracken, on the other hand, is being inconsistent in his views and pays lip service to compassion without taking the time to truly think about the ramifications of his actions.

Joshua McCracken on Nov 06, 2007 at 02:50 PM:

Again, my statements are clearly being misunderstood. As I already mentioned, we live in a capitalist society. We have been heading for a situation in which people did not have to do such things as hunt (or walk, or exercise) for any reason other than pure recreation for a long time. And yes, human beings NOW are omnivorous, but they weren't in the days when their food supply as well as their shelter were dependent on the bodies of other animals. I agree, if humans were completely carnivorous there would be serious health issues. Which may be why most of our ancestors are not believed to have lived much past 35. My scientific sources, by the way, are biology textbooks and history textbooks, both of which I've been reading since I was a child. As for the argument that hunting deer is a much more natural way of obtaining dietary meat, yes, I agree. HOWEVER every person that I have spoken to on this subject does not do so in order to obtain dietary meat. They do it because they consider it a rite of passage or some other outdated proof by killing another animal. It is a sport, and not a single hunter I've spoken to has referred to it as anything but. Our society, again, has created a system in which people do not have to hunt in order to eat meat, and as I have agreed over and over again, the means to justify that end are not exactly to my liking. Had you read my previous post, you would have noticed the part in which I said that the MEANS in which these animals are killed IS NOT natural, but THE FACT THAT THEY ARE BEING KILLED FOR FOOD IS COMPLETELY NATURAL. Your personal justifications for veganism are completely admirable, however contrary to your final insinuation my views are completely consistent, and a look back at this thread, in which I have been forced to repeat them over and over, proves that.

Joshua McCracken on Nov 06, 2007 at 02:52 PM:

Because I have a very strong feeling that someone is going to take the fact that I left out the 'in' in inconsistent in order to further bash my character/arguments, it was due to distraction, not Freudian slips.

Joshua McCracken on Nov 06, 2007 at 05:38 PM:

On one final note, I would like to say that I am rather disappointed that every single person who has responded to the original article has in some way or another attacked my personal character. You are free to disagree, however I believe in respect among people who do not agree, and it grieves me to see that so many are incapable of presenting intelligent arguments without name-calling or character bashing. As near as I can tell, the entire issue here is that I only went halfway with the original article by saying that hunting was a horrible practice but not going so far as to say that people shouldn't eat meat. My reason for this is simple: I do think that people should eat meat. However, like everything else, that is their choice. If you don't want to eat meat, great, wonderful, a thousand years of applause for you, but using it as an excuse to be self righteous and somehow demean others who may not agree is not right either. Also, no one responded to my notes about the people who are still living in poverty because they get paid next to nothing for making the clothes that just about everyone in this country wears. Are they unimportant, or are they just less important than the animals in the slaughterhouses? Everything has to come from somewhere, and while it may be easier for people not to know exactly where, I know exactly where both my food and my clothing come from. I may not like the system, but if you live in America, unfortunately you are not given a whole lot of choice in the matter. And, at last, in my final "overly sentimental" moment, the best we can do is bide our time and work to change the system, with the consideration of EVERYONE involved. The people who do not want to eat meat are free to continue not to, and the people who do want to eat meat are free to continue to do that too. I have nothing but respect for those who have the awareness and compassion to avoid eating meat because of how it is produced, however that compassion has been a little dilluded by the lack of compassion or concern for their fellow man exhibited by some who have replied to my original column.

Erik Grau on Nov 06, 2007 at 09:04 PM:

I would like to begin by stating that I by no means ever attacked your character, and if you feel that I have I truly apologize. The purpose of this rebuttal is not to be self-righteous, but I merely am trying to show you the inconsistencies within the argument you previously presented. According to your argument, as I understand it, it is not ok to kill some animals because of certain reasons, but it is more than ok to kill others if it fills a different purpose. This makes me question your original argument against hunting because I cannot determine where your moral basis lies.

The moral basis that I have come to is that suffering is bad. I also have come to the conclusion that because suffering is bad, it is wrong to inflict suffering on beings that have the capacity to feel and experience suffering. Killing an animal is a situation that causes suffering. Therefore it is wrong to kill because it causes suffering.

Within my argument, suffering is the only consideration for why it is wrong to kill an animal. So, you see, that if we apply the suffering is bad and killing results in suffering moral basis to your argument, it does not fit within the confounds of a solid argument. Your argument takes the intent of killing into consideration. By doing this, the argument now becomes subjective, because different people may place different importance on different reasons for killing. This not only, makes the argument much more complicated, but also dilutes and trivializes it. By looking at the purpose of killing, the issue is taken out of an easily understood ethical position. Another example that fits into this line of reasoning is the act of pedophilia. We can come to the conclusion that pedophilia is wrong because it causes suffering to the children that are victimized and that it is morally unacceptable to cause suffering. Within this argument I would take the position that pedophilia is always wrong because it causes suffering which is bad. A different argument might take the stance that pedophilia is wrong if it serves the purpose of proving one's manhood, but is ok if it serves the natural purpose of sexuality. By looking at such a concrete example of what people consider to be right or wrong, it is much easier to understand my line of moral reasoning. Because most people do not view animals as deserving of equal consideration of basic rights, it is easier for them to draw arbitrary distinctions and participate in different practices.

Different people may place a great deal of importance on hunting deer for sport, while others would argue that killing animals for meat may be more important, others still might value the killing of animals for fur or skin. Regardless of the disagreements, one can come to the conclusion that none of the before mentioned is necessary and all result in suffering, and therefore according to my argument, are bad.

In our current society there should not be a need to prove masculinity by killing deer, just as there should not be a need to kill animals for meat. Men should not need to prove their masculinity, and our society should focus on helping individuals who need to validate their ego by killing things and acting in other stereotypical ways. Our society should also recognize that eating meat is not necessary to our survival or health, because in many instances it causes the opposite. Both practices are not "natural." To kill an animal to boost self-esteem has serious psychological implications, whereas raising animals in factory farms with the use of antibiotics and steroids is not safe, a wise use of resources, or natural. Nothing about our current farming practices are natural. Killing animals for the kind and quality of meat in our society is not natural or necessary, and it only shows that our capitalist society is one of convenience and not one focused on preserving natural or healthy ways of life.

I would also like to ask what ancestor of man was strictly carnivorous. According to the research on hominids I have done, I have found no completely carnivorous species hominid or ape. Homo neanderthalensis is the only species of hominid that I know of that ate primarily meat due to the cold climate they lived in and lack of vegetation. This species is now extinct and it has been argued that it may not have been a direct ancestor of Homo sapiens. Australopithecus africanus to my knowledge was the first hominid that was thought to have been able to eat some meat. This hominid lived between 3.3 and 2.4 million years ago. Before that, as I understand, the hominid line was completely vegetarian with the exception of insects for 1.1 million years. Its teeth were developed so it could eat harder food and chew for longer periods of time. It by no means was a carnivorous species. As I understand the issue, hominids evolved to be omnivorous because it allowed them to have more options and strive. It would make little sense for a species to evolve from eating only plants to eating only meat, because that actually restricts many more options. I do admit that for an evolving species without the comforts of our modern society, an omnivorous diet makes sense, but the society we live in does not have the capacity for our species to naturally and ecologically live an omnivorous lifestyle.

Elena Pires on Nov 07, 2007 at 12:48 AM:

Mr. McCracken:

I’m sorry that you feel that you have been personally attacked. I understand that it is often difficult for us to distinguish a criticism of our beliefs or actions from a criticism of our character or person. It is easy to get defensive in the face of criticism, so I understand your concern.

However, I don’t think that anyone has attacked you personally. I don’t see any name-calling from this side; your views were described as inconsistent but that is a comment on belief, not character. Honestly, the only name-calling I see in this conversation is your calling the respondents “self-righteous.”

I haven’t responded to any of this yet, so I’ll start with the beginning of this conversation. I don’t think anyone misunderstood what you were saying; we disagreed with it, and brought in extra subjects that you didn’t mention to point out problems in the line of reasoning of the original article.

I certainly agree that there are many injustices committed in our society and the world in general. You state: “certain things in our society are unfortunately sacrificed in the name of capitalism.” You also state: “if you live in America, unfortunately you are not given a whole lot of choice in the matter.” While much of our society and the mechanisms by which we procure material goods are corrupt and unethical, we absolutely do have power over it. Because we live in a capitalist country, we have the choice to use our money as we please. If we spend our money on unethical products, we support unethical practices. If we refuse to spend our money on such products (read: boycott), we are doing the most effective thing we can do to end the practice. We shouldn’t simply sit back and think that there’s nothing we can do about it so it’s ok to whole-heartedly participate in it.

Also, when you discuss the situation of sweatshop laborers, you seem to imply that proponents of animal rights don’t think that abuse of humans is wrong or don’t care enough to do anything about it. First of all, vegans are by definition compassionate, and of course we believe in human rights. Many vegans and vegetarians throughout history have fought for humans as well. There is nothing about adopting a vegan diet that prevents one from working for other causes as well. Veganism takes no more time or effort than eating a standard American diet. Most of the vegans I know are involved in helping humans as well by doing everything from Big Brothers/Big Sisters to working with autistic children to working on anti-war issues to working for the environment and much more.

Also, veganism has a wide range of human-related repercussions. Factory farming has a hugely negative effect on the environment. I’m sure you’re aware that as climate change accelerates, the world’s poor will be the hardest hit. The growth hormones and antibiotics used in standard practice in industrialized agriculture have health repercussions for humans. The slaughterhouse industry is possibly the worst industry for workers: most are poor, uneducated, and sometimes undocumented and therefore get abused by the higher-ups in the business. The slaughter industry also has an extremely high rate of injury to workers. Eating animal foods is also an extremely inefficient way to consume caloric energy. Animals eat plants but use up most of the caloric energy of the plants in their daily lives. It is estimated that it takes 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef. Producing animal foods also uses much more water than producing plant foods. This inefficiency creates food scarcity and leads to hunger and malnutrition in poor regions of the world.

Aside from all this, we humans pride ourselves on being moral and rational creatures. Our exploitation and abuse of any other animal (humans and nonhumans) demonstrates our selfishness and callousness and thereby degrades us all. When we can step beyond ourselves and our experiences and care for groups that are different from ours (be it by race, gender, socioeconomic class, or species) we can represent the noble, moral, and rational parts of our nature. Animal liberation is human liberation, too.

You also bring up the difference between killing for food and for sport, and claim that every hunter you know only kills deer for sport and does not use the animal for food. I don’t know how many hunters you’ve interviewed, but my father and all three of my siblings as well as other relatives and childhood neighbors hunted. My father hunts only for food (you should know he also grows most of his vegetables himself, since you talk about knowing where your food comes from).

You claim that hunting for sport is trivial but killing animals for food is natural and necessary. I think that the gustatory pleasure of a human being is much more trivial than a non-human animal’s interests in living a decent, comfortable life.

You also mention more than once the idea that eating flesh is natural for humans. You state: “biology tends to disprove the ‘humans don't need meat’ thesis.” Again, anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of nutrition knows that humans don’t need meat to survive or thrive. You show a lack of knowledge about nutrition when you state that “Our bodies need the fat that much meat gives to us.” It wasn’t clear whether or not you meant that we needed such fat only in our evolutionary history, but your statement implies that we currently need it so I’ll respond to that idea. Firstly, many plant foods, such as nuts, seeds, olives, and avocados, are excellent sources of healthy fats. Secondly, animal fats are undisputedly the fats that cause problems in human health. Saturated fat is extremely rare in plant foods, and cholesterol doesn’t exist in plants at all. Healthy fats such as mono- and poly-unsaturated fats are only available from plant sources.

Also to respond to your “biology” argument, our “canine” teeth are not canines in the sense of a true carnivore’s canines. Our “canines” are not nearly as long or sharp as those of a true carnivore. Our rounded jaws much more closely resemble those of herbivores than the sharp, long jaws of carnivores. Our teeth are mostly broad and flat and are suited for chewing plant materials. Our digestive tracts are, like herbivorous animals, longer than those of carnivores. We have trouble digesting raw meat. It is also unnatural for us to consume dairy, as the commonness of lactose intolerance demonstrates. We are, in fact, the only animal that consumes the milk of another species and the only animal that consumes milk after weaning. When humans consume animal foods in the huge quantities that Americans do, we develop health problems like heart disease, obesity, hypertension, high cholesterol, and many types of cancer. Anything that causes such adverse reactions certainly can’t be natural or healthy.

You also state: “We have a luxury right now of being able to refrain from meat, our ancestors did not.” This is also completely untrue. Eating meat, not abstaining from it, is luxury. Wealthy, industrialized nations are the only ones whose citizens can afford to eat large quantities of meat. Throughout human history, only the very wealthy have been able to indulge in eating flesh. Eating a plant-based diet is cheaper and more sustainable; eating animal foods is wasteful and decadent.

Finally, I must also protest against your implication that vegans are out to control others and take away freedom of choice. You specifically compare us to fascists, saying “forcing others into your point of view simply because you feel otherwise about something is fascism.” That is the exact opposite of what I attempt to do in the struggle for animal rights. I am not physically or legally able to force anyone to do anything. However, I am able to inform them of what they don’t know. If they aren’t comfortable hearing about it, they shouldn’t be comfortable participating in it. I think that any rational, ethical person, when confronted with these truths, should make the decision for himself whether or not he wants to continue to participate in this system.

When I communicate unpleasant ideas or facts to people, I am attempting to inform the uninformed. Very few people are aware of the realities of the exploitation of animals. Ignoring the truth doesn’t make it go away. Fascism is based on ignorance and adherence to a reactionary status quo and is opposed to discourse and knowledge. Those who oppose animal rights based on arbitrary distinctions between species and archaic or religious beliefs about human spiritual superiority are the ones who are opposed to knowledge and free thought, not vegans.

Do you think that it was fascist to force southern slaveholders in the 1800s to give up “owning” slaves, when it wasn’t their opinion that slavery was wrong?

In your original article you point out that slavery was once accepted as natural, but is now abhorred by any decent person. Do you think that it was fascist to force southern slaveholders in the 1800s to give up “owning” slaves, when it wasn’t their opinion that slavery was wrong?

Peter Singer said in his book Practical Ethics that “it is easy for us to criticize the prejudices of our grandfathers, from which our fathers freed themselves. It is more difficult to distance ourselves from our own views, so that we can dispassionately search for prejudices among the beliefs and values we hold.”

I’d like to respond to some other points you make, but message is already quite long. If there’s anything specific you’d like to discuss more in depth, I’d be happy to.

Adam on Nov 07, 2007 at 08:54 PM:

It looks we have a good debate going on here. I would just like to make a fee points about hunting and farming. I grew up on a farm and have been around hunting all my life. It seems to be a common belief that farm animals have a terrible life and are in constant pain and suffering. This is generaly not true. In general they are better fed, have better shelter, and have less disease than animals in the wild. Sometimes they do get out of their buildings or pastures, but they don't run away, they usualy just wonder around looking for food. It is true that larger "factory" farms keep their animals indoors all day and the animals do not live as long in these situations. However, they do not necessarily "sufffer" more than animals in the wild. I don't blame anyone for having compassion for animals and having opinions about farming but before you judge to harshly, try visiting one of these farms you find so appauling. As for hunting. No one I know has ever shot a dear and left it to lay. It may happen but 99.9% of the time the dear is used for its meat. I admit this is not why people hunt. They hunt for the "sport" of it, not to feed their families. Hunting is also a viable means of controlling the dear population. Without dear hunting there would be millions more dear, causing more car accidents among other things. They would eventualy become overpopulated, run out of food, then many would starve to death. But where do we draw the line of what animal is exceptable to eat and what is not? Is it ok to eat a cow but not a dear. How about a pig? And what about fish. Are they ok to eat, not to mention bacteria and plants. Maybe we should only eat non living minerals and fiber. The truth is that humans are different than plants and animals. Plants and animals are on this planet for our pleasure and to employ at our discretion.

Elena Pires on Nov 07, 2007 at 10:24 PM:

Hi Adam,

I’m glad you joined the discussion. I completely agree with you that people shouldn’t make distinctions between different species-like saying it’s wrong to eat deer but ok to eat cows and pigs. That was pretty much what started all this.

However, there are a few things about which you’re mistaken. Firstly, factory farms are very different from “family farms,” which is what I assume you are familiar with. Many different groups over many years have documented the conditions in factory farms. The evidence is overwhelming that industrialized agriculture causes severe suffering for the non-human animals involved.

Also, you put humans into a different class from plants and animals. Humans are animals. We are primates. You cannot draw an arbitrary line between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom and say that we’re in one group and everything else, from chimpanzees to sponges, are in another.

Also, a lot of people argue that if we extend our compassion to non-human animals, then maybe we shouldn’t eat plants, and so forth, just trying to invalidate animal rights arguments. Plants don’t have nervous systems. Plants don’t have social structures. Non-human animals feel pain and fear just like we do. They form meaningful social relationships, just like we do.

You also say that animals are on this planet for us to use as we want. I don’t know if this is coming from a religious standpoint or not, but either way, it isn’t true. Animals exist in their own right. They are not resources for us to exploit. Remember that only a few hundred years ago, many Caucasians believed that those of African descent existed only to serve those considered “superior.” Throughout history, people have argued for the exploitation and abuse of groups that are somehow different from their own. Just because something looks, sounds, or behaves differently from or is less powerful than you, you do not have the right to use it any way you want. We accept that now about different groups of humans within our society. Hopefully, someday we will realize that just because non-human animals look different, are weaker, or don’t have language and tools to the extent that we do, we don’t have a right to abuse and exploit them.

I hope you’ll think about it. Thanks for joining the discussion and being so respectful (I really appreciate it). Thanks for not getting defensive with those whose views are different from your own.

Geoff Loper on Nov 08, 2007 at 08:18 AM:

Elena,

As a fellow Post writer, I wanted to reply to your article, but needed some time to properly collect my thoughts. While I agree with some of Josh's article, I feel that there are some things that need a little clarification from your response...

You say that our society has "inconsistent views of non-human animals." Would that statement be aimed at the fact that we, as humans, are indeed animals? And if that is the case, who are we a "human-animals" held to a higher moral standard than the rest of the animal kingdom? Does the lion think about how it might be infringing on the zebra's rights when it comes close to dinner time? Does the cheetah think that it could have a better meal if it just ate the grass instead of chasing down an antelope? If we are to be labeled as animals, why are our instincts morally wrong when compared to those of other animals? Maybe we just got smart quicker than the rest, and perhaps in 100 years the lions will be raising wildebeests fro their young to feed on so that the need to learn how to hunt will be a thing of the past.

Our society and civilizations has "evolved" over time and in the process has nearly erased all of the natural predators for deer and large game in this country, does that make hunting justified? Maybe, there are people who do go out and hunt specifically for the food, not just the trophy. When I think about it in the larger picture, I would rather let them hunt the deer instead of hitting them with my car as they run across Capitol Drive in Brookfield. The deer population is supposedly "kept in check" by the hunt. Now I love the woods and nature as much as the next guy, but I would also like to be able to have my garden in my back yard not invaded by the deer that live int he woods nearby. Does that mean I want them killed? No, but I also understand the views of those hunters. People have unique ways of providing for their families, and who are we to judge them? I know of a couple of hunters who pay an extra fee to each kill one extra deer each season (and sometimes they don't even get the first one) but they take that meat from the second deer and donate it to a homeless shelter.

Morally, I do not think that a wolf would ever run over to the camp of the hungry coyotes and just drop off a couple of rabbits... If we are truly acting like animals, would there be any natural animals left to roam the woods. We understand the balance of nature, and only take what we need and let the rest stay to keep that balance.

Erik on Nov 08, 2007 at 11:51 AM:

I really do not believe that, "We understand the balance of nature, and only take what we need and let the rest stay to keep that balance." If this were true, there would not be things like obesity, suburbia, fuel- inefficient vehicles, food spoilage, and the destruction of nature for human expansion to name just a few. Factory farming is a perfect example of humans not taking only what they need. Raising animals for food actually wastes more energy that it creates. Animals eat more food than they can produce and many of the animals die within factory farms before they even make it to the slaughterhouse. Certainly this wastefulness does not show how people keep a balance with nature.

Adam on Nov 08, 2007 at 12:00 PM:

O.K. Elena, Your ideas about factory farms have some validity. The animals do appear to be worse off and may indeed suffer. However, I have seen a few of these large dairy farms(in person). The animals are not moaning in pain or trying to get out. I'm not sure how you could prove that they are suffering. The main problem in your argument is that you say that we as humans cannot distinguish ourselves from other animals but at the same time you say we should have compassion for other animals and not exploit weaker beings than ourselves. What other animal has compassion for other species? The big fish gets the small fish and the small fish gets the tiny fish. Nature is a cruel and harsh place, it's survival of the fittest. If a pack of lions comes upon a baby gazelle, they eat it. They do not have compassion for it. They don't wonder if its fair that this baby never had a chance against a pack of lions. And they don't consider letting it go so it will grow up and multiply so there will be food for the future. The truth is humans are different, we are capable of comapsion, as well as discretion.

Erik on Nov 08, 2007 at 01:34 PM:

The way I understand the argument is that Elena doesn't claim that humans and non-human animals are equal. By no means could anyone make such a claim, and because of that, each should not be held to the same accountability of actions. For example, just because we can vote doesn't mean that if we treat animals equally they should also be allowed to vote. My understanding is that she believes that all animals, human or not, should be given equal consideration of their basic interests. Therefore, because a human has the basic interest to not suffer, one can assume that non-human animals also have that same interest. We can assume this because animals avoid suffering and pain in similar ways that humans do. That is why they are able to survive. Whincing away from pain is an evolutionary advantage. We can tell that non-human animals suffer because they react similarly to ways in which humans react to suffering. If a human is in pain, they cry out, just as any non-human animal would.

Because animals have the same interest as humans do to avoid suffering, it is moral for humans to respect that. Because non-human animals are not equal to humans in their moral reasoning, they cannot be expected to adhere to the same morals as we do. Basic equality and respecting interests of other beings equally are two very different things that govern this important distinction.

Elena Pires on Nov 08, 2007 at 05:44 PM:

Hi Geoff,

I’m glad you’re interested.

I do explain in my original editorial about our society’s inconsistent views of non-human animals. Here is the simple idea: our culture loves dogs and cats. We love deer and horses. We are outraged when we hear about people eating dogs in China or horses in France or using cats and dogs for fur (all these things happen). Then, we turn around and eat cows, pigs, and chickens. It is our cultural context only that allows us to call one animal “pet” and another animal “dinner.” That is inconsistency.

You’re right, calling them “non-human animals” is intended to point out that we are animals as well. The reason for this is that we humans tend to set ourselves above the rest of the animal world. Regardless of the fact that we are biologically animals, we like to think we’re in some special class of being. This often stems from religious belief, even though few realize or admit it.

Culturally, we would rather put chimpanzees in the same class as oysters rather than admit that we aren’t as special as we think. We tend to think we have a right to do whatever we please simply because we can. We’ve accepted that might doesn’t make right when dealing with different humans, but not with other animals. That is why I use this type of language.

A lot of people make arguments similar to yours to disagree with animal rights. I doubt that you actually think that we can base our ethical and moral laws on the actions of beings without much of standardized moral law. However, since are arguing this way, I’ll reply:

People say that we’re superior to other animals and therefore, we can do what we want to them. Then, people turn around and say that we can do something just because they do. Which way would you have it? Are we superior to them? Because if so, we should hold ourselves to the highest conceivable moral standard. Do we judge ourselves on the same level we judge them? Because if so, our interests shouldn’t count for more than their interests. So which way would you have it? Either way, we can’t honestly and consistently keep participating in current practices.

By the way, it doesn’t matter if lions start farming wildebeest. It doesn’t matter what anyone does or does not do. What matters is what is right and wrong. If you wouldn’t eat your dog or cat, you shouldn’t eat cows, pigs, or chickens. If you wouldn’t perform painful scientific experiments on a brain-dead child, you shouldn’t be willing to do those things to rabbits, dogs, or monkeys.

I don’t know your background in philosophy or other critical thinking, but try to pay attention to the following argument. Throughout human history, majority groups have used arbitrary characteristics as a rationale for abusing groups different from them. Humans have used skin color, gender, sexual preference, ethnicity, and religious belief to judge and persecute those different from their own group. We now say that such practices are inexcusable, yet we use other beings’ different species as a reason to exploit them. If you think that racism, sexism, or classism are wrong, you should also think that speciesism is wrong.

I’ll move now to address your paragraph starting with “Our society and civilizations.” Firstly, remember that it was not I who made the original argument against hunting. Perhaps you could pose the same questions to Mr. McCracken. However, I’ll respond from my point of view.

Some of arguments made in this paragraph clearly demonstrate our speciesist attitude, which seems quite similar to attitudes of imperialism now recognized as unfair. Your attitude is that these animals invade our space and generally make nuisances of themselves. First off, humans are the ones who are ever encroaching on other species’ (and often, other humans’) habitat. Aside from the fact that humans are incredibly overpopulated, we in America have suburbs and “exurbs” and insist on “developing” every square inch of the natural world. It’s funny that you mention Brookfield: it is a prime example of human selfishness and materialism. Nobody needs 4000 square feet to house a family of four. Nobody needs huge yards that they don’t use for any useful purpose like raising food (don’t claim they do use it for such; I challenge you to find me anyone in Brookfield who, if their homeowner’s association even allows them to have a vegetable garden, actually has one that uses any significant amount of their perfectly landscaped yards). Nobody needs to sprawl out around the city, wasting valuable space and destroying nature, just to escape living near those of a different socioeconomic class. People driving their “sport utility” vehicles down Capitol Drive or anywhere else in the suburbs have much less of a right to be there than the wildlife. If you don’t want to live near wildlife, live in the city. If you don’t want to live near people who are poorer or darker-skinned than you are, accept living near wildlife.

We wouldn’t have any problem with deer “overpopulation” if we hadn’t destroyed increasingly large amounts of their habitats and killed all their native predators.

But again, it was Mr. McCracken who argued so strongly against hunting. As I’ve mentioned, my father is a hunter. I think that animals hunted for food suffer less overall than animals raised for food in factory farms. I think that hunting is better for the environment than factory farming, because it doesn’t use the huge amounts of energy or water and doesn’t produce the huge amounts of waste. I do not think hunting is ok and I would never do it, but those who eat any meat certainly can’t criticize it. That is the entire point of my original article, so pose your questions about hunting to Mr. McCracken.

Also, your comment that “We understand the balance of nature, and only take what we need and let the rest stay to keep that balance” is unclear. Does “we” here refer to hunters? If you intend it to mean “humans in general,” please let me know because it is absolutely untrue. If you refer only to hunters, it makes more sense.

Elena on Nov 08, 2007 at 06:02 PM:

Hi again Adam,

You state:

“What other animal has compassion for other species?...Nature is a cruel and harsh place, it's survival of the fittest. If a pack of lions comes upon a baby gazelle, they eat it. They do not have compassion for it…The truth is humans are different, we are capable of comapsion, as well as discretion.”

First of all, “survival of the fittest” doesn’t mean what you think it means but I’d like to avoid a long, drawn-out explanation of evolutionary theory so I’ll leave it to you to explore on your own.

I’d like to point out that in your argument you espouse what sounds like my argument. You say that humans are different from other animals, that we have compassion and discretion. My whole point is that in our treatment of non-human animals, we do not show compassion or discretion.

I’ll try to make this more clear, perhaps my past explanations have been too complicated. We humans think we’re better than all other animals. I point out that we are also animals to show that perhaps we have a higher opinion of ourselves than we deserve.

I do not mean to argue that we should behave in any way that other animals behave-we do have more complex social structures, civilization, and laws and should be beholden to them.

I don’t deny that there are on average many differences between humans and other animals. {{Note: don’t forget that for almost any important characteristic you can think of, such as intelligence, sociability, compassion, or awareness of the world, there are some animals that are superior to some humans. The differences aren’t all black and white.}} Because of these general differences, we do have different rights and responsibilities. The voting example above is a good one. Another: we don’t allow babies to drive cars because their motor skills don’t allow it and their intelligence doesn’t comprehend driving laws or navigation. We needn’t allow animals to vote, drive, or own property for the same reasons we don’t allow human children to do it. That doesn’t mean, however, that we shouldn’t consider their interest in living decent, comfortable lives and pursuing their natural instincts to be lesser than any of our interests, especially trivial ones like enjoying the taste of their flesh. Just because a human child or brain-dead adult is less powerful, intelligent, talented, or sociable than a normal-functioning human adult, we normal-functioning human adults don’t have the right to abuse or exploit that child or brain-dead adult. The same holds true for non-human animals.

Elena on Nov 08, 2007 at 06:27 PM:

Mr. McCracken,

Though I joined the discussion late, I did eventually respond to your responses to my original article. I see that you haven't responded to my defense.

I'll take your silence towards me as a recognition of the validity of my arguments.

Thanks for helping start this lively conversation.

-Elena