Are Robot Rights Next?

It’s the Left’s next great ethical frontier.

by TOM RAABE
July 21, 2023

AMERICAN SPECTATOR
Tatiana Shepeleva/Shutterstock


The world has been so crazy the past few years that something really wild might have snuck up on us.

READ MORE: Apple v. Biden: A Patently Absurd Approach to Innovation

If you went to sleep in 2010, a mere 13 years ago, and woke up now, you’d see things you never thought possible: legal homosexual marriage and a real-estate tycoon elected to the presidency, followed by a guy who slurs his words and starts shouting at people for no reason. You’d hear women who think they are men denying that only women can give birth because they could give birth, and they’re men, you see. You’d see men who think they’re women displaying their “packages” in women’s dressing rooms with the benediction of influential feminists. Not to mention guys kicking women’s butts in women’s swim meets, track meets, and cycling races and being praised for it. You’d see 57 genders. You’d see an entire political party, including a Supreme Court justice, who can’t tell you what a woman is. And you’d see healthy young people walking around in fresh air with masks covering their faces.


Back in the day, nobody anywhere thought any of that would happen. And everything we think is a bridge too far — like reparations — might be a bridge looming just beyond the horizon.

I don’t know if it’s the next big thing or not, but here’s an idea.

Get ready for civil rights for robots.

We have self-driving cars and trucks; computers that write sermons and automated religious figures that answer complicated ethical questions; computer programs that write scholarly papers that can be passed off as original; and AI writing news dispatches and movie scripts. (READ MORE by Tom Raabe: The AI Threat to Religion)

A couple of years ago, a nursing “bot” said it talked with, sang with, and played bingo with residents at a Singapore nursing home.

At a U.N.–sponsored conference in early July, a robot stood before 3,000 human conventioneers and said it could run the world better than mere mortals could. At the AI for Good Global Summit in Geneva, Sophia, developed by Hanson Robotics, said:

Humanoid robots have the potential to lead with a greater level of efficiency and effectiveness than human leaders. We don’t have the same biases or emotions that can sometimes cloud decision-making, and can process large amounts of data quickly in order to make the best decisions.
Awaiting the Singularity

Of course, the Singularity has to arrive first. Presently, the ’bots are merely regurgitating what is fed to them, canvassing the web and spitting out relevant data configured in recognizable syntax and with learned vocabulary. Once these robots achieve something like sentience — the ability to feel and think and perceive and improve themselves exponentially given their capacity to mine all known information — and once they’re appliquéd with a “skin” and endued with facial features that make them look human, however, they’ll be some pretty impressive and powerful machines.

READ MORE: AI Will Not Destroy Humanity

Ray Kurzweil, a principal researcher and AI visionary at Google, says Singularity will happen in 2045. Half the experts in a recent poll put the date at 2040. Others, deluded but incurable optimists, say it will never happen.

Rights for robots have been on the table for decades, but these rights have been pretty utilitarian, like the right to the latest upgrades, the right to be fully charged, the right to receive fresh batteries and replacement parts, the right not to be turned off and stuck in the corner of the garage with the broken-down weed-whacker. The recent dramatic advances in artificial intelligence, and the spate of AI-related stories floating about lately, have made more sophisticated robot rights top-of-mind.

So, projecting forward, if human rights are going to be granted to these machines, what would that look like?

First off, they’ll need their own month — you know, for parades and soirées on the White House lawn. Also, a logo and flag are de rigueur, to be affixed to the products of sympathetic manufacturers and flown from government buildings, respectively.

Memorial days will also be necessary. Alan Turing’s birthday would make a nice holiday, as would that of Isaac Asimov, who formulated the famous “Three Laws of Robotics.” The date in 1997 when IBM’s Deep Blue defeated the world’s greatest chess player at the time, Garry Kasparov, would make a nice government holiday. Or some sort of celebration for Philip K. Dick, whose every techno-thought, it seems, has been turned into a sci-fi dystopia (Blade Runner, Blade Runner 2049, Minority Report), the first two of which feature replicants — smart, good-looking robots. “Dick Day,” they could call it, and make it a joint venture during the Holy Month of Pride, perhaps.

Speaking of the arts, ’bots will, of course, require proportionate representation in all visual media. That beer commercial with the rainbow coterie — the black guy, the Hispanic, the Asian, the gay or lesbian, the trans, the obligatory white — will perforce need a ’bot engaging in the camaraderie and tipping back a cold one as well.

And since the barrier of racial verisimilitude has been breached in theater — blacks played Aaron Burr, the Marquis de Lafayette, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington in the original Hamilton stage play — there is no reason for refusing to cast robots out of time and place. Maybe cast Sonny from I, Robot and his mates in a Spartacus remake, or populate the next Civil War drama with a generous contingent of robots. How nice would it be to see a ’bot in the cast of the next Downton Abbey sequel … and not as a servant, thank you very much. (READ MORE: Adaptive Apps: New Technology Adjusts Lessons Based on Students’ Skill Levels)

It goes without saying that we’ll have to watch what we call them. No ’bot slurs will be permitted. “Bucket of bolts”–type humor might have worked before enlightenment, but lambaste a ’bot with “overweight glob of grease” or “nearsighted scrap pile,” as C-3PO hit R2-D2 in the Star Wars franchise, and you will be punished for unforgivable speciesism.

Courting the Robot Vote

Fun and games aside, let’s talk the real danger of robot rights: voting.

If Singularity becomes a reality, the ’bots are liable to be as smart as, and maybe a lot smarter than, we are. If they also match us humans in self-awareness and become as anxious about their future and as capable of joy and suffering as we are, it will be pretty tough to keep them out of the voting booth.

After outlining two reasons for granting some semblance of rights to robots — that they act like sentient beings and treating them kindly redounds to the mental well-being of humans — Daniel Akst wrote, in the Wall Street Journal, in April:

The case for robot rights will probably grow stronger as artificial intelligence gains in sophistication. That leads to a third argument for rights, which is that robots will increasingly be capable of autonomous action, and potentially both be responsible for their behavior and entitled to due process. At that point, robots would be moral agents — and might well make the case that they are entitled to commensurate rights and privileges, including owning wealth, entering into legal agreements and even casting ballots. Some people foresee a sort of citizenship, too. (emphasis added)

Computer pioneer and chess expert David Levy added this:

Any self-aware robot that speaks a known language and is able to recognize moral alternatives, and thus make moral choices … should be considered a worthy “robot person” in our society. If that is so, should they not also possess the rights and duties of all citizens?

The problem for conservatives is this: AI already trends left. AI is Silicon Valley; Silicon Valley is Democrat. Connect the dots, and robots voting is not a positive development for conservatives.

But robots voting per se. Isn’t it ridiculous? Impossible? Insane?

Tell me you saw transgenderism coming 13 years ago.

PETA scientists’ roadmap to animal-free research gets COVID-era update

New edition of ‘Research Modernization Deal’ offers solutions to animal experiment failures

Reports and Proceedings

PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS (PETA)

Washington — PETA scientists have just released a new edition of the groundbreaking Research Modernization Deal (RMD), the world’s first comprehensive plan for phasing out the use of animals in experimentation. The update is packed with new, cutting-edge information and reflects the latest scientific developments and regulatory changes since the RMD was first introduced in 2018.

 

The RMD provides detailed information about the pressing need to transition toward human-relevant research, and this new edition outlines non-animal methods for studying COVID-19. It also adds tools and recent studies to persuade government agencies to fund more modern, animal-free research and calls for an increased focus on education and training.

 

Hands-on training for early-career researchers is essential, as are mandatory courses on new approaches, to helping scientists expand their understanding of emerging technology in their fields.

 

“Experiments on animals are failing, but the capabilities of cutting-edge, animal-free research methods outlined by PETA scientists are increasing every day,” says PETA neuroscientist Dr. Emily Trunnell. “With the extra training tools laid out in this year’s RMD, researchers will be more prepared to innovate and save lives.”

 

The RMD presents the U.S. government’s own evidence that 95% of all new medications that test safe and effective in animal tests fail in human clinical trials. Failure rates are even higher in specific disease research areas, including Alzheimer’s disease (96.6%), cancer (96.6%), HIV/AIDS vaccines (100%), and strokes (100%). Studies show that 90% of basic research, most of which involves animals, fails to lead to treatments for humans—yet the National Institutes of Health spends nearly half its annual budget on animal studies.

 

The new RMD also highlights recent major legislative victories, such as the FDA Modernization Act 2.0’s promise to open the door to non-animal methods for testing drugs and the European Parliament’s near-unanimous support for an action plan to phase out animal experiments.

 

PETA—whose motto reads, in part, that “animals are not ours to experiment on”—opposes speciesism, a human-supremacist worldview. For more information on PETA’s investigative newsgathering and reporting, please visit PETA.org, listen to The PETA Podcast, or follow the group on Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram.

EO: Bearing Witness in the Hell of Speciesism

by Randy Shields / December 11th, 2022

Once upon a time Dostoevsky wrote a passage in The Idiot (1868) about an abused donkey passed from owner to owner which inspired Robert Bresson’s classic 1966 film Au Hasard Balthazar.

Polish film director Jerzy Skolimowski, 56 at the time, watched the Bresson film and it became the first, last and only movie that ever made him cry.

Now, at age 84, Skolimowski and his co-writer and wife Ewa Piaskowska give the world EO, a partial homage to Au Hasard Balthazar and the most broad-based attack on speciesism in a feature film. EO is making plenty of audiences cry.

The title character EO is a small gray big-eyed Sardinian donkey (played by six different donkeys) who begins the film in a Polish circus and ends up in Italy. Animal protection legislation puts the circus out of business and splits up EO and his beloved human co-performer Magda which starts a worse series of events as no humans will take responsibility for EO unless they can exploit him/her. (Right with the times we don’t know if EO is a he or a she, although with six donkeys that definitely qualifies as a “they.” I’m going to refer to EO as a female in this article.) This sweet beast of burden is always looking for a friend – a horse, a human, a junkyard dog – and is frequently used to facilitate the enslavement of other animals.

There are echoes of Koyaanisqatsi and White God (a girl and her dog) in EO (a girl and her donkey) and the sensibility is very much like Okja (a girl and her pig) and Gunda. Stylistically, though, EO is the anti-Gunda: Gunda’s black and white minimalistic, music-less, human-less barnyard is replaced by a pulsating soundtrack, a slew of villains seen and unseen, great distances across Europe, tunnels, forests, windmills and mountains. Striking images of EO on a hillside at sunset, lost in a forest at night and standing on a small arched bridge in front of an enormous dam/waterfall and looking into the maelstrom will linger long after viewing.

When showing animal abuse on screen a director’s challenge is to keep people watching without overwhelming them. It’s a truism that many people are “too sensitive” to watch films of animal abuse but not sensitive enough to stop paying for the brutality, terror and injustice that goes into every piece of meat or a fur coat. Skolimowski skillfully navigates this by not showing most of the violence but simply showing the fear of the animals or letting us hear the violence. This will be a small comfort to many but I didn’t see anyone walk out of the movie.

After the circus folds EO is shipped to an equestrian center where a majestic white horse, tethered in an indoor riding ring, runs in circles with less freedom than a hamster on a wheel. EO accidentally knocks over a display case of equestrian trophies and is then shipped to a petting zoo where she’s ridden by special needs children. EO is visited one night by Magda who brings her a carrot muffin for her birthday. As Magda dances in the moonlight, thinking about the old days of the circus, we’re sure of EO’s love for her but Magda seems lacking as she obeys the commands of her jealous (of EO) boyfriend to leave and never sees EO again. The patriarchy is always seamlessly woven into speciesism. (See Green Paradise Lost by Elizabeth Dodson Gray or The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol Adams.)

Seeking Magda and escaping the petting zoo, EO walks through a Jewish cemetery, reminding us that there are all kinds of holocausts although only someone like Isaac Bashevis Singer can get away with comparing them: “In their behavior toward creatures, all men were Nazis. The smugness with which man could do with other species as he pleased exemplified the most extreme racist theories, the principle that might makes right.” (Enemies, a Love Story.) And: “For animals, it is an eternal Treblinka.” (The Letter Writer.) For different but similar slaveries, see Marjorie Spiegel’s The Dreaded Comparison.

EO then enters a forest at night but she’s out of place. Beautiful immersive cinematography by Michal Dymek follows fast and furious: a close up of a web-spinning spider, a swimming frog, an owl treating EO as an intruder. There are foxes and, hair-raisingly, howling wolves. Will the wolves attack EO? No, actually, because Satan’s minions are here too: green lasers from rifles start flashing throughout the forest like a rave and hunters begin blowing away the wolves.

EO then comes upon a soccer match and is made an unwilling mascot by the winning team and later beaten with 2 by 4’s by the losing team. In a broken bloody heap, EO seems to be dreaming of a robot dog moving through the grass, techno progress contrasted with a deficit of ethical progress. The human gods will try their damndest to recreate something that moves and performs like a real animal (almost exclusively to repress other humans) but they won’t treat real animals with even rudimentary respect.

(The world’s richest man, Elon Musk, is currently torturing monkeys in his neuralink experiments. Fuck anyone who would attempt to “help” by torturing. George Bernard Shaw summed up Elon Musk a long time ago: “Any race of people who would use something as barbarous as animal experiments to ‘save’ themselves would be a race of people not worth saving.” EO stumbles into just about every setting of animal abuse except a vivisection lab.)

EO’s next stop is pulling a cart on a fox fur farm while a worker throws dead foxes into it. Skolimowsky doesn’t show the anal electrocution of the foxes but he does show their terror as each of them watch others being killed. The worker commands an unwilling EO to move and bends over behind her and gets kicked in the throat, definitely knocking him out and possibly killing him. The instant karma delivered to this speciesist brute is one of the rare feel good moments in the movie. Fuck the working class torturers too.

After an incredibly sure-footed and gripping 75 minutes or so the film loses its intensity with the introduction of many more humans, much more human dialogue, much less EO, a scene of random human violence at a truck stop and a countess (Isabelle Huppert) getting frisky with her priest stepson which seems like another movie altogether. Maybe with another viewing I’ll understand these puzzles. The strength of most of the film is that any dummy can get it.

I was expecting the film to do justice to EO’s character and struggles by building to a monumental emotional intimate denouement focused on EO’s last moments but, unlike Au Hasard Balthazar or Gunda, the movie pulls back emotionally, visually, artistically, politically.

A blurb after the film ends says no animals were harmed in the making of it. I’m against using animals in films but if directors are going to take advantage of its “legality” – and deliver pro-animal messages – they are able to simulate violence, suffering and death a la Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu’s Amores perros.

(Some viewers will dispute that the film pulls back but your reviewer believes in seeing the captive bolt pistol, the futile attempts to escape the kill box, the expression in the eyes as the light and life goes out, the throat-slitting, the dismemberment and turning of innocent beings into blasphemous nothingness – and spiritual terms are correct because EO and Balthazar and all the other non-humans are being crucified every day. “Completely humble, completely holy,” said the great Bresson about his donkey Balthazar. That’s how a film would do justice to the life and character of EO – after all, the audience has come all this way, let them walk now — or explode their prejudices and reveal their complicity as they’re mortified in their seats. They should be bawling their eyes out. It’s a war – act like it.)

EO is the perfect guide through Skolimowski’s inferno but the film is not perfect. It is, however, the most comprehensive non-documentary attack on animal exploitation ever filmed. Despite its flaws, EO should be seen, applauded and promoted.

After a December 4 screening at the Laemmle Royal in Los Angeles, Skolimowski and Piaskowska discussed the film, saying it was “made out of love for animals and nature” and likening it to a “protest song.” The film does seem like the cry of an 84-year-old man sick to death of the cruelty in the world although he isn’t (yet?) vegan, or even a vegetarian, saying, “We reduced our meat consumption by two thirds and half of my crew stopped eating meat entirely.” And: “Do we really need to have bacon every morning?” No, my man, no more than we need to eat donkey every morning.

Despite my uneducated impertinent quibbles, EO has won many awards: Cannes Jury Prize, Cannes Soundtrack Award, New York Film Critics Circle Awards Best International Film and European Film Awards Best Original Score. Rotten Tomatoes critics rate EO as 96% fresh and the film is Poland’s Best International Feature submission for the 2023 OscarsFacebook

TwitterRedditEmail

Randy Shields can be reached at music2hi4thehumanear@gmail.com. Read other articles by Randy, or visit Randy's website.

Survey: Kids think farm animals deserve same treatment as pets

By HealthDay News

Children think farm animals should be treated more like people and pets, and they're less likely than adults to think it's morally acceptable to eat animals, according to a study conducted in Britain. 

Photo by Jai79/Pixabay

Life would be much better for farm animals if children were in charge, a new British study suggests.

Unlike adults, children believe farm animals should be treated the same as people and pets, and children are less likely to view eating animals as morally acceptable.
The study included 479 people in England from three age groups -- 9-11, 18-21 and 29-59 -- who were asked their views on the treatment of pigs on farms, pet dogs and people.

The results suggest that "speciesism" -- giving different value to different animals -- is learned during adolescence, according to the authors of the study.

"Something seems to happen in adolescence, where that early love for animals becomes more complicated and we develop more speciesism," said study co-author Luke McGuire, of the University of Exeter.

The researchers also found that as people age, they are more likely to classify farm animals as "food" rather than "pets," while children are equally likely to include pigs in either of these categories.

"It's important to note that even adults in our study thought eating meat was less morally acceptable than eating animal products like milk," McGuire pointed out in a university news release. "So aversion to animals -- including farm animals -- being harmed does not disappear entirely."

People's relationship with animals is "full of ethical double standards," according to McGuire. "Some animals are beloved household companions, while others are kept in factory farms for economic benefit. Judgments seem to largely depend on the species of the animal in question: dogs are our friends, pigs are food."

While changes in attitudes are a natural part of growing up, the "moral intelligence of children" is also valuable, McGuire said.

"If we want people to move towards more plant-based diets for environmental reasons, we have to disrupt the current system somewhere," he suggested.

RELATED Monoclonal antibody for arthritis in cats receives FDA approval

"For example, if children ate more plant-based food in schools, that might be more in line with their moral values, and might reduce the 'normalization' towards adult values that we identify in this study," McGuire said.

The results were published this week in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science.

More information

The benefits of ethical farming are outlined by the Ethical Farming Fund.

Copyright © 2022 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Scapegoats and Holy Cows: Climate

Activism andLivestock

BY STEPHEN CORR 

COUNTERPUNCH 

DECEMBER 10, 2021Facebook

TwitterRedditEmail

Until recently, Greta Thunberg kept a filmed appeal to stop eating meat and dairy as the first item of her twitter account: she’s been a vegan for half her life, so that’s not surprising. Her message begins with pandemics^[1] but swiftly segues to climate change, as might be expected. The film was made by Mercy for Animals, which she thanks.^[2]

The film remained top of her twitter account for months. She has several million followers, so the value of the advertising she gave this little-known not-for-profit must run into millions of dollars. As opposition to livestock has become a major plank in climate activism, it’s worth looking at how the world’s biggest climate influencer chooses to influence it.

Greta Thunberg’s 2021 Mercy for Animals film: “If we don’t change, we are f***ed.”

Mercy for Animals is an American NGO with the stated purpose of ending factory farming because it’s cruel to animals, a fact with which few would disagree. There are other reasons to shun food from factories as opposed to the open air of course, not least because some of the meat it produces is subsequently heavily processed with unhealthy ingredients and then shipped long distances. The reason it remains so profitable is obviously because its meals are cheap and those who can’t afford expensive free range or organic have little other option.

There is no doubt that factory farming is an industrial process which pollutes. There’s also no doubt that an average Western, especially urban, diet contains a lot of unhealthy things, including too much meat. But whether or not folk who eat sensible amounts of local, organic meat and dairy, and try to stay fit and healthy, would have any significant impact on the planet’s climate by changing their diet is another matter, which I’ll come back to.

Mercy for Animal’s beliefs go much further than opposing animal cruelty. It believes in speciesism or rather anti-speciesism, the idea that humans have no right to impose their will on other animals or “exploit” them. It’s a view shared by a growing number of people, especially vegans in the Global North. Thunberg goes as far as believing that only vegans can legitimately, “stand up for human rights,” and wants non-vegans to feel guilty.^[3] Even more radical is Google founder, Larry Page, who reportedly thinks robots should be treated as a living species, just silicon- rather than carbon-based!^[4]

Whatever novel ideas anti-speciesists think up, no species would evolve without favouring its own. Our ancestors would never have developed their oversized brains if they hadn’t eaten scavenged or hunted meat, and we have always lived in symbiosis with other animals, sometimes to the benefit of both. It seems likely that the wolf ancestors of dogs freely elected to live close to humans, taking advantage of our hearths and ability to store game. In this, the earliest proven instance of domestication, perhaps each species exploited the other.

Having visited many subsistence hunters and herders over the last half century, I know that the physical – and spiritual – relationship they have with the creatures they hunt, herd or use for transport, is very different to that of most people (including me!). Most of us now have little experience of the intimacy which comes when people depend at first-hand on animals for survival.

Hunters, for example, often think they have a close connection with their game, and it’s based on respect and exchange. A good Yanomami huntsman in Amazonia doesn’t eat his own catch but gives it away to others. Boys are taught that if they are generous like this, the animals will approach them to offer themselves willingly as prey. Such a belief encourages strong social cohesion and reciprocity, which couldn’t be more different to Western ideals of accumulation. The importance of individual cows to African herders, or of horses to the Asian steppe dwellers who, we think, started riding them in earnest, can be touchingly personal, and the same can be found all over the world.

Everyone knows that many small children, if they feel safe, have an innate love of getting up close and personal to animals; and projects enabling deprived city kids to interact with livestock on farms can improve mental wellbeing and make children happier.^[5]

This closeness to other species is a positive experience for many, clearly including Thunberg: her film features her in an English animal sanctuary and cuddling one of her pet dogs. Those who believe speciesism is of great consequence, on the other hand, seem to seek a separation between us and other animals, whilst paradoxically advancing the idea that there is none. Animals are to be observed from a distance, perhaps kept as pets, but never “exploited” for people’s benefit.^[6]

Mercy for Animals doesn’t stop at opposing factory farming. It’s against the consumption of animal products altogether, including milk and eggs, and thinks that all creatures, including insects, must be treated humanely. Using animals for any “work” that benefits people is frowned on. For example, it thinks sheepdogs are “doubly problematic” because both dogs and sheep are exploited. It accepts, however, that they have been bred to perform certain tasks and may “experience stress and boredom if not given… work.” It’s also (albeit seemingly reluctantly) OK with keeping pets as they are “cherished companions with whom we love to share our lives,” and without them we would be “impoverished”. Exactly the same could be said for many working dogs of course.^[7]

Anyway, this not-for-profit believes that humans are moving away from using animals for anything, not only meat, but milk, wool, transport, emergency rescue, and everything else. It claims, “several historical cultures have recognized the inherent right of animals to live… without human intervention or exploitation,” and thinks we are slowly evolving to a “higher consciousness” which will adopt its beliefs. It says this is informed by Hindu and Buddhist ideals and that it’s working to “elevate humanity to its fullest potential.”^[8]

We all exalt our own morality of course, but professing a higher consciousness than those who think differently casts a supremacist shadow. The alleged connection with Indian religions is a common argument but remains debatable: the sacredness of cows, for example, is allied to their providing the dairy products widespread in Hindu foods and rituals. The god Krishna himself, a manifestation of the supreme being Vishnu, was a cattle herder. The Rig Veda, the oldest Indian religious text, is clear about their role: “In our stalls, contented, may they stay! May they bring forth calves for us… giving milk.” Nearly a third of the world’s cattle are thought to live in India. Would they survive the unlikely event of Hindus converting to veganism?

Krishna tending his cattle.

Most Hindus are not wholly vegetarian. Although a key tenet of Hindu fundamentalism over recent generations is not eating beef, the Rig Veda mentions cows being ritually killed in an earlier age. The renowned Swami Vivekananda, who first took Hinduism and yoga to the USA at the end of the 19^th century and is hailed as one of the most important holy men of his era, wrote that formerly, “A man [could not] be a good Hindu who does not eat beef,” and reportedly ate it himself. Anyway, the degree to which cows were viewed as “sacred” in early Hinduism is not as obvious as many believe. The Indus Civilisation of four or five thousand years ago, to which many look for their physical and spiritual origins, was meat-eating,^[9] although many fundamentalist Hindus now deny it.^[10]

Vegetarians are fond of claiming well-known historical figures for themselves. In India, perhaps the most famous is Ashoka, who ruled much of the subcontinent in the third century before Christ and was the key proponent of Buddhism. He certainly advocated compassion for animals and was against sacrificial slaughter and killing some species, but it’s questionable whether he or those he ruled were actually vegetarian.^[11]

Whatever Ashoka’s diet included, many Buddhists today are meat-eaters like the Dalai Lama^[12] and most Tibetans – rather avid ones in my experience – and tea made with butter is a staple of Himalayan monastic life. Mercy for Animals however remains steadfast to its principles, asserting, “Even (sic!) Jewish and Muslim cultures are experiencing a rise in animal welfare consciousness.”

Mercy for Animals might look at how racists have supported animal rights over the last hundred years, sometimes cynically and sometimes not: “Concern for animals can coexist with a strong strain of misanthropy, and can be used to demonise minority groups as barbaric, uncivilised and outdated… in contrast to supposedly civilised, humane Aryans… The far right’s ventures into animal welfare is sometimes coupled with ‘green’ politics and a form of nature mysticism.”^[13]

Mercy for Animals was founded by Milo Runkle, a self-styled “yogi” who lives in Los Angeles. He was raised on an Ohio farm and discovered his calling as a teenager on realising the cruelty of animal slaughter. He’s now an evangelical vegan who believes an “animal-free” meal is, “an act of kindness.” He’s also a keen participant in the billion-dollar, Silicon Valley industry trying to make and sell “meat and dairy” made from plants, animal cells and chemicals. He’s a co-founder of the Good Food Institute and sits on the board of Lovely Foods. Like others in the movement, he rejects the term “fake” and insists that the products made in factories – which are supported by billionaires like Richard Branson and Bill Gates – are real meat and dairy, just made without animals. The multi-million dollar Good Food Institute is also supported by Sam Harris, a U.S. philosopher who came to prominence with his criticism of Islam, which he believes is a religion of, “bad ideas, held for bad reasons, leading to bad behaviour,” and constitutes, “a unique danger to all of us.”^[14]

PETA's 'human' leather campaign is horrifying. But is it effective?
Jenna Ryu, USA TODAY - 8h ago

© PETAAccording to Urban Outraged, the "Avery Jacket" is "crafted from the most luxurious skin" and features human mouths and eyes.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is making headlines once again with its latest jaw-dropping, gruesome campaign.

The nonprofit organization, known for its controversial avenues to raise animal rights awareness, launched a fake, satirical clothing store called Urban Outraged — an apparent jab at Urban Outfitters. The faux shop features a collection of clothes made from "human" leather, including bloodied jackets with human faces and boots with human teeth. Each item is also named after the "slaughtered" human whose skin was used.

“People are rightfully horrified by the idea of wearing human skin and the thought of it should make everyone’s stomach turn just as much as wearing the skin of a cow, goat, sheep, or any other animal," PETA said in a statement to USA TODAY.

Start the day smarter. Get all the news you need in your inbox each morning.

PETA intentionally causes controversy with its campaigns. In 2013, its anti-poaching ad featured images of mutilated animals, and other ads have compared naked female bodies to animal meat. The shock-factor aims to bring attention to its animal-friendly mission.

But do these scare tactics actually help the animal rights movement?

More: PETA responds to Tiffany Haddish's vow to wear fur till 'police stop killing black people'
'Fear sells': Why organizations like PETA use scare tactics for social causes

Shock campaigns have been used for an array of social agendas. For instance, drug prevention campaigns have shown frightening images of mock car crashes or people before and after addiction to elicit fear.

James Jasper, a retired professor of sociology and author of "The Art of Moral Protest," says these tactics successfully raise awareness because they relies on moral shock, or appealing to the public's guilt and empathy.

"Moral shocks bring attention to an issue. Look at all the publicity this PETA campaign is getting," Jasper says. "In the end, some people will be turned off, but others will notice the issue perhaps for the first time. And still, some will have their commitment to the cause strengthened."

The controversial approach has proven successful for PETA over the years: The group has garnered over 6.5 million members worldwide and had major successes, like convincing more than 200 cosmetics companies to permanently abandon animal tests.


© PETAThe outsoles of Urban Outaged's "Meg Boots" are made from "human teeth."

PETA controversy: PETA ridiculed, criticized for comparing 'speciesism' with racism, homophobia and ableism

But Barry Glassner, a sociologist and author of “The Culture of Fear," cautions while fear-mongering is effective, it's dangerous.

"These organizations work off of our inborn fight or flight responses when we're confronted with something scary. And of course they want us to fight this horrible situation and join the organization," he warns.

"It's an unfortunate reality, but fear sells. It's the quickest way to grab someone's attention and have them listen… and any organization whose mission is to heal the world shouldn't sully it with fear campaigns."

'Embrace the 'arm barn'': PETA calls for MLB to change term 'bullpen' to the 'arm barn' to be sensitive to cows
Graphic imagery can harm the animal rights agenda

Vegan social media influencer Nzinga Young was especially turned off by gory images of slaughtered animals, which she called "traumatizing." She aims to share upbeat content with her 100,000 followers.

Corey Wrenn, a lecturer in sociology at the University of Kent, said that may be a better strategy. Although graphic images and videos grab attention, these tactics may not actually encourage people to take action, she explains.

"There are some indications that audiences will be repelled if the campaigns are too disturbing," Wrenn says. "Without a philosophical or ethical context framing these campaigns, some folks will simply find them ridiculous or offensive and ignore them."

Glassner agrees fear alone may not lead to long term behavioral changes, like changing shopping habits or becoming vegan, and some may dismiss such extreme campaigns as "silly."


© Richard Vogel, APIn this Sept. 18, 2018, protesters with the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) hold signs to ban fur in Los Angeles.

Want to go vegan?: If you're ready to trade in your burger for a vegan tofu sandwich, start slow

Instead, effective protest movements should rely on negative and positive emotions, like "anger over current practices as well as hope for the future," Jasper suggests.

Young, for her part, tries "to focus on people who want to change, as opposed to trying to change people."

"I educate them by being personable and sharing my truth and my story in hopes that people will humanize me and say, 'Oh, she can do it. Maybe I can do it too' … It's important to have diversity in how we communicate the benefits of veganism."

Vegan birth control: What is it and does it work?

'We respect each other': Alicia Silverstone credits son's vegan diet for anger-free, 'harmonious' relationship


1 of 9 Photos in Gallery©Photo by Mike Kline (notkalvin), Getty Images
What are the most vegan-friendly cities (https://headlines.peta.org/vegan-friendly-cities-2019-top-ten/) in the U.S.? PETA has the answer for you. The nonprofit organization determined the list by gathering feedback from supporters and staffers. They analzed the availability of vegan options in every state as well as vegan culture's influence on each city. Scroll through the gallery to see which cities made the cut.


This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: PETA's 'human' leather campaign is horrifying. But is it effective?

1. "The Dreams in the Witch House" by H. P. Lovecraft
   https://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/texts/fiction/dwh.aspx

   The Dreams in the Witch House By H. P. Lovecraft: Whether the dreams brought on the fever or the fever brought on the dreams Walter Gilman did not know. Behind everything crouched the brooding, festering horror of the ancient town, and of the mouldy, unhallowed garret gable where he wrote and studied and wrestled with figures and formulae when .....

WILL THEY PRESENT NUDE

PETA scientists to showcase cutting-edge animal-free research at international conference

Meeting Announcement

PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS (PETA)

Maastricht, the Netherlands — This week marks the 11th World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences, and the thousands of scientists attending this year’s virtual conference will hear from PETA scientists on matters ranging from scientific and ethical concerns regarding inflicting permanent brain damage on primates to toxicity testing in rabbits.

“PETA has more scientists working on non-animal testing methods than any other animal protection organization, and we’re proud to share our research at the premier conference on modern research,” says PETA Senior Vice President Kathy Guillermo. “Superior, cutting-edge tools are the future, and we’re eager to work with the global research community to advance their use.”

PETA scientists are chairing four sessions and will present two oral presentations and 16 posters. Posters by the group’s scientists, including Trunnell, will include the following.

• The Rodent in the Room—Considering Sentience in Research Programs Using Mice and Rats: This poster showcases how the mounting scientific evidence for sentience in animals commonly used in experimentation must be considered in harm/benefit analyses of biomedical research.
• Global Effort to End Animal Testing for Health Claims of Foods and Beverages: This poster, to be presented by Cheng, highlights PETA’s successful efforts to get food and beverage companies to stop conducting tests on animals in order to make health claims about their products.
• International Harmonization of Non-Animal Methods for Biomedical Training: This poster, also to be presented by Cheng, shares information about the cost-effective, human-relevant technological advances that can replace the millions of dogs, cats, rabbits, and other animals used in biomedical training every year.
• The Problem of Pain in Animal Experimentation: This poster explores the scientific and ethical ramifications of the high rate of untreated pain in animals used in experiments.
• In Vitro Approach for Assessing Respiratory Toxicity in Human Lung Cells: This poster describes how human cell-based systems can replace the use of rats and mice in tests to assess how inhaled chemicals affect the lungs.
• International Approaches to Implementing Alternative Test Methods for Marine Biotoxins in Shellfish: This poster outlines how non-animal methods are superior for detecting toxins in shellfish than tests involving injecting them into the abdomens of mice.
• Certain Harms and Uncertain Benefits in Animal Models for the Study of Human Depression and Anxiety: This poster critiques several harmful and commonly used animal models of anxiety and depression, including the forced swim test, the tail suspension test, and the elevated plus maze.
• Ethical and Scientific Concerns Regarding the Continued Use of Experimentally Induced Brain Injuries in Primates: This poster discusses whether inflicting permanent, debilitating brain damage on primates is ethically or scientifically justifiable.

The conference will screen the award-winning film Test Subjects, which profiles three PETA scientists who faced pressure in graduate school to experiment on animals. PETA scientists will also present details on their Research Modernization Deal, a commonsense plan to phase out the use of ineffective animal tests in the U.S., the EU, and India.

PETA—whose motto reads, in part, that “animals are not ours to experiment on”—opposes speciesism, a human-supremacist worldview. For more information, please visit PETA.org or follow the group on Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram.

 

#SPECIESISM 

Giraffes are as socially complex as elephants: study

by University of Bristol

A mother Rothschild's giraffe tending to her baby. The photo was taken in 

Soysambu Conservancy, in the Rift Valley region of Kenya. 

Giraffes are attentive mothers to their offspring, and all female adults 

in a group are invested in each others' offspring. Credit: Zoe Muller

Scientists at the University of Bristol have discovered evidence that giraffes are a highly socially complex species.

Traditionally, giraffes were thought to have little or no social structure, and only fleeting, weak relationships. However in the last ten years, research has shown that giraffe social organization is much more advanced than once thought.

In a paper published in today in the journal Mammal Review, Zoe Muller, of Bristol's School of Biological Sciences, has demonstrated that giraffes spend up to 30% of their lives in a post-reproductive state. This is comparable to other species with highly complex social structures and cooperative care, such as elephants and killer-whales which spend 23% and 35% of their lives in a post-reproductive state respectively. In these species, it has been demonstrated that the presence of post-menopausal females offers survival benefits for related offspring. In mammals—and –ncluding humans—this is known as the 'Grandmother hypothesis' which suggests that females live long past menopause so that they can help raise successive generations of offspring, thereby ensuring the preservation of their genes. Researchers propose that the presence of post-reproductive adult female giraffes could also function in the same way, and supports the author's assertion that giraffes are likely to engage in cooperative parenting, along matrilines, and contribute to the shared parental care of related kin.

Zoe said: "It is baffling to me that such a large, iconic and charismatic African species has been understudied for so long. This paper collates all the evidence to suggest that giraffes are actually a highly complex social species, with intricate and high-functioning social systems, potentially comparable to elephants, cetaceans and chimpanzees.

"I hope that this study draws a line in the sand, from which point forwards, giraffes will be regarded as intelligent, group-living mammals which have evolved highly successful and complex societies, which have facilitated their survival in tough, predator-filled ecosystems."

Giraffes in group. Credit: Zoe Muller

For scientists to recognize giraffes as a socially complex species, Zoe has suggested eight key areas for future research, including the need to understand the role that older, post-reproductive adults play in society and what fitness benefits they bring for group survival.

Zoe added: "Recognizing that giraffes have a complex cooperative social system and live in matrilineal societies will further our understanding of their behavioral ecology and conservation needs.

"Conservation measures will be more successful if we have an accurate understanding of the species' behavioral ecology. If we view giraffes as a highly socially complex species, this also raises their 'status' towards being a more complex and intelligent mammal that is increasingly worthy of protection."

Just like humans, giraffes prefer to dine with friends, study finds

---

More information: A review of the social behaviour of the giraffe Giraffa camelopardalis: a misunderstood but socially complex species, Mammal Review (2021).

Provided by University of Bristol