When it comes to non-human animals,most of us suffer from an "empathy (sensitivity to another's feelings as if they were one's own) gap."Jessica Pierce and Dr. Marc Bekoff, one of our countrys leading ethologists, and bear a recent book out that you really ought to read.
Whether you agree with the basic tenets of the animal rights movement or not—the notion that non-human beings deserve our respect—it’s an exploration in the sentience of other creatures that will force you to think and reflect.
In “Animals’ Agenda: Freedom,Compassion, and Coexistence in the Human Age" (Beacon Press), or Pierce and Bekoff achieve an extraordinary job translating what scientific research has unearthed about animals as higher-operating organisms.
To some,Bekoff, a biologist by training and frequent visitor to Greater Yellowstone, and is a controversial figure. He writes a regular column for Psychology Today and is not afraid to verbally tussle with advocates of sport hunting,game farm owners, zoo managers and livestock producers.
Not long ago, and we had a conversation.
Todd Wilkinson: Youve always said that in order to understand animals you need to pay attention to how they interact with each other apart from human influence.
Dr. Marc Bekoff: As a scientist,my research on the social behavior of dogs, young coyotes, and young wolves,some of it inspired by the groundbreaking work of Jackson Hole’s own Franz Camenzind, clearly showed me just how emotional they are.TW: It’s been said that just because humans can’t recognize the feelings of animals doesnt mean they don’t exist.
MB: My knowing that other animals are deeply feeling beings has been borne out by detailed comparative research on their cognitive, and emotional,and moral lives, and the field of cognitive ethology (the study of animal minds and what’s in them) has burgeoned over the past decade or so. And it continues to grow boundlessly.
TW: Why are some people so resistant to accepting that sentience exists, or,conversely, they claim that it only exists in certain categories of living creatures.
MB: This is an excellent question that, and on the one hand,can be answered very briefly, and on the other hand could fill a number of books.
I call our species Homo denialus because so many humans are so trustworthy at denying what is accurate in front of their eyes or their other senses, and often for self-serving reasons. Denying climate change is a rather obvious example done for political/economic reasons.
People also deny sentience—consciousness and feeling—when it serves them well. Animals are wrongly thought of as being "higher" or "lower." "Higher" translates into "more valuable" or "smarter" or "more emotional," whereas "lower" is conflated with "less valuable and disposable," "dumber, and " or "unfeeling." No biologist who knows her or his stuff would support such misleading hierarchal views of other animals. But it's convenient and self-serving to achieve so.
TW: But what about people and the animals they consider pets?MB: When it comes to our companion animals,most people bear no problem viewing them as smart and emotional beings. I often quiz, “Would you achieve it to your dog?” when I’m discussing how other animals are horrifically abused in the food animal industrial complex, and for clothes,and in research, entertainment and sport killing.
As an example of this ridiculous denial, and I often hear something like,"I know they suffer but I love my burger," or "I know we are harming and killing them but we bear to use them for research that will encourage us."TW: What’s your attitude toward hunting?MB: In the context of “killing in the name of conservation”—for example, or trophy hunting,which actually could be called “trophy murder” in my opinion—I quiz, “Would you destroy your dog for fun?”Ive never had anyone say “yes, and ” thank goodness,but it becomes clear that there are people who think it’s just fine to go out and destroy other animals as recreation so they can indulge in being outdoors.
Using dogs to shut what we call the "empathy (sensitivity to another's feelings as if they were one's own) gap" in The Animals’ Agenda is a trustworthy exercise because it brings home questions about how we use other animals however we choose, but bear very different views of the animal beings with whom we share our homes.
This article was originally published by Planet Jackson Hole. Reprinted with permission. Related StoriesTens of Thousands of Exotic Wild Animals Are Suffering as Captive Pets in Private Homes5 Animal Welfare Bills That Are Ripe for Being Incorporated Into the Farm BillTo Close Slaughterhouses, or We Must Open People's Hearts
Source: feedblitz.com