Best In Show

 

We've gone to the dogs and it's a dog-eat-dog world. That's the law of the jungle – the survival of the fittest. Our society arrogantly flaunts its supremacy over inferior species – our disdain for them – at least usually. We even recognize this in our metaphors and aphorisms.ⁱ We talk of foxes in the hen house, of wolves in sheep's clothing, and of swimming with the sharks. And we speak of dogfights.

Ah, dog-fighting. That's where we draw the line. That's where our love-hate relationship with them rears its head. Now that Michael Vick is rehabilitated and the NFL Comebackⁱⁱ Player of the Year (2010), it's clear that we're all confused by issues relating to animal rightsⁱⁱⁱ and wrongs. And about our own attitudes to animals in general. Indeed, we probably all agree that such an activity as dog-fighting is evil, and cock-fighting as well. Most would maintain that bullfighting is also cruel, although there are many who view it as sport.^iv I have no intention of defending dog-fighting, but we simultaneously claim concern as we dominate animals, making it is hard to ignore society's ambivalence on the subject of animals.^v

Personally I like a thick steak. Medium, so it's still juicy inside. But the fat^vi has to be charred. A vegetarian, and especially a vegan, would find my behavior reprehensible.^vii There are many who feel that killing animals for food is wrong,^viii or even using animal products obtained otherwise.^ix They are certainly opposed to hunting,^x as are many who are not vegetarians, but they view it as natural that other animals might hunt or eat meat. It's their natural instinct to do so. And when we deprive animals of their natural instincts and their natural habitat, as we do in zoos,^xi we take from them their “humanity.” Perhaps it's worse to take an animal out of its normal environment, or to squelch its natural instincts, than to take any other action against it.

Instinct is a real problem for us. However we may have incorporated that concern into our view of civilization though, dogs on leashes, for example, find themselves in an unnatural situation because of us. Animals in their natural habitat are free to wander at will. Nevertheless it's perfectly legal to restrain your pet – in fact in some localities people are required to keep their dogs on leashes. On the other hand, the fighting of many animals actually is natural and instinctual. Two dogs on leashes who do not know each other^xii will often bark and try to attack what they see as a competitor or enemy. The leashes stop them. But those who try to encourage this kind of normal behavior – especially if they do it with what we civilized people view as cruelty (even though this might simulate what those animals could face in nature) – are subject to prosecution. And even though it's normal for some of them, animals that bite are often destroyed. We're not always ready to concede to an animal his natural instincts.

And while animals, like humans, are programed to reproduce, we do not hesitate to spay or neuter our pets^xiii or, if we're the ASPCA, to euthenize animals in excess of our resources.^xiv Yet we'll spend tens of thousands on a beached whale or oil covered pelicans. And we're quite comfortable destroying industries^xv to save what we view as endangered species. There are many who are more concerned about pets than children. And some who view their pets as their children. We're humans with human values and human mindsets. And we see animals as having the same characteristics. At least they should, and we should foster them.

So we train pets to be polite and compliant. We condition them. We teach them to serve our needs. We want our children to do what we say and we want the same of our pets. But what child would walk smartly up and down on a leash, ignoring all distractions, as we'd observe at the Westminster Kennel Club. Perhaps we have to stifle a dog's instincts to achieve this result, but it's certainly worth it since we have turned the pet into a sophisticated human, and gotten bragging rights for ourself. And we make warriors of guard and attack dogs, helpers of seeing-eye dogs, and potential sacrifices of bomb-sniffing dogs. It's hard to know why these are acceptable outcomes, while using animals as medical laboratory subjects or for other testing purposes is not.^xvi In all those cases we are using animals to serve human purposes – not a major priority of most species. We turn them into something they're not for our benefit. Some might argue that a seeing-eye dog is fulfilling a great humanitarian service and the actions we take are justified, like a Saint Bernard with some brandy. But it's hard to understand the importance of the service performed by the Best In Show. And horse racing, the activity of the rich at Epsom Downs, is admirable, as is riding to hounds. If, however, a horse pulls a carriage in Central Park or a pet attacks a squirrel, we're quick to find fault. As is the case with so many things, it seems that if we like it, it's good. If we don't like it, it's bad. We aren't troubled by consistency.

As for other issues concerning animals, in some matters we glorify multiculturalism and promote its expression. But that's not a universal point of view. A culture that views a cow as holy isn't understood by many. Nor is the use of sacrifice as part of religious ritual. And even those who accept the idea of eating meat question the practice of using dogs and cats as food. Kosher slaughter (Shechitah) is under attack as cruel even though it is not intended that way and has been employed for millenia. We have very mixed views. But if meat is permissible at all, it must accord with our prejudices.^xvii Chickens, if used as food, must be “free-range.” Chicken coops are unnatural. Veal and foie gras should be avoided at all costs^xviii because they are the results of cruelty.

There are other prohibitions as well. No puppy farms. We shouldn't be breeding animals just to sell them. That philosophy will also impact heavily on the food trade, but animal lovers will surely applaud such a situation. As a matter of fact, pet stores should be closed. It's a good first step in eliminating all animal trade. We should also remove the dissection of frogs and fetal pigs from the biology curriculum. In fact we should remove the dissection of human corpses from the medical curriculum. There's no reason why doctors can't learn all that is necessary from a picture book. If you can paint by numbers, you can perform surgery the same way.

But we do more than protecting non-humans. We see them as greater and more deserving than we ourselves. At the same time that we use animals to suit our purposes – as pets for example – and we elevate their “rights” above our own. I can recall the impassioned plea of an environmentalist for the end of “noise pollution.” What did he mean by that? He felt that the sounds of birds and other animals were natural and beautiful, but those of humans were ugly and deserving of elimination. It seems that beneficial evolution stopped just before homo sapiens. Survival of the fittest be damned. Humans shouldn't use their superiority to dominate other species. We're better than that^xix. When our remains are discovered thousands of years from now and the scientists of the time discover the features of meat eaters, they may be unaware that eating of meat was out of fashion and that all we ate were Brussels sprouts. But we'll die with the knowledge of our own virtue. And, of course, we fed our pets the best available food, even if they often contained meat and dairy products.

I don't wish to condemn our behavior toward other species. We're only human. In fact I support many of the things we do. But our inconsistencies need to be recognized, and we should understand that while we criticize others, we often act more cruelly than they. Or at least with less understanding of what we're doing.

After all, we lionize our pets. The world is theirs. All we're needed for is to scoop the poop.

Next episode: “The Value Of Women” – More than just intellect.

i     Our use of words relating to animals illustrates this. Call a man a “dog” or a “jackass” and you've insulted him. Ditto “wolf” or “predator.” Call a woman a “bitch” and she will certainly take offense. Even the term “kitten” is seen as belittling. Call either a man or a woman a “bloodhound” or a “horse's ass” and you can anticipate ruffled feathers or raised hackles. People we don't like are often referred to as “animals” or “beasts.”
ii    Comeback from jail in this case.

iii    Whatever that means.

iv   They may also view boxing and other “man-to-man” combat as heroic.

v    Including my own. I have a stuffed moose head hanging in the living room, but it's really a cloth toy. Yet there are many who have the real thing as a decoration and source of pride.

vi    Yes. I said fat. (And Julia Child said: “Fat gives things flavor.”) It should be more than ample, but nowadays meat is trimmed of almost all of its fat. Allegedly thats better for my health. After all, it certainly didn't help its previous owner.

vii    He'd also view my fur hat with contempt.

viii   I'm not sure if they'd eat roadkill, animals killed by other animals, or those that died of natural causes, but I doubt it.

ix    Like milking cows. Presumably they also eschew the use of leather, vehicles that use fossil fuels, and electricity derived from that fuel. Ah for the good old days.

x     Should distinctions be drawn between killing as a “sport,” for food, or in order to thin out a large group “for its own benefit?”
xi    We do the same when we keep fish in tanks, bunnies or hamsters in cages, or other pets (especially strange ones like reptiles or large numbers of common ones, like cats) in apartments. And we make things worse when we declaw the cats and perform surgery on dogs to keep them from barking and disturbing the neighbors. We remove the scent glands from our pet skunks to protect ourselves and our neighbors.
xii    And possibly if they do.

xiii    Indeed. We're encouraged to do so.

xiv   Some are authorized to kill animals, some are not.

xv    And sacrificing the jobs and income of the humans who are a part of them.

xvi    Sometimes (actually almost always) I think that PETA has a greater concern for animals than humans.

xvii   In the case of the condemnation of Shechitah, a strong argument can be made that there is a strong component of anti-semitism among its proponents.

xviii   Actually both are relatively expensive, especially the foie gras.

xix   And we're worse than they.