Image source: Nature.comEditor's note: This week, Shirley and Jimmy take on the subject of radical environmentalism. Are acts of vandalism, break-ins and civil disobedience always wrong, or do they sometimes serve a greater purpose?
Shirley: Fake blood tossed onto socialites wearing fur coats. Late-night liberation of laboratory animals. Wholesale destruction of Hummers and gas-guzzlers in California parking lots. The lists of exploits by some radical animal-rights and extreme environmental groups reads more like rap sheets than a honorable curriculum vitae. For reasonable stewards of the Earth, breaking and entry, theft, destruction of physical property and other mayhem serve no purpose.
Or do they? I don't condone violence or criminal acts as a means of conveying a message, however well-intended the message might be. But I have to admit that, sometimes — just sometimes — a crazy or even slightly illegal (as if there is such a thing in the eyes of the law) act by a group like, say, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) brings to light a practice that's been kept in the dark largely because it's unpleasant, harmful or cruel. The act of sneaking hidden cameras into poultry processing plants, for example, opened a lot of people's eyes to just how unnecessarily inhumane the methods of turning chickens into wings and nuggets actually are. So is there an argument to be made that maybe, just maybe, the occasional whack attack by radical vegans or Luddites is a justifiable act of civil disobedience? I'd have to say, cautiously, yes.