Is it a matter of perception?

Oxford philosopher Jonathan Glover came up with this vegetarian allegory. It was published in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society in 1975. Here’s Peter Singer’s reiteration, as published in his essay A Vegetarian Philosophy.

“In a village, 100 people are about to eat lunch. Each has a bowl containing 100 beans. Suddenly, 100 hungry bandits swoop down on the village. Each bandit takes the contents of the bowl of one villager, eats it, and gallops off. Next week, the bandits plan to do it again, but one of their number is afflicted by doubts about whether it is right to steal from the poor. These doubts are set to rest by another of their number who proposes that each bandit, instead of eating the entire contents of the bowl of one villager, should take one bean from every villager’s bowl. Since the loss of one bean cannot make a perceptible difference to any villager, no bandit will have harmed anyone. The bandits follow this plan, each taking a solitary bean from 100 bowls. The villagers are just as hungry as they were the previous week, but the bandits can all sleep well on their full stomachs, knowing that none of them has harmed anyone.”

“We are each responsible for a share of the harms we collectively cause, even if each of us makes no perceptible difference.” - Peter Singer, A Vegetarian Philosophy

Vegan stripclub: good or bad?

There was an article in the NY Times today on a vegan stripclub.

Here again we see feminists and vegetarians, perhaps both misguided, butting heads.

I wrote a piece on feminist vegetarianism for The Sin City Siren a while back, illustrating my thoughts on the matter.

But I recognize that it’s deeper than freeing animals and freeing women - and I’m going to have to say that I am for a vegan stripclub. Women don’t have to work in them, and may in fact feel better about themselves after having done so; more people hear the veg message, and that’s always a good thing.

We’re in this in between zone as a society - between complete women’s liberation and coming around the bend about animal liberation. I can see a vegan stripclub existing in this world. Maybe it wouldn’t have made since 100 years ago or it won’t make sense 100 years from now, but I see how it makes sense now.

Nader: Animal advocate?

Ralph Nader, independent presidential candidate, made some thought provoking statements to Grist.org, when asked by interviewer Amanda Griscom Little what animal George W. Bush would be. His response:

“I wouldn’t demean any animal species that way. It’s easy to say coyote, but that’s a stereotype of animals. What carnivore has ever, as a species, done what Bush has done to the Iraqis?”

There are two impressive things about this statement:

Nader obviously realizes that we actually *can* demean animals through our speech, and that it’s not the other way around (as in, referring to serial killers as ‘animals’).

Second, do I smell the hint of vegetarianism in that last part? Most people don’t give much thought to their odd placement on the food chain - that we humans are not ‘carnivores,’ first of all, and don’t even need to be omnivores. Most people don’t, for example, think about how what we do in factory farms is not ‘natural’ and that we’re not doing the environment, and therefore ourselves, any favors by manufacturing farmed animals.

Even if Nader wouldn’t agree with the above paragraph, he at least is aware that carnivores in the wild are still more peaceful than humans in civilization.

The rest of the Grist interview, with the unsnarky title of Nader on the Record, is all about pollution tax this and solar energy that.

JSYK, this is not an endorsement of Ralph Nader for Prez.

A word on hunting.

In West Virginia, lawmakers are looking to increase hunting (and therefore state conservation funding through licensing) by adding hunting education classes in schools.

From the NY Times article on the proposal:

“For us, guns and hunting was a way of life,” said Mr. Helms, the manager of Marstiller’s Gun Shop in West Virginia. “A lot of places seem to be losing that, and we need to bring it back.”

Really? Do we ‘need’ to bring it back?

Traditions are great. Tradition bonds older generations with younger generations, giving the human race a sense of continuity, stability – and there’s comfort in that.

But there comes a point when certain traditions fall to the wayside, for good reason. The human race is constantly evolving, and newer generations find better ways of doing things.

All the good points to hunting, such as feeling like you’re part of nature and getting exercise and learning patience, are points that can be made by practicing other sports and outdoor activities.

“In my day, you went looking for the animal — that was the whole point,” he said, adding that what makes hunting fulfilling is the exercise involved, discovering hidden trails and seeing sunrises, bobcats and bears while conducting the search. “The actual killing, that’s secondary.”

Why not take the killing out altogether then? Why not shoot the animal – with a camera?

The article lists as negatives effects of the hunting decline in West Virginia the decline in the state’s revenue and the increased number of deer-related automobile accidents.

Here’s the thing though: it’s simple supply-and-demand economics that says that if people aren’t hunting anymore, then maybe states should get conservation money elsewhere.

And secondly, it doesn’t make any sense to kill an animal because that animal might cause an automobile accident. Is that logical to anyone’s mind? It really doesn’t make sense to me. How is it that humans have become so far removed from nature and our part in it that we list deer as a hindrance to our modern, fast-paced, car-obsessed lives?

This man vs. nature nonsense has got to go. Man is part of nature, and the sooner we adjust to this simple truism the better off we’ll all be.