I grew up in what psychologists of the day would have called a ‘broken’ home. My parents divorced when I was very young and both remarried.
But, that isn’t what I want to touch on today, except to bring up my step-father. My step-father was an extremely intelligent man. Unfortunately that often got lost in the fact that he was also very autocratic and arrogant. I mention this only to illustrate that because of this tendency on his part, the tendency on my part was dismiss much of what he had to say.
However, one thing he did teach me that I did remember was how to play the game of chess. He didn’t just show me how the pieces move. He taught me the strategy behind the game, and most importantly, how to think ahead, and the possible consequences of a particular move.
Thus we get to the subject of this post.
The Law of Unintended Consequences is somewhat akin to Murphy’s Law, which we all know as, if anything can go wrong, it will go wrong. Murphy’s Law however doesn’t need human intervention to occur. It is just a part of natural law.
The Law of Unintended Consequences holds that all human actions, especially by governments, will have at least one (and more often far more than one) ‘unforeseen’ consequence. I maintain they aren’t always so “unforeseen”, but more on that later.
Much of this is because the world is so complex, but a lot of it can be due to human stupidity, self-deception, biases or just plain not thinking ahead. Hence I bring up the chess analogy. People tend not to think “if I do A, what will happen beyond B?” Add to that the need of politicians to appear to be “doing something” in order to look good to their constituents and you can create a real mess.
Not all unintended consequences are necessarily bad. Some can actually be beneficial. The war time sinking ships in shallow water created artificial reefs. Now this is actually done deliberately in some areas.
In medicine, most drugs have unintended consequences associated with their use ('side effects'). However, some are beneficial. For instance, aspirin, a pain reliever, is also an anticoagulant that can help prevent heart attacks and reduce the severity and damage from thrombotic strokes. The existence of beneficial side effects also leads to off-label use — prescription or use of a drug for an unlicensed purpose.
Probably the most colossal disaster of unintended consequences was as a result of Prohibition in the 1920s USA. A ban on alcohol that was meant to suppress the use of alcohol resulted in a huge increase in crime. Black market alcohol sales and the rise of Organized Crime, as well as substantial loss of revenue to the government from taxes were the main unintended consequences.
One of the more recent examples of ‘unintended’ consequences has been the closure of pretty much all equine slaughterhouses in this country. In 2007 Congress eliminated all funding for equine slaughterhouse inspectors, effectively shutting the industry down. Animal rights advocates that had pushed for a ban on equine slaughter celebrated. Some of those advocates are now thinking that celebration may have been a tad bit premature. Some are even calling for reopening a few of these slaughterhouses under “strict guidelines” for humane slaughter. Why the drastic turnaround? Simply put, the ban has had some disastrous unintended consequences.
Horses, like every other living animal, get old, and they get sick. But horses are far more expensive to care for than other domestic animals, and euthanizing a suffering horse can costs hundreds of dollars. Disposing of the body can cost hundreds more. In many locales you can’t simply bury the body. So commercial slaughterhouses—which primarily exported the meat from the animals they killed—were an end-of-life option for thousands of horse owners. Owners now have one less end of life option. Now the animals sold for slaughter are packed in trucks and shipped across the borders to Canada or Mexico, primarily Mexico. Mexico does not have the laws for humane treatment that we have in this country.
A few ‘lucky’ ones end up in the many rescues across the country. However, these rescues are not widespread and their resources are finite. Today nearly every one of them are stretched beyond the breaking point.
There has been a large increase in the number of abandoned and starved horses. There has also been an increase in the number of illegitimate “rescues”. All of which also results in an increase in work for humane officers and animal control agencies across the country at a time when many are facing a severe budget crunch due to the bad economy.
I have been involved, to one degree or another, in the fight against anti pet/animal legislation for over 30 years. Back when it was just beginning to get a foothold across the country. I actually got involved because I lived in Oregon at the time and the push to eliminate logging was getting started. I tried to warn people of where that would lead, but I was in the minority unfortunately. The evidence that I was right is all over the place – but that is a topic for another day.
In the course of that struggle I happened upon a book titled “Hijacking The Humane Movement” by Patti Strand. That book inspired me then and still does today.
I left my beloved Oregon because I saw the liberal/progressive juggernaut taking over and couldn’t stand to watch it. I haven’t been back since.
Some of the animal 'care' laws started small - such as, differential licensing, i.e. higher cost licenses for intact (not neutered) pets. Even this very "simple" law had unforeseen consequences. Every place where diferential licensing was passed, licensing rates dropped. This has two non benefical side effects - loss of license revenue and the increase threat of rabies.
We've moved from that to the spread of Mandatory Spay/Neuter laws across the country. MSN as it is known has caused a multitude of "unforeseen" consequences. I contend these were not 'unforeseen' in some circles.
Mandatory spay/neuter is allegedly supposed to curb the "overpopulation" of pets in shelters. I can write another whole book on the myth of that issue, but will not do so now. Ignoring for now that the whole premise for this intention is questionable, the facts are that the plan doesn't work. MSN has a multitude of unintended consequences, but the two major ones are an increase in the number of animals left at shelters and again, the decrease in the number of animals properly licensed. Another unintended consequence is to actually drive out small 'home' breeders and increase the percentage of puppies provided by commercial breeders (those evil "puppy mills" we are all supposed to hate).
In addition to those unintended consequences, there is a growing body of work that indicates the alledged "health" benefits of neutering are not all they are cracked up to be.
So, to sum up – the next time someone says to you “there ought to be a law” about some perceived ‘ill’ in your community, city or state, stop and pretend you are playing a game of chess. Think – if we make move A, what will happen BEYOND result B. You could be saving yourself, your friends and even society a world of “unintended” consequences.
