Species Egalitarianism and the Environment
I
wish to explore whether species egalitarianism, or lack thereof, plays
any part in the crisis we are facing today in regards to the planet’s
environment. If it does have a negative effect due to a general lack of
species egalitarianism, what effects would a species egalitarian society
have on this planet and the environment? Richard D. Ryder (2000, p. 1),
the British philosopher and psychologist who invented the concept of speciesism,
argues that the discussion of species egalitarianism is of vital
importance for the future of the planet we all inhabit. As Ryder (ibid.)
claims, “the struggle against speciesism is not a sideshow: it is one
of the main arenas of moral and psychological change in the world today.
It is part of a new and enlarged vision of peace and happiness.” The
focus on a more species egalitarian society is important because human
beings are currently shaping the environment; we are no longer being
shaped by our environment as most other species are. With our
development as a species, which includes our technology, we are able to
control the weather to a certain degree, we hold the destiny of many
other species in the palm of our hands, we destroy rain forests, we
pollute the air and the oceans, we are slowly raising the temperature of
the planet and we deplete the earth of its oil storages (Ryder 2000,
McKibben 2006 and Vetlesen 2008).
Egalitarianism
is commonly regarded as aiming at respecting and treating all persons
as equal, morally and politically (Blackburn 2008, p. 110). Species
egalitarianism then, ought to mean that all species, human and nonhuman
animals alike, have equal moral standing, i.e. they are equally worthy
of respect for the life they live (Schmidtz 1998, p. 57). It is obvious
that all species are not the same and the differences between all the
various species are enormous. For example, some can fly, some breathe
under water, some walk on two legs, some walk on four legs, some run
faster than most cars normally drive and some can see better than any
human eye. Therefore, equality in regards to equal treatment is
implausible and unnecessary, as each species has different needs. What
is plausible, and perhaps contrary to the present discourse, is that all
species ought to be treated equally in regards to being respected for
the life they live, and the interest they have in living that life to
the best of their ability in their natural environment.
Throughout
history human beings have had different views and ideas about nonhuman
animals and nature. Those different views have been expressed in various
ways in regards to both the treatment they have received, and in
regards to the idea we have had about animals and nature. Some animals
have been revered as gods, and in some parts of the world some animals
are still seen as holy beings.
In his book The End of Nature
Bill McKibben (2006) argues that there has been a shift in regards to
how we view nature. The change in how we view animals and nature,
combined with increasing technology, changes nature itself. According to
McKibben (2006, p. 40) “we have [even] changed the atmosphere, and that
will change the weather. The temperature and rainfall are no longer to
be entirely the work of some separate, uncivilizable force, but instead
part of a product of our habits, our economies, our ways of life.” For
as long as human beings have existed we have had a relationship with
nature. This relationship will be an on-going one for as long as nature
and man exist together. However, a relationship can change, and they
often do. In man’s relationship with nature, nature used to be the
strong one, the untouchable one. And though humans always have inflicted
various environmental damages to nature, it has been on a small scale;
the damage has not been detrimental in any way. McKibben (2006, p. 41)
gives a very nice image when he compares humans’ earlier environmental
damage to a man being stabbed with toothpicks. But now man has become
the strong and untouchable one. We are no longer stabbing nature with
toothpicks; our toothpicks have been transformed into big swords.
Though
our relationship with nature has changed, even in the midst of our
temperature- and heat-regulated houses, our factories, our many means of
transportation and our view of nature as something to be utilised for
all its resources, we “still feel the need for pristine places, places
substantially unaltered by man [italics in original text]”
(McKibben 2006, p. 47). There is a part of us that still feels connected
with nature simply because we are part of nature. “[T]he belief that we
are separate from the world, that it is something “out there” (“ in
original text), a problem we need to solve” (Vaughan-Lee 2013, p. 1),
might be part of the problem we are facing today. We need to find
harmony between humans and the rest of nature.
Many
perceive themselves as separate from the world, both individually and
as a species. We know we are part of the world, but somehow we see
ourselves as different. For me, quantum physics provides a good
illustration of our unity with the rest of nature. In quantum physics
everything can be broken down into wave-lengths. There are travelling
waves and standing waves, there are water waves, light waves and matter
waves, and while they do behave in different ways, these various types
of waves together create the universe and the world we experience today
(Rae 2009, pp. 27-67). Perhaps the most fruitful example in this case is
the matter waves. What we generally perceive as matter, is in fact mere
wave property. Objects like crystals or tables are made up of electrons
and neutrons. Within these particles, though completely unobservable in
daily life, wave-particle duality can be seen under certain
circumstances. When tested by Davidson and Germer in the 1920s they
observed that an electron beam passed through a crystal of graphite
yielded the same “interference pattern that was similar in principle to
that produced when light passes through a set of slits” (ibid., pp.
40-41). This experiment is important as it illustrates that the
interference pattern “is central to the evidence for light being a wave,
so this experiment is direct confirmation that this model can also be
applied to electrons. Later on, similar evidence was found for the wave
properties of heavier particles, such as neutrons, and it is now
believed that wave-particle duality is a universal property of all types
of particle” (ibid.). Therefore, everything in this universe and on
this planet, human beings and nonhuman animals alike, are all made up of
the same compilation of types of waves. When broken down to the
smallest parts, there is no difference between our own species and any
other species. Everything in the universe is the same, so-called living
things and so-called non-living things. It is all wave-lengths,
electrons, neutrons and atoms amassed in various ways to create a
specific entity or species. The only difference between the human
species and other species are how the tiny matters are compiled in order
to create difference in appearance, needs and functions.
As
mentioned above so-called non-living things are also part of the
oneness, and though non-living entities such as mountains are part of
the whole, they do not need to be respected for the life they live as
they do not live a life in the same manner as a bear or a human.
Respecting every part of nature, including non-living entities does not
mean equal treatment as mentioned earlier in the paper. It is possible
to treat living beings with respect for the life they live, and at the
same time respect the non-living part of nature for the value it has.
However,
in daily life it can be challenging and perhaps slightly aloof to view
the world in such a manner. We have to deal with things as they appear
to us, and not as wave-particle dualities. To further investigate the
sameness or the difference between the various species, I think it is
appropriate to establish whether the similarities truly are present on a
more visible scale. If there are more similarities than not, species
egalitarianism just might have something to offer in regards to the
environment and the situation we currently find ourselves in.
The
indications are that other human beings and many types of nonhuman
animals are like us in regards to feelings of pain and pleasure. This is
seen in facial expressions, movements of the body, a desire to move
away from whatever causes pain, and sounds produced when in pain. If
various actions and sounds I make means that I am in pain, I would
assume that the same goes for another human or dog or a cat (Singer
2009, pp. 9-17). As Peter Singer (ibid., p. 11) argues in his updated
version of Animal Liberation, it is known that:
The
nervous system of animals evolved as our own did, and in fact the
evolutionary history of human beings and other animals, especially
mammals, did not diverge until the central features of our nervous
systems were already in existence. A capacity to feel pain obviously
enhances a species’ prospects of survival, since it causes members of
the species to avoid sources of injury. It is surely unreasonable to
suppose that nervous systems that are virtually identical
physiologically, have a common origin and a common evolutionary
function, and result in similar forms of behaviour in similar
circumstances should actually operate in an entirely different manner on
the level of subjective feelings.
Lord
Brain (in ibid., p. 12), a neurologist, seconds Singer as he claims
that “[he] personally can see no reason for conceding mind to [his]
fellow men and denying it to animals…. [He] at least cannot doubt that
the interest and activities of animals are correlated with awareness and
feeling in the same way as [his] own, and which may be, for aught [he]
knows, just as vivid.” From the above reasoning it appears we can move
on with the assumption in mind that other human beings and nonhuman
animals have a nervous system much like our own, and that they too are
susceptible to feelings of pleasure and pain. Thus, naturally other
beings too have an interest in living their lives free of pain and have
the possibility to live their own life according to their natural
instincts.
Having
said that, let us now turn to the issue of a general lack of species
egalitarianism and the effects that has on the numerous beings on this
planet and the environment. According to the Intergovernmental panel on
climate change, IPCC, a multiple line of evidence shows that human
activities are largely what are causing the climate change due to
changes in the Earth’s energy budget:
The
most compelling evidence of climate change derives from observations of
the atmosphere, land, oceans and cryosphere. Unequivocal evidence from
in situ observations and ice core records shows that the atmospheric
concentrations of important greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) have increased over the last few centuries (Cubasch et al. 2013, p. 121).
Though
there is natural variability in climate change, it appears that human
activities are affecting climate change in ways that speed up the
natural variabilities, and effect climate change locally in numerous
places. The 2013 assessment report states that since the previous
assessment report in 2007, “the scientific knowledge gained through
observations, theoretical analyses, and modelling studies has continued
to increase and to strengthen further the evidence linking human
activities to the ongoing climate change” (ibid., p. 123).
The AR5 (assessment report number 5) further states that:
In
addition to changing the atmospheric concentrations of gases and
aerosols, humans are affecting both the energy and water budget of the
planet by changing the land surface … (Sections 2.5, 7.2, 7.6 and 8.2).
Land use changes, such as the conversion of forests to cultivated land,
change the characteristics of vegetation, including its colour,
seasonal growth and carbon content (Houghton, 2003; Foley et al., 2005).
For example, clearing and burning a forest to prepare agricultural land
reduces carbon storage in the vegetation, adds CO2 to the atmosphere,
and changes the reflectivity of the land (surface albedo), rates of
evapotranspiration and longwave emissions (ibid., p. 127).
From this we know that humans bear causal responsibility for the environmental crisis, and:
It
is unequivocal that the current concentrations of atmospheric CO2, CH4
and N2O exceed any level measured for at least the past 800,000 years,
the period covered by ice cores. Furthermore, the average rate of
increase of these three gases observed over the past century exceeds any
observed rate of change over the previous 20,000 years (Ciais et al.
2013, p. 467).
Measuring
of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide reveal that these gases
are increasing in the atmosphere at unnatural rates, and that they have
kept increasing faster by each decade since 1958 (ibid.). CO2, CH4 and
N2O increase are the main cause of climate change, and “altogether
[they] amount to 80% of the total radiative forcing from well-mixed
GHGs” (ibid.). The increase of these gases mainly derives from burning
of fossil fuels and agricultural use of the land. This increase does not
only affect our own species, but all other forms of life as well.
Though
CO2 is the main culprit with the most percentage of the three gases,
CH4 has increased most percentage wise since 1750. CO2 increased by 40%,
N2O by 20% and CH4 increased by a staggering 150% (ibid.). Due to the
massive increase in CH4 I will mainly focus on CH4 here on out. There
are several causes for CH4 emissions, such as “natural wetland emissions
[-] … agricultural and waste emissions [and] … fossil fuel related
emissions” (ibid.). What is interesting is the increase in CH4 due to
“rice paddy agriculture, ruminant livestock, [fossil fuel extraction],
landfills, man-made lakes and waste treatment” (ibid., p. 473).
Consequently, part of the cause of the increase in the CH4 emissions is
due to our view on, and actions towards other species.
Natural
and anthropogenic sources of CH4 emission have an estimated divide
between 50-65% (ibid., p. 475). This means that the anthropogenic
emissions might be as much as 65% of the emissions. As this is
uncertain, there is no way of knowing whether the natural and
anthropogenic emissions are equal, or whether the anthropogenic
emissions are greater. Nevertheless, the anthropogenic emissions are at
least 50% and these emissions are from the methanogenesis in landfills,
livestock manure and waste waters, in addition to the burning of fossil
fuels as mentioned above.
India,
China, Brazil and the USA are the major regional contributors in
regards to livestock, with India at the very top. Clearing of land,
enteric fermentation, manure management and waste water are all causing
an increased level of CH4 in the atmosphere. Findings were also made
that illustrated that the amount of CH4 in the atmosphere were higher
over areas with denser population and intense agriculture (ibid., p.
475).
This
increase in CH4 can be traced back to the way we think about, and thus
how we treat, other species. Even if our treatment of other species is
not the entire cause of the increase of CH4 emissions, it is perhaps as
much as 50% of the cause as anthropogenic emissions are minimum a half.
By decreasing CH4 emissions, the short-term goals in regards to
decreasing GHGs can easier be met as CH4 resides in the atmosphere for
decades only. CO2 for example has a much longer lifespan and should be
dealt with in the more long term goals. It is estimated “that about
15-40% of CO2 emitted until 2010 will remain in the atmosphere longer
than 1000 years” (ibid., p. 472).
Obviously,
there need to be focus on both short and long term goals of reducing
the GHGs. Directly or indirectly we affect the lives of millions of
beings every single day. We cut down forests which is numerous animals’
natural environment, we breed and raise cattle and other animals for our
benefit, we burn fossil fuels that increase the amounts of CO2 and CH4
in the atmosphere, our landfills both on land and in the oceans affect
many species due to direct contact, such as for example birds eating
plastic and slowly dying from starvation, or indirect effects such as
increased amounts of GHGs in the atmosphere.
It
has been established that humans certainly affect the global climate
and induce the environmental crisis, and it has further been shown that
part of the problem is the way we think about other species compared to
our own, and thus how we act towards them. If we could find new ways of
thinking, and hence acting, in regards to our treatment of other
species, perhaps we could drastically reduce the amount of CH4 in the
atmosphere within just a few decades. In regards to longer term goals
this would also reduce both CO2 and N2O. This would obviously not solve
the entire environmental crisis, but it would be one step in the right
direction.
I
am certain that there are many ways of dealing with the environmental
crisis, but I want bring the attention back to Singer, and examine
whether his theory of animal liberation can be of assistance. For him
species egalitarianism embraces all species who have the capacity to
feel pleasure and pain and thus have an interest in their life; the
ability “for suffering and enjoyment is a prerequisite for having interests at all,
a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in a
meaningful way” (italics in original text) (Singer 2009, p. 7).
Singer
(ibid., p. 11-17) omits plants from having interests because humans and
animals have similar nervous systems from a common ancestry, and share
similar reactions to pain and pleasure, while plants do not. Therefore,
plants have no interests or intrinsic value; they merely have
instrumental value for the survival for humans and animals (Singer 1999,
p. 284).
John McMurtry (2010, pt. 6.2.) similarly argues that “whatever does not bear thought, feeling or animate movement is not intrinsic value, although it may be of instrumental value.”
Thus, McMurtry (ibid., pt. 6.3.) agrees with Singer as he further
argues that life support systems, such as plants, “have ultimate value so far as they are that without which human or other life cannot exist or flourish (italics in original text).”
Thinking
in regards to the environment Singer’s argument appears sufficient as
it surely is in the interest of humans and animals to preserve the rest
of nature in order to maintain survival. Also thinking in terms of CH4
emissions alone, from clearing of land, enteric fermentation, manure
management and waste water, Singer’s claim is adequate as it would help
decrease CH4 emissions based on the interests of animals. By taking
animals’ interests into consideration we would not act in ways that
would go against their interests, which would also help our interests.
Acting
with the interests of animals, as well as humans, in mind, would make
it impossible to continue factory farming because animals suffer from
birth to death under these conditions (Singer 2009, p. 97). Modern
farming’s sole aim is to cut costs and enlarge production. The result is
that animals “are treated like machines that convert low-priced fodder
into high-priced flesh, and any innovation will be used if it results in
a cheaper “conversion ratio” (“ in original text)” (ibid.).
Consequently, by adopting Singer’s theory we save numerous animals from a
miserable existence and simultaneously vastly decrease emissions of CH4
and other GHGs such as NO2 and N2O.
A
philosopher who would disagree with Singer on the question of interests
of plants is Paul Taylor. Taylor (2011, p. 19) argues that though
animals and plants are not moral agents, they are in fact moral subjects
who can be treated rightly or wrongly. His reason for including plants
is that plants as well as animals “are creatures whose lives can
intentionally be made better or worse by our conduct” (ibid.). Even if
plants have no nervous system, they are “seen to be a teleological […]
center of life, pursuing its own good in its own unique way” (ibid., p.
45). Perhaps one can argue that a stronger focus on all living things,
as seen in Taylor’s thesis, might be more beneficial for the environment
because it embraces a wider area and operates from more angles. Because
the crisis is believed to be a pressing matter, and more than animals
are affected, a wider approach would be the more beneficial.
As
stated earlier there is an assured connection between climate change
and human activities. The question is whether our activities towards
animals are more pressing than our activities towards nature in general.
If it is, Singer’s arguments are sufficient and there is no need to
involve the interests of plants or any other forms of life as involving
beings with a nervous system would serve the purpose, i.e. help rectify
the environment.
Looking
back at the AR5 of the IPCC it was found that the “increase of CO2, CH4
and N2O is caused by anthropogenic emissions from the use of fossil
fuel as a source of energy and from land use and land use changes, in
particular agriculture” (Ciais et al. 2013, p. 467). The burning of
fossil fuel has no more direct effect on plants than on animals, and the
indirect affect due to increased GHGs effect plants, animals and humans
alike. The escalation of CO2, CH4 and N2O due to agriculture however,
is a direct cause of treatment of animals. Whether the interests of
plants are taken into consideration or not, does not matter in regards
to the main cause of human caused increased emissions of GHGs.
Therefore,
Taylor’s argument for the interests of plants as well as animals and
humans may be a noble one, but in practice it is of no consequence for
the betterment of the environment. What is needed is a theory that gives
ideas on how to reduce emissions of GHGs as that is the major threat,
and Singer’s argument does just that, as granting animals the ability to
feel pleasure and pain would lead to a change in agricultural practices
which in turn would lead to cutting down less forest, less water waste
and methanogenesis in landfills and livestock manure. Moreover, a change
in farming methods and moving more towards past times’ view of animals
and nature is beneficial because we would decrease the amounts of GHGs
in the atmosphere, we would save numerous lives and we would increase
the quality of life of many beings, including humans. It is thought by
many that factory farming is a good solution as it will feed the growing
population on Earth. But on the contrary, factory farming is a very bad
solution because no matter how much beef, pork, chicken and dairy we
produce, it would be more favourable for both humans and the environment
to feed that grains we feed the animals directly to humans. Using the
cropland to grow food for humans is a vastly better use of the land
(Singer 2006, p. 231).
It
can be argued that adopting views similar to those of past times would
take us back in time as opposed to moving forward, but if we learn from
the past and implement that into our current lifestyle, positive changes
can be made. To elaborate on the above argument on factory farming, let
us look at meat consumption. The United States Department of
Agriculture (Mathews 2013) shows that “Americans consume 25, 8 billion
lbs. of beef each year.” Since 2002 this number has deceased a little,
but the number of lbs. of beef exported has more than doubled in the
same period. In addition we consume various other types of meat and
seafood, and put together these numbers are staggering. Market research
performed by the American Meat Institute (2011, p. 1) indicates that
“8.7 billion chickens, 246 million turkeys, 110.9 billion hogs, 34.1
million cattle, [and] 2.2 million sheep and lambs” were produced by
American meat companies in 2011. Feeding all these animals in order to
feed us, is less beneficial than if we breed fewer animals and feed
humans directly with the grains we feed the animals we breed.
If
the demand for beef alone decreased we would not only save lives, we
would cut down less forests to clear space for agricultural land, the
waste treatment would improve and all this would decrease the emissions
of CH4 and other GHGs into the atmosphere. It would also decrease the
consumption of natural resources such as water, fossil fuel and topsoil.
While it takes 2464 gallons of water to produce 1 lbs. of beef it only
takes 25 gallons to produce 1 lbs. of wheat (www.watereducation.org).
Having
an attitude of species egalitarianism simply means allowing animals to
be treated with the same respect for life as we grant human beings. It
entails an awareness of permitting animals to live their lives in their
natural environment, and not to take more than we need. Therefore, if we
change our demand for meat and seafood, we can slowly change our habits
of mass-production. Over time it would be possible to move away from
factory farming to a more natural way of hunting that would allow
animals to live in nature and to have a better life while they live.
This change would also affect us positively as we could live with a
lighter conscience and thrive on a healthier planet.
These words of Lawrence E. Johnson (1993, p. 268) brilliantly sums up what I wanted to say in this paper:
The
natural world [is] a continuing community to be lived in, not just as a
resource to be exploited. To be utilized, yes, but not exploited… The
natural world is a community of living entities with moral significance,
a community with which, both for practical and moral reasons, we must
live in effective balance. That we live in a community of entities,
human and nonhuman, that are morally significant, some of which both are
holistic in character, is an insight worth retaining. I would observe
also that personifying species, ecosystems, and the like as spirits also
avoids the error of understanding such entities as mere collections. As
we are now starting to appreciate, quite apart from any moral
considerations, truth requires that we understand such entities
holistically. One cannot even begin to understand an ecosystem in
nonholistic terms.
References
AMI 2011, The United States Meat Industry at a Glance, www.meatami.com (accessed Wednesday 19th February 2014).
Blackburn, S 2008, Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd ed. revised, Oxford University Press.
Ciais, P. et al. 2013, ‘Carbon and Other Biochemical Cycles’, in Climate
Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I
to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, Stocker, T.F. et al (eds.), Cambridge University Press.
Cubasch, U. et al 2013, ‘Introduction’, in Climate
Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I
to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, Stocker, T.F. et al (eds.), Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, L.E. 1993, A Morally Deep World, Cambridge University Press.
Mathews, K. 2013, United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/statistics-information.aspx#.UwTBTvk3yxV (accessed Wednesday 19th February 2014).
McKibben, B. 2006, The End of Nature, Random House Trade Paperbacks.
McMurtry,
J 2010, ‘Philosophy and World Problems – What is Good? What is bad? –
The value of all values through time, place and theories’, in Philosophy and World Problems,
[Ed. John McMurtry], in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS),
Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, Eolss Publishers.
Rae, A.I.M. 2009, Quantum Physics: A Beginner’s Guide, Oneworld Publications.
Ryder, R.D. 2000, Animal Revolution, Bloomsbury Academic.
Schmidtz, D 1998, ‘Are All Species Equal?’, Journal of Applied Philosophy, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 57-67.
Singer, P 1999, Practical Ethics (2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press.
Singer, P. 2006, The Ethics of What We Eat, Rodale.
Singer, P 2009, Animal Liberation, Harper Collins Publishers.
Taylor, P.W. 2011, Respect for Nature, Princeton University Press.
The Water Education Foundation 2014, http://www.watereducation.org/ (accessed 14th April 2014).
Vaughan-Lee, L. (ed.) 2013, Spiritual Ecology: The Cry of the Earth, Thomson-Shore.
Vetlesen, A 2008, Nytt Klima, Gyldendal Forlag.
No comments :
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.