A screenshot from the YouTube channel of Choi Jae-chun, a professor of animal behavior and ecology in the College of Natural Sciences at Ewha Womans University, shows him talking about Korea’s low birthrate.
By Yoon Ja-young
A renowned evolutionary biologist in Korea has said that it is a “stupid” choice to have children here.
Choi Jae-chun, a professor in the College of Natural Sciences at Ewha Womans University specializing in the behavior and ecology of animals, said on his YouTube channel that it would not be wise to give birth and raise a child in Korea today.
He said that, from his viewpoint as an evolutionary biologist who studies animal behavior and ecology, the current low birthrate in Korea is a “natural” consequence, since it is the result of an evolutionary adaptation. The country’s total birthrate, or the number of babies born per woman, was 0.84 last year, the world’s lowest.
“Animals that can’t control (their desire to breed) when there is no food or shelter are very unlikely to survive.”
He cited studies by evolutionary biologists that have come to the conclusion that whether a herd will grow or shrink is determined by the choices made by each individual, not by the herd. He pointed out that young Koreans as individuals are seriously doubting whether they can have children and raise them properly.
“To me, those who end up having kids after such deliberation are not making the appropriate calculations,” he said. But, he added that the country may be kept going thanks to these young people’s “bold decisions” to have children in the face of such obvious difficulties.
Regarding the irony that the birthrate has been falling, while Korea has grown economically, he said that his generation did not calculate thoroughly before having children. Even if they did not have a house or a decent job, they just got married believing that they would somehow find a solution.
“Young people nowadays calculate too much and as a result, can’t do anything. They say they will get married when they have enough money for all those plans, but that day never comes,” he explained.
Choi said it can’t be denied that young people in Korea now have different life standards from those of their parents or grandparents. “In the past, Korean people married without a plan and suffered together as a couple, but now the costs of marriage, as well as childbirth, childcare and children’s education, are too high for the younger generation to calculate,” he said.
“It is a fact that the standards young people want to have in order to raise their children in a good environment are too high. The young generation takes the perfect situation as the standard, and when that situation is not met, they are reluctant to get married and have kids,” he elaborated.
Choi said that people will have children when their situations improve, urging the government to invest more into fundamentally changing the social system, so that more people can make the choice to have children and feel that joy.
“I will say it is the biggest joy one can have in the world,” he said.
After receiving Ph.D. in evolutionary biology at Harvard University, professor Choi taught at Harvard, University of Michigan, and Seoul National University before moving to Ewha Womans University.
By Zaria Gorvett3rd February 2020People love to moan that vegans are annoying: research has shown that only drug addicts inspire the same degree of loathing. Now psychologists are starting to understand why – and it’s becoming clear that the reasons aren’t entirely rational.
In July 2019, a bare-chested, pony-tailed man turned up at a vegan market in London, and began snacking on a raw squirrel. In video footage of the bizarre incident, the pro-meat protester can be seen clutching the animal’s limp, furry body – sans head – while a stunned crowd waits for him to be arrested. His mouth is encrusted with blood. At one point, a passing onlooker asks “Why are you doing this?”
This, it turns out, is a deceptively tricky question to answer.
Though it’s natural for people to disagree, the passionate rage – and even mild irritation – that veganism stirs up seems to defy rational sense. Research has shown that only drug addicts face the same degree of stigma – and the least popular vegans of all are those who cite animal cruelty as their reason. Given that most of us would probably like to see less suffering in the world, why is there such resentment towards those who do something about it?
If you dare to ask, veganophobes have plenty of reasonable (and not-so-reasonable) sounding explanations at the ready. First up there’s the hypocrisy argument – the idea that vegans have blood on their hands, too – in the form of plant massacres, the environmental cost of avocadoes, and all the field mice killed while harvesting crops.
But even when vegans are consistent, this also seems to fuel their bad publicity. In the UK, a campaigner recently caused a stir when he revealed that he won’t use public transport, in case it runs down any unfortunate insects.
Other popular arguments include the perception of vegans as over-smug – as the joke goes, “How do you recognise a vegan at a dinner party? Don’t worry! They’ll tell you!” – and over-zealous; a rapper recently cancelled a gig after the singer Morrissey insisted on an all-out meat ban at the venue. On forums, vegans face bizarre accusations like “only psychopaths like vegans enjoy tofu bacon”.
But are these really the reasons that people hate vegans? Not everyone is convinced. Some psychologists take another view – that far from being driven by factors within our conscious awareness, the widespread resentment we have for vegans is down to deep-seated psychological biases.
Research has shown only drug addicts attract the same amount of stigma as vegans (Credit: Getty Images)
Hank Rothgerber, a social psychologist at Bellarmine University, Kentucky, thinks it all comes down to answering the question: how do we continue to eat meat?
“So basically we live in an era today, at least in the Western world, where there’s more and more evidence, more and more arguments, and more and more books about how eating meat is bad,” says Rothgerber. “But still, our behaviour hasn’t changed significantly.” He points out that 2018 looks set to be – it takes a while for the annual statistics to be released – the year with the highest per capita meat consumption in the history of the United States.
“So what I’m looking at is, how do people rationalise that, and still feel like they’re a good person?” To continue to eat meat, Rothgerber suggests, requires some serious mental gymnastics. Luckily, our brains are extremely good at protecting us from realities we don’t want to face – and there are a number of psychological tricks at our disposal.
If you bring your cod and chips home to eat in front of your beloved goldfish, or tuck into a rabbit stew mere moments after cooing over various #rabbitsofinstagram, you’re likely to encounter “cognitive dissonance”, which occurs when a person holds two incompatible views, and acts on one of them. In this case, your affection for animals might just start to clash with the idea that it’s OK to eat them.
According to Rothgerber, people tend not to think of meat eating as an ideology
Some psychologists call this the “meat paradox”, though it’s also been couched in stronger terms – as “moral schizophrenia”.
The tension that results can make us feel stressed, irritated, and unhappy. But instead of resolving it by changing our beliefs or behaviour, it’s quite normal to blame these feelings on something else entirely – all without realising we’re doing it. For example, when stockbrokers make a loss on certain investments, they tend to blame their managers. This allows them to continue believing that they make excellent decisions, while facing the fact that they’ve achieved the exact opposite of what they’re paid to do, and actually lost money.
In the case of eating meat, Rothgerber suggests we have a number of strategies – around 15 – which allow us to avoid facing up to the meat paradox. These include pretending that meat has no link to animals, imagining that we eat less of it than we really do, wilful ignorance about how it’s produced – helped by the cartoons of happy farm animals that we’re exposed to from childhood – and only eating meat from animals which are “humanely” farmed.
Unfortunately, most of these are derailed by the presence of vegans.
According to Rothgerber, people tend not to think of meat eating as an ideology. The dominance of meat eating around the world helps the omnivores among us to avoid the idea that it’s a choice – it’s just what everyone else is doing. But when a vegan turns up at a dinner party, suddenly we’re bumped out of the comfortable “mainstream diet” category and into the unsettling “meat-eating” category. By their mere existence, vegans force people to confront their cognitive dissonance. And this makes people angry.
Meat eaters show “cognitive dissonance” when they can balance their meat eating with a love for animals (Credit: Getty Images)
One popular way to resolve cognitive dissonance is by reasoning our way out of it.
Decades of psychological research have shown that, when making a decision, people tend to allow themselves to reach their preferred conclusion, as long as they can invent a rational-sounding justification. For example, one study found that when participants wanted to believe that they would be academically successful, they were more likely to recall their past successes than their failures, to creatively tack together an explanation that seemed to support this.
In the case of meat, this “motivated reasoning” might lead people to find explanations for why eating animals is the correct decision. And one of these is that vegans are bad.
In a study led by Julia Minson, a psychologist from the University of Pennsylvania, participants were surveyed about their attitudes towards vegans and then asked to think of three words that they associated with them. Just under half the participants had something negative to say, and intriguingly, 45% included a word which referred to their social characteristics. For example, vegans were allied with the words “weird”, “arrogant”, “preachy”, “militant”, “uptight”, “stupid”, and – mysteriously – “sadistic”.
The reputation of vegans probably isn’t helped by the fact that non-meat eaters really do think they’re better than everyone else; vegetarians tend to rate the virtuosity of other vegetarians more highly than that of non-vegetarians. But it’s also true that most of us agree with them – and this is a major source of animosity.
It’s intriguing to me that we also reject members of groups who have made laudable choices on purpose – Benoit Monin
In line with this, the more righteous the study participants expected the vegetarians to be, the harsher the words they chose to describe them.
“There’s a lot of research on how we don’t like members of groups who are potentially morally inferior, or which society sees as wrong,” says Benoit Monin, a psychologist from Stanford University who was also involved in the study. “But it’s intriguing to me that we also reject members of groups who have made laudable choices on purpose.”
There’s mounting evidence that we’re particularly threatened by people who have similar morals to us, if they’re prepared to go further than we are in order to stick to them. In the end, our fear of being judged far outstrips any respect we might have for their superior integrity.
For a second study, the team asked some participants to think about how vegetarians would judge their morality, before rating the degree to which they’re likely to possess a series of personality traits. Others were asked to do the same thing, but the other way around. They found that those who had thought about being judged by vegetarians first, tended to associate vegetarians more strongly with negative words.
Believing the cliche of happy farm animals is one such psychological trick meat eaters rely on to justify their habit, research suggests (Credit: Getty Images)
In fact, Monin says this fear of reproach is so potent, vegetarians are likely to be more threatened by vegans than non-vegetarians are. “They agree that there is something wrong about raising animals for food, and now they’re faced with someone who’s putting their money where their mouth is, more than they do.”
Pro-veganism adverts which focus on animal suffering could have the opposite of the intended effect
The finding also explains why ethical vegans and vegetarians are more irritating to omnivores than those who choose the lifestyle for health reasons.
“It’s really hard to say “I don’t think it’s cool to be complicit in a system of animal slaughter. But, you know, you should do what you want… I’m not judging you”,” says Monin. Instead, arguments which sidestep morality entirely are much less aggravating. For example, suggesting that you’re a vegan because of some idiosyncrasy, such as that you grew up on a farm, lets carnivores off the hook. It’s not your fault if you didn’t, and this experience would be impossible to replicate as an adult.
Ironically, the same psychological biases also mean that pro-veganism adverts which focus on animal suffering could have the opposite of the intended effect; while some people might react by eating less meat, those who choose not to change their behaviour are likely to deal with the discomfort they feel by trying harder than ever to justify their actions – leading them straight through the door of the next chicken shop.
So the next time a squirrel-eating activist hits the headlines, just think: deep, deep down, they might actually be an animal-lover, going to elaborate lengths to cover it up.
If you liked this story, sign up for the weekly bbc.com features newsletter, called “The Essential List”. A handpicked selection of stories from BBC Future, Culture, Worklife, and Travel, delivered to your inbox every Friday.
Bird flu arrives in the UK every winter, it is brought here by migratory birds that then come into contact with domestic birds.
The chief vet has identified a strain of the disease – H5N1 – which is highly contagious and deadly for poultry and it is moving to contain it.Seventeen places in the UK already have confirmed outbreaks of bird flu. There are protection and surveillance zones in place around these sites.
ITV News Business and Economics Editor Joel Hills explains whether there is a cause for concern over the bird flu strain H5N1
Vets are testing poultry flocks, where cases are identified flocks are destroyed. There are also restrictions on exports.From Monday, all kept birds – chickens, turkeys, geese, ducks – will have to be brought indoors.
This will affect everyone in the UK, from farmers who produce free-range eggs to people who keep chickens in their back garden.I’ve spoken to two heads of the British Veterinary Association this evening – one past, one present.The advice is:DO NOT touch or pick-up any dead or sick birds.
DO report any dead or sick birds to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and keep eating eggs and poultry, as long as they are cooked properly, they are safe.
“The risk to human health is very low,” Professor Peter Jinman told ITV News.
“Those working with, and therefore in close contact, with birds are most at risk but any risk there is can be minimised by regular hand washing and wearing protective clothing that can be easily disinfected with approved disinfectants.”The main concern is protecting poultry and ensuring H5N1 doesn’t get into large poultry production plants in the run up to Christmas.
The main concern is ensuring H5N1 doesn’t get into large poultry production plants in the run up to Christmas.Credit: PA
Farmers are already grappling with labour shortages and supply chain disruption caused by the coronavirus pandemic and the end of free-movement, post Brexit. This will be source of additional anxiety.A UK-wide Housing Order was imposed last winter and proved effective. The hope is it will be again.
The UK’s four chief veterinary officers released a joint statement, writing: “We have taken swift action to limit the spread of the disease and are now planning to introduce a legal requirement for all poultry and captive bird keepers to keep their birds housed or otherwise separate from wild birds.
“Whether you keep just a few birds or thousands, from Monday, November 29 onwards you will be legally required to keep your birds indoors, or take appropriate steps to keep them separate from wild birds.
“We have not taken this decision lightly, taking this action now is the best way to protect your birds from this highly infectious disease.”
Can humans get bird flu?
The bird flu can affect humans but it depends on the strain of the virus, the NHS has said.
There is a very low risk to human health and food safety risk from avian influenza, according to public health advice.
Most strains aren’t actually harmful to people but there are four that have raised concerns in recent years:
Albuquerque Journal, N.M.Tue, November 23, 2021, 12:04 PM·2 min read
Nov. 23—Beginning in April, it will be illegal to use traps, snares and wildlife poison on public lands in New Mexico.
That’s one positive outcome from the tragic death of an Española dog name Roxy — but it’s hard to be optimistic about the new law’s ability to be effective.
Here’s why: The same agency that will investigate violations of the new anti-trapping law, dubbed “Roxy’s Law” — the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish — handled the investigation of Roxy’s death.- ADVERTISEMENT -https://s.yimg.com/rq/darla/4-6-0/html/r-sf-flx.html
In 2018, a neck snare strangled Roxy, a blue heeler mix, near a hiking trail at Santa Cruz Lake Recreation Area north of Española. Marty Cordova, of Chimayó, was charged with 34 counts of illegal trapping activities: 14 counts of unlawful possession of a protected species, 10 counts of failure to mark traps, and five…
It’s hunting season in Illinois and state officials, as well as experts, are reminding hunters to put safety above all else.
The dangers of hunting are not what many may think, said Curt Sinclair, hunting safety instructor for Illinois 4-H.
“It’s not the discharge of a firearm in a dangerous way,” Sinclair said. “The No. 1 accident that happens in hunting in Illinois is falls. Falls are the primary way that people get hurt.”
Fourteen hunters died during hunting season in Illinois last year. Between 2015 and 2019, 90 percent of the hunting accidents were from falls, according to the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. Many of the falls involve homemade tree stands.
“The homemade deer stands are one of the primary problems,” Sinclair said.
Sinclair recommends buying a manufactured tree stand, rather than building…
CNN)The Arctic Ocean has been warming since the onset of the 20th century, decades earlier than instrument observations would suggest, according to new research.The study, published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances, found that the expansion of warm Atlantic Ocean water flowing into the Arctic, a phenomenon known as “Atlantification,” has caused Arctic water temperature in the region studiedtoincrease by around 2 degrees Celsius since 1900.Francesco Muschitiello, an author on the study and assistant professor of geography at the University of Cambridge, said the findings were worrisome because the early warming suggests there might be a flaw in the models scientists use to predict how the climate will change.
British people are more concerned than ever about climate, ahead of Covid and Brexit, poll shows“The Arctic Ocean has been warming up for much longer than we previously thought,” Muschitiello told CNN. “And this is something that’s a bit unsettling for many reasons, especially because the climate models that we use to cast projections of future climate change do not really simulate these type of changes.”
The researchers used marine sediments in the Fram Straight, where the Atlantic meets the Arctic east of Greenland, to reconstruct 800 years of data that paint a longer historical picture of how Atlantic water has flowed into the Arctic. The marine sediments are “natural archives,” the researchers wrote, which record data on past climate conditions.
Researchers found temperature and salinity, the saltiness of ocean water, remained fairly constant up until the 20th century — then they suddenly increased.Enter your email to subscribe to the CNN Five Things Newsletter.close dialog
We’ve got the day’s biggest headlines summarized for your busy schedule.Sign Me UpBy subscribing you agree to ourprivacy policy.“The reconstructions suggest a substantial increase in the Atlantic Ocean heat and salt transport into the Nordic Sea at the beginning of the 20th century, which is not well simulated by (climate models),” Rong Zhang, a senior scientist at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, who was not involved with the study, told CNN. “It’s important to understand the cause of this rapid Atlantification, as well as the discrepancies between the model simulations and the reconstructions.”
Muschitiello said it’s not clear how much of a role, if any, human-caused climate change played in the early Arctic warming, and more research is needed.”We’re talking about the early 1900s, and by then we’ve already been supercharging the atmosphere with carbon dioxide,” he said. “It is possible that the Arctic Ocean is more sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought. This will require more research, of course, because we don’t have a solid grip on the actual mechanisms behind this early Atlantification.”
La Niña to batter Australia with rain over the summer in a wet and windy holiday periodThe study notes that changes in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) — a system of currents that moderates temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere — could have played a role in the Arctic warming. Notably, the AMOC weakened after a period of cooling ended in the mid-1800s in the North Atlantic region, which researchers suggest could have led to rapid Atlantification along the east Fram Strait.A recent study found that the AMOC, often described as a “conveyor belt” that transports warm water from the tropics and redistributes it northward, is now showing signs of further instability due to human-caused climate change. Scientists have warned that a collapse of the circulation could lead to an abrupt shift in weather patterns across the globe — colder winters in Europe, changes to monsoons and potentially permanent drought in West Africa.The rapidly warming temperatures in the Arctic have caused sea ice to melt, which in turn causes more warming — while bright white sea ice reflects the sun’s energy, dark ocean absorbs the energy as heat.James E. Overland, NOAA Arctic scientist based at NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Lab in Seattle, said such long-term changes in the North Atlantic, coupled with recent loss of sea ice in the Arctic, threatens marine ecosystems.
A silent killer is choking India’s capital. For millions, there’s no choice but to breathe it in“Loss of sea ice and ocean currents has shifted the buffer region between the Atlantic and Arctic Ocean to something closer to an arm of the central Atlantic,” Overland, who was not involved with the study, told CNN. “Important fisheries and marine mammals are vulnerable to ecosystem reorganization from such Atlantification.”A recent UN state-of-the-science report on the climate crisis found the Arctic will continue to warm faster than the rest of the planet as long as humans continue to burn fossil fuels and release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. On top of that, Muschitiello said the Arctic Ocean may experience further warming due to Atlantification.
“When I talk to my students I always try to make them aware that the Arctic is warming very, very quickly, and much faster than any other area on the planet,” Muschitiello said. “It’s very unsettling and very troubling, especially because we still don’t have a full understanding of feedbacks at play.””We’re still slowly getting to know how the whole system works,” he said. “And my fear is that by the time that we do crack the problem, it’s going to be too late.”
Glacier National Park has expressed concerns about wolf hunting and trapping in the North Fork of the Flathead, though Park biologist John Waller said the Park is taking a “wait and see” approach at this time.
There used to a be two wolf quota each season in the North Fork in what is Wolf Management Unit 110. That was removed by the state Legislature in the last session. The quota was in deference to Glacier Park, where the first wolves returned in the late 1970s to the Park and eventually established several packs.
But the Republicans passed several bills aimed at reducing the wolf population across the state.
“We are concerned about the elimination of the wolf quota in WMU110 and the liberalized harvest methods but…
The Pacific Northwest is still reeling from catastrophic flooding unleashed by heavy rains last week. But residents already need to prepare for the next round of calamity.
An atmospheric river is setting up to deliver another double-digit dose of rain, tapping moisture from deep in the tropics and sending it crashing ashore in British Columbia and Washington. The added rainfall could cause some locations to have their wettest November ever recorded—and cause suffering in areas that are still picking up the pieces from last week’s deluge.
The Atmospheric River Arrives Wednesday
A plume of moisture is lining up from Hawaii and headed toward the Northwest, making this a classic Pineapple Express atmospheric river. As the moisture nears the coast, it will shoot the gap between a high-pressure system to the south and a low-pressure system to the north. Those will act like a Jugs machine, essentially slingshotting the atmospheric river ashore in British Columbia on Wednesday evening.
The first blast of moisture will be followed by a series of others. After rain tapers off Friday, another system will cruise ashore on Saturday and last through Sunday. Then, rain could pick up again on Monday for what the NWS warns could be “a third, potentially longer-duration system” that keeps things soggy and underwater until Wednesday. When all is said and done, up to 20 inches (51 centimeters) of rain could fall when this event raps up.
A rating created by a group of scientists at the Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes and other institutions that mimics the Saffir Simpson hurricane scale shows that this series of storms could peak as a Category 4 atmospheric river along the British Columbia coast. The scale factors in intensity and duration, and Category 4 indicates this is a serious storm. Washington, meanwhile, will “only” have to deal with a Category 2 atmospheric river.
Flooding Is a Concern Again
British Columbia was hit particularly hard by last week’s atmospheric river. At one point, every road connecting Vancouver to the rest of Canada was closed as heavy rains unleashed mudslides. This week’s series of storms could bring a whole new wave of debris flows.
Even if the rainfall isn’t as intense as last week’s, there are three factors that could up the flood risk. First, soils are still saturated from last week’s storms. That means more runoff. Adding to the runoff issue are this summer’s wildfires. The monster blazes that ripped through British Columbia destroyed vegetation that holds soil in place and turned slopes into veritable Slip ‘N Slides. That led to monster debris flows last week, and it could do the same with this storm. The soggy, loose soil also means that winds could easily topple trees and standing dead timber, adding yet another hazard.
The third factor is that snowpack has increased in the mountains since the last storm. Yet, as Weather Network meteorologist Tyle Hamilton pointed out in a video, the freezing level is going to rise during the second atmospheric river, meaning that rain will likely fall on snow. That will add yet more water on the ground, and it’s why it’s vital to heed travel warnings, even if it means having to spend an extra day with your in-laws.
The Bigger Picture: La Niña and Climate Change
This is the West’s wet season. Even still, Jacob DeFlitch, a meteorologist at the NWS Seattle office told Capital Weather Gang that “it is fairly extraordinary to have seen this many” atmospheric rivers so early in the season.
A few factors could be contributing the roaring start. The first is La Niña, which formed last month. The natural climate phenomenon is marked by cooler-than-normal waters in the eastern tropical Pacific, which, in turn, impact weather patterns around the world. That includes the Pacific Northwest, where La Niña ups the odds of wetter conditions.
Then there’s climate change. For every 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) increase, the atmosphere can hold 7% more water. This simple relationship even has a formula to describe it, dubbed the Clausius Clapeyron Equation. (That’s a fun one to bust out at the Thanksgiving dinner table.) That means atmospheric rivers are even more moisture-laden than they used to be. A study published last month in Nature Climate Change, though, finds that industrial pollution has acted as a damper on atmospheric rivers and essentially led to a stalemate from 1920 to 2005.
That balance is beginning to shift, though, and will continue to in the coming decades as climate change exerts greater control and leads to more intense atmospheric rivers. With more intense wildfire seasons also on tap thanks to rising temperatures, that means that the heavier rainfall will have more slopes to dislodge into unstoppable disasters.
Jessica Scott-Reid is a Winnipeg-based writer and animal advocate. She is also a co-host of Paw & Order, a Canadian animal law podcast produced by Animal Justice.
Last week, Abbotsford Mayor Henry Braun described how the smell of decay, likely from dead farmed animals, had begun lingering around the flooded areas of British Columbia. He choked up as he spoke of how small calves, trapped in tiny hutches, had drowned. And he called the efforts of farmers in their attempts to remove animals from the disaster area “heroic.”
Quite immediately, reaction to these “rescue” stories and the heart-wrenching photos of animals trapped, terrified and dying in the frigid waters, was divided.
Animal advocates were quick to point out the hypocrisy of applauding farmers for saving animals that were destined for slaughter anyhow. And on the other side, a viral post on social media called out PETA and Animal Justice for not running to the scene to help, demanding that the advocates help fund extraction efforts.
Emotions undoubtedly run high when there are helpless animals being held in cages, hutches and warehouses, and the water is rushing in.
Pointing fingers at individual farmers or animal advocates is a natural reaction. But when the waters eventually recede, and the carcasses are all cleaned up, what will remain to be blamed is a massively flawed animal agriculture system.
Ethically, environmentally and financially, our current method of farming hundreds of millions of animals each year is set up to fail. The drowning of animals in B.C. is just further proof.
According to the National Farm Animal Care Council code of practice, which is created and overseen largely by the agriculture industry itself, farmers are supposed to develop a plan for evacuating animals in the event of an emergency. That plan, according to the council’s website, “should include consideration of emergency housing, transportation and personnel.”
But because these codes are essentially voluntary, and because there are no actual laws in Canada governing the everyday treatment of animals on farms, there is no real need to have this evacuation plan in place – as we have seen.
And let’s be real, removing hundreds of thousands of animals from one place to another when disaster strikes, and finding somewhere safe to rehouse them, is not realistic. It’s certainly not economical and that’s really what this is about. For many commercial farmers, these animals are products, investments and their loss is perhaps felt more in their owners’ pocketbooks than in their hearts.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT
We also cannot say that this disaster really took us by surprise. Extreme weather is no longer rare. Just look at the “heat dome” that affected B.C. this past summer, taking the lives of at least 651,000 farmed animals. We had been warned by environmental experts for years that this was coming.
We have even been told that climate change is caused, in part, by the very animal agriculture industry we are now supposed to be rallying behind. Globally, animal agriculture is responsible for nearly 15 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions, according to the United Nations. It is a leading contributor to deforestation, fresh water pollution, ocean degradation and biodiversity loss.
A 2018 study published in the journal Nature called on Western countries, including Canada, to reduce beef and pork consumption by 90 per cent, poultry and milk by 60 per cent, and to replace that with four to six times more beans and pulses to help keep current food systems within environmental limits.
GoFundMe pages have been set up to help B.C. farmers in need. Federal and provincial governments have already pledged financial help. This is on top of the billions of dollars of public money already funnelled into animal farming in just the past two years. That includes a gift of more than $1.75-billion over eight years starting in 2019 from the federal government to dairy farmers, a $6-million investment to help promote pork exports, and $691-million for egg and chicken farmers. All the while, meat and dairy prices continue to soar.
So before we consider paying to rebuild those B.C. animal farms, let us think about what we are really funding: more climate chaos, more economic drain, more inadequate animal welfare policy, and more human and animal suffering.
Thankfully, there is a way to make animal farmers the real heroes of this story: by taking this disaster as a signal that it is time to change this falling system.
There are other options. Just last week, Canada became home to the largest pea protein plant in the world, with Manitoba being dubbed the potential Silicon Valley of plant-based protein. In the Abbotsford area, the land is lush for growing nuts, berries and even the most expensive spice in the world, saffron.
Ultimately, our planet does not need any more dairy or chicken farms. The more we keep propping up the animal agriculture sector in this country, the more Mother Nature is going to come for us.
:format(jpeg)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tgam/KC3ARYYJI5JMRBQDLAOAQIKTEE.jpg)
