Humans and animals
Laura Bahnisch (Write on, #149) accuses Dave Riley ("Becoming Human", GLW #147) of speciesism for pointing to the fundamental distinction between human nature and animal nature.
Whilst it is often commonplace to compare human and animal behaviour (and in some cases even valid), they are none the less qualitatively different. Animals respond directly to stimuli from their environment with instinctual or learned responses. Only humans are capable of indirect "mediated" responses.
Humans, because we are capable of using language, are able to mentally form and store symbolic representations of reality in our minds and act according to these. We are therefore able to plan our responses. To get from one place to another animals would use whatever mode of transport they are biologically provided with. Humans might build a car or an aeroplane.
This nature of human thought places humans on an entirely different footing to animals. The development of animals' interactions with their environment is dependant upon biological evolution through natural selection. Apart from this animals can learn new responses during their lifetimes. These learnt responses are lost when each animal dies, whilst human knowledge can be passed on through language. Human civilisation is based therefore on the collective knowledge of billions of people; it is continually developing and need not wait for biological evolution in order to develop.
The reduction of human nature to biology is a common theme amongst conservative ideologues. War, racism and sexism are portrayed as a result of our genetic inheritance and thus cannot be changed. In reality, these arose relatively recently and are a result of the distinct nature of human society, all occurring through planned human activity, not simple stimulus-response mechanisms.
In Dianne Warren's letter, some valid points are made in regards to abuses of medical research. An opposition to vivisection in principle however is based on similar mistaken views to those expressed by Laura Bahnisch. We cannot sensually experience our own death before it happens; we know about death only in the manner that humans are able to understand other things which are not present to our senses.
Animals cannot possibly know what death or even life is. Thus it is sheer anthropomorphism to think that animals have an opinion as to whether or not they should be dead or alive.
Neville Spencer
Sydney
[Edited for length.]
Can cats consent?
What an interesting concept Laura Bahnisch proposes in GLW #149 — animals have the same reasoning abilities and morals as humans.
I am a devoted cat lover who would never want any harm to come to my pets. I even think that they have a personality, of sorts. However, reason and morals stretch belief a little far.
I don't think the neighbour's ginger tomcat has any scruples when he attacks my females. I find it hard to believe that he requests their permission for sexual intercourse. The only "choice" or "consent" is provided by hormonal aroma — pure instinct!
The animals are very well fed, but it doesn't stop them regularly bringing home small birds or mice. Sometimes they play with them (which is a form of torture) and quite often they eat them. According to Laura's reasoning this should not occur because surely they can evaluate the morality of killing for pleasure. Does this make the cats speciesist?
Perhaps Laura has been affected by too many Disney films. Lady and the Tramp or The Aristocats do not reflect the real world.
Melanie Sjoberg
Adelaide
Electoral reform
The failure of the recent NT elections to provide any representation for minority groups shows the urgent need for reform of the electoral process.
All of the elected representatives are pro-development and pro-establishment.
In addition many representatives on both sides, if such a distinction is possible, are staunch champions of mindless bigotry, particularly in the areas of race, sex, justice and human rights.
One way to redress this imbalance in representation and give some public voice to minority groups would be to create five multi-party electorates, each returning five representatives.
A preferential voting system like that used in Tasmania, rather than the one used in the Senate, would be an acceptable step towards democracy.
C.M. Friel
Alawa NT
European elections
It is unfortunate in what is otherwise quite a good round-up of the European elections (Phil Clarke, "Right wing populists gain in European elections" 22/6/94) that your correspondent cast the various Green parties as big losers. Many Green (and Left) parties have improved their positions as compared with the last couple of years.
In particular, it would be more correct to note that the British Green Party was quite right wing, when Sarah Parkin and the "Green 2000" group were leading the party. They have now been thoroughly dispensed with. That party is currently moving left again, with attempts to form alliances with left groups, and a move to community and local actions. 1989 was a high-water mark for many European Green parties, brought about by many different factors, and not a true indication of their real support. It should also be said that Green candidates enjoy quite a bit of success in local council elections.
The same could be said of the two French Green Parties, which failed to decide on a single ticket, and severely damaged their electoral chances. Their combined vote was just under the 5% needed to take up seats, but was still better than their recent election result of 3.5%.
It is also not enough to say that the only place the Greens did well was in Germany — in Luxembourg, the Greens scored more (10.9%) and won 5 seats in their national elections. In the Republic of Ireland, the Greens scored 7.9% (not 3%) which is a good showing.
Your correspondent might also have acknowledged that the United Left in Spain scored up to 45% in some municipalities — an exceptional victory, and firmly leading the way forward for the Left in Europe. The same might also be said for the Scottish National Party (SNP) with 33% in Scotland — another exceptional showing.
More populist left leaders such as Italy's Occhetto also saw failure, more as a result of failed "Grand Alliances". Perhaps we should focus on their failure, and the failure of their (necessarily) reformist strategies. And perhaps the continued presence of the extreme-right should focus us on continuing the struggle against these racist nationalists.
Stewart Jackson
Osborne Park WA
[Edited for length. The article referred to was written before complete voting figures were available. A future issue will include more information on the Spanish United Left.]