Some More Links That Can Become Resources.
Continuing from two weeks ago, Part II.
Because of space restrictions – the Substack app issued an ominous warning about the length of my post – I decided to leave the rest of my earlier piece for next time, and here it is. As a quick reminder, my big concern at the moment is the prevalent human worldview which is both egocentric and anthropocentric and is causing so much suffering and damage that we may well have crossed the breaking point. Unless a large part of humanity becomes more compassionate, we’re doomed.
Compassion – actually, the German word Mitleid expresses its meaning better, while the English noun comes from Latin and therefore removes the direct impact of the word. It means “suffering”, “pain”, “sorrow”, “grief”, “agony”, etc. and adds “WITH” – one being SHARES the feelings of loss or pain that another being experiences.
When I looked up Wikipedia’s definition of compassion, it confirmed what I’m talking about: it almost exclusively refers to humans. As if other beings were incapable of compassion, or as if their feelings were somehow less worthy to be mentioned. When in fact it has been irrevocably confirmed that non-human animals care for their families, mourn those who have passed, and yes – suffer with others who experience pain or loss and try to help, if they can. I wrote about ants who nurse their colony mates when they get hurt, for example.
What the Wikipedia writers seem to have missed is the fact that for the last thirty or so years our understanding and perception of non-human animals has drastically shifted – at least for enough people to have a lasting effect. Gone are many of the circuses which used wild animals that were trained and kept under gruesome conditions; here is a list of worldwide circus bans – notice that it was started in 2006, while many of the bans probably started earlier. Zoos have come under attack for depriving animals of their natural habitat, for keeping them in captivity, for harming them physically and psychologically. All this happened because a growing number of people protested the treatment that animals had to endure: circus trainers used cruel methods to subdue lions and tigers, or to force elephants into unnatural positions. Cages were tiny and didn’t provide adequate space.
When I was a kid, I loved visiting the circus when it came to town. It didn’t occur to me that the cages were too small, that elephants might not like standing on a small stool, that lions wouldn’t enjoy jumping through a silly hoop. I just didn’t think about it. And when my daughter was little we had fun at the San Francisco Zoo, seeing all the animals. Again, I was clueless.
I don’t remember exactly how it happened, but once I heard some critical voices and paid attention to the facts, that was it. No more zoos for me; and circuses – I simply didn’t come across any after I had moved to the U.S. in 1977.
“We’ve seen time and again that law follows a change in societal thinking,” said Harward Law Professor Kristen Stilt, Faculty Director of the Animal Law and Policy Program. And sure enough: there are now many law schools (Harvard, UC Berkeley, Stanford, NYU, and others) which offer courses in animal law, and one – Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon – with a Master’s and a doctoral program. This emerging field started only in the 1980s and 1990s, and is a strong indicator for a shift in the way we think about our non-human companions: we don’t own them, they can’t be used and abused, we should be guardians and caretakers, just as with human babies for example.
One of the legal organizations that have animals as clients is the Nonhuman Rights Project. They fight for elephants, chimpanzees, and other non-human animals who are held in captivity against their will and who don’t have any rights because they’re considered “things” legally. Because they’re considered property, and because humans think of themselves as being superior to animals, they can be exploited, misused, and violated.
Imagine a world where respect for freedom and dignity runs so deep we don’t hesitate to extend it to nonhuman animals. That’s the world we’re working to help build.1
The key for an animal’s legal protection is “personhood” or the lack thereof. Although there are animal protection and welfare laws, they’re hardly enough to prevent suffering and can easily be circumvented. The aim of granting animals the status of personhood is to grant them the right of life and liberty. “A legal person is a human or a non-human legal entity that is treated as a person for legal purposes”2, and can be a company (Citizens United”!) or some other being. The Nonhuman Rights Project seeks to have certain animals, Happy the elephant for example, declared as legal persons and as holders of legal rights for the purpose of habeas corpus, the writ protecting the right to personal freedom. Harmful confinement in a zoo would then be illegal. So far, Happy is still unhappily imprisoned at the Bronx Zoo in New York City where she languishes all alone in a relatively small enclosure, but NhRP isn't giving up.
There are several cases where legal personhood status has been granted to living, non-human beings. In 2015 Sandra, an orangutan who had spent twenty years at a zoo in Buenos Aires, won her fight to be transferred to a wildlife sanctuary in Brazil after her lawyers filed a writ of habeas corpus on her behalf. In 2014 New Zealand gave an area which had been a national park the status of environmental personhood, and transformed it into a freehold, inalienable land owned by itself, Te Urewera. And in 2017 a similar decision made the Whanganui River in New Zealand the first river in the world to be granted legal personhood.
The More Than Human concept was popularized by David Abrams and embeds us humans into the much larger network of “life, matter, and agency” – all intertwined, moving and growing and changing together. Paul Moseley, the author of the More Than Human essay (first link) points out that even terms such as “nature” and “environment” are somewhat outdated because they separate us from the non-human world. Nature is something to be observed, it can be manipulated and controlled, or it exists for our entertainment – when we leave the cities and seek relaxation and repose. “Environment” comes from the French environ, meaning “around”, it’s outside of us humans, around us but separate.
I was thrilled to discover this concept, it speaks directly to what matters to me. New York University’s School of Law launched the More Than Human Life (MOTH) program, “an interdisciplinary initiative advancing rights and well-being for humans, nonhumans, and the web of life that sustains us all”, which (not surprisingly) involves several people I mentioned in Part I and elsewhere: Giuliana Furci, Merlin Sheldrake, Cosmo Sheldrake, and David Abrams. For example, MOTH fights for the rights of creatures and ecosystems: the photo below was taken by a monkey who managed to obtain the photographer’s cellphone. When an animal defense group sued the guy for making money from a photo that he had NOT taken, the judge dismissed the case because nonhumans can’t have ownership rights. Please visit the MOTH website, it’s so delightful.
In a similar vein, I found the More Than Human Project , which I encourage you to visit as well.
“The More Than Human Project (MTHP) is dedicated to expanding the moral circle to ensure dignity, recognition, and rights for non-human beings. We work at the intersection of policy, ethics, and science to drive systemic change in how societies perceive and treat non-human life.”
How cool is that – expanding the moral circle. Everybody, no matter how twisted and psychologically damaged, loves some other being. Even Hitler had a girlfriend, and I read he loved his dogs. (Hmm, there are some very damaged individuals who only love themselves). But for those of us who strive to be good and to help the Earth to become a better place for all beings (which ultimately includes humans), we have to expand our moral circle, we have to love not only our families, friends, and pets, but include centipedes and bats and forests and fishes. I have no idea where or how to draw the line because the bacteria which cause pneumonia for example – no. No love there. A mosquito on my arm? Maybe I can learn to just flick her away. Clearly, one can vastly improve and widen the circle before reaching the line.
Thanks for writing this. I loved ---expand your moral circle. I will.
Thanks, Jessica. I really enjoy your writing. It makes me think.