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 human health and food security, for example through transmission of zoonotic diseases or loss of animals for ploughing. Large parts of the world could not be inhabited without the use of livestock in a moderate way. Consequently, we can no longer close our eyes to the close linkage, interrelations and interdependencies of human and animal health without considering simultaneously maintenance of stable ecosystem services, some of which are seriously threatened by livestock rearing methods and/or excessive human exploitive activities.
Peter Rabinowitz, an occupational physician at Yale University proposed that humans should change their point of view towards animals from an ‘us versus them’ to a ‘shared risk’ attitude between humans and animals (Rabinowitz et al., 2008; Rabinowitz and Conti, 2010). As an example, we can consider the high cancer rate of beluga whales in the Saguenay Fjord in Canada. Belugas are continually exposed to industrial and other human-derived wastes. The beluga cancer incidence has become an indicator of environmental quality. Humans therefore have an interest in preserving the quality of the environment in a state that does not adversely affect both whale and human health.
From an integrative One Health, conservation biology and/or an ecosystem perspective, animals should be much better valued and treated as part of an overall effort to maintain and sustain ecosystem integrity and, thus, comprehensive well-being. This involves, among other things, animal husbandry and rearing, animal transport, slaughter practices, animal traction and wildlife conservation (see White et al., Chapter 3, this volume; Bunch and Waltner-Toews, Chapter 4, this volume; Wettlaufer et al., Chapter 11, this volume).
Globally, most livestock holders treat their animals well. In Fig. 2.2 we observe a nearly unrestrained type of animal husbandry. The horse being milked by the Kyrgyz lady stands still without being tied. Similarly, the camels and donkeys in Ethiopia are calm and obviously well treated. However, animal welfare is clearly insufficient in semi-intensive and intensive production systems. Livestock holders should be continuously trained on best animal welfare practices in their
