Suchergebnisse

AbstractTracking technology has been heralded as transformative for animal ecology. In this paper I examine what changes are taking place, showing how current animal movement research is a field ripe for philosophical investigation. I focus first on how the devices alter the limitations and biases of traditional field observation, making observation of animal movement and behaviour possible in more detail, for more varied species, and under a broader variety of conditions, as well as restricting the influence of human presence and observer bias. I reconstruct these as shifts in scope, objectivity, accuracy and fruitfulness. The second transformation is slightly less obvious but equally significant for animal ecology. Tracking devices generate complex data that demands both statistical and biological expertise, which has led to increasingly frequent and intensive collaborations between statisticians and biologists. Based on interviews, I examine how researchers in these interdisciplinary collaborations negotiate the collection, analysis and interpretation of movement data, integrating research interests, methodological constraints, previous field observations, and background theory. Tracking technology is therefore also shifting which disciplinary considerations are brought to bear on research into animal movement and behaviour and how this research is conducted.

Many political ecologists and geographers study ethical diets but most are curiously silent on the topic of death in the food system, specifically what or who is allowed to live and what is let die in the "doing of good." This article aims to show how the practice of eating produces the socio-ecological harm most ethical consumers set out to avoid with their dietary choices. I examine the food systems that produce ethical products for 1) the hierarchical ordering of consumer health in the Global North over the health and well-being of workers in the Global South and 2) how vegetarianism involves the implicit privileging of some animals over others. The article takes take a genealogical approach to the political ecology of food ethics using Black and Indigenous studies in conversation with animal geographies. I draw on Mbembe's (2016) necropolitics, Weheliye's (2014) "not quite human" and Lowe's (2015) critique of humanism to develop a conceptual framework for what lives or dies as a result of ethical dietary choices. I use this framework to examine commodities for the socio-ecological harm that their production extends into the world under the guise of "doing good" or "being ethical." Taking a harm reduction and food sovereignty approach, I advocate for a new ethical framework that includes a limited case for consuming animals.

The study of seasonal use of archaeological sites helps to understand lifestyles of prehistoric communities. One possible method of such research is the analysis of dental cementum of animals from the ancient settlements and burial complexes. The method offers some data about the seasonality of the animals' slaughter that may help to explain pastoral strategies. This study presents the results of the analysis of dental cementum of sacrificed animals from Solntse II cemetery, which are compared to the data from Ust'ye I settlement. Seasonal patterns of slaughtering suggest seasonality in their use, as there are no summer offerings discovered inside the graves. This observation suggests that at least a part of the settlement's inhabitants could be partially mobile and move to summer pastures with herds.

AbstractThere is growing concern globally about the inhumane treatment of 'pest' animals, including rodents, and about the ecological consequences of rodenticides, notably the poisoning of non-target wildlife like raptors and scavengers. Recent contestation between Environmental Health (EH) officials in Khayelitsha, Cape Town's largest African township, and the National Council for Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA) illustrates the tension that can arise between innovative ecologically-focused strategies and existing legislation and animal protection practices. In 2013/14 EH officials introduced a job-creation project to trap and drown rats, describing it as 'humane' because it avoided poison thereby posing no danger to wildlife such as owls. The NSPCA, however, halted the project, arguing that drowning was both inhumane and illegal. Death by poison is also inhumane but the South Africa's Animals Protection Act (1962) allows it (and trapping and hunting) to be used against 'pests'/'vermin'. The NSPCA, which has never challenged the Act for allowing the inhumane treatment of these animals, used it to trump local preferences. A representative survey from Khayelitsha showed that there was some support for an NSPCA-like position (14% thought that drowning was cruel and that workers should not be allowed to trap and drown rats) but that the majority (70%) indicated that they were both concerned about the poisoning of non-target animals and supported the continuation of the trapping and drowning project. This was not a contestation over whether animals should be protected, but over how to do this, and which animals to include.

AbstractAnimal liberationists generally pay little attention to the suffering of animals in the wild, and it is arguable that this is a significant proportion of the total amount of animal suffering. We examine a range of different responses of animal liberationists to the issue of non-anthropogenic suffering, but find none of them entirely satisfactory. Responses that lead logically to the conclusion that anthropogenic suffering should be eliminated can apply equally logically to the suffering of animals in the wild. On the other hand, the solution of micro-managing habitats to prevent suffering is counter-intuitive, and on closer examination eliminates the intrinsic value of animals' lives. On balance, the approach that we favour is acceptance of the intrinsic value of individual animal lives, extending this from either individual human lives (as accepted predominantly by theists), or from biodiversity, species and ecosystems (as currently accepted by ecocentric philosophies). We also suggest that the combination of animal liberation and environmentalism only really makes sense in the context of a belief in the redeemable qualities of nature, as expressed in quasi-Hindu terms or in terms of some Biblical animal liberationist worldviews.

Contemporary theories that have attempted to overcome the traditional separation of human, animal, & machine are examined. Rather than try to clearly demarcate the boundaries between the three categories, it is contended that such thinking understands the boundaries between human, animal, & machine as less definitive & increasingly blurred. The role that theories of artificial intelligence & animal liberation movements have played in this move to reconfigure this conventional distinction between animal, human, & machine is discussed. Specific attention is dedicated to addressing the line of thought promulgated by animal liberation advocates who believe that the inhabitation of a common cultural environment by multiple species is desirable & justifiable. The attempt to blur the boundaries between living organism & machine through technology, eg, virtual reality, is critiqued; specifically, it is claimed that the notion of the machine fails to expand current understandings of self-hood. It is concluded that individuals who attempt to "play God" by utilizing technology are simply repeating the efforts of previous generations of technocrats & patriarchs. J. W. Parker