TITLE: THE REVOLUTION OF NON-HUMANS!
PREFACE:
The following article is speculative but, derived
from reason. It discusses how non-humans are entitled to rights and how those
rights could be acheived. The article also mentions how humans can benefit
from a more humane world, physically, emotionally, and economically.
Being an Animal Rights Activist for more than
twenty years it wasn't until a few years back that I seriously pondered the
question: Are non-humans entitled to any rights? If so, then what rights
are they entitled? From a legal perspective a ''right'' implies what is owed
to a human or in this case a non-human. In the past my concern stemmed from
emotion rather than a legal or metaphyiscal nature thus, it was never a
question if the non-human had rights. It had everything to do with
liberating the non-human from dispare. Philosophically speaking there are two
very different applications of rights. The first is manifested through
an enactment of law either legislative or judiciary. The second is what we
call a ''natural right''. Those rights that are derived from nature, reason,
or religion that are ethically binding in human society.
Yes, non-humans do have rights! The rights they
could enjoy are from both categories even though they do not and can not enjoy
the same rights as humans do. Evolution is responsible for that.
Unfortunately, evolution is not always fair to the species. Many species have
been totally eradicated simply because they could not compete with other
species for food, habitate, etc. Because non-humans have supposedly limited
intelligence, of which an argument could be made against, their not
appropriated certain liberties and protections. For example, if my employer
terminates me due to my color, sex, religious affiliation, sexual orientation,
race or natural origin, a greviance could be made. If a farmer terminates the
services of a hen simply because he is prejudice against white feathered hens,
the hen would not possess the intellect to comprehend what had transpired. The
hen would not be able to file such a greviance with her former employer. This
obviously is a humorus example but the reader can see clearly the logic to my
argument.
Consider the following syllogism that states civil
rights can in no way apply to non-humans therefore, ''animal rights''
must apply to basic rights. In human society we recognize two
different categories of rights. The first is human rights which affords
humans at the very least the basics of food, clothing, shelter, protection
from enemies. The second category of rights afforded to humans is civil
rights of which the example above is presented. Non-humans then ought to be
afforded the eqvilalent to human rights which we will call ''non-human
rights''. They deserve the basics of food, shelter, protection, etc.
If we are in agreement with non-human rights then
below I have summarized what I believe to be a theoretical answer to the
plight of non-human suffering and death globally. As the text below
is speculative, the reader should focus on how close or far off we are from
such a utopia. It may be difficult to decipher the information to arrive at
such a conclusion. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a utopia. Even
human animals still suffer in prisons, POW camps, by the criminal element. One
need only look out their window to see a Homeless person.
To the entertainment industry, sportsmen, farming
industry, laboratories or any venue that promulgates non-human suffering the
above is saying too much. To animal rightists its not saying enough. I'm in
total agreement with the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, (PETA)
mission statement: Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use
for entertainment. This simple statement of PETA's is suggestive of a
Utilitarian society. In such a society the only question that carries any
substance is: Can the non-human experience suffering? If so, we must do
everything within our power to alleviate that suffering as best we can. Every
non-human from a tiny ant to a 15,000 pound elephant deserves respect,
compassion, and of course protection. If PETA's statement were implemented
tomorrow there would be many unhappy humans on this planet. But the positive
result would be a planet of totally liberated non-humans.
Non-human abuse has been present on this planet
since the sub-species of humans inhabited it. However, this is the only time I
would pardon humankind for non-human suffering. Some scientists argue that it
wasn't until recently they discovered non-humans experienced physical and
emotional discomfort. This simply cannot be true. Even early humans hunting
for food experienced their suffering. Because non-humans do not cry out in a
language we humans can comprehend, it doesn't neccessarily mean they can
not suffer physical and psychological trauma. Anyone who has toured their
local humane society has heard the crys of lonely depressed
non-humans yearning for a permanent Home where they can be loved. Many of us
now realize non-humans are no more content in a cage than the average prisoner
in a 8 by 5 cell.
It is significate to mention that the private as
well as public sector profit from non-human exploitation. For this reason
our society makes provision for certain types of institutionalized
suffering of which non-humans lose out. The largest cultprit of this is the
entertainment industry. Unfortunately zoos, roadside /
traveling zoos, circuses, and rodeos are still considered by mainstream
society as good clean family fun. However, its at the expense of non-human
suffering. Zoos because of their traditional standing with the public are
almost never questioned by the mainstream. The truth is zoos began as
entertainment venues during the 19th century. Today because of excellent PR
their able to position themselves as good conservationists. As long as the
public dollars keep flowing in they will continue to be good conservationists.
Only I fail to see what species their preserving. Species are captured in the
wild. Transported to a zoo to live out their lives in steel cages.
If zoologists are lucky the species might be successful in a captive breeding
program. Only for their offspring to live out their lives in steel cages. Zoos
were created for entertainment and they will continue for that very purpose.
Sanctuaries on the other hand exist solely for the non-humans benefit. We
would do best by transforming our zoos into sanctuaries that benefit
non-humans. Many zoos are doing just that. Reconstructing their environment to
mirror the image of their natural habitate. More spacious as well. Roadside /
traveling zoos serve no purpose other than turning a profit.
There has been a campaign which has gained
momentum throughout the last few decades to put an end to animals in
entertainment. Were not saying the Big Top ought to come down for good. Just
that there shouldn't be any non-humans beneath it. Many circuses have already
made this transition. They have created a new theme as well as market for the
circus. Other acts of entertainment replace the animal acts. Some circuses are
becoming more theatrical. Others are interactive inviting the audience to
participate. In this sense children can enjoy while learning that non-humans
should not be forced to entertain them. Furthermore, circuses with animals
especially elephants place the public at risk. Over the past 16 years there
has been 65 deaths and over 130 injuries associated with elephants in
entertainment venues world wide. And this is only a partial listing. Common
tragedies are elephants rampaging. These large mammals can also transmit
tuberculosis to small children. Rodeo's are a different story. The theme of
the rodeo culture is cruelty. Promoters sell the public on wild animals
being broken for their enjoyment. It is one of the most violent entertainment
venues in the world. Injuries and death are common in rodeos. The rodeo needs
to be banned altogether. Regardless of the venue no non-human should have to
perform for the sheer pleasure of humans. I wanted to comment on Bull fighting
as this is in my opinion the worst of entertainment venues. People claim its
part of their culture as in Spain. A transition from boyhood to manhood. In
whatever regard they view it its cruel, inhumane, and wrong both in the
suffering and death of the non-human.
Hunters, trappers, and fishermen use the argument
its perfectly natural for men to engage in good sportmenship. Not to sound
sexist there are female participates however, males do tend to dominate the
culture. Its I suppose a form of male bonding. A group of good-old-boys get
together for a weekend at their bosses cabin for some beers, dirty jokes and
of course stalking and killing innocent non-humans. According to them there is
a hunter, trapper, fisherman relationship with nature. They are being
good conservationists by thining out herds of game. They neglect the fact that
hunters, trappers, and fishermen are responsible for eradicating hundreds upon
thousands of species globally. Either by killing off a species prey or a
prey's natural predator. Finally they use one of the most weakest arguments of
all: That hunting, trapping, and fishing allowed early generations
to survive. Their statement is a half truth. Yes, Hunting, trapping, and
fishing allowed early humans to evolve up until the present however, they
don't mention plant sustenance played a big role as well. Today some cultures
have a limited intake of meat in their diets for various reasons. India for
example is a vegetarian culture because of their religious beliefs. Early
humans living in multiple climits realized that plant life could
sustain them only so long. Also they lacked means to perserve vegetation once
the harvest came in. These factors I believe lend them to consider meat
supplements. However, as the need to survive lend early humans to the hunt,
later in history it would lead many back to a plant sustained diet. Sportsmen
could spend more time with their families teaching their children compassion
toward all creation. What about the species? Their numbers will ultimately
wipe us out. Not true. There are non-lethal wildlife reduction programs that
are cost-effective. Immunocontraception in wildlife has been tested over a 15
year period. These studies have provided evidence that has proven effective
in controlling wildlife populations. Also the fact that ''nature takes care of
its own''. Nature left to its own will reset the balance. A reduction in
a species will occur when the biological carrying capacity has reached its
limit. In other words, the lack of sustenance will reduce their numbers.
If farmers were to take every acre of land
globally that livestock grazes on, clear the land and harvest wheat, corn, gabbage,
etc. there would be no food shortages. There would be no factory farming and
farmers would not go out of business. With vegetarianism on the rise
farmers would convert over from harvesting meat to fruits and vegatables. They
would simply join another market. What to do with the livestock? Birth control
is the answer as we discussed above. We certainly don't want to eradicate any
more species on our planet. A controlled number of livestock could be born.
These livestock would no longer be considered livestock but, companions. Why
not allow a certain number to be born just so they can enjoy a quality of
life. Why are non-humans almost always expected to perform some benefit to
humankind in exchange for their existence? Not only would this change solve
world hunger. It would result in longevity, as a vegan diet is much more
healthier than a meat based one. Less obesity and fewer heart attacks caused
by clogged arteries. People also report feeling much more healthier after
making the transition.
Using non-humans in research is outmoded
with advancements in technology the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have
seen. One single invention the ''computer'' could have spared the lives of
billions of non-humans. It was always beyond my comprehention why non-humans
were utilized as test subjects in the first place. The results are almost
always flawed as most non-humans don't react the same as humans, due to
a difference in anatomies and physiology. I don't feel there is a single
scientific nor ethical argument for forcing a non-human to consume large or
small amounts of any substance. To quote Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, a scientist and
executive director of the American Council on Science and Health, ''It doesn't
take a Ph.D. in the sciences to grasp the fact that rodent exposure to
the saccharin equivalent of 1,800 bottles of soda pop a day doesn't relate
well to our daily ingestion of a few glasses of the stuff''. The cosmetics
industry by far is the worst abuser of non-humans. This form of research is
totally unacceptable. Non-humans suffering needlessly so humans can look their
best on Saturday night. There is absolutely no merit whatsoever, for this
research. Luckily through well-targeted campaigns, many of which were
spearheaded by PETA, cosmetic companies are finely getting the message.
Although some companies still use non-humans in their research. Revlon, then
the largest cosmetics manufacturer in the states was the first to begin to
allocate funds toward alternative testing. Turning to medical reseach. Not
only do our non-human friends suffer and die needlessly, humans don't benefit
from the research. When positive results aren't achieved, more humans
die. Time, funds, and most importantly lives both non-human along with human
are lost.
To conclude, non-humans do have rights through an
''act of law'' as well as ''natural law''. Not the sames rights we humans
enjoy due to their level of intelligence moreover, these rights are obtainable
if we humans were to change our lifestyles. There would be little cost to
humankind. In fact, the benefit of liberating non-humans greatly out weighs
the status quo. As humans we need to change our behaviors. Thousands of years
of torture and carnage non-humans have been subjected to certainly merits
total and unconditional liberation. Let us humans replace the past with
respect, love, and compassion for our non-human friends.
Jeffery L. Termini, President
League of Humane Voters of Western New York
USA
Copyright c 2006 Jeffery L. Termini
All rights reserved