Folks,

The evidence is pretty darn clear humans have always been opportunistic
omnivores. This shouldn't be a big shock, many other mammal species are the
same. Along the shores of Lake Michigan, deer feed on fish carcasses. Some
primate species (bonobo?) kill other species of primates for food. Stephen
knows of a ground squirrel that engages in predatory behavior. Claiming a
scientific basis for strict vegetarianism in humans is not only wrong and
counterproductive, but unnecessary as well. 

Adam stated : "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?)."

Adam's line of reasoning would also allow for this - "the Japanese, a
classic example of an omnivorous culture that eats whale meat and has a diet
high in sodium, are long-lived." Adam, I don't think you want to go there.
But don't worry, you don't need to.

The point is, our history/biology is not the sole (or even primary) basis
for moral or ethical decisions. Just because hunting was an important part
of many human cultures thousands of years ago (look no further than Les
Paintings Du Caves in La France), doesn't mean it is an unassailable
activity today. Even if we were "designed" to be strict herbivores, it
wouldn't follow that we should never take up carnivory. 

The important thing is that humans can make, and act upon, reasoned
decisions.

That vile, vivisectioning villain Descartes was a bad man indeed. But he did
recognize that humans seemed to have a greater "freedom of choice" in
certain matters than did animals. Indeed, most of us would recognize that
the majority of other animal species act instinctively rather than with
deliberation. Of course the results of Jim's Yancey-bait is proof positive
that humans can also react instinctively.

Alas, the reaction to my wildlife immunocontraception (WI) bait wasn't
nearly as Pavlovian. I'm curious why not?  

Many recent arguments against hunting stated here have focused on the
following:

-it is not natural
-its denial of fundamental rights to animals
-it is not necessary
-it kills animals

Many of you who were so quick to assign these problems to hunting, ignored
doing the same with WI. WI fer sure ain't natural, it certainly denies an
important animal right (at least according to Singer), certainly is not
necessary (again, Singer), and the use of PZP requires the death of pigs.

So are those people who responded to Jim's bell-ringing afraid to question
the actions of others in "their" camp (i.e. HSUS, Fund for Animals, and
supporters)? Circling the wagons is most certainly NOT the way to answer
ethical questions. 

Jamey's apparently innocent question whether I hunt seemed a ploy to
determine in which camp I stood, and whether or not she could dismiss my WI
questions out of hand. I wiggled out of that little trap by referring to my
reading of an AR sacred text (Singer's). Voila, my bible thumping (as
opposed to the quality of my questions) received instant respect. So maybe I
would have received better input if I had initially covered myself in the
sanctity of the AR robe, instead of my honest barbarian rags.

So don't be frightened if you are an AR supporter who disagrees with HSUS
and Fund for Animals on WI, speak out. You'll be in good company with
Singer, Francione and others.    

Jamey did come up with a VERY utilitarian approach to WI. While I disagree
with much of her argument, she was the only person to dig into WI (Jim and
Stephen don't count, 'cuz they're hunters!) and come up with her position
and a defense for it. 

Ray, kinda sorta, touched the issue.

Ray on WI, "I'm not clear on what I think re wildlife and W.I." then
launches into a discussion and support of feral cat and dog neutering. From
this line of argument, Ray concludes "Imho.  W.I. may be a first step in
some form of rectifying our own mistakes?" Ray ultimately comes to a
position on WI by equating feral (non-native/uncontrolled/domesticated)
animals with native wild animals. I think this is a fair representation of
the common AR perspective on WI. An animal is an animal is an animal. Each
is of equal worth and consideration. Amory would approve.

However, almost every well-regarded environmental thinker would not.  

Thoreau valued wildness (not "wilderness" as a recent poster misquoted). The
value of wild was greater than that of the domestic in his world. Leopold,
father of the Land Ethic, would never consider domestic animals as
equivalent to wild native animals. Neither would Olaus Murie, or Muir, or
Abbey. 

By neutering a feral dog or cat, we are merely reaffirming what we already
know, we are re-domesticated the domesticated. Shooting up wildlife with
contraceptives is different, we are increasing the domesticity of the world
and chipping away at the wild. The AR camp is indifferent and uncaring to
this distinction. 

The environmental camp is defined by the distinction. 

An environmental sensitivity goes hand in hand with an ecological
understanding, a love and appreciation of natural systems and of the wild.
The use of WI specifically, and AR in general, is anathema to
environmentalism. 

Here's a Jim-style closing argument: The support of WI by some animal rights
proponents is nothing more than an attempt to gain a veneer of
respectability within the environmental movement. At it's core though, WI is
both anti-environmental and anti-animal rights. 

A better irony for the AR movement is unlikely to be found.

-Josh

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	VeggieBiggs [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent:	Wednesday, February 23, 2000 10:20 AM
> To:	[log in to unmask]
> Subject:	Re: [RE: [Re: Ethics of immunocontraception?]]
> 
> >Bissell here; Well, the idea that alley cats should be released "back
> >into
> the environment" bespeaks what Shepard and others have described as >the
> insanity of modern society about the environment. This is a case of
> >psychological seperation which allows people with good intentions to miss
> >the point altogether and do harm rather than good. It is the same
> >psychological quirk which allows the use of zoos as "conservation"
> >areas, or
> thinks that designation of parks is an acceptable alternative >to mass
> land
> conversions. 
> 
> 
> Steve, you criticize without offering a viable alternative.  You use a lot
> of
> negative terms, such as "insanity of modern society", but offer nothing
> that
> will be up for criticism yourself.  I suppose you think birth control in
> humans is "dirty" and "unnatural".  I can predict your solution to too
> many
> cats.  Would you even restrict the use of leghold traps?  I guess a cat
> would
> rather have her leg snapped in a leghold trap than be
> spayed/neutered/released.  Is compassion maudlin?
> 
> Peace for All Beings
> Jamey Lee West
> 
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1


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