« Sizemore to Challenge Gordon Smith? | Main | Leave Sacred Texts Alone »

March 23, 2007

Fur Defender Says Animal Pain Doesn't Matter

Brendan O'Neill doesn't understand the fuss about fur. "If it's okay to eat animals, hunt animals, keep animals as pets, and wear the hides of animals in the form of leather jackets and leather shoes, why is not okay to wear animals' fur too?" Good question. Maybe I can help.

The more extreme anti-fur activists also tend to be vegan and some go so far as to oppose the "owning" of pets. Some of us, however, are more mainstream in our thinking and yet still draw the line at fur. The reason is that animals raised for fur tend to be subjected to far worse living conditions than animals raised for meat and tend to be killed in far worse ways than animals raised for meat. Much of our fur today comes from countries like China where our "civilized" animal protection laws don't exist. Meanwhile, our meat is mostly raised under American laws. Additionally, you have to consider the waste factor. Animals raised for fur are skinned and their bodies thrown away. We don't need anything from them to survive – they die solely for our luxury. Animals raised for meat, on the other hand, are used in their entirety and provide food for us. Their skins are turned into leather and their bones and other byproducts of the meat industry become pet food and a whole lot of other things.

O'Neill thinks the problem is people don't like the notion of "man's domination of nature and beast." That's not the problem I have with fur, but maybe others do. Anyway, I think the more interesting question is not why people oppose fur, but the crazy justification people give for supporting the fur industry. See if you can stomach O'Neill's point of view:

The anti-fur movement is motivated by a base and childish anthropomorphism; by a belief that animals have similar feelings to humans and thus should be protected from the pain and distress caused by the fur industry. …

In fact it is not at all clear that animals feel pain in anything like the same way that humans do. …

So while my response and the bunny rabbit's response to being chased by a knife-wielding man might look similar - both of us would run like the wind, and possibly scream - they could not be more different. My consciousness means I would experience it as painful and chilling, whereas the bunny is motivated only by a base instinct for survival bestowed upon it by the evolutionary process. It is cheap and crass to compare animal experience with human experience, and to call for equal treatment of beast and man. …

The notion that we have no right to experiment on animals, or to eat them, or to keep them in cages, or to wear their fur - notions that are increasingly indulged in mainstream debate as well as on the fur-hating fringes - represents a direct assault on the very basis of human civilisation. Civilisation is built upon the idea that we are morally superior to animals, and it was only through the subjugation of animals that civilisation could emerge and flourish. …

[A]nimalists cannot see that our use of animals is fundamentally humane: we "imprison" pigs and other animals in order to liberate large sections of mankind from hunger and need; we put monkeys in cages in order to develop our understanding of medicine and thus improve and save millions of human lives.

And yes, even fur is humane. To turn an animal into a fur coat is to ennoble it. As a fashion item, an animal acquires significance far beyond its own natural existence. Indeed, the only true "purpose" in the life of a mink or rabbit is that bestowed on it by the hunter, skinner and fur-maker - through their efforts, an animal is elevated from an instinct-driven bundle of reflex responses to an item worthy of being displayed in Paris, London and New York. Through human endeavour and labour an animal is given a use and meaning that nature could never have designed for it. What is a mink but a wild beast scrabbling for food along riversides, destined to die and rot in the shade of a tree? The mink worn by Kate Moss was spared this fate and made into something memorably beautiful.

No finer fate can befall an animal than to be caught by a fur-hunter.

It just leaves you speechless. I understand his logic completely, but the thing is, when you're talking about living things, you kind of have to pull yourself out of the detached mental game for a minute and look at a real live animal and ask yourself what sort of perversion must occur in the head of a person who could inflict suffering on that animal? Is condoning that mentality good for human society? Does O'Neill believe that dogs and cats should be treated that way? How are they different in their ability to feel fear and pain and suffering from foxes, rabbits, and minks? The civilized world has laws protecting animals from mistreatment. Did that happen just because we have come to hate ourselves as a species, as O'Neill seems to suggest?

Or did it happen because science has discovered that animals do, in fact, suffer just like humans do? Perhaps Mr. O'Neill ought to do a little more research of his own and engage in a little less emotionally-detached thinking. I hope someday he re-reads his post and finds himself as dumbstruck at the idiocy of his point of view as I did when I first read it.

Posted by Becky at March 23, 2007 09:39 AM