Pesticides, Religion & Philosophy: A Future Battle for PCOs?

Have you ever wondered about the root causes of the anti-pesticide movement? Not the what, but the why. Why are some people so opposed to using pesticides?

While there may be several root causes, there are two that I’ve noticed among the anti-pesticide crowd: 1) fear that pesticides have unknown negative health effects, and 2) an underlying view that all creatures are created equal and have the right to live. As for the first reason (unknown health effects), there is abundant scientific evidence that pesticides are generally safe when used according to their label instructions, so countering anti-pesticide arguments on those grounds often requires an educational effort. The second motivating factor among anti-pesticide people — that all creatures have equal rights — is a fundamental philosophic, even religious, issue that is not easily countered. In fact, it is very worrisome to our industry, especially when followed to its logical conclusion. This story explores the philosophic/religious world views concerning the place of humans in the web of life.

Even if you’re not a religious person, it is still helpful to try to understand the all-creatures-are-equal point of view and its opposite. Best I can tell, the crux of the argument is this: Are humans "special" creatures? Are we the pinnacle of creation, given special abilities and responsibilities to "subdue" the earth or be good stewards of it? Or, alternatively, are all creatures (including insects, rodents, bats, etc.) somehow equal, all having the basic right to life? Do we as humans have the right to make our needs paramount, overrunning the planet, using and abusing other life forms simply for our own prosperity?

DO ALL CREATURES HAVE RIGHTS? While often not admitted, this equal-rights-of-all-species philosophy provides the basis for many anti-pesticide arguments. The idea is that we humans are not special; we are only one of thousands of species that evolved naturally here on earth. According to this view, no supernatural spark or guidance was involved or needed. A rat, a child or a flea are essentially all equal species.

The famous Harvard biologist, Stephen Jay Gould, once wrote a scientific paper espousing the view that humans aren’t "above" the rest of nature (Nature, 1995; 377:681-682). The mission statement of the organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) follows that same line of thinking stating, "Animals are not ours to be used for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose (emphasis added)." This might even be extrapolated to having animals as pets.

The most vehement animal rights people would say, "Who are we to ‘own’ another creature simply for our benefit?" Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, a former psychoanalyst, in a book about the emotional life of animals, detailed his reasons for not eating animals (J.M. Masson, 2003, The Pig Who Sang at the Moon, Ballantine Books, page 228). In the book he says he would not eat anything that dreams, and then goes on to say there is scientific evidence that bee dream. I interpret this remark to mean that he is opposed to killing/eating even insects because they have some level of consciousness. A book recently published by Oxford University Press (C.R. Sunstein and M.C. Nussbaum, 2004, Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions) explores the legal and philosophical underpinnings of how we think about animals. Some chapter contributors in the book see the recognition of animal rights as simply the final step in an evolutionary process by which we have come to recognize new groups as equal to the rest of us. I personally think this book represents the beginning of a whole new legal movement called "animal rights law."

People will soon begin suing industries or farmers on behalf of their "animal" clients, citing violation of their client’s natural rights. For example, an animal rights attorney might sue a dairy farmer on behalf of a cow for being forced to remain in the lactating condition for most of the cow’s adult life. Or, possibly, he/she might sue on behalf of a chicken for being confined in a cage its entire life. In other words, being in a cage is not the natural condition of a chicken; we have enslaved it. Remember, you heard it here first!

THE GREAT CHAIN OF BEING. Even if never consciously acknowledged, most readers of this magazine probably hold the belief that humans are more important than other animals. The great Catholic theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, first proposed the idea more than 800 years ago which goes something like this: a human is more important than an ape, monkey or dog; an ape, monkey or a dog is more important than a raccoon; a raccoon is more important than a rat; a rat is more important than a flea; a flea is more important than a worm; and a worm is more important than a rock. (See illustration on page 39.) Basically, the Chain of Being idea says that we consciously or subconsciously make value judgments as to relative importance of other creatures. In this model, it is acceptable to kill fleas on a dog (which are bothering the dog) because the dog is more valuable than the fleas.

In the same way, it’s OK to kill mosquitoes because they carry deadly disease organisms to humans (which are higher up in the chain). Killing pests is acceptable because of the compensatory benefit we receive from the practice. Practically speaking, this means I personally don’t mind the killing and eating of lower animals, but I certainly wouldn’t want to eat a porpoise or a chimpanzee (higher animals). However, to remain consistent with the Chain of Being philosophy, I would gladly eat one if I were starving to death.

CREATURES EATING CREATURES. Indirectly supporting the Chain of Being philosophy is the hierarchy of animals displayed in nature itself. One of the most fundamental realities on earth is that living things survive by eating other things, mostly lower in the food chain. In many cases, animals exist solely by eating other animals. Humans, of course, are omnivores and can eat either plants or animals. In light of this, vegetarianism is fine — as a choice — but shouldn’t be thought of as a natural law. Some animal rights groups insist that eating animals is morally wrong (even evil) and unnatural. They say that all animals have basic rights just like people — the greatest of which is not to be eaten. Again, vegetarianism is fine, even healthy, but should not be construed as the natural condition for humans in light of known biology.

Humans were originally hunter-gatherers, keyword here, hunters. Hunters kill and eat things. Further evidence for this is that humans have eyes in front of their head (as opposed to the side) indicating that they are predators. Anyway, it is obvious to any student of biology that catching, killing and eating of animals is a fact of life for many species. Whether we like it or not, creatures subsist by eating other things. To me, this one fact indicates that there is nothing inherently wrong with killing and/or eating lower animals for our survival or benefit.

GOOD STEWARDS OF THE EARTH. If you’re a religious person, you likely believe that humans are in essence a special creation, placed on earth sort of like tenders of a grand garden. In this world view, humans are held responsible by the Creator to be good stewards of the earth and should be careful to protect, conserve and utilize natural resources in a sustainable/renewable way to ensure a healthy planet for future generations. Even for the non-religious, this "good steward" model is a wonderful approach to the way we use natural resources. By the way, the U.S. governmental agency, Soil Conservation Service (now called the Natural Resources Conservation Service), which cannot endorse religion, utilizes this stewardship approach. One of their main programs is called the "Stewardship Incentives Program" to help manage land and forests.

To me, killing pests is entirely justifiable and fits well within the framework that we are to tend and care for our great garden, planet Earth. Insect and other animal populations in nature sometimes get out of balance and need to be corrected. Just as a physician might use antibiotics to kill a bacterial infection growing wildly out of control in a patient, pest control professionals use pesticides as environmental medicines to kill pest populations growing out of control.

The next time someone verbally attacks you for using pesticides, perhaps you should gently engage them as to the basis of their belief. If their reasons relate to unknown health risks of pesticides, you might try reassuring them about the EPA registration process intended to screen out harmful products. If, on the other hand, the basis of their anti-pesticide view is that all creatures are equal, you might not change their mind, but at least you’ll understand where they’re coming from — the philosophical basis of their belief. And that’s good, because knowledge is power.

The author is a medical entomologist for the Mississippi Dept. of Health, Jackson, Miss. He can be reached at jgoddard@giemedia.com