Putting a face on animal suffering: Part II

Last time I wrote about Paul Slovic's work on human empathy in the face of mass suffering, I tried to generalize his findings about human suffering to that of other animals. What does a human bias to respond to the plight of one or two mean for activism? Do the reasons for the bias matter?

Even if we don't have a full understanding of the reasons for this human bias to respond to the plight of a few but not the plight of many, there is plenty of evidence for the existence of the bias and an implicit awareness of it. I think the advent of the "poster child" by certain charities may be a response to the bias - which I'm going to call the JustOne bias.

Is it that the suffering of one inspires action, or that the suffering of many discourages it? If people fail to respond to mass crises, like Darfur or the plight of so many hens in battery cages, could it be because they don't think they can make an impact? On the other hand, do we naturally have an easier time putting ourselves in the shoes or paws of just one being? Or do the numbers put us off? Do the same constraints on our cognition that make the size of the Earth or its population difficult to comprehend make the millions upon millions of animals imprisoned in laboratories hard to comprehend?

Each of these limits suggests a strategy for coping.

1. Help people appreciate that even small actions can help. I think the 34 million friends campaign is a good example of this. This grassroots campaign tells supporters explicitly that they are seeking a specific, small contribution. They also use concrete illustrations of the good that the collective donations can do. Other calls to action use similar strategies. "For the price of a cup of coffee you can XYZ..." It seems to me that microfinance operations embody this principle through their very existence.



2. Identify a "poster animal" who represents the issue. I think it's a fine idea to have that one poster animal as a representative for others who share his or her plight. I do this when I talk about the devastating legacy of maternal deprivation by sharing stories about one particular monkey who I knew personally - AB. Who is that individual? Does he or she have a story? The individual might be one who is doing well and the call is to keep it that way. It can also be an animal who is suffering and in need of help. People have visceral and emotional reactions to pictures and videos of a terrified animal or an animal in pain. The goal is to help people empathize, not to overwhelm.



3. Help people visualize and empathize with the experiences of an animal. One of my favorite examples of helping people identify with an animal is a brochure about the suffering of laying hens, which when unfolded displays text that remind readers that hens are kept in cages roughly the size of the paper in their hands. When I talk about the chair restraint commonly used with monkeys in laboratories, I use the analogy of an airplane seat on short flight and then ask others to imagine with me how that would feel if it lasted for days...or if it never ended. Granted, the coach seat is a cake walk by comparison, but since most people have experienced it at one itme or another, it's a place to start.



4. Facilitate the appreciation of scale. The best example of this that I have ever seen is the video version of "If the world were a village" at http://www.miniature-earth.com/. I've watched it many times, asked students to watch it for classes and know exactly why it won so many awards. Watching it once again now, after finding the link for this entry, I can say it still stirs my emotions.

Tom Regan speaks eloquently about how we can be affected by that one animal, and by the the suffering of the masses. It seems an important challenge, then, is finding the balance between the two. Given the JustOne bias, we have to be careful to address scale in ways that don't overwhelm or reverse the effect of the other approaches mentioned above.

For a brief summary of Slovic's recent research findings, see "How do we stop genocide when we begin to lose interest after the first victim?"

Sneak Peek: Wild rhesus monkeys taken in Nepal

Monkeys captured for vaccine research

The research center has taken permission from the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC) to capture 50 monkeys including five male, according to him.

The team has trapped 20 monkeys within three days from Bhutandevi area. Nine of them have been sent to Kathmandu, while the remaining are to be sent on Saturday, he said.

There are already 80 rhesus monkeys at the breeding center of the research center in Kathmandu, Khadka said. DNPWC is paid Rs 25,000 for each monkey captured and used for the research, he said.

Full text available at South Asian Media Net: Monkeys captured for vaccine research

Tip of the hat for a school north of the border

Dean @ York U speaks to students about animal rights and social justice
When I ask college students talk about their activism and advocacy on behalf of animals, I regularly hear stories about faculty who are disrespectful, combative, even openly hostile. I am troubled by such stories. But, despite my disappointment, most student activists remain undeterred; they can see beyond the bullying because they care so deeply about animals.

So imagine what a breath of fresh air it was to read about Dr. Joni Seager. Seager, a Dean at York University and a respected scholar on social justice and environmental issues, recently sat down with students to share her expertise and to talk about animal rights and activism. Tip of the hat to Dr. Seager.

“The foundations upon which systems of animal exploitation are based are being shaken and will continually be challenged as we gain a clearer picture of the inaccurate assumptions that support these systems,” Seager told the group. “There is a rich field of research waiting in animal rights, and I encourage you all to take up the issues that are meaningful to you and to help create positive change in our society.”

See the full article here: FES Dean Joni Seager highlights connections between animal rights and feminism

Ivory DNA test takes poachers to tusk - earth - 26 February 2007 - New Scientist Environment

Ivory DNA test takes poachers to tusk - earth - 26 February 2007 - New Scientist Environment

DNA samples from elephants all over Africa have given scientists a way to pinpoint the geographic origins of ivory. The results of the genetic map provide insights into where poaching is under-reported, and may also help to elucidate trade channels and to confirm the origin of ivory sold as part of limited kill authorizations granted to some south African nations.

From the news item:

A DNA test that reveals where ivory has come from has been used to pinpoint the geographic origins of hundreds of tusks seized from poachers, providing law enforcement agencies with valuable clues.

The test was developed in 2004 through a comparison of elephant DNA from different regions. Theoretically, it can pinpoint the origin of a particular sample to between 500 and 1000 kilometres.

Now, the DNA test has survived its first genuine challenge. It revealed that a huge sample of 532 tusks – seized in Singapore in 2002 but originally shipped from Malawi – came mainly from Zambia, not from multiple locations as originally suspected.

“We were delighted with the results,” says Sam Wasser, who developed the test at the University of Washington in Seattle, US. “The method actually performed better than expected.”

Similar genetic techniques could be valuable tools for challenging the origin of all sorts of animals and animal products where the sourcing is dubious.

University of Washington On Probation (March 1, 2007)

University of Washington On Probation (March 1, 2007)

Highlights of the nine-page letter of probation from the accrediting agency are noted in this online article. They included:

"Serious deficiencies that had the potential to negatively impact the health, well-being, and safety of animals and humans were not being identified during the facility evaluations." (p. 2)

"Deficiencies that were identified were not classified as significant or minor, and no time frame for corrections [was] detailed." (p. 2)

"None of the laboratories where animals were housed had emergency power or environmental alarms." (p. 3)

The letter also included concerns about widespread overcrowding, unsanitary and unsafe conditions in rooms and cages where animals were kept, and a host of other serious risks for animals and workers at the UW.