IGM Animal Rights

Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Animal Rights
4-30-10

Here comes another bout of intellectual constipation from academia. A story in the UK Telegraph is reinforcing the idea that professors are dodo-heads and Brits in particular are peculiar. (No offense Jessica and Matt).
Dr. Brett Mills, a senior lecturer from the University of East Anglia (sounds like a brain aneurism) has decided, in an ill-advised public announcement, that “wildlife documentaries invade animal privacy rights.”
Now I know some of you are already reacting with near-religious fervor at the well-meaning headline, having completely side-stepped the whole issue of rational thought, and I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings; but people who rely only on their feelings are bound to have them hurt. Right?
Anyone who knows me knows that I love animals. I have had cats living in my homes since I was a kid, and the one dog we had became a beloved member of the family. I like animals in general. I Think they are endlessly entertaining, fascinating, and beguiling. I have had experiences with animals, domesticated and wild, that are so special to me that I seldom share them. Newell knows what I mean. He and I have hunted and killed mule deer, but we have rescued several as well. Depends on the circumstances. Have you ever held a wild, days-old fawn in your arms? Or had a humming bird land and rest on your finger? It engenders awe and love.
When it comes to assigning human characteristics to animals, I fall somewhere in the middle. I have no doubt that animals can “think,” at least within the sphere of their various levels of intelligence, but I do not believe they have mystical powers of reason or are capable of what we call “abstract thought.”
Anyway, Dr. Mills insists that animals have innate rights to privacy and that our cameras and microphones invade and deny those rights. He waffles a bit in his statement—probably trying to evade criticisms like mine—when he says:

“We can never really know if animals are giving consent, but they often do engage in forms of behavior which suggest they’d rather not encounter humans, such as running away or building a burrow.”

Well duh. He’s absolutely right about never knowing if they are giving consent or not. (Except for those animal psychics—they probably know.) And, yes, I too have noticed that often animals would rather not encounter humans—especially wild animals. Hell, even our German Shepard occasionally wanted to be left alone. But is he seriously suggesting that animals run away or dig burrows because they are trying to maintain their rights?

“Uh-oh . . . here comes a human. I better dig a quick hole in the ground because, you know, I really don’t want to interact today.”

One wonders if this guy is familiar with concepts like “instinct” or “learned behavior”, neither of which necessarily have anything to do with volitional thought.
PETA spends a lot of time pushing animal rights, as if the non-humans of the world posses and maintain inalienable rights similar to our own. In fact they stridently insist upon our accepting and respecting said rights, and animal equality in general. But we all know how rational the rank and file PETA member is, don’t we? (No offense intended to anyone who might be a member. But c’mon! You have a brain; try using it.)
The point is—and I have harped on this before—animals have no rights. They cannot have rights. Here’s why, and I think even Professor Mills might be able to understand the argument. A right is an abstract concept which does not exist in the natural, or physical world. It exists solely in a mind capable of conceiving it, holding it before itself and comprehending the intellectual characteristics and components of the idea behind the right. I have the inalienable right to personal freedom only because I am able to conceive of, accept, and “own” that right. An animal, regardless of our feelings towards it, is not capable of this kind of abstract, complex thinking. We don’t even have any compelling evidence that animals are even self-aware. They do not give themselves names (Watership Down to the contrary)—we do that. (Although a few primates have shown evidence of being able to learn the idea of personal identity—but only after humans have intervened and taught it to them. Even then there is no proof.) Only an entity capable of creating such an idea as a “Right” can be said to posses that right. In which case most humans fall well short of such a goal, since most of them entirely misconstrue what should be a fairly straightforward concept. Notice How many people believe they have a “right” to cable TV.
The only rights animals are subject to are the ones we decide to give them. And even then they do not “posses” a right in the same sense we are able to.
I believe that we (humans) have been given a charge to “have dominion” over the animals because they cannot do such a thing and we can. It is our privilege and responsibility to husband the animals. But they are not our equals in any sense. However, an enlightened society treats animals with as much respect as is reasonably possible—even while we kill and butcher them. Because one thing animals are is a food source. There is no moral or ethical difference between killing an animal and killing a plant. Life is life. But there is a difference if we kill a fellow human. The reasons we kill one or the other, and our ability to think abstractly about it, create morality out of necessity.
In conclusion, Professor Mills is a magonga-head. Maybe he’s thinking with his endocrine system, because he sure ain’t using his brain. Animals cannot posses a right they cannot imagine and define—and communicate to others. And all the wishing in the world will not make it so. Aller M’naller.