Download Nature`s Social Union.

NATURE'S SOCIAL UNION
Throughout recorded history man has struggled with the dilemma of understanding his
place in nature and has wondered how many of his thoughts, perceptions and feelings are also
represented in animals. Since man is classified as a mammal, which possesses the exceptional
gifts of speech and rational thinking, it might be expected that we have similarities with other
mammals. It is obvious that humans are unlike all animals but it is also obvious that we resemble
many mammals down to very minute details of molecular structure. The chimpanzee studies of
Jane Goodall have been used to explain many aspects of our own behavior which we fail to
understand and which concerns us because our behavior often appears irrational. Yet, as in the
case of the mouse, so well described by Burns, mammals appear to manifest acute fear when
their life or livelihood is threatened although we are the only species that kill each other. How
then should we relate to other animals since we ourselves are one of them? Descartes
propounded that animals are as machines available only for man's convenience and based on
his well known dictum Cogito Ergo Sum, "I think and therefore I am" he deduced that animals
"do not think" and therefore ‘are not” and thus devoid of any need for moral consideration. On
the other hand Tom Regan, a philosopher from North Carolina, maintains that there is an
inherent worth in every life form and each life has its own unique value. Furthermore he
maintains that the domestication of animals as prescribed in the bible, which is hopelessly
utilitarian, does not respect that inherent worth. So we see in the writings in Genesis that it is
suggested that man was created separately by God and was instructed to have dominion over
nature and animals should be subdued and controlled by man. It must be admitted, however,
that some other passages do encourage some degree of sympathy towards animals. Religious
thought, especially Christian doctrine, argues that animals do not have immortal souls while
other religions suggest that the soul may migrate between animals and man, the direction of
the migration being determined by the quality of the earthly existence, the assumption being
that man represents the summit of attainment of all earthly forms. Many pet animal owners
derive a great deal of comfort from a perception that there is an afterlife in which they will be
reunited not only with their loved ones but also with their pets. Many pet cemeteries will use a
cross on the grave of a pet to reinforce the notion of the Christian attitude to immortality.
Legally domestic animals are property which can be used for labor, food, or clothing. Genesis 9
states that “every living thing that moves shall be food for you”. Aristotle proclaimed that a
slave, although a human being, is an article of property in the same way as an animal. Modern
society, however, no longer condones such an attitude and questions the subjugation and
dominion by man over animals. Furthermore, much of society, as exemplified by the various
animal welfare organizations, requests and requires a much greater concern for the welfare of
animals. The problem that arises is to know and understand what factors affect the value system
that animals possess and how should we provide for their contentment, fulfillment, and general
well being. Their view of the world is certainly very different from ours; that of a bat is filled with
sounds that we do not perceive, and any dog owner knows that the world of a dog is a world of
smells of which we are totally ignorant. Do we know if domesticated dogs are truly social
animals as they are in wild, and do they prefer the company of their peers? If so are those dogs
that are lowest in the hierarchy of a social group inhibited in the expression of their natural
ethos and lead a miserable existence being constantly threatened by the others and would they,
therefore, prefer to live on their own? Has domestication resulted in an animal that prefers the
company of man to that of its peers? Domestication, by man, the literal acceptance of the
writings of the Bible, has resulted in selective breeding with the development of many breeds
which are now living artifacts. The modern dairy cow, for example, provides enough milk for six
calves instead of the one offspring that it produces and has many disorders associated with this
enormous productivity. Modern turkeys can only be bred by artificial insemination since the
development of their pectoral muscles precludes natural mating. In the process of
domestication we have thus modified their physical and psychological welfare needs and
established an interdependence between man and his domestic animals. The psychological
dependence is best seen in "mans' best friend" which constantly craves his attention and
approbation.
We kill and eat animals, we harvest their milk and eggs, and use animals for clothing. Are
we, by nature a carnivorous animal? Modern medicine would suggest that an affluent diet
contains too much food of animal origin but whether or not we are by nature vegetarian is open
to speculation. If we are truly herbivores we certainly do not compare with ruminant animals. I
doubt that a human would be able to survive a diet of grass since we are not endowed with the
necessary intestinal adaptations of a ruminant and we certainly would not relish tile idea of such
an existence. They need to spend their life either eating, ruminating or sleeping which leaves
little time for anything else. Of course, strict vegetarianism and veganism is practiced by many
people who lead very healthy lives but they are all thin! However, if we might conclude that the
carnivorous habit is predation, the eating of corpses as George Bernard Shaw called it, and the
biblical exhortation "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you ... " may be part of our
own biology and part of the natural order of things and further if we conclude that domestic
animals are a product of man's manipulation of nature it then becomes incumbent on man to
nurture, rather than dominate, the animal kingdom and we thus have an important caretaker
and stewardship role.
The veterinary profession is charged with the responsibility to relieve suffering in
animals. Yet on the other hand, the veterinarian is often required to, either recognize or deny,
the benefits to man of research using animals. Likewise, a practicing veterinarian sometimes has
to utilize euthanasia to control pet animal overpopulation. Often for economic reasons a sick
animal has to be denied treatment and is killed. How can a veterinarian endorse the eating of
meat, the use of animals in research and teaching, the practice of euthanasia instead of therapy.
How does a veterinarian approach hunting, is it a form of high technology predation which
appeals to man's natural biological drive? What stance do veterinarians take on the use of
animals in circuses and what are their thoughts on the extinction of animal species by man? The
veterinary profession has to wrestle with these ethical problems and is expected to provide
leadership to the community on these issues. For example animal welfare groups that condemn
animal experiments naturally expect support from the veterinary profession and yet
veterinarians use drugs that have been developed from such research and are therefore
expected to also support the biomedical community.
With respect to the use of animals in research Albert Schweitzer expressed his views very
well and his comments extend to many other aspects of the relationship between man and
animals. "Wherever any animal is forced into the service of man the sufferings which it has to
bear on that account are the concern of everyone of us. No one ought to permit, insofar as he
can prevent it, pain or suffering for which he will not take that responsibility. Let no one shirk the
burden of his responsibility” The laws which govern the use of animals in research and the
conditions of their confinement now force scientists to justify their use and to describe, in detail,
the procedures that will be used in the experiments. It also forces the scientist to balance the
suffering that he, or she, may inflict on the animal against the perceived benefit of the research.
Research biologists rarely stray from the boundaries of acceptable behavior but they can
become sometimes caught up in the excitement of their discoveries and forget the impact on
the animal. Before undertaking research using animals they now have to seek approval from a
committee of peers who scrutinize the proposed procedures and this exercise in itself ensures
that every research scientist questions himself or herself as to whether or not that research
meets his or her own ethical standards and responsibilities. Much of the criticism of research
using animals has centered on the suffering caused by surgical procedures. It has thus
concentrated on pain. We can only speculate on the intensity of pain experienced by animals, as
compared to man, but this preoccupation with the pain of surgery has tended to cause us to
disregard other forms of suffering that may be caused by animal experimentation. Deprivation
of food and water, lack of exercise and deprivation of social contact all require consideration as
well as any surgical procedure.
We need to develop a logical basis for our attitude towards conducting research on
different species. In Britain there has been an antivivisection movement since the nineteenth
century which was successful in getting an Animal Welfare Act passed in 1876. This act, defined
specific rules for each species the most restrictive being for horses, dogs, and to a lesser extent
cats. Rats and mice were subject to very few restrictions. Cold-blooded species such as reptiles
and amphibians were not worthy of mention. It is obvious that the Act was based purely on
emotion; selecting groups that have a close relationship with man. There can be no logical basis
for separating mammalian species or even cold blooded animals. I quote from a book by
Diamond, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee", the third chimpanzee being man;
"Somewhere along the scale from bacteria to humans we have to decide where killing becomes
murder and where eating becomes cannibalism”. Most people draw those lines between
humans and all other species. However, quite a few people are vegetarians unwilling to eat any
animal and yet willing to eat plants. An increasingly vocal minority belonging to the animal
rights movement objects to medical experiments on animals or at least on certain animals. That
movement is especially indignant at research on cats and dogs and primates and much less
concerned and generally silent about insects and bacteria. However, Diamond does go on to
suggest that the chimpanzee is worthy of special consideration in any establishment of a
hierarchy of species that should be spared from animal experimentation because science clearly
shows that it is our closest mammalian relative and shows many human-like qualities and skills.
He would, therefore, propose that the line be drawn between all the chimpanzee species,
including man and all other animals. In using animals for extending biological knowledge we
must take responsibility for the sacrifice of that animal. Each time any living creature is killed in
the service of man, or for that matter in the service of other animals, we must recognize that the
sacrifice honored us and that the exercise was undertaken with due recognition of that honor.
Although many people find bull-fighting to be distasteful, the underlying justification and
philosophy, as portrayed by Hemingway in his book “Death in the Afternoon”, l is that the
superior intellect of man can dominate the powerful strength of the bull. It therefore, in a rather
brutal way reinforces the dominance of man over the animal kingdom. However, in a Spanish
bullfight the death of the bull honors the matador who recognizes this by saluting the bull
before “the moment of truth”.
In recent years the veterinary profession has changed in a way that few other professions
could have changed. When I was a student most of us were of a farming background and our
ambitions were to work in the area of food animal medicine. Men were in the majority and it
was not considered a profession for women for pure physical reasons. However, enlightenment
about the fact that women are quite capable of treating larger animals coupled with the removal
of barriers to women in the application process to Colleges of Veterinary Medicine has resulted
in most colleges of veterinary medicine now accepting some 80% women. The practice of
veterinary medicine now is very largely dedicated to companion animal medicine and food
animal medicine has declined. It is now a more caring profession and one that seems to be well
equipped to deal with the enormous ethical problems that the profession has to face. The
human-animal bond is important in many of our lives and animals play an important role in the
psychic wellbeing of many lonely or socially isolated people. They also become an important
part of a family with young children. Pets have been used as a tool in the treatment of some
psychopaths. If man is not to stifle his human feelings he must practice kindness towards
animals for he who is cruel to animals is often cruel in his dealings with man. You can judge the
heart of a man by his treatment of animals.
The need to recognize our stewardship with respect to animals is also extended to our
role in preserving the environment. St. Frances of Assisi broke away from traditional Catholic
doctrine and frequently entered a state of religious ecstasy being deeply moved by every living
creature. In this way he was very similar to the Native American Indian's sense of man's place in
the ecosystem. The very moving letter from Chief Seattle to the President of the United States,
Franklin Pierce concerning ownership of land reads "The deer, the horse, the great eagle they
are our brothers. The rocky crests, the juices in the meadows, the body heat of the animals and
of man all belong to the same family.” We are stewards and caretakers not only of the animals
but also of the planet. Many of our veterinary students are interested in issues of conservation.
What can a veterinarian do in this respect? Where animal reservations or wilderness areas
border human habitation there is a risk of disease transfer which may decimate the animal
population. The spread of rabies in the local raccoon population is an example. In some of the
wildlife game reserves in East Africa outbreaks of disease have been occurring with greater
frequency and 70% of the emerging diseases such as AIDS and SARS are mutant diseases
derived from animals. The confinement of animals to wildlife reserves has prevented the
dispersal of their genes and conserved a narrow gene pool with all its risks for inbreeding and
an increased susceptibility to epidemic diseases resulting from a lack of biological vigor. The
veterinarian has a clear role in understanding how disease outbreaks may be managed and
contained. Wild animals are an essential part of our heritage. They are valued for their beauty,
for their intriguing adaptations, and for their rarity. They are part of the web of life; you touch
one part and it affects all others. We have moral obligations to protect things of aesthetic value
and to ensure their continued existence. It is gratifying that we have students of high moral and
intellectual caliber with a deep sense of their responsibility to issues that are of concern to
society and they are acquiring the skills to play a significant role in the future of society.
The practice of veterinary medicine embodies a concern not only for the welfare of
animals but also the welfare of man to meet not only his .daily needs but also to his spiritual and
material survival. Man is thus ennobled by his participation in, and recognition of, the natural
world and veterinary medicine may be called a “truly noble profession" since it recognizes this
fact and strives to subdue man's spiritual arrogance and engender a sense of humility and social
union with nature, a stewardship not a dominance or subjugation.