Excuse me for stating the obvious, but racists are dumb. That’s not just my opinion. It’s the conclusion of a provocative new study published in the journal Psychological Science. Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario, and his colleagues found that children with low intelligence are more likely to grow up to be racist adults. A previous study examining homophobia showed that people who are less adept at abstract reasoning are more likely to be prejudiced against gays.
All of this got me thinking: Does the link between brains and bias apply to how we view animals too? Are “speciesists” — people who believe that humans are superior to other animals — just not all that bright?
“There may be cognitive limits in the ability to take the perspective of others,” explains Hodson. In other words, the less intelligent you are, the harder it may be for you to put yourself in another’s shoes — and the more likely you are to hold prejudiced beliefs about other groups.
If someone is unmoved by the plight of elephants shackled, beaten and forced to perform in circuses or of animals poisoned and blinded in laboratories, perhaps they similarly lack the ability to consider the animals’ point of view.
The anecdotal evidence linking intelligence and empathy for animals is certainly intriguing. Some of the world’s greatest minds from throughout history — including Pythagoras, Leonardo da Vinci, Mohandas Gandhi and Leo Tolstoy — have been vegetarian.
Albert Einstein, whose diet was primarily plant-based, said, “Besides agreeing with the aims of vegetarianism for aesthetic and moral reasons, it is my view that a vegetarian manner of living by its purely physical effect on the human temperament would most beneficially influence the lot of mankind.”
A few years ago, the BBC reported on a study that linked a high IQ with being vegetarian. More than 8,000 children in the U.K. were given IQ tests in 1970. When researchers followed up with the participants decades later, they found that people who had scored well on the tests were more likely to become vegetarian later in life.
Another study showed that vegans and vegetarians have more empathy — for both animals and people — than meat-eaters do. Researchers in Europe recruited vegan, vegetarian and meat-eating volunteers and placed them into an MRI machine while showing them a series of random pictures. The MRI scans revealed that when observing animal or human suffering, the “empathy-related” areas of the brain are more active among vegetarians and vegans. The researchers also found that there are certain brain areas that only vegans and vegetarians seem to activate when witnessing suffering.
So, could it be that your deer-hunting cousin or that woman at the store with the fur-trimmed jacket is just not smart enough to see that animals feel pain every bit as acutely, love their young every bit as deeply and long for freedom every bit as intensely as we do?
Maybe. But I like to think that such people just haven’t been given the tools they need to make a compassionate choice. As celebrated astrophysicist Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson says, perhaps “part of our formal education should be training in empathy. Imagine how different the world would be if, in fact, it were ‘reading, writing, arithmetic, empathy.’”
• Moore is a senior writer for The PETA Foundation.
Comments (31)
Add commentNot buying it
In this country, most people are so far removed from their food that it's difficult to feel empathy for whatever produced that substance neatly wrapped in plastic. Tough to tell the difference between a Costco hamburger patty or black bean patty once you pull it out of the freezer.
Empathy is a relative state. Put a vegan on a fishing boat for a week and by the end they'll be gaffing and gutting fish with few qualms.
Try as I may, Paula Moore
I cannot reverse engineer from your last paragraph to the first without admitting statistical, scientific, and sociologic deficits in methodology.
Mike
Do wolves empathize with deer?
Do bears empathize with fish they scoop out of the creek and take one only bite while the fish flops around? Animals long for freedom? Really? Do they long for the freedom of expression? Is there some kind of democracy at work in wolf packs? And Ms. Moore, can you tell me what the deer dreams about? Those who claim to know the unknown and denigrate those who have not "seen the light," give me the willies.
@Mark_Trail: don't be obtuse.
@Mark_Trail: don't be obtuse. No animal wants to die or to suffer. The fact that other predators don't feel empathy for their prey doesn't disprove the fact that humans do have this ability. Most of them, anyway.
Bwaaaahaaaahaaaaahaaaaaaaaa!
RICH! Thank you, editors! This morning's paper is the best I've read thus far this year! I especially enjoyed the humor section. That being this opinion piece. These emPATHETIC vegans feel the bovine's pain when they look at the golden arches on their way out of town to chain themselves to trees marked for the fallers because they imagine the screams if the spruce as the chainsaw tears into it's massive trunk. These hypocrites didn't hear the whimpers of the broccoli that they ate last night or feel the tears of the soy as it's seed was robbed to grind up into their tofu sandwich in their backpacks. These specieists are bigots. Save the trees, eat the beans. The former has dominion over the latter.
@skirkz: plants don't feel
@skirkz: plants don't feel pain. Learn the difference between Jainists and vegans, please.
Too bad all this "empathy"
Too bad all this "empathy" doesn't carry over into the human species by these kooks that endorse abortion - and lots of it...
Isn't this a rich quote by the "senior writer" at PETA - "Are “speciesists” — people who believe that humans are superior to other animals — just not all that bright?"
When there's not a good argument, just call the other side stupid.
Liberalism is a mental disorder...
Bright folks
I ran across a blurb somewhere that may apply here. To paraphrase: "Some ideas are so stupid that it requires the mental agility characteristic of very bright people to accept them."
Ted Nugent said it best.
Ted Nugent said it best. When asked the following by by a French journalist:
"What do you think is the last thought in the head of
a deer before you shoot him? Is it, 'Are you my friend?' or is it 'Are you
the one who killed my brother?'"
Ted replied:
"Deer aren't capable of that kind of thinking. All they care
about is, 'What am I going to eat next, who am I going to screw next, and
can I run fast enough to get away. They are very much like the French."
I like it Fume:
It is very hard to respect these nuts when they resort to this type of standard.
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/2012/02/new-documents-peta-killed-a-near-...
The environmental reasons to go meat free
are compelling.
I'm not a vegan or vegetarian for one reason: I am lazy. After careful thought, that's what it boils down to for me. I have tried to go meat free on weekends to start, but haven't met that goal yet. My ideal would be eating only animals that I kill myself, but that's just me.
The problem I have with this article is the weak correlation she is trying to make between empathy, intelligence, racism and PETA's vision. It's sloppy science.
There are plenty of reasons to go veggie, this study simply isn't one of them.
Mike
Factory farming is awful.
Factory farming is awful. Completely unethical. Being a predator is one thing--we're meant to eat meat. But the way meat is raised in the United States is abhorrent (not to mention wasteful and not particularly healthy for the consumer). Many people are vegetarians/vegans for this reason, not because they're wholly against eating animals. And even if they are, so what?
Yeah, that's right p, so
Yeah, that's right p, so what? But don't call the rest of us stupid if we don't fall in line with the left's way of thinking.
Animals are not equal to humans.
If you actually read the
If you actually read the article, it presents data showing that certain people who engage in certain behaviors have less empathy. It's likely just correlation, not causation (people who think in terms of black/white and ignore life's complexities are just less intelligent in general).
What I see here is you trying to vilify vegetarians and vegans for giving up food that we have been evolutionary wired to find very desirable, probably because you don't like the idea of a "lefty" having more self-restraint and a stronger moral code than yourself.
I'm a fan of the paleo diet.
I'm a fan of the paleo diet. I don't follow it out of laziness. However, I have some friends who are into it big time. They are some of the healthiest people I know.
The government's food pyramid that recommends eating a lot of grains goes against nature. If one looks at the art of agrarian societies, one sees a lot of fat people. On the other hand, the art of warrior societies depicts the human body as lean and muscular. People are, by nature, carnivores.
While I agree that animal farming is maybe not the best option. However, it is maybe the best option available in modern society.
Way to spin my words, p. I
Way to spin my words, p. I could give a wit if someone wants to be vegetarian - just don't call me stupid.
That's all...
@J.E. Fume: correction: if
@J.E. Fume: correction: if one looks at industrialized nations, one sees a lot of fat people. This is not true of agrarian nations as a whole. We've adapted to eating grains--both through our own evolutionary changes and in the domestication of various crops. People get fat not because of grains, but because of lack of exercise and too many calories (of which grains are a major source, but you can just as easily get fat off of too much meat or too many nuts).
Whole grains are very healthy, with broad nutritional profiles and many of the same phytochemicals vegetables and fruits contain. Refined grains, though, not so much.
Calypso, I don't usually
Calypso,
I don't usually agree with you. However, I'm on your side on this one. PP is spinning my words my words as well. Of course there are fat people in industrialized societies. However, if one looks at the artwork of ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia one sees a lot of plumb people. Fat is still seen a sign of beauty in those societies. However, the artwork of traditional warrior societies depicts lean muscular bodies as beautiful.
Does anyone else wonder if maybe things like the government's food pyramid might not have something to do with the increase in diabetes?
Have things your way PP and do whatever you want. I'm going to stick to eating meat, vegetables, and fruit. The next time I kill a deer, I'll be thinking of you as I take a bite out of its liver.
Great Nugent quote
Great Nugent quote lmao.....could apply to the Norwegians too said the Swede.....
Gotta love the looney left
Folks like those in PETA are such a wonderful source of joy. Like many on the left, as soon as they run out of real arguments to make themselves feel good and others bad, they begin to make up new stuff. This silliness specisesists, is one such. Make up a word, create a definition to allow argument, then win the argument because they made up the criteria to begin with. This is nothing more than another "I'm holier than thou" argument meant to make them feel more superior than those that continue the six million-year evolutionary process of eating meat. Wanna see a health people - watch those indigenous groups with a high protein diet such as fish. Wanna see an unhealthy people - watch those UN-fed African nations eating nothing but grains. It's not rocket science, folks, just another lib trying to feel better than you.
I would classify this as a
I would classify this as a classic left vs. right argument. I have a lot of friends who lean to the left on most political issues who side with me on this one. Instead, I would classify people like PP as more of a bliss ninny than a true leftist. For example, Calypso tends to lean towards the right on social and political issues, while I tend to lean towards the left. However, on this issue we seem to basically agree. As a consequence, I think this is more of a "down-to-earth vs. bliss ninny" issue.
@J.E. Fume: obesity was seen
@J.E. Fume: obesity was seen as beautiful because it meant a person was affluent. The idle classes tended to be fat--not the working classes. Endemic obesity is a very recent trend that started shortly after refined grains and sugar were introduced in the 19th century. There is also a LOT less artwork from ancient hunter-gatherer societies--it's awfully hard to make assumptions about demographics from artwork alone, considering you know nothing of the artist's intent, and you aren't taking into account activity levels.
We do, however, have lifespan statistics, which show a drop, initially, when agriculture was adopted, and then a consistent rise well past pre-agrarian levels. The paleo diet is great--much healthier than what most Americans eat--but it's not "optimal" (no such thing exists), and it's wrong in characterizing grains as unhealthy.
(and I'd see this less as a "bliss-ninny" vs. "down-to-earth" issue and more of a "knows his history and biology" vs. "watches Discovery Channel" issue)
PP, I'll take the cut and
PP,
I'll take the cut and chiseled bodies of my friends who follow the paleo diet over the milquetoast physiques of the average vegans. When did you last meet a true vegan who could deadlift 500 pounds? By the way, how much do you dead?
Ah, so now you're arguing
Ah, so now you're arguing that vegans are weaker than paleo dieters? You're probably right, because vegans don't have access to as much high quality protein, and the research I've seen does suggest that vegans and veggies have more trouble building muscle (although once again, that "cut and chiseled" physique is a product of exercise--diet alone will not do it). But last time I checked, being an obsessive weight-lifter was not the same as being healthy. If that's what floats your boat, fine, but don't conflate your insecurities with actual physical health.
I don't have any insecurities
I don't have any insecurities about my health. Being able to deadlift 500 lbs. doesn't make one an obsessive weightlifter. As a matter of fact, a 500 lb dead wouldn't raise an eyebrow at a meet.
My guess from your posts is that you're kind of a milk-toast type yourself. Therefore, a vegan diet suits you fine. I'm going to continue eating meat. I do try to stick to wild meat as much as I can--after that, I'm a fan of free-range beef and chicken.
A few points
It's always easy to talk about people who follow diet X or training regimen Y being "cut and chiseled"; much harder to put up or shut up. It's amazing how many cut and chiseled people who deadlift 500 plus or clean and jerk 315 are out there on the Net.
Compared with a general, untrained population, anybody who trains hard and pays attention to their dietary intake relative to training stress and recovery needs will be in better condition, virtually regardless of training protocol or intake. Age is a critical factor as well, of course, as are the specifics and goals of training.
There is some scientific validation for a Paleo (and similar) approaches, although the removal of dairy and all grains appears a bit counter-productive (oatmeal is the king of breakfasts for powerlifters, strongmen, and bodybuilders). It is by no means impossible for a vegan or vegetarian to be a successful strength athlete, but it definitely requires far greater attention to diet and proper combination of amino acids (Andreas Cahling and Bill Pearl).
We are genetically programmed to be omnivores, which of course includes eating meat. I don't eat red meat, and chicken or fish only rarely; I'd like to eliminate them altogether. If I could find a truly cruelty-free source of eggs I'd be very happy; one option is to raise my own. The decision not to eat meat is due to the obscenity of the meat industry, along with the desire not to kill things. I freely acknowledge that wild predators kill and eat without compunction, as that is their nature, and part of my own genetic heritage.
JE - my max dead was 445; max squat 455, but I'd probably have been red-lighted at a meet for not breaking parallel.
Late!
Sorry JE - I didn't see your last comment before posting. You're right that a 500 dead wouldn't even be noticed at a high level meet, but I'd also maintain that it depends on the red/white fiber ratio of the trainee. For me, my brother is a Category 1 road racer. We have the genetics to go for long distances, not go heavy, and for me to work up to a 445 took quite a while, unfortunately.
fromdustreturned, Bill Pearl
fromdustreturned,
Bill Pearl became a vegetarian at age 39 when he was way past his prime--albeit still in way better shape than the average Joe Sixpack. Further, since he still ate eggs and dairy products he couldn't really be considered a true vegan.
I really don't have a problem with people leading a vegan lifestyle. Frankly, if somebody wants to live off of Spam, mac & cheese, and vanilla ice cream it's cool with me.
What I think is corny is that there are some vegan types who like to think that they have evolved to a higher level of consciousness than the rest of us because they don't eat animal products.
You do have some pretty impressive power numbers. That kind of lower body strength can only be an asset in pretty much any endeavor.
The missing link.
I didn't see any posts relating to the essential amino acids that the body cannot produce. A LOT of vegans suffer from malnutrition. One must work at that diet, and it is not easy, it requires certain foods, in correct amounts, ingested at the same time, for the body to make those essential amino acids. Most people do not have what it takes to stick to a correct diet, let alone a correct vegan diet!
That does explain a few things...
Both the article, and the comments. 'Nuff said...