Blaming Other Animals for the Problems Humans Have Created
A friend posed the following ethical question regarding animal rights and the environment.
________________________________________________
I found this article this morning, and the first thing I thought was, “I wonder what Paul’s response to this would be”. Personally, the claims in this article make me ill, but I desire the opinion of one more seasoned in the environmental movement. The article (linked below) basically claims that keeping pets is as bad for the environment, if not worse, than other common culprits. It ends with the frustrating statement: “Get a hen, which offsets its impact by laying edible eggs, or a rabbit, prepared to make the ultimate environmental sacrifice by ending up on the dinner table. ‘Rabbits are good, provided you eat them,’ said Robert Vale”. My fear in this instance, though, is that this is just my own particular sensitivity to rabbits clouding my potential for objective reasoning (after getting to know this species so well, my heart sinks at the idea of anyone ever utilizing them as a source of food).
As someone with several pets, I find all of this very troubling. While I have a hard time supporting any environmentalist that advocates eating meat at all, some of these claims are hard to refute (although, for others, there are easy solutions—such as not flushing cat litter/feces, and using more environmentally-friendly products, like Yesterday’s News, or cleaning up after one’s dog while on walks). Targeting pet owners over those who, for example , drive the gas-guzzling SUVs, seems quite unfair to me, but at the same time, I don’t want to simply shun information that I find inconvenient (which is just as bad). Generally, I’m more inclined to side with those who advocate the healing capacity of pets (although I worry about those who focus too strongly—or perhaps, solely—on this, as it leads to mere objectification: animals simply as means to yet another, purely human, end). I personally think that there are few more potent ways of cultivating the connection between human and animal life than by bringing a truly loved, cared for, respected and admired animal into one’s home as one’s friend and companion.
Anyway, here’s the link to the article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091220/sc_afp/lifestyleclimatewarminganimalsfood
I welcome any feedback you may wish to provide.
___________________________________
I’ve heard this one before, and the answer is complex.
First, saying that we ought to get rid of existing animals because of their carbon footprints is both speciesist and an example of what animal rights philosopher Tom Regan would call “environmental fascism.” As with the human overpopulation issue, it is far better to first get rid of lifeless cars than creatures endowed with life and therefore entitled to it.
That having been said, many animal rights activists are against the breeding of more animals and will adopt and spay/neuter homeless “animal companions” (the term “pets” is not PC to them).
I thought about this also with respect to cows. Gedankenexperiment in ethics:
Premise one: one cow represents the same greenhouse gases (in methane) as an SUV (in CO2)—and that’s a lot. There are about one billion cows worldwide, adding up to a major global impact on climate change.
Premise two: we need to get rid of factory farms to mitigate climate change, and the whole world agrees to this.
Ethical dilemma: what do we do with the cows? If we believe in animal rights, we cannot kill them; but if they continue to exist they will contribute to killing everything else.
The animal rights answer is, of course, to not kill or eat them, to let them live out their days while disallowing them to reproduce and finding humane ways to capture the methane. Of course, if we are prepared to do this with cows—to stop their reproduction for humane reasons—then I think we also should be prepared to do the same with our species, which has grossly overpopulated the planet. I say no reproduction for a number of years until enough of us have died of old age to live more sustainably.
The same also goes for pets/animal companions – no more dog or cat reproduction. This is the most humane answer, I think. What is not acceptable is continuing to let them reproduce and killing those that do exist.
As for the use of hens for eggs: again, a complex answer. This represents the instrumental use of an animal, for which reason most animal rights folks don’t eat eggs. However, I know of a farm sanctuary at which the eggs are eaten because they would just sit there and go to waste if they were not. The problem with having a hen just for eggs is that it tempts people to use the hens just for this purpose, which is an instrumental use of animals – precisely what animal rights stands against, and which has led to factory farming. Many people in cities are buying hens for this reason.
The article referenced above is specieist through and through because it views non-humans as existing merely for humans’ sake. If animals do produce greenhouse gas, they should not pay for this with their lives or their freedom. This more abolitionist view is much more consistent with mitigating climate change than killing or using animals because it is grounded in the sanctity of all life, which is precisely why we ought to mitigate climate change—not merely to save our own skins.
