Comments (0)

By Andrew Gottlieb, June 7, 2011 1:30 pm

The Moral Lives of Animals
by Dale Peterson
Bloomsbury Press, 2011

Reviewed by Andrew C. Gottlieb

When I was a teenager, my family had a dog named Buddy, a German shepherd-beagle mix who was taught to stay off the living room couch. Except that more than once, my mother — usually the first one awake on any dark, sleepy morning — walking down the hall toward the living room, only thinking of turning on the heat, the lights, and the coffee, would see the dog slip off the couch to the floor, catching him at the tail end of his deception. He occasionally overslept in that soft couch, failing to move in time in response to her shuffling, slippered footsteps. And he’d get caught.

As a pet owner, I know that many animals — at least the larger mammals — experience emotion and live by some form of a moral code. I take that for granted. Buddy not only understood right from wrong, but that what also mattered was simply if he could get away with it. He engaged in deceptive practices, and we had many a laugh about his human-like assumptions. If I don’t get caught, it’s okay, right? Sometimes it was as if Buddy had two emotions: joy and guilt. But of course there were more: fear, excitement, curiosity, to name a few.

I approached Dale Peterson’s new book thusly: as a member of the choir, an animal fan, an environmentalist, someone who’s comfortable around strange dogs, who can put an animal at ease. Peterson, a dog owner himself — his dogs Smoke and Spike make frequent appearances — tells us this book originated from a dinner-party argument, and one can imagine it starting: “Clearly animals don’t have emotions or morality — they act on instinct. Neural reflexes only, dear chap.” The sort of statement that makes pet owners roll their eyes. Yet, the suggestion of the book’s origins belies the structure, and the way Peterson makes his case. I expected a lucid rebuttal with a resounding conclusion: hypothesis presented, points made, confirmed, concluded. Dinner party over. It’s not to be: The Moral Lives of Animals is more than that.

Peterson’s book is a thoughtful, semi-academic, and well-researched tome that examines the meaning of morality from many angles — linguistically, socially, behaviorally, emotionally — and across a number of animal species, including Homo sapiens. Domestic dogs, chimpanzees, and bonobos make an appearance. As do whales, bats, and kangaroos. Gerbils, penguins, and wolves. To clarify, what Peterson’s done is present specific, observed cases of animal behavior, illustrate the ways the identical behavior exists in humans, and use these examples to try to map out the complex geography of what we mean by morality. While attempting to hammer out the ways in which humans often attribute intelligence and value systems to themselves while minimizing the same for an animal species.

The backdrop for the overall arc of the book is Melville’s Moby Dick, the great novel that offers an animal’s tale (based in reality — the Essex sinking) while presenting a variety of human attitudes toward animals. With Melville’s backing, Peterson asks: Are we Ahab? Or are we Starbuck? Are we hunting the malevolent White Whale? Or are we rationally human-centered, recognizing the whale is just one beast in the sea, and that the lives of the crew take precedence.

Peterson’s answer is of a Buddhist nature, and we realize this more when he takes on human behavior and morality. Humans are stripping the world of its mineral and animal natural resources. They are polluting the elements that both humans and animals need to survive. They are warring and killing. Deforesting. Pursuing situations in the world — deep water drilling, nuclear energy — that can cause irreversible damage on a large scale when accidents occur. Peterson’s nutshell: in fact, animal populations may act in a way more balanced and more conducive to overall survival of a group than humans do.

Peace: the answer and the challenge. Respecting others. Forgoing speciesism, the narcissism of the human. Peterson closes with the image of a large whale lifting a dinghy and its two occupants clear out of the water on its large tail. Putting them down without hurting them. We’re close to the Buddhist mantra: do no harm. Hurt no living thing. Can humans learn to coexist with animals in the world before it’s too late? Can we learn to respect animal populations as not simply there for the sport? For whim? For abuse? For management? Peterson shows us the human race fails at this when we objectify animals. When we foreground pure economics. And his examples show us that animals are far from objects; in fact, they’re remarkably similar to humans, and perhaps more moral, more rational in their ability to allow their environment and species to persist, where human populations can seem so determined to annihilate themselves. We share the world with these creatures. One hopes that Peterson’s book will be read by more than people like me: the choir. The ones who are already on board. There’s a lot to learn here.

I’m a reader who loves to peruse footnotes, citations, references, bibliographies. That’s my quibble with the book’s set up. There’s a great notes section, and a thorough bibliography, attesting to Peterson’s hard work. But the notes section doesn’t have full references, only page numbers and author’s last names. The reader is forced to go first to the notes section, then carry the last name to the bibliography to learn a book’s title. Too much unnecessary work for the reader.

But that’s a formatting issue and in no way undermines the hard work of the author and the arguments. Peterson is examining morality in animals, but his point — my paraphrase — is striking and ironic: animals are not only moral, but perhaps more so than humans. The title of this book could be The Immoral Lives of Humans. We are Starbuck, not Ahab, Peterson shows us. That’s the danger: we’ll act rationally, turning from the white whale, resuming the voyage to kill 100 more whales in order to light our lamps. We’ll do always what’s best for us, now, in this moment. And in the long run, that may be the craziest, most amoral thing of all. Peterson purports to write a book about morality in animals, but in reality he holds up a mirror for humans. The reflection is uncomfortable.

~~~

Andrew C. Gottlieb is the Reviews Editor for Terrain.org. His work can be found online, in many print journals, and in his poetry chapbook Halflives (New Michigan Press.)

Comments (0)

By Simmons Buntin, January 4, 2011 6:12 pm

The Smart Swarm: How Understanding Flocks, Schools, and Colonies Can Make Us Better at Communicating, Decision Making, and Getting Things Done
By Peter Miller

2010, Avery (Penguin Group)

What ants, bees, fish, and smart swarms can teach us about communication, organization, and decision-making…

The modern world may be obsessed with speed and productivity, but 21st-century humans actually have much to learn from the ancient instincts of swarms. A fascinating new take on the concept of collective intelligence and its colorful manifestations in some of our most complex problems, The Smart Swarm introduces a compelling new understanding of the real experts on solving our own complex problems relating to such topics as business, politics, and technology.

Based on extensive globe-trotting research, this lively tour from National Geographic reporter Peter Miller introduces thriving throngs of ant colonies, which have inspired computer programs for streamlining factory processes, telephone networks, and truck routes; termites, used in recent studies for climate-control solutions; schools of fish, on which the U.S. military modeled a team of robots; and many other examples of the wisdom to be gleaned about the behavior of crowds–among critters and corporations alike.

In the tradition of James Surowiecki’s The Wisdom of Crowds and the innovative works of Malcolm Gladwell, The Smart Swarm is an entertaining yet enlightening look at small-scale phenomena with big implications for us all.

~~~

I’ve only just started reading The Smart Swarm, and am already enamored with it. Peter Miller writes in a pleasurable, intellectually stimulating manner. I’m not certain if we’ll be able to include a full  review in Terrain.org, but you shouldn’t wait for that, anyway. This is a book that should be on your list.

SB

Comments (0)

By Simmons Buntin, November 6, 2006 3:34 am

EARTH TALK
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that driving with soft tires wastes energy and results in more pollution?
– Nanci Graham

When tires are not inflated to the pounds per square inch (PSI) rating recommended by manufacturers, they are less “round” and require more energy to begin moving and to maintain speed. As such, under-inflated tires do indeed contribute to pollution and increase fuel costs.

An informal study by students at Carnegie Mellon University found that the majority of cars on U.S. roads are operating on tires inflated to only 80 percent of capacity. According to the website, fueleconomy.gov, inflating tires to their proper pressure can improve mileage by about 3.3 percent, whereas leaving them under-inflated can lower mileage by 0.4 percent for every one PSI drop in pressure of all four tires.

That may not sound like much, but it means that the average person who drives 12,000 miles yearly on under-inflated tires uses about 144 extra gallons of gas, at a cost of $300-$500 a year. And each time one of those gallons of gas is burned, 20 pounds of carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere as the carbons in the gas are released and combine with the oxygen in the air. As such, any vehicle running on soft tires is contributing as much as 1.5 extra tons (2,880 pounds) of greenhouse gases to the environment annually.

Besides saving fuel and money and minimizing emissions, properly inflated tires are safer and less likely to fail at high speeds. Under-inflated tires make for longer stopping distances and will skid longer on wet surfaces. Analysts point to under-inflated tires as a likely cause of many SUV rollover accidents. Properly inflated tires also wear more evenly and will last longer accordingly.

Mechanics advise drivers to check their tire pressure monthly, if not more frequently. The correct air pressure for tires that come with new vehicles can be found either in the owner’s manual or inside the driver-side door. Beware, though, that replacement tires may carry a different PSI rating than the originals that came with the car. Most new replacement tires display their PSI rating on their sidewalls.

Also, tire pressure should be checked when tires are cold, as internal pressure increases when the car has been on the road for a while, but then drops when the tires cool back down. It is best to check tire pressure before heading out on the road to avoid inaccurate readings.

As part of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation Act of 2000, Congress has mandated that automakers install tire pressure monitoring systems on all new cars, pickups and SUVs beginning in 2008. To comply with the regulation, automakers will be required to attach tiny sensors to each wheel that will signal if a tire falls 25 percent below its recommended PSI rating. Car makers will likely spend as much as $70 per vehicle to install these sensors, a cost that will no doubt be passed along to consumers. However, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, some 120 lives a year will be saved once all new vehicles are equipped with such systems.

CONTACTS: Carnegie Mellon Today, “Save Gas, Money and the Environment with Properly Inflated Tires,” www.cmu.edu/cmnews/extra///050921_tire.html; FuelEconomy.gov, “Keeping Your Car in Shape,” www.fueleconomy.org/feg/maintain.shtml.

Dear EarthTalk: What exactly does “not tested on animals” mean on a product, like a shampoo? Where can I find products that are completely not tested on animals and are also eco-friendly?
– James Masarech

Many consumer products go through precise testing to make sure they are safe and healthy for people and the environment before they are made available in the marketplace. The downside is that many of these tests make use of live animals. According to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), safety testing of chemicals and consumer products accounts for roughly 10 to 20 percent of the use of animals in laboratories (or approximately two to four million animals) in the U.S.

The majority of animals used in product tests are rats and mice, but dogs, cats, sheep, hamsters, guinea pigs and primates are also used. Significantly more animals are used in biomedical and other kinds of research, but the use of animals in product testing figures prominently in the animal research controversy because it questions the “ethics and humaneness of deliberately poisoning animals [and] the propriety of harming animals for the sake of marketing a new cosmetic or household product,” says HSUS.

Governments often mandate that certain products, such as drugs, automotive fluids, garden chemicals and food additives, be tested on animals. In other cases, such as with cosmetics, personal care and household cleaning products, companies voluntarily test on animals to better understand the pros and cons of using certain ingredients, to see what effects a given product or ingredient will have on living systems–and to demonstrate due diligence should their products harm someone and a lawsuit be filed.

In response to these widespread practices, advocacy groups like HSUS and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) campaign vigorously to eliminate or reduce the use of animals in product testing, even recommending boycotts of companies that continue to voluntarily engage in what they argue is both cruel and unnecessary. This advocacy has been effective, as more than 500 cosmetic, personal care and household cleaning products manufacturers have vowed to stop testing their products on animals.

In 2003 the European Parliament approved a Europe-wide ban on the use of animals in cosmetics testing. Set to go into effect in 2009, the prohibition also mandates that no beauty or hygiene products tested on animals elsewhere be sold inside the European Union. Some exemptions do exist, however, such as products tested for toxicity or for their potential effects on human fertility. Some animal advocacy groups see these as unacceptable loopholes likely to undermine the ban or push back its implementation.

In 1986 an international group of animal protection organizations that includes HSUS formed the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics (CCIC). The coalition urges cosmetics and household products manufacturers to sign on to a “Corporate Standard of Compassion for Animals” policy and agree to not conduct or commission animal tests or use any ingredient or formulation that is tested on animals. Companies portray the coalition’s “leaping bunny” logo on products as proof of their commitment. CCIC publishes a pocket-sized “cruelty free” shopping guide which can also be downloaded from its website.

CONTACT: CCIC Shopping Guide, www.leapingbunny.org/pdf/ccicguide_full.pdf.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.