Scan barcode
aquint's review against another edition
4.0
It seemed like a lot of information was thrown together without really fleshing out the narrative. Many interesting studies that I would have liked expanded. Clearer, more concise arguments would have made this a stronger book.
11corvus11's review against another edition
4.0
This book, more often than not, is written in a manner I wish far more books about non-human animals with a strong focus on scientific studies were written. Balcombe does well to inform us of the research that was available at the time of this book while also considering how that research was executed and the ethics involved. Instead of just rattling off a bunch of studies without any criticism, he balances telling us what we learn from them while also discussing the methods and whether or not they violate our ethical principles when applied to ourselves or some other species in different scenarios. I wish books like this were taught alongside the horrific animal literature often treated as gospel in biology, neuroscience, psychology, etc studies. When I was in college, any questioning of the ethics of animal abuse was immediately shut down. Due to what animal researchers perceive as some sort of personal attack, those who advocate for animals must be silenced by any means. And this has resulted in escalations of tactics over time. But if schools were truly interested in a balanced level of study, we should be discussing the ways other animals- and for that matter marginalized humans- are/were exploited by scientists in the terms that dominant scientific cultures often do. Many students come into these studies questioning the ethics, pushing back, or at least feeling uncomfortable on their own. To pretend that conditioning this out of people either through shaming or through forcing them to repeatedly abuse animals in order to get their degrees is a defensible pedagogical method is at odds with the knowledge seeking that science and education should be about.
This book is full of so many interesting things that I did not know about many species. I filled it with page flags. I assume that much more has come out since the publication of this book. I found Balcombe to be more direct in his criticisms of animal abuse in this book then he is in later works of his. Maybe he worries about turning off those on the fence and is choosing different tactics. Either way, it is refreshing to see someone actually acknowledge the monster in the room that is the exploitation and abuse of others for the sake of human interest, often executed by those with the most privilege and power in societies. It is good to see someone call attention to the irony of scientists seeking to prove empathy does or does not exist in a certain species by using methods showing the scientists' own severe lack of empathy for other animals. While sciences have become more diversified over time it is nowhere near equal. And we know from history that medicine and science have not ever been purely honorable fields we're subjects and patients were treated with respect rather than abused for curiosity. That includes humans.
The reason I'm giving this book four stars instead of five is due to the author falling into the same traps that many men writing on these subjects fall into. And I'm applying this to both men who support other animals agency as well as men who don't and who are more mainstream. One of the red flags is some of his discussions of evolutionary psychology in ways that don't tackle the problematic elements of it. He makes some statements that based in patriarchal and/or heteronormative analyses of data. However as the book moves forward, he is regularly critical of these sort of assessments and how evolutionary science has misrepresented the realities of other animals.
I also think that he could have done better in his discussions of specific instances of animal exploitation to focus on colonialism. Sometimes he favors just talking about human cruelty and exploitation of other animals without discussing how colonialism fits into that. But this is often not the case and he blames colonialism in depth. His discussion of human population growth at the end of the book also misses the mark at times. He does directly address capitalism, including speaking with multiple economists about the fallacy of sustainable growth. But at the same time he talks about population density devoid of the reality that not all dense populations are consuming and producing the most damage. Some very dense populations, come nowhere near to the consumption and pollution levels of a place like the United States who might have a less dense population. I understand what he's trying to do and say, but I think perhaps he should have looked into the subject more.
My biggest issue and what I find are the largest mistakes he makes are in brief discussions of disability regarding humans. Strangely enough he does well to discuss how disabilities in nonhuman animals often can result in kindness and cooperation or protection from others in their social groups or species. This is not always the case of course, but this is a welcome focus. Unfortunately when discussing disabled humans he uses outdated terms like handicapped even for the time that this book was written and makes the same faux pas that Peter Singer does in discussions of how ableism is used to deny other animals worth. One could go the accurate and admirable route of someone like Sunaura Taylor in such a discussion and talk about how ableism harms both humans and other animals and how ableism is used to oppress and pit both disabled humans and other animals against each other. This is unfortunately not what he does. Like Singer, he makes the same sort of disgusting comments about how "healthy" or nondisabled animals are not offered consideration, when we even offer it to "the mentally handicapped." Framed in this way, it's no wonder that many disability activists believe that animal liberation is in conflict with disabled human liberation when it is actually not in it's pure form when not polluted by ableist philosophies like this one.
These problems take up very very small sections of the book which is why I only docked one star for them. If we were talking larger sections I would have written it off as more than passing prejudices coming through which are present in every science book I've ever read. And I do think the author has come far and how he is chosen to discuss and approach these things over time.
Overall, as long as professors could apply such awareness to these flaws, as they should to the flaws in all of their teaching materials, texts like these would be extremely valuable to add to curriculum and I imagine could revolutionize the sciences and their mistreatment of imprisoned and/or exploited beings who they choose to study. After all, the meager guidelines sometimes adhered to these days did not come about due to the consciences of animal exploiters across the board- even though they would like us to think so and claim that adherence to these guidelines means that their abuse and killing of millions of animals are ethical. They came about through the efforts and activism of the animal advocates that scientists who abuse animals declare to be their enemies.
Edit: typos and incorrect words from speech-to-text
This book is full of so many interesting things that I did not know about many species. I filled it with page flags. I assume that much more has come out since the publication of this book. I found Balcombe to be more direct in his criticisms of animal abuse in this book then he is in later works of his. Maybe he worries about turning off those on the fence and is choosing different tactics. Either way, it is refreshing to see someone actually acknowledge the monster in the room that is the exploitation and abuse of others for the sake of human interest, often executed by those with the most privilege and power in societies. It is good to see someone call attention to the irony of scientists seeking to prove empathy does or does not exist in a certain species by using methods showing the scientists' own severe lack of empathy for other animals. While sciences have become more diversified over time it is nowhere near equal. And we know from history that medicine and science have not ever been purely honorable fields we're subjects and patients were treated with respect rather than abused for curiosity. That includes humans.
The reason I'm giving this book four stars instead of five is due to the author falling into the same traps that many men writing on these subjects fall into. And I'm applying this to both men who support other animals agency as well as men who don't and who are more mainstream. One of the red flags is some of his discussions of evolutionary psychology in ways that don't tackle the problematic elements of it. He makes some statements that based in patriarchal and/or heteronormative analyses of data. However as the book moves forward, he is regularly critical of these sort of assessments and how evolutionary science has misrepresented the realities of other animals.
I also think that he could have done better in his discussions of specific instances of animal exploitation to focus on colonialism. Sometimes he favors just talking about human cruelty and exploitation of other animals without discussing how colonialism fits into that. But this is often not the case and he blames colonialism in depth. His discussion of human population growth at the end of the book also misses the mark at times. He does directly address capitalism, including speaking with multiple economists about the fallacy of sustainable growth. But at the same time he talks about population density devoid of the reality that not all dense populations are consuming and producing the most damage. Some very dense populations, come nowhere near to the consumption and pollution levels of a place like the United States who might have a less dense population. I understand what he's trying to do and say, but I think perhaps he should have looked into the subject more.
My biggest issue and what I find are the largest mistakes he makes are in brief discussions of disability regarding humans. Strangely enough he does well to discuss how disabilities in nonhuman animals often can result in kindness and cooperation or protection from others in their social groups or species. This is not always the case of course, but this is a welcome focus. Unfortunately when discussing disabled humans he uses outdated terms like handicapped even for the time that this book was written and makes the same faux pas that Peter Singer does in discussions of how ableism is used to deny other animals worth. One could go the accurate and admirable route of someone like Sunaura Taylor in such a discussion and talk about how ableism harms both humans and other animals and how ableism is used to oppress and pit both disabled humans and other animals against each other. This is unfortunately not what he does. Like Singer, he makes the same sort of disgusting comments about how "healthy" or nondisabled animals are not offered consideration, when we even offer it to "the mentally handicapped." Framed in this way, it's no wonder that many disability activists believe that animal liberation is in conflict with disabled human liberation when it is actually not in it's pure form when not polluted by ableist philosophies like this one.
These problems take up very very small sections of the book which is why I only docked one star for them. If we were talking larger sections I would have written it off as more than passing prejudices coming through which are present in every science book I've ever read. And I do think the author has come far and how he is chosen to discuss and approach these things over time.
Overall, as long as professors could apply such awareness to these flaws, as they should to the flaws in all of their teaching materials, texts like these would be extremely valuable to add to curriculum and I imagine could revolutionize the sciences and their mistreatment of imprisoned and/or exploited beings who they choose to study. After all, the meager guidelines sometimes adhered to these days did not come about due to the consciences of animal exploiters across the board- even though they would like us to think so and claim that adherence to these guidelines means that their abuse and killing of millions of animals are ethical. They came about through the efforts and activism of the animal advocates that scientists who abuse animals declare to be their enemies.
Edit: typos and incorrect words from speech-to-text
strickvl's review
4.0
I always feel rewarded when I reengage with Coetzee, and this short book is no exception. A story within a story, Coetzee presents a fictionalised dialogue about animals, their experiences and the relationship between humans and non-human animals. This edition, an edited version of the Tanner lectures he gave at Princeton, is also part of the novel [b:Elizabeth Costello|6206|Elizabeth Costello|J.M. Coetzee|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1462586822s/6206.jpg|1076637]. It includes responses by academics, some firmly immersed in the language of their particular field, others choosing to embrace the fictional construct of framed stories that Coetzee himself employs. (This is my second reading of the book).
henrietteolesen's review
4.0
This was a very interesting read about the rights of animals, and even made me think of things which don’t normally happen when I read a book. So that was a nice change. Would definitely recommend
chaoticbibliophile's review
4.0
So here's the thing: I loved this for all the wrong reasons.
This is marketed as philosophical fiction that debates around the issue of animal-eating (and it was delivered as a lecture, I believe), in the context of fictional writer Elizabeth Costello going to deliver a lecture at her son's university (so meta, I know). While I commend Coetzee for this is a fine attempt which flowed nicely overall, philosophical fiction is hard to pull off and the inclusion of so many points of view leaves one wondering what the point actually was.
In this context, everyone of course fixates on whether the book was successful on doing what the back of the book says: does it make me reflect about animal-eating? Towards which side? It does, to an extent, but I was left with something entirely different.
The three main characters (Elizabeth, her son and his wife) are tied to academia and have quite interesting temperaments. The women hate each other on basis of their relationship to the son, but also on basis of their dietary beliefs. The son has a complex relationship with his mother: he respects her but doesn't wish to be under her shadow, he respects her but pities her, he is happy that she visits but only so she sees her grandchildren, he angsts over her lectures and wishes she wouldn't do them.
I wished this were a full novel with the issue of vegetarianism as a backdrop for this tense drama which honestly was right there waiting to be written. It could have exposed the same debate, but also been much more profound as we see how human relations are affected by dietary resolutions, how academic life works regarding status, and how this son tries to cope with two relationships that are honestly kind of messed up (by the way, we know nothing about the father, and what is his wife actually so angry about?)
This is marketed as philosophical fiction that debates around the issue of animal-eating (and it was delivered as a lecture, I believe), in the context of fictional writer Elizabeth Costello going to deliver a lecture at her son's university (so meta, I know). While I commend Coetzee for this is a fine attempt which flowed nicely overall, philosophical fiction is hard to pull off and the inclusion of so many points of view leaves one wondering what the point actually was.
In this context, everyone of course fixates on whether the book was successful on doing what the back of the book says: does it make me reflect about animal-eating? Towards which side? It does, to an extent, but I was left with something entirely different.
The three main characters (Elizabeth, her son and his wife) are tied to academia and have quite interesting temperaments. The women hate each other on basis of their relationship to the son, but also on basis of their dietary beliefs. The son has a complex relationship with his mother: he respects her but doesn't wish to be under her shadow, he respects her but pities her, he is happy that she visits but only so she sees her grandchildren, he angsts over her lectures and wishes she wouldn't do them.
I wished this were a full novel with the issue of vegetarianism as a backdrop for this tense drama which honestly was right there waiting to be written. It could have exposed the same debate, but also been much more profound as we see how human relations are affected by dietary resolutions, how academic life works regarding status, and how this son tries to cope with two relationships that are honestly kind of messed up (by the way, we know nothing about the father, and what is his wife actually so angry about?)
More...