THE ROLE MODEL LEFT BEHIND
On the first day of THE CLIMATE SAVERS WEEK I have not only delivered the first of INDUSTRY 5.0 WEBINARS to the global audience, but I have several discussions with existing, so as new members of my network.
One of the discussions with INDUSTRY 5.0 AMBASSADOR in NORWAY
put me in shame
Svein, or better to say his daughter asked me, WHERE ARE THE ANIMALS IN INDUSTRY 5.0 ENVIRONMENT?
After a short discussion and explanation, I realized that I have left NATURE behind despite the fact it is the ROLE MODEL of INDUSTRY 5.0. What a shame.
Svein helped me to overcome my disappointment and depression pointing out that I thought on so many things already, that the ANIMALS simply did not fit in my brain. Still, I feel a pity about and this article should correct the mistake.
WHAT IS THE PLACE OF ANIMALS IN WASTELESS WORLD, in which of the four categories of waste prevention is applicable for them?
Svein proposes to handle animals in the section related to SOCIAL WASTE. My first thoughts were directed to Process and Physical waste until Svein use the words
LIVESTOCK and FEEDSTOCK
Especially in connection with the SOCIAL WASTE term, it delivers goosebumps on my skin.
Did your body and mind deliver the same response?
Not? But it probably should.
I am eating meat. Not too much, not frequently, but I do, time to time. The reason is that I tried several decades ago without, but my body did not react well so I start after several months eating meat again.
I think it is not a bad idea at all to include animals in the SOCIAL WASTE category, the category that is, or that was dedicated to people who would like a MEANINGFUL WORK but for some reason (coming frequently from outside) they are not able to do so.
Let me ask you two questions, to help me to pay my debt to NATURE
- HOW DOES THE MEANINGFUL LIFE OF AN ANIMAL LOOK LIKE?
- HOW DOES THE MEANINGFUL LIFE OF A PLANT LOOK LIKE?
For more than 30 years I have had my own mantra in which I say, among others, the following words
“THE HUMANS AND ALL CREATURES LIVING ON THE PLANET ARE PART OF THE UNIVERSE. I AM PART OF THE UNIVERSE MYSELF”
Why should we treat some living creatures differently than ourselves?
Before you answer with WE NEED TO EAT I would like to point out that everyone including Animals so as Plants need to eat. The only difference is that they eat when they need to. Do not “buy” more for later.
I ask Svein, to ask his daughter, who is a Senior inspector and veterinarian to share with me her opinion and I have received the following explanation or statement.
The Five Freedoms of animal welfare was the first widely accepted evidence-based framework to capture the key aspects of animal welfare in one model. It has been adopted by universities (offering veterinary education), animal protection organizations, and also national governmental bodies (like the Norwegian Food Safety Authority and their official veterinarians).
The Five Freedoms are:
1. Freedom from hunger and thirst:
2. Freedom from discomfort
3. Freedom from pain, injury or disease
4. Freedom to express normal behaviour
5. Freedom from fear and distress
When comparing INDUSTRY 5.0’s definition of social waste to «animal waste» in domestic animals, I believe that the Five Freedoms are important to have in mind. This could also be used of course when discussing «animal waste» in wild animals (but I will not address this here). The Five Freedoms of animal welfare show us that domestic animals are entirely dependent on human action. Also, I believe that their origin was the belief that each and every animal has their own value and that human action needs to focus on accepting the value of every individual’s existence.
This brings me to the fact that the definition of «animal waste» depends on whether it is seen from the animals’ point of view or from humans’ point of view:
An animal who has not got its five freedoms covered
or
An animal who could be of better use to humans than it is at a given time
Both definitions could also be used, especially seeing that they do coincide to some degree. This is particularly seen in animal farms where farmers make their living from holding their animals for meat, milk, and/or for their skin or fur/wool. The utility value of an animal will decrease if its welfare is poor. For example, research has shown that good welfare in dairy cows relates to high production of milk. The same goes for small, domesticated animals, like dogs and cats. If they experience good welfare, this will prolong their lifetime, and good welfare is also important to avoid any behavioural problems that might end in euthanasia or death for other reasons. It’s pretty safe to say that a dead animal has no utility value to its owner.
If one were to focus on the welfare of the animals, one could also go beyond the five freedoms and include the fact that animals need more than just freedom of negative influence. In other words, many people believe that one should set a higher bar than that of the five freedoms in order to conclude that an animal has sound, good welfare.
Regardless of which definition is to be used for «animal waste» in regards to domestic animals, the key factor to both definitions, in my opinion, is competence. The animal owner’s competence, and the competence of any other human who has any significant interaction with the animal (like a veterinarian or an advisor).
When I am to evaluate an animal owner’s competence, it is important that the owner shows me that he or she can see, understand and act. This is the definition of competence as we see it in my profession. As an animal owner, you have to see or take notice of the animal’s needs. You also have to understand what you are seeing, and you have to act to make sure that the animal’s needs are met. You have to have both the ability and the will to secure the animal’s needs. In lack of any of this, the animal owner will show poor competence to some extent.
Another important factor (besides competence) is animal legislation, both welfare, and health legislation. There is a lot to say about this, but I will only take one example here. Any country needs to decide how much the individual animal’s existence or life is worth. In my opinion, one cannot say that it is a human right to own an animal. As an official veterinarian, my mission is to be the voice of the animals and make sure that humans don’t make use of them at the animals’ cost. I believe that the Scandinavian countries are world-leading in legislation that contributes to good animal welfare. Still, I have many examples of how even the Norwegian animal legislation favors humans instead of animals; sometimes to such a degree that one might think that owning an animal is actually seen as a human right, in other words, that the animal’s own value is subordinate.
I would like to end my statement by addressing the latter definition mentioned above. This will probably get your mind spinning seeing that this is such an enormous subject to embark on, but I will do it anyway.
Like I said before, a dead animal is not of any use to its owner. A dead animal could of course be of use to humans though. An example is companies specializing in rendering, which is the converting of animal by-products from the meat and livestock industry into usable materials. An example for the future is xenotransplantation, which is a therapeutic option for humans with some sort of organ failure by utilizing organs from closely related species.
But if we put this in another perspective, this is where your mind might start spinning: The fact that animals die has to lead to, is leading to, and will continue leading to, extinction. This also goes for all other living creatures, such as plants and insects. They are a part of an ecosystem, where organisms and the physical environment are dependent on one another. In addition, different organisms’ existence might hold the answer to challenges that we as humans face every day; illnesses, whether they are contagious or not. The death of living things reduces biodiversity. This is something that «even» children understand is a huge problem. Seeing that many of us reproduce and will leave our children behind on Mother Earth, Industry 5.0 should assess where to put the word «ecosystem» in its pillars. Or should you perhaps add one? That is up to you to decide.
Kind regards,
Iselinn Cecilie
For me, this explanation delivers such a large portion of humanity that I would be happy it becomes a permanent part of INDUSTRY 5.0 which will come closer to its role model again.
INDUSTRY 5.0 does not intend to be better than its teacher, NATURE, but it would be happy to be with it in HARMONY and I would like to thank Svein and Iselinn Cecilie to help me to understand
Have a nice day free of waste and wasting in all its forms and stay safe
Michael Rada, HUMAN
