Debasing animal rights

The issue of animal rights has a long history.\nBut it wasn't until the publication of Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation" in 1975 that the animal rights movement gained particular momentum. Three decades later, recent cover stories by Time magazine and The New York Times Magazine illustrate the issue is still hotly debated.\nThe practice of confining animals in factory settings explicitly designed to maximize product output at the expense of the humane treatment of livestock has come under particular fire from animal rights groups. Hunting is another contentious issue.\nWhile many people would consider themselves animal lovers and are repulsed by these activities, the animal rights movement still suffers a public image problem.\nPeople for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have denounced beekeepers for being as amoral as factory farmers. Their web site (peta.org) proclaims the artificial insemination of queen bees as "a bee-sized version of the factory farm 'rape rack.'" They also question the ethics of harvesting honey that sustains a colony and replacing it "with cheap sugar substitute that is not as fortifying or tasty." Predation also concerns some activists, who may even go as far as forcing their pets (e.g., dogs and cats) onto a vegetarian diet. \nPeter Singer writes, "The existence of carnivorous animals does pose one problem for the ethics of Animal Liberation, and that is whether we should do anything about it." \nMore recently, Matthew Scully, the author of the book "Dominion" said predation is "the intrinsic evil in nature's design." \nIn his article for The New York Times Magazine, Michael Pollan presents an example of the destructive consequences when the misguided efforts of animal rights activists interfere with conservation efforts. Wrightson Island, the only home of the Arcania tree and the 52 sea sparrows that nest in it, has been decimated by the introduction of the goat. In an effort to save the dwindling sparrow and Arcania population, a British environmental group attempted to cull the goats but were forced to quit when the Mammal Liberation Front bombed their offices.\nSome might argue that the extreme attitudes of some animal rights groups are important if only to keep us on our toes. This might be true in the setting of the ill treatment of animals in human society (and only within the bounds of the law). But as Pollan points out, morality is an artifact of human culture. As a consequence, forcing it onto animals in the wild is in itself unethical (e.g., predation is bad). Also, what is more concerning is when some individuals are prompted by these naive ideals to disrupt legitimate attempts at conservation. The same detachment from the natural world that favors profit margins over animal welfare in some sectors of the farming industry is also to blame for the ill informed, and sometimes absurd, notions held by a subset of animal rights groups. At the very least, it undermines the credibility of the animal rights movement and distances potentially sympathetic members of government and the general public. At worst, it hinders conservation efforts imperative for saving endangered species and maintaining the biodiversity on this planet.\nThe issue of animal rights is important, but is currently (and perhaps has always been) bogged down by romantic, anthropomorphic ideals that stifle intelligent debate.