DEAR READERS: Many wild and domesticated animal species have served us in myriad ways for millennia, in times of both peace and war.
Advertisement
They have provided food, clothing, fuel, labor and protection; they help us hunt, herd, track, guide, transport, rescue and communicate. They give us companionship, entertainment, competition and education; more recently, they even act as co-therapists. We have relied on animals to test military weapons and to advance human health through biomedical testing and research. We have genetically engineered them to serve as organ donors.
The creatures providing all these services include bees (and other insects), frogs, pigeons, hawks, cormorants, dolphins, elephants, rats, rabbits, cats, dogs, cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry, horses and camels.
We have yet to fully acknowledge the empathy, trust, loyalty and devotion animals have given us, without question, since our earliest relationships with them. As the human population increased throughout history, so did the rate of animal use, for various culturally accepted -- and often financially driven -- purposes. It was not until the early 19th century that various forms of animal exploitation and mistreatment began to be questioned and animal protection and welfare organizations were established.
Here is an excellent summation written by professor Ian J.H. Duncan, emeritus chair in Animal Welfare at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada:
“Up until the 17th century, philosophers regarded animals as being quite distinct from human beings; human beings had rationality whereas animals had none. This meant that animals had only instrumental value and could be used in any way that human beings desired. During the Enlightenment, philosophers started to realize that the distinction was not clear-cut; animals had some rationality. (Social reformer Jeremy) Bentham pointed out that rationality was not the important factor; animals could suffer and that was what mattered; animals had intrinsic value. Also, during the 19th century, as part of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, it was seen that states of suffering and states of pleasure could also be adaptive.
"Although the foundation was now in place, the emergence of modern animal welfare science was delayed through the first 70 years of the 20th century by Behaviorism, which eschewed any consideration of subjective experiences. It took a controversial book by a layperson, Ruth Harrison, to stir both the scientific and philosophical community into developing theories of animal welfare, and a book by an ethologist, Donald Griffin, to make it acceptable to study the feelings of animals." (For the full study, see ”Animal Welfare: A Brief History,” published in Animal Welfare: From Science to Law, 2019.)
Behaviorism amounts to the objectification of animals as instinct-driven automatons, and it counters any anthropomorphizing of animal consciousness. I agree with Duncan that this spell was broken by the two books he references: 1964's "Animal Machines" by Ruth Harrison, which addressed the cruelties of animal factory farms, and 1976's "The Question of Animal Awareness" by Donald Griffin, which helped people see animal sentience as a legitimate, science-based issue. I was fortunate to know and work closely with both of these authors.
After the publication of these groundbreaking books, several philosophers and attorneys argued for animals having rights, but made little progress. They lacked the backing of veterinarians, ethologists and other biological scientists who could provide evidence of species’ interests and needs (behavioral, socioemotional and environmental), as well as their physical and nutritional requirements. Such support and evidence became the core bioethical principles of animal husbandry and humane stewardship that help ensure animals’ health and well-being under the banners of duty of care -- elements of which are now incorporated in animal welfare laws in various countries.
The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness -- a public statement about animal sentience signed by neuroscientists in 2012 in Cambridge, U.K. -- was a landmark contribution from the scientific community. And significant advances in understanding animal consciousness and sentience have been made since then.
From a One Health perspective, environmental health/protection, as advocated by ecologists and conservationists, is linked with animal rights. Animals' health and well-being mirror our own. All who oppose environmental and animal protections may someday be found guilty of crimes against humanity by eroding the bioethical basis of One Health.
THANK THE EARTHWORMS!
From an article on Science.org:
"According to the first worldwide estimate of the invertebrates’ contribution to crop yields, earthworms add more than 140 million tons of food each year. For wheat harvests alone, that’s roughly equivalent to one slice in every loaf of bread."
Earthworms churn and aerate the soil, helping the land hold on to water and release nutrients. They also trigger plants to grow and defend themselves against pathogens. Soil ecologist Steven Fonte of Colorado State University led the first-of-its-kind estimate of wormy benefits. He said that farmers and policymakers should consider ways to make agriculture more worm-friendly -- such as by plowing less often.
“(Worms) don’t respond well to tractors chopping them in half,” he said. “Despite popular belief, you don’t get two earthworms.” (Full story: Science.org, Sept. 26)
(Send all mail to animaldocfox@gmail.com or to Dr. Michael Fox in care of Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106. The volume of mail received prohibits personal replies, but questions and comments of general interest will be discussed in future columns.
Visit Dr. Fox’s website at DrFoxOneHealth.com.)