SPEAKOUT: More compassion for animals helps all
By Marc Bekoff
Published July 11, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Our relationships with animals other than ourselves are complicated, frustrating, ambiguous, paradoxical, and range all over the place.
When people tell me that they love animals and then harm or kill them, I tell them I'm glad they don't love me.
We observe animals, gawk at them in wonder, experiment on them, eat them, wear them, write about them, draw and paint them, move them from here to there as we "redecorate nature," make decisions for them without their consent, yet we often dispassionately ignore who they are and what they want and need.
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 compassion footprint, is to "mind" them. "Minding" animals means that we must recognize 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 lives and ours.
We still have a long way to go. Existing laws and regulations allow animals to be treated in regrettable ways that demean us as a species. Indeed, in the eyes of the law animals are mere property and they can be treated like backpacks, couches and bicycles with no legal recourse. The animals' own eyes tell us that they don't like this at all. They do, of course, have a point of view.
We also double-cross animals. I can imagine an utterly exhausted polar bear asking "Where's the ice?" as she attempts to swim with her offspring from one floe to another as she had in years past only to discover that the ice is gone because of climate change.
Excuses justifying animal exploitation such as "Well, it's OK, I'm doing this in the name of science" or "in the name of this or that" usually mean "in the name of humans." We're a very arrogant and self-centered lot.
It's time for people to begin to think about how to accrue compassion credits as they do carbon credits (see for example www.time.com/time/health/ article/0,8599,1709186,00.html).
It's simple to make more compassionate choices about what we eat and wear and how we educate students, conduct research and entertain ourselves at the expense of animals. Increased compassion for animals can readily lead to less carbon because there's an inverse relationship between these markers, especially in our consumption of factory-farmed meat from highly abused animals (www.ciwf.org.uk/global warning/index.html).
Cruelty to animals has serious implications for humans as well. Many studies have shown that children who are cruel to animals are significantly more likely to commit violence against humans later in life - the absence of empathy for one indicates lack of empathy for the other. Indeed, studies of prison inmates reveal that as many as 75 percent of violent offenders had early records of animal cruelty.
Albert Schweitzer once wrote: "Until he extends his circle of compassion for all living things, man will not himself find peace."
Ultimately, I believe compassion for animals will make for more compassion among people, weaving more empathy, respect, dignity and love into all our lives.
Animals are asking us to treat them better or leave them alone. So, whenever you try to reduce carbon, at the same time try to increase compassion. Animals and future generations of humans will thank us for our efforts and I'm sure each of us will feel better about ourselves.
Marc Bekoff is a professor emeritus of biology at the University of Colorado. He is the author of many books including The Emotional Lives of Animals and Animals Matter. His home page is http://literati.net/Bekoff.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
July 11, 2008
12:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
infidel91 writes:
You want us to be nice to food?
July 11, 2008
2:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
GorillaGrodd writes:
Marc, let me get this straight: you imagine polar bears talking, you think that animals have the capability of asking us to treat them better, and you think that animals have the capability of thanking us in the future...and you're a professor of biology? Whoever gave you your degree owes you an apology.
July 11, 2008
7:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
LetsThink writes:
It's nice to see a large column devoted to our having more compassion for animals.
But wouldn't it be far better to see a large column devoted to our cruelty to unborn children (abortion)???
Our 'new age' thinking has gotten totally upside down.
July 11, 2008
7:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
ItsJustme writes:
Please, Marc, respond to LetsThink. Do you have the same compassion to unborn human "animals?" My guess is that you don't. Prove me wrong.
Personally, I do think we need to treat animals with the respect due them. I do think we should not treat them cruelly or inhumanely. But they are not persons. And many of them are food.
July 11, 2008
11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jim_in_Erie writes:
I, for one, pick which animals I extend my compassion to.
Same thing for plants. I worry over my food plants and landscape plantings, mercilessly destroying others that jeopardize them.
Unlike human beings, I don't consider all living things to be my equal.
Some animal and plant life, once properly prepared, are very tasty, just as I believe God intended them to be.
Don't agree, cool for you.
Want to regulate me to your way of feeling about things?
Now we're gonna have problems.
July 11, 2008
11:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jim_in_Erie writes:
Oh heck, can't help myself.....
The biggest abuser of animals is........no not Bush........Nature!!
Consider the news of all the lightening sparked fires in California this very day!
How many animals are being roasted alive (always thought that a strange term) by wild fires at this very moment?
And even if a "Disney" moment happens, and all the forest dwellers are scampering in panic to safety, they will no doubt overwhelm the available food supply, and starve to death. Or be eaten by others.
And this forest fire thing is NOT of man made occurrence. Surely the forests burned on occasion before man?
Heck just consider evolution itself, assuming you believe that particular line of reasoning.
Evolution has killed off entire species', and seems to have always managed to breed (evolve) a better predator. Which learns to survive by consuming the previous version.
How compassionate is that?
And the idea of 'compassion credits' made me laugh!
How insane is this whole "credit" thing becoming?
July 11, 2008
11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
jjez writes:
When I started reading this I thought "this guy must be from Boulder". And I was right! I do agree with him on one point. We do need more compassion. And curtesy. If people had more curtesy and compassion, there'd be a lot less road rage. There might even be less violent crime! But it was a silly article. But then again, it was an opinion piece, so I guess our opinions are allowed to be silly. Or rambling on, as mine is doing.
July 11, 2008
11:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
jjez writes:
But Jim, that's the natural order of things! We humans aren't part of the natural order! ;-) Of course, if we humans hadn't prevented smaller fires from consuming the smaller amount of deadfall years ago, maybe the fires wouldn't be so severe now. But hey, we have to conserve as much of the natural world as possible! Now, don't get me wrong, I eat meat, but I'm also an animal lover. I brake for squirrels and bunnies (and foxes) because I don't want to hurt them. But that's just because I don't want to hurt anything. It pains me to see the rampant growth going on, taking over habitat that belong to wildlife. Which is why it angers me when people complain when their pets get eaten by the predators that no longer have "natural" prey because there are houses where the prey used to be. And it's not like we can actually do anything about the fact there are no floes. Unless....we could all take our air conditioners up to Alaska and refreeze all the water. Yeah. Let's do that!
July 11, 2008
2:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bookem writes:
RickyLee...
Way too funny! That busted me up! Thanks for the laugh and have a great weekend.
July 11, 2008
4:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
This is a joke, right?
Time to go home, pull the charcoal out, and find something tasty in the freezer!
OK, so what is this yahoo going to do about the food chain where animals are ripped apart for food on a daily basis...the world's predators don't use gas either like Chipotle(thats a whole 'nother issue). Maybe you should go to Africa and counsel the lions on a gentler way of consuming their rations of antelope. We are the worlds only carnivore stupid enough to worry about this. The animals aren't asking us to do anything; they are laughing their collective ***** off!
July 11, 2008
8:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
I don't understand how people can be so downright nasty to a person that has committed his life to trying to teach compassion for other creatures. What about St. Francis and Ghandi? They also spoke about compassion for the creatures on this earth.
It's true that we can't stop all suffering, but we can try to do the best we can to stop unnecessary cruelty.
July 12, 2008
4:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
While I was reading this i was mentally composing my reply. It began with "What middle school will you be attending this year?"
To discover that the writer is a professor is just plain...well I don't have any word for what it is except to make certain that I renew my efforts to teach my grand daughter that you must look a people for who and what they are, not their pocketbooks or their honors. Guess I better start including college degrees as meaningless paper in some cases.
Animals and man are part of a well tested interaction. It is part of the natural world to consume and use animals for their best features. No one would hitch a squirrel to a cart nor try to milk a Clydesdale. At least I hope they wouldn't.
This writer overran with nonsense comparisons that were all based on animals having the same reactions and emotions and thoughts that humans have.
Animals have nerves, feel pain and some can think on more than a basic level. That is all. Preventing cruelty is a noble and beneficial act.
I suggest sir, that you turn off the Animal Planet channel and watch Celebrity Poker instead. Might broaden your view.
July 12, 2008
6:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
"Marc Bekoff is a professor emeritus of biology at the University of Colorado." Another reason to do away with tenure and get some real professors.
July 12, 2008
4:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
EnjoyYourLife writes:
Excellent article, Marc. A lot of people not agreeing and that is fine. Humanity lacks humility when it comes to sentient creatures other than ourselves. Heck, with half the world population in poverty and children around the world dying due to lack of fresh water, we still have religious nitwits planting crosses in the ground cause of abortion. Better dead than suffering I say...Anyway, I know of humans as the only species to knowingly kill themselves! Through environmental pollutions, mass produced foods, and the like. Shame on us and pitty on those whose opinions to your writing lack any substance. Maybe some day they will reach a leve of consciousness that makes them realize the truth that is within each of us.
July 12, 2008
4:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
JenayBrooke writes:
You commenters are right on. There is a factory egg farm in the town next to mine where the chickens have their beaks (and often their tongues) cut back with a hot blade and their feet cut off so they can't injure each other when they are crammed into cages, ten to a cage. There is also a sport in these parts where rabbits are put into fenced-off areas with greyhounds to be chased down and ripped apart. I guess hearing the rabbits screaming is part of the fun. We should have bull fights here, too. We could put Vaseline on the eyes of the bulls so they can't see clearly, put each bull in an arena with a matador who taunts the bull to charge and then stabs him with swords that go in far enough to stay, but stick out far enough to make nice decorations. When the bull has six swords in him and has lost enough blood that he can barely walk, the matador puts the final sword into his heart and everyone cheers. It may seem cruel, but it’s okay, because it is a sport and bulls are food animals. It is also okay to keep sows in farrowing crates that are so small that they can’t turn around or extend their legs when they lie down for their entire lives. Sometimes the crates are stacked on each other and the urine and feces drip onto the sows below. Although the sows are smarter than dogs and have a sense of smell much more sensitive than dogs, this is okay because they are food animals, too. Yep, Marc Bekoff is a weirdo for encouraging us to be compassionate to animals. Where are his Christian values, anyway? Everyone knows that we are justified in letting animals suffer for our pleasure and enjoyment until Roe vs Wade is overturned. P.S. Michael Vick was totally a victim of a witch hunt. Anyone know where to find a good dog fight?
July 13, 2008
7:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Compassionate writes:
Wow. Don't you just love the human race? I never cease to be amazed at the juvenile, uneducated, unenlightened and plain selfishness of peoples' comments here and everywhere. I bet they all call themselves "Christians", too. I suppose Jesus would feel the same way?
Since when is it wrong to be compassionate? If you all really wanted to make an EDUCATED comment, you would have been sufficiently read and have learned that animals ARE sentient beings with feelings just like our own. They feel pain, fear, happiness and don't want to be tortured or killed, especially for things we can definitely do without. Food? At least they exact their revenge by killing meat eaters in the end with heart attacks, strokes, cancer and diabetes. We don't need leather to survive, nor fur, nor cruel "entertainment" such as rodeos and circuses. We don't need to experiment drugs on them, either as even scientists who have done it admit the tests only work 5% to 25% of the time, and only half of those when tested in clinical trials (that means on humans) are actually effective. Then, about half of those are recalled because of severe side effects and death. Do you go to a vet when you're ill? Do you take your pets to your doctor? Animals are NOT little people. They are a multi million dollar a year income for companies and universities. The UK and many companies of cleaners and makeup do not test on animals and their products are superior. There are a myriad of alternative, accurate on HUMANS, much less expensive and much quicker tests available. But, they would put the breeders of animal "models" and vivisectors ("scientists" that cut up and torture animals) out of business, not to mention the lack of millions in grant money to the universities.
When people start learning instead of parroting this "top of the food chain" and "dominion" rubbish, maybe there will be some compassion. Ghandi, Einstein, Edison, Da Vinci, Lincoln et al can't all be wrong. Study up folks.
Oh, and I just love it when the abortion issue comes up. We are talking about living animals, not fetuses. Can you say "grasping desperately at straws"? Start thinking independently people, use your God given brain instead of the media's and government's. As you can see, that kind of thinking is destroying the earth, our health and perpetuating cruelty to animals which equals the indifference or cruelty to people as well.
July 13, 2008
10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
jillvic writes:
Thank you for an excellent article Marc! If only there were more people like you on this planet.
July 13, 2008
11:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
USVegan writes:
Congratulations, Professor Bekoff, for again putting a spotlight on the absurdly arbitrary social conventions of our species.
The pro-life arguments made here are a red herring. First, this is a discussion about the need for greater human compassion toward all sentient creatures. I would also suggest those who are so quick to introduce this smokescreen, rather than address the actual issues raised, consider the hypocritical positions closer to home before you use that stance to critique more compassionate views. As the late George Carlin noted, "Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to 9 months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't hear about you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no daycare, no headstart, no school lunch, no foodstamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're pre-born, you're fine, if you're pre-school, you're f*&ked." I suspect the "pro-life" arguments are not made here for the sake of fetuses, but to make the commenters feel justified in eating that cruelly-tortured-for-its-entire-life-kept-alive-with-drugs-slaughtered-inhumanely-processed-unsanitarily-and-cooked-at-very-high-temperatures-to-kill-the-Salmonella-but-turn-the-feces-ridden-slab-of-flesh-carcinogenic burger. Eating a burger of cow flesh is not "pro-life", any way you look at it.
Other logical fallacies such as ad hominem attacks and appeals to ridicule are not worth a response in a forum for thinking and reasoning about proper interactions between and among species. Returning to the issue at hand, in eating meat we cast votes for all its assorted ills: the leading chronic diseases; environmental destruction (deforestation, global warming, and water and land pollution); inefficient use of grain, leading to global food shortages, and the immoral exploitation of living creatures for our pleasure. Ethics plays a role in smoking, drinking, fighting, sex, extreme language, business dealings, and more. Treating animals cruelly for their entire lives for our entertainment, clothing, food, or other uses is immoral and indefensible. But most people prefer to continue pursuing such self-interested behavior rather than to entertain the slightest hint of ethics when it comes to other animals. The habits underlying our exploitation of other animals are supported by a web of deleterious psychosocial processes common and inextricably linked to those that lead to racism, sexism and other forms of oppression. Before that "meat" was a feces-contaminated piece of rotting flesh offered on a menu, it was part of someone's life, savagely and tragically cut short for our pleasure.
As Albert Schweitzer suggested, it is helpful to all to "Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight." The author is trying to help us do precisely that, for the good of all.
July 13, 2008
6:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
HollysMom writes:
Yes, the vegans and other animal rightists have spoken: human beings are terrible. They should know. Check out their compassion, here: http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/ex...
July 14, 2008
4:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
rrrina writes:
I have been a nurse for almost 30 years, and have devoted my life to helping people. When I see someone in pain or discomfort it’s my instinct to try to alleviate that pain. That is the reason I became a nurse and it is also the reason I became vegetarian. I always loved animals and rescued many cats, dogs, and birds. In the 80’s I saw the Animals Film by Victor Schonfeld and Myriam Alaux. In it the horrors of factory farming, stockyard and slaughterhouse abuse and animal experimentation were exposed. I became a vegetarian overnight and have remained one since.
Compassion is compassion. It doesn’t matter what particular species of sentient being one is discussing. People need to evolve and to start to look outside their little cubicles and begin to develop compassion and respect for all forms of life. Gandhi, Albert Einstein, Albert Schweitzer, civil rights activist D. [ believe it or not, the auto-administration of this list would not allow me to post his first name] Gregory, George Bernard Shaw, Isaac Bashevis Singer, and Alice Walker are just a few of the people who also promoted this concept.
Philosopher Jeremy Bentham put it best: “The question is not: ‘Can they reason?’ nor ‘Can they talk?’ but ‘Can they suffer?’”
All animals can suffer and therefore deserve to be treated humanely.
Rina Deych, RN and Wildlife Rehabilitator
July 14, 2008
5:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
okkitkat writes:
To those of you who think compassion for animals excludes compassion for humans, let me ask you...what have YOU done lately to make the world a better place? Nothing, I'll bet, except waste everyone's time with unfounded and ignorant criticisms of people who actually care about more than themselves and their tiny taste buds. Just because certain animals were once used for food does not mean that we are still justified in eating them, when the production of animals for food is so disgustingly inhumane and terrible and the multitude of choices now available for healthy eating are out there. What are we, cave men? Let's just hope that those of you who refuse to see the awful horrors your eating habits contribute to, never have need of any compassion from the world. You don't deserve what you are not first willing to give.
For too long, unthinking people who refuse to examine their own habits (and that's all they are) have tried to justify themselves with the "nature" argument. Although it is in nature to have forest fires and natural carnivores, it is in the nature of a human being to THINK! To think about our actions, their consequences and to make moral, ethical and rational CHOICES! What kind of dope thinks they are making choices by doing what they have always done? An unthinking one, surely more of an "animal" than any other creature which exists for its own reasons and not necessarily to satisfy eating pleasure. For that is surely the sin of gluttony. Rather than ridicule those who struggle for the right of an animal to live without our torturing it for a hot dog, try asking yourself when did you become so selfish and unfeeling?
July 14, 2008
6:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
HollysMom writes:
I am a lot less selfish and unfeeling than those who celebrate the deaths of hunters or laugh at tragic gun accidents. I am capable of more critical thinking than people who think that human beings can't go to the bathroom properly because they consume dairy products (my dogs consume dairy products and do just fine). I don't distribute comic books to children that call their mommies and daddies murderers for wearing furs or going fishing. I don't put rehome-able puppies and kittens to sleep in the back of a van and toss them in the dumpster behind a Piggly Wiggly. I don't kill over 90% of the animals that go the single shelter that I run, ignore farm animals that are starving to death in the snow, or release lobsters into brackish water--with the rubber bands still on their claws.
I do, however, provide a loving home for my seven dogs, one of whom is a MinPin rescue. I do feed them a healthy variety of cooked and raw foods and kibble. I do give them education, through obedience and other forms of training. I have trained shelter dogs for free, so that they can find homes more easily.
Animal rights rhetoric is hollow and lame. They do more abuse to humans and animals in the name of animals than any other group that I know. They don't love animals; they hate people and it shows if you really read what they write. What they do has nothing to do with the love of animals--they ultimately want to see all human/animal interaction ended--it's all about power and control. Why should we give them all of that, if it means our grandchildren may look at pictures in an album--my Labrador Jeff, your mixed breed Ladadog, her Maltese Jamie, or his Bedlington terrier Lambie--and say, "Mommy? What's that? I've never seen an animal that looks like that. Were you at the zoo?"
Smart, compassionate, truly animal-loving people will steer themselves away from the animal rights movement and into animal welfare. I'd rather align myself with people who show dogs and who participate in things like Responsible Dog Ownership Day than people who picket dog shows and let those dogs out of crates at show halls to die on city streets and highways. Killing pampered loving pets--yeah, that's true compassion.