ECHO and Inherent Value of Animals

Today was my first day as an Animal Care volunteer at the ECHO Center in Burlington. ECHO’s mission is “to educate and delight people about the Ecology, Culture, History, and Opportunity for stewardship of the Lake Champlain Basin.” ECHO is filled with exhibits featuring frogs, turtles, fish, and more, as well as interactive simulations of different aspects of the lake. During my interview for the position, I was asked what I thought of animals in captivity. I replied that it makes me sad to see them trapped like that, but that I understand the importance of it, especially for endangered species. My interviewer said that, at ECHO, they try to give the animals the best possible quality of life, and that it is very important for people to have access to these animals so that they can form attachments to them. The goal is to educate people about the fragile ecosystems here so that we know exactly what we are harming. The word “ecosystem” may not mean much, to many people. But that fascinating little salamander or that huge snapping turtle can attract attention much better than the concept of an ecosystem.
ECHO tries to be as environmentally friendly as it can. But it still uses a lot of resources with all the electricity and water required to maintain these animal enclosures. The environmental impact must be huge. I believe that it is completely worth it, though. When I was in middle school, I went to the ECHO Center several times on field trips for science classes. I was exposed to incredible animals that I had never seen before. I was excited to learn more and to take part in the effort to conserve these species. When people find a motivation to care about the environment, they make a conscious effort to reduce their environmental impact and also start educating others about the importance of conservation. It’s a giant ripple effect. When one person becomes a vegetarian and explains to their friends and family that the meat industry has a huge environmental impact and causes terrible suffering for animals, those friends and family might start to eat less meat or even consider becoming vegetarian themselves. They might not. But some do. As we have heard quoted in class many times, “No man is an island.” This is true of our negative effect on the environment - littering, using resources, and all the other harmful things we do cannot stay restricted to ourselves. It effects the ecosystems around us and hurts more beings than we can imagine. But this is also a positive thing. When we reach out to others and educate them about why they should care and what they should do, it will have an effect as well. We don’t have to make a huge deal of it. We don’t have to wear signs around our neck that say, “Fossil fuels are destroying the o-zone - bike or walk, don’t drive!” or “I’m a vegan - ask me why!” It’s the simple, every day steps we take that people notice. They may not seem to have an effect, but they will. And actively educating those willing to learn about the environment can have huge impacts. Who knows how many kids have been inspired to become marine biologists because of ECHO and places like it?
Regardless of whether snapping turtles have rights or not, they aren’t going to be very happy cooped up in a tank. But by taking the time to show it to others and make them excited about just how interesting and unique it is is giving it more value than by simply leaving it alone and ignoring whether it’s endangered or not. Because by educating others, we are trying to ensure a better future for its entire species. We are giving it inherent value, making it something that deserves to be treated well and thrive.

Appreciation of Nature

In my class, Philosophy of Science, Technology, and Environment, we discussed a reading about Heidegger and his ideas. He believed that technology put us into a “calculative mindset” that causes us to think excessively about the future and constantly plan for improvement. But when people plan on ways to improve environmental problems, they are using that calculative way of thinking that caused the problems in the first place. For example, people created cars and planes to travel faster and improve the method of travel. When people plan on ways to improve transportation in terms of environmental impact, they are using the same mindset that people used when creating cars in the first place. Heidegger thinks it’s important to use a reflective, meditative mindset that is focused on simply being and appreciating instead of improving. He thinks that people need to remember how to appreciate simple pleasures that are not efficient: walking for the sake of enjoying nature, talking with friends, drinking wine. This takes us away from a calculative mindset and slows down the negative effects of excessive technology use and creation. I think he has a point, but making an effort to convince people of the important of a reflective mindset is, in essence, using a calculative mindset. If we are doomed to use a calculative mindset because of the way we were raised with so much technology, perhaps we can recognize this and use it to change things for the better instead of the worse.
    This reminded me of what we are studying in our class. If we were to stop focusing so much on having everything better, we might be able to realize what is really important. If everyone took a daily slow walk through the woods to appreciate birdsong and the general beauty of nature, we might not be so quick to dismiss nature and cut down fields to make room for parking lots. We might not be so eager to kill more and more animals for food and make more efficient slaughter houses. If we appreciated animals for their inherent value, we might not have thousands of them trapped in one building where they live horrible lives before they die. I think, instead of debating the philosophical reasons for animals to have inherent value, it is also important to reflect on nature’s importance so that we can understand it for ourselves instead of just guessing about it. 

Wrongness of Animal Research

    The issue of animal research has frequently come up in our readings lately. Cohen claims not only that it isn’t wrong to harm animals for the good of humans, but that it is morally right to do so. He writes that it may hurt the animals, but it will save us pain, so it is worth it. Our interests trump whatever rights they may have. I agree that the use of animals in medical research has accomplished much, but I think he has gone overboard when he says it is morally right to use animals this way. He writes that humans’ interests are so important that it would be wrong to not use animals. But when he writes about all the pain that humans go through and how important it is to avoid it, it seems to me that he is getting defensive. Whenever anyone writes about how very important this research is, they just sound like they are grasping at the best excuses so that they don’t seem like bad people for approving of research that causes great pain and death to these animals. I cannot believe that using animals this way is morally right. This research is hurting animals, and that is the basic truth of it. When is it morally acceptable to hurt something? When it is going to hurt you? I would say so. When it is a danger to your health, such as a diseased rat living in your backyard? Probably. When it is inconveniencing you, such as ants in a house? Probably not. When you can benefit from its pain? Again, probably not. If you are not in danger from an animal, and you make it feel pain, you are doing wrong. But just because it’s wrong, that doesn’t mean it isn’t justified. The end results of animal research are immensely beneficial to humans. It does good, but it can’t possibly be good in and of itself. To me, it is wrong, but we should still do it. I think Cohen and others with the same stance need to admit that it is wrong to use animals this way, but that wrong actions can be justified. We humans are being so selfish, but if we realize this, we will be more careful when doing these experiments, and more grateful for the results. We will appreciate the medicine we get as a result, and we will feel grateful to the animals who died for us. We won’t stop doing wrong, but it is a small step to acknowledge our wrongness and therefore appreciate what we have more.

The Biblical Excuse for Speciesism

    Years ago, my religious cousin said, “‘Man shall not live on bread alone.’ See? God hates vegetarians.” He was young at the time, so I have no idea if he was joking or if he actually interpreted the verse that way. Either way, it is a perfect example of how people often abuse the bible and find a meaning in it that might not be true. That entire verse is, “Man shall not live on bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” The bible is often used as an excuse for misguided speciesism.
    Some bible verses seem to convey a message of speciesism very clearly:

     “Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?” - Matthew 6:26

     “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.” - Genesis 9:3

    “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” - Genesis 1:26

    These verses, along with several others, give people an excuse to say that God meant for humans to be in charge of animals. According to the bible, we have been given “dominion” over all the other animals. We are “better” than them. Countless times, I have heard people use this as their reason to not feel guilty about animal abuse. They say that there’s no reason to consider vegetarianism and that factory farming is perfectly acceptable because God gave us the animals to do whatever we want with them.
    And yet, they fail to acknowledge many other verses which demand respect for animals:

    “Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God?” - Luke 12:6

    “Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth, and maketh us wiser than the fowls of heaven?” - Job 35:11

    “For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?” - 1 Corinthians 9:9

    According to the bible, God created all the animals and the entire earth before he made humans. It seems as though, even if he did give us dominion over the animals, we were meant to take care of them and respect them. We were given stewardship of the land, which doesn’t mean just owning it. It means caring for it and guarding it. We weren’t given just a privilege; we were given a responsibility. I imagine that God would be furious that we allow the cruelties of factory farming to exist. His intricate creation, the earth, is being degraded and dirtied more and more every day. We pollute it and pretend that the only consequence is that someday it will be uninhabitable for humans. But the earth itself has worth. There is so much of it that we do not yet understand, and, if we keep abusing it, never will. God took much more time creating the rest of the earth than he did creating humans. Even if humans are special, that doesn’t give us the right to torture animals in factory farms or use them for petty research experiments. We are all God’s creations and therefore we all have the right to be respected and live natural lives.