Animals

To the Editors of The Crimson:

Joshua Sharfstein's impassioned essay on animal and human rights in the January 18 issue of The Crimson deserves closer consideration, for it contains within it the seeds of a compassion--and intelligence--that transcend the deeply flawed nature of the article's assertions.

Mr. Sharfstein is concerned, and offended, by the increasing number of citizens who are stepping forward as advocates of the rights of all animals. To his mind, the term animal rights is an oxymoron, because animals "are not part of any group who can understand morality, can reason, can conceive of its own existence or can fully comprehend pain." Leaving aside the years of close observation of animals by wildlife researchers that have proved such statements untrue, there is a fundamental question Mr. Sharfstein, in his concern for mankind's comfort, is ignoring about our future: can the interests of any one species be considered apart, in isolation from, the interests of all others? The answer, as scientists have been urging us to comprehend for decades, is a resounding no. When we brutalize our environment, when we brutalize other species, we brutalize ourselves and our children.

Human beings are animals, whether we choose to consider ourselves as such or not. Our every choice affects the environment in which we live. The rights of human and non-human animals are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, to consider one out of the context of the other is to posit an unreal world--a luxury we cannot afford when planning seriously for our future. The achievements that make us most proud--in technology, in medicine, in philosophy--must make us more, not less, responsible.

I applaud Mr. Sharfstein for his caring, but I would suggest that his perspective is not yet sufficiently inclusive to serve the interests of compassion. Morissa Lou Williams