Subject: Insects & ethics

From: KENELM W PHILIP <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 00:57:41 -0900

I have been following the discussion on insects and ethics, and would like
to make some, I hope, noncontroversial observations about insects:

1. Insects appear to lie near the opposite end from human beings on a spectrum
for the character that Douglas Hofstadter* calls 'sphexishness'--named after
an experiment in which a _Sphex_ wasp repeated the same behavior pattern
40 times when it was not sensible (in human terms) to do so. Sphexishness
is the inability to perceive, and react to, patterns. Hofstadter proposes that
consciousness "...is simply the possession of antisphexishness to the highest
possible degree." Note that an entomologist once said, after a lifetime work-
ing with insects, something to the effect that "I am beginning to wonder if
there is anybody there."

2. The planetary ecosystem is based on plants and the 'lower orders' of ani-
mals. It is essential for our continued existence that insects exist in large
numbers, and scientific research on insects is critical for our understanding
of the system our lives depends on.

3. Scientific collecting of insects amounts to an insignificant proportion of
insect mortality, either from natural or human-caused sources. Insects have
reproductive capabilities that far exceed vertebrates--and scientific
collecting is no threat to non-endangered insects. See 'The Condor' 96, 1119-
1120, for a similar observation on birds--domestic cats are estimated to kill
30,000 times more birds in the U.S. than scientists. Should F&WS bell cats?

4. Human beings, to live on earth, have to kill insects in large numbers, ei-
ther directly or indirectly. A high standard of living aggravates the problem
--the number of insects killed by highway and building construction, large-
scale farming, and by vehicles, is almost inconceivably large.

Given the above observations, ethics then asks what we should do about our
interactions with insects. Here are some equally noncontroversial remarks
on ethics:

Some people, considering the above, might say that having moral qualms about
killing one butterfly (or several) for scientific reasons is bit odd.**

On the other hand, some people are inclined to say "I can't help the indirect
killing, but I won't deliberately kill an insect".

Other people may reject killing insects for scientific research, but feel
quite justified in killing insects that destroy property or attack them.

In the last resort, ethical decisions of this sort must be made by each of us
for ourselves--and we should not then adopt a 'holier-than-thou' attitude and
thrust our beliefs upon others.

A little tolerance goes a long way...

Kipling said it 100 years ago:

"Still the world is wondrous large, --seven seas from marge to marge--
And it holds a vast of various kinds of man;
And the wildest dreams of Kew are the facts of Khatmandhu,
And the crimes of Clapham chaste in Martaban."

----------------------------
* Metamagical Themas, p. 529
** My own position on collecting

                                                        Ken Philip
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (john janovy)
Date: 28 Feb 1995 02:16:02 GMT

KENELM W PHILIP ([email-masked]) wrote:
: I have been following the discussion on insects and ethics, and would like
: to make some, I hope, noncontroversial observations about insects:

etc.

**: 1. Insects appear to lie near the opposite end from human beings on a spectrum
: for the character that Douglas Hofstadter* calls 'sphexishness'--named after
: an experiment in which a _Sphex_ wasp repeated the same behavior pattern
: 40 times when it was not sensible (in human terms) to do so. Sphexishness
: is the inability to perceive, and react to, patterns. Hofstadter proposes that
: consciousness "...is simply the possession of antisphexishness to the highest
: possible degree." Note that an entomologist once said, after a lifetime work-
: ing with insects, something to the effect that "I am beginning to wonder if
: there is anybody there."

: 2. The planetary ecosystem is based on plants and the 'lower orders' of ani-
: mals. It is essential for our continued existence that insects exist in large
: numbers, and scientific research on insects is critical for our understanding
: of the system our lives depends on.

: 3. Scientific collecting of insects amounts to an insignificant proportion of
: insect mortality, either from natural or human-caused sources. Insects have
: reproductive capabilities that far exceed vertebrates--and scientific
: collecting is no threat to non-endangered insects. See 'The Condor' 96, 1119-
: 1120, for a similar observation on birds--domestic cats are estimated to kill
: 30,000 times more birds in the U.S. than scientists. Should F&WS bell cats?

: 4. Human beings, to live on earth, have to kill insects in large numbers, ei-
: ther directly or indirectly. A high standard of living aggravates the problem
: --the number of insects killed by highway and building construction, large-
: scale farming, and by vehicles, is almost inconceivably large.

: Given the above observations, ethics then asks what we should do about our
: interactions with insects. Here are some equally noncontroversial remarks
: on ethics:

: Some people, considering the above, might say that having moral qualms about
: killing one butterfly (or several) for scientific reasons is bit odd.**

: On the other hand, some people are inclined to say "I can't help the indirect
: killing, but I won't deliberately kill an insect".

: Other people may reject killing insects for scientific research, but feel
: quite justified in killing insects that destroy property or attack them.

: In the last resort, ethical decisions of this sort must be made by each of us
: for ourselves--and we should not then adopt a 'holier-than-thou' attitude and
: thrust our beliefs upon others.

: A little tolerance goes a long way...

: Kipling said it 100 years ago:

: "Still the world is wondrous large, --seven seas from marge to marge--
: And it holds a vast of various kinds of man;
: And the wildest dreams of Kew are the facts of Khatmandhu,
: And the crimes of Clapham chaste in Martaban."

: ----------------------------
: * Metamagical Themas, p. 529
: ** My own position on collecting

:                                                         Ken Philip
: [email-masked]

One of Hofstadter's more interesting (in my view) discussions concerns
the effects of experience--I believe it's in Metam Themas--experience 
that provides an individual with certain powers of recognition and 
decision making.  Clearly the experience of being a scientist allows 
one (we hope, ideally, usually[?]) to distinguish between collecting 
an endangered species and collecting a common species.  The problem of
ethics is strictly a human one; it is our baggage.  In the long run, 
the killing, dissection, etc. of common insects for instructional 
purposes, or for the purposes of letting a student do a piece of 
original (or what he or she believes is original) research, is very 
likely to have many indirect benefits to both insects and humans.  In 
the soft science of ethics, one might easily make the case that 
ignorance has a higher probability of producing acts damaging to both 
humans and insects than does understanding.

The concepts of "higher" and "lower", especially when based on 
someone's value judgement of behavior, are simply invalid.  For every 
reason a particular species might be judged lower, there is a reason 
to judge it higher, and vice versa.  "Higher" and "Lower" are human 
constructs that become stronger with increased anthropocentricity.  
Thus a very strong sense of "ethics" that prevent an individual from 
even killing a fly, no matter what the reason, is a property of that 
particular individual, and as such is to be respected, but not 
necessarily allowed to become law of the land.  Biologists must teach 
and conduct research; to stop teaching and doing research is to 
concede power to the ignorant.  And if in teaching and doing research 
we use insects--or, for that matter, common species of small fish, 
common species of rodents--then we should try to do so in a dignified 
and resourceful manner, but without apology for what we are doing.

John Janovy, Jr.
Biol Sci, Univ Nebr-Lincoln
Lincoln, NE 68588-0118
[email-masked]