Customer Reviews

A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy: The Human Cost of the Animal Rights Movement

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

Wesley J. Smith is an attorney and author of several books, a fact which explains the lucid writing style, absence of rancor, and superb attention to detail and documentation. A previous review explained Smith's reasoning for rejecting the ideology of animal rights so I will focus on other issues.

The book is divided into three sections. The first addresses the ideology and non-violent aspects of animal rights (AR) activism. Smith explains how the AR movement frequently utilizes propaganda like techniques to sway the public to their cause. Part II reveals the more sinister side of the movement by detailing terroristic activities perpetrated by members of the radical fringe of the AR movement, such as the Animal Liberation Front. Perhaps the most frightening aspect of this section is how Smith carefully shows how mainstream AR activists have failed to harshly condemn violence and terror used to further their cause and in some cases even employed those involved in violent activities. The last section explains how animals have benefited humans and how adoption of the AR agenda will diminish humanity. Of particular note, is his careful discussion of the role animal testing has in medical advances which contradicts the repeated claims of many AR activists and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

Smith is careful with his wording and avoids painting with broad strokes. He concedes examples of cruelty when he believes the evidence supports it. In my opinion, Smith's greatest contribution consists in his insight into the way AR activists manipulate the media, the public, and assault the judicial system in a take-no-prisoners attempt to implement their agenda. Those who are sympathetic to the AR agenda, should read this book, and carefully consider the implications of AR beliefs, before they convert. Smith's way of turning AR logic on its head will leave readers much to ponder.

Those unsympathetic to AR, should read this book to get the facts needed to learn how to identify AR political strategy in order to counteract it.

Stephen M. Vantassel is an eco-theologian, an expert in wildlife damage management, and author of Dominion over Wildlife: An Environmental Theology of Human-wildlife Relations (Wipf and Stock, 2009).

A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy: The Human Cost of the Animal Rights Movement tells how the concept of animal rights has become part of Western culture, considering the history and evolution of animal rights ideology and also considering different causes and obligations to humanity. This survey provides a calm refute to animal rights over human rights and tells how a more balanced affection for animals can be fostered, instead. Perfect for any library debating animal rights and social issues.

For too long there has been a total misunderstanding of exactly what the term "animal rights" means as opposed to "animal welfare". This book clears the air once and for all. No one can plead ignorance after having read it. I wish I could put a copy in the hands of every person I know who blithely prattles on about how much they support "animal rights" when what they actually intend to support is animal WELFARE. Domesticated animals are important in our lives on many different levels. Animal rights proponents would like to remove animals totally from the human-animal equation. This book is well-written and well-researched. And just begins this conversation.

Common sense these days has been thrown out the window, so we must reaffirm and defend basic truths. One such truth is that of human exceptionalism - humans are special and unique. But that truism is under attack today from various quarters, including the animal liberation brigade.

Those arguing for animal rights have to of course deny that there is anything special or valuable about human beings. Thus the campaign to grant animals rights is really the campaign to dethrone man and disrobe him of any unique significance.

That is the argument of this important book. Smith makes the distinction between animal welfare and the animal rights movement. The former is something all of us should be supportive of. This has to do with the humane treatment of animals. But the latter is something we all should be quite worried about.

What looks like a noble and worthwhile crusade is at bottom really an anti-human ideology. It is in fact "a belief system, an ideology, even a quasi religion, which both implicitly and explicitly seeks to create a moral equivalence between the value of human lives and those of animals".

This movement is often extremist, utopian, and open to the use of violence. For those who are still trying to figure out the book title, it actually is a 1986 quote from the head of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk. She said all four are mammals - end of story.

The true believers in the animal liberation movement are not just gentle dog lovers or cat owners. They are fanatics who are quite happy to harass, vandalise and destroy anything they consider to be abusive to animals. Indeed, Smith warns us of what sort of world we would live in if these radicals had their way:

"Medical research would be materially impeded. There would be no more fishing fleets, cattle ranches, leather shoes, steak barbecues, animal parks, bomb-sniffing or Seeing Eye dogs, wool coats, fish farms, horseback riding, pet stores... Millions of people would be thrown out of work, our enjoyment of life would be substantially diminished. Our welfare and prosperity reduced."

Indeed, all domestication of animals would be taboo. There goes the family pet. And there goes human uniqueness and dignity. All in the name of a fanatical ideology which will even resort to threats of murder to achieve its aims. This book carefully documents the ideology, the tactics and the fanaticism of this growing movement.

The thinking of philosopher Peter Singer was instrumental in all this. Although not specifically an animal rights campaigner himself, he did help to get the ball rolling with his influential 1975 volume, Animal Liberation. In it he argued that the interests of all animals should be granted "equal consideration" to those of people.

Another utilitarian philosopher, the late Joseph Fletcher, was happy to take this sort of thinking to its logical conclusion, including promoting the idea that we should create human/ape chimera to do "dangerous or demeaning jobs".

How would this come about? By "sexual reproduction, as between apes and humans. If interspecific coitus is too distasteful, then laboratory fertilization and implants could do it. If women were unwilling to gestate hybrids, animal females could."

And the already-mentioned PETA had a vegetarian campaign which was called, "Holocaust on Your Plate". Yep, you got it. To chomp into that t-bone on your plate is the moral equivalent of gassing Jews in the concentration camps.

Prof Gary Francione is another radical animal rights campaigner who insists that no animal can ever be owned by humans for whatever reason. No pets, no guide dogs, no zoos, no nothing. It is all morally wrong and must be fully eradicated he insists.

Philosopher Tom Regan, like Singer, is against "speciesism". To argue that one species is greater or more valuable than another is akin to racism and anti-Semitism. Like Singer, he believes that some animals have more rights than humans do. He differs from Singer in being against human infanticide however. Singer fully supports it.

It is not just various intellectuals and academics who are pushing all this. Many activist groups are especially targeting children and schools. They seek to convince young children that all domestication of animals is evil, and they must rise up and act now.

For example there are "PETA Comics". One is entitled, "Your Mommy KILLS Animals!" In full colour it depicts an evil looking mother knifing a rabbit to death, with blood and gore splattered all over the page. These sorts of fear campaigns and propaganda exercises are found in schools all around North America.

This important volume also documents the growing use of coercion, bombings, terror, violence and even death threats by some of these campaigners. There are numerous groups, such as the Animal Liberation Front, and the Environmental Liberation Front, which have been quite happy to resort to any tactics to achieve their ends.

ALF trainees for example are instructed on how to commit acts of sabotage and terror. They are taught how to make bombs, burn down buildings, and trash research facilities. They are told how not to leave any evidence behind, and how to maintain internal security to weed out detection.

Smith also looks at the validity and necessity of much animal research and testing. For example, all sorts of invaluable pain relief which we take for granted today only came about because of prior animal testing. All sorts of cures, remedies, vaccines and treatments for numerous diseases and ailments, including AIDS, have been and are being developed because of animal research.

He of course recognises that regulations and safeguards have their role in such research. This is already in place. For example, the US Animal Welfare Act mandates the use of drugs to relieve pain and suffering in such animals. A lot of effort and expense is exerted to ensure the humane treatment of animals.

Smith concludes by affirming human uniqueness, and how rights are in fact a distinctly human concept that can apply only to humans. Only humans possess moral autonomy. Seeking to include animals in the area of rights "would degrade the importance of rights altogether, just as wild inflation devalues money".

Given that Switzerland is now talking about "plant rights" it is time that we started thinking clearly and soberly about what rights really mean, and why in fact humans are unique. At the same time we can and should ensure proper animal welfare.

Smith gets this balance right here. With so much irrationality and emotion being generated on this issue, the cool-headed logic and common sense of Smith is a welcome relief.

This was a very educational book for people like me who were previously unfamiliar with the nefarious ways of the animal liberation movement. Dr. Smith's book can be best described as the dark underside of a movement that seems to be...mostly underside. For me, one of the most disturbing moments in the text came when the author recounts an exchange in the Senate between Senator Inhofe and fanatic Jerry Vlasak who stood by an earlier statement regarding his wish to assassinate humans in the hopes of saving animals. What comes across here most is how much their advocacy for animals is a product of their disdain for humanity. I thought the best chapter was 16, "Meat is Not Murder." It dispelled many myths promoted by vegetarians. For example, Smith illustrates that many of the essential vitamins and minerals our body needs (such as B12) are principally obtained via meat ingestion and the notion that humans were not made to eat meat is simply a lie. On aggregate, Dr. Smith's account was brilliant.

It's obvious that Aledo didn't even read the book (Like Gag! OMG!). I however, I did and thought it was great. I enjoyed the examples of PETA propaganda such as the Silver Springs Monkey case and the discussion of the difference between Animal Rights an Animal Welfare. The author pointed out that Animal Rights advocates often kill more animals than they purport to help as in PETA killing 97% of the animals they take in. What happens to minks from fur farms when they are released into the wild? They kill local wildlife, die of starvation, or are hunted down by people for being destructive (killing pets, chickens, and destroying property). The book was well written , easy to read and I recommend it to anyone who wants to know what Animal Rights Activists true goals are.

Animals cannot be given rights as they are not moral agents. They do not request rights not because they cannot speak but because they do not have the capacity to understand the rights we could give them, nor would they respect the rights of others. Would we put a Mountain Lion on trial for killing a human or if said Lion killed another animal? An elephant for destroying the nests of birds while foraging for food? Why is no one calling for the trial and execution (maybe some loons are but I haven't heard of it) of Tilly the whale? Because Tilly, as an animal, did not understand what it did was wrong nor could it.

Animals do benefit from associating with humans. When under our care they are for the most part provided safety, food, shelter, and an extended lifespan. If they are food animals they will be provided with a swift, humane death, something that they would not be given in the wild. Animals are an essential part of human lives and as omnivores, are required for our survival. In cold climates, their fur and feathers are needed as well.
Someone who is religious and abstains from alcohol and in some cases sex is not morally better than someone who does not. Animal Rights activists are morally no different from the very religious; in fact their movement if very similar to a religion as it is based on emotion and belief rather than science and reason.

Is our pork consumption comparable to the genocide in Darfur? Is our use of lab rats equivalent to the slave trade? Is our breeding and selling of dogs and cats comparable to human trafficking?

To anyone who believes in human exceptionalism, such comparisons are utterly insulting to the real victims of injustice. However, if you are Ingrid Newark, co-founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), such comparisons are only logical.

"A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy," Newark says. "We are all mammals."

Wesley J. Smith explores such views in his new book A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy: The Human Cost of the Animal Rights Movement. In the book, Smith explores everything from the philosophical backdrop of the modern animal rights movement to the terroristic acts that have been executed in its name.

Smith begins by providing an overview of the leading theorists and ideological premises behind the movement, all of which center around a critique of speciesism, which Smith describes as the notion that "treating animals as having less value than human beings is a form of discrimination just as morally odious as racism." In other words, you are a speciest if you think a cow should belong in your burger bun rather than a little boy.

Smith notes the various problems with such critiques, resting firmly on the obvious truth that every single species on the planet is speciest to an extent.

As for how animal rights activists view the proper solution to widespread specieism, there are a variety of differing perspectives, all of which position the human as a moral equal to other animals. Such a mindset gives license to commit any number of anti-human deeds in the name of "morality," and Smith covers them all.

Before reading this book, I pinned the animal rights movement as a powerless bloc that is perverse and disruptive, but mostly ineffective and silly. My mind has changed, to say the least. Smith chronicles so much activity and so much success within the movement, that after fully grasping its magnitude, one shutters to think of the possibilities. Whether threatening scientists, sabotaging lab work, or terrorizing company executives, the animal rights movement has done it all, and its victims have almost always caved to its demands.

There are certainly those in the movement who don't endorse violent acts and simply hope to "change the world" through veganism or advocacy or whatever, but these are not the people defining the movement. They are not the heads of PETA or the Animal Liberation Front, and they most certainly aren't crying "foul!" as much as one would hope.

But in the end, Smith's primary argument rests not on the terroristic activities of the movement or the theoretical inconsistencies of their arguments, but on the dire consequences that would result if their goals were to be achieved.

Where would we be without the medical achievements of the last century thanks (in part) to animal experimentation? How would society function if animals were allowed to legally sue humans over supposed injustices? How would human health and economic prosperity be affected if meat were to be eradicated from our diets?

But most importantly, what would the world be like if humans treated other humans like animals rather than moral agents? What is the logical outcome when we begin to see our fellow man as a chimp or a pig? Unfortunately, we have seen such views manifest in times past, particularly with slavery in the United States and elsewhere.

In a final chapter titled "The Importance of Being Human," Smith hits at the core of the issue with great force, outlining the scientific, philosophical, theoretical, and theological arguments in favor of human exceptionalism, and in turn, human rights.

As Smith concludes:

"Moral value should not be based on the capacities of each individual, since that standard would obliterate universal human rights, but upon the intrinsic natures of species. Reasoning, using language, inventing, projecting out into the future, creating -- the list is long -- are capacities that flow from the nature of humans and are absent from the natures of all animals."

So whatever your view of "animal rights" is -- whether you are anti-meat, anti-hunting, or anti-zoo -- Smith's book is really about resisting ideologies that are anti-human. As we continue to pursue proper and efficient animal stewardship on this earth, it seems that human interest should remain the driving force of our decisionmaking.

The animal rights movement wants to take away our freedoms of animal use and ownership. They want to take away American citizens' rights of due process. They seek to make vegans of all of us inspite of the fact it is not a truely healthy lifestyle. They attack animal agriculture with a goal of making our food supply less abundant and more expensive so fewer can afford to eat eggs, milk, meat, etc. They hate humans and would like to see fewer of them in the world. It's not about the animals. PETA killed 96% of the animals it took in last year while the local shelter had nearly half that kill rate. HSUS & ASPCA have participated in raids stripping animal owners of their animals and euthanized them prior to any finding of guilt in a court of law. People are exonerated only to find all their animals have been euthanized, neutered/spayed &/or sold to others as "rescues". It is a rotten underbelly in our society. Great read

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised anymore but call me hopeful....I had looked forward to a intellectually-honest and objective analysis of the animal rights movement, but this isn't it. There is better to be had out there. The author spends a lot of intellectual firepower trying to paint the animal rights movement as "anti-human" as if saying so makes it so, but despite Lenin's maxim that if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth, he has failed to convincingly make the case. In fact, from what I can glean the animal rights movement actually does quite the opposite...by affirming that all life has value our human rationality creates an imperative for us to preserve it...by recognizing and responding to that imperative, we truly affirm the goodness of humanity and do much to promote our own survival. Moreover, he really does a poor job explaining what it means to have rights...Some would claim that animals cannot have rights if they cannot fulfill duties, yet as a nation we claim for ourselves certain inalienable rights endowed by our creator, while conveinantly dispensing with any duties or obligations. If humans have been endowed with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, how can we say whether or not the animals have not been likewise graced?

The author may not want to use theology as the baseline for his moral reasoning, but his retreat into the spurious claim of "Human exceptionalism" comes off as hollow and unconvincing...as if Da Vinci and jazz are somehow universal proof of humanity's unique worth and primacy over other species. Human accomplishments may be special and unique to us, but they are hardly provide the proof that controverts that notion that each species is in its own way special and unique.

All in all, this is an OK introduction to some concepts that opponents of the Animal Rights agenda like to push...but overall, it is weak and not very compelling...if you buy it, get it used.

From the forward by Dean Koontz onward, the book is just embarrassingly bad. Smith doesn't even begin to give reasonable arguments for the use of animals in industries such as science and food production. No data, fallacious arguments, tautology after tautology. The book is light weight unfortunately. The book should be titled "A plumber is an electrician is a lawyer is a philosopher." Trust me, you won't be nourished if you are someone who reads in this area and are looking for a a good set of arguments.