Asking the big philosophical questions about animals - AASG conference

Why is the human species so fascinated with non-human species?

The existence of animals, and our interactions with theme, raise huge philosophical questions that we frequently overlook as we go about our day to day business. In some respects that’s fair enough – as a card-carrying graduate of an arts degree with a philosophy major, I can attest that engaging some of the big questions head on can leave one paralysed or send one into a nihilistic whirlpool. But questions need to be asked.

Our assumptions about other species can have dire consequences, in terms of the way they are treated, housed, and killed.

The Australian Animal Studies Group (AASG) is co-convening a conference in July 2015 and looking for contributors.

The conference, titled “Animal Publics: Emotions, Empathy, Activism” is co-convened by the Australian Centre and the Human Rights & Animal Ethics Research Network (HRAE) and will be held at the University of Melbourne.

The human/nonhuman animal relationship is continually in flux. In the twenty-first century our relationship with other species is more complex than ever. Images of animals dominate advertising and the internet. Many people feel a profound connection with their companion animals, consider them part of the family, and grieve when they die. At the same time almost all the species we breed for consumption are processed through the animal industrial complex, and are neither seen, nor heard, nor touched in a living state. Animal exploitation and commodification is increasingly hidden from public view.   The predominance of some species, and the complete absence of others, in our relationships with animals, raises important questions about how we understand and empathise with others. Why do so many people have such an emotional response to animals? Why do children bond with animals? What have we lost by excluding so many animals from the public domain – from our cities and day-to-day lives?     New advances in science indicate that we are only beginning to understand the complex nature of the emotional and ethical lives of animals. Philosophers have begun to re-think the way in which they have theorised some form of ‘essential’ divide between human and nonhuman animals in order to define what it means to be ‘human’. Political scientists have begun to discuss the issue of social justice for animals. Artists, writers and filmmakers now question the validity of an anthropocentric viewpoint in their creative works.    In this interdisciplinary conference, Animal Publics, we ask: How can the lives of animals be made visible - brought into the public domain? How might they be transformed? What roles might direct engagement, academic discourse, bearing witness, the arts, or community debate take? What part do emotions play in the changes taking place across a range of key discourses and in our relationships with nonhuman ‘others’? How should we understand our emotional response to animals and how important should the emotional lives of animals be to us? How might the emotions, empathy and activism be brought to bear on making the lives of animals visible in the public domain?   

They are after abstracts that address the theme ‘Animal Publics: Emotions, Empathy, Activism’ in relation to humans and other species:
 

-     In what sense can we ‘know’ nonhuman animals? 
-     What role does empathy play in the human/nonhuman relationship?
-     How might the emotions help us to rethink the boundary between human and nonhuman?
-     How does anthropomorphism influence the human/nonhuman relationship?
-     Why is the human species so fascinated with nonhuman species?
-     How can the lives of animals be made visible – brought into the public domain?
-     How can we use the law to regulate the lives of animals when most animals are absent from our lives?
-     Why are some species rendered invisible to the public while others enjoy a privileged status?
-     Why are animals so frequently omitted from discussions about sustainability & the future of global food production?
-     Why does the human species ‘deny’ its animal origins?
-     What role should emotions play in ethical responses to animals?
-     How has science influenced the human nonhuman relationship?
-     What role do emotion and empathy play in response to species extinction and climate change?
-     Why do we care more about some creatures than others?
-     What impact do representations of animals have on the human/animal relationship?
-     Is ethical consumerism an adequate response to species with whom we do and do not empathise?
-     What can the ‘othering’ of animals teach us about ourselves? 
-     What role should animal welfare science play in teaching us about the needs of nonhuman animals and other species? 
-     What has the animal protection movement contributed to our understanding of nonhuman animals? 
-     How should we live ethically and emotionally with other species in the era of the Anthropocene?

If you feel like tackling any of the above questions, click here, or submit a 250 word abstract for a 20 minute paper by November 17, 2014 to aasg-conference@unimelb.edu.au

Why do we fear being eaten when we are more likely to die from what we eat?

Laura feeds some lambs. (Not only is Laura having a good time, she's doing something kind for some non-humans and she's entered the SAT Shark Girl Giveaway - see details below).

An interesting thought for the day...

All of this discussion about Shark Girl has me thinking about humans before we were on top of the food chain. Humans evolved as and with animals, as predators as well as prey…and even though we fear being eaten by something (e.g. loads of people are disproportionately scared of sharks, yet humans are far more likely to consume sharks than the other way around), the truth is that most of us are now more likely to die from mundane activities like overeating, or eating the wrong stuff.

Why haven't our fears caught up with our urban existence?

This passage, highlighted from a chapter by David Fraser, says it nicely.

“Science is an important source of beliefs within our culture, but it is only one source. It is also a relatively recent source which so far has dealt with only some of the questions that concern us. Science has greatly reshaped our beliefs about how to prevent infectious diseases but has told us remarkably little about how to prevent feelings of guilt; science has reshaped our thinking about the movement of stars but has left our understanding of love and ambition largely to the realm of literature.

And in some cases, the insights that we gain from science are slow to enter popular understanding perhaps because they seem less immediate than ideas that can be passed on in art, literature and the media. Thus, for example, people may avoid camping in bear habitat because of a traditional fear of wild animals, but continue in activities such as over-eating which (science indicates) involve much greater risks.” - David Fraser, 2008.

(NB Full credit to Dr Pauleen Bennett for pointing out this reference – about the history of our perception of animals – in the Centre for Veterinary Education’s Animal WelfareCourse).

Sutcliffe: minimal handling, an appropriate heat gradient, natural sunshine, close observation and assisted feeding with a bit of Hill's a/d. So far he seems to be responding well.

Thank you to all those readers who have asked after Sutcliffe the baby central bearded dragon. Yes, he is doing well and getting stronger, though natural UVB light in Sydney in winter is hard to come by! We're making the most of every sliver of sunshine (and he also has a UV light though we know not to rely completely on those). 

Meantime entries for the SAT Shark Girl DVD giveaway are trickling in. You have until August 21 to send us your entry – a photo of you helping out a non-human or several. For all the details click here. 

If you're interested in the ethics around zoo animals, free-ranging wildlife and captive wildlife, there is a thought-provoking lecture (divided into three parts) by Dr Dorothy McKeegan online. Check it out: part 1 here, part 2 here and part 3 here - allow about 20 minutes for each section).

Reference

Fraser D (2008) Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context. UFAW, Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford.

Biodiversity: why does it even matter?

Most people want to preserve the so-called flagship species. But different people have different motivations.

For those of you with an interest in the animal studies field, The Human Animal Research Network and the Sydney Environment Institute are hosting a seminar on exploring biodiversity as cultural value.

I know not all SAT readers have a humanities leaning, so what does the above mean?

We all know about biodiversity and the threats to it (habitat destruction, climate change, rising sea levels etc). But how much does it really matter? Really? In the words of the seminar organisers, "There may be significant unforeseen consequences to the loss of some organisms (as became evident with the recent collapse of the South Asian vulture population), but the loss of others may have no apparent consequences for humans at all. It seems abundantly clear that human cultures rely on pollinators such as bees, but would they really miss the pygmy three-toed sloth?"

Personally one of my dreams is to go and meet some sloths, so I definitely would. But the point is, is extinction bad in itself? To whom does it matter? Why? 

It turns out that we often answer these questions on the basis of concealed usefulness. i.e. biodiversity is valuable to us because we need access to that genetic bank of hitherto unexplored resources that could be useful in medicine or industry. Maybe the three-toed sloth secretes sweat containing an antimicrobial substance. 

For others, justification for all this effort to maintain biodiversity is about emotional attachment to some species - or the natural world generally. The problem is this can be seen as a bleeding-heart, airy-fairy, sentimental approach, easily dismissed by economic or science-driven types. But is it any less valid?

A lot of us are sold on biodiversity, but may not be able to pinpoint exactly why.

The seminar will explore the values underpinning current public discussions about biodiversity.

For more info about this seminar please visit here.

Abstracts.

John Miller, “From Natural Capital to Dark Tourism: Biodiversity Loss and the Aesthetics of Conservation.”

The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio saw the signing of the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD), the culmination of many years’ work initiated by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to safeguard ‘biological diversity for the benefit of present and future generations’. It was, according to its own publicity at any rate, a landmark in international conservation, a ‘dramatic step forward’ in the midst of the planet’s sixth great extinction event. 

Although a significant aspect of the CBD’s agenda was ‘the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources’, it has stimulated some sharp criticism on ideological grounds, most trenchantly in Vandana Shiva’s work. For Shiva, the CBD appears ‘primarily as an initiative of the North to “globalise” the central management and ownership of biological diversity’ in order to advance the portfolios of large corporations. International biodiversity legislation becomes part of what Shiva describes as ‘the ultimate colonization of life itself’, a penetration of economics into Earth’s biological fabric. 

Since the 1990s, the deepening entrenchment of a rhetoric of ‘natural capital’ has continued to emphasise the subsumption of species conservation into a neo-liberal logic; even environmental aesthetics are commodified into a ‘cultural service’. Public policy on biodiversity loss seems firmly installed in crude cost/benefit analyses that are paradoxically both widely discredited and progressively more influential.

Starting with debates around the CBD’s neo-colonial politics, this paper explores the relationship between the rise of ‘natural capital’ and the emergence of an increasingly prominent literary subgenre, the conservation travel narrative. 

Particularly, it examines Douglas Adams and Mark Cawardine’s poignant Last Chance to See (1990) in which the authors recount ‘an unforgettable journey across the world in search of exotic, endangered creatures’. Evidently, Adams and Cawardine are writing at some remove from a market-driven approach to conservation: we should preserve endangered species, Cawardine writes, because the world would be a ‘poorer, darker, lonelier place without them’. 

At the same time, however, Last Chance to See is structured around the necessity of rendering endangered animals available to a western audience. As such, it may be understood in an intimate relationship with eco-tourism, another expression of the economic logic of conservation that Shiva critiques. Given the framing ecological context of the collapse in global biodiversity, Last Chance to See (and ecotourism more broadly) may be read as an instance of ‘dark tourism’, travels associated particularly with catastrophe, violence or trauma. Consequently, neo-liberal biodiversity conservation insists not just on the commodification of ‘life itself’, but also on the commodification of death.  

Robert McKay, “Invaluable Elephants”

This paper begins from the perhaps obvious premise that all value is valuation: it is necessarily always contingent and distributed rather than inherent. A less apparent implication of this is that all such valuations necessarily both produce and ward off alternative redistributions of value. 

These claims hold true whether value is understood in a political-economic register or in an ethical register, to refer to moral worth. Such points warrant statement in the context of discussions of biodiversity and animal death for this principal reason. The discourse of species (as Cary Wolfe terms it)—the rhetorical, political, and institutional mobilization of the imputed fact of human-animal difference—consistently plays a crucial role in the presentation of contingent and tactical (anthropocentric) valuations as necessary, absolute values in the consideration of humans’ lethal encounters with nonhumans, of the kind that is omnipresent in conservation/”biodiversity management”. 

The coding of speciesist political choice as necessity is a good instance of the crucial mechanism that Wolfe, following Derrida, names a ‘sacrificial logic’. It is not just that affective possibilities that exceed anthropocentric/humanist accounting—such as a specific animal’s interest in its own or another specific animal’s ontogeny, or a cross-species value such as an ideal of animal friendship—are devalued. Rather, ironically imagined as unimaginable, they are ruled out of court, sacrificed in a presentation of the field of value as necessarily human and (thus) anthropocentric.

This paper will develop Wolfe’s position by suggesting that a crucial purpose of contemporary ecological and pro-animal critique is to address head-on the contingency of the anthropocentric valuations by exploring specific historical instances of the sacrificial logic at work. 

This can offer a genealogical account of both a) the reproduction of the discourse of species and its material effects on living beings and b) such redistributions of value as are both produced and foreclosed by anthropocentric processes of valuation. 

I also want to suggest that cultural texts offer particular leverage for this critical operation, because they have the power both to embody the social processes of value-making and distribution of their time and resist that process in subtle ways. The historical intimacy of conservation with the practices and legacies of hunting hints at the complex intertwining of difficult and competing values in relation to animal life that underpins environmentalist thought as it develops in the 20^th Century. 

The issues become even more overdetermined when the animal at stake is under a number of different hunting threats and rationales for conservation, each of them very differently politicized, as was the case with elephants in the decolonization period after the Second World War. This moment, therefore, presents an important case study in the political and moral distribution of value I have been discussing. In this paper, then, I will discuss Romain Gary’s The Roots of Heaven (1956/1958) Peter Viertel’s White Hunter, Black Heart (1953) in relation to political discourses of the time. I will explore the competing political, moral and aesthetic valuations of elephants at play, and whether these texts might portray animals, in all the senses the word implies, as invaluable.

When animals attack: are shark nets based on good science?

An endangered grey nurse shark. Up close, they look like less Jaws and more Gary Larson's Far Side.

Here’s a little insight. I am scared of sharks. Not just in the ocean. If I am flicking through a book and a turn the page over and see a shark, I recoil. Fortunately, during my day to day activities (working at my desk, working in a clinic, all on land) I rarely (i.e. never) encounter them and I don’t even give them a chance since I have a policy of avoiding ocean swimming.

I watched Jaws at an impressionable age. So terrified was I of the vision of a shark rushing out at me from below the water that I refrained from taking a bath for some years after. This is no minor deal – anyone who knows me knows that I practically live in the bath. But for a while there (and I was a child) I convinced myself that the plug was a black shark eye, and just couldn’t go there.

Yet more people are killed driving to or from the beach, or by drowning, than by shark attack. I don’t avoid cars or motor vehicles and I will (now) happily jump in a body of water like a bath or even a swimming pool. According to the stats, I am modifying my behaviour to avoid the thing that is least likely to kill me.

This chart was present at the talk last night. (NB I don't have an official source for this, so please don't take these figures on face value - peer reviewed data is always more reliable. But what this DOES illustrate is the relative risk. If you want to know more about how Aussie's died last year, see the Australian Bureau of Statistics).

I share this insight because it illustrates that our response to fear can be irrational. In my case the response wasn’t harmful (thank goodness for showers – and lucky Sharknado wasn’t released until I was an adult), but it can be.

When someone is bitten by a shark in Australia, fatally, the response – historically – has been to go and kill the perpetrator. There’s an element of vengeance as well as a sense that the shark hunters are protecting us from this rogue menace.

In Australia, the use of shark nets and drum lines to prevent sharks from munching swimmers, divers and fisher-people has been the subject of very emotive debate, particularly in Western Australia where Government policy around shark culling has come under enormous criticism.

Whether you are marine-oriented or not, it’s a brilliant example of the way we react when human-animal interactions go badly – for us (I don't know any Homo sapiens with a paralysing fear of spear-fisherpersons).

Last night the Sea Life Conservation Fund hosted a panel discussion about sharks, shark nets, risk and risk perception and it was fascinating. I admit to being one of those naïve individuals who assumed that a netted beach was something protected by a net barrier that extended headland to headland, 24/7, keeping sharks on the other side.

How wrong I was. From the DPI’s Dr Bob Creese, we learned that the nets, on 51 beaches in NSW, are around 6 metres high in 12 metres of water – extending for around 150 metres each. They are positioned around 500m offshore. The rationale is that most sharks will swim at about this level at this depth – and so other fish can swim over, and bottom-dwellers and rays can go under. So they do NOT prevent shark access to swimming beaches! Sharks, if they want to, can swim right over the top. Of course they don’t always and the nets do catch sharks. Moreover the nets are in place at least 14 days per month – not every day. 

They also catch what is euphemistically known as “by-catch”, a word with similar connotations to “collateral damage” used by some Governments to describe the death of civilians during military operations. By-catch refers to your non-man-eating sharks, dolphins, whales, dugongs, turtles etc. that become caught in nets. Under the NSW Shark Meshing (Bather Protection) Program the nets must be checked regularly for by-catch – every 72-96 hours. But that means an animal can struggle for up to 96 hours – long enough to hang itself in an entangled net.

Shark nets are killers of sharks, but they are indiscriminate killers – and endangered species, including the grey nurse shark of which there are only an estimated 1200 in the wild, get trapped and die.

Shark bite survivor Lisa Mondy couldn’t be present last night, but she wrote a letter describing her experience of being attacked while swimming back toward her wakeboard at Jimmy’sbeach on a crystal clear day. The response from the media, she said, was almost as scary as the attack.

She was and remains traumatised by that event in 2011, but was concerned that the response to a shark attack often consists of “punishing a species for a random, probably mistaken, act of nature” and urged people to analyse events scientifically, rather than maintain unfocused vengeance. She also cited a figure that I found interesting and somewhat alarming - 40% of sharks are caught on the beach side of nets! 

Dr Chris Neff supported that point, and provided background for the dominating rogue shark theory, and the history of nets in Australia. He suggested that when we analyse shark fatalities in the 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s – many “fatal” attacks were survivable by today’s standards – we just didn’t have the antibiotics, blood transfusions, high-tech ICU gear and reliable transport to hospital. Many victims died within the days or week after an attack rather than in the water. 

Professor David Booth took an ecological lens to the problem. In ecosystems the big sharks are what we call “apex predators”, and they play a role in keeping the mesopredators in check. Remove the apex predators and the meso predators over-populate and eat everything in sight, changing the whole ecosystem.

According to this paper, "Mesopredator outbreaks often lead to declining prey populations, sometimes destabilising communities and driving local extinctions." 

The biggest threat to the world’s sharks is overfishing, and there’s plenty of that, but Booth reminded us that we remove sharks from their ecosystems to our own detriment – we’re robbing ourselves of potential food sources too.

Alexia Wellbelove, from Humane Society International, revealed that from 1930 to April 2013, shark nets had had a huge impact on the marine ecosystem, trapping 15506 non-target species, catching more “by-catch” than sharks.

In other words, there is no definitive data that shark nets protect us – but concrete data that they are detrimental to wildlife.

So why keep on with the nets? They build confidence (even if it’s false). As a friend of mine brilliantly wrote:

This is the basis of the famous dread factor that Paul Slovic described in his classic works on risk perception. It doesn't matter how low the real risk or likelihood of harm is, what matters is what you think the likelihood is.  And there are so many differences between what is technically and what is emotionally the likelihood.  Unexpected harm arises from the actions people take to protect themselves from the perceived but improbable harm.  With sharks, the netting probably does a lot of harm for little benefit.  However, since the nets went in no shark (I repeat not one single shark) has been seen in my street - so I am definitely not in favour of removing those nets. 

Its someone puzzling in Australia that when a shark bite incident occurs, the Government feels compelled to do something.

Dr Neff, with the support of the Sea Life Conservation Fund, Sydney Sea Life Aquarium and the University of Sydney, surveyed 674 people at Sydney Aquarium (42 per cent were born in Australia, 58 per cent born outside of Australia) and has shared some new results with SAT.

After the talk I walked out of the venue and ran into this giant model of a great white shark. Despite the fact that this is an inanimate object, that I was on land, and in an environment where models of sea life abounded, I gasped audibly.

He was particularly looking to see if viewing sharks in the aquarium changed people’s perceptions and it did.

Most (77%) either didn’t feel frightened of sharks, or felt moderately frightened (23% were still extremely frightened). But seeing the sharks helped. I can attest to that. Once you look at these sharks, they aren’t nearly as scary (I went as far as diving with them at Manly Aquarium, which was adrenalin-fuelled but turned out to be a not-at-all scary experience).

My visit to Manly Aquarium to confront some of my Jaws issues (as opposed to issues with my jaws).

Interestingly, when asked who was to blame when sharks bite, only 2-4% blamed the Government; 6-8% blamed the shark; 9-11% weren’t sure, 33-40% said no one and 38-44% blamed the swimmer. Makes sense. If we go into the water, as land mammals, we have to assume some risk, don’t we? 

Increased levels of fear were not associated with increased levels of blame.

Policymakers often react to shark bite incidents because they are concerned they will be blamed. But the above results suggest that this might be an unfounded fear (though it would be interesting to survey non-aquarium goers, as I suspect some of the most diligent shark-o-phobes (selachophobes) would avoid the aquarium like the plague).

But certainly those surveyed had differing views about how Governments should respond to shark bites.

Around 4% thought shark hunts were a valid response, 9% would provide more shark nets, 18% would leave the shark alone and 69% felt compelled to educate the public. Around 87% of those surveyed preferred Government responses that did not kill sharks. But it is interesting that 13% of aquarium visitors did – so the surveyed population, as Dr Neff pointed out, aren’t “shark-huggers”. 

Am I a shark hugger? Well, to some extent last night yes.

Confession: I hugged this shark. 

Someone was dressed in a shark suit and I hugged them. I've not lost my sometimes irrational fear of sharks. But I do have rational concerns about fear and know that the gap between percieved risk and actual risk can be enormous. If we're making life and death decisions based on risk assessments - and this should apply to any species - we need to base them on good science, not hysteria. If we don't, we risk doing much more harm than good.

Activities for animal lovers

Tuesday night in? I don't think so! It may be winter, but there is plenty on for pet and animal lovers.

Yesterday's post on the vetting of potential adopters by shelters generated some amazing discussion...some on the blog and some people just wanted to email me and let me know their feelings. It is clear that the case discussed yesterday was not isolated, but its also clear that there is a real need for vetting out unsuitable owners (and yes, they are out there). To continue the discussion, scroll down and add a comment. And thanks everyone for keeping it civilised...I know this is an emotive topic.

On another note if you thought Tuesday nights were quiet, think again. If you're based in Sydney there are a few things you might like to try.

The City of Sydney Council is hosting a workshop on "Petiquette" tonight, focusing on living with pets in strata accommodation and keeping the peace with the neighbours. There are still spots available so if you're free from 6.30-8 get register here.

If wildlife if your thing, make your way to Sydney Aquarium for an insight into the "great shark debate" - should be be culling sharks? What are shark nets and drum lines? What are they supposed to do? What impact do these have on marine life?

The evening will include short talks by marine ecologist Professor Dave Booth (UTS), shark incident policy researcher Chris Neff (Sydney University), shark bite victim Lisa Mondy, lobbyist Alexia Wellbelove (Humane Society International) and CEO of Australian Aerial Patrol Harry Mitchell. To register for tonight's event, click here.

Tomorrow Sydney University is sharing some great ideas. Professors Sarah Whatmore and Mike Michael [as the owner of a cat named Michael, I particularly like that name] will be charing a seminar entitled "More than Human".

Professor Lesley Head will be discussing the distinctive capacities of plants and the implications of these for animal studies; Associate Professor Dale Dominey-Howes will talk about animal-human relationships in natural disaster contexts, and Associate Professor Kane Race will discuss the instrumentalisation of animals in police powers with specific reference to drug detection laws. For more info and to register, visit here.

Anthrax is a fascinating disease, a feared biological weapon and even the name of a heavy metal band. On Wednesday evening, Dr James Stark (Leeds University) will discuss the social history of anthrax.

For more info and to register, visit here.

This Saturday don't miss the Good Dog Easter Dog Parade in Balmain. For details, check the Facebook page here.

What do cats think about animal studies?

Anthrozoology (the study of human-animal interactions) and animal studies are growing areas in academia. What do animals think about that?

This week I recieved a beautiful copy of Max: The Confessions of a Cat, by celebrated Australian poet Antigone Kefala. 

Written in both English and Greek, this is a beautiful book for anyone who loves a) animals b) cats c) animal studies d) poetry e) Greek language f) English language g) beautiful illustrations. 

"People are often complacent and unwilling to let 'other' voices be heard," reads the blurb. 

The protagonist, Max, observes the emergence of new theoreticians and animal rights theorists.

I must admit that in spite of all this, the equation seems constantly to favour humans, it carries their point of view. We must all take to writing, this is the only way. Tell our stories...do our analysis, present the CAT'S point of view. Maybe, as some friends are suggesting, I should take to oral history, interview some CATS, see what they have to say, directly, their lives, experiences, their difficulties and so on, this may prove interesting.

Indeed. Max's confessions are delightful, wry, thought-provoking and lovely to read.

Meanwhile on the internet this week, an unlikely friendship between Roo, a two-legged chihuahua who uses a wheelchair, and Penny the chicken, both rescued by Duluth Animal Hospital, has been featuring prominently. One worries that these "unlikely friendships" are PR stunts, but in this case there seem to be plenty of unposed photos that suggest it is a genuine bond.

On a more serious note, Worms and Germs blogger Scott Weese has pointed out some quarantine issues re the adoption of puppies on Sochi by Olympians and others. You can read his post here. When adopting any animal, but especially from another country, it is essential to consider quarantine, both for any official requirements but also to protect animals in the community.