Animals, Environment and Climate

The most common rational defense of oppression is that it is “natural”, part of “natural law.”

The Grain Chain of Being, caste system

In the West, this idea was influenced by Aristotle’s Great Chain of Being, and in the East through the caste system. Both were used to enshroud class and race-based prejudice in unassailable religious belief-systems, to protect the self-interest of those who constructed them: anyone who objected that it was wrong to harm others was said to be against God.

Today we see a new generation of environmentalists who like the taste of meat trying to justify to themselves something they know to be environmentally inconsistent and morally problematic. So they revert to the naturalistic fallacy, based on speciesism – which as a philosophy is morally indefendsible, rationally (as Tom Regan has expertly shown in The Case for Animal Rights). Slavery of animals is being justified as as natural, just as slavery of humans was — and they are both wrong for the same reasons.

Of course, there was also a tension within those traditions: Jesus’ own teachings advocate non-harm and in the East there is the similar idea of “ahimsa”. I will get back to ahimsa shortly.

A modern secular version of the naturalistic fallacy is social Darwinism.

Regarding the oppression of animals we see the natural argument still prevalent, as though factory farms or even selective breeding or hunting using modern technology could somehow be considered “natural.”

The fact that something exists in the material world does not make it “natural.” The naturally existing world, the world of nature, is the world unaffected by human technology, which has radically altered it.

At what point in human evolution did humans separate themselves from natural processes? There are two answers: 1) 10,000 years ago with the advent of agriculture and civilization; and 2) more recently with the advent of the industrial revolution.

The world people create from nature is itself not natural. It creates a set of conditions apart from the the natural world (the wilderness) — what is sometimes called a built environment — based on ideas, which have actually disrupted naturally occuring evolutionary behaviors. Rural landscapes are built environmentas, like cities, but with more greenery.

As a result we are now in the midst of the sixth great mass extinction on Earth and the only one created by one species. How can anyone call this “natural”? Not for two billion years has there been a mass extinction on this scale.

The “Venus Syndrome” (worst case scenario for climate change) speaks of the eradication of ALL life on Earth if temperatures get to 450 degrees C. Is the eradication of all life on a planet by a single species in any way “natural”? If you think it is, then I suppose you could also declare nuclear weapons and biochemical warfare natural.

These things are not pre-determined but are chosen through the use of free will. They are thus outside the natural schema, even though the human actor exists biologically within it. In the same way, artificial selection and farming are un-natural. For this reason, we cannot reasonably justify them as natural, or determined by nature. We choose these things; we could well choose another way. Is every way that we choose ‘natural’ also? Clearly not, because our imagination are shaping the reality of the world around us, by means of technology which we invent. If there is choice involved we cannot justify one way as natural and the other not. It is a logical contradiction!

___________

No lower or higher in evolution

Similar to social Darwinism, used to justify social oppression, is idea of biological evolution to justify a hierarchy from “lower to higher” species, with man on top. This is a distortion because humans are just one species among many, not higher or lower than others. We are just more complex than most, due to our imaginations. Darwin himself rejected the lower-higher view of evolution.

Evolution simply refers to the changes that occur in a species in order to adapt to an environment, to survive. There is no moral hierarchy implied by the idea.

Free will instead of evolutionary adaptation – a new set of conditions

As long as we exist we never stop evolving. To exist is to evolve. Sometimes evolution results in successful adaptation; sometimes it does not. It looks as though the capacity for technology is not, in the long run, a good adaptive mechanism.

As stated above, humans have placed themselves outside the framework of naturally-occurring evolution by creating built environments, issuing from their imaginations, according to their desires, and this brings with it a certain power and new set of responsibilities not faced by other species.

We have free will and exercise it and then call the results “natural” or “normal.” This is a logical contradiction, since two opposing courses of action could be chosen. Which one would be “natural” and which “unnatural” according to this view? Both cannot be natural, in the sense of what ought to be – what is in accordance with natural law – if they oppose one another.

For example, a man has before him a choice to walk or take a car. One is sustainable and other unsustainable in the long run (since cars run on fossil fuels which are running out). Which is natural and which not? Rather, the question should be which is most just, sustainable and practical? That is, which is most in accordance with what Kant calls “practical reason”?

The natural-unnatural dichotomy is just not helpful for decision-making because it is too maleable, according to subjectively determined views of what is natural or not.

In contrast, practical reason follows an iron-clad rule: do that which takes into account the well-being of everyone else, universally.

Living sustainably is the most practical way to do this, if everyone’s life, now and into the future, depends on living in a stable and clean environment.

Kant gave us the tools to see beyond religious dogma; these same tools can be applied to the question of environmental sustainability and practical ethics.

Is does not imply ought

The “normalization” and “naturalization” process are identified by sociologists (e.g. Peter Berger):

people will create conditions that would not occur in the natural world and then begin to believe that it represents the world as it naturally occurs, and from that infer an “ought” where only an “is” exists. But as Hume stated, “is” does not imply “ought.”

Agriculture and civilization

Humans, though evolved as omnivorous primates (but depending more a plant-based diet than meat), do not require meat to survive or prosper, since the advent of agriculture 10,000 years ago. This led to the rise of civilization. As civilized people we conform to a social contract not to kill one another and to live peacably.

Our inner conflicts

Sadly, this social contract exists in tension with our aggressive drives. As Freud showed, this creates an inner conflict in the human psyche.

He hoped for a more enlightened society, where we acknowledged our drives and aggressions, consciously and did not repress them, where they become autonomous and erupt as violence.

The violence against animals is a legacy from the past, which no longer has a proper place in the world of technology.

I would not dispute the right of Aboriginal peoples who live through subsistence hunting, but this should not apply to rest of us. Culture and tradition is not a good defence for a morally wrong practice because any sort of evil can be justified this way.

If Aborignal peoples do not need meat to survive, is it rational that they continue to eat it? Such a question seems politically incorrect, given the legacy of colonialism against Aboriginal peoples (that continues to this day in various ways), so it is prudent to avoid the question.

But in an historical context free from that consideration (colonialism) we could clearly say that meat-eating by ANY culture is not morally justified solely on the basis of culture and tradition.

A moral evolution required

Our moral evolution requires a shift from war and slavery and oppression of animals to a peaceful, egaliatarian society dedicated to the principle of non-harm towards all senient beings.

This is actually consistent with the survival of humanity, which cannot continue to be sustained if we continue to kill animals wholesale, because such a practices is unsustainable environmentally.

Even grass-fed beef is not environmentally friendly. This must also be pointed out (I write on this elsewhere in this blog).

Psychologically, it is also unsustainable, as it creates a cognitive dissonance in us, whereby we deny the source of what we ingest — just as slave-holders thought of themselves as good people.

Humanity’s war against itself and other species and against nature is all tied together, one contributing to the other.

If we are to oppose war and murder and rape and slavery, on the grounds that harm to others is wrong, morally, then the next step is to understand that it is wrong to harm other animals for the same reasons.

Sadly, many human beings still feel that war and murder are necessary, however. They are motivated by unconscious aggressive drives, which Freud referred to as “the death instinct.”

Reality construction

Humans are animals who construct reality for themselves and in their minds “naturalize” that which is constructed. In human society many ways of being are possible, including ways that do not require harm to others.

An Enlightenment view is that humans can construct a society based on universal (i.e. trans-cultural) principles of egalitarianism and social justice.

Non-humans now included

This has traditionally been inclusive only of human animals, but since the 19th century many philosophers have started including non-human animals within the scope of those who warrant our concern.

While not “rational” beings in the same way that human are, many are nonetheless feeling, emotive, thinking beings, and as we have no need to harm them to surive, the thinking is that we ought not to.

Remarkably this same moral evolution from harm to non-harm occurred in many world religions many centuries previous, when it was no longer deemed necessary to sacrifice animals during rituals. Yet somehow, though many religious practitioners grasped this crucial point, it was lost on the society at large.

Ritual sacrifices continue in secular guise

Strangely, we see the idea of ritual sacrifice of animals migrate over to ritual murder at the termination of scientific experiements. The researchers actually call the killing a “sacrifice.” Is this also considered “natural”, even though it occurs within the purview of science?

Farming is not “natural”

Perhaps the most receptive forum for the naturalistic argument is among pseudo-environmentalists and defenders of traditional farming methods.

They all condemn factory farms, in principle — though many still patronize the factory farm products unthinkingly — but continue to defend meat-eating as “natural” – and invoke the example of the small farmer or the Aboriginal culture.

This is a specious argument if ever there was one, because both selective breeding of domestic animals and hunting using rifles and crossbows and trucks and snowmobiles relies on techniques produced within the context of civilization.

In any case, the naturalistic argument is not a good one, for reasons stated above. If we can choose two paths, and call one “natural” and the other not, this already suggests the poverty of the argument.

Rather, it is important to determine our course of action according to practical reason.

————-

See this clever video rebutting the naturalistic argument:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnhziIHpPtI&feature=player_embedded#!

————-

That crucial historical shift to an agriculture based society thousands of years ago allowed human socieities to morally evolve to not kill animals because plant-based diets were made possible then.

Some communities made that transition more fully than others. We see this among some Hindu and Jain peoples, based on the universal principle of ahimsa.

Of course “rights” and “ahimsa” are constructed ideas too, but if one must choose which construction to adhere too — one that causes unnecessary pain and suffering for others or one that respects others — why would we willingly choose the path of pain and suffering, based on self-interest?

Whenever you hear the naturalistic defense of meat-eating remember that it is a constructed idea, like all other human ideas, and is no more “natural” or necessary than human slavery is.

A possible objection, and reply to it

A possible objection to this thesis is that the idea of moral evolution is objectionable because it is no more than another constructed worldview, no better than any other. There could be many versions of moral evolution, one could say – so why this one which protects animals?

The answer is that if we wish to be morally consistent and if we believe that women and people of different colours should have basic rights, then it stands to reason that the same rights should be extended to animals who have the same basic traits as humans.

The idea of moral evolution is not a hierachical worldview, nor even a progressivist worldview, but rather a response to the flagrant abuse of power that we see daily against animals. To hide this behind a pretense of naturalism is self-delusional.

We cannot jusify the morality of ahimas and non-violence against other species (and our own species) as “natural” but we can justify it on the basis that it is rational and practical — that is rationally coherent. It is rationally incoherent (or irrational) to extend rights to one group but not another. Rights must be universal to be coherent.

For all these reasons the naturalistic argument fails, within the context of human civilization — and there is not a single person among us who is outside of that context.

[/caption]

[caption id="attachment_396" align="aligncenter" width="365" caption="Historical evidence of moral evolution."]

[/caption]

Why the Gap?

 

Why is it important that we think about the connection between animal rights and climate change issues? There is a growing, worldwide movement to address the approximately 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions caused by factory farms and agro-business (about 18% of which issues from factory farm related emission). Environmental non-profits have traditionally avoided discussion of meat-eating, preferring to focus on such things as renewable energy, climate-change policy, energy conservation, air pollution and wilderness conservation. This is because many of those in the ENGO’s eat meat and many of those whom they had hoped to appeal to for funding also eat meat. Clearly this needs to change. The environmental impact of the use of animals must be given center stage in climate change discussions, along with energy issues.

 

I can think of many examples of the failure of environmentalists to address this topic. David Suzuki eats fish and when asked why, he has said it is because he is Japanese, which evokes laughter but fails to address a serious lack of concern for an important way we can help save the world’s oceans from collapse. In his book, Heat, George Monbiot tells of attending a barbecue held for environmentalists where they served meat. A professor who writes on the future of food states emphatically that “the future is NOT vegan” and that local food sources should include goats and chickens. Organizers of a climate change conference on food refuse to invite a vegan speaker. A climate change conference at a university serves meat. These are all examples of the environmentalists and climate change policy people purposely ignoring an important way in which climate change can and should be mitigated.

 

Another example that portrays the contradictory attitude of environmentalists can be found in the popular book, The 100 Mile Diet. Not only are there recipes that include meat, it also focuses merely on transportation greenhouse gas emissions. Most importantly, the book fails to address the amount of emissions coming from the methane expelled from farm animals, the immense water consumption of these animals, and the amount of additional emissions caused by pesticide use in their feed (as pesticides are petroleum-based products). The fact is that soybean crops provide a great source of protein and can be grown locally or traded locally in most parts of North America. Even if food goes local worldwide, it is still possible to rely on plant-based proteins, if there is a will to do so.

 

 

The Food Link

 

Increasingly, political campaigns on climate change and conferences on climate change are addressing sustainable food issues. They even refer to themselves as “foodies.” They sometimes (but not always) refer to the necessity to reduce meat eating, not out of consideration for animals but to mitigate climate change and unsustainable use of water and land. For example, David Suzuki, to his credit, advocates reducing meat consumption to once per week. However, by and large, these campaigns and conferences avoid the topic of animal rights altogether, and for this reason their conclusions lack the moral conviction needed to convince the target audience why they should give up their favoured foods.

 

The issue of the environmental impact of food is THE perfect opportunity to raise the issue of animal rights, and it is my argument here that concern for animal rights ought to inform that discussion because environmental concern and concern for animals rights are both ethically grounded in concern for the other. The other is both human and non-human, both living now and in the future, both local and global. The other is all of us because we are all interdependent. The illusion of individualism and separateness is precisely what is killing the life systems of Earth. We exist on this Earth to do more than merely serve ourselves: our purpose includes compassion and concern for others. This is fundamental. And it is also extremely practical …

 

Modern Motivations

 

A person is less likely to become a vegan out of concern for what will happen in 50 or a 100 years as a result of climate change than become vegan out of consideration for pain and suffering of fellow creatures here and now. Contributing in some small way to the suffering of some person in the future by buying supermarket meat, while knowing that at the same time the Alberta tar sands do more damage in a few seconds that a person does in a whole lifetime of meat-eating, is simply not as moving as knowing that by not eating the meat one has directly and immediately saved a life – the life of the creature whose flesh is sitting before you in the package.

 

Living in cities, we are so often removed from natural environments that it is hard to imagine why we might have an obligation to them. Animals rights brings environmental concern into the here and now by reminding us of the right to life of non-humans, who breath and feel and exist as we do. They are a reminder of something basic. We share the same genetic material as them. We bleed as they do. We can feel pain as they do. To feel pain is be reminded of who and what we are: natural beings. To hurt other beings like ourselves is to desecrate ourselves.

 

There is something powerful and direct about animal rights that one also feels in relation to human rights or local environmental destruction, such as clearcutting: we feel it viscerally, in our gut. It is powerful. We feel the need to stop the injustice of killing and to protect life, which is precious. As environmental concerns become more widespread they are at risk of losing their visceral immediacy; they become abstract, and bogged down in statistics and complex policy decisions. The animal rights movement is informed by the heart and it is from the heart that this world can and must change for the better. Without this compassion we lose our way.

 

The hard reality is that, with the change anticipated due to rising oil costs (due to peaking oil supplies), dwindling fresh water supplies, the prospect of worldwide famine due to rising food prices, and the necessity to mitigate climate change caused by factory farming, we need to draw on any and all available cultural resources that currently exist to reduce meat consumption. One of the most powerful resources that now exists worldwide is the global movement for animal rights. The level of organization and commitment of AR activists should serve as an inspiration to environmentalists everywhere. A merge of the movements is long overdue.

 

The animal rights movement argues against meat, dairy and egg consumption and overall against the instrumental use of animals for human desires (not needs). They base their foundation on the premise that it is morally wrong to harm other living, feeling beings. This same moral foundation correlates with the motives of many environmentalists who are concerned with preserving biodiversity, endangered species, and nature that is non-human. When the environmental movement does not follow this ethical foundation, it loses its way and easily encourages the very forces that are causing environmental destruction. From this we can see the merger between many ENGO’s and fossil fuel corporations, for example. Without an moral core informing it, environmentalism can get co-opted, corrupted, gutted of meaning and purpose and transformed into little more than “greenwash” and public relations.

 

 Stumbling Blocks, and Moving Beyond Them

 

A strong, ethical foundation has historically informed environmentalists, who are motivated by the concern for humanity, since our species is as much endangered by environmental catastrophe as with any other species. One would think that the radical concern for the welfare of others would simply extend from human beings to other species. Among young children this happens quite easily, but among older children and adults who have been conditioned to block out concern for animals and to view them as objects to be used by our species, a very strong cultural bias against animal rights occurs even among those who are genuine altruists and morally good people. Consequently, some of the same people who might be concerned with future generations who will suffer from drought caused by climate change and will selflessly devote their lives to this cause, will not extend that same concern to non-human species. We need to address that and discover how to reach the environmentalists who have such good intentions but who have not extended their concern beyond one species.

 

Being faced with the necessity of addressing unsustainable food production, the transportation of food, and having to rethink how the cities of the world will get their food supplies, we as a species are given the incredible opportunity to re-think our relationship with other species and with nature as a whole. It is often said that we are not separate from nature, but what does this really mean in terms of our relationship to the non-human world? The animal rights movement has blazed that trail and environmentalists need to learn from it. Of course the two movements are not separate: most AR folks are also environmentalists on some level, but the same certainly cannot be said of most environmentalists, many of whom still eat meat. This is where we need to focus our attention if we are to save both humanity and non-humanity from perishing, due to the excesses of industrial civilization.

 

Tipping Point

 

Given that we are likely to exceed the much feared “tipping point” of two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures, many believe it is too late already, but Dr. Danny Harvey, a professor of geography a noted climate scientist at University of Toronto says, “Much has been lost but there is still much that can be saved.” His remarks refers not only to the loss of the coral reefs, such loss that is irreversible, but also to the many trillions of animals and plants that still do exist but need us to stop their continued destruction. Many species still can be saved, if we act to save them. Many animals and people will die needlessly unless we mobilize all these movements into an overpowering force for social and political change. This can still happen, and it must.

 

Synergistic Cooperation

 

The animal rights movement has a solid moral foundation of concern for others. For this reason, it has the potential to invigorate and strengthen the environmental movement, which suffers from self-interest and specieism. There is very little time left to act to effectively mitigate climate change before we reach a tipping point of 450 parts per million atmosphere CO2, which could trigger a “tipping point” of positive feedback reactions in the atmosphere, lead to catastrophic climate change, and effectively spell the end of human civilization and most of biodiversity. Ironically, in order to save our civilizations we must learn to be concerned with something beyond it: the non-human other.

 

It is often said that people only do that which is in their own self-interest—certainly that is true of many people. However, there are many powerful social movements in history that lay their focus on concern for the other, including the abolitionist movement against slavery – which the animal rights movement most resembles. That particular movement, although numbering a small percentage of the population in 19th century America, had drawn from an extremely powerful force and performed incredible feats. The philosopher Kant called it “the moral law” and Gandhi identified it as “soul force.” Martin Luther King Jr. referred to both terms in his writings. This force is capable of moving people so profoundly that they will give their lives to it. We see this force in both the animal rights and environmental movements. It can change the world.

 

Looking Ahead

 

The articles that I will write for this blog have one purpose: to show the connection between these two movements and the issues they are concerned with, and why these movements should merge and inform each other and why the growing movement against agro-business can and should include an animal rights perspective. This is an end which is by no means guaranteed, at this point, since many of those who advocate that position still eat meat or are otherwise biased against animal rights. There is a discernible fear and aversion to animal rights discourse among some climate change policy advocates, as though it might taint their discussions. My argument is that without animal rights informing climate policy, it is doomed to dry formulations and pathetic targets, and purposely avoids discussion of one of the most important sources of emissions: factory farms.

 

I will also address the question of biodiversity and climate change and how concern for biodiversity and endangered species ought to be informed by animal rights, which is currently not the case. There is a strong emphasis on the whole species but not the individuals in it. Currently, groups like World Wildlife Federation and various zoos around the world care little for animal rights, but have become strong advocates for protecting biodiversity. I will show why this represents a fundamental contradiction, one that has its foundation in anthropocentrism and specieism, which, in fact, logically contradicts environmental concern. Concern for biodiversity necessarily entails concern for animal rights. If you try to remove one from the other, you impovrish both.

 

Drawing on environmental philosophy, we can see how this problem represents the distinction between deep and shallow ecology. I will argue that, for the environmental movement to be really effective, we must stop pandering to the mainstream bias for shallow ecology and start arming itself with a much more potentially powerful ethical foundation: deep ecology, which is consistent to a great degree with the philosophy of animal rights. Furthermore, we must abandon the notion that social ecology is somehow fundamentally at odds with deep ecology: concern for the human must also entail concern for the non-human. The separation exists in our minds more than in reality, and practically speaking the goal of both ought to be concern for life in all its forms.

 

It really is inexcusable that the animal rights movement, which represents an extremely powerful social and political force worldwide, should be systematically excluded from discussions on climate justice, environmental protection and creating a more sustainable society. This can change, however. These columns will be an attempt to bring about that change through rational argumentation. As we progress in this series of arguments for bringing together animal rights and environmental movements, and work through the various problems associated with doing so, I hope to draw on the wisdom and insights of readers to help me in this task.

 

To continue this discussion, please email your thoughts and comments to paulyork.2010@gmail.com.

 

_______________

Paul York is a doctoral candidate at the Centre for the Study of Religion, University of Toronto. In addition to caring for animal rights, he is an environmentalist, human rights activist, and community organizer.