Mariana Monteiro Pillar
Andressa Farias Borges
The recent floods that raised river levels in Rio Grande do Sul caused incalculable destruction, left families homeless, and resulted in hundreds of human deaths and thousands of non-human ones. Thus, in the face of the greatest tragedy in the history of the people of Rio Grande do Sul, this study outlines socio-environmental discussions, but mainly reflects on the lack of policies focused on animals, the invisible victims of environmental disasters.
In human terms, a disaster is defined as a catastrophic event because it exceeds a community's capacity to respond without assistance. In most situations, catastrophic events would primarily affect humans; however, nowadays, sentient beings are significantly affected and lack resources to mitigate the consequences of a disaster. In this sense, disasters generally harm both humans and non-humans (Animal Ethics, 2024).
Facing this new reality, experiencing the greatest hydric tragedy in the state's history, thousands of non-humans were affected in addition to human victims, given the family arrangements. Today, families are increasingly choosing to adopt companion animals rather than having human children. As a result, according to data released by the animal welfare office of the capital of Rio Grande do Sul, the population of dogs and cats in Porto Alegre is approximately 815,000 animals. It is estimated that between July and October 2023, in nearly five thousand households, there are at least 533,873 dogs and 281,532 cats throughout the city (Porto Alegre Animal Welfare Office, 2023).
In this context, when climate catastrophes like this one occur, beyond all social and environmental issues, it is necessary to reconsider the rights of the affected animals, as the greater the incidence of multi-species families, the greater the implications for society. Moreover, it is urgent to rethink the moral status assigned to animals through animal ethics, which considers the suffering of sentient beings as subjects of a life (Perrota, 2022).
The greatest catastrophe highlights the indispensability of adopting public and moral policies capable of saving the lives of non-humans. Unfortunately, due to the anthropocentrism that plagues society, interests are still seen as distinct. Consequently, the priority is to promote the rescue of humans over others. Thus, considering sentient beings as moral subjects and equally victims of disasters underscores the idea that all lives are equally important, as the mere compassion of guardians toward animals is not enough (Perrota, 2022).
It is worth mentioning that this scenario is not exclusively a concern for Rio Grande do Sul. In other environmental disasters that affected the country, the situation of animals was similar, as was the case in the Brumadinho and Mariana disasters. In all these cases, they were left behind, under orders that animals could not be rescued along with their guardians, as the priority was human beings (Perrota, 2022).
In comparative law, reports demonstrate similarity, such as the case of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, where guardians were forced to abandon their companion animals because, according to U.S. legislation, it was prohibited to transport them in public vehicles, resulting in thousands being left to fend for themselves (Perrota, 2022).
Such actions are backed by the anthropocentric and speciesist ideals that guide society. Given this reality, the question arises: which lives deserve to be saved? Only human ones? Both human and animals that are part of multi-species families? And what about animals considered for consumption—do they deserve to die? This is an ethical dilemma that needs to be debated.
Disaster situations demonstrate the absence of laws, protocols, or governmental mechanisms that regulate animal rescue, indicating that only human lives are included in the states' contingency plans. Animals remain in social vulnerability, as when guardians show interest in their rescue, they are often prevented by the state (Perrota, 2022).
The relationship between animals and humans has always been the subject of global debate. In this context, in 1975, philosopher Peter Singer published the book Animal Liberation, advocating for the rights of sentient beings and arguing against the existence of paradigms that diminish the pain of an animal compared to human pain. Singer (2002) supports the utilitarian perspective, which considers the killing of animals for food acceptable, provided their dignity is respected and it is done in accordance with animal welfare standards.
Regarding animal products, Brazil leads the rankings, as does the state currently affected. However, the practice of livestock farming is devastating for sentient beings as well as for the environment, contributing to global warming and consequently to climate catastrophes like the one experienced (Toledo, 2021).
Data from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics in 2022 revealed that more than 200 million animals are raised for the food industry in Rio Grande do Sul. Statistically, this number represents 93% of Brazil's total population of 215 million people. This means the country is experiencing the greatest non-human life catastrophe in its history (Mfa-Brazil, 2024).
According to data provided by the Poultry Organization, Rio Grande do Sul recorded approximately 1 million sentient lives lost, including around 400,000 chicks, 552,000 laying hens, and 12,600 pigs. Estimates are not precise regarding the number of cattle, sheep, and horses (As gov, 2024).
Most of these animals lived in confinement systems, leading to cruel deaths without the slightest chance of escape. After the waters receded, scenes of dead animals piled on top of each other illustrated the desperation they experienced until their painful drowning. A significant portion of society views these deaths as economic losses. However, they are proven sentient beings, implying they consciously suffered while awaiting their tragic end (Mfa-Brazil, 2024).
Animal confinement is common practice in intensive livestock farming. In this system, animals live in poor conditions due to minimal space and inappropriate feeding, which suppresses natural instincts and causes suffering, both physical and psychological. However, this practice should be framed as a crime under Article 32 of Law No. 9.605/98, as it violates principles related to animal protection. Similarly, it contravenes anti-cruelty regulations provided for in Article 225, §1°, item VII of the Federal Constitution (Rammê, 2020).
The suffering caused to sentient beings, besides being an immoral practice, is entirely unnecessary, as livestock farming today already has alternatives such as free confinement (Rammê, 2020). If these measures had already been adopted in Rio Grande do Sul, many lives would have had the opportunity to fight for survival, as they would not have been trapped in extermination stalls, with no right to freedom of movement.
Sentient beings used in the meat industry are invisible, causing pain and suffering to billions of pigs, cattle, and poultry, as this is a mechanism focused solely on profit, completely ignoring moral and ethical considerations regarding well-being (Rehbein, Rodrigues, 2024).
Nussbaum (2023) describes the instrumentalization of farm animals as a "moral horror" and calls for moral and legal protection for them. According to the philosopher, although society is unaware of or chooses to ignore it, pigs are the animals most similar to humans in anatomical terms; their internal system is very similar, and they are extremely intelligent creatures, sometimes more rational than dogs, and yet they are among the main victims of human carnage.
A similar case is that of cattle, which, although considered merely as consumer goods or livestock products, are unique beings, displaying distinct characteristics and personalities. They are highly sensitive and express their feelings through vocalizations and their gaze (Pillar, 2024).
Joy (2014) supports this view by stating:
"We love dogs and eat cows not because dogs and cows are fundamentally different—as with dogs, cows have feelings, preferences, and awareness—but because our perception of them is different. And consequently, our perception of their meat is also different (Joy, 2014, p. 17)."
The tragedy in Rio Grande do Sul once again highlights the anthropocentrism that prevails in society, combined with speciesist ideals, given that farm animals did not have the same fate as some companion animals; entire herds drowned. Thus, in addition to being exploited from birth, those who survived face an uncertain fate (Mfa-Brazil, 2024).
Considering that society sees itself as superior to animals, despite much struggle for survival, the likely outcome will be slaughter, especially given the need to boost the state’s economy. However, where is the morality in sacrificing animals that have fought hard for their survival?
In this reality, Joy (2014) is emphatic in stating that animals are treated as commodities, which means they have a predetermined end. Consequently, victims of such carnage are not a focus of protection, especially in environmental disasters where there are no security plans to save non-humans, particularly farm animals.
Until effective rights for farm animals are established and these beings receive the due importance, the law will remain complicit in the death of invisible victims who are seen but not recognized. Although there are practical and legal difficulties, it is urgent to create mechanisms to curb practices harmful to farm animals, whether in everyday situations or during disasters. In light of this sad reality, animal sentience needs to be globally recognized, to elevate the legal protection of animals within Brazilian law (Rammê, 2020).
In this regard, Naconecy (2014) argues for animals' capacity to feel various emotions, especially those that cause them pain and suffering. They have an awareness of their desire for an end, as everything around them is understood. Additionally, animals are also capable of showing emotions such as stress and frustration.
Thus, reducing the death of thousands of non-human lives to mere numbers only exacerbates the vulnerability of these beings, as it is undoubtedly more than just a financial issue; it is a social problem, triggered by informational asymmetry that hinders the implementation of abstractly envisaged rights.
In these terms, until rights specifically for these animals are established, a mitigation of the problem could come from utilitarian ideals by creating federal legislation aimed at transparency of animal-derived products, exposing cage confinement, effectively monitoring animal welfare at all levels, and promoting animal welfare education to potentially prevent tragedies like this from spreading (Toledo, 2021).
In conclusion, although emblematic, the tragedy in Rio Grande do Sul is only a small example of the force of nature increasingly intensified by capitalism and hyperconsumption. The prevailing ideal is to produce more at reduced costs, leading to the destruction of entire ecosystems.
In terms of the rights of animals affected by disasters, as in other struggles, animals are seen as secondary victims. The majority of society is not concerned with the individuality and conscious suffering of each animal but rather with the economic impact of their deaths, given that most of these animals would have supplied the meat market in Rio Grande do Sul and abroad. The guarantee of animal rights is still progressing slowly, becoming a social and shameful issue for the state of Rio Grande do Sul, as it is one of the Brazilian states that produces the most farm animals and lacks security policies for them.
Thus, in the face of the greatest tragedy, where the world turned its eyes to the South, it also revealed the inefficiency in saving animals, especially farm animals. In this regard, the exploitation of animals directly influences the climate crisis as they represent a significant portion of deforestation in Brazil. The difficulty in saving farm animals is due to the strong evidence of social neglect, as the lives left to die were seen merely as another monetary loss, further worsening their situation, as basic rights were not guaranteed, contributing to the greatest carnage in history.
Given this, this work aimed to generate reflection on the death of invisible victims, as the entire consumer society of animal products shares responsibility for the death of each being that was doubly victimized by society. It is hoped that public policies to safeguard the lives of non-human disaster victims will be created.
References
ÉTICA, Animal: Animais em desastres naturais. Disponível em: https://www.animal-ethics.org/animais-desastres-naturais/#:~:text=Os%20animais%20que%20vivem%20na,%2C%20cinzas%2C%20lava%20ou%20neve . Visited: 24 de mai. de 2024.
JOY, Melanie. Por que: Amamos cachorros, comemos porcos e vestimos vacas. São Paulo: Cultrix, 2013.
MFA-BRASIL Mercy For Animals Brasil, Até agora, quase 1 milhão de animais explorados para consumo morreram em enchentes do Rio Grande do Sul. Instagram. Publish at: 29 de mai. de 24.
NUSSBAUM, Martha C. Justiça para os animais: nossa responsabilidade Coletiva. Tradução Ricardo Doninelli Mendes - São Paulo: WMF, 2023.
PERROTA, Ana Paula. Animais Domésticos e Desastres: entre a preocupação sanitária e humanitária. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, vol. 37, nº 108, 2021.
PILLAR, Mariana Monteiro. Direito Animal: o paradoxo de direitos entre os grandes primatas e os bovinos. In: RODRIGUES, Nina Trícia Diconzi; REHBEIN, Katiele Daiana da Silva; PILLAR, Mariana Monteiro (Org). Direito Animal. Cruz Alta, Ilustração, 2024.
RAMMÊ, Rogério Santos. Confinamento animal na perspectiva da proteção constitucional dos animais. Revista Direito Ambiental e sociedade, Volume 10, n.2, maio e agosto de 2020 (p.292-314).
REHBEIN, Katiele Daiana da Silva. RODRIGUES, Nina Trícia Disconzi. A invisibilidade dos animais na indústria da carne. Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal- Brazilian Animal Rights Journal, Salvador, v.19, n.1,p.1-21,Jan/Abril-2024. Avaiable at: www.rbda.ufba.com.br. Visited at: 28 de jul de 24.
SINGER, Peter. Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal
Movement. Nova York Harper Collins Publishers, 2002.
TOLEDO, Taís. Direito Animal e Pecuária: Questões controvertidas e caminhos para a evolução na tutela jurídica dos animais de produção, 2021.
Comments