THE RIGHTS OF INSECT ANIMALS

Personally, and I think many animal rights advocates agree with me, I find it basic to animal rights to give respect to *all* animals and acknowledge they all have the same intrinsic rights, such as the right to exist and the right to exist free of human domination and human exploitation. Most vegans I know kindly usher insects trapped in our homes (moths, flies, crickets, etc.) back outside to freedom, don’t swat (murder) flies, don’t purchase things with crushed up beetles in them (like lots of colorings), and don’t wear/purchase silk (based on silkworm rights). This respect for insect animals appears to be logically intertwined with our respect for other animals in the animal kingdom (i.e. veganism means respect for all animals, no matter size, shape, or species). In addition to this basic tenet, if need be, we can also look to sentience and even  more difficult hurdles to respect and rights, like human-based practical autonomy to foster respect for insect animals.  Steve Wise’s exploration of one species of insect, honeybees, and the science on honeybees having (human-based) practical autonomy (way “more” than sentience) which he uses in his four category hierarchical scale for legal rights (based on the U.S. court system’s focus on autonomy in relation to rights) highlights some of the basics. In his book, “Drawing the Line,” Wise states:

“Chapter 5: Honeybees

In dozens of interviews and public talks after Rattling the Cage appeared, I was asked, usually facetiously, where I would “draw the line.” Monkeys? Cows? Dogs? Snakes? Frogs? and (wink, wink) what about insects? Had I answered this last in the affirmative, scorn would have been heaped upon me.  . . .  I chose the honeybee as an example of a Category Four animal [lowest ranking on autonomy scale] having an autonomy value below 0.5 [1.0 being high]. To my amazement and horror, the more I learned about the mental abilities of honeybees, the more certain I became that bees were Category Two animals. The question was: how high [a value in Category Two]?

…

Honeybees possess a mental ability many think is strictly the domain of primates: the ability to recognize “sameness” and “difference.” … late long-term memory lasts a honeybee’s lifetime. . . . concluded that honeybees not only possess cognitive mental maps but have a mental tool for skepticism. 

. . .

Are honeybees conscious? Griffin says, “If we accept communication as evidence of conscious thinking, we must certainly grant consciousness to honeybees.” Do their tiny brains produce sentience? Apparently so.

. . .

(quoting scientist C. Jung) [the message of the dancing bees] ‘is no different in principle from information conveyed by a human being. In the latter case, we would certainly regard such behavior as a conscious and intentional act and can hardly imagine how anyone could prove in a court of law that it has taken place unconsciously. . . . We are faced with the fact that the ganglionic system apparently achieves exactly the same result as our cerebral cortex.’

. . . 

The excellent learning capacity and memory of honeybees, their likely symbolic cognitive map, symbolic communication code, sophisticated communication system, and apparent ability to engage in rudimentary thinking puts them above Categories Three or Four . . . If they were vertebrates I would place them at .75, even .80…”

---end of quoting Steve Wise---

As much as I have enjoyed many of my discussions with Steve Wise and appreciate that his heart is in trying to achieve rights for many, if not all, animals and he is “just starting with” those with scientifically provable practical autonomy, as I have said elsewhere, I don’t agree with his hierarchical structure and agree with Dunayer on this topic, “Supposed superiority isn’t relevant to basic rights. A superior aptitude for technology, verbal language, or anything else doesn’t entitle someone to greater moral consideration or greater legal protection,” and “Life, liberty, and freedom from pain are as relevant to bullfrogs and snakes as to bonobos. In fact, I can't think of any basic right that applies to nonhuman great apes but doesn't also apply to all other sentient beings.”

 

In sum, a person can acknowledge all insect’s intrinsic rights based on their membership in the animal kingdom, which I think is the essence of “animal rights,” or if you so choose, you can require more, such as basing their rights on their sentience, or even, as Wise lays out, their high rating for practical autonomy! I believe that because insects are animals, they have intrinsic rights, the same rights that all animals in the animal kingdom have, such as living free from human domination and exploitation. I think that this is the obvious position of animal rights. Luckily for insect animals, many people who won’t give respect and recognize rights solely based on someone being an animal will hopefully realize that basing someone’s right to freedom on sentience, or even something as difficult to quantify (and attain) as human-based practical autonomy, gets us to the same conclusion: Insect animals have rights!

ET TU, BRUTE?

ET TU, BRUTE?

The Problems Associated with Focusing on One Among the Countless

Some advocates for animal rights might feel they have recently been stabbed in the back by a trusted friend, much like Julius Caesar in Shakespeare’s play about the Roman statesman. I know I do. Amid a sea of countless advocates and groups using speciesist campaigns and tactics, there was but a glimmer of hope among animal advocacy groups, especially those of larger size. But unfortunately, it now has become increasingly evident that there are no animal groups of any measureable size that don’t incorporate speciesism and/or speciesist solutions into their campaigns, and in so doing, further entrench the very foundation of the problem. I thought there was an exception, but Brute has now joined the others. Perhaps we should have been prepared for it, with a naked protest indistinguishable from one put on by PeTA as a warning sign of a wrong turn. Still, I was unprepared for the blow, and the depth of it. It is my sincere hope that these recent deviations are just a minor ill-advised detour and that soon, very soon, we again have a larger-sized group in the world of animal activism that has a clear and consistent anti-speciesist message and anti-speciesist campaign policy.

Groups like HSUS, PeTA, and Mercy for Animals will sometimes claim they are working toward veganism, or against speciesism, which is extremely hard to believe if you listen or read or watch with more than a passing fancy or for any amount of time. They claim that their “exposés” of certain operations, or certain instances of treatment by workers, are part of vegan advocacy. However, their associated messages of: better regulation, prosecution of workers for “cruelty” or “brutality”, and boycotts of certain companies, are more accurately an exposé of them – as speciesists complicit in the perpetuation of the humane myth, the myth that is the biggest enemy against the advancement of anti-speciesism, and complicit in the reinforcement of speciesist laws and standards as legitimate.  The effect on the public by these campaigns is both predictable and disheartening. However, carefully-tailored investigations and very carefully-tailored subsequent media and public messages about an investigation, and the solution to what it documents, can overcome the dangerous and plentiful pitfalls waiting to ruin the message and turn into one that entrenches, rather than works against, speciesism. Observing these investigations and the public discussion on them, demonstrates this need to be *very* carefully-tailored and implemented so that anti-speciesism, not speciesism, is the message and the result.

A wonderful and long-time anti-speciesist activist recently said to me, “It amazes me that so many activists and organizations still focus on exposing the cruelties inflicted by specific producers, when they *know* first hand that people's first response is to switch to another brand [or supplier]. Anyone who does vegan outreach on a regular basis can tell you that, even when presented with the irrefutable facts that ALL animal farming is inherently cruel and unjust, many people still deny it with a version of ‘but not all farms are like this’. ” I couldn’t express it any better.

Some actions and campaigns may sound good in theory, but the reality of what they do and how they are perceived by the public is often quite different.

Theory:
We hold individuals that rape and murder humans accountable, so holding businesses, and individuals that work for businesses, that rape and murder animals (workers) accountable is actually anti-speciesist.

Reality:
First, 99% of humans think enslaving, raping, or killing humans is unacceptable. 99% of humans think that enslaving, raping, and killing animals is acceptable (for a growing many, only so long as it is done “humanely”). The effect of this difference is not insignificant in how the 99% hear about, and respond to, such investigations. Calling for one operation to be closed and some workers from one operation to be prosecuted, among the millions of operations (thousands in most every country) and tens of thousands of workers slicing the throats of billions of animals a year, is not even comparable by the 99% to calling for the prosecution of someone who rapes or murders a human.
Second, and probably most importantly, calling for prosecution, boycotts, etc. based on *the manner* in which raping and killing is being done is very different than calling for the prosecution for merely *committing the act* of rape or murder. The former is based on legal and acceptable industry standards, the latter on the actions themselves being morally wrong and completely unacceptable. By being based on acceptable rape and acceptable murder, the former can only serve to reinforce speciesism. It is entirely based on "doing it right", not "It is not right!" Millions of businesses and thousands of workers are killing millions of animals every day, but within the bounds of speciesist laws and speciesist regulations. Additionally, to expect regulators and the legal system to act in any other way than speciesist is naïve of the realities of the situation. These are speciesist institutions built on, and supported, by speciesism and run by speciesists. They will enforce speciesist standards in a speciesist manner, also further entrenching speciesism.

Theory:
The analogy between those who rape and murder humans and those who rape and murder animals (businesses and their employees) is sound in other ways.

Reality:
The analogy is fundamentally not sound. Those who rape humans and kill humans are not engaged in what they do in order to supply the demands of 7 billion other people; those who enslave, rape, and kill animals are. The 99% of people fueling it understand this basic and important difference, and so should animal advocates, because this difference has a huge impact on how far the analogy will go with the public.

Theory:
Focusing on specific businesses and the specific conditions/treatment at an operation helps people realize they should live vegan.

Reality:
*Focusing on conditions, treatment, and/or specific places* has the logical and predictable effect of people *focusing on conditions, treatment, and/or specific places*; not basic rights violations. There will always be assurances (that people are actively seeking and businesses are actively supplying) that there are many places that don't enslave/rape/murder "abusively" or "cruelly" or “brutally” like this place, or under these "horrible” or “extreme" conditions, or by "horrible" or “sadistic” workers like those ones. Evidence of this obvious and predictable reaction from the overwhelming majority of people is in no short supply on every website, blog, social networking post, article, etc. (and prolifically out of the public’s mouths at every vegan outreach table) following these investigations. Of course, the message attached to these investigations by the groups doing them does everything to encourage this speciesist solution and harmful line of thinking.  There will also always be the associated assurances (that people are actively seeking and businesses are actively supplying) that this place, or those workers, have been disciplined and the situation is fixed. Carry on. Focusing on the basic rights violations and conditions that are *always* present in every business that enslaves, rapes, and kills animals and *always* committed by workers enslaving, raping, and killing is what will make lasting change for animals. Yes, assuredly some people "go vegan", or are woken up by these investigations, but what will they do when these assurances are made to them down the road? And more importantly, what is the overall message to people: conditions, treatment, and specific places, or basic rights and basic rights violations. Which is more likely to make people adopt, and maintain, a vegan lifestyle? Which is anti-speciesist?

I can’t begin to tell you how deeply saddened I am to see those whom I thought carefully controlled their tactics for speciesism, adopting the tactics and message of well-known regulationists and speciesists like Mercy for Animals, Humane Society, PeTA, etc. Their adoption of the focus on an individual busines and calling for the punishment of the business and the "brutal" workers who work there because the operation and workers there are not in compliance with speciesist standards (who are acting fundamentally the same as thousands of others are at this very moment, as they enslave, rape, and murder billions of animals in order to supply the demand of the billions), is more than a little like a stab to the back of the anti-speciesism movement. Brute, who was the glimmer of hope who never used to engage in such tactics with such predictably poor effects, now stands with Mercy for Animals, PeTA, and HSUS and the countless others. This recent development creates an extremely sad day for the small portion of the animal advocacy movement that campaigns and works against speciesism in an anti-speciesist manner and considers this approach imperative to the advancement of animal rights.