17 September 2004
Dorothy L. Cheney and Robert M. Seyfarth on Monkey Cognition
We have argued that in order to succeed socially monkeys must be able to predict the behavior of others. To do this well they cannot rely on memorizing single interactions but must instead deal in abstractions, comparing the relationships that exist among others. For humans, the quest to predict behavior prompts us to search still further, for the factors that cause some relations to be different from others. A monkey that can compare social relationships is better able to predict the behavior of others than one who simply memorizes all the interactions he has observed. Vastly more powerful abilities to interpret other animals’ behavior accrue to the individual who can attribute motives to others and classify relationships on the basis of these motives. . . .
There are hints that nonhuman primates might occasionally attribute motives to one another. . . . Most examples, however, are anecdotal, and they are largely restricted to chimpanzees. Whether monkeys ever attribute states of mind to each other and whether they recognize that different states of mind are the cause of different social relationships, is an open question. In most cases, it is as easy to explain the behavior of monkeys in terms of learned behavioral contingencies as in terms of the attribution of mental states. . . . We have good evidence that monkeys are adept at understanding each others’ [sic] behavior and relationships; what remains to be determined is whether they are also adept at understanding each others’ [sic] minds.
(Dorothy L. Cheney and Robert M. Seyfarth, “The Representation of Social Relations by Monkeys,” chap. 7 in Animal Cognition, ed. C. R. Gallistel [Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1992], 167-96, at 191-2 [italics in original; parenthetical citations omitted] [essay first published in 1990])
There are hints that nonhuman primates might occasionally attribute motives to one another. . . . Most examples, however, are anecdotal, and they are largely restricted to chimpanzees. Whether monkeys ever attribute states of mind to each other and whether they recognize that different states of mind are the cause of different social relationships, is an open question. In most cases, it is as easy to explain the behavior of monkeys in terms of learned behavioral contingencies as in terms of the attribution of mental states. . . . We have good evidence that monkeys are adept at understanding each others’ [sic] behavior and relationships; what remains to be determined is whether they are also adept at understanding each others’ [sic] minds.
(Dorothy L. Cheney and Robert M. Seyfarth, “The Representation of Social Relations by Monkeys,” chap. 7 in Animal Cognition, ed. C. R. Gallistel [Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1992], 167-96, at 191-2 [italics in original; parenthetical citations omitted] [essay first published in 1990])
16 September 2004
Soy Milk
If you're consuming dairy products (milk, cheese, ice cream, butter, yogurt), you're contributing to an institution that inflicts terrible pain and suffering on cows. See here and here. There is no need to do this and hence no moral justification for it. Soy products such as soy milk are every bit as good as cow's milk, if not better, and they're widely available. Look for them in your grocery store. Here is the White Wave site. I haven't tried all of its Silk products, but the chocolate milk tastes exactly the same as the chocolate milk from cows that I grew up drinking.
Please don't dismiss this as propaganda. I know you're a caring person who would never cause gratuitous pain; but if you're consuming dairy products, that's what you're doing. Make sound moral choices. Make a moral statement with your dollars. You'll feel better; I guarantee it.
By the way, even if you don't care about animals, you have reason to switch to soy milk. I assume you care about your health—and that of your children. See here.
Please don't dismiss this as propaganda. I know you're a caring person who would never cause gratuitous pain; but if you're consuming dairy products, that's what you're doing. Make sound moral choices. Make a moral statement with your dollars. You'll feel better; I guarantee it.
By the way, even if you don't care about animals, you have reason to switch to soy milk. I assume you care about your health—and that of your children. See here.
14 September 2004
From Today's New York Times
To the Editor:
While there is a genetic predisposition to developing coronary heart disease, the primary determinants for most people are diet and lifestyle. A diet high in fruits, vegetables, whole grains and legumes and low in fat and refined carbohydrates, along with quitting smoking, moderate exercise and stress management, can reverse heart disease in most people. Improvements may occur much more quickly than had previously been realized.
People have a spectrum of choices. Those who have a family history of heart disease may need to make bigger changes based on their genetic predisposition, but most people can prevent a heart attack if they are willing to make sufficient changes in diet and lifestyle and, when appropriate, take medications.
This is not to blame but to empower. Understanding what a powerful difference these changes can make gives many people new hope and new choices.
Dean Ornish, M.D.
Sausalito, Calif., Sept. 12, 2004
The writer is president of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute and clinical professor of medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
While there is a genetic predisposition to developing coronary heart disease, the primary determinants for most people are diet and lifestyle. A diet high in fruits, vegetables, whole grains and legumes and low in fat and refined carbohydrates, along with quitting smoking, moderate exercise and stress management, can reverse heart disease in most people. Improvements may occur much more quickly than had previously been realized.
People have a spectrum of choices. Those who have a family history of heart disease may need to make bigger changes based on their genetic predisposition, but most people can prevent a heart attack if they are willing to make sufficient changes in diet and lifestyle and, when appropriate, take medications.
This is not to blame but to empower. Understanding what a powerful difference these changes can make gives many people new hope and new choices.
Dean Ornish, M.D.
Sausalito, Calif., Sept. 12, 2004
The writer is president of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute and clinical professor of medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
10 September 2004
09 September 2004
08 September 2004
From Today's New York Times
To the Editor:
Re "In Some Biology Classes, Dissection Is Optional" (news article, Sept. 6):
State laws that provide alternatives to animal dissection in school illustrate the progress, however slow, of questioning cruelty to animals.
Twenty years ago, a student took a failing grade if he refused to dissect an animal on the grounds that it contributed to the animal's death. Now students have compassionate options—or at least are more likely to consider the consequences of animal dissection.
I knew that evolution hadn't stopped!
Barbara DiNicola
Jackson Heights, Queens
Sept. 7, 2004
Re "In Some Biology Classes, Dissection Is Optional" (news article, Sept. 6):
State laws that provide alternatives to animal dissection in school illustrate the progress, however slow, of questioning cruelty to animals.
Twenty years ago, a student took a failing grade if he refused to dissect an animal on the grounds that it contributed to the animal's death. Now students have compassionate options—or at least are more likely to consider the consequences of animal dissection.
I knew that evolution hadn't stopped!
Barbara DiNicola
Jackson Heights, Queens
Sept. 7, 2004
Twenty Years Ago
Department of Philosophy
[Monash University]
[Clayton, Victoria, Australia, 3168]
4th September, 1984
Mr. Keith Burgess-Jackson,
7424 East Speedway Boulevard,
Apartment G-126,
Tucson,
Arizona,
United States of America 85710.
Dear Mr. Burgess-Jackson,
Thank you for your letter. It is always good to hear from people who have been persuaded to do something about our exploitation of animals. This shows that, contrary to some cynical views, rational argument can be persuasive, even to the extent of leading people to change their diet.
I hope we do get a chance to meet one day. In the meantime, you might like to say ‘hello’ to someone I met in Boulder who shares many of our views about animals and other ethical issues. Her name is Lori Gruen and she is now also doing philosophy in Tucson.
Best wishes.
Peter Singer
[Monash University]
[Clayton, Victoria, Australia, 3168]
4th September, 1984
Mr. Keith Burgess-Jackson,
7424 East Speedway Boulevard,
Apartment G-126,
Tucson,
Arizona,
United States of America 85710.
Dear Mr. Burgess-Jackson,
Thank you for your letter. It is always good to hear from people who have been persuaded to do something about our exploitation of animals. This shows that, contrary to some cynical views, rational argument can be persuasive, even to the extent of leading people to change their diet.
I hope we do get a chance to meet one day. In the meantime, you might like to say ‘hello’ to someone I met in Boulder who shares many of our views about animals and other ethical issues. Her name is Lori Gruen and she is now also doing philosophy in Tucson.
Best wishes.
Peter Singer
07 September 2004
From the Mailbag
Dear Keith,
I am the knucklehead who wrote to you previously because I didn't know that desert (as in "just deserts") was spelled with one 's'. Your reply to me was most generous and gentlemanly. I loved your subsequent post about the man who was deserted in the desert and therefore his wife would have no dessert. Which was her just desert. If I was a vain person, I would have thought that your post was directed specifically at me.
For intellectual stimulation, your web site and The Belmont Club and sadly in the past tense USS Clueless are my first choices. I recall your writing some time back about how your web site is your site. You write for yourself and if I, the reader, am offended by your writing, then I should go somewhere else. You gave the example of Andrew Sullivan and his focus on gay rights. Another example from my perspective was Jeff Jarvis's focus on Howard Stern and the First Amendment. I don't visit either of those sites anymore.
Your ethical treatment of animal writings does not dissuade me from reading your blog. I am not a vegetarian but your writings on this topic stimulate me to think. I bought my first Airedale when I was twenty years old. I am now the proud owner of my fifth Airedale. I love him almost as much as my children and will be heartbroken when he dies. I cannot imagine that some people in this world eat dogs. For Christ's sake, what is wrong with them?
But (oops, started a sentence with a but), this is a special time of year for me. I live on a small city lot, but I still crowd in a small garden. The spinach and the strawberries have been eaten. The eggplant, tomatoes, string beans, corn and peppers are just now being harvested. The pears and peaches are ripe. My wife is drying the plums. The acorn squash and the fingerling potatoes will be ready in a couple of weeks. During this time of year I am almost a vegetarian and I love it.
Best Regards,
John Andrews
I am the knucklehead who wrote to you previously because I didn't know that desert (as in "just deserts") was spelled with one 's'. Your reply to me was most generous and gentlemanly. I loved your subsequent post about the man who was deserted in the desert and therefore his wife would have no dessert. Which was her just desert. If I was a vain person, I would have thought that your post was directed specifically at me.
For intellectual stimulation, your web site and The Belmont Club and sadly in the past tense USS Clueless are my first choices. I recall your writing some time back about how your web site is your site. You write for yourself and if I, the reader, am offended by your writing, then I should go somewhere else. You gave the example of Andrew Sullivan and his focus on gay rights. Another example from my perspective was Jeff Jarvis's focus on Howard Stern and the First Amendment. I don't visit either of those sites anymore.
Your ethical treatment of animal writings does not dissuade me from reading your blog. I am not a vegetarian but your writings on this topic stimulate me to think. I bought my first Airedale when I was twenty years old. I am now the proud owner of my fifth Airedale. I love him almost as much as my children and will be heartbroken when he dies. I cannot imagine that some people in this world eat dogs. For Christ's sake, what is wrong with them?
But (oops, started a sentence with a but), this is a special time of year for me. I live on a small city lot, but I still crowd in a small garden. The spinach and the strawberries have been eaten. The eggplant, tomatoes, string beans, corn and peppers are just now being harvested. The pears and peaches are ripe. My wife is drying the plums. The acorn squash and the fingerling potatoes will be ready in a couple of weeks. During this time of year I am almost a vegetarian and I love it.
Best Regards,
John Andrews
06 September 2004
From Today's New York Times
To the Editor:
Your Sept. 1 news article about the mistakes made by pesticide applicators correctly reports that pesticides are dangerous chemicals that are frequently applied incorrectly, with tragic results. But there is a more important fact about home and garden pesticides.
Even when pesticides are applied correctly, they may not be safe to use. Many articles in medical journals have associated lawn weed killers and insecticides with dramatic increases in the incidence of a number of cancers and other diseases. One study found that the incidence of leukemia in children was 650 percent greater in homes where indoor and garden pesticides were used.
Anyone who lives in the suburbs has noticed the pesticide flags sprouting on lawns in the spring and fall. These are removed after one day. But the pesticides themselves last for weeks or months, and they are then tracked into the house.
Clearly, misapplication of pesticides is only the tip of the iceberg.
David Ehrenfeld, M.D.
New Brunswick, N.J., Sept. 2, 2004
The writer is a professor of biology at Rutgers University.
Your Sept. 1 news article about the mistakes made by pesticide applicators correctly reports that pesticides are dangerous chemicals that are frequently applied incorrectly, with tragic results. But there is a more important fact about home and garden pesticides.
Even when pesticides are applied correctly, they may not be safe to use. Many articles in medical journals have associated lawn weed killers and insecticides with dramatic increases in the incidence of a number of cancers and other diseases. One study found that the incidence of leukemia in children was 650 percent greater in homes where indoor and garden pesticides were used.
Anyone who lives in the suburbs has noticed the pesticide flags sprouting on lawns in the spring and fall. These are removed after one day. But the pesticides themselves last for weeks or months, and they are then tracked into the house.
Clearly, misapplication of pesticides is only the tip of the iceberg.
David Ehrenfeld, M.D.
New Brunswick, N.J., Sept. 2, 2004
The writer is a professor of biology at Rutgers University.
From the Mailbag
Dr Burgess-Jackson
Don't know where you're at in Texas, but around here (60 miles as the crow flies NW of Chicago), if Danny down the road lets his chickens run free [see here], the coyotes get them.
I also like listening to "Calling All Pets" on NPR, which is a local Madison production. The doggie doctor once told a viewer who described her horses as having a "wild" look, "That's FEAR! Wild horses have bred into them fear of predators. If they are not constantly alert and watching, they die!"
I sum it all up as, "Mother nature is a bitch!"
Frank Borger
Don't know where you're at in Texas, but around here (60 miles as the crow flies NW of Chicago), if Danny down the road lets his chickens run free [see here], the coyotes get them.
I also like listening to "Calling All Pets" on NPR, which is a local Madison production. The doggie doctor once told a viewer who described her horses as having a "wild" look, "That's FEAR! Wild horses have bred into them fear of predators. If they are not constantly alert and watching, they die!"
I sum it all up as, "Mother nature is a bitch!"
Frank Borger
05 September 2004
04 September 2004
From Today's New York Times
Catching Nell
By VERLYN KLINKENBORG
The other night, just before dusk, I walked across the pasture with a bucket of grain. Two dozen chickens followed me in a mob. Some came running toward me, wings flapping, as if with enough room they might actually take off. I led them into their pen, scattered the grain and closed the gate. Then I drove the ducks and the geese into their yard. "Drove" is too strong a word. I hinted at the direction I wanted them to go, and they went. I opened another gate and led the horses down to the barnyard. When they had been fed, I stepped into the pigpen. The gilt came over for a rubdown, and the barrow flopped down beside her. They lay back to back, eyes closed, pale pink bellies available for scratching.
Some evenings I notice the haze that settles in the valley nearby or the big orange moon coming up over the trees. But that night I noticed how we all fit together, the animals and the humans. The piglets arrive pretty wild. Baby chicks clatter about the brooder house in fear. But time passes, and they all settle down. They seem to tame themselves somehow.
That night I suddenly realized all the ways that they've tamed me. I never rush the ducks. It only confuses them. I never ask too much when herding chickens. The horses expect a certain presence from me, which changes with every situation. The pigs want joy and vigorous scratching.
None of the animals seem to want me to be other than human. But they want me to be a human who knows how the world looks to them and respects it.
All of our animals except one were raised among humans from birth. That one is Nell, the mustang. We bought her not far from our farm here in upstate New York, but she was adopted as a weanling in Nevada—part of the federal adoption program for wild horses.
I've seen other mustangs captured, so I have a good idea what it was like for her. She's 17 now and has lived the last decade with us. She's been trained, trailered, ridden and cared for. And yet it's always a tossup whether she'll let me catch her.
Our animals show their trust in us every day. But sometimes Nell trusts us, and sometimes she doesn't. The freeze brand on her neck isn't the only sign of that long-ago capture. All the rest of us, animal and human, live together in a single place. Nell lives in her own. She somehow reserves the right to withhold herself, to stand apart.
The chickens grow placid, the pigs learn to like us, and the other horses go on with their lives. And yet the most meaningful moments, after all these years, are when Nell crosses over from her world to ours. She walks right up, as if to ask where I've been, and settles her head in my arms. I feel the power of the choice she has made every time she makes it.
By VERLYN KLINKENBORG
The other night, just before dusk, I walked across the pasture with a bucket of grain. Two dozen chickens followed me in a mob. Some came running toward me, wings flapping, as if with enough room they might actually take off. I led them into their pen, scattered the grain and closed the gate. Then I drove the ducks and the geese into their yard. "Drove" is too strong a word. I hinted at the direction I wanted them to go, and they went. I opened another gate and led the horses down to the barnyard. When they had been fed, I stepped into the pigpen. The gilt came over for a rubdown, and the barrow flopped down beside her. They lay back to back, eyes closed, pale pink bellies available for scratching.
Some evenings I notice the haze that settles in the valley nearby or the big orange moon coming up over the trees. But that night I noticed how we all fit together, the animals and the humans. The piglets arrive pretty wild. Baby chicks clatter about the brooder house in fear. But time passes, and they all settle down. They seem to tame themselves somehow.
That night I suddenly realized all the ways that they've tamed me. I never rush the ducks. It only confuses them. I never ask too much when herding chickens. The horses expect a certain presence from me, which changes with every situation. The pigs want joy and vigorous scratching.
None of the animals seem to want me to be other than human. But they want me to be a human who knows how the world looks to them and respects it.
All of our animals except one were raised among humans from birth. That one is Nell, the mustang. We bought her not far from our farm here in upstate New York, but she was adopted as a weanling in Nevada—part of the federal adoption program for wild horses.
I've seen other mustangs captured, so I have a good idea what it was like for her. She's 17 now and has lived the last decade with us. She's been trained, trailered, ridden and cared for. And yet it's always a tossup whether she'll let me catch her.
Our animals show their trust in us every day. But sometimes Nell trusts us, and sometimes she doesn't. The freeze brand on her neck isn't the only sign of that long-ago capture. All the rest of us, animal and human, live together in a single place. Nell lives in her own. She somehow reserves the right to withhold herself, to stand apart.
The chickens grow placid, the pigs learn to like us, and the other horses go on with their lives. And yet the most meaningful moments, after all these years, are when Nell crosses over from her world to ours. She walks right up, as if to ask where I've been, and settles her head in my arms. I feel the power of the choice she has made every time she makes it.
Richard A. Posner on Ronald Dworkin
I confess my error in inferring that Dworkin doesn’t like dogs. As a cat person, I am disappointed. I hope I will be forgiven for having thought him distinctly feline.
(Richard A. Posner, “Dworkin, Polemics, and the Clinton Impeachment Controversy,” Northwestern University Law Review 94 [2000]: 1023-47, at 1047 [footnote omitted])
(Richard A. Posner, “Dworkin, Polemics, and the Clinton Impeachment Controversy,” Northwestern University Law Review 94 [2000]: 1023-47, at 1047 [footnote omitted])
03 September 2004
01 September 2004
29 August 2004
Fish
Here is a BBC story about the intelligence of fish. Is intelligence morally relevant? If it is, then there are moral distinctions to be made among humans, some of whom are more intelligent than others. Humans value intelligence, which is understandable, since we have a lot of it; but we should not merely assume that it's linked to moral status. Unintelligent beings can suffer. Isn't that the main morally relevant feature of a being?
25 August 2004
Twenty Years Ago
25 August 1984
Professor Peter Singer
Department of Philosophy
Monash University
Australia
Dear Professor Singer:
I am an attorney and a graduate student in philosophy at the University of Arizona, and I want to thank you for inspiring me so with your books Animal Liberation, Practical Ethics, and The Expanding Circle. Your books have provided me with excellent teaching material in my Introduction to Philosophy courses (primarily on animal rights and famine relief), and I was so persuaded by your arguments in Animal Liberation that I became a vegetarian even before I had completed the book (three and a half years ago). Unlike most other writers on ethics, your arguments are clear, succinct, and persuasive; we would all do well, in my opinion, to emulate your style. Personally, I try to model my own writing after yours.
I understand that you were a visiting professor at the University of Colorado this past semester (Spring 1984). Although I did not get a chance to meet you then, I look forward to meeting you one day and discussing ethical issues. In the meantime, keep up the good work, and thank you for the inspiration. I will be watching for future books and articles from you.
Cordially,
Keith Burgess-Jackson
7424 East Speedway Boulevard
Apartment G-126
Tucson, Arizona 85710
United States of America
Professor Peter Singer
Department of Philosophy
Monash University
Australia
Dear Professor Singer:
I am an attorney and a graduate student in philosophy at the University of Arizona, and I want to thank you for inspiring me so with your books Animal Liberation, Practical Ethics, and The Expanding Circle. Your books have provided me with excellent teaching material in my Introduction to Philosophy courses (primarily on animal rights and famine relief), and I was so persuaded by your arguments in Animal Liberation that I became a vegetarian even before I had completed the book (three and a half years ago). Unlike most other writers on ethics, your arguments are clear, succinct, and persuasive; we would all do well, in my opinion, to emulate your style. Personally, I try to model my own writing after yours.
I understand that you were a visiting professor at the University of Colorado this past semester (Spring 1984). Although I did not get a chance to meet you then, I look forward to meeting you one day and discussing ethical issues. In the meantime, keep up the good work, and thank you for the inspiration. I will be watching for future books and articles from you.
Cordially,
Keith Burgess-Jackson
7424 East Speedway Boulevard
Apartment G-126
Tucson, Arizona 85710
United States of America
24 August 2004
From the Mailbag
Hi!
As you know, I’ve been compiling a list of animal rights/environmental bloggers who will be able to put out occasional postings related to campaigns that we are running.
Chris Anderson
Campaigns Officer - Animal Aid
The Old Chapel, Tonbridge, Kent, TN9 1AW
As you know, I’ve been compiling a list of animal rights/environmental bloggers who will be able to put out occasional postings related to campaigns that we are running.
1. I have a favour to ask. I need to find more AR blogs! Could you please give my email address to any bloggers who you know that might be interested, or even post a blog entry calling for people to contact me? It is likely that many of your readers run their own blogs that might be relevant.Thanks!
2. When I send out an alert, would you prefer to receive all of the information in an email, or would it be better if I set up an RSS feed that you could syndicate?
Chris Anderson
Campaigns Officer - Animal Aid
The Old Chapel, Tonbridge, Kent, TN9 1AW
23 August 2004
Meat-Eating Is Bad for Humans
Even if you care only about humans, you should be a vegetarian. See here. (Thanks to Khursh Mian Acevedo for the link.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
