Pet “Owners” Beware!

Last Friday’s Flashback explained how everyone gets upset when corporations and interest groups employ lobbyists to influence legislation, yet everyone is usually silent or supportive of protests and movements with the similar intentions, especially when they focus on the rights of the underprivileged or oppressed -- even if they are not human. 

 

Politicians cater to these movements, as businesses try to garner favor by caving to their demands. Both worry less about the small percentage with the issue than with their champions who latch on to the cause to show everyone else how compassionate and virtuous they are. Hence, tiny minorities exert disproportionate political and economic pressure. 

 

This dynamic comes up everywhere: in sports, fast food restaurants and grocery stores. They can’t say some things, and the things they sell must have favorable labels. Few have the guts to stand up to the pressure. A friend related that her church lists inclusiveness in their mission statement, but that was not good enough. They must also have a welcoming statement as a supplement to it – apparently you can never be inclusive enough! 

 

Some consider themselves “woke” by giving these movements credibility, while others wrongly shrug them off. They gradually creep into society almost unnoticed while we nap! 

 

In light of this, an article from the Guardian addresses a potential trend that should distress many. The headline runs: “Should we stop keeping pets? Why more and more ethicists say yes.” 

The suggestion that keeping pets is somehow immoral is backed by a mixture of both rational and emotional arguments. First they state, “recent research into animals’ emotional lives has cast doubt on the ethics of petkeeping.” The author of a 2015 book, Run, Spot, Run, argues against pet ownership in that it “denies animals the right of self-determination. Ultimately, we bring them into our lives because we want them, then we dictate what they eat, where they live, how they behave, how they look, even whether they get to keep their sex organs.” When people tire of their pets or can’t afford them, they simply drop them at a shelter or abandon them. Experts in the new field of anthrozoology argue that this is all a form of cruelty. 

 

When people think of their pet as part of their family – and it’s getting increasingly common to hear neighbors and advertisers use terms like “furry children” or “pet parents” – it further raises moral and ethical questions. “The logical consequence is that the more we attribute them with these characteristics, the less right we have to control every single aspect of their lives,” say the experts.

 

Meanwhile, animal advocacy groups are working to change the term owner to guardian in places like Boulder City, CO, San Francisco and Marin County, CA, Rhode Island and other places around the world. This simple change may have both ethical and legal ramifications.

 

Institutions accused of exploiting animals, such as the circus, have come under fire. Animal rights activists claimed victory when Ringling Bros Circus closed. Now the pressure shifts to calls to end, or at least rethink, zoos.

 

A related trend is the switch to vegetarian and vegan diets, not only for health reasons, but for ethical reasons as well. “Veganism is up over 300% in the past 15 years” to almost 10 million in the US. What pressure will come from these groups? Will they be the first to go pet-free for ethical reasons and then begin a campaign to get the rest to follow?

 

Finally, claims that keeping pets is healthy are also under attack. A Finnish study of over 21,000 found cholesterol issues, other cardiovascular health problems and BMI problems associated with pet ownership. “Depression, panic attacks, migraine, and rheumatoid arthritis were more often associated with pet ownership among women. The associations of somatic diseases with pet ownership were more common among aging people, whereas psychiatric symptoms and diseases were more apparent among young people.”

 

Although two-thirds of American households have pets, mostly dogs, cats or fish, be alert for pleas about domination and cruelty, that they are sentient beings with more rights to freedom than the average household can provide. These new norms don’t just happen; they evolve, little by little, creeping into society. And it only takes a small minority with powerful PR to start the ball rolling. (Who would have thought 20 years ago that there would be controversy about listing only M or F on a driver’s license?)

Flashback – A Different Kind of Lobbying

This 2016 entry was prescient, especially in light of current events with so many organizations caving to the dictates of various activists and pressure groups. A small number of those actually aggrieved pick up support from followers motivated by a need to feel relevant and morally superior. With these dupes in tow, tiny minorities exert disproportionate political and economic pressure.

Here are the thoughts from four years ago:

[Political lobbyists are the target of a lot of disapproval, and deservedly so. Big corporations, unions and  interest groups pay them to persuade lawmakers to pass laws or propose regulations that favor them.  They contend that these activities keep lawmakers informed on the subtleties of certain industries to reduce the number of unintended consequences, because Congress cannot be experts on everything.

On the other hand, most of the population has the impression that these meetings and lunches are little more than legalized bribes for the rich to disproportionately influence government, an attempt to bring “government in as a partner, looking to see what the country can do for them.” The auto industry and banks get their bailouts. The military is given weapons they haven’t requested and don’t want. In short, to lobby is to try to get your way without regard to what others want or what is best for the country.

But there are other activities almost the same as lobbying that most people either ignore or consider healthy. This came to mind when I saw a news story from England, but the type of behavior is certainly not foreign to Americans. In fact it’s quite common.

The controversy arose over the new five-pound note. When vegans and vegetarians discovered that the new tougher and more waterproof bill was made from a plastic polymer containing small amounts of tallow, derived from animal waste products, they took to social media demanding a change. They called the use of even a small amount of animal products disgusting. Their rights were being trampled. Since they were not going to eat the pocket money and the contents were by-products of a food production process, stuff that would be thrown away, it’s hard to see how any harm was done. It’s not like more animals were being slaughtered. Yet some circulated a petition, gathering over 40,000 signatures, demanding that the contents be changed.

It’s so easy to click a box or sign an online petition. And you get to feel good about yourself for caring about an issue that’s important to a minority. You get to stick up for the underdogs, the victims, people whose beliefs were not considered when the government tried to make their paper money more durable.  But 40,000 signatures represent less than one-tenth of one percent of the UK population and only about 3% report being vegetarian. Does this make a difference?

This behavior is repeated nearly daily in America. People will protest slights against groups they aren’t members of. The protests are based on the theory that if they can get a large enough turnout and enough press coverage, they can influence national, state and local policy. The lure is the same – be a savior, do the noble thing, occupy the moral high ground; feel good about yourself for defending the rights of the victims and the marginalized, even if those rights never existed before and in some cases where the victims aren’t even human. That’s how they get huge, vocal crowds or thousands of signatures when the issues affect only a few. (What's worse, the claims are often based on bad science, a warped understanding of history or emotional appeals.)

We have seen this mindset recently protesting a pipeline in North Dakota, defending a mountain lion that was killing cattle in California, supporting workers who took on obligations without the necessary financial resources and solving a bathroom problem that few knew existed. This is all about pressure on lawmakers. Adults throw a group tantrum to get attention.

It’s also so easy to vote, as the people in Massachusetts did to require that chickens and pigs live in larger cages. Those in favor of happier chickens spent almost $5 million on small demonstrations and other means to publicize the animals' need for more comfortable accommodations. Those arguing that such changes would raise the prices of eggs and bacon, hitting the poor especially hard, could only raise $300,000 to try to make their point. The chickens won and the humans lost, because the emotional appeal of reducing what was portrayed as suffering for the animals drowned out the appeal of helping the poor afford food. So voters went home from the polls feeling smug about making a difference.

Some of these causes are worthy of attention; many are trivial. But it's exactly the same outcome as traditional lobbying. Based on the theories that past behavior predicts future behavior and that behavior rewarded is behavior repeated, I predict that the future will yield more of this free lobbying.  Lawmakers will feel pressure from all sides, as every special interest exerts as much pressure as they can, if not through monetary donations, then by demonstrating in the streets and on social media. Those groups always attract supporters with the promise of feeling fulfilled, compassionate and morally superior.

Is this different kind of lobbying any healthier for the country than the first? We will see.]

That was my feeling in 2016. It has (as I predicted) escalated as activities in Seattle, Minneapolis, Kenosha, Portland, Washington DC and elsewhere are portrayed as peaceful protests despite vandalism, looting and rioting. But beware that the latest protests may mimic a more sinister movement.

 

Consider this news from the UK: A British-Indian Muslim convert, skipped bail in 2014 to join ISIS in Syria. He wrote later online: “When we descend on the streets of London, Paris and Washington the taste will be far bitterer, because not only will we spill your blood, but we will also demolish your statues, erase your history and, most painfully, convert your children who will then go on to champion our name and curse their forefathers.”

A Different Kind of Lobbying

Political lobbyists are the target of a lot of bad press, and deservedly so.  Big corporations, unions or other interest groups pay them to get the attention of lawmakers and to persuade them to pass laws or propose regulations that favor their particular industry or group.  Some say that these activities keep lawmakers informed on the subtleties of certain industries.  Better understanding of the dynamics can reduce the number of unintended consequences and those in Congress cannot be experts on everything.

On the other hand, most of the population has the impression that these meetings and lunches are little more than legalized bribes for the rich to disproportionately influence government, an attempt to bring “government in as a partner, looking to see what the country can do for them.”  The auto industry and banks get their bailouts.  The military is given weapons they haven’t requested and don’t want.  In short, to lobby is to try to get your way without regard to what others want or what is best overall for the country.

But there are other activities almost the same as lobbying that most people either ignore or consider healthy.  This came to mind when I came across a news story from England.  It is about behavior in a foreign country, but the type of behavior itself is certainly not foreign to Americans.  In fact it’s quite common.

The controversy arose over the new five-pound note.  When vegans and vegetarians discovered that the new tougher and more waterproof bill was made from a plastic polymer containing small amounts of tallow, derived from animal waste products, they took to social media demanding the contents be changed.  They called the use of even a small amount of animal products not cool and disgusting.  Their rights were being trampled.  Since they were not going to eat the pocket money and the contents were by-products of a food production process that would be thrown away otherwise, it’s hard to see how any harm was done.  It’s not like more animals were being slaughtered.  Yet some circulated a petition, gathering over 40,000 signatures, demanding that the contents be changed.

It’s so easy to click a box and sign an online petition.  And you get to feel good about yourself for caring about an issue that’s important to a minority.  You get to stick up for the underdogs, the victims, people whose beliefs were not even considered when the government tried to make their paper money more durable.  But 40,000 is less than one-tenth of one percent of the UK population and only about 3% report being vegetarian.  Does this even make a difference?

This behavior is repeated nearly daily in America.  People will protest slights against groups they aren’t even members of.  The protests are based on the theory that if they can get a large enough turnout and enough press coverage they can influence the national, state and local policy.  The lure is the same – be a savior, do the noble thing, defend the moral high ground. Feel good about yourself for defending the rights of the victims and the marginalized, even if those rights never existed before and even if the victims aren’t even human.  That’s how they get huge, vocal crowds or thousands of signatures when the issues affect a small minority.

We have seen this mindset recently protesting a pipeline in North Dakota, defending a mountain lion that was killing cattle in California, supporting workers who took on obligations before they could earn enough money to support those obligations, and something about solving a bathroom problem that few knew existed.  This is all about pressure on lawmakers.  They throw an organized tantrum until they either get there way or run out of energy.

It’s also so easy to vote, as the people in Massachusetts did to require that chickens and pigs live in larger cages.  Those in favor of happier chickens spent almost $5 million with small demonstrations and other means to publicize the animals' need for more comfortable accommodations.  Those arguing that such changes would raise the prices of eggs and bacon, hitting the poor especially hard, could only raise $300,000 to try to make their point.  The chickens won and the humans lost, primarily because the emotional appeal of reducing what was portrayed as suffering for the animals drowned out the appeal of helping the poor afford food.  So voters went home from the polls feeling like they had made a difference.

Some of these causes are worthy of attention; some are trivial.  But it all sounds like exactly the same dynamic as traditional lobbying to me.  Based on the theories that past behavior predicts future behavior and that behavior rewarded is behavior repeated, I predict that the future will yield more of this free lobbying compounding the problem.  Lawmakers will feel pressure from all sides, as every special interest exerts as much pressure as they can, either through monetary donations to campaigns, by button-holing at the capitol or by demonstrating in the streets and on social media, as those groups attract supporters with the promise that they will feel fulfilled, compassionate and morally superior.

Personally, I don’t think this second kind of lobbying is any healthier for the country than the first.  But we will see.