Exposing the Impact of Our Choices on Nonhuman Animals

Posted on September 23, 2011 by zoeweil
For my blog post today, I’m sharing a recent post I wrote for Care2.com, an online community for people passionate about creating a better world. Here’s an excerpt from Exposing the Impact of Our Choices on Nonhuman Animals:

“In 1985, I was fascinated by what I’d read about Sarah, a chimpanzee who could use a symbolic language to communicate, so I contacted Dr. David Premack, the principal researcher working with Sarah and other chimps at the University of Pennsylvania primate research lab, to volunteer. I’ll never forget meeting Sarah.

… Sarah lived alone in her cage. The four other chimps at the lab were only three years old, and I was told that Sarah might harm them, so this social animal was confined permanently in solitude. She had long since refused to continue with her language training, so her life consisted largely of watching soap operas on a TV on the other side of her cage or sitting in her small outdoor enclosure.

… For years I felt haunted by Sarah. Was she to live out her days in isolation and misery? All I could do was tell her story and, as a humane educator, teach, so that we might make different societal choices in relationship to others, whether people or nonhuman animals. Fifteen years later, I learned that Sarah had found a final home at Chimp Haven, a chimpanzee sanctuary that houses chimps formerly used in medical research, entertainment and as pets. My eyes filled with tears of relief at this good news.”

Read the complete post.

For a humane world,

Zoe Weil, President, Institute for Humane Education
Author of Most Good, Least Harm, Above All, Be Kind, and The Power and Promise of Humane Education
My TEDx talk: “The World Becomes What You Teach“

Image courtesy of Joao Maximo via Creative Commons.

Like our blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Filed under: animal protection, compassion, critical thinking, humane education, MOGO (Most Good), speciesism, systemic change | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Mark Bittman: “Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others”

Posted on March 21, 2011 by zoeweil

I so appreciated Mark Bittman’s March 15 opinion piece in the New York Times, “Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others.” Our hypocrisy surrounding the treatment of animals is stunning, and Bittman’s essay makes the point powerfully as he recounts the ASPCA’s arrest of a teenage girl for killing her sister’s hamster (a felony) while the routine killing (following nothing short of torture) of billions of other animals in our society is not only legal but ubiquitous.

Bittman’s essay describes the sort of unreflective and hypocritical (as opposed to critical) thinking that prevents us from creating a society that is just and humane and healthy, and I would love to see this essay read in high school classrooms, followed by class projects that uncover various inconsistencies within their own schools and our society that require investigation and, hopefully, rectification.

Imagine what would happen if our students became these sorts of critical and creative thinkers.

Zoe Weil, President, Institute for Humane Education
Author of Most Good, Least Harm
My TEDx talk: “The World Becomes What You Teach“

Image courtesy of meddygarnet via Creative Commons.

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Filed under: animal protection, compassion, creativity, critical thinking, Cultural Issues, education, heroes, humane education, speciesism, third side thinking, values | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Fantastic New Book: Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism

Posted on December 1, 2010 by zoeweil

I’ve just finished Dr. Melanie Joy’s fantastic new book, Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism. Carnism is a word Melanie coined in 2001 when she was completing her Ph.D. in social psychology, but the underlying philosophy that it describes – a belief system that considers it ethical to consume certain animals – has been an invisible given in human culture. Although carnism wasn’t named until the 21st century, it has been the unacknowledged dominant system of thought in our civilization. But now, through her important and fascinating book, Melanie Joy forces us to acknowledge, grapple with, and bear witness to our social norms as choices we make individually and collectively.

The word carnism could, at first glance, seem like academic jargon, a way to name something that simply goes by another name. But this isn’t so. A carnist may be a meat-eater, just as a vegetarian is a plant-eater, but carnism is the hidden belief system that leads people to eat meat, whether consciously or simply habitually. Just as vegetarianism describes a philosophy underpinning a plant-based diet, so does carnism describe a philosophy underpinning a meat-based diet. And a very specific meat-based diet, one that excludes, at least in our culture, dogs, and includes cows, pigs, sheep, chickens and turkeys. In other carnistic cultures, the animals may differ (excluding cows by Hindus or pigs by Jews and Muslims for example). A carnist is also not synonymous with a carnivore or an omnivore. A person might be a vegetarian but he will never be a biological herbivore like a cow. Another might be a carnist, but she will never be a biological carnivore like a cat.

Why do we need a word such as carnist? Because without it, our dominant dietary ideology, which causes unimaginable cruelty, suffering and violence to billions of animals every year, is never seen as an actual philosophy or ethical choice. The 3 Ns that Melanie Joy identifies, normal, natural, and necessary, simply become the mantra of a philosophy most never bother to unwrap or consider.

Melanie begins her book brilliantly:

Imagine, for a moment, the following scenario: You are a guest at an elegant dinner party…. Mouthwatering smells of rich foods emanate from the kitchen. You haven’t eaten all day, and your stomach is growling.

At last, after what feels like hours, your friend who is hosting the party emerges from the kitchen with a steaming pot of savory stew. The aromas of meat, seasonings, and vegetables fill the room. You serve yourself a generous portion, and after eating several mouthfuls of tender meat, you ask your friend for the recipe.

“I’d be happy to tell you,” she replies, “You begin with five pounds of Golden Retriever meat, well marinated, and then…” Golden Retriever? You probably freeze mid-bite as you consider her words: the meat in your mouth is from a dog.

What now? Do you continue eating? Or are you revolted by the fact that there’s golden retriever on your plate, and you’ve just eaten some?

What now indeed? And so begins an exploration into our nonsensical, irrational beliefs systems and treatment of other species. Believe it or not, this book is a page turner. I read it over three sittings in a weekend, and wanted to get a copy for everyone I know.

Zoe Weil
Author of Most Good, Least Harm and Above All, Be Kind

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Filed under: animal protection, Blogs, critical thinking, food and diet, social psychology, speciesism, systemic change, values | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Hens in a Cage = Travelers in a Hotel with Room Service?

Posted on June 16, 2010 by zoeweil

This past weekend I had the great privilege of speaking at the Their Lives, Our Voices conference in Minneapolis. I also had the even greater privilege of getting to hear some amazing talks. Paul Shapiro, senior director for factory farming issues at the Humane Society of the United States, gave a talk about rebutting animal agriculture claims. Among the quotes Paul shared were two from Trent Loos, a farmer and radio host who is a spokesperson for a PR group that opposes animal welfare reforms in agriculture. This was one:

“A hen in a cage is actually not that much different from a traveler in a hotel with room service.”

Paul is a witty guy and not easily riled, so he just shared with us two slides. The first of hens in battery cages:

And the second, of travelers in a hotel with room service:

He toggled back and forth between the slides to make sure that we could really tell the difference. Hens in a cage. Travelers in a hotel.

I so appreciated Paul’s humor and way in which he shared such a horrific image in a manner that allowed our compassion to be ignited while using our critical thinking skills and laughing all at the same. Many Americans do not want to see the images of hens in battery cages. They do not want to be confronted with the reality that the eggs they eat – unless they raise hens themselves or only purchase eggs from farms where they’ve witnessed the conditions – almost always come from battery cage facilities in which chickens are treated unimaginably cruelly. To know and to see requires that we either change our behaviors and refuse to let our desires eclipse our values, or to live with the internal conflict that we are regularly contributing to egregious suffering that we would never allow to be perpetrated on our pets.

Zoe Weil
Author of Most Good, Least Harm: A Simple Principle for a Better World and Meaningful Life

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Filed under: accurate information, animal protection, citizen activism, MOGO (Most Good), propaganda, speciesism, values | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Mice Show Pain on Their Faces…Just Like Humans

Posted on June 7, 2010 by zoeweil

In a recent Wired science article, “Mice show pain on their faces just like humans,” we learn, just as the title implies, that in response to pain, mice grimace. The article points out that this might be no surprise to “pet owners and Cute Overload readers,” implying that if we paid even a modicum of attention to other species we would already be aware that they exhibit recognizable facial expressions in response to pain, but the author wrote this article anyway, as if this is some important scientific breakthrough, without, and this is the crux of this post, questioning the ethics of such experiments.

In order to “discover” that mice have similar facial expressions as humans when they’re experiencing pain, the experimenters inflicted pain upon them. Nowhere in the article does the author explore whether inflicting pain upon a non-consenting, sentient creature is ethical.

For decades, those who support animal experiments have argued that other animals are so similar to us that we can learn so much by experimenting on them. At the same time, they have argued that they are so different from us that we are justified in causing them to suffer and die in experiments that would be immoral if done to humans, consenting or not.

The irony of this particular experiment is that it points out a particular similarity between mice and humans that should, one would think, most undermine the argument that it’s ethical to experiment on them. If they are alike us enough to grimace in pain, making recognizable facial expressions of suffering, aren’t they like us enough to be worthy of protection from such abuse?

The great majority of the time when I read about animal research, the author never questions whether the research is ethical. Even when I was in Divinity School and read a book on pastoral care and counseling for victims of domestic violence, no one but I raised the ethical issue imbedded in the book, which cited Martin Seligman’s “learned helplessness” experiments. In these experiments, he administered severe, painful electric shocks to dogs, who howled out and urinated in response, and after preventing them from escaping “discovered” that the dogs eventually gave up even trying to escape. For this, Seligman became famous, and he is now renowned in the positive psychology movement and a former president of the American Psychological Association. His “learned helplessness” theory is cited again and again as a huge breakthrough, yet clinical observation of (and then aid to) victims of domestic violence or political prisoners would have revealed the same information, without the scientist purposefully causing terrible suffering to unwilling victims.

Whenever you are reading about experiments, in the news, in books, on blogs, please dig below the surface and ask yourself how this information came to be acquired and whether it is ethical. Until we question, we won’t see. Until we see, we won’t act.

Zoe Weil
Author of The Power and Promise of Humane Education and Most Good, Least Harm

Image courtesy of a_soft_world via Creative Commons.

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Filed under: animal intelligence and emotion, animal protection, critical thinking, Cultural Issues, integrity, speciesism, third side thinking | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Inconsistencies: Why Don’t Fish Count?

Posted on June 2, 2010 by zoeweil

Many years ago, on a trip to Baxter State Park, my husband and I found a lovely feather on the ground. We were 11 miles from the parking area, deep in the wilderness, on a small island we’d canoed to. I picked the feather up and poked it into a side pocket on my pack.

We met a man on that island who was fishing. He told me that it was illegal to take anything from Baxter, including a feather. I couldn’t tell if he was warning me, lest I get caught by a ranger, or was taking upon himself the role of nature police. What I did know was that next to him, on the ground, lay a mess of fishing line. Whether it was his or belonged to some other careless fisher who didn’t clean up after him or herself, I couldn’t be sure, but where there is trash line on the ground, there is likely more in the water, along with lost hooks, potentially harming the ecosystem and individual animals for years to come.

Baxter has a number of rules to protect the natural surroundings. The one that this man was referring to when he commented upon the feather in my pack was this: “No person may remove any natural or cultural object from the Park.” Funny how fishes don’t fall into this category. I sought to take a single feather, and this was forbidden, yet people can not only harm, but also kill numerous fish, which by all definitions ought to be considered “natural.” In fact, Baxter’s website enthusiastically encourages fishing: “Whether you seek an afternoon of fly-fishing on Kidney Pond, a gentle introduction to fishing for your grandchild with bonus moose sightings or the thrill of fishing a pond or stream a full day’s hike from the car, fishing is a primary activity for many Park visitors!”

In Belize this past winter, I found a beautiful, empty conch shell in shallow waters, which I carried back to my cabin. Seeing me walk with the shell, a neighbor let me know that it was illegal to remove it. Meanwhile, her husband was catching fish in the same waters, but this illegality didn’t phase her.

Why are we so inconsistent with our rules? Why do fish so seldom count among protected wildlife? Why is the removal of a fallen feather or empty shell a violation, but not the killing of fish who are not only aware of their lives and eager to continue them, but also integral to the ecosystems in which they are a part? I do not mean to excuse my occasional lapses as I collect a feather or shell where I shouldn’t, but these inconsistencies perplex and frustrate me.

Zoe Weil
Author of So, You Love Animals, Above All, Be Kind and Most Good, Least Harm

Image courtesy of kasperbs via Creative Commons.

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Filed under: animal protection, compassion, Cultural Issues, integrity, MOGO (Most Good), speciesism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

A Response to the Mercy for Animals Undercover Investigation of Brutality on an Ohio Dairy Farm

Posted on May 26, 2010 by zoeweil

Earlier today, I put a link on my Facebook page to the undercover video, posted by Mercy for Animals, of brutality on a dairy farm in Ohio. My post elicited many comments and questions, and it felt important to immediately address them, which I’m doing here so that everyone can read these thoughts. You can view the undercover footage here, if you can’t view the video below:  (PLEASE DO NOT LET CHILDREN SEE THIS FILM.)

Some have wondered how common such cruelty is. While it may not be ubiquitous for individuals to violently brutalize dairy cows and calves to the degree shown in this video, sadly, the dairy industry has institutionalized cruelty embedded into its very structure.

Dairy cows are annually impregnated so that they will bear a calf and thereby produce milk. Like us, if they don’t have a baby, they don’t produce milk. It is normal practice on dairy farms to take the calf away from her mother at one day old. You can only imagine how the cows feel when their young are, essentially, kidnapped from them. Cows will bellow out for days. Normally, a cow will produce about 7 lbs. of milk to feed her young, but on our dairies we have forced them to produce 40-90 pounds of milk per day. For all you mothers out there, just imagine that instead of nursing a single baby, you were forced to produce enough milk to feel ten times that amount. This is why half of the dairy cows in the U.S. end up getting mastitis, a painful udder infection that necessitates antibiotics.

Meanwhile, the male calves – useless to the dairy industry – are routinely raised for veal. If they are not killed immediately, it is normal practice in the specialty-veal industry to chain the calves at the neck in stalls barely bigger than their bodies. They are unable to take more than a single step forward or backward, and they are fed an iron-deficient diet to keep their flesh pale. The reason they are kept under these horrendous conditions is to prevent them from moving and thereby building muscle, thus keeping their flesh tender, which is prized by those who eat veal. I have visited a typical specialty-fed veal farm and have witnessed these conditions for myself. I know many people who won’t eat veal because of the cruelty inherent in the industry, but who don’t realize that veal and dairy are inextricably linked.

Last year, I was talking with some Stonyfield Farms farmers. Because they have such a good reputation as an organic dairy producer, I wanted to know how they treated their cows and calves. I asked whether they had animal welfare guidelines they had to follow to be a Stonyfield producer and whether the calves were taken away from their mothers shortly after birth. Indeed they were, and they told me that there were no specific guidelines for the treatment of the animals. The only guidelines they told me they had to follow revolved around their milk being produced organically. In other words, organic dairy does not mean cruelty-free dairy.

For those of you who want to consume dairy products, I encourage you to visit the dairies to whom you’re giving your business and ask questions.

Mercy for Animals has done tremendous undercover investigations and time and again these investigations reveal rampant cruelty on our farms.

Zoe Weil
Author of Most Good, Least Harm

Thanks so much for taking the time to learn about this and pursue further information.

Filed under: animal protection, compassion, critical thinking, food and diet, speciesism, systemic change, videos | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Fun With Pronouns: Bringing “Aha” to Humane Education

Posted on August 19, 2009 by zoeweil

Once a year at the Institute for Humane Education, our M.Ed. and Humane Education Certificate Program students come for a week to our beautiful facility in coastal Maine for the residency component of their otherwise distance-learning program. During residency week, the students each do a 15 minute presentation on a humane education topic of their choice. Two weeks ago, Chrissy Bevens brought the concept of language, and specifically, the pronouns we choose, to our attention in a way that was both funny and educational.

Chrissy began by exploring sexist language — that is, the use of words, such as the pronoun “he,” to describe the gender of an undetermined human. Then she entertained us with a Mad Libs story that called upon us, her audience, to fill in a variety of words. In the context of her lesson, the most important word was naming an animal, and we chose “anteater.” At the end of the Mad Libs, the story unfolded (humorous as is always the case with Mad Libs), and nothing seemed amiss.

But then Chrissy asked us to change “anteater” to “humane educator,” and suddenly the story read very wrong because the humane educator was referred to as “it” in the beginning of a new sentence. When the story was about an anteater the word “it”didn’t seem wrong to most, even though anteaters are comprised of males and females and certainly are not things, but rather beings.

For years I’ve talked about sexist and speciesist language and have written in the margins of students’ papers when such language has been used — raising the questions that Chrissy raised — but without the “Aha” moment her excellent, fun, and amusing approach elicited.

Learning this way – through “Aha” moments and humor – sticks. I’ll be using Chrissy’s activity in the future.

~ Zoe

Image courtesy of di_the_huntress via Creative Commons.


Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Filed under: humane education, Institute for Humane Education, language, speciesism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Dancing Cockatoos, Drawing Elephants, Raven Altars and Crow Vending Machines

Posted on September 26, 2008 by zoeweil

We’re always underestimating other animals. I’ve been reading Animal Dialogues by Craig Childs, and his description of raven altars is almost eerie, until I ask myself why I’m surprised, or awed, or amazed that other species do what we do — sometimes with training (which concerns me), and sometimes on their own (but in human environs), and sometimes in the wild (where intrepid observers go to observe and report).

Here are three videos to view, each of which is a reminder anew that we humans would do well to be more humble about our own specialness and more inclusive in our compassion.

Enjoy,

~ Zoe

Image courtesy of jonathanBy.

Filed under: animal intelligence and emotion, compassion, speciesism | Tagged: , , , , , | Comments Off

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 447 other followers