One Health. Группа авторов
with human and animal health as One Health inevitably sheds light on the human–animal relationship and bond. Domestication of wild animals was one of the fundamental cultural achievements of humans, and the use of animals for hunting and as livestock was critical for human development and culture. One Health, even in a more restricted definition as offered here, faces challenging questions regarding cultural differences in view of animals and how they are valued. Thus One Health should reflect on the normative aspects (values) of the human–animal relationship with emphasis on improving animal protection and welfare (see also Wettlaufer et al., Chapter 11, this volume; Hediger and Beetz, Chapter 26, this volume; and Fries and Tschanz Cooke, Chapter 27, this volume). Secondly, even if ecological resilience or health is not the primary outcome of concern, One Health implies an interface of humans and animals with the environment, which can be highly complex, requiring systemic approaches to the physical and social environment. They relate human and environmental systems and are also called social-ecological systems (SES). SES relate to theory of complexity (Ostrom, 2007). Thirdly, One Health empirical experience involves not only human and animal health professionals but also reaches out to many other academic domains, as well as to non-academic actors like public and private institutions, authorities, civil societies, communities and households. It engages with the public in a transdisciplinary way, considering all forms of academic and non-academic knowledge for practical problem solving at the animal–human interface. The strongest leverage of One Health is observed when it is applied to practical societal problem solving (Berger-González et al., Chapter 6, this volume).
Normative aspects of the human–animal relationship
Similarly to the human–human relationship, the human–animal relationship is governed by norms and values determined by culture and religion. Animals are regarded as intimate companions with a high emotional value or simply as prey with a financial value for their meat. Humans are also valued as prey by animals under certain circumstances. This is certainly one of the reasons for deep-seated fears against wildlife, which have led to the extinction or threat of extinction of predators in large parts of the world (White et al., Chapter 3, this volume; Bunch and Waltner-Toews, Chapter 4, this volume). There is no biological reason why humans should not consider their surrounding domesticated animals and wildlife as close relatives and treat them with utmost care. Currently, on the one hand, globalized livestock production maximizes profits with little regard for humane standards towards animals. At the same time, moderate intensification of livestock production is a way out of the poverty trap for millions of smallholder farmers. On the other hand, we observe very close relationships with companion animals, to the point of humanizing them and considering them as family members. Although not adhering to any of the more dogmatic and naturalist-populist moves, with promotion of person rights to primates and whales, we must recognize that animals cannot be considered as commodities without certain rights. We refer the reader to the growing literature on the moral status of animals and animal welfare (Wettlaufer et al., Chapter 11, this volume). More recently and controversially, these considerations have been extended to arthropods (Waltner-Toews and Houle, 2017).
Ancient Egyptians saw humans and animals as ‘one flock of God’, and contemporary Fulani express similar views in their creation myths in West Africa (Sow, 1966). Medical knowledge in India is influenced by beliefs about metempsychosis and reincarnation between animals and humans. According to various schools of Hindu spirituality, there is no distinction between human beings and other life forms. All life forms, including plants and animals, possess souls, and humans can be reborn as animals and vice versa. Such thinking greatly influences how animals are perceived and handled. Comparable to Hinduism2 and Jainism, in Buddhism, as little harm as possible is done to animals. Buddhists treat the lives of human and non-human animals with equal respect (Ryder, 1964; Cowell, 1973; Sangave, 1991). Judeo-Christian traditions focused less on spiritual kinship than on the moral and empirical responsibilities of humans towards other animals. Biblical texts report that humans and terrestrial animals were created on the same day, and the Sabbath regulations also imply the resting of livestock, indicating a strong co-creational attitude in the Judeo-Christian Bible. In the Qur’an, animals are considered close to humans. Modern animal welfare has roots in southern German pietism, and here we cite Albert Schweitzer, inspired for his philosophical idea of ‘reverence for life’, or in the original German language: ‘Ehrfurcht vor dem Leben’. In summary, the contemporary human–animal relationship is polarized between merciless exploitation of livestock and humanizing of pets. Within the dilemma of aspirations of a globalized economy, social development and animal welfare, culture and religion as well as economic considerations largely influence the human–animal relationship and subsequently the potential of a closer cooperation of human and animal health.
Working in different cultures to achieve One Health outcomes implies adopting the view that there are multiple legitimate perspectives and that practices must be adapted to local contexts. We need to clarify both our own perspective and point of view. Adopting a self-reflexive attitude, we may ask, ‘What is the personal cultural/religious background driving my animal–human relationship?’ Our own attitude towards animals influences how we value animal life economically or emotionally. For example, the dogs in Fig. 2.1A have a market value for consumption of approximately US$12 in a local market in West Africa, whereas the pet cat in Fig. 2.1B is part of a household in Europe, with a willingness to spend a considerable amount of money on veterinary care. Consequently, when we report about our research from One Health studies we also need to explain the perspective (i.e. the social, cultural and religious background, from which the animal–human relationship is seen) as it strongly determines the valuing in economic frameworks and societal contexts (Zinsstag and Weiss, 2001; Narrod et al., 2012). The overarching approach in practising One Health, however, clearly ought not to be driven by any specific perspective but rather by the pragmatic approach, which effectively brings together resources from different disciplines and resources to address the priorities of the concerned human and animal populations.
Fig. 2.1. A dog trader on his way to the market in Eastern Mali, West Africa (A) and pet cat in a household in Switzerland (B). Photos courtesy of J. Zinsstag.
One Health and animal ethical and welfare issues
A One Health perspective also encompasses reflections on human and animal well-being per se. Humans have rights and seek to maximize their well-being. Similarly, one might ask, if animals have rights, how do we consider their well-being (Wettlaufer et al., Chapter 11 this volume)? Despite an overall protective attitude in most cultures and religions, the reality is often appalling. Worldwide, and across different cultures and religions, millions of animals are reared, transported and slaughtered under terribly inhumane conditions, urgently calling for much stronger engagement on animal protection and welfare.
Animal biodiversity contributes to stable ecosystem services, and extensive livestock rearing maintains carbon sequestration in semi-arid areas. Animal disease threatens