A quote from the book The Outermost House by naturalist Henry Beston (1888- 1968)
" We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical
concept of animals. Remote from universal nature, and living by
complicated artifice, man in civilization surveys the creature
through the glass of his knowledge and sees thereby a feather
magnified and the whole image in distortion. We patronize them
for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate of having taken
form so far below ourselves. And therein we err, and greatly
err. For the animal shall not be measured by man. In a world
older and more complete than ours they move finished and
complete, gifted with extensions of the senses we have lost or
never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are
not brethren, they are not underlings; they are other nations,
caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow
prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth."
11 comments:
Wow, that's some of the best prose I've read in a long time... thanks for sharing.
BRILLIANT, I've never thought of it that way! We as humans always consider animals as simply lower beings because they don't have what we have. But we've never actually realized what they have that we don't. It's amazing when we realize that animals could actually be equal with us only in a completely different sense.
It's like an "athlete" versus a "geek" Throw an athlete in front of a computer and he'll be lost. Put a geek in a football field and well...ouch.
Throw a human in the woods with no civilization then throw a deer in a classroom.
Fascinating...
The prose is certainly very beautiful and accurate in many points. But if man should not measure animals by other men, then shouldn't he not measure other men by himself? People who are neighbors can live in worlds very different from eachother, whether whole or complete; we've isolated each other by living in separate homes and thinking thoughts too complex to properly communicate. People often view others as inferior and patronize them or see their situations as tragic, even though they've never experienced them. People can also admire other people, but people can also admire animals. But comparing and connecting people to each other is practical and necessary, even though we never understand eachother perfectly. Can't we also do the same to animals?
The way of seeing animals in the manner suggested by the passage would degrade the state of the animal on earth. One feels empathy towards brethren and duty towards underlings. In contrast "other nations" can be easily viewed as the alien enemy and attacked without guilt. Practically, the connection that people feel towards animals makes them want to give the animals protection rather than exploit them. Practically, the animals could not protect themselves. Therefore, this connection is mutually beneficial. It protects animals' welfare and people feel good if they are able to think that they connect with animals and are not completely artificial.
I also believe that this view is not only beneficial, but also correct. Animal and man both sprang from the same stuff, after all. We have created a world that is not seperate from, but part of a dependant on, the world of animals. And though we are in many ways isolated, it's not as if all of the animals are connected to each other anymore than we are to them; cats don't talk to mice, for example. But cats understand mice well enough to serve their purposes. A human's needs are (or can be seen as, I suppose) more complex than a cat's. So why should people's concept of animals become mystical and foreign if it suits us to feel that close bond?
If the needs of humans can be viewed as (supposedly, says chq,) being more complex than those of a cat, then because of the (human) perspective from which they are being viewed and contrasted from, the opposite can be postulated as well. The needs of a cat can be viewed as being more complex than those of a human. In response to the comment by chq, it is stated that 'people' are isolated by separate locations in space, as well as by 'thinking thoughts too complex to properly communicate.' I won't say that all thoughts are limited to these, but as a human, my experience with thinking is that it encompasses many forms of analysis based on 'external' information derived from sensory perceptions, stored information from the past(opposed to a somewhat constant feed from the active senses assessing the present) from memories, and the realms of the imagination- usually influenced by some combination and alteration of the previous two (which can even allow for an extrapolation of future events). The passage from The Outermost House refers to senses or extensions of senses that other animals may have that man may not... Communication of thoughts between humans (that are generally accepted as potentially having similar senses,) is something that is usually erroneous- the thoughts are too complex to properly communicate, whether they are things that are seen, memories, or figments of one's imagination.
This communicational effort is likely to become even less accurate when the two parties that are being compared, contrasted, analyzed or empathized with have different levels of sensory processing. The reflexes of a cat are usually faster than those of a human. They are able to process that information derived from their senses in a faster manner than humans. From human observations of cats communicating, they can seem to mosey around meowing, but if they are in aggressive states, they can move, react, and interact at such a tremendous speed that it is barely fathomable (for a human). Their processing abilities allow for manipulation of their bodies on a level that humans cannot process. So whereas the comparison and connection between people and animals is possible, it would be even less accurate than attempts made solely between humans. We would, as said, err, because "the animal shall not be measured by man." Man can't even measure man accurately, let alone a different species that he cannot understand. Empathy within a species is somewhat feasible, but empathy between species travels into the unknown.
"That cat's something I can't explain."~ Syd Barrett
As animals and mammals, cats and humans have similar needs to survive, but as a human, how many of these 'needs' that you may have, supposedly more numerous than those 'needs' of a cat, do you need?
Allusions to the presence of an understanding of 'welfare' between humans and other animals would then also be prone to error. How might humans protect the welfare of animals, when there is no way to fully understand what different animals need, or what they would consider welfare? Perhaps by humans imposing what they believe to be a measure to 'protect the welfare of animals,' they might actually be imposing something that destroys everything and anything that animals would ever remotely consider to be beneficial to their welfare. After all, humans neuter and spay countless pets, and then feed them (often excessively) multiple times daily, while the poor victimized animals grow fat and old, and never leave the sunny spot of the rug on the living room floor for the remainder of their genderless quandaries one might call 'lives.'
It seems that the passage suggests that instead of assuming things about animals that are not and cannot necessarily be known, that there should be some recognition of their existence as it can be perceived, but with the tolerance and knowledge that they may, and likely exist differently in many or all ways possible from humans... Regardless of whether humans know it or not. An existence of a different living creature may appear 'better' or 'worse,' or 'bigger' or smaller,' but that is still a subjective comparison from a limited perspective.
"Don't criticize what you can't understand."~ Bob Dylan
peace
Lucifer Sam, siam cat.
Always sitting by your side...
I'll get into this conversation sometime soon, I promise, so people keep looking it up, it'll blow your mind.
Wow anon... that's an eyeopener. I've never really thought about if I might be doing injustice to my poor old dog.
At the same time, though, humans have shown their ability to control nature, to an extent, at least. We created all of these species of dogs, after all, so shouldn't we be able to tell what's best for them? Or am I just trying to justify my position as a jailer?
Similarly, there's never been a species that so dramatically changed the world as ourselves. If we go on to assume that we are also the only species that has actually thought about and worried and pulled our hair out in frustration over what we've done to the world, then doesn't that equate to us owing the world some stewardship?
Obviously there will be some misinterpretation. But if people use the jaguar as a symbol that gets peoples' emotions up and makes them not want to cut down the rainforest, is there anyone who would really say we didn't understand what the jaguar's needs were in that situation? It needed a home, like people need homes - that's at least one thing that we can understand. And if most of an animal's actions are explicable by how a human interprets them, based on the connections they make with that animal, isn't that enough to "know" the animal? The other actions can be chalked up the differences that anon. pointed out, things that humans just can't understand. But humans don't understand things about each other either - less things, maybe, but the difference is only in a number. Is 4 less things we understand about animals the point at which we stop trying to understand? How about 2? 1? It's difficult to base an entire perspective on a number.
Still, this vew leaves room for problems. For example, the ethical dilemma of the frequent spaying and overfeeding of animals. But if we take away our connection to them, we would see that the easiest solution is not to spay, but to kill, all of those pesky feral animals. If animals are unfathomable, then why bother to fathom the consequences of people's actions towards them? If I say that my dog thinks on a level that I cannot possibly understand, that removes all of my responsibility to take care of him the best I can - why should I care if he's being overfed? I can't understand what his needs are - for all I know, I'm meeting them.
A mystic view of animals doesn't solve the problem. If we can't understand animals, it leaves us two options: 1) To use them as we will because trying to understand and meet their needs is pointless; 2) To get rid of all the animals we have contact with in order to eliminate the problems brought up in option 1. Both don't seem very nice. Why? Because we *do* feel a connection. We can't ignore something is so obviously there. The solution is empathy, research, and some serious thought about the validity of our roles and theirs (in my opinion, at least).
I understand the need to draw a line, and there's no easier place to draw it than between species. Even though "communication of thoughts between humans... is usually erreneous" we still manage to do an acceptable job. But just because the connection between humans and animals might not be as strong as between humans and humans doesn't mean it isn't there and that we can't do our best with it too.
Which probably means that spaying is cruel... poor Comet... and I'm confused. I hope you comment soon Ian... be sure to bring some clarity with you!
Exaggerating the difference between humans and other animals is usually a mistake. The differences just aren't appreciable. The ability to "make tools," to "think abstractly," or to basically do anything that we humans feel that we can uniquely do are quantum leaps that simply aren't as huge as we would like to believe.
The capacity to dominate other animals is not something unique or special. Humans herding and breeding animals and ant slavery (ants will invade other colonies and take slaves back to their colony to do the most menial labor) are the same, behavior with a purpose. If we really do exhibit behavior that is more complex than other creatures, then that is our business, but we have no way of judging, knowing, and have no right to know whether or not our ideas and emotions are more valid than other, similar creatures.
Here's a long, but relevant article by Peter Singer, famed utilitarian:
http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm
One of many interesting paragraphs:
"It is not merely the act of killing that indicates what we are ready to do to other species in order to gratify our tastes. The suffering we inflict on the animals while they are alive is perhaps an even clearer indication of our speciesism than the fact that we are prepared to kill them.[6] In order to have meat on the table at a price that people can afford, our society tolerates methods of meat production that confine sentient animals in cramped, unsuitable conditions for the entire durations of their lives. Animals are treated like machines that convert fodder into flesh, and any innovation that results in a higher "conversion ratio" is liable to be adopted. As one authority on the subject has said, "cruelty is acknowledged only when profitability ceases."[7]. . ."
So, it looks like we have to clarify why animals are more than--or siginificantly different than--machines. Do machines have rights? Do animals have rights? Why or why not?
Re: Chq's comment- "Humans have shown their ability to control nature, to an extent, at least. We created all of these species of dogs, after all, so shouldn't we be able to tell what's best for them? Or am I just trying to justify my position as a jailer?"
- Did humans create all of these species of dogs, or did we just act as another influencing factor on the evolutionary process? I would think that humans did not actually create the species of dogs, however much impact we may or may not have had, through domestication, general interaction and breeding methods, on the shaping of their genetic progression (or regression). Humans can interact with nature, and shape/influence certain things about it, but humans are largely victim to the whims of Mother Nature- look at Hurricane Katrina... Look at flooding in Asia. There are so many naturally occurring events that humans cannot control. They can prepare themselves for it, they can use certain skills to work their way through them, or avoid them entirely. But humans cannot 'control' nature.
You say there's never been a species that so dramatically changed the world as ourselves. Consider the perspective from which that is coming from... You are (I'm inferring) a human. *wriggles fingers mystically* NOW... (imagine)...
You are an ant. You eat, but you also collect food as a contribution to the colony. You traverse the forests of wild grass, oceans of dew and fields of mountainous strawberries, but with 'purpose.' You even build networks of tunnels that serve as routes of transportation so that you and others can get where you're going. You are just one, but your species crawls all over the world, billions and billions of you... You outnumber humans by a shameful ratio. Your species as a whole has completed thousands of miles of tunnels, and accomplished feats that no other species could do without those foolish human tools. You use your body, your mind, and flesh to serve your purpose entirely, and you contribute to your society.
(you can be a human again now)
A species that works with greater unity than our own, compared to their own physical size, creates 'roads' in three dimensions, underground, for thousands and thousands of miles, without using drills, shovels, jackhammers, etc. Compare to humanity. The effect we've had on the world includes 'creation' of structures and roads. We suck up every natural resource and yummy creature because we have dominion over the earth and its creatures.
--
^that was written yesterday, prior to Ian posting his comment... I had to leave, so I saved before posting it.
--
Humans have had a large impact on the world, yes. But that's from a single perspective.
Re: "We created all of these species of dogs, after all, so shouldn't we be able to tell what's best for them?"
-(In actuality) Your parents created you, after all... so... shouldn't they be able to tell what's best for you?
Also consider some of the differing 'individual' needs, compared/contrasted to/from a group or species.
Re: mrb's post-
Feel free to correct anything that is not factual. It seems to me that 'rights' of machines or animals exist only through recognition by the entity that allows them to take place. Humans are animals- some recognized human rights, as mentioned by the Declaration of Independence (U.S.)-
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I'll overlook the fact of a single gender being mentioned. Humans are endowed with certain unalienable rights... by their 'Creator...' I don't know if that means their biological parents, or an innominate deity... these rights are being given by an entity, and recognized here as 'unalienable.' Life is a 'self-evident,' 'unalienable right?' hmm... however, it goes on to say
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
and so on. If these rights are truly unalienable, then why need they be secured? Life can be taken away, lost, altered, destroyed. Pursuit of happiness... Liberty... All of these can be and often are taken away from many humans. Violations of one's 'rights' is commonplace, and supposed to be prevented/dealt with by the government.
In this case, the government (of the people) recognizes what these rights of people are. They are written down, spoken, and able to be communicated between people. Not people and other animals. The United States government does not have many laws regarding the recognition of rights of other animals. I came across this, in a speech made by a senator against dog-fighting:
"God, the one, eternal, everlasting God, made man caretaker of the Earth. God gave man the responsibility of tending to the natural world with dominion over animal life. We honor God when we treat all of his creatures responsibly and with decency and with respect.
The Book of Proverbs in the Holy Bible, King James Bible, tells us: A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.
The immortal Dante tells us that Divine justice reserves special places in hell for certain categories of sinners. I am confident that the hottest places in hell are reserved for the souls of sick and brutal people who hold God’s creatures in such brutal and cruel contempt.
I yield the floor." [Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.V.)]
(http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/07/)
It seems that these rights of animals that people in the government of this country are recognizing and enforcing are coming from Christianity. I found what he said interesting, because he went from dogfighting and how barbaric it is, to talking about how all creatures are under the control of man (given by god) and should be treated responsibly, with decency and respect. But given the little that I already knew about him, I doubt he's a vegetarian...
Returning to the clarification of "Why animals are more than- or significantly different than- machines":
Animals move of their own accord. Cars move, as operated by humans. Animals are organic, and are produced with the programming of reproducing. This reproduction can apply to a cellular level- growth, and replacement of damaged cells, but also the animal as a whole- through sexual reproduction. Machines have a purpose, usually determined by the creator. Humans didn't create other animals. We may allow them to breed, or even artificially inseminate them, but the animals would reproduce on their own. Humans create humans. The 'purpose' that a human would then have, would be chosen by that individual human. This choice can be determined by genetic programming-as Bentham says
"Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do."
As individual humans, our decisions are influenced by anticipated outcomes of 'pain' and 'pleasure.'
Machines do not conventionally have sensations of pain or pleasure, because they are not alive.
Machines can make machines. Animals can make animals. Animals can make machines. But can machines make animals?
To try and get back to answering the question- "Do machines have rights? Do animals have rights? Why or why not?"
Subjectivity of the morality of the governing entity can allow for some 'rights' to be recognized for both machines and animals. However, none of these rights are unalienable. Enslavement of animals in brutal conditions while feeding them, only to use them as food does not provide most of the people that eat those animals with sensations of pain. They experience the pleasure of the taste, and/or satisfaction from gaining energy. Their ignorance about the true history of the meat that they gnaw allows them to experience bliss.
I 'own' a computer. A computer is a machine. I hereby give my computer the right to not be kicked. I recognize this as its right.
I (don't really, but for the purposes of this example shall say that I do) 'own' a dog. A dog is an animal. I hereby give my dog the right to not be kicked. I recognize this as its right.
*kicks computer.* ...
*kicks imaginary dog.* ...
All 'rights' of machines or animals that can be recognized can also be ignored.
Especially by humans- who are (I don't necessarily believe in Bentham's view as an absolute that excludes other things) guided by the pleasure they experience, above many other things.
Hope that helps to answer your question.
peace
Anon-
I appreciate the incredible amounts of time and attention you’ve been able to offer this discussion… very comprehensive, engaging Ian and chq in ways our Thursday meetings rarely seem to ;)
I have no idea if you’re an un-named member of our club, or from elsewhere… so I will at least mention the context into which you are speaking: as a club, we are *beginning* to talk about what—if anything—essentially constitutes personhood, or persons in general. As usual, we are struggling to define our terms, figure out if we think/believe non-human animals and/or machines qualify as ‘persons’ in the way(s) we like to ‘honor’ ourselves (humans) with the term. We’ve studied John R. Searle’s Chinese thought experiment, and talked a little about the difference between syntactical constitution vs. semantical. We’ve wondered if machines and non-human animals have minds… and what do we mean by ‘mind’ anyway? For some pop-culture in this latter regard, we’ve read some of National Geographic’s March 2008 article on the subject.
You invited me to “Feel free to correct anything that is not factual.” That seems a strange choice of words, as someone of your intellect is sure to appreciate the postmodern perspective on ‘facts’. I am not being facetious. However, I am left wondering what you meant by your invitation. To hint at my own perspectives on ‘facts’, let me just say that my 2yo son is named Søren.
I would, however, like to ask for some clarification. I find your very sensitive and thorough critique of chq’s unsubstantiated/limited suggestions (that humans control nature, and that we as a species have done the most to dramatically change the world) juxtaposed with your own mention in passing that:
“Machines do not conventionally have sensations of pain or pleasure, because they are not alive.”
Just as we are prone to define rights and personhood as functions of our own self-seemingly ‘advanced’ human attributes/activities of tool making, critical thinking, communication, general ‘sophistication’, self-awareness, ‘levels’ of consciousness, feelings of pain/pleasure, etc… are we not prone to define “alive” in equally prejudicial terms? Your last sentence, “Especially by...many other things,” reminds me of what I wondered (years ago) might be Singer’s own brand of speciesism: defining rights in association with certain levels/types of consciousness/feelings… i.e. a prejudicial sense of what it means to be (rightfully)‘alive’ that might be more appropriately termed Animalia-Kingdom-ism or phyla-ism.
I know this is old however but in one of the paragraphs mr.b brought up it mentioned suffering which was also brought up yesterday. How nothing really matters ..but he is thankful..well im not sure if id say thankful but its the onlyword i can think of but anyway.. he is thankful for the suffering... its seems to be the only thing that shows that we are alive and or different,how ever we makeother animals suffer. but we seem to be too ingorant to notice or perhaps we dont know if they are suffering
which also brings up whether animals have "minds".i just find it interesting how everything is sooo connected.
Post a Comment