Leaving New Zealand

Original1If you go to this site: http://www.54peacockstreet.co.nz you will see our house. We are leaving New Zealand after 13 years. We have just put up our house for sale. I thought some of my friends on Facebook and Twitter would want to see where and how we lived in our house on the beach in Auckland. So here is the site for the house, with pictures, a video, and you can even see Benjy (who was the hero of “The Dog Who Couldn’t Stop Loving”) and some of the cats from my book “The Nine Emotional Lives of Cats.” We will leave in December for Europe, where we will spend six months in Spain (possibly Malaga, as it is warm there in the winter), and six months in the summer in Berlin. After that, Australia (Sydney) for a year or two or possibly even longer. At the moment, for the first time in 30 years, I am not working on a book. Not sure how I feel about this, whether to be sad, or relieved! I have been tempted to try my hand at a historical novel about the 1938 Evian Conference called by Franklin Roosevelt to see what could be done for the beleaguered Jews of Austria and Germany (nothing, it turns out). Not too many people are aware of this important event. Important because it convinced Hitler, rightly, that no nation would object (at least not to the point of allowing them to immigrate in large numbers) when he proceeded with his murderous plans to kill the Jews. Not sure I have the talent to pull this off, but I think it is worth a try.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 13 Comments

Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson On What Animals Teach Us About Human Evil

Ask the Agent

Beast-HC jeff and benjyToday Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson will be talking to us about his new book, Beasts: What Animals Can Teach Us About the Origins of Human Evil, released this month by Bloomsbury Press.  Jeff has been writing about animal emotions for 20 years. His books, When Elephants Weep (1996) and Dogs Never Lie About Love (1998) have each sold over 1,000,000 copies. Jeff is one of the most brilliant people I have ever had the honor of knowing and working with.  His intellect is both passionate and  wide ranging. Last year, when I visited him at his home in Auckland, New Zealand, he commenced to spend 3 days  ranting at me about the flaws in Hannah Arendt’s concept of evil. (Apparently the fine people of New Zealand don’t have strong feelings about this topic.)

Of all Jeff’s books about animals, this one seems to get to the heart of…

View original post 1,101 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Woody Allen, Child Sexual Abuse, Happiness, Marius the Giraffe, Auschwitz and Eating Animals

Some twenty years ago I published a piece about Woody Allen in Emma, a feminist magazine in Germany.  It was called “What has 25 years of psychoanalysis taught Woody Allen about incest?”  The answer, as you might well imagine, was “nothing.”  Because he wooed and married the sister of his children.  (The fact that she was an adopted sibling is irrelevant). 

 I blamed not just Woody Allen, but also psychoanalysis, for they had, at the time, a history of denying the reality of child sexual abuse.  In the years that followed, psychoanalysis has  gotten somewhat better, whereas he appears to have learned nothing since. 

 I say this in light of the recent drama that has been unfolding in the media over the last couple of months.  I am very happy to see people taking the accusations seriously.  I wish Woody Allen would do the same.  Because here is the crux of the matter:  No matter where you stand on this issue, whether you believe Dylan, as I do, or you believe Woody Allen, the point that cannot be disputed even by him, is that he has caused tremendous unhappiness in his family.  To Dylan foremost, but to many of the other siblings and of course Mia Farrow.  Understandably.  To everyone, it would seem, but Woody Allen. 

 So here is my question:  How can you be happy when you know that you have caused and are still causing immense suffering and unhappiness in others? 

 Now if we take this idea and run with it, there are very serious implications, which is how Marius the Giraffe, Auschwitz, and eating animals, come into the picture.  Somebody in the Copenhagen Zoo (which will now forever be linked to this barbaric act) said that the children who watched the skinning and the dissection of the much loved young giraffe, derived pleasure from it.  They were happy.  So what?  Marius suffered.  Marius was betrayed.  Marius was butchered.  You cannot be happy at the suffering of another. 

 The psychiatrist Robert Lifton is much praised for his invention of the term “doubling” which he explains by saying that an executioner in Auschwitz, could yet be a loving family man, kind and compassionate to his wife and children when he returned home from “work.”  This is what I call a “junk idea.”  Never mind all the other reasons (how on earth could Robert Lifton know what kind of family life these Nazis had?), what I am suggesting here is that we should not accept the idea of somebody being happy, and leading a “good” life while causing other people immense and unnecessary suffering. 

 So finally we come to eating animals.  I understand that this is a stretch.  And that is what I believe we need:  to stretch our thinking into areas it may not be accustomed to going.  When we eat an animal, that animal is being killed for us (not, of course, literally, but in the deeper sense).  There is no way around it:  it is a personal act.  If you drink milk, a cow is being milked for you.  If you eat eggs, a hen is laying one for you.  If you believe that those animals suffer (and proof is only a click away on Google), how can you, in good conscience, say you don’t care?  We do care.  Everyone cares.  It is perhaps the next to the last final frontier that we will need to enter. 

 Next to the last?  Yes, the very last is this:  Can animals help us to stop the devastation of our planet?  For the first time as a species, some scientists believe we are on the brink of self-extinction.  I believe, and I hope I am not the only one who does, we have something very deep to absorb from the animals we stop eating that could save us from final destruction.  That is the theme of my new book:  Beasts:  What Animals Can Teach Us About the Origins of Good and Evil.       

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 6 Comments

Beasts: What Animals Can Teach Us about the Origins of Good and Evil.


This is the title of my new book that is just about to be published by Bloomsbury.  Some people are bothered by the title.  “How can humans learn about good and evil from animals?” they ask.  These are usually people who believe that humans are unique, the very crown of creation.  To them I quote Nietzsche:  We do not consider animals moral beings.  But do you suppose animals regard us as moral beings?

I have been struck at how often humans call other humans beasts when they want to convey that they are without any moral values:  The Russian writer Eugenia Ginzburg, in her classic book Into the Whirlwind about the horrendous prisons in the Gulag, writes:  “I have often thought about the tragedy of those by whose agency the purge of 1937 was carried out… Step by step as they followed their routine directives, they traveled all the way from the human condition to that of beasts.”

 How is it, then, I ask, that in the 20th century alone, humans have killed 200 million of our own kind, while as far as anyone has been able to determine, no orca has ever killed another orca in the wild?  If this fact does not cause you to shiver, I don’t know what will. But it’s not only other humans we kill. We kill huge numbers of the animals we think of as “beasts”—the apex predators— such as the big cats, wolves, orcas, bears, sharks, and crocodiles.  Humans kill one hundred million sharks every year, mostly for their fins, throwing the sharks back into the water to drown in agony.  Yet despite what we may think, these “beasts” hardly ever kill humans.

How have we become so divorced from the natural world?  What allows humans to torture, go to war, hunt for pleasure, abuse small children, attempt genocide, and perpetrate so many other acts that seem unique to our species, absent from the animal world, the same world we attempt to paint as uniquely violent (“nature red in tooth and claw”)?

Could any topic be more important?  In the past, I have tried to show that animals have the same complex emotions we have.  But now I am taking this further:  why do we have these murderous impulses that other animals lack?  We have enemies.  Animals don’t have enemies.  We hate.  Animals don’t.  Of course other apex predators hunt for food– they have no choice.   No animal in the wild gets to choose its diet.  But they don’t hunt for the sheer pleasure of killing.  They don’t create scenes where they must exact vengeance.  Why do we then?  Usually when we compare ourselves to animals, in our own minds we come out better.  I think that this has been a fundamental mistake, one that prevents us from learning something important, in fact something that could possibly save our species.  For it does seem that we are headed—as Elizabeth Kolbert says in her new book—for the sixth great extinction, one that we have brought upon ourselves.  No other animal has ever even come close to this.  Can we learn something from animals in time to help us stop?

You can buy my book by clicking on the picture of the book.  

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 6 Comments

Cold Blooded Murder of a Young Giraffe


I don’t like any zoo, but I am especially outraged by the action of the Copenhagen Zoo in Denmark on Sunday (February 9).  I am hardly alone:  More than 27,000 people signed a “save Marius petition,” when the zoo announced that zoo officials intended to kill the adorable and much-loved 18-month old Marius. Many thousands of other people around the world have taken to the Internet to express their sadness, their bewilderment, and their horror at this completely unnecessary, even ghoulish act.   It caused revulsion in most people who read about it.  It was an execution many noted.  The reason the zoo gave for killing Marius struck just about every ordinary person as bizarre:  He was killed because his genes were too similar to those of other zoo giraffes in a European breeding program.  “He cannot add anything further to the breeding programme that does not already exist,” a European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) spokesman told BBC News.  The zoo called him a “surplus” giraffe.  If giraffes had human zoos, how many of us would be considered surplus?  Or genetically unnecessary?

Yorkshire Wildlife Park in the UK offered to take him in its “state-of-the-art giraffe house” alongside four other males, including one from Copenhagen Zoo, but their offer was refused.  A Dutch wildlife park also offered to re-home him, as did a Swedish zoo; a wealthy individual offered 500,000 euros to save his life.  Nope, said the officials, he had to be “sacrificed” and skinned, dissected, and fed to lions live on the Internet and in front of spectators at the zoo, including young children, so they could “learn about giraffes.”  Moreover Copenhagen Zoo couldn’t send Marius to an institution with “lesser standards of welfare.”  Right, that zoo might decide to let him live his full life of 26 years or more. 

 A veterinarian shot Marius with a rifle as leaned down to munch on rye bread, a favorite snack, being offered by his “trusted” keeper.  (I wonder how he will sleep tonight?)  It was the first time that the zoo dissected a giraffe:  “People are fascinated by it, both adults and children, and they would like to hear stories they normally don’t have access to. I think that’s good. It helps increase the knowledge about animals but also the knowledge about life and death,” said the scientific director of the zoo, Beng Holst.  What stories is he talking about?  The one where a human executes an innocent animal?  What knowledge did it increase?  That humans believe they have the right to kill any animal they wish?  What was the lesson?  The life of a giraffe is cheap?  “He was just a giraffe,” after all.  Not so.  He was a completely unique individual, different than any other giraffe who ever existed, exactly as is a human individual.  He had a life history, brief as it was, that was completely his own, as Tom Regan has often reminded us.  He was the subject of a truncated biography.  The scientific director also announced “If we’re serious about science, we can’t be led by emotion.”  Really?  Do we actually believe scientists have no emotions and make no decisions based on them?  If that is really so, isn’t it sad?  And what would it lead to?  Well, the decision to kill a perfectly healthy baby giraffe.  That’s the outcome when emotions are not involved.  Is that something we want to teach our children?

 Peter Sandoe, professor of bioethics [sic] at the University of Copenhagen, said he sympathized with the decision to put down the giraffe:  “When small children can go and see this giraffe and see it being turned into lion food, it’s a very good picture of what nature is like,” he said.  By this logic, small children should also see humans murder one another in war, as it’s a very good picture of what human nature is like. 

Look at the bigger picture, said the zoo authorities.  (Did Kant not say something important to the effect that the end does not justify the means?). 

Many zoo officials in other countries defended the killing by asking how many animals are “euthanized” every day for human food.  True, but that is nothing to be proud of, and more and more people are turning vegetarian, even vegan, every day.  I just hope this cruel act encourages even more.  I also hope it keeps people from visiting zoos.  They are nothing but glorified prisons.    

If I were a Dane I would never visit the Copenhagen Zoo again.  A boycott of the zoo might well be a good lesson for the zoo in human nature:  most of us do not like to see an animal murdered by the people who raised him, no matter what excuse they can come up with.  Nietzsche once asked if we could regard animals as moral beings.  He answered himself:  “Do you suppose that animals regard us as moral beings?”  Not the ones in the Copenhagen Zoo.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 144 Comments

Human Intelligence?

Many of us realize how foolish it is to ask how intelligent an animal is, or to decide what we do to an animal based on how intelligent we believe that animal to be. Few would defend the notion that we can take the life of an animal because we think the animal is stupid. The truth is that none of us knows what it means to say of any particular animal that it is more intelligent than any other. Nor can any of us say what difference it would make even if we did know.

I want to make an even broader point: We don’t really know what it means to be intelligent in our own species. Lately I have been struck by how people who are definitely intelligent when it comes to sheer IQ power or the ability to create something, invent something, make a scientific discovery, or simply set the tone for the culture.

I collect strange lapses. Few would disagree that Stephen Hawking is one of the most brilliant theoretical physicists since Einstein. Yet in his book about his own life, My Brief History, explaining how much he likes doing scientific work, he writes: “Someone once said that scientists and prostitutes get paid for doing what they enjoy.” It obviously does not occur to him that the vast majority of prostitutes do not enjoy what they are coerced (either literally or by circumstances) to do. He thought the remark was funny. It is profoundly offensive. Yet, with all his mighty brainpower, he cannot see this.

James Watson, who won the Nobel Prize for his discovery of the structure of DNA, (without crediting the work by Rosalind Franklin that made it possible) famously said that stupidity is a disease. Yet he famously said how nice it would be if women could be genetically engineered to be pretty, and equally stupid, he claimed, in 2007, that he was gloomy about the prospects of Africa, because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really,” displaying in equal measure, arrogance, ignorance, racism, and profound stupidity. (London’s Science Museum rightly cancelled the talk he was supposed to give there).

When Richard Feynman won the Nobel Prize in 1965, he said that some of his earlier mistakes in theory were “like falling in love with a woman, it is only possible if you do not know much about her.” Lest you feel he was just joking, he ends the acceptance speech by comparing his earlier ideas this way: “But, we can say the best we can for any old woman, that she has been a very good mother and she has given birth to some very good children.” (There is much worse in his wildly popular book “Surely You’re Joking Mr. Feynman.”)

Arthur Miller, the playwright, whose work delves into moral and ethical issues, committed his son, born with Down’s syndrome, to a mental institution when he was a week old, and cut him out of his life completely, not even mentioning him in his autobiography Timebends. When he died, the New York Times spoke of his “fierce belief in man’s responsibility to his fellow man.” A remarkably similar thing happened to Erik Erikson, the psychoanalyst, who was also responsible for creating a moral crusade around the need to understand our deepest motivations. He too refused to acknowledge the existence of his son with the same condition. Both boys, by the way, went on to become remarkable achievers in their own way, something to make any father deeply proud.

Of course, at its most extreme, this cleavage between intelligence (narrowly defined) and the ability to see deeper truths is nowhere more evident than in the person of a physician and a Ph.D. scientist, Dr. Dr. Josef Mengele.

No animal, by the way, has ever behaved in this manner. Are we really Homo sapiens sapiens?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Seamus Heaney: Poet Celebrating Cruelty to Animals

I know it is not nice to speak badly of the dead. I realize that everyone, literally everyone, believes Seamus Heaney was not only the greatest Irish poet since Yeats, but also one of the kindest, most friendly, most unpretentious, gregarious, sweet men in all of Ireland.

Perhaps his most famous poem, one that every schoolchild in England and Ireland learns by heart, is called The Early Purges, from his collection “Death of a Naturalist.” Google it and read it. It is only a few lines. Its fame is assured, we are told.

What am I missing here? I find it appalling. Nasty. Ugly thoughts expressed in unforgettable images I wish I could get out of my head. The gist: when Heaney was six, living on his father’s farm, he watched an older boy drown kittens, calling them “scraggy wee shits.” The sight traumatized him. Of course. He was a small boy filled, like so many other children, with empathy for other small creatures like himself. He is frightened too. While he does not spell it out, why could not somebody call him a little shit, and want to kill him? It happens.

In time, he forgets the fear. But then he sees the same person kill with pleasure rats, rabbits, crows, and pull off the necks of old hens. The fear comes back. Again unspoken is: If them, why not me? So far so good. Many naturally sensitive children on farms are horrified by the violence visited on animals that they see daily. He learns a valuable lesson. But no.

The end of the pome is not what one might expect, namely that “I learned, then, to love all helpless creatures, human or otherwise.” Quite the opposite: I learned that my compassion was a “false sentiment.” So Heaney explains that later, when puppies were drowned in his presence, he shrugs, and mimics his elders by calling them nothing but “bloody pups.”

Wait, you say. Surely Heaney is commenting on how he had become deaf to suffering. He is not celebrating it, he is mourning the passing.

I wish.

The last lines abolish any such false hope. I paraphrase: Those of you who live in towns can speak of cruelty, because you think it is unnatural to die. (But these animals did not die a natural death, they were killed for no reason. But Heaney insists there was a good reason: “On well-run farms pests have to be kept down.”

Pests? Dogs, cats, rats, chickens? Kept down, that is, murdered. That is what a well-run farm is, after all.

Is this the poem we want our young people to learn by heart? Many will wish, like me, they could unlearn it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 15 Comments