Sunday, February 28, 2010

Thought on the nature of our relationships with animals

Sometimes I am somewhat disappointed by what I see as a lack of intellectual vigor and critical thinking within the AR community. It seems that many of us become trapped into certain ways of thinking, and never move on from there. And to be perfectly frank about it, some of the people that shout the loudest are among the least intelligent of us. I think it is time to have an intellectual reawakening in the AR movement, where ideas are shared and discussed in thoughtful ways yielding productive dialogue.

Among one of the general misconceptions made by many advocates of animal rights is the assumption that all relationships between humans and animals are zero-sum games. First, what is a zero-sum game (ZSG)? In layman’s terms, a ZSG refers to a situation where, in the course of an interactive relationship, there are winners and losers. Think of this like a home poker game. If there are five players, and I win $50, then the sum of the losses of the other players are $50. If there is a winner then there must be losers.

ZSG easily lend themselves to exploitation, so it’s not surprising that many advocates of animal rights buy into this notion. They assume that all relationships where humans interact with animals are exploitive in nature.

The thing is, not all relationships, or even most relationships are ZSGs. This has been born out with the idea of trade. Centuries ago, the dominant idea was that trade was good for one country (the exploiter) and hence, bad for another (the exploitee). This notion, known as mercantilism, helped usher in the brutal practice of imperialism. Since then, economists (starting with Adam Smith) noted that trade could be, and often is, good for all parties involved. A simple example: if I have a field that grows wheat very well, and you have a field that grows corn very well, it makes no sense for me to grow any corn on my field or for you to grow any wheat on yours. Instead, we should each specialize in what we grow best, and maximize output, and trade with each other. We will have more overall if we do that. This is known as a positive-sum game (PSG). Note that not all positive-sum relationships have to be mutually beneficial, but PSGs are necessary but not sufficient for a mutually beneficial relationship. There are three types of PSGs involving two sets of actors: one where one party wins and another loses, another where one wins and the other yields little to no benefit but is not harmed, and the last where all parties involved win (mutually beneficial PSGs).

Can our relationships with animals be mutually beneficial PSGs? Yes, I believe they can. Many of us have such relationships in the form of having pets. (Some more radical advocates of AR believe that even pets are a form of exploitation, but I would argue that is an extreme position in the AR community.) This is a mutually beneficial relationship in that we provide food, shelter, and health care to an animal to degree that he would not receive in the wild. In turn, we receive companionship (and, as is the case with my cat, a hell of a lot of amusement). This is a win-win relationship, hence it is a PSG.

ZSG relationships include, most notably, factory farming for both dairy and meat. I think this clearly extends to “free range” animal agriculture as well. (One could even argue, that given the health problems associated with meat and dairy consumption, this is actually a negative-sum relationship which harms both parties.) Animal testing for cosmetic or medical purposes also is a ZSG. This would extend to the production of most dairy and the production of most eggs as well (even the “humane” alternatives).

Mutually beneficial PSGs include pets (which I do not morally consider ownership), and some traditional and, in the west somewhat rare instances of production of animal products. This includes one unusual example of a woman who has rescued chickens, who she feeds and provides shelter. In turn, she consumes the eggs. Let’s say she were to sell some of these eggs. Does that make this an exploitive relationship? I would argue it does not based on the logic I discussed above – just because someone benefits from a relationship does not mean the other party necessarily loses.

I think it’s important to understand the difference between a ZSG and a PSG in order properly categorize exploitive versus non-exploitive relationships. Doing this allows us to move beyond absurd and offensive views many less intelligent AR advocates express. (I have actually seen an idiot compare a person riding horses from a family farm to human slavery!) This “test” gives us a logical guideline by which to go beyond making arguments based on emotion and vitriol to making arguments based on sound, logical reasoning.

No comments:

Post a Comment