Animal Rights

Well, I've seen some people do some dumb things too.

Dr_Evil - All I can say to you in argument about eating meat is - I do because I like it. As Vince said in Pulp Fiction "Pork chops taste good, bacon tastes good".

Cows, pigs, sheep, chickens etc are part of the food chain. Have been since they first walked the Earth. Animal rights is baloney, animals live according to the laws of nature, not some ideal we create for them. That being said, as humans we should act humanely towards animals. Cruelty to animals is totally abhorrent. So as a food source, I have no problems using animals, in my opinion most modern societies slaughter animals in a humane way.

 

Animal cruelty is wrong.


Eating animals isn't.

 

So, animal rights must also be clarified. In its most simplistic form animals should be give the right to exist as they were intended.

Who decides what "intended" means?

To live naturally and fill there roles in the ecosystem. Above all they should be free from unneccessary torture and harm.

What do you think our role is? To be the first altruistic species on the planet? Our "natural" role is to preserve our genome. How do you know that our role isn't to destroy 1/5th of the earth's current existing species, until we destroy ourselves and make room for some other species? I'm not suggesting we go out and be wasteful and kill everything on the planet. However, if you think about it, even the desire to preserve other animals is a selfish one... because its primary aim has to do with either the ecological or psychological benefits which ultimately serve to further our existence and our quality of life.

The slaughter of animals is not always done "humanely"... although it's absurd to think of slaughter in terms of "humane" or "inhumane". What does "humane" mean? Is it relevant to say that a lion is being "inhumane" when it mauls its lunch? Is it relevant to say that a human is being "unfeline" when we eat with forks?

There are two sources of fuel that facilitate life on this planet... hydrocarbons and carbohydrates... both are organic compounds. Why don't we feel devastated about the millions of bacteria we eradicate every year with prescription drugs, just for the sake of making ourselves feel better?

The next time you get sick... will you curl up and die, or will you "roll up the sleeves" and do your best to help your body destroy bacteria colonies living at your expense?

One must also distinguish between local and global benefits... at the individual level, one might say that I exist at the expense of other organisms... but at the species level, there are many groups of species which exist at the expense of humans. Bacteria, fungi, plants, animals, etc.

There are other organisms which are also at the "top" of their food chain economies of scale... Just because they have achieved this status, you don't necessarily see them contemplating altruistic behavior. They, as most DNA-based life would, are primarily concerned, at the most basic level, with the procreation of their genome. Is there a reason you believe we are uniquely free from the programmed instinct of self-preservation?

One day, the tables will turn on us... either by way of natural selection, genetic drift, environmental change, intestellar catastrophe or some other mechanism... until then, we might just take out half the species on the planet, (then again maybe not)... but who cares? Then it will be bacteria's turn all over again.

Billions of years from now, the earth will be incinerated by solar expansion... and the components of organic life (as we know it) may even cease to exist... and life may continue in either a similar or entirely different fashion elsewhere in the universe (or it could be beginning somewhere right now...).

My point is, there's no altruism in the animal rights question. It is entirely directed towards selfish ends... whether psychological or ecological, we're the ones who benefit from this thinking.

It's nice to think for one's own "peace of mind" that at least I left the planet in the same condition it was when I came here. But hey, let's call a spade a spade. Environmentalism, conservation, even animal rights... are all means to an ultimately selfish end... our own survival being foremost in our minds.

When some other organism surpasses us in adaptability, technological capacity, sheer numbers and we become its prey... do you honestly think it will put "human rights" before its own?

If you do... please explain what benefit is derived by a selfless species. Logically, an entirely selfless species would consume absolutely no hydrocarbons or carbohydrates... as they are all organic compounds... and therefore, this species would starve itself to extinction.

 

Funny, i had a guy tell me once that milking cows was inhuman. i guess he had never been to close to a cow that hasent been milked in a week.

Truth is, animals like cows and chickens (and in some countries dogs) are not here to entertain us, they are here to feed us. Its true that they feel pain, but the truth is the only reason they exist is to procreate and make more of themselves. they dont even understand that they exist. i do agree that torturing an animal for no reason is pretty stupid, but to slaughter and animal to feed another is not. what are they going to do next? tell the cheeta that it cant eat that antilope becasue it is crule to the antilope? well i hate to tell you but it aitn to nice to the cheeta either!

 

There are definitely animals that are self-aware. Anyone who's met my parrot can testify to that.

in my opinion most modern societies slaughter animals in a humane way.

Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. My hubby and I saw a non-profit tv program the other day which ran a videotape that had been filmed at local slaughterhouses. We were both in tears... it was disgusting. You should have heard the cries these animals made. They were like children... bound upside down by one leg, alive, mutilated as other animals near them were killed. I have never seen anything so desperately cruel, except for perhaps a video of the dolphin slaughter off the coast of Japan. (A beached mother dolphin was trying desperately reach her baby, who was crying for her. Just as they touched noses, she was bludgeoned to death.) You should have heard the screaming. It was so eerily human...

 

i think it's really cruel what many people do to animals. humans often don't treat their fellow living creatures with enough respect.

 

Most abattoirs are humane, there may be the odd hicksville one that isn't, but regulatory bodies should either make them change or shut them down. I have seen both cattle and chickens being slaughtered and I think in this country at least it is done in the least unpleasant way possible.

 

While I cannot abide animal cruelty, I do not cry when an animal is slaughtered. I am of mind that, since we are at the op of the food chain, that all lesser animals are fair game for us to feed on. Simple as that. And to think that slaughtering of livestock is cowardly is rather inane. Doing this allows us to feed a large population. It is efficent and gives us a better chance of survival. We can focus our lives on other things instead of worrying about where our next meal is coming from.

Also, medical testing on animals, though could be considered cruel in some instances, I would rather they be tested first THEN on humans, than start with possibly endangering human lives. Our lives or more precious.

Ciou-See the Sig

 

Unfortunately, this was a video of a slaughterhouse in the Twin Cities... not exactly "hicksville".

At least there are some with humane practices, Uruk, but I'd still rather buy free-range meat. (Where the animal has had some kind of life.)

 

Our lives or more precious.

a. Why do you think our lives are more precious or less precious than any others? This is an egocentric view born out of biological ignorance and I fail to see the reasoning behind it.

Doing this allows us to feed a large population.

b. We wouldn't have a large population to feed if we didn't have intensive agriculture in the first place.

It is efficent and gives us a better chance of survival.

c. No, actually living and adapting within our economy of scale, by living, and adapting, within the scope that our given environment will support, gives us a better chance of survival. Going out of our way to overpopulate forces us into the inefficiency of an ever-increasing standard of living.... wasting far more natural resources, real estate and even lives, to produce an agro-industrial existence which serves only to perpetuate itself... and, relatively speaking, does not actually "improve" our lives.

When was the last time you felt ectstatic about sitting in standstill traffic for 45 minutes just to go to a psychologically unrewarding job which barely produces enough cash just to barely pay the bills each month?

What is better, spending 20 hours a week surviving, and the rest enjoying time with your family... or spending 60 to 80 hours a week surviving, and the remainder of your time paying bills, mowing the lawn, fixing the car, sitting in traffic, eating junk food, etc.?

We can focus our lives on other things instead of worrying about where our next meal is coming from.

Actually, hunter-gatherer societies spend less than 1/3 the amount of time working compared to us to achieve the same proportionate existence in terms of survival as well as physical and mental well-being. Unless of course the accumulation of more "stuff" is the be-all, end-all of human existence. Granted, I like my 36" TV... but in all honesty I think I would survive without it.

Ironically, our "upward bound" agricultural society has produced the most sedentary, most obese, and most physically unhealthy specimens in the history of Homo sapiens. If you removed our crutch of technology (including modern medicine), we would be bested by virtually every tribal hunter-gatherer society left on the planet.

 

Oh yeah, we are so unhealthy now, our life expectancy is near 80 yrs while most hunter/gatherer societies is closer to 40.

 

"Their is no greater cause of forest destruction than meat production."

"How so?"


I believe this is a reference to forest clearance in South America to facilitate beef production for fast food chains such as McDonalds.



Edit:

"Since when are cows, chickens, etc. sentient beings?"

I'm curious ... don't you think they have sensory perception?

 

(A beached mother dolphin was trying desperately reach her baby, who was crying for her. Just as they touched noses, she was bludgeoned to death.) You should have heard the screaming. It was so eerily human...

Nothing, nothing pisses me off more than people who are cruel to animals. These stories cuts me deeply.

 

The number four cause of death in the United States is adverse reaction to legally prescribed medications!

It seems that all that cruel testing has yielded nothing but more death.

I suggest that you arent really looking at the big picture.

The number of people that have been helped by cures that have come via research on animals vastly overshadows the number that die because of adverse reactions.

And I'll tell you this, there is no way in hell that scientist can come up with a cure just from the test tube. No way.

Cures start there, but must be tested on animals to see if either they work or dont, or they have adverse side effects.

I guarantee you that if there was no animal testing, and cures were taken from the test tube alone, two things would happen:
1) The cures wouldnt work, so we would have more people dying or in pain
2) Those that are cured will have an much much larger chance of suffering or dying from adverse side effects than they have now.

Nowadays to do research, you require all sorts of ethics approvals, and have all sorts of checks on your work. Animals are almost always treated as humanely as possible.

Perhaps you should look a little more into exactly what the deal is with research, rather than basing your opinion on what is obviously very minimal background.

 

OK, animals have the right to live. But not all of them . Parasite creatures, flies, mosquitoes, homeless biting dogs have no right to live whatsover.

 

Oh yeah, we are so unhealthy now, our life expectancy is near 80 yrs while most hunter/gatherer societies is closer to 40.

That's when you have to ask yourself if quantity of life is better than quality of life. Most psychological studies done on the remaining (intact) hunter-gatherer cultures on the planet find them to be the most content.


I'm glad you didn't see the video. jediguy. It was enough to make me violently ill.

 

We wouldn't have a large population to feed if we didn't have intensive agriculture in the first place.

You really think so? I dont follow your logic. I would think that one is a cause and the other is an effect, with more people comes some more food, not the other way around. May you explain why you are right?

My thoughts on animal testing...

It should be done only in limited situations. It should not be "Oh, what does this do?" and then shot them up. It should only be done when they have an idea of what the drug/whatever will do and just making sure. Thing is that much better data can be found (as far as i know) from animal testing than in a test tube.

Also, what do you mean that it is done in a tube? Do they grow an embro or something and test drugs/stuff on that or how?

 

I would think that one is a cause and the other is an effect, with more people comes some more food, not the other way around.

Something has to support people in the first place. Greater resources sustain a greater population. Numbers just can't grow without an equivalent food supply... our bodies are made of what we ingest.

 

It should be done only in limited situations. It should not be "Oh, what does this do?" and then shot them up. It should only be done when they have an idea of what the drug/whatever will do and just making sure. Thing is that much better data can be found (as far as i know) from animal testing than in a test tube.

Also, what do you mean that it is done in a tube? Do they grow an embro or something and test drugs/stuff on that or how?


You can grow cells in flasks and experiment on them.

New drugs etc are mostly found via their effect on these cells. Eg, different drugs can be combined to form a new drug...and the researchers need to see if it is going to be able to kill the relevant cells. When they are seen to be effective, then researchers move on to animal models to see if it works in the body, and what, if any, side effects may occur.

Drugs and treatments can be found by work 'in the test tube'....but there isnt any way that they are fit to be used on humans until they are extensively tested on animals.

 

Okay, you guys were busy last night and while I would like to answer each and every contentino individually, I do not have the adequete time. I will, however respond to a more recent post.

"I suggest that you arent really looking at the big picture.

The number of people that have been helped by cures that have come via research on animals vastly overshadows the number that die because of adverse reactions.

And I'll tell you this, there is no way in hell that scientist can come up with a cure just from the test tube. No way."

You may have missed the quote I posted from Dr. Mayo on the first page. I cannot claim to be schooled in this particular field of science, so I posted his thoughts on animal testing. He claims that each and every advancement made could have without animals in the lab. Is it your contention that you are higher learned in this are of science than he? If so, I would love to see your credentials.

 

"Drugs and treatments can be found by work 'in the test tube'....but there isnt any way that they are fit to be used on humans until they are extensively tested on animals."

Frustrating. Why must we run experiments on animals? Someone please tell me. We have already established that each and every individual will have a seperate and distinct reaction to each drug. We have also established that with such testing methods, PEOPLE STILL DIE! It is not saving lives. Unless you would like to refute the AMA's claim that I posted on page one you have no contention, merely an opinion. I posted a fact.

The fourth leading cause of death in the United States is prescription drugs...AFTER TESTING!

So, please provide some sort of evidence that these tests are, in fact, beneficial.

Oh, and I would appreciate some clarification on an issue. Are rats so dissimilar from us that testing on them is no longer cruel (I am sure you know that they are afforded NO protection under the law of any kind) or are they so similar that we can glean useful data from them?

Sounds like a hypocritical hypothesis if I have ever heard one.

 

One mans opinion doesnt count for anything. Perhaps you should do a bit more reading than just looking at one person.

If you, or Dr Mayo, thinks that you can skip from in vitro experiments straight to human trials, you are kidding yourself.

The fact of the matter is that there is an absolutely huge (and I cant stress that enough) difference between what you can see in a flask, well removed from any living entity, and what is in a living body. The immune reactions, the macro-responses (tissues, organs, etc) rather than micro (single, or small groups of cells), alterations to the balance of the natural microbiological flora, autoimmune problems. The list goes on. These cannot be seen in a flask. No way.

And you know what, no matter where you go in the world, you will NEVER be allowed to treat humans with drugs that have not been tested on animals. No ethics approvals will be given without knowing the possible effects of the drugs. No National drug administration (Food and Drug Administration in the US, Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia) will EVER give approval to use these drugs without knowing the possible effects. These are shown via animal models.

The fact of the matter is that Dr Mayo is giving his own opinion. You can choose to listen to that, or listen to every official scientific organisation in the world. The choice is yours.

But what would I know? I'm just doing my PhD in Cancer Immunotherapy. I'm just aware of all the different administrative issues required to get approval to test drugs on humans. Obviously I'm too ignorant to see the truth.

The fourth leading cause of death in the United States is prescription drugs...AFTER TESTING!

So, please provide some sort of evidence that these tests are, in fact, beneficial.

*Sigh*. As I said, without the testing on animals, you would have so many more people dying from adverse effects.

Is animal testing perfect? No. Does it cut down on the number of dangerous drugs that would otherwise get through based on in vitro testing? Most definitely.
Get that point into your head. It may not be perfect, but it sure as hell does get rid of a number of drugs that would have bad effects on many many people.

Now, are rats similar to humans? Not particularly. But they are more similar than a few cells in a flask, I can assure you of that.

 

You really think so? I dont follow your logic. I would think that one is a cause and the other is an effect, with more people comes some more food, not the other way around. May you explain why you are right?

You know and I know that people don't just grow on trees or fall out of the sky... and the stork doesn't deliver them either, right? We don't consume mineral deposists, we don't get our nourishment through photosynthesis... so what do you think causes a population increase (not just a stagnant birth-to-death ratio... but an increasingly disproportionate birth-to-death ratio), if not an increase in resource availability?

Yes, more people can create more food by way of contributing to the growth of the agricultural economy... more plows, more farms, etc. However, what facilitated the existence of more people in the first place? They didn't just fall out of the sky, right?

Whenever you have a growing population, if your food supply isn't increasing, your greater number of newborns will probably not last the winter. Last time I checked, even an increase in the number of newborns from year x to year y will not mean that these newborns are ready to start ploughing the fields for at least several years...

So the previous generation already has to have a larger crop planted in the ground before their next, larger generation's survival can be facilitated.

 

DarthDagsy,

"The fact of the matter is that there is an absolutely huge (and I cant stress that enough) difference between what you can see in a flask, well removed from any living entity, and what is in a living body. The immune reactions, the macro-responses (tissues, organs, etc) rather than micro (single, or small groups of cells), alterations to the balance of the natural microbiological flora, autoimmune problems. The list goes on. These cannot be seen in a flask. No way.

And you know what, no matter where you go in the world, you will NEVER be allowed to treat humans with drugs that have not been tested on animals. No ethics approvals will be given without knowing the possible effects of the drugs. No National drug administration (Food and Drug Administration in the US, Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia) will EVER give approval to use these drugs without knowing the possible effects. These are shown via animal models.

The fact of the matter is that Dr Mayo is giving his own opinion. You can choose to listen to that, or listen to every official scientific organisation in the world. The choice is yours."

The fact of the matter is that there is an absolutely huge (and I cant stress that enough) difference between what you can see in the body of a rat and what will truthfully occur in the body of a human.

As far as your EVERS and NEVERS, I am certainly glad that the powers that be, both in Europe and in the United States do NOT share your sentiment and are pushing the three R's. All I can say is that your thinking is extremely closed minded and based soley on your opinion. Of course, you are entitled.

As far as Dr. Mayo and the "every official scientific organization" comment is concerned, well that is obviously a huge over exxageration as many org's are also pushing for the 3R's. Maybe you need to take a trip here. In specific regard to Dr. Mayo, perhaps his opinion is not important to you. How about Einstein or Darwin perhaps?

 

The fourth leading cause of death in the United States is prescription drugs...AFTER TESTING!

Would you rather it be the first (or at least higher) after whatever testing they would then have to do? Or would you rather see the many illnesses that tested drugs treat go up on that list?

(EDIT) Although a rat and a human are diffrent, which do you think would be more accurate, a rat (a complex mammal with many organs and what not), or cells in a test tube?

Animal testing can get results much faster and much more accurately than testing on cells in tubes. Until we know for sure, some new drug may interact with something in the body that people could not have foreseen. Possibly, some part of the body will do something to the drug which would be poison to another part...there are so many possible interactions that a complicated body could do to a drug that without testing it on a well developed body we would be at much more extreme risk to the patents.

So, for the safely of the people who want to be cured of whatever aliment they have, it needs to be tested on some sort of complicated body, something physically similar to humans.

Actually, I would not mind experimental drugs being tested on people as long as there is a somewhat clear idea of what they do. Like "We have this new drug, not fully tested, that should help, if you would like to take it."

I see your point Snowdog, but just to me it makes more sense to think that resources will grow with population. I don?t think there would ever be a sudden boom in population such that the current resources would not be enough. Maybe strained, but still enough for everyone. But it will be strained as population increases, so more will be produced.

Are you saying that since we can make more resources, the population grows, or that we do make more resources the population grows?

I see it more as "hmm, we have more people, make more food." Not "We have extra food, let?s have another kid."

I am probably just young and thinking in a too idealized way.