Not only in the equestrian community but also in more general debates on technology, privacy, and control, British Columbia’s new horse microchipping program is generating waves.
Advocates of animal welfare and disease control are touting it as a breakthrough. Critics call it a warning shot. Things start to feel less like a local policy and more like the setup for a dystopian book when you zoom out to the global scene when organizations like the UN and the World Economic Forum (WEF) are sketching big plans for tech-driven tracking systems.
The regulation calls for implanting RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) chips in every horse in British Columbia. These roughly grain-sized chips provide data about the horse’s identification, medical history, and ownership. Sounds benign enough, right? Pet owners have been chipping their dogs and cats for years after all.
The twist is that this is a required rather than optional policy. And required technology always with strings attached. Although the government assures us this is all about safeguarding horses from theft, disease, and mistreatment, some are questioning what this type of program could entail going forward.
The Bigger View: UN, WEF, and the “Internet of Everything.”
If you think this solely applies to farm animals, reconsider. Globally, groups like the UN and WEF have been building the foundation for what they refer to as “full traceability.” Translation: a period when everything—yes, everything—may be followed in real-time.
Consider the WEF’s “Internet of Bodies” idea, which links objects, animals, and people via implanted or worn technology. The pitch is shiny: transformed world security, sustainable farming, and modern medicine. As it stands? Critics contend it is a privacy and control disaster just waiting to happen.
This also comes through in the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Their vision calls for a worldwide inventory of all resources, living entities, and products—a system run on tech akin to RFID chips, GPS tracking, and biometric data. Today, it’s horses. Perhaps it will be cattle tomorrow. And someday? Well, who’s to say it doesn’t slink into our lives as well?
BC’s microchipping program’s detractors are not purchasing the “it’s just horses” justification. According to history, technology hardly ever serves its initial intent. Social media began as a means of staying in touch with friends; today it serves as a surveillance tool covered by memes. Facial recognition was meant to identify criminals, yet each time you open your phone, it scans your face.
The worry is that RFID chips can do far more than just monitor horses. They can save and forward information on location, health, and even behaviour. One policy change away is widening their application.
Should this technology begin tracking other animals—or perhaps humans—what happens? Scaling back Which protections exist to guarantee the gathered data isn’t misused? Who has this data? Who has power over it? And should it find the wrong hands, what happens?
The point of criticism is not that chipping horses is intrinsically bad. Accepting forced monitoring of living entities creates a barrier that is difficult to close.
Advocates of the program contend that this is more about pragmatism than some Orwellian scheme for the subjugation of us. In animals, disease control is vital, and microchips provide a clear, dependable means of monitoring epidemics and preventing their spread before they start. Another actual problem is horse theft; chips make it almost impossible to sell taken animals. Their message? Calm yourself. This is about making sure horses are cared for properly and tracked down, not about world monitoring.
Even advocates must acknowledge that the technology itself poses a significant challenge. Once it’s in place, it could be modified for uses much outside its initial intent.
The significant question then is: How far is too far? Although the horse microchipping program of British Columbia seems like a little sensible action, the ramifications are drawing criticism. This little measure feels like a test run for something far more, as worldwide groups like the UN and WEF advocate sweeping “track and trace” systems for all living entities.
Horses nowadays. Maybe all of it tomorrow is livestock. And at last? Well, let’s just say history shows us that, when it comes to technology, what starts as “voluntary” or “practical” doesn’t necessarily remain that way.
All things considered? Although these initiatives may be motivated by noble intentions, beneficial intentions by themselves may not ensure excellent results. This is a discussion worth listening to regardless of your level of horse ownership or simply the value of your freedom. The road to comprehensive surveillance is paved with microchips and assurances of protection, not with hatred most of the time.
– A Cowichan Equestrian
