The Case for Animals Everyone

-- By RorySkaggs - 25 Feb 2010

Introduction

"Humans are more important than animals." "We have more important problems to deal with than animals." "Who cares about animals, what's the big deal? You people are crazy." These are some of the most common criticisms levied at animal advocates. Are they true? And more importantly, does it matter? Even if they are true, where does that leave us?

Section I

The Cove

The Oscar-winning documentary film The Cove explores the annual dolphin sale/slaughter off the coast of a small Japanese town. Why was it made? First, Ric O'Barry, the film's protagonist and former Flipper dolphin trainer, is trying to repent for (in his mind) creating a destructive industry. Second, as evidenced by the recent incident at SeaWorld, there is debate whether capturing these wild marine mammals for entertainment purposes is appropriate. Third, there are questions of what toll the slaughter will take on dolphin populations, and whether we should be killing such highly intelligent animals in the first place. But there was a different reason why the filmmakers felt the people of Japan should really be concerned. What was it?

The toxic levels of mercury in the dolphin meat being secretly fed to Japanese schoolchildren.

The Human Cost

This is just one of many examples of how animals affect our lives. When animals come up, most people initially envision companion animals-- dogs, cats, etc. But they don't realize the many ways our relationships with these animals affect us; numerous studies have linked animal cruelty to child abuse, domestic violence and elder abuse, the FBI has linked animal cruelty and serial killers, and the American Psychiatric Association uses animal cruelty as a main factor in determining conduct disorder. But it's not just pets. Factory farming of cows, pigs and chickens have profound effects on humans and our environment. These farms are a leading cause of groundwater pollution, air pollution, soil degradation, limited water supplies, and global warming. They also affect humans directly, through loss of local farms/jobs, increased cancer rates, various disease outbreaks, and antibiotic resistance. Factory farming even affects the real concern at dinnertime: taste.

In economics-speak, these are called 'externalities.' Like any other big business selling a product, we are convinced low prices are all that matters. In the meantime, society as a whole suffers the costs which corporations need not bear, because we are too busy 'protecting' our animal industries to notice our own suffering. This probably happens in part because of sheer ignorance of these costs, as the trend in animal industries from livelihood to business has made these processes invisible to most people.

Section II

Animals and the Law

So why does law need to live here? The most obvious reason is animals cannot protect themselves or control how we use them. Like many other areas of law restricting or controlling our actions, we essentially must protect us from ourselves. The old paradigm was to use resources until nearly or completely extinct (be it dodos or oil), but we've come to realize that this is not sustainable. Thus, the law is necessary as a brake to the over-consumption of resources unique to the human species, a brake we can fine-tune as we begin to understand the relationship between humans, animals and the earth.

In fact, the commercialization of animal industries alone is enough to warrant regulation and legal restraints. Many corporations seek to impose as many costs on others while retaining most of the benefits, and the law is an important tool to monitor and minimize these costs, or at least redistribute them back to their creators. Despite often daunting legal and political odds against them, 'animal' lawyers continue to nibble at the edges, slowly breaking down barriers of misunderstanding and reigning in the practices which harm us all.

Animals and Morality

Notice the lack of morals, ethics or even the animals themselves in the discussion. None of these concerns are necessary to understand the importance of animals in our lives. One need not believe in Schweitzer's Reverence for Life, nor the ahimsa of Hinduism and Jainism, nor even the Biblical dominion given man in the Book of Genesis-- one could hate animals and want nothing to do with them. But the reality is the earth needs animals to exist, and as humans we need to manage and regulate our interactions with them. Many animal advocates participate because of their commitment to protect animals, but nobody needs to have any interest in doing the work to realize the work needs to be done. You don't need to have a dog to know that animals are a major part of our world that should be handled wisely. Just ask Wayne Pacelle, the highly influential president of The Humane Society of the United States: “I don’t have a hands-on fondness for animals…To this day I don’t feel bonded to any non-human animal. I like them and I pet them and I’m kind to them, but there’s no special bond between me and other animals.”

Conclusion

"Humans are more important than animals." Ok, fine. Let's worry about how animals affect us then. See above. "We have more important problems to deal with than animals." That doesn't make it not a problem. So for the few who choose to solve it, we might try to appreciate their work. "Who cares about animals, what's the big deal? You people are crazy." The 'crazy' probably comes from disagreeing with some organization's tactics, but strategies to solve a problem are different than the necessity to do so. The facts laid out above are not meant to change anybody's habits or make them support a cause. This is no appeal to the 'thinking man,' and anyways a single video on an animal groups' website is probably infinitely more effective than all the facts in the world. The point is that our relationships with animals have widespread effects which cannot be ignored by everyone, and we should think twice before we write off those who choose to see-- they might just be doing us all a favor.

It seems to me that this essay takes a good starting point and stretches it thin. Your thesis can be put in a sentence: human concern for animal welfare is an ecological matter, involving not just particular organisms, but the welfare of all interconnected living things, including people. That's a premise, and the point of the essay ought not to be to prove it, or indeed to argue for it, but rather to show where it leads. Those who incline to dispute the premise may be interested, or even convinced by the consequences. But instead of developing the idea, to bring new and more adventurous ideas forth from it, you descend from it, and in the end wind up with a conclusion that could be put at two sentences distance from the thesis without loss of meaning. In revision, you should push the argument outward, away from the premise and towards new horizons, rather than towards the smallest objections you can find to vanquish.