Mon 27 Mar 2006
I’m sending your fingernails and empty bottles you’ve sipped
Posted by Jeff under In The News , Jeff's ThoughtsIn the past I wrote about my opinions of animal “rights” supporters. I talked about how I felt these individuals were misguided and their actions were absurd. My justification: Why would one support the “rights” of animals over the rights of humans? Isn’t the causes of fighting human poverty and crimes against humanity a more just cause than “saving” the animals? It’s not like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Universal Declaration of human rights includes animals…
One angry commentor on my site tried to “trap” me by asking if I’d support human charities always before animal charities (such as PETA). The fact is, there was never a trap, and they were confused. I had thought I made my self clear enough in the entry, but that’s exactly what I explicitly said: Human issues take precident always over animal issues. Until an animal has the ability to solve my differential equation assignment, and the world recognizes their “rights”, my view won’t change, and I find anyone who thinks otherwise very misguided.
This topic comes up with the onset of the 2006 Canadian Seal Hunt. Every year this takes over the news and people protest and we see countless pictures of the “inhumane” activities. The fact is (alot of this taken from CBC) that the methods used have been evaluated by the Canadian Veterinary Journal and given approval. The governement closely watches the hunt and ensures the hunt is performed humanely. Seal “rights” sites twist the truth, such as on this website, Harpseals.org, where the show multiple images of white coats, despite the fact killing white coats is illegal. The still provide links to poaching videos of the 70’s. All of this propaganda is used to advance their cause which is severely misguided. They seem to ignore the fact that the seal hunt provides much needed income for East coast families. I’m sorry, is it wrong to support income for families so they don’t starve at the expense of the death of a few brainless seals?
Of course all the environmentalists don’t talk about the environmental benifit of the seal hunt. Since our society chooses more to breed our food in controlled situations, the ecosystem needs controlled hunting to reduce animal populations to balance the food chain. The government decides exactly how many seals can be hunted to maintain the population and ensure they don’t grow out of control, thus effecting other populations such as fish. As a classmate has said, the only reason people protest this is because seals are cute….no one cries foul when you boil a lobster live or hook fish with barbed hooks and cut them up while still living. In fact, just because nerve spasms show movement doesn’t mean it is alive…like many seal protesters claim. They need to focus their energy elsewhere.
Today the Globe has an interesting article about confrontations between Hunters and Protesters. My favourite part, where they talk about the “angry hunters charged the protesters’ boat and flung seal intestines and other pieces of carcasses at the activists.” A week ago it was reported that Senator Celine Hervieux-Payette responded to a letter from an american couple in regards to the seal hunt. She replied saying that they were misguided and what she finds horrible really is “the daily massacre of innocent people in Iraq, the execution of prisoners - mainly blacks - in American prisons, the massive sale of handguns to Americans, and the destabilization of the entire world by the American government’s aggressive foreign policy, etc.” I’m glad that we have a tenured senate that is willing to actually say what is on the mind of many Canadians.
All this talk about seals has encouraged me to go have a Mammoth Burger at Chill and Grill…or if you are DQ, the Grill.
Random Wikipedia Article: Libertarianism
Currently Listening to: MODS professor drone on
March 27th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
Seals are most definitely alive, but so is everything else we eat and kill. (I think the point you’re trying to make is more to do with sentience…)
Anyhow, you already pretty much know I agree with you, but the debate becomes a lot more interesting when you start fighting about where on the continuum the unborn lie… are they more seal-like or human-like? (And for good measure, toss in the fact that 1/3 of abortions in America are performed on blacks.)
Yeah, that’s my de-rail of the day.
March 27th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
Gee, thanks Mike, I had some really good tree-hugger stories to get me back into Jeff’s good graces (such as they are where I’m concerned) and then you had to go throw in the de-rail.
Reminds me of the big uproar in the class forum when the hawk eating the squirrel disturbed so many people. Cute things die too. Accept it. Being cute does not give you anymore claim to life than being ugly does. (For which I am quite thankful ;))
March 28th, 2006 at 12:48 am
This calls for a Wonderfalls quote:
As for killing cute stuff, and the whole “appeal to emotions” gig, the best solution to that is to just spend time with some rural folks. For starters, they’re 10x more pragmatic than city slickers on just about everything. I was told recently by a farmgirl, regarding free-range hens, “Why on earth would you want them running free? Do you want them killing each other and trampling their own eggs? No, that’s why they have boxes.”
March 28th, 2006 at 10:49 am
I just took a group of ten-year-old girls out to a farm, we had to give them a big long talk beforehand to explain to them that yes, the cows have chains around their neck, no it doesn’t hurt them etc etc. Apparently our going was a little questionable until they found out how young our girls are, because there have been cases of teenagers coming & basically attacking the farmers the whole time. (Normally having been prepped by their teacher or whoever brought them)
April 2nd, 2006 at 12:26 am
“Until an animal has the ability to solve my differential equation assignment…”
Does this mean that I can treat an artsie like an animal? Here’s hoping.
April 2nd, 2006 at 1:18 pm
It’s simply a question of ethical universalism vs ethical particularism. An ethical particularist views his obligations to others on a scale, his family and friends are very important, he might think he is morally obligated to give up a organ to save the life of a family member. His community comes next, next comes his country, his culture and downward to the ‘brotherhood of men’. In this case, it isn’t that a particularist doesn’t view starving children in africa as worthy actors, but simply down the chain of consideration. Ethical universalists on the other hand value their obligation to all actors on an equal scale, and would argue that just as much consideration should be paid to the homeless problem in Downtown Toronto, as is paid to the aids crisis in Africa. And that the only scale that effects such decisions is the scale of impact. People dying in africa>people being denied democracy in china>people being denied 10k income from a seal hunt(if you value liberty over GDP which is another topic altogether).
The extention of ‘human rights’ to animals is much a question of particularism vs. universalism. A animal rights universalist simply extends his ‘human rights’ to all living beings (with the exception of plants for some reason). Whereas a particluarist values the difference between human and not human, much in the same way you would treat the difference between your brother, and a stranger on the street.
Of course personally i’m a particularist (you can have the cow tortured every day if it makes the meat cheaper/tastier)… and I think the universalists are a bit too selective in valuing a cow or a seal above a tree. I mean, a cow is really just bush made out of meat, and a tree would scream if it had vocal chords and a nervous system. That being said, there is firm ground for an ethical universalist to stand on, and extend rights to animals. The individuals are not misguided, and their actions are not absurd, they simply make different moral assumptions about the nature of the world.
Now who wants some steak?
April 2nd, 2006 at 11:32 pm
Surprising…I didn’t get any seal loving comments…
I once read a short story called the The Pre-Persons. (Wow…Wikipedia had an entry on it!) As you can read, this story’s society allowed children to be aborted up to the age of learning algebra, hence my math reference above. The story really stuck in my mind, even though I disagree with it’s intent. In this light, no…we can’t treat artsies like animals…though we could ask…who knows, Peter, the resident Artsie here may enjoy it…heh
I understand Peter’s comment about Universalists, and yes, everyone does have different views of the world, as Mike has different views on abortion than me, and Christine different views of the Catholic Church. (BTW, such a Poli Sci view of the topic…) I don’t know what posseses aging Musicians and Augmented past Baywatch stars to take on these beliefs, but I’d hope that they at least research both sides before they go on their media parades.
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Seals are so cute. Little fluffy, baby-seal-eyed cute fluffy things. But that doesn’t make them immune to death. I’m reminded of goldfish crackers, “the wholesome snack that smiles back until you bite their heads off.” There aren’t any activists fighting to protect these adorable treats. I say, that once the rights of goldfish crackers are protected - once the precedent is set - then move on to baby seals.
But seriously, the baby seals, while extraordinarily cute, will grow into adult seals. The seal hunt has a purpose - it controls the population, which ensures good fishing for people, and other wildlife. The ecosystem has adapted to a certain number of seals in existance, and if the hunt was suddenly cancelled, who knows what would happen? Seal populations would likely increase at an alarming rate, and negatively impact the rest of the ecosystem. Ask me more about the biological perspective . . . I’d love to expand.
That’s all I’ve got for now.
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:36 pm
Jeff, you have to change the time on your site, so that it corresponds to daylight savings time. Very unprofessional. :p
April 5th, 2006 at 9:17 am
Most radical causes require that the world be black & white. There is no way to justify radical behaviour without the assumption that what you are opposing is the purest evil. (Well I would use just the first 8 words for most cases…)
A lot of causes tend to have fewer educated people in the, and even fewer informed people. For example: pesticide bans. My 4th year biology friend has pointed out to me that there isn’t a strong scientific basis to ban most of what’s being banned. And yet there are people very dedicated to it anyhow…
April 6th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
Pesticide isn’t just bad for the environment, it’s cheating.
April 7th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
Jeff, I have to say, I do object to fish being cut up while alive, and I’m definetely squeamish about boiling lobsters (and mussels) alive. This rarely stops me from eating them - they do taste awefully good. But I do find it to be an issue.
I am ok with the seal hunt, provided it’s done in a humane and environmentally sound way. I’m not sure this is the case (I don’t know much about the seal hunt), but I don’t know that it isn’t. I have to say that the website on the hunt that I found (http://www.hsus.org/protect_seals.html) was fairly convinced that it wasn’t, but this site was also given to fairly over-the-top statements, so I don’t exactly trust it.
I must say, whatever my feelings on the seal hunt, I really appreciate Senator Celine Hervieux-Payette’s comments. Nice to see someone pointing out the pot calling the kettle black.
April 24th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
In paragraph three you say “They seem to ignore the fact that the seal hunt provides much needed income for East coast families.” but do you relize that the hunts account for less then 1% of Newfoundlands GDP and an average income of $1000 per sealer per year? Not very good eh?
And paragraph four “The government decides exactly how many seals can be hunted to maintain the population and ensure they don’t grow out of control, thus effecting other populations such as fish.” Its really a shame that ever year the hunters go over the limit and that if we kill off all the seals then there’s going to be a bigger population of squid to eat all of our little fishy friends.
“no one cries foul when you boil a lobster live or hook fish with barbed hooks and cut them up while still living.” …Yeah its true… But we eat them… Most of the meat from the seals get left behind… The seal hunt is a fashion driven hunt.
I really don’t want you to get me wrong… I do feel that people come first, but I don’t see why a 2 week old baby seal needs to die so that we can throw away its meat and make a pretty coat out of it…
April 24th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Katrina, what you don’t see is that regardless of what percentage (My sources give it at 2.75%), and the average per sealer (Some make more, some make less), for the people who do seal, it is a “significant” (according to the federal government) source of income. For many people in that region, their family income is around 20K, and for some who use sealing as a significant source of income, it can be as high as 5K, meaning it’s 25% of their income.
You are looking too much at the macro level, on averages and percentages. what you really need to see is the affect it has on a group of families whom sealing has a great impact on their livelihood. There are families who NEED this income. It’s quite shallow to group all East coast fishers in the same bunch.
You assertion that they are hunted over the limit is groundless. It is very highly regulated and monitored. The fact that the seal population CONTINUES to grow with the hunt (hence the continueing increase in limit to compensate) shows how your assertion is untrue. We don’t “kill off all the seals”. Your hyperbole is absurd and your remark on squid population is misinformed. The ecosystem is alot more complex then just seal eats squid eats fish. (I can’t find reference to eating squid, but they do eat fish, which means that less fish are eaten, your argument is balanced).
So I can kill any animal if I eat the meat? Other parts of the seal are used, especially the fat. The Fur isn’t the only thing (though I will admitt it is the primary commodity. Regardless, the age of the seal doesn’t matter. It’s a seal. I don’t cry over the age of my lamb. What’s it going to come to next? People campaigning over the sale of roe because the fish never had the opportunity to live? These assertions are outrageous.