ABLC's "ethical veganism"

[knot]

Anyone got some thoughts on ABLC's take on 'ethical veganism', pet ownership and neutering?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOyn2tdIHAM#t=19m

To me it seems like he's using quite a lot of emotional appeal and scary visual imagery, and that his arguments are not that great on their own.

Also, Has Singer really said that it would be OK to kill animals [in general] if done painlessly, or is that a mischaracterization?

[brimstoneSalad]

This may be accurate about Singer, he's said a few things to that end, but he sort of waffles too. As far as I know he's currently a classical utilitarian, he only cares about experienced pleasure and pain... to some extent, then he mixes things up with a sense of time or being in some discussions.
He's not very consistent on that point. I criticized his approach in another thread around abortion, in a debate he had (which is on youtube). Somebody else might know which thread it was.

[inator]

Also, Has Singer really said that it would be OK to kill animals [in general] if done painlessly, or is that a mischaracterization?

Singer did say that about less complex animals that may have no concept of the future and can probably not attach any preferences to the idea of themselves existing in the future. Some fish, for example.

ABLC just seems to be against humans interfering with animals in general, "as a rule". Except for some cases of species conservation. He's pretty inconsistent about it.

[DarlBundren]

Singer did say that about less complex animals that may have no concept of the future and can probably not attach any preferences to the idea of themselves existing in the future. Some fish, for example.

That's weird. This is from his Project Syndicate column:

(It is a myth that fish have short memories.) Fish learn to avoid unpleasant experiences, like electric shocks. And painkillers reduce the symptoms of pain that they would otherwise show.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/if-fish-could-scream

[inator]

He said this in Practical Ethics (by "persons" he means a variety of future-oriented animals, not just humans):

For preference utilitarians, taking the life of a person will normally be worse than taking the life of some other being, because persons are highly future-oriented in their preferences. To kill a person is therefore, normally, to violate not just one but a wide range of the most central and significant preferences a being can have. Very often, it will make nonsense of everything that the victim has been trying to do in the past days, months or even years. In contrast, beings that cannot see themselves as entities with a future do not have any preferences about their own future existence. This is not to deny that such beings might struggle against a situation in which their lives are in danger, as a fish struggles to get free of the barbed hook in its mouth; but this indicates no more than a preference for the cessation of a state of affairs that causes pain or fear. The behaviour of a fish on a hook suggests a reason for not killing fish by that method but does not in itself suggest a preference utilitarian reason against killing fish by a method that brings about death instantly, without first causing pain or distress. Struggles against danger and pain do not suggest that fish are capable of preferring their own future existence to non-existence.

Now that he's a hedonistic utilitarian he may have similar opinions about complex sentient beings too.

Anyway, in the article you linked he seems to object to the pain that fishing inflicts, not to the killing of fish in itself.

The conclusion of the article:

We need to learn how to capture and kill wild fish humanely – or, if that is not possible, to find less cruel and more sustainable alternatives to eating them.

Still, even if he's right and we did manage to kill the fish humanely, I assume the capturing process creates a lot of distress too. Not to mention the lack of sustainability.

[ModVegan]

Anyone got some thoughts on ABLC's take on 'ethical veganism', pet ownership and neutering?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOyn2tdIHAM#t=19m

To me it seems like he's using quite a lot of emotional appeal and scary visual imagery, and that his arguments are not that great on their own.

I agree and disagree with Eisel. Do animals notice they've been neutered? Obviously I think the answer is yes, unless you are in "anthropo-denial" as Frans de Waal calls it. However, I think ABLC mischaracterizes pet ownership, at least in some instances. It's important to state that I don't personally live with any animal companions. But I do think given our co-evolution with dogs, in particular, over the past 30,000 years or so, demonstrates that some dogs seem to enjoy living with humans (especially when they have the space to thrive, etc).

[brimstoneSalad]

Do animals notice they've been neutered? Obviously I think the answer is yes, unless you are in "anthropo-denial" as Frans de Waal calls it.

You think an eight week old puppy notices missing testicles?
I don't think a young human child would necessarily notice. They're more likely to notice the sutures than the missing gonads, but since they tend to need to wear a cone for a few days (the worst and most frustrating part) even that is unlikely.

An adult dog might, but there's also a big difference between merely noticing and thinking possibly "that's weird", and triggering some kind of body dysmorphic disorder.
There's no evidence that neutering a dog affects psychological well being beyond the temporary frustration of wearing a cone and being unable to lick.
Removing testicles should prove at most no more traumatic than removing a tumor that had been growing on a dog's anus for a few months.

I would not say it's completely without harm, because animals hate wearing cones and there's mild discomfort for a few days which is shown, but I think it's silly to claim that missing testicles are part of that harm because some companies sell fake balls for owners' vanity.

The more important point is that the good (fewer unwanted puppies that turn into dogs who must be killed) outweighs the minor harm. We have to stop these animals from breeding unchecked. And we should not be breeding at all until all shelters are empty (and never mutant purebreds).

Are you against spaying and neutering?

[ModVegan]

Do animals notice they've been neutered? Obviously I think the answer is yes, unless you are in "anthropo-denial" as Frans de Waal calls it.

You think an eight week old puppy notices missing testicles?
I don't think a young human child would necessarily notice. They're more likely to notice the sutures than the missing gonads, but since they tend to need to wear a cone for a few days (the worst and most frustrating part) even that is unlikely.

An adult dog might, but there's also a big difference between merely noticing and thinking possibly "that's weird", and triggering some kind of body dysmorphic disorder.
There's no evidence that neutering a dog affects psychological well being beyond the temporary frustration of wearing a cone and being unable to lick.
Removing testicles should prove at most no more traumatic than removing a tumor that had been growing on a dog's anus for a few months.

I would not say it's completely without harm, because animals hate wearing cones and there's mild discomfort for a few days which is shown, but I think it's silly to claim that missing testicles are part of that harm because some companies sell fake balls for owners' vanity.

The more important point is that the good (fewer unwanted puppies that turn into dogs who must be killed) outweighs the minor harm. We have to stop these animals from breeding unchecked. And we should not be breeding at all until all shelters are empty (and never mutant purebreds).

Are you against spaying and neutering?

This is a point where we will have to agree to disagree. Yes, I think an 8-10 week old animal will absolutely notice that its testicles are missing. People used to say the same thing about circumcision (you know, "infants can't feel pain" was medical wisdom until very recently). However, I agree with your second point, that the good generally outweighs the harm. I do think if it were possible to, for example, perform a vasectomy instead, that would be preferable, and some vets do give vasectomies. In the case of female dogs and cats, I've read some benefits of later spaying, but that runs the risk of possible pregnancy, which I think outweighs the benefits. Ideally, tubal ligation and vasectomies would be the norm, and they are supposedly fairly easy for vets to perform, they simply aren't the standard taught in veterinary school. If vegans care about these issues, I think we should encourage veterinarians we know to learn about alternatives: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hal-herzog/the-ethics-of-neutering_b_2790315.html

In sum: no, I'm not against spaying and neutering, but I think if better alternatives are available (tubal ligation and vasectomy) those should be encouraged. And yeah, I think animals notice.

[brimstoneSalad]

This is a point where we will have to agree to disagree. Yes, I think an 8-10 week old animal will absolutely notice that its testicles are missing.

I don't know where you're getting that. How do you know this? Do you have behavioral evidence of some kind?
Without evidence, making the assertion that they care or even that they notice seems like a statement of faith.
Why not just say "I don't know if they notice or not"? Why suggest that you know for an absolute fact?

For most puppies, the testicles (which are very small) have only been descended for a week or two (many not even that). This is a time of growth, development, and rapid change for a puppy.
The idea that they would pick out this particular change (when the testicles have only just arrived on site) among all of the others is in itself highly dubious. I don't know that they even notice the testicles showing up, given how small they are before puberty.
That they would care about it (which is the more important question) is even more so.

We do know they care about the cone, because behaviorally they demonstrate some measure of frustration. And we do know that they notice a sutured incision, because behaviorally they lick and bite at it.
It's not hard to record behavioral cues to see what frustrates or upsets a dog.

That they would notice specifically the lack of testicles which are very tiny and have only just descended (if even) is just a very strange assertion given the context we're talking about and without behavioral evidence to show for it.

I can't understand your commitment to the claim.

People used to say the same thing about circumcision (you know, "infants can't feel pain" was medical wisdom until very recently).

This is not evidence.
People say the same thing to dismiss any mainstream belief they don't like. "People used to think the Earth was flat, therefore whatever I want that disagrees with reasoned professional or scientific opinion".

It may be possible that some puppies notice, but this is a claim that would need to be substantiated by evidence. Given the context, it seems unlikely to be a common occurrence.

However, I agree with your second point, that the good generally outweighs the harm.

If so, then why should we support fear mongering and scaring pet owners about the harm they may be doing to their dogs?
Just like with childhood vaccinations, there's no reason to bring up the risks and cause anxiety, and possibly even convincing some people in the process to do the wrong thing because they're bad at risk assessment.

I do think if it were possible to, for example, perform a vasectomy instead, that would be preferable, and some vets do give vasectomies.

That seems unduly cruel to animals to leave them with stronger sex drives and little ability to realize it.
For many animals, it also risks their lives because it drives them to "escape" during mating season and often end up dead.

[ModVegan]

I can't understand your commitment to the claim.

Likewise, but clearly as regards the issue of testicle detection, neither of us seems to have much solid evidence on the issue, so I'm moving on.

why should we support fear mongering and scaring pet owners about the harm they may be doing to their dogs?
Just like with childhood vaccinations, there's no reason to bring up the risks and cause anxiety, and possibly even convincing some people in the process to do the wrong thing because they're bad at risk assessment.

We can probably both agree that we are discussing an issue of harm reduction. Vaccination, I believe we can agree, carries unbelievable low risks (serious risks are far below 1%). So this is false equivalency. Research suggests risks of adverse affects for traditional spay/neuter procedures may be closer to 50% for certain breeds: https://theaggie.org/2013/04/04/uc-davis-study-shows-negative-effects-of-neutering/

I do think if it were possible to, for example, perform a vasectomy instead, that would be preferable, and some vets do give vasectomies.

That seems unduly cruel to animals to leave them with stronger sex drives and little ability to realize it.
For many animals, it also risks their lives because it drives them to "escape" during mating season and often end up dead.

Again, it's only "unduly cruel" if worse than the results of neuter itself.

Rates of bone cancer and joint disorders appear up to 4x higher for early neutered dogs http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0055937

I (literally) have no dog in this fight, as I have no pets and don't plant to ever get any. I have zero emotional investment in this issue, but I think it's a little irrational to assume you can remove a mammal's reproductive system without any ill effect. I cannot say for certain how that might be weighted against other concerns (not being a dog), but it's work consideration at the very least. But there is ample evidence that spaying, in particular affects female mammals' health (this is unquestionably the case in human women who undergo hysterectomy, which is less invasive than a spaying procedure).