RE PEOPLE AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION : JANE GOODALL INTERVIEW

[Guest guest]

Dear :

 

I wrote that rats were closer to humans genetically than

other NON-primates, not that they are closer to us genetically THAN

primates. Our ancestry goes back to apes, then monkeys, then

lemurs, and finally back to a rodent-like ancestor before continuing

through the reptiles and amphibians back to sea creatures. I believe

the other lines of mammals have ancestry that traces back to rodents

or rodent-like creatures, though my commentary was intended to be

more philosophical than technically exact paleontology.

 

I believe that one life-form has the same natural right to

exist as any other, and so a shrimp would have the same right to

exist as a whale. However, the degree of sentience between a shrimp

and a whale is enough that I would say it is worse to kill a whale

than a shrimp. Other personal value judgements may come into play if

I try to balance one life against another, but most of the time we

are not forced to choose one over another. As a mother, I would

choose the life of my child over my dog, but I might choose my dog's

life over the life of a stranger, and I would certainly choose my

child's life over the life of anyone else's child. These kinds of

subjective value judgements - which may be based on how much we love

or like some individual or how much we like or dislike a particular

species - should not be the basis for collectively assigning greater

moral value to one creature over another.

 

If we are being menaced by a particular animal or microbe,

then we have a natural right to defend ourselves against it or them,

but that doesn't give us moral carte blanche to try to wipe out

entire populations. Even ticks and maggots have a role in nature. I

could argue that viruses are actually the dominant life-form on this

planet, and not human beings. One could make a case that animals

evolved for the benefit of plants. And so on, and so on...

 

About 20 years ago, I asked Jane Goodall if it wasn't

" speciesist " to promote the rights of chimps because they are close

to humans genetically and if that wouldn't tend to preclude or delay

legal rights for the animals who are least like us. She said she

understood my concern but believed the chimpanzee would be a " bridge "

between other animals because, in her opinion, people related to

chimps more than to any other animal. I told her I thought they

related more to dolphins, which seemed to be the case in the 1980s.

 

There is no shortage of human rights and humane welfare

organizations. Maybe they aren't performing well, but they are much

better funded than animal rights and welfare organizations, which get

less than one percent of the charity dollar in the US. Environmental

organizations (including the pro-hunting conservation societies) are

much better funded than animal rights and welfare groups. Why should

animal groups spend their time, energy, and restricted funding doing

the work the others are getting paid to do? Animal protection donors

want their money spent on animals, and to spent it on another purpose

- no matter how worthy - is a violation of trust. I don't think

people who watch the " Planet's Funniest Animals " are likely to be

among the staunch supporters of animal rights efforts.

 

Kim Bartlett

 

 

>

>

> [journalistandanimals]

>Wednesday, April 26, 2006 11:42 PM

>Dr.Chinny Krishna

>Cc: aapn

>Re: PEOPLE AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION : JANE GOODALL

>INTERVIEW

>

>

>Dear Ms Bartlett, Dr Krishna and AAPN members,

>

>Thank you for your responses to the message. I personally believe that

>ethical absolutism is a difficult issue. Do only mammals have rights? Birds?

>Reptiles? Amphibians? Fishes? What about invertebrates? Mosquitoes? Flies?

>Cockroaches? Smallpox bacteria? Viruses? Cancer cells? Amoeba? Plants? It

>could be logically concluded that all living creatures have rights, maybe

>even non living entities have rights. Why kill ticks to save a cow? Why kill

>maggots to save a dog? Why rescue white rats from the laboratory only to

>break their necks and feed them to owls(as I know at least one Indian animal

>welfare organisation to have done)? The truth is no matter what egalitarian

>or holistic environmental ethic we speak of, the world is still dictated by

>anthropocentric choices, some for very cogent practical reasons. Some of

>course, are feel good reasons. We speak out against fur, but seldom against

>silk, although silk production entails far more deaths than is involved in

>fur.

> For me, as I have written in this list before, it is very important to

>treat humans well and I agree with Jane Goodall when she says that many

>animal rights organisations ignore human suffering. I know animal rights

>organisations that have denigrated black people, Asians, women, Jews,

>Afghans, Iraqis, Chinese, Indians, Hindus and tribals. I know animal rights

>activists who would rather watch the Planet's Funniest Animals than footage

>of Abu Ghraib or Sudan or Somalia or impoverished parts of any country. I

>know animal rights activists who would treat 'humans like dogs' and 'dogs

>like humans'. For me, treating humans well is of the utmost necessity since

>humans are my conspecifics and I have a responsibility towards my own

>species. If it comes to the crunch between saving a dog and a baby, I

>would save the baby simply because I belong to his species but I hope I do

>not have to face a situation like that. Since I believe that humans are

>animals too(the evolutionary point of view that smacks conventional

>patronising religious views left, right and centre), I think it is

>quintessential to treat fellow humans well, regardless of nationality,

>colour or race. The same evolutionary viewpoint urges me to treat animals

>well since there is no credible cosmological evidence that God(however we

>may define God) created the universe for humans as a pinnacle. I admire Dr

>Wedderburn as much for him being a doctor as for being an animal rights

>activist. He does both human rights and animal rights and that is fabulous

>which is why I like and respect him so much.

> It is true that rats can be very intelligent(although I would love to read

>evidence that suggests they are genetically closer to us than primates) but

>in a place where people cannot get enough protein without eating meat,

>I cannot strongly stand up for veganism(that may entail people eating the

>most endangered species as Jane Goodall says). Obviously, it is debatable if

>eating rats is preferable to eating chimpanzees since both are animals. A

>rat thinks no less of its life than a chimpanzee. I am a vegetarian but I am

>not a vegetarian activist since I am not convinced that man is biologically

>a herbivore. If people are eating animals in win lose situations, I am

>willing to accept that.

> This is a complex topic and as I said earlier, there are no clear cut

>answers in black and white. I generally prefer to set my own ethical

>standards in life regardless of what so called religious prophets or

>celebrities might have said or done. As Stephen Hawking mentioned: " One has

>to be grown up enough to realise that life is not fair. You just have to do

>the best you can in the situation you are in. "

> This is not a satisfactory explanation for the rats versus chimpanzees

>debate(just as I am a bit undecided on the worth of animal experimentation

>in Oxford University since I am alive because of medicines that have been

>tested on animals but at the same time feel that animals are treated badly

>in laboratories) but I wanted to share these thoughts with you. Thanks for

>writing and your views are appreciated.

> Best wishes and kind regards,

>

> Yours sincerely,

>

>

 

--

Kim Bartlett, Publisher of ANIMAL PEOPLE Newspaper

Postal mailing address: P.O. Box 960, Clinton WA 98236 U.S.A.

CORRECT EMAIL ADDRESS IS: <ANPEOPLE

Website: http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/ with French and Spanish

language subsections.