Animal rights, domestic animals, and self-domestication

I've been thinking about writing this post since I was tagged on social media a while ago, under an article arguing that it's morally wrong to keep pets. And then I just never got around to it. But now my Swedish-language Facebook feed actualized the discussion again, via Swedish articles on the same topic. So, finally, here it comes: another post on domestic animals, and why I believe in animal rights but not in getting rid of all domestic animals.

I've previously posted about it here:  trilemma for animal rights . In that post, I only mentioned the issue of self-domestication briefly, towards the end. In this post I will focus on it.

What non-human animals don't want - and what they do want

The following isn't an exhaustive list by any means. But clearly, non-human animals don't want to
- live in cramped conditions
- be slaughtered
- live intensely boring lives, devoid of stimulation
- be scared and threatened into submission
- have their babies taken away at early ages
- have their entire lives micro-managed and controlled, with very little in the way of choice
- have their bodies mutilated (like the grotesque practice of cutting off dog tails and pieces of their ears, long-sinced banned in many European countries but still legal in the US - to any American readers of this blog: we have science on this! All the alleged health benefits you've heard of are nothing but rationalizations and lies!)
- be ill and suffering (often a result of both extreme breeding - for conformation shows or for food production - and cramped, stressful living conditions)

etc.

However, non-human animals do want 
- regular access to sufficient food and water
- shelter
- enough warmth
- protection against predators
- good health

Now, there's this widespread idea in animal rights circles that whereas domestic animals are dependent on humans for having their needs met, wild animals "manage just fine on their own". However, this is a failure of distinguishing species from individuals. Wild animal individuals often suffer in various ways and die young. We humans might look at a flourishing ecosystem and see the beautiful balance of nature. But for every animal who dies young from starvation, from an injury that could have been easily treated by a veterinarian, or is killed and eaten by a predator, it sucks.  Non-human animals aren't gonna console themselves by singing Circle of Life like in Disney's the Lion King.

Life in the wild is hard 

Now, there's a philosophical debate on whether humans have a duty to mitigate wild animal suffering if we could. Positions range from the claim that it's good to have as little wilderness and as few wild animals as possible, since wild animals live such shit lives (utilitarian philosopher William MacAskill) to the idea that wild animals should be considered citizens in their own sovereign nations, which we ought not to invade (political and animal rights philosophers Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka). Andrée-Ann Cormier and Mauro Rossi argue that D&K's arguments don't hold up. We gotta fall back, after all, on the sheer impossibility of large-scale interference in nature without making things worse. (I feel drawn to D&K's position, I find Cormier and Rossi's view unsatisfying, but I nevertheless believe that their counter arguments hold up.) Neo-Kantian Christine Korsgaard argues that there is inherent value in the existence of all these wild animal species. And so on. It's a big debate.

In any case, regardless of any duties we may or may not have to wild animals, their lives are clearly hard. Let's take a look at wild animal reproduction, and ponder the extent to which most of them must die young in order for populations to remain stable. 
Some wild animals have extreme reproduction rates. At the end of pregnancy (or whatever the correct term is for this species), the male seahorse will spawn thousands of babies, the vast majority of which will promptly be gobbled up by other fish. 
Mammals never have that many babies, but some still reproduce really fast by mammal standards. Guinea pigs, for instance, are pregnant for two months, give birth to around four babies, immediately mate and become pregnant again, whereas the babies, in turn, hit puberty and become pregnant when they're a couple of months old, so they give birth themselves at the same time their second round of siblings are born. This means that if left unsupervised and unkilled, two guinea pigs of opposite sexes will have become twenty-two guinea pigs in eight months time. In sixteen months, if they continue to breed at the same pace and no one is killed, 240-250. In two years time, upwards to 3000. (I was tired doing this piece of maths. You can double-check if you like. Two months pregnancy time, a new pregnancy directly after birth, two months to puberty, around four babies per litter.) (If I'm not mistaken, guinea pigs were the inspiration behind Star Trek's tribbles). The reason South America - where they live wild - isn't covered by a thick living blanket of guinea pigs by now, is that they're eaten by predators all the time. 
Now, guinea pigs are pretty extreme as mammals go, but there are many wild animals both better at surviving and with slower reproduction. Horses reproduce and age pretty slowly. Wild horses typically wait till they approach adulthood at age two-three before getting pregnant the first time. Pregnancy lasts almost a year, results in a single baby, and the mum often waits a year before getting pregnant again. Domestic ponies that resemble their wild ancestors often live to be thirty years of age or even older. Wolves also reproduce and age relatively slowly, albeit not quite as slowly as horses. They, too, tend to wait until the age of two before reproducing, but their pregnancies are shorter, they give birth every year, and to a litter rather than a single baby. Wolves can live into their teens. Also, both horses and wolves reproduce faster when they have enough food than when food is scarce. 

Now. You do the math. How quickly would horse and wolf populations grow if every individual had a good and relatively long life? Not guinea-pig-fast by any means, but pretty fast nevertheless. Stable echo systems depend on tons of individual animals living harsh lives and dying young from starvation, from being brutally killed by other animals, from illnesses or injuries that, in many cases, could have been easily treated by a veterinarian if they had access to one. Species may "manage just fine" without human aid, but most individuals do not.

Self-domestication in the past and the present

This is why many animals approach human settlements, preferring to live among us rather than out in the wild. In the past, people assumed that all domestic animals species came about because brave ancient humans captured wild animals and purposefully tamed and dominated them. Now, researchers believe that many species have, to a large extent, self-domesticated - they sought out and approached humans because we have food and shelter and that kind of stuff. Humans, in turn, accepted to have cats around because they killed rats that stole their food, accepted to have wolves around because they scared off rival humans and quickly learnt cooperative hunting, and so on. Only later did humans begin to consciously breed them for our own purposes. Given all that humans have to offer, and given how hard life is in the wild, this is absolutely no mystery. And it's not just a thing of the past: we see how non-domestic animals approach us and choose to live among us today as well. 

Donaldson and Kymlicka coined the term "liminal animals" for species or subgroups within species that have adapted to life among humans, without being domesticated. These animals are often completely forgotten in discussions about animal rights; such discussions tend to focus on domestic animals like dogs, cats, horses and "food animals" on the one hand and completely wild animals way out in nature on the other. But if someone had the concept of liminal animals explained to them and then asked to list some, they might spontaneously mention rats, plus a long list of birds: Canada geese, crows, magpies, and lots of little birds like house sparrows and tree sparrows that mostly lives in towns and cities. In Europe, hedgehogs are common, and often make their nests underneath people's porches or garden sheds. 
Besides rats and hedgehogs, some mammals are beginning to split up into a city version and a forest version. Foxes are shy and nocturnal and therefore rarely seen, but many of them have lived for generations in towns and cities. If forced to move back to the forest, many would have a hard time adapting to such a different lifestyle. Individual foxes sometimes get closer to humans and take up residence in someone's garden - it's sufficiently common that different foxes doing this with different people regularly pop up on social media. Some individuals are clearly less shy than others. 
Groups of Scandinavian roe deer have taken up permanent residence in city suburbs, and many of them aren't shy at all. They may keep grazing while humans walk by at a few meters distance.

So, what follows from all of this? What follows from the fact that animals often choose to live with humans, even choose to begin the domestication process? Certainly, it doesn't follow that we have the right to kill them and eat them, use them as toys for our amusement, restrict and micro-manage their lives for our convenience, and so on. However, it does follow that if animal rights become the dominant ideology in society and we decide that 
a) all domestic animals should be wiped out via universal castration, and 
b) humans should live in human society, and animals should stay out in nature, at a respectful distance from us
- this will be something that we force on them. It would be our choice, not theirs.

Moreover, it means that keeping them out would require a never-ending battle from our side.

The three categories

Donaldson and Kymlicka envision three legally distinct categories of animals in their animal rights utopia:

1. Domestic animals are no longer property, but citizens in our nations. Besides a strong right to life and a right not to be harmed, they have substantive positive rights to food, shelter, health care, a strong pro tanto right to free movement (you need much more than human convenience and preference to infringe on this right), and the training required to handle a life intimately connected with humans. They also have some obligations to adapt and contribute, depending on their individual abilities: they may provide companionship, which in turn improves human physical and mental health, or do various more specific jobs. (Note: Being killed isn't a job. But search dogs or land-mine sniffing rats could be said to do proper jobs; they contribute to society in a way that's frequently fun and engaging for the animal as well.)

2. Liminal animals have far weaker rights. They still have a right to life, and a right not to be completely pushed out of human society. But we're allowed, to some extent, to use both conscientious cleaning of public spaces (population sizes depend a lot on how much garbage there's around) and "hostile architecture" to prevent them from becoming too many. D&K also note that domestic animals like cats and dogs have a deterrent effect on many liminal species, and this effect would be greater with greater freedom of movement for dogs.

3. Wild animals, basically left to their own devices (though D&K discuss, at some length, ways to improve road safety for wild animals, and how we have an obligation to do so). 

Animals are allowed to move between categories if they choose. D&K note that liminal or wild animals sometimes seek help from humans, which in time might lead to them living a more domestic life. Domestic animals might also turn liminal or wild. This is common already with cats, who frequently move between categories. D&K speculate that many domestic horses might turn to a wilder lifestyle if they had the chance. 

There are lots of problems with the details in D&K's vision. Nevertheless, at least they try to discuss all these categories, and the fact that animals can choose both to withdraw more from humans and to go the opposite direction and approach us. But traditional animal rightsers, who want to wipe out every domestic animal until only wild ones remain - how are they even gonna do that in practice?

The never-ending battle to keep them out

Let's assume we have managed to castrate every single domestic animal, thus wiping entire species out. In practice, this is extremely unlikely to succeed. It's one thing to quit assisting animals that are incapable of natural reproduction. But many, many domestic animals can mate and give birth without our aid. As soon as animals aren't locked up in cages anymore but allowed more freedom of movement, preventing them from mating requires diligence and active intervention on our part. Sure, animals can be castrated, but doing so before they hit puberty often has negative health consequences. Controlling populations is one thing. Completely wiping them out, not a single one left - way harder. And this isn't even touching on the existence of cats and other animals that frequently move back and forth between domestic and more liminal or even wild life-styles. 
Anyway. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that this mass castration has been successful, and all domestic species we currently have are wiped off the face of the Earth.

Now, how are we gonna stop wild and liminal animals from self-domestication?

Animals have willingly approached humans, moved into our town and cities, begged food from us, begged us for shelter, and begun the process of domestication even as we kept killing them. Deer and foxes move into our suburbs and cities and sometimes openly approach us despite being hunted and killed en masse by humans, and despite the fact that scary scary dogs are everywhere in human society. Now, imagine that we live in an animal rights utopia instead, where no one kills any animals and all those scary dogs have been wiped out. Life among humans look super attractive now, to a wide variety of species.

So, what are we supposed to do when they approach us and beg for food, shelter, want to enter our houses when the winter is cold enough, and so on? Well, one option is we take them in. We let our hearts melt for them and help them out as best we can. But oops, now we must control their reproduction somehow, or else, their populations will grow until they flood our societies. We must somehow sort out their relationships when both deer and foxes want to live with the same family, but the fox wants to eat the deer's baby. We must guide them and to some extent train them in how to interact with and manage all the complicated human stuff - humans, other city-dwelling species, cars and vehicles and so on. And when we've done all this, we have new domestic animal species! 
Which made the whole business of wiping out our previous ones pretty pointless in the end. We could just as well have kept the old ones around.* 

The other option is to keep the non-humans out. Our cities and towns must be super clean. Also, architecture and city planning must be super hostile to all non-humans. Whenever a new building, new park or similar is planned, we must ask ourselves: how can we make this fine for humans, while at the same time making it as hostile as we possibly can to all non-humans? 
In addition, we must learn to harden our hearts when injured or starving animals approach us and beg for assistance - remember, animals sometimes do this already despite the fact that we hunt and kill them - they will surely do so more often if we stop doing that. But as soon as we help them out, we're on a slippery slope towards domestication. Thus, our relationships with many animal species cannot just consist of "letting them be" - rather, it will be coloured by a constant battle to keep them away from us, and conscious efforts not to empathize with individuals in need. 

Traditional animal rightsers often doubt that any respectful and reciprocal co-existence with domestic animals is possible; they're just too dependent on us, and therefore too vulnerable and likely to be abused. I do think this is a serious problem, but it's one we gotta grapple with (this goes for vulnerable and dependent humans - like children! - as well). Because, it's even less plausible that a respectful animal rights ideology can flourish at the same time as we constantly strive to keep animals away from us and not empathize with individual animals in need. 

 Some final thoughts on "adopt don't shop"

People who believe that we should have that last generation of domestic animals and then no more often preach "adopt don't shop". An end to domestic animals requires an end to breeding. Thus, we must not support breeding, but we should still "adopt up" all animals currently in existence. Don't worry, pet lover! That pet-free future is just that - a future that will, some day, happen. Right now, you can have any pet you like. All you have to do is adopt one! If there's no pet of your preferred type close to where you live, don't worry. It's a big world and there are so many shelters all over the globe. You can just order your preferred pet online. Of course we're against pets, of course they should all die out, but right now, there's an abundance of them, and you can have the precise type of pet you want. 

Now, we know, because such cases have been discovered, that some "rescue organizations" actually have dogs that reproduce freely, and then they sell the offspring abroad as "rescues". In the US (and probably other places too where big puppy mills are legal), there are also rescue organizations that "rescue" dogs by buying them from puppy mills and then pass them on to "adopters". I think people who run these organizations often sincerely believe that they're doing a good thing, rescuing one batch after another the only way they can (because heaven forbid they would break in and steal the dogs!). Perhaps some "rescue organizations" with freely reproducing dogs started out with good intentions, but they lost control of the dog situation when they had rescued too many. Other organizations might be deliberate scams. But they exist, and have their customers. 

A few years ago, it was popular among Swedish dog rescuers to order dogs online from Russian shelters. People seemed to think they were diligent and checked that they got their dog "from a reputable organization" by noting
a) the Russian organizers sounded nice via email, and
b) they talked to other people who had dogs from the same organization, and their dogs were cute and nice. 
Of course, both a) and b) are completely irrelevant to the question: is this a legit rescue organization or some kind of puppy mill? Then, it turned out - first in customs, then via a more thorough investigation from the Swedish Board of Agriculture - that most of the dogs from a big Russian batch sent to Swedish rescures lacked proper vaccination. They had the papers, but hadn't had the shots. Other customs checks have turned out similar results. Many imported rescue dogs don't have the shots that their papers claim they have. Best case scenario is these are mistakes made because the rescue organization is doing such a hard job and they're overwhelmed. Worst case scenario, the dogs originate with cynical money-making operations. Have the dogs reproduce freely in a big enclosure, give them the cheapest possible food, you might still spay or neuter dogs you're gonna sell (but with the cheapest vet you can find) since the new owner will notice, but you save money on skipping various shots and have the vets falsify the papers. 

I'm not saying it's impossible to do your due diligence before adopting a pet, even if you adopt from abroad. You might, for instance, have volunteered at the shelter yourself, or personally visited the shelter, or maybe a person you know have done so. But the simple, snappy "adopt don't shop" message predictably results in lots of people thinking it's okay to buy any pet you want, it's okay to order pets online from countries you've never been to, etc., as long as it's billed as "adoption" or "rescue". That practice will never lead to "a last generation". 

Now, brace yourselves. I really want to preface the coming paragraph by saying that I do not compare human children and dogs. I do think that humans and dogs - human children in particular - are similar in lots of ways, and I can point to lots of research backing this up. But people often find comparisons provocative, and might suspect (sometimes justifiably so!) that a particular, already marginalized group of humans is picked out as being particularly beastly or animal-like. So I really want to stress that the following paragraph doesn't hinge on any particular similarities. I merely make the point that when there's a strong demand, we can be certain that someone will create a supply chain to fill said demand - even when doing so requires engaging in horrible crimes.
A huge and decades-long international adoption scandal is currently unraveling in Sweden. Sweden has plenty of childless couples, but almost no domestic orphans. There was thus a strong demand for orphans to adopt. Entire adoption agencies grew up that largely relied on stealing people's children in the developing world and passing them off as orphans for adoption. This happened despite the fact that human trafficking is a very serious crime, and despite the sheer logistical difficulties involved. 
Breeding animals and pretending they're rescues will always be way easier than human trafficking. Of course people will continue to do so, as long as there's a huge demand for rescued pets. 

As mentioned above, I don't believe we should try to wipe out domestic animals. But people promoting this idea should stop promoting an accompanying "adopt don't shop" message, and instead urge people to go pet-free here and now.  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

*I'm all for extinguishing species/breeds for which life is full of suffering due to their physiology, such as broiler chickens or flat-nosed dogs. Also, any animal rights utopia would have far fewer domestic animals, not this extreme mass production of "food animals" we currently see,  and also fewer animals of pet species. All I'm saying is that completely wiping out all domestic animals is pointless if we end up having new domestic species later on.

Disability in speculative fiction

 I'm not at Worldcon in Glasgow. However, I get constant social media updates of what's happening there, courtesy of Sara L. Uckelman (of Ellipsis Imprints, who will publish my debut novel Cogwheel Souls in English! Yay!) For instance, she's been at a panel discussing disability and disability erasure in specfic. This got my mind going - first I wrote some long replies on Facebook, and then I thought enough thoughts about the subject for a whole blog post. 

1. The magical cure and the medical perspective

There's this specfic trope of the magical cure - either a piece of literal magic or amazing technology that can turn the previously disabled character normal again. Off the top of my head, the examples I come to think of are superhero stories - discussions around this in the DC comics when Barbara Gordon was still in her wheelchair, Felicity in the TV show Arrow (a different character but clearly inspired by Barbara in the comics), and some of examples from the MCU movies - the first Doctor Strange movie, Ghost from Antman and the Wasp. So I'll go with these examples since they were the first to pop up in my head, but there are far more out there. 

Now. From a mainstream, medical perspective, it's great if a disabled character can get a medical cure for their tragic impairment. And then, you've got your social justice conscious writers who see how this is problematic. I won't (obvs) try to recap all of the reasons why the medical model is problematic in a blog post, but there's tons written for anyone seriously interested. In extreme brief:

a) Aiming for a thoroughly "healthy" and non-disabled society will be a never-finished Sisyphus job. The bar for what counts as healthy enough constantly rises and you'll always have people deemed "problematic" due to their "defects". Also, when a disability-free society is an outspoken goal, no one is quite free to go against the flow. It might not be illegal to, e.g., not avail yourself of all techniques available for having children as healthy as possible, but expectations from medical professionals, what's default in a medical setting vs an active choice, and social pressure from everyone around you can be strong enough.

b) You will end up with a society in many ways more homogeneous than ours, which isn't a good thing. Some people might wanna say that they only strive to eradicate chronic illnesses and disabilities but not neurodivergencies that provide society with different perspectives and different ways of doing things etc. There are some philosophers who want to place a few conditions, like "high-functioning autism" (an itself problematic term, rejected by many autism advocates) in a the neurodivergence box, while still placing tons of other conditions in the box for disabilities to be eradicated. But because of the dynamics described in a), you'll likely have fewer and fewer conditions in the first box and more and more in the second over time.

c) Finally, the ubiquity of the medical perspective on disability makes it significantly harder for disabled people to fight for equal rights. Here in Sweden, disabled people are legally entitled to getting the assistance they need to live a normal life - with job, studies, their own flat, and so on. For some people, that means they require an assistant constantly by their side, so several employees with a rotating schedule, on public expanses (you'd have to be super rich to pay several employees out of pocket). However, legal entitlements on paper is one thing, what people get granted in practice is, unfortunately, quite another. Right-wing politicians (whether they call themselves "right-wing" or go by "social democrats") who constantly cut down on both taxes and public expenses will order the relevant clerks to make increasingly circumscribed judgments of what their clients actually need, with the wholly predictable result that disabled people are increasingly pushed out of jobs, schools, and overall public life. Adults end up living with their parents, who care for them until said parents die themselves. We're seeing the beginning of a new era of institutionalization.
There's no logical contradiction between embracing a mostly medical model, and yet argue that people should get all the assistance etc they need until we, hopefully, find a cure for their impairments. However, when people think of disability as something inherent and inherently tragic, something inside people's bodies and minds, it's much more difficult in practice to make them realize that withdrawing assistance and similar are political decisions, and to see disabled people as oppressed and discriminated against. The medical model helps, in practice, to cover up political injustices by presenting disabled suffering as a tragic but natural result of inherent impairments. 

Magical cure stories tend to implicitly rely on the audience accepting a largely medical perspective on disability, and therefore cheer for characters who seek a way to erase their tragic condition and become healthy and normal. However, subverting this trope is often easier said than done.

2. The implications of truly magical cures

I'm mad and neurodivergent but able-bodied. No one, whether embracing the medical model or not, thinks my body is inherently tragic. However, imagine that I came across a wizard who gave me the following choice: either you can continue as before, or I can wave my magic wand and make you as fast as Usain Bolt and with the stamina of Kelvin Kiptum. That's it, that's your choice. You can't trade it for something more altruistic, or some different thing that serves your own interests. It's just this offer, which you can take or leave.
I'd probably go yeah sure! Cool! I'd take the offer. 

Thus, the fact that you do not hate your body as is, the fact that you're perfectly fine with it as is, doesn't imply that you wouldn't accept an offer to make it more powerful. However, if I wrote a story about a wheelchair user who was offered "walkability" (is that a real word? Never mind, you all understand what I mean), and accepted the offer, it's probably impossible in practice to give the audience the same impression as when I accepted increased speed and stamina. Because regardless of how non-oppressive the fantasy setting where this takes place is, the audience still live in an ableist world, and this will inevitably inform their reading. Even though accepting the offer of walkability doesn't logically imply that the wheelchair user's life was tragic before it, anymore than accepting increased speed and stamina implies that it's tragic not to be an olympic level athlete, that's how it's gonna be perceived by most. 

Now I was talking about how the audience will perceive things due to them living in an ableist society. However, it's often hard for creators, too, not to insert their own ableism into stories, even if they try to write something social justice informed. Take, for instance, the movie Gattaca. It clearly tries to deal with disability-oppression in a eugenics-obsessed society. Yet, at the end of the movie (spoiler alert), the character who's disabled according to our standards, the audience's standards, brutally commits suicide because he can't stand it anymore, whereas a character who actually seems more oppressed within the universe of the movie but does not come off as disabled to the audience bravely soldiers on. Left a really bad taste in my mouth, that ending. Ok, societal oppression is bad and all that, but still possible to fight, unless you're in a wheelchair like Jude Law's character - he's gotta top himself at the end. Better off dead, that one.
Okay, that was a bit of a tangent, since Gattaca is about a society obsessed with birthing "perfect" babies, not about curing adult disabled people. So back to the magical cure discussion.

In most cases, it's probably better to just stay away from magical cures altogether in your writing. But if you wanna write something with literal and versatile magic or magic-level tech, the best thing is probably to have characters play around with it and change their bodies in a variety of ways (instead of everyone going uniformly "normal"). Like in Michael Moorcock's Dancers at the end of Time trilogy (part of his Eternal Champion series, but much lighter and more whimsical in tone than the others). You've got some people changing sex back and forth, some changing into monsters or looking like non-human animals, you've got this scientist character who's got a hunchback and a club foot and walks with a cane because he thinks it's a cool science look, and so on. I think that works better than specifically having the person who's disabled by real-world standards confronted with a magical cure and then go "no! I won't take it! Because I accept myself as is!" while it's treated as a non-issue for everyone else.

3. Good and bad reasons to reject being cured

In a society with medical treatments that do not exist in the real world, but it's still not on the unlimited, can-do-anything-level we see in Moorcock's Dancers, there are several legit reasons for characters to reject being cured. 

First, they might do so because they don't want to reject an aspect of their identity. This was brought up by ethnologist and crip scholar Christine Bylund when we briefly discussed the matter, and now I've been thinking some more about it ... To some extent, people are simply different with regards to how and what they identify with. People may be more or less prone to see themselves as integrated "bodyminds" vs seeing themselves as minds with bodies, for example. People differ in how much of their mental lives they see as integral parts of their personalities, and what seems a bit more external to them, perhaps simultaneously external and undesirable. I think we'd have differences in identification, and thus differences in how much and what people would be willing to change about themselves, even in an oppressive-free utopia.
However, in an ableist society like ours, disability is a political identity too. This is a big difference between the scenario in which I gladly accept increased speed and stamina, and a wheelchair user accepting an offer of walkability. Increased speed and stamina might get me fame and money that I've never dreamt of before, but I'd remain in the political category of "able-bodied" throughout, whereas a wheelchair user who acquires walkability goes from disabled to normate. For some people, that might be a welcome change, climb the social ladder to a better life, whereas others would reject as grotesque the idea of magicking your way into a politically privileged group. 

In any case, I think a story about a character who lives in an ableist society and gets a chance at a magical cure should deal with how they'll move from one political group to another if they take it. Not pretend like it's a completely isolated, individual choice about either getting cured or "accepting yourself". 

But do it in a better way than DC did with Barbara Gordon! 

Barbara Gordon used to be Batgirl. Then the Joker shot her through the stomach, bullet hurt her spine, and she ended up in a wheelchair. She went on superheroing as the computer wiz Oracle. Occasionally, writers felt the need to address why she remained in the chair despite living in this extremely high-tech superhero world. On the one hand, the DC consensus (if I understand things correctly) was that she provided good disability rep, so better keep the chair, but on the other hand, they should provide some in-universe justification too.
I've got an old nineties comic written by Grant Morrison where the issue comes up in dialogue. Babs says that she'd be happy to have her spine cured if someone invented a way for the nerves to grow back, but she doesn't want a cyborg solution - she just don't wanna be a cyborg, is all. That's a perfectly fine motivation! She'd lived most of her life walking (running, jumping, climbing, she was quite the acrobat), so makes sense that she'd have a preference for getting all that back, but it's also fine for her to just not wanna be a cyborg. 

However, most writers did a different explanation, which I think became the canonical one: Babs thought it would be unfair to all the other wheelchair users out there to accept the cyborg solution. She'd only accept it once it was available to the general public (so probably never in the USA, where she lived). So this is a sort of political motivation, but one that doesn't reject the medical perspective at all, and furthermore, it's ridiculous! Babs regularly used all kinds of amazing tech unavailable to most people - she even used to travel back and forth between Earth and the Justice League space station, in the League's teleportation machine! Apparently, this wasn't unfair to everyone else who could only dream of doing such things, but walking via cyborg gizmo would be.

They should either have stuck with the "I just don't want to be a cyborg" motivation, or given her a political motivation centred around disability activism, rather than some nebulous "fairness considerations" that apparently apply only to walking tech but no other tech. Finally, they should have given her a wider variety of chairs.
I get that she wanted to use a regular, manual wheelchair to get around most of the time. Asking why she'd use her arms to get around rather than drive something electric is like asking why Batman walks with his legs instead of driving everywhere in some vehicle. But she should have other options, like more mech warrior like options, for situations like when she's in the space satellite and it gets attacked by enemies for the umpteenth time. Sometimes, in the old comics I read, she almost came across as a lone luddite among enthusiastic tech bros. It's one thing not to give the disabled character tons of tech that erases their disability. It's quite another to give them less tech than their able-bodied but still non-powered counterparts, like Batman, because the disabled person must be "representative" in what they use.
Anyway. All of this is moot now since, after a few decades, DC cured her anyway and had her return to being Batgirl. 

The easiest version of "disabled character rejects an offered cure" to execute well is probably to abstain from perfect, magical cures, and instead have treatments that come with both pros and cons. They may be fantastical by real-world standards, but nevertheless involve pain, arduous rehabs or some other type of cost. A character can weigh the pros and cons and decide it's not worth it - and maybe do so against the expectations of other people who assume that they'd obviously want to be cured, and that any price should be worth paying. 

This was something Marvel's first Doctor Strange movie did pretty well, I think. The movie has been divisive since Strange starts out absolutely desperate to be cured. Still, we've seen that his entire identity revolves around his job (and the fame and money it's brought), so it's plausible that a career-ending disability would render him desperate. His girlfriend calls him out, too, and says look, you gotta get on with life and find some other job to do! She's proven right in the end, though not quite in the way she thought; she figured he could be a teacher at med school, and instead he became a sorcerer. Still, though. He did find another job, eventually, that he could do with his disability. He chose not to cure himself via magic since this would require constant concentration to uphold, and leave him with less magic for other, more important things. So, it's a thoroughly fantastical movie, but it's a fine and realistic ending in that the main character realizes that
a) contrary to what he thought right after his accident, his disability isn't the end of the world, and
b) now when he knows of a way to cure it, it's actually not worth it, there are better things to use his resources for.
It's only too bad that Marvel completely forgot about his disability in later movies, but I guess this is as good as it gets in the MCU. 

Also, if you're thinking of cures in terms of pros and cons, then there will be cases where it is best to be cured, and it's not ableist to say so. I saw this bizarre discussion about the character Ghost, also from the MCU, where one person insisted that portraying her as desperate for a cure for her condition was ableist. But her fantastical condition, besides giving her superpowers, is extremely painful and actively killing her. She's only in her early twenties, but we're told she'll be dead in a couple of months unless she finds a cure. Her wanting a cure is no more ableist than when a young person dying in cancer tries every treatment the medical profession has to offer because they want to live.

Concluding lines

This is something writers should think about, and put some mental effort into. Not just throw out that old magical cure trope - nor simply reverse it and think you're being progressive because you did it the other way around!

On pushing yourself and ignoring self-care as a disabled person

 This is something I've discussed a lot with my friend and fellow scholar Christine Bylund. She's an ethnologist, I'm a philosopher. She's got cerebral palsy, and I'm mad. But we have some common experiences of having pushed ourselves hard to get where we are now, while other people blame us for doing so (yeah, yeah, you don't want to call this blame - but I don't care what you wanna call it. I say "blame" anyway). Other people will blame you for supposedly internalizing destructive societal norms about the importance of hard work and grit. Other people will tell you that you ought to let go of these norms, and get better at self-care. This is because other people erroneously believe that this is always possible to do without serious negative consequences. 

1. Deterioration of the welfare state

Many western European countries that used to have strong welfare states and where strong job security used to be the norm have changed drastically over the last decades. Sweden is one of those. 

Bylund's doctoral dissertation features interviews with three generations of disabled people; the oldies who grew up in institutions, the middle-aged ones who grew up in a time where they had rights and real possibilities to live normal lives, and the young ones who have seen their rights seriously eroded - not so much on paper as in practice.
Laws aren't magic. If an entire system and most of the people who work there habitually ignore legal rights and entitlements because cutting costs is considered more important, there may be nothing that the system's victims can do about it. Sometimes, initially dismissed disabled people eventually get what they're entitled to through lots of stubbornness, information gathering, and legal council. Still, at the end of the day, you're always at the mercy of the people in charge; unless they listen, you can't force money, accommodations or assistance out of them. 

Nowadays, if you don't have a job, you might not have any money at all. You might lose all of your income, and lose your home. You might lose everything - especially if you're chronically ill or disabled.
Perhaps people close to you have a little money with which they try to help as best they can. Perhaps you can survive by the good graces of your parents or romantic partner. But as any feminist from the last few centuries can tell you, being wholly financially dependent on another is not without problems, even if their money is enough for both of you.

There's this well-known phenomenon where people think, of various calamities, that it won't happen to them. No particular reason, they're just irrationally certain that they will remain lucky. In a similar vein, many people apparently believe that no serious calamities can possibly befall people they know, who are perceived as being sufficiently similar to them. Therefore, many normate scholars believe that chronically ill or disabled scholars whom they know and have lots in common with, cannot possibly lose everything. Subsequently, they can't grasp why those disabled people keep struggling and pushing themselves instead of doing proper self-care.
Well. Everyone who ever lost everything had people who knew them; people who thought that nothing this bad could possibly happen to someone they know. Didn't save them.

2. In my best interest

Before I got my current job, I spent years in a downward spiral of deteriorating mental health which I (eventually in vain) tried to compensate for by taking more and more pills, as I moved from one fixed-term job to another. This wasn't because I thought going on sick leave would be shameful because of internalized job norms and blablabla. In the late nineties, I was on sick leave for six months at one point. I've been on sick leave for a month or two later than that. But nowadays, going on sick leave for mental problems is risky. Försäkringskassan (the public health insurance agency) may hound you - you should get back to work soon! You've been on sick leave long enough now! Time to recover already! Time to get back! - so much that the stress makes you sicker. And what happens if you go on sick leave and only get sicker and sicker? Eventually, they might simply kick you out of the system. If you're in terrible shape and absolutely can't work at this point, well, too bad - you've lost everything (see above). 

However, thanks to how I continued to push myself, combined with some much-needed good luck (we always need luck too, it's never all about your own effort), I finally landed my current job. I finally got job security, financial security, a generally idyllic and far less stressful life. I could finally begin to recover. 

It sucks balls - big, stinking donkey balls - that society looks like this. But given the way things are, I did what was in my best interests. Don't blame me for pushing myself "too hard" - blame society. 

3. In capitalism's best interests?

Occasionally, I come across the following idea: By dropping out of school or the workforce, we somehow hurt capitalism (I should add that it's people who see hurting capitalism as a worthy goal who claim this, not liberals and conservatives who worry that capitalism might get hurt). If this were right, there would exist a tension between on the one hand looking after your own interests and push yourself so you don't lose your income and home, and on the other hand fighting capitalism by dropping out.

This is wrong. Single individuals can't hurt the system by dropping out of job/school.
When most or all workers in a company strikes, the company is hurt. If most or all Swedish citizens went on strike at the same time, the nation would be hurt. Whether this is a good idea for a revolution really depends on how the entire plan would look and what is supposed to come after, but there's no doubt that it would have drastic effects. But single individuals can't hurt capitalism as a system by dropping out - and I'm not saying this merely because everything a single person does (unless that person holds a powerful position) has negligible effects. 

People have argued that it's pointless to go vegan, or pointless to go by train instead of plane, since the consequences of a single person's choices are negligible. However, some people who make that argument go on to say that we should, instead, focus on voting for political parties with good environmental policies (animal welfare policies, etc.) and support the right organizations. But the consequences of individual votes and individual memberships are negligible too. For my own part, I'm of a more Kantian than consequentialist bend, so I don't fret over negligible consequences; there are also consequentialists who try to show that the right kind of "moral mathematics" support the importance of individual choices after all.
In any case, going vegan, taking the train, voting for decent political parties, etc., are all importantly different from dropping out of school/job. Whereas, for instance, going vegan means that the meat industry gets a little less money than if I had continued to buy meat, capitalism as a whole isn't even a little hurt when I drop out. The meat industry doesn't need vegans, but capitalism needs the poor, desperate and unemployed. 

First, demand for workers isn't constant, it varies over time. Employers prefer a scenario in which there are unemployed, poor, and desperate people they can hire straight away when they suddenly need more workers, to a scenario in which they must outbid the competition to increase their staff.
Second, it's advantegous for employers that people who already have a job are afraid to lose it - scared workers will work harder and complain less. In addition to their function as "spares", unemployed, poor, and desperate people also serve as cautionary tales: Look! This is what happens to people who claim they're too sick to work. Watch and learn. Watch, and struggle for another day.

If you work or study, sure, you're a cog in the larger capitalist machine. But if you drop out, you're still a useful cog.

To sum up: Stop blaming disabled people for allegedly pushing themselves too hard. Blame society. Or better still; get politically active yourself and try to change things.

Animal experimentation and experiments on humans

 It's widely accepted that whether medical experiments on animals - not any particular experiment, but the institution at large - is morally justified, completely hinges on whether non-human animals have the same moral status as humans. It's widely believed that if the animal rights people were right, it would follow that animal experimentation would be unjustified. But if the common view on which much of legislation and common-sense morality rest (in my own Sweden and many other countries) is correct - that is, if the moral status of non-human animals is substantial but far less than that of humans - animal experimentation is easily morally justified. We may quibble about particular experiments, but by and large, the benefits for mankind outweighs all the animal suffering. 

Sometimes animal experimentation is argued for by the ridiculously bad argument that scientists who do animal experiments aren't evil, and wouldn't harm animals unless it was absolutely necessary. But of course the disjunction "either scientists are evil, or all their choices are morally optimal" is false. I know very well that scientists who do animal experiments tend to think that what they're doing is necessary and for the best. But just like everyone else, scientists may be morally mistaken.
Sometimes animal experimentation is argued for by the likewise ridiculously bad argument that everyone would want to save their child rather than a rat in an emergency - say, the old philosophy favourite of a burning house, and you only have time to rescue one of the living beings trapped inside before the whole thing collapses. Well, I for one would also want to save my child if I had one - or any child, really - rather than, say, Niklas "Hagamannen" Lindgren from that same burning building (for all you non-Swedes, he committed a series of brutal rapes in the late 1990s/early 00s). I wouldn't flip a coin, I'd try to save the child without a second thought. But I'm not thereby, on pain of inconsistency, forced to embrace the idea of non-consensual harmful medical experiments on convicts. I believe that even Niklas Lindgren, as horrible as he is, should have his basic human rights respected. Non-consensual harmful medical experiments is a completely different beast to "who would you save out of a burning building, if you could only save one?"

Thus, both these pro-vivisection arguments are ridiculously bad. Moreover:

1. LaFolette and Shanks' classic paper - the moral calculation just doesn't check out, even if we accept that non-human animals have far lower moral status than humans

It is widely accepted that animal experiments are easily morally justified on the assumption that animals have lower moral status than humans, despite this decades-old paper by LaFolette and Shanks. Their argument in the paper goes roughly like this: People defend animal experimentation by consequentialist arguments. They argue that since non-human animals have less worth than humans, and their suffering subsequently matters less, then

(animal suffering)<(human health benefits)

- thus, moral justification. But actually, even if we accept the premise that animals have lower moral status, so that, say, a hundred pain units as experienced by mice can be outweighed by only one health benefit unit as experienced by a human being, the calculation is much more complicated than that, and unlikely to check out.

First, on any consequentialist calculation, numbers matter. We have to factor in the enormous number of suffering lab animals.

Also, on any consequentialist calculation - heck, on standard decision-theory! on simple common sense! - probabilities matter. When we harm animals in a medical expeirment, their suffering is certain, but whether humans will benefit from this or that research program is always very uncertain. If we look at heavily funded medical research areas like cancer and Alzeimers, the success rates are abysmal. About 97% of all new cancer drugs that look promising on the animal experimentation stage, and 99% of all new Alzeimer drugs, fail to reach the market for human patients. (There's tons written about the "translation problem" - most of it not from opponents to animal experimentation, who usually focus more on animal rights arguments, but from a general scientific standpoint. Even if you wouldn't give a fuck about animals, this is obviously a big problem.)
Actually, since humans so often react differently to drugs than non-human animals do, it's highly likely that some drugs that were abandoned before going to human trials - because they were harmful for or at least not helpful for the lab animals -  would have been great for human patients.

Moreover, in all other areas of the law and common-sense morality, we treat the distinction between action and omission as extremely important - even more important than the animal-human distinction. We have laws against wanton animal cruelty, but there are no laws against not benefitting random strangers. Even jurisdictions that have "duty to assist" laws only require that people do something - like call the police or an ambulance - when they witness an immediate emergency. No one is legally required to do things that benefit unidentified strangers in the future, such as give money to or work for charity programs. But animal experimentation is all about intentionally harming animals in order to maybe, possibly, benefit unidentified strangers in the future. 

What we have here isn't (animal suffering) vs (human health benefits). It's 

(animal suffering)X(huge number)X(100%certainty)X(the moral seriousness of acting)
vs
(human health benefits)X(some much lower number)X(some low probability)X(the lower moral seriousness of omission)

- it's just highly implausible that the calculation checks out - i.e., that multiplying everything on the animal side will yield a lower total score than when we multiply everything on the human side - even if we accept the premise that animals have much lower moral status than humans. 

2. The alternative timeline

 In addition to the above, it's a mistake to look at all the medicines and medical procedures we have and declare that we would have none of them without animal experiments. It's a huge mistake to say that we would have been stuck with early twentieth century medicine still, if early twentieth century protests against animal experiments had succeeded in getting these practices banned. 

Compare: In the early twentieth century, there were both electric cars and fossile-fuel cars around. For various reasons, car manufacturers then went with fossile-fuel cars. The developtment of electric cars got stalled, and didn't pick up again until we got a serious debate about fossile fuels and the greenhouse effect.
Suppose someone had said, twenty years ago: "Okay, fossile fuels are bad for the climate. Still though, I'm happy that car manufactorers put all these resources into developing good petrol cars. Otherwise, we would be stuck with electric cars only, and they are so crap! There are so few of them for starters, extremely difficult to even buy one if you want to. There's almost nowhere you can charge them, and you can only drive them for very very short distances before you need to recharge. So I'm really glad we have fossile fuel cars to drive!"
That person would be seriously confused, because if car manufacturers had gone all in with electric cars in the early twentieth century, clearly those would have been pretty good at the turn of the millenium. We don't know how good, exactly, but much better in this alternative timeline than they were in the real world. 

Although we don't know what the state of medicine would be in the alternative scenario in which animal experimentation got banned in the early twentieth century, we can be pretty certain advances would still have been made. Scientists and doctors wouldn't just have shrugged and given up completely because they couldn't experiment on animals. 

Moreover, this makes the above calculation even more complicated. On the human benefit side, we should actually put only those human benefits that we couldn't get by any other method. Now, someone might say that no one would do animal experiments if there was any other way, so this is a moot point - but see above. Just because scientists aren't evil and relish in tormenting animals, this doesn't mean that they make optimal choices all the time. All researchers in all fields have a tendency to continue using established methods which aren't necessarily perfect.

 3. Animal experiments to save poor marginalized humans?

Some people argue that we should have animal experiments because otherwise, medical scientists will surely torment poor marginalized humans instead. Sometimes people then proceed to list Doctor Mengele's concentration camp experiments, the Tuskagee syphilis study, or, in a Swedish context, the Vipeholm dental health study. However, none of these terrible experiments or studies took place because animal experiments had been banned. These researchers didn't reluctantly harm humans because they couldn't harm animals - on the contrary, animal experiments were less regulated back then than they are now. 

Researchers have experimented on disabled and otherewise oppressed and marginalized humans either for purely sadistic reasons, or because they can get human data that way. As I pointed out above, very little of what works for lab animals end up working for humans. 

Rules and legislation for animal experimentation explicitly embraces the view that it is morally right to harm and kill those who have lower moral status if there's some chance that doing so might benefit those with higher moral status. This isn't supposed to threaten disabled and marginalized people, because we're supposed to have the same moral status as all other humans, all humans are supposed to be equal. 

HOWEVER.

Disability activists have seriously questioned whether this really is the case. For instance, psychology professor Dick Sobsey wrote this important article on the murder of Tracy Latimer, who was killed by her own father. He shut her in the family car, started the engine and lead the exhaust fumes in to her until she died. The father initially tried to get away with the murder, changed his story multiple times, but eventually claimed that he had carbon-monoxide-poisoned Tracy for her own good, because she had cerebral palsy and suffered so. Despite the fact that even his final story contained many claims that were weird from a purely medical perspective about Tracy’s condition and her suffering, both mainstream media and famous philosophy professor James Rachels bought his story wholesale, and considered it outrageous that he was sentenced to prison when he only wanted what was best for his daughter.
This is nothing unique when it comes to murders of disabled people, which Sobsey discusses further in the article. It's often assumed that the murder was for the best, that the murderer tells the truth when he calls it a "mercy killing", even if there's no other evidence whatsoever that the victim wanted to die.
There are several cases of disabled patients in countries with legalized active euthanasia who testify that clinicians have tried to pressure them into choosing death, like CanadianRoger Foley. Movies, TV shows and books frequently portray disabled people's death as bittersweet rather than wholly tragic - so sad, but they're finally free of their terrible existence! And there are many, many blogs and social media accounts which collect anecdotes from disabled people, or parents of disabled people, who's heard the most terrible comments from others who may not perceive themselves as hateful at all, but rather as compassionate and well-meaning. 

And then, of course, we have the philosophers. James Rachels argued in a textbook used by millions of students worldwide that the killing of Tracy Latimer was morally right, we can see this if only we think rationally about the matter and don't get too emotional. Peter Singer argues that non-human animals and disabled people live worse lives than normal people do, that it may be right to kill both disabled people and non-human animals in situations in which it's absolutely not okay to kill normal people, and that illness and death of the disabled or the non-human just don't weigh as heavily in the utilitarian calculation as the death of normal people do.
Other philosophers absolutely don't want to equate disabled people with animals, because they're not some kind of animal liberation extremists like Singer! Of course humans differ, morally, from non-humans! But they still strain really hard to explain why disabled people, intellectually disabled in particular, should be included in the realm of individuals with full moral status. Maybe the disabled could have a kind of honorary human status, despite not being truly fully human? This idea comes up again and again in the literature. 

I really don't think the combination of the rampant ableism that exists in society, and the explicit endorsement of the view that it's right to harm and kill those with lower worth if there's some possible future benefit to be had for those with higher worth, puts disabled people in a very secure position. Experiments on disabled or marginalized humans would be more unthinkable and our situation more secure if society ditched the idea that we can justifiably harm less valuable individuals for the sake of the more valuable ones.