RANDOM MUSINGS

What is the relation of humans to animals? What and who defines animal cruelty? These are tricky questions and do not have definite answers. The fuss created over various forms of alleged animal abuse raises these questions frequently. Homo sapiens have an unequal and complicated relationship with rest of the animal kingdom which has evolved over many million years. Animals come into an equation with humans in myriad ways: as food, as pets, for entertainment (sports which may or may not involve killing the animals), as experimental animals in pharmaceutical and medical industry, as beasts of burden, and as war animals.

Animals had a major role in wars since times immemorial. The battles and invasions most commonly involved elephants and horses. A theory claims that one of the reasons for victories in ancient times was because of the use of domesticated horses by the invaders. Conventional wars no longer use animals now, but there are many instances when they become transport vehicles for powerful bombs.

A few species qualify to become pets; and receive security and affection from humans. Dogs, cats, birds, and fish are the commonest, but there are instances of humans having more exotic species as pets. One of my colleagues in the UK had a donkey for a pet. There have been curios who keep snakes as pets. These are not killed, but are the object of human affections; and sometimes serve as a cure for man’s loneliness and isolation. Fish of course, when not used as pets in aquarium, is a wholesome diet all around the world.

Pet abuse is a favourite obsession with the NGOs like the PETA. The rules dealing with pets can be quite cumbersome and strict with the animal rights crusaders breathing heavily on the backs of individuals and the governments. Maybe, it is a good thing. Zoo-sadism is serious, but would be an uncommon affair. We can never know, unless the form of cruelty to animals is extremely gross.

The number of animals used in the medicinal industry is too mind boggling to even mention. Every single procedure carried by any doctor and every single drug given to humans has been experimented upon millions of animals before coming in the market. The safety of the medicinal procedure involves the sacrifice of mute animals who have no interest or awareness of the procedures involved. The majority humans are blissfully ignorant of these million sacrifices daily. We are enjoying the longevity provided by the medical and pharmaceutical industry because of experimentation and trials on an infinitude of animals.

Every single surgical procedure benefiting humans gets devised and perfected on animals, sometimes unanaesthetized too. These days, the regulations are stricter; there are artificial models to perfect surgical procedures, and tissue slices instead of live animals to test drugs and vaccines on. However, our history of health and longevity walks on the blood of millions of animals sacrificed for a human cause, maybe not so in a ‘humane’ manner.

Personally, it started for me in the 11th class when I cut up frogs for my biology labs. Sometimes, the frogs were in scarcity, and we used to hunt for the frogs in the neighbourhood and put them in concentrated salt solutions to asphyxiate them. It was disgusting, to say the least, but the force came as the school lab could not procure enough frogs! There is no frog dissection any longer for biology in school. Good; because frog hunting was never something I relished for the advancement of my medical career. I remember my first laparoscopic removal of the gall-bladder (after the initial simulator sessions in a box model) on a crudely anaesthetized goat. I made a mess of it and it started bleeding badly inside. I was very upset, but my colleague cheerfully mentioned not to worry about it. The goat at the end of the day anyway is wholesome mutton! I shuddered when I looked at the goat owner waiting impatiently outside for me to finish my training session. The point is, many surgical careers launch in animal labs. The patients who subject themselves to surgery might probably not relish a history from the doctor on the how of his skills. This would the situation for even the hard-core animal rights activists subjecting themselves to emergency medications and surgical procedures.

Circuses, sports of various forms like Jallikattu, bull fighting, deer hunting, constitute using animals as sport. Sometimes, the animals like hens and cocks do not die; but many times, they end up on the dinner plate of the owner. The winners feed more for the next battle; but they end up in a similar way. I am sure none of the birds who fight during Sankranti period die a natural death of old age. This is one area where there is a lot of noise from the animal right crusaders, media, and the lawyers. Sport and entertainment has been the inbuilt makeup of human genome and it is difficult to eradicate that. The usage of animals for sport and entertainment can never end. Witness a horse racing event to believe that; just as one visit to Tirupati or the Vatican can firmly affix that faith can never die.

Food animals are too numerous to mention. Chickens, pigs, cows, bred in captivity, provide food for humans. The breeding conditions and the breeding practices would make the strongest person recoil in horror. Many hard-core non-vegetarians have turned vegetarian once they visually come across some of the breeding and meat making processes. Most of the procedures used on animals are something we would not be remotely comfortable in doing to humans. It would amount to unacceptable torture. There are many arguments in favour of consuming meat- nutrition content being one of them. Low cost food is another. A major argument is that land agricultural produce would not be enough to feed the ever-increasing population. Again, this is arguable. The point is, do we need to eat animals to survive? Lands converted to feed the livestock and process their excretions are a great cause of land and air pollution. Some authorities, in fact, have put the blame of global warming on animal farming.

Timothy clack in ‘Ancestral Roots’ makes a strong argument against meat eating. He writes:

“It is a great debate whether our ancestors were hunters, scavengers or gatherers and the simplest answer is they were all three. Our flexible approach to food saw us through environmental shortages and catastrophes. Plants allowed us to live, but meat was probably important in evolution. However, the vegetarian option is seven times more efficient than the non-vegetarian option. A society can be judged by the way it treats its animals (and by extension, the old, infirm, and handicapped). The animal worlds are not merely alive, but are living life. Animals have a capacity to feel pleasure and pain, at least at the physical level. The pain at a mental level may not be agreed upon by human beings from their point of view. We have been urbanizing our cattle. Feeding them with foods to which they are not normally adapted, like corn to livestock, most of it being beef cattle, has a consequence of converting lands for agriculture to produce corn. Today, in the US, 60% of the corn is used as feed for livestock. Added to this, a heavy concoction of growth stimulators, artificial supplements, steroids, and antibiotics, has ensured that cattle growth has been accelerated from a life cycle of three and a half years to 16 months presently. Animals in the wild have a relatively peaceful life till they probably face a dire end. The clear majority of animals live a peaceful existence. But, the life of an animal in the modern meat industry is dire from beginning to the end.

Humans indulge in psychological tricks to deal with its meat eating.
1. We tend to view animals as species instead of individuals. Thus, we eat chicken (the species) and not that chicken (the individual). This censors us from the pain the chicken goes at the abattoir.
2. We take the animal completely out of the equation. Thus, we eat beef, meat, pork, mutton but not cow, sheep, pig, or goat. This allows some detachment at a psychological level.

The price of meat produce in shops is kept low because the agricultural industry spreads the cost elsewhere. So, one should not really make an argument for availability of meat at a low cost as a reason to universal non-vegetarianism. The meat industry has become the biggest threat to the continued existence of modern humans.

At any time, the global agriculture industry is feeding 1.1 billion pigs, 1.8 billion sheep and goats and 15.4 billion chickens. The waste produced by one million humans is equal to the waste produced by 250,000 pigs or 150 million chickens. Manure is not processed like human waste and much of it is spread over the fields. The large concentrated levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in the manure cannot be absorbed and a good bit is washed away by rains which pollute groundwater, rivers, and streams. Infected groundwater causes health problems with bacteria like E. coli. Manure in the streams and rivers rapidly increase the plant life. When the plants decay, they decrease the amount of oxygen in the aquatic world, killing a lot of marine life. This process is called EUTROPHICATION. Hence natural resources are depleted. Today, 50% of lakes in Europe and USA are eutrophic. Faecal contamination of meat products is very high because of the insanitary conditions of the feedlot and slaughter houses.

Energy used in the meat industry for transport is disproportionately high to the output. Meat industry consumes more water as compared to the agricultural practices. Also, a good amount of land is converted to grow food for the livestock, the transportation of which again is a huge drain on the fuel sources. Each pound of steer meat from a US feedlot requires about 10,000 litres of water. A pound of potato requires about 50 litres of water. Livestock drink about half the water consumed in the USA. The land on Earth is enough to feed the humans with crops many times over its present population….”

There are such kind of serious arguments against non-vegetarianism, but they are never taken seriously. It would be simply foolish to even expect that the world will stop eating meat. The percentage of vegetarians in almost all countries of the world is in single digits; like 3% in the US and 6% for Europe! India stands between 29-40%, which is clearly an outlier. The choice rests with the individuals and it can never be enforced. Hitler was a vegetarian and tried to impose the vegetarianism on his people, but his own trusted lieutenants largely ignored him, albeit a little discretely!

Many times, the discussion against meat eating is from our perspective only. How bad it is to our health and to our continued existence. The animals rarely come into the equation. However, the world goes on happily consuming meat at an extraordinary and unstoppable level. Also, what is ethical to one culture is horror to another. We cannot think of consuming snakes, monkeys, dogs, and cats; but, there are a huge number of cultures who are perfectly fine with that. Pakistan consumes a great amount of meat. My vegetarian friend who visited Pakistan for a cricket match survived on Dal and Roti and most hotels waived off his food charges. They used to tell him cheerfully, “to charge anything for ‘ghaas-phoos’ (shrubs and grass) would be sacrilege.” My friend came back with some great memories. Were they cruel by his vegetarian standards or were they nice because of their behavior towards him?

Swami Vivekananda spoke at length on meat consumption and he was aware that it was a highly controversial topic. He says:

“About vegetarian diet I must say this – first, my Master was a vegetarian; but if he was given meat offered to the Goddess, he used to hold it up to his head. The taking of life is undoubtedly sinful; but so long as vegetable food is not made suitable to the human system through progress in chemistry, there is no other alternative but meat-eating. So long as man shall have to live a Rajasika (active) life under circumstances like the present, there is no other way except through meat-eating. Rather let those belonging to the upper ten, who do not earn their livelihood by manual labour, not take meat; but the forcing of vegetarianism upon those who must earn their bread by labouring day and night is one of the causes of the loss of our national freedom.

All liking for fish and meat disappears when pure Sattva is highly developed, and these are the signs of its manifestation in a soul: sacrifice of everything for others, perfect non-attachment to lust and wealth, want of pride and egotism. The desire for animal food goes when these things are seen in a man. And where such indications are absent, and yet you find men siding with the nonkilling party, know it for a certainty that here there is either hypocrisy or a show of religion.

In this way, discussions of a conflicting character, giving rise to mutual abuses, quarrels, and fights, are going on. After carefully scrutinising all sides of the question and setting aside all fanaticism that is rampant on this delicate question of food, I must say that my conviction tends to confirm this view—that the Hindus are, after all right; I mean that injunction of the Hindu Shastras which lays down the rule that food, like many other things, must be different as per the difference of birth and profession; this is the sound conclusion. But the Hindus of the present day will neither follow their Shastras nor listen to what their great Acharyas taught.

To eat meat is surely barbarous and vegetable food is certainly purer—who can deny that? For him surely is a strict vegetarian diet whose one end is to lead solely a spiritual life. But he who must steer the boat of his life with strenuous labour through the constant life-and-death struggles and the competition of this world must take meat. So long as there will be in human society such a thing as the triumph of the strong over the weak, animal food is required; otherwise, the weak will naturally be crushed under the feet of the strong. It will not do to quote solitary instances of the good effect of vegetable food on some person or persons: compare one nation with another and then draw conclusions…”

Humans have clearly an ambivalent relation with rest of the animal kingdom; and primarily, we have not left them alone. The use and abuse of animals is part of the evolutionary game, and there is no way we can avoid that. We have reached where we are because of exploitation and selective killing of other species. We cannot apply moral standards and ethics in our behavior towards them selectively. It is all right to consume them; but we seem to have exacting standards to deal with them when used as pets or for entertainment. Again, the size of the animal seems to matter in the scheme of things. We do not have any problems with the sacrifice of millions of rats, mice, guinea-pigs (sometimes killed during advanced stages of pregnancy) to study medicines and procedures; but horses and elephants used for film shooting becomes an area of intense discussion. Cockroaches do not seem to enjoy animal rights too. Apparently, the shock came from one Hollywood film where bombs blew up horses literally for a war scene. The shock would not have materialized even for a thousand cockroaches.

We are only defining cruelty in the non-impacting areas of animal use. We are largely silent towards animal abuse in food and medical industry; we have created our own standards of what is ‘humane.’ Sports, entertainment, and domestication are the areas where animal cruelty is maximum in discussion. Most of these activities do not affect the humans in any great manner, and hence, the activism is sometimes excitement created by people who need an occupation.

Indian scriptures, including the Gita, stress on moderation rather that complete abstention regarding dietary practices like in almost all other areas. Eating of meat is not a sin or a crime or even an offence in Hinduism. Vegetarianism is the recommended and prescribed diet but it is not mandatory.

This Manusmriti quote (5.56) summarises the Dharmic stand on non-vegetarianism:

na māṃsa bhakṣaṇe doṣo na madye na ca maithune |

pravṛttir eṣā bhūtānām nivṛittis-tu mahā phale ||

There is no sin in eating meat, in (drinking) spirituous liquor, and in intercourse, for that is the natural way of beings, but abstention brings great rewards.

In summary, there is no uniform moral or ethical stick by which we can say what is cruelty or non-cruelty to animals so long as they do not have a voice. There is no way we can speak for them and say this is what cruelty is all about. We have variable standards; and in such circumstances to talk about cruelty of Jallikattu and cock fights while having a chicken tikka masala does not make any sense. The Jain monks probably have some moral authority to talk about cruelty to animals; but for the clear majority of us, we must accept that humans are a branch of evolution with some distinct exploitative advantages towards survival, and we make use of it. It is good to have some moral standards in dealing with animal use; but they will always be fluid, grey, and interpretable. There can be no absolutes. It is commendable that organizations like PETA goes to the extreme of banning all forms of animal abuse, but that is a totalitarian view which goes against common sense as the world will never stop eating meat. Also, they are fighting evolutionary principles and hence is a lost battle from the word go.

We have been driving species to extinction many times over the natural rate, and that is alarming. Maybe, it is evolution, maybe it is cruelty; nobody can really say. Animal rights have some similarity to foetal rights, but we have all gone through the foetal stage, and hence the empathy is much stronger. Unfortunately, our animal stage was millions of years ago, and the disconnect is stronger. The empathy and sympathy come forced. The aim would be to settle in a dynamic equilibrium where the animals do not outnumber us; and simultaneously, to make use of them for our own survival without completely removing them. It looks Utopian at present. And hence, Jallikattu will continue, bull-fighting will continue, deer-hunting will continue, meat will continue, and PETA will continue. This is the way of the world; this is the way of the complex human mind.

I remain a vegetarian by choice, do not own pets, and can only request for some moderation from the ‘other’ group. My parents taught me to stay vegetarian and not make a virtue out of it. The non-vegetarians need not be condemned and there is no need to get attracted to non-vegetarianism. That has been my personal reconciliation. By acceptance in the Hindu Dharmic way. However, there can never be moral absolutes. And moderation in animal exploitation is very difficult to define in the present mind of the evolutionary phase.