Jim,

You're statements and the quote from Zencey have holes worse than swiss
cheese. Neither you nor he seem to have the most basic notion of the ethical
issues related to vegetarianism, issues with us for a long time, at leat (at
least) since Mill, and probably for millenia in India, China, and elsewhere.
You think it's a good thing that you side yourself with Descartes? His ideas
on why animals are not deserving of moral consideration are ludicrous at
best, and that's why no one ever cites them except to point out how
ridiculous they are. For example, he looked at animas crying out in pain and
claimed they weren't actually in pain, it was just an automatic reaction
like a machine. Science has since discovered nerves and has shown, with
little doubt, that the presence of a developed nerve system indicates the
capacity to feel pain (and pleasure). Dogs and many other animals do indeed
feel pain, as most of us observe with little question.

Zencey sounds like a man who has an axe to grind because he lost a
girlfriend who was vegetarian or something. First off, as I have argued
before on this list, there is a great deal of evidence that few if any of
our ancestors in fact survived as carnivores. It is a long and complex story
with many facets; if you are going to tell me I'm wrong, first ask yourself
if you've actually done any research into this subject or if you've just
taken what the scientists have told you about carnivorism at face value.
[Much of the science we understand to be "neutral" is anything but. Think
about it: Ever since science as we know it started to form in the west
several hundred years ago, the majority of scientists have had, for a
variety of reasons from disciplinary pride to sheer profit, vested interests
in the findings they promote. Cattle culture built America and is still one
of the largest industries in the productive economy; are the beneficiaries
going to tell us that actually history and physiology show that we're
vegetarians? Not. Witness the opposition to changes in the food groups
charts. In fact, they've always wanted the poor, the "average," to
appropriate a culture of meat consumption because it fills their pockets. Of
course there are "nationalistic" type cultural factors as well...]

Actually (despite what, say, Stephen might assert) the physical
characteristics of humans are clearly that of herbivores. The most
significant features of the human body show that humans survive best on the
same diet as herbivores in the non-human kingdom; a great, great deal of
medical evidence corroborates this observation. You might look at the chart
on http://www.vegan-straight-edge.org.uk/taxonomy.htm. If you disagree,
please tell me why the information on tnis chart is inaccurate.

Now, as to Zaney's disgust with moral vegetarianism: If you take what I have
said above and can find little evidence that I'm wrong, then suddenly
vegetarianism seems to have just the opposite moral source than Zaney
ignorantly assumes. In fact, moral vegetarians seek to be at one with the
world, to fit inside, as "uterine humans," in a way that is apt and
"natural;" they don't seek to rise above. (In fact, many see the "rise
above" as an aberration related to Judeo-Christian worldviews more than
anything else.) Many of us have seen the evidence of the havoc meat eating
can wreck on us and the outside world and concluded that it is not "natural"
for us to eat the way dogs do. All fine and good for them, but we're
herbivores.

Zencey says: "In turning away from the ecological niche that shaped our 
>ancestors even as they claimed it, by renouncing eons of evolution as 
>carnivores that have made us what we are--conscious, self-conscious, erect 
>hominids with binocular vision, opposable thumbs, an ability to symbolize 
>and communicate our experience through language, and a deep-seated faith 
>that the events of our lives have a coherence that can be plumbed for 
>meaning--the moral vegetarian is trying to elect him- or herself out of 
>context.  In this, the vegetarian exemplifies the source of our ecological 
>problems no less than the technocrat or engineer"

Being a vegetarian definitely does not turn one away from one's ecological
niche, for the above reasons and many more (read up, there are many, many
books). Zencey imples that consciousness, erect ambulation, binocular
vision, etc. have something relevant to diet. What? This simply doesn't make
any sense. Again, the idea is that vegetarians are in fact trying to elect
themselves _back in_ to context. It's the technocrats and engineers who tend
to think that we can rise above the vagaries of the natural wild, eat anyway
we want, etc. and Progess will fix all the problems. Zencey's statments are,
I'm sorry, laughable.

Have you read David Orr? Some of his views are entirely relevant to this
discussion. He rightly claims that it's the techno-optimists who are guilty
of the very things that Zencey accuses vegetarians of. Zencey's desire to
get engineers off the hook by saying anything, even if it's faulty logic, is
so obvious is sickening.

The thrust of Zencey's arguments seems to be this: he assumes that we are
carnivores; therefore to try to be anything else is to try to be not of this
earth. Just the opposite is true though: we are not carnivores (did you know
that they Innuit, a classic example of a carnivorous (fish) culture, suffer
the worst osteoporosis in the world and die young?). To try to be a
carnivore is, in so many ways, to think that you don't have to live within
"natural" limits and ecological niches. Zencey's idea that moral vegetarians
want to rise above the earth more than techno-optimists is totally untenable
and not founded in history, fact, or sound reason.

Adam


>Hi everybody, 
>
>>First to answer Jamey's questions... 
>> 
>>Do I hunt? Yes. 
>> 
>>Where do I stand on animal rights? I stand somewhere between Francione and 
>>Descartes. 
>
>Well, why does it matter whether Josh or anyone else hunts or not?  So far, 
>the discussion here on immunocontraception has been somewhat underwhelming, 
>but I give Josh credit for persistence.  I like where he is going with his 
>thinking about the question,  "What does this (wildlife immuno.) say about 
>our relationship with nature?"  Perhaps it would help if I offered some 
>polarizing passages to stir some things up a bit more . . .   :-) 
>
>>Josh asked: 
>>2. Are an animal's rights to pursue procreation and family rearing any less 
>>meaningful than its right to merely exist? Why? 
>
>Let me make a bold claim: nonhuman animals don't have reproductive rights.  
>Consider the fact that we routinely spay and neuter various individual 
>animals at humane shelters throughout the US and UK, and generally don't 
>think of such activity as immoral.  Furthermore, in some animals there are 
>health benefits that accrue from this activity, e.g. reduced risk of 
>certain cancers in spayed canines.  Additionally, behavioral modification 
>can occur that makes some individual animals easier to live with--e.g. 
>castrated dogs--and that's a benefit to us. 
>
>Josh continues: 
>>As far as I can tell, Amory's A-R approach didn't acknowledge that animal's 
>>have a fundamental right to pursue the pleasures of eating and raising a 
>>family (I base this merely on his singular but powerful quote. I'd be very 
>>happy if others could point me to other references if this quote was an 
>>anomaly). He appeared to be entirely focused on the right to life, 
>>independent of the quality of that life. Amory saw a chemically castrated 
>>lion munching on a bowl of corn flakes as preferable to what we often see on 
>>the Discovery Channel. Amory's view wouldn't have any problem with wildlife 
>>immunocontraception. More than that, he saw it as an essential element in 
>>his technology-dependent (!) Eden.  
>
>I've been reading through Eric Zencey's excellent book of essays, _Virgin 
>Forest: Meditations on History, Ecology, and Culture_.  His essay, "On 
>Hunting," is particularly good, and I'd like to quote a section of it for 
>comparison with Josh's representation of Cleveland Amory's views. 
>
>In his discussion of agriculture and moral vegetarianism, Zancey writes: 
>
>"That amber wave of grain to which the farmer aspires isn't natural but is 
>achieved only through a rigorous program of granting life to one species 
>and energetically denying it to all others--a program that usually includes 
>indiscriminate poisoning and herbal genocide, practices whose moral 
>foundations are a good deal shakier than those of hunting. 
>--"Sometimes this argument makes an impression.  But still there is the 
>problem of death.  Many moral vegetarians have chosen their stance 
>precisely because they want to avoid causing death.  Hunting too obviously 
>contradicts the fundament upon which their very selves depend. 
>--"I confess to getting impatient with this kind of moral vegetarianism.  I 
>think that it, like anorexia, is self-denial in the service of an 
>acculturated pathology.  Its main root seems to be an all-too-human hubris 
>that leads the vegetarian to think that antiseptic innnocence is possible 
>in this world.  In turning away from the ecological niche that shaped our 
>ancestors even as they claimed it, by renouncing eons of evolution as 
>carnivores that have made us what we are--conscious, self-conscious, erect 
>hominids with binocular vision, opposable thumbs, an ability to symbolize 
>and communicate our experience through language, and a deep-seated faith 
>that the events of our lives have a coherence that can be plumbed for 
>meaning--the moral vegetarian is trying to elect him- or herself out of 
>context.  In this, the vegetarian exemplifies the source of our ecological 
>problems no less than the technocrat or engineer, whose disregard for 
>context is founded not on an optimistic faith in the possibility of purity 
>but on an optimistic faith in troubleshooting, a faith that those 
>principles of nature that work to our inconvenience can be made irrelevant 
>through the exercise of more control and more power.  The engineer must 
>admit the possibility of failure, of error, of guilt, and so is led away 
>from an excessively romantic self-image.  But the proselytizing moral 
>vegetarian, believing in the strength of his or her own example, believes 
>in the possibility of a general and mutual innocence.  This is sentimental 
>schmaltz--the kind of sentimentality that is necessary to produce the 
>excessive brutality for which agricultural tribes are known. 
>--"No: we humans are inescapably *of* nature.  Tragedy and sin have origins 
>in our existence deeper than mere ignorance, and it's arrogance to believe 
>otherwise."  
>(35-7, cite below) 
>
>I think that Josh has been suggesting that Cleveland Amory's view of the 
>world (which manifests itself, for example, in the context of recent HSUS 
>support for immunocontraception research, etc.) implies the desire for 
>"antiseptic innocence," as Zencey puts it. . . .  Furthermore, I think that 
>Zencey's claim that "the vegetarian exemplifies the source of our 
>ecological problems no less than the technocrat or engineer" is an 
>important one for us to discuss.  And what of his belief that 
>vegetarianism, "like anorexia, is self-denial in the service of an 
>acculturated pathology"? 
>
>The current trend of growing support for wildlife immunocontraception is 
>interesting for a number of reasons, not the least of which is: *who* is 
>doing the supporting.  The major animal rights and animal welfare 
>organizations all seem to be on the bandwagon, but as Josh noted in an 
>earlier email, none of these groups are talking much about the 
>philosophical meaning of immunocontraception: 
>
>>Aside from off-hand remarks by Alan Rutberg (HSUS immunocontraception 
>>researcher and PZP user), and brief complaints by Fund for Animals 
>>(regarding bison immunocontraception), there has been virtually no 
>>discussion among animal rights groups and followers on wildlife 
>>immunocontraception.  
>
>In a nutshell:  is it fair to say that Zancey and other environmental 
>ethicists see vegetarians as part of the problem, hunters as part of the 
>solution?  heh heh.  <grin> 
>
>Just trying to stir things up a bit, 
>
>Jim Tantillo 
>[log in to unmask] 
>
>
>Zencey, Eric. Virgin Forest : Meditations on History, Ecology, and Culture. 
>Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1998. 
>
>
>
>
>> 
>>In his book Animal Liberation Peter Singer makes a couple of arguments 
>>indicating that wildlife immunocontraception, as it's used today, is wrong. 
>>Singer, unlike Amory, states that the pleasures pursued by animals are of 
>>great importance and require consideration. Singer states that more than 
>>just eating, the act of pursuing food is pleasurable. It follows that 
>>pursuing a family life as well as raising a family are also important for 
>>animals. These pleasures are so important Singer seriously questions whether 
>>a long life without the freedom to pursue these pleasures is better than a 
>>shorter more painful life that includes them. If management is a given, 
>>Singer leaves open the possibility of lethal management here. Singer later 
>>states that the only situation where wildlife immunocontraception can be 
>>considered is when an animal's pursuit of food competes directly with our 
>>own food production. Either way, his arguments do not provide glowing 
>>support for current wildlife immuno. efforts. 
>> 
>>I am less familiar with Regan's work, and am not quite sure where he'd fall 
>>on the issue. Does Regan view animals as having reproductive rights? Any 
>>thoughts? 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>-Josh  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message----- 
>>> From: VeggieBiggs [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] 
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 12:44 PM 
>>> To: [log in to unmask] 
>>> Subject: Re: [RE: Ethics of immunocontraception?] 
>>>  
>>> Do you hunt Josh?  Just curious.  Where do you stand on the subject of 
>>> animal 
>>> rights?  People can justify any atrocity and villefy the noblest acts.   
>>> Peace for All Beings 
>>> Jamey Lee West  
>>>  
>>> JOSH WINCHELL <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 
>>> Jim, Jamey Lee and All; 
>>>  
>>> I initially brought up the topic of wildlife immunocontraception (W.I.) 
>>> not 
>>> because it presents a fascinating hypocrisy among many animal rights 
>>> groups 
>>> and supporters........  
>>>  
>>> ____________________________________________________________________ 
>>> Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1  


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%