Friday, February 22


The venerable photo-heavy magazine has a nice feature this month, "Inside Animal Minds," that pulls together a few relatively recent experiments (relatively, I said - Betty the Crow's wire-bending was six years ago, and Alex the Parrot, who started making headlines in the late '90s, has since died) that collectively show humans' notion of inherent mental superiority over animals has no apparent basis other than wishful thinking. Every intellectual process we come up with as the definitive exemplar of "this is what separates us from the animals" is eventually toppled when an appropriate experiment is devised that can truly test it scientifically.

Here's a passage that deftly illustrates many people's chauvinistic attachment to the Humans-Uber-Alles fantasy: Research by Clayton and Emery at Cambridge University

    demonstrates that some birds possess what is often considered another uniquely human skill: the ability to recall a specific past event. Scrub jays, for example, seem to know how long ago they cached a particular kind of food, and they manage to retrieve it before it spoils.

    Human cognitive psychologists call this kind of memory "episodic memory" and argue that it can exist only in a species that can mentally travel back in time. Despite Clayton's studies, some refuse to concede this ability to the jays. "Animals are stuck in time," explained Sara Shettleworth, a comparative psychologist at the University of Toronto in Canada, meaning that they don't distinguish among past, present, and future the way humans do. Since animals lack language, she said, they probably also lack "the extra layer of imagination and explanation" that provides the running mental narrative accompanying our actions.
We'll ignore the fact that animals' episodic memory has been proven by other experiments with other types of animals. Let's just look at Shettleworth's so-called logic: Since animals lack language, they must lack a mental narrative and therefore an ability to think back through time. The fallacies in this are profoundly risible: First, the premise, that animals lack language, is trotted out as a given, with no proof whatsoever. Yet many experiments have found animals communicating among themselves in ways that suggest languages we may not yet have decoded, and different kinds of animals have managed to bridge that gap that we've been incapable of - i.e. learning to communicate in some rudimentary form of human language. So, baldly stating that animals lack language is highly questionable at best.

After this unsound premise, the next step is an implicit assertion that since humans' mental narratives are associated with language, language must be the cause, the progenitor, of those narratives. Again, completely unproven, and on its face a classic converse error of the "Socrates is a cat" type. But still, let's go ahead, just for fun, and grant a) that animals lack language, and b) that human mental narratives are based on language.

This still in no way tells us that non-human animals' mental narratives must be based on language. In fact, if animals do indeed lack language, yet are able to show intellectual processing in all these experiments, that makes it even more likely that they would have some non-linguistic way of organizing their thoughts, and therefore their memories. Yet Shettleworth's statement of utter illogic is supposed to stand on a he-said-she-said par with actual scientific experiments proving this capability in animals. (As Clayton points out, every time a criterion for mental capability in animals is met by a scientific proof, the skeptics "move the goalposts".) There are few more poignant examples of how humans' mental superiority over animals must be true simply because we so fervently wish it to be true.

And why do we wish it to be true? Well, here National Geographic, unsurprisingly, drops the ball, staying far away from this issue, but clearly, if the supposed border between humans and animals is breached, it means we can't automatically exclude the latter from our community of beings who deserve moral consideration. And that would imply considering not just parrots and scrub jays and dolphins, but the pigs, cows and chickens we needlessly slaughter for our entertainment. This was a point made in an article of which I'm very fond from a couple years back (PDF). It lacks the beautiful pictures, yes, but in my totally unbiased opinion, gets directly to the very heart of this issue.

UPDATE 3/4: I noticed the photo of the groundhog was no longer loading and clicked through to find that National Geographic has pulled the entire story from their site, less than a week into the month for which the issue is dated. What, is the concept of animal intelligence that threatening? What gives?

Tuesday, February 19


By now the HSUS video of downers being abused is a well-established American icon, but I can't let go of that "bombshell" analogy, so now we have all the stories where the facts and their respective spins go bouncing around from one media format to another, with the requisite newspaper editorials condemning this supposed isolated incident and demanding "action" to assure we can all swallow animal corpses without fear, and with "reaction" from "experts" like Temple Grandin.

Grandin, who makes her career off the meat industry, tends to low-ball its ill effects (outside of, you know, making the cattle nervous and anxious when their kill chutes are poorly designed), so it's worth noting that she baldly states that the stuff seen in the video - which, cruelty aside, is all about flouting USDA regulations and slaughtering high-risk downers - is probably going on right now at "10 or 15 percent of the plants" in the United States. In other words, even if we lowball Grandin's own lowballing and take the 10% estimate, take the record-setting amount of meat just recalled because there were downers in it (and once again, downers are the most likely to be carrying BSE) and multiply it by 650. I don't even want to figure out all the zeroes in that.

We'll let this one Baltimore Sun article stand in for all the others, as it does have a couple more good gems: F'rinstance, try to reconcile these - the USDA promises to "ramp up" its inspection process, while at the same time claiming that "We know our inspectors were correctly inspecting the plant" in question. Huh? If they were already correct, how can you make them more correcter?

And Amanda Eamich, the spokeswoman behind that quote, also blithely states that (quoting the article) "the department's investigation found that the mistreatment documented on the video was an exception to its practices." Uh huh... an exception to its practices? Or to its supposed policies??? After all, if this stuff was going on and the USDA official present couldn't find it, how can the USDA speak with any credibility about what was or was not regularly happening at this plant... or any other, for that matter? What exactly is their basis of data by which they can determine this is an "exception"? The plant's records of its own violations? What? Inquiring stomachs want to know.

And as one last tidbit... A Mad Criminal is on the loose! While one of the two men wholly responsible for this 143-million-pound recall has been taken into custody, the other remains at large! That means Luis Sanchez could be out there somewhere forcing downers to walk to slaughter even as we speak! Doesn't the law enforcement here seem a little lackadaisical? I mean, we're talking about the two most evil men in the whole slaughter industry, the two who refuse to follow the rules and who, all by themselves, came up and implemented this plan to subvert USDA regulations - and one of these two is still out there, continuing, no doubt, to instigate more isolated incidents!!! The horror! Seriously, though, I hope that no language barrier prevents these two from singing.

Monday, February 18


Hey folks, remember how all last week and the week before the USDA kept saying there was no evidence the downers were ever made into meat? Well, as of Sunday afternoon, there suddenly was ... yes... evidence the downers were ever made into meat! And on that little distinction rests the largest beef recall in U.S. history. Because while the chance of illness, according to the USDA, is "low," there's almost no doubt now that American consumers over the past two years (at least) have been eating beef from animals too sick to stand up on their own! Hey hey! Animals that are therefore most likely to suffer from Mad Cow disease! But don't worry, to the USDA that's only "Class II." It's a low risk - to them, anyway.

On his blog Wayne Pacelle says "It's not up to The HSUS to do the USDA's job," yet that's exactly what's happened here, and it bears repeating: The largest beef recall in US history was initiated by an outside agency acting in secret while the USDA inspector (according to the USDA) was right there on the premises. If food safety and animal-cruelty prosecution were up to the USDA, this would all still be going on at Westland/Hallmark. And of course, duh, it is all still going on all over the country, but after this, a lot of meat producers have got to be pretty nervous about exactly what's going on down at the kill floor. I'd call that a good day's work.