Animal Rights

Okay, okay. Let's start at the top. Is there anyone here that believes that animals are NOT sentient beings?

 

Bithysith I'm sorry but you've been duped. The video you saw produced by a non-profit organization cannot be upon simple screening judged representative of the industry. Non-profit organization exist for political purposes. You saw the very worst of the industry. While some of what you were exposed to may have had some truth, if the entire industry were like that then they wouldn't have had to use footage from a foreign country.

There are animals that are sentient and borderline sentient. Wolves, Dolphins, Whales, some members of the "Monkey family", Lions, Elephants for example. Cows, mice, rabbits, chickens, lambs, pigs are however not even close. They don't exhibit any complex emotions.

 

JediTre11, I'm not trying to be funny, but where are you getting your definition of 'sentient'? I've tried several dictionaries and not one comes even close to mentioning 'complex emotions'. For example, a couple of specimen definitions are (1) Having sense perception; conscious: (2) Experiencing sensation or feeling. I don't see how that wouldn't apply to cows, mice, rabbits, chickens, lambs, pigs and a whole lot of other animals.

 

Bithysith I'm sorry but you've been duped. The video you saw produced by a non-profit organization cannot be upon simple screening judged representative of the industry. Non-profit organization exist for political purposes. You saw the very worst of the industry. While some of what you were exposed to may have had some truth, if the entire industry were like that then they wouldn't have had to use footage from a foreign country.

To Bithy's point, I think it's not that we're seeing the entire industry operates like this... but there is quite a bit more going on than people care to admit. Secondly, several universities which saw the tape from Minnesota did acknowledge that these particular farms were engaging in illegal slaughter practices according to Minnesota law.

While it is assumed that the "majority" of farms do not overstep these bounds... why should any of them? It is a result of our relentless demand that we do not set our foot down, as American consumers. We are repulsed by this imagery, but when tasked with the responsibility to do something about it... we say it probably is a remote case and do nothing... like gawkers at the scene of an accident.

There are animals that are sentient and borderline sentient. Wolves, Dolphins, Whales, some members of the "Monkey family", Lions, Elephants for example. Cows, mice, rabbits, chickens, lambs, pigs are however not even close. They don't exhibit any complex emotions.

First, define "sentient".

Define "complex emotions".

Second, do you have scientific evidence to support your assertions? I would strongly recommend reading Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species by Dr. L. David Mech (pronounced "meech"). Dr. Mech is the world's leading expert on the wolf, and has a wealth of experience witnessing the complex emotions of wolves... and the myriad ways in which they express them through a language which is more complex than the average individual is aware. The wolf has a social structure very similar to our own. Within that structure they exhibit social behaviors that are completely nonfunctional to survival and purely for the sake of recreation or emotional bonding/expression.

Of course there comes the conundrum of "spontaneous sentience"... I would like someone to demonstrate any scientific evidence that suggests that humans spontaneously developed sentience and, concurrently, specifically, that no other animals possess it. It is a common fault to assume that sentience is sparked spontaneously... but that comes as no surprise when I consider the scores of people who misunderstand the evolutionary sciences. Simply put, there is no reason to assume that sentience is something new. Given the similarity of central nervous systems in the animal kingdom, sentience (self-awareness), cannot have spontaneously "poofed" into existence only with human beings... but how sentience evolved is an entirely different discussion.

For a detailed understanding of evolutionary science, I recommend Evolutionary Biology by Douglas J. Futuyma.

 

I'll repeat myself


One of the first things I learned in running experiements (in school) on animals is that animals have different reactions or perform differently in tests because they are unique individuals. While I do not have article on hand (page one), I would venture a guess that deaths due to prescription drugs are likely to be adverse allergic reactions. We can never know exactly how a chemical is going to react in every individuals body. However, the established method of experimentation to drug trials at least gives us an idea of what will happen. Secondly, thousands of drugs never make it past animals, much less to people.

I would suggest that you read about the steps taken from lab to human clinical trials.

Also, not all medical experimentation is done for medicines. There are other reasons to use animals for models. For example, much of what were know about cel biology comes from direct animal research. We can learn/have leanred about cel function, gene function, etc by using animal models. I would hate to tell all of those cel biologists they are out of a job because some people can't get over the idea that some mice and rats are going to die. And I shudder to think of what it would do to science.

EDIT: I also do not think that I need a PhD to disagree with someone. I would like to see Dr. Mayo's entire article with the quote in context, if it indeed came from an article.

 

Yes, yes you have already stated that once.

Cancer.

There are over ten-thousand drugs which can cure cancer in labaratory mice. How many of them work for humans?

Of the thirty or so treatments used for human forms of cancer, how many work in mice?

Since this is your field I figure that this data should be quite easy for you to obtain. As far as the Charles Mayo quote, I have read it from various sites and publications, but I do not have an article. I am sure if you plug it into a search engine, you will get a number of results.

In any case, the above questions and their respective answers speak for themselves. The machine keeps rolling, but the wheels are spinning in place.

 

Read SnowDog's comment about the program we saw. Those slaughterhouses were found to be breaking animals rights laws here in MN.


Cows, mice, rabbits, chickens, lambs, pigs are however not even close. They don't exhibit any complex emotions.

Pigs have the equivalent intelligentce of a 2-3 year old human child. They exhibit greater learning capacity than dogs... but are somehow "okay" to kill inhumanely. If someone even lifts a hand against a canine in this society they are ostracised.
Even if those other animals you mentioned don't feel "complex emotions" (a very difficult opinion to prove. I think you would change your mind if you saw a cow screaming in terror while it was being skinned alive)... what makes you think they don't feel pain? If death is necessary, it should be quick and without suffering.


Oh, and here's an interesting little factoid. 90% of human ailments go away by themselves.

 

Just because there isn't a "cure" per se does not negate the treatments that are available now. We have yet to "cure" the common cold, but we sure do have a multitude of remedies that have changed this once deadly virus into an annoyance that keeps us from work a few days. I really don't think a cure has to be an end all be all for all research.

Today, if certain cancers are caught early, there is a good chance that they can be removed and eradicated. Instead of cancer being a death sentence for many (of course not all) it can be a managable disease. One of the problems with cancer is that it involes the "turning on" of genes that make the cells reproduce (I am not going to go into explicit detail because it is really complex and I don't have my texts handy). A lot of the research in cancer is focused on what mechanisms cause the genes to turn on, etc.

The same goes for HIV. When HIV first hit the American populace, it was considered a death sentence. Now, there are many who have survived 10, 15, 20 years with the disease. The disease has gone from an absolute, fast killer to a managable disease. Without the appropriate lab research, none of these steps would have ever happened.

 

Oh, and here's an interesting little factoid. 90% of human ailments go away by themselves.

I don't believe that in a minute. When you have an illness, it doesnt just "go away". The body can mask the symptoms even if the illness is still present.

 

I've found traditional definitions of sentience to be far to ambiguous. Current definitions allow for some personal interpretations. Say "learning" defines sentience. Then would someone label a learning impaired individual less than another? Certainly not, so learning is not an accurate measure. However some definitions under personal interpretations would allow for the ability to learn to stand as a requirement for sentience.

My definition is kind of my own, in that I've not leeched it from another. Although I do acknowledge that I may not be the first to tout this idea. Complex emotions such as sorrow, guilt, love, loyalty and anger define sentient being. An emotion is complex iff more than one animal is involved. So fear and pain (not an emotion) can happen without another animal. Cows "screaming in terror", is a myth. They are mooing in confusion. If I ever see a cow showing sorrow, guilt, love etc, then perhaps I'll revise my position. The video still stands as a scare tactic used by an organization with a political agenda.

do you have scientific evidence to support your assertions

No, this is a philosophical discussion of opinion. I have read a book entitled "Wolves at our Door" written by Jim and Jamie Dutcher (I think). They are not biologists, although given they spent more time with a functional wolf pack than most biologists I would take their view over a biologists. There experience was far more intimate than any scientist would have dreamed. To much interference etc.

Edit: I'm not sure I'm willing to believe a 2-3 child is so stupid as to be compared to a pig. I had actually learned to talk as a two year old. If I raised a pig as a child would it learn to communicate with me? Doubtful.

 

chibiangi,

You missed my point completely.

There are over ten-thousand drugs which can cure cancer in labaratory mice. How many of them work for humans?

ZERO!

Of the thirty or so treatments used for human forms of cancer, how many work in mice?

ZERO!


The testing done in these particular cases only yeilded data that was viable when applied to mice ONLY. That could be likened to surgeons practicing appendix removals on canine subjects to learn how to perform one on a human. That would be ludicrous, wouldn't you agree?

 

I'm looking at that statement in my text book right now, Chibi. (The human body is an amazing self-reparative machine.) The book goes on to say that 90% of human ailments are functional rather than organic.

Tre, whether you believe an animal has "complex emotions" or not, that still doesn't change the fact that they feel pain ? they do have nerves after all. Oh, and read any material on porcine intelligence, it is a recognized fact that they are among the most intelligent "domesticated" species.
And I doubt a pig would suddenly develop vocal chords and speak to you, even if you were to raise it as a human child.
I've always found it interesting that animals seem to be able to decipher our language (at least at a rudimentary level), but we have yet to understand their forms of communication.

 

No, I don't think it is. Why? Because you have to start somewhere in your research. So you work with mice first, fine tune your findings and then apply what you have found to humans. Scientists didn't just pull treatments for cancer out of their collective butts. They used research, including animal models, to develop the tools needed to treat cancer. The point is, what ends up on the market for humans is not necessarily the same drug or applicable to mice or other research animals and vice versa.

EDIT: To answer your example...

Another Doctor's perspective

I tell Mrs. D, who once had serious chest pain, that the device used to open up the blockage in her heart arteries was first tested and perfected in dog studies. During their training, the surgeons who performed her subsequent bypass surgery were able to practice and perfect their surgical skills on dogs, before operating on humans. Growing pressure by animal rights groups has recently caused some medical schools to close their dog laboratories. For these future surgeons, their first introduction to performing complex procedures will be on patients. I am concerned about how this will affect the future of these people.

So yes, I would say practicing first is a good idea.

 

I'm looking at that statement in my text book right now, Chibi. It goes on to say that 90% of human ailments are functional rather than organic.

That is a different statement than your original. It was a bit vague. Yes, if I pull my hamstring or twist my ankle it would go away, but I don't really see what that has to do with using animals in research?

 

On the issue of slaughterhouses: One cannot get meat from an animal without cutting it up. This may sound rather cruel, but that's the way it is and the way it will always be. You can't magically extract meat from an animal.

So what then would be the "humane" way of killing it?

 

Complex emotions such as sorrow, guilt, love, loyalty and anger define sentient being. An emotion is complex iff more than one animal is involved. So fear and pain (not an emotion) can happen without another animal. Cows "screaming in terror", is a myth. They are mooing in confusion. If I ever see a cow showing sorrow, guilt, love etc, then perhaps I'll revise my position.

I have a pet cat, Misty. She comes to me every day for strokes and cuddles. I feed her, house her and care for her and she repays me with all the love that a cat can confer.

Recently my inlaws were on holiday for two weeks. During that period I had to look after their dog, Bella. Bella was rescued from an aminal shelter at a very young age. She was abused by her first owner and has a fear of anyone tall. I am the only tall person that she likes. While I looked after her I had to walk her, feed her and care for her.

Despite my best efforts to keep them apart, Misty and Bella met each other a couple of times. Misty (obviously) can't talk but I could tell she as angry, upset and annoyed that this other animal that raised all her defence tactics was getting looked after by me - She used to climb into my bed and glare at me as if to say "Why have you let this thing into our lives, this thing that brings up all these fears in me? I used to trust you but now I don't" - she would sit on my chest, glare at me and run as soon as I tried to stroke her. Bella on the other hand was grateful to me, but no more. When my inlaws came to pick her up after their holiday the joy was there for all to see. Bella was leaping around the room from one to another, demanding strokes and petting - all the love and affection she had been storing up for them.

So,of course animals have emotions, anyone who has ever had a pet will tell you so. And before the obvious reply is posted, dogs are food animals in Korea, and some cultures look upon the eating of pigs or cows as offensive.

 

Simply because an animals feels pain doesn't mean I shouldn't eat it. It hasn't stopped apex predators for hundreds of millions of years. The prey always scream in protest to being killed. And the killing frequently isn't what we would consider humane. Pain has never stopped humans in general from doing anything! War, homicide....sports...

I would consider a dog sentient because I've seen guilt in a dog (as a pet owner). Cats however, I haven't seen something that couldn't be thought of as instinctual socializing. Doesn't mean I would eat one, unless I was very hungry. Which brings me to, I guess the inevitable response? Dogs and cats are eaten because of socio-economic and culturally unique circumstances. Meaning, if Korea had the money and the space to raise cattle over dogs then they would. Aside from taste, they simply produce more meat. And really, worshipping an animal just seems silly.

Does anyone else want to venture a definition for a sentient being?

 

Please, I think I have been misunderstood. I have no problem with eating animals... I was just arguing that they should be slaughtered quickly, and mercifully (with as little pain as possible ? something our hunter-gatherer ancestors would allow them.). The video I saw recently showed practices we wouldn't wish on our worst enemy, and I was vocalizing my disgust at our ability to be so cruel.


And really, worshipping an animal just seems silly.

Please, try not to sound like such a cultural elitist. I don't think anyone has the right to judge whether a Hindu, animist, or whoever's beliefs are "silly".

 

"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."

The reasoning is simply based on the fact that since I am Human, I am going to have preference not only over the survival of humans, but of the specifics as well i.e. what I decide to eat, how I decide to live, choosing the life of myself or a lower animal, what I do with my own surroundings whether they are for good or ill. It is my contention that our lives are more precious based on what I am. Not only that, but religious convictions as well. But I'll wager on guessing that you think it is an old, archaic, outdated idea that humans have dominion over the Earth. Just remember that that does not mean outright destruction, as we can choose to conserve...or not. Human beings do have a higher consciousness, so we can alter our environment to fix or troubleshoot for mistakes, but that term can be aimed at any one side, yours included.

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

So I can't eat meat because of that? Explain.

"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."

Providing more food i.e. meat from animals helps to accomplish this, where's the problem? I was talking in addition to, not solely that.

"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?"

I can give a made up scenario to support my points too. Whoopdi.

"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.?"

I doubt it is a standard work week of "surviving" for 20 hours out of the week. Plus that 60-80 is rather inflated. Once more, I too can make up statistics as well. Whoopdi.

"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."

That may be true, but I can't trust that for obvious reasons. There are many people in our day-to-day world that do just fine, conversely there were/are probably hunter-gatherer societies that are stressed out as hell.

"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."

Wow, maybe the use of our brain has allowed us to create tools to *gasp* create a better life for ourselves? There are many benefits compared to your pessimism, but you can't print that can you? Of course they would best the majority of us on their terms, just as they, without technology, are bested by us on ours.

Sure, in our hectic world that we are born into, the opposite i.e. hunter-gatherer societies are going to look promising simply because it seems simpler and seems less taxing. Which is why a lot of people go camping, but that

 

[o]I've always found it interesting that animals seem to be able to decipher our language (at least at a rudimentary level), but we have yet to understand their forms of communication. [/i]

Are you so sure about that? You seem to be able to understand that an animal is afraid (and not just reacting to pain) when they are being hurt. Not to mention I can pretty much understand what my cat wants when it wants my attention one way or another. It may want food or petting or it may want to play or many other things that it choises to have. Likewise, my cat knows basically what food means, and it knows what it means for when I go to bed and it can get undivided attention. Humans can get a basic understanding of animals just as well as animals can of humans, if not much better. So please, value humans a little higher.

The whole sentient thing...there is a diffrence between Sentient and Sapent. I confused those words before.

To me, sentient is not a good reason to get rid of meat (there may be a reason, I have not heard one, and that one is not good enough). Almost every animal can percieve its souroundings and react to them, whopededo.

One more thing Dr Evil... A large amount of cancer treatment is done in the form of Chemo and radeation, which was tested and made better through testing on mice. Obviously the same dosage of both of those things diffre from mouse to man, the treatments themselves each work.

Now yes, I am reading about how a sucessful treatment for mice will probably not work too well if at all for humans without allot more testing and perfecting of the concept. With more testing, and figuring out the dosing, and getting past any unrealistic hopes/stigmas, it may work.

here is the above artical

and here is just another useful link

 

Please, I think I have been misunderstood. I have no problem with eating animals... I was just arguing that they should be slaughtered quickly, and mercifully (with as little pain as possible ? something our hunter-gatherers ancestors would allow them.). The video I saw recently showed practices we wouldn't wish on our worst enemy, and I was vocalizing my disgust at our ability to be so cruel.

Yeah, I'm quite the same. Free-range produce all the way...

 

Cats however, I haven't seen something that couldn't be thought of as instinctual socializing.

Are you kidding? Cats are the most manipulative creatures on the planet! They certainly know how to train their masters. Cats can do tricks just as dogs do (they take more training though). For example, my dad's cat uses the toilet! My cat knows the sound of my car (I think my walking pattern as well) because she will be at the door waiting for me when I get home. She does this little thing where she sticks her paws on my arm and makes a puppy dog face when she is hungry or needs attention.

As far as guilt, when cats are trained not to do things, you can instantly tell when they have been bad. For example, I found a plastic bag that had had some chicken in it. My cat knows better than to dig in the garbage, yet she did so anyway to lick the plastic. I came home and saw the plastic on the floor, pointed at it, and the cat ran under the bed. Oh yes, they know when they have been naughty!

 

I agree, Jediguy.


Enforcer, perhaps I was not clear. I don't mean universal signals that animals (including ourselves) use to communicate basic emotions. I'm talking about complex "language" like that used by cetaceans (scientists have observed a difference of vocalizations between different pods, suggestive of unique cultures. Dolphins have been observed to understand syntax.), and corvids, etc.

 

But I'll wager on guessing that you think it is an old, archaic, outdated idea that humans have dominion over the Earth.

No... I buy your "hey, I'm human" argument... but that's all you had to say. The dominion argument isn't "old, archaic, or outdated"... that would imply that I think it had its time... I don't believe it was ever substantiated in any time. It differs little from numerous other dogmatic assertions throughout history.

So I can't eat meat because of that? Explain.

I'm not advocating vegetarianism or veganism. You misunderstand me entirely here. I'm suggesting we look at our current agricultural schema at the collective level... finding ways, even through the use of technology to which you (down further in your post) seem to think I am opposed, to streamline food production... and on the individual level, reducing our consumption demand.

Providing more food i.e. meat from animals helps to accomplish this, where's the problem? I was talking in addition to, not solely that.

Again, I'm not opposed to an omnivorous diet... I discourage vegetarianism and I'm amused when people resort to it for "moral" reasons... they're still espousing agriculturalism... and becoming even more so dependent upon it than, say, someone who isn't afraid to pick up a crossbow or gun and go hunt their prey.

I can give a made up scenario to support my points too. Whoopdi.

Actually I was speaking from my own experience, as well as the experience of 1 million plus people in Minneapolis where I live... and many other metropolitan areas like it.

I doubt it is a standard work week of "surviving" for 20 hours out of the week. Plus that 60-80 is rather inflated. Once more, I too can make up statistics as well. Whoopdi.

No, actually most tribal societies do spend less than 20 hours a week "providing" for their families... I, on the other hand, spend 60-80 hours a week doing the things I need to do just to live what in America would be considered an "average" existence. My salary is hardly above the median salary for my demographic and geographic area.

That may be true, but I can't trust that for obvious reasons. There are many people in our day-to-day world that do just fine, conversely there were/are probably hunter-gatherer societies that are stressed out as hell.

Name one.

Wow, maybe the use of our brain has allowed us to create tools to *gasp* create a better life for ourselves?

Define "better". For that matter, "better" than what?

There are many benefits compared to your pessimism,

...such as?

but you can't print that can you?

You brought it up. I don't know what you think I'm arguing for. If it's vegetarianism, altruism or flat out leaving the cities and going off to the forest to live as hunter-gatherers all of a sudden... you're far off the beaten path.

Of course they would best the majority of us on their terms, just as they, without technology, are bested by us on ours.

You're overlooking my point here... I agree with you on this, but my actual point is that if they can do it on their terms, without all the infrastructure and overhead expense of our society... just how efficient is our society?

I understand we've sought certain tradeoffs... but is the majority of the American populace thrilled with our present state of affairs? Has anyone been extolling the virtues of the corporate jungle any time in the past 30 years? How many middle-class Americans do you know who are satisfied with their job and their existence? How many of them continue to chase materialistic desires in the hopes that their existence will somehow be fulfilled by a bigger car, a bigger house... the so-called "American dream"?

Do you ever ask yourself why the media constantly sell us the "American dream"? Ever notice how MTV constantly advertises about fans? Do you know why? Fans buy records, many fans make a few record executives, insanely rich, at the expense of the many... and now more than ever they're on a crusade

 

Please, try not to sound like such a cultural elitist. I don't think anyone has the right to judge whether a Hindu, animist, or whoever's beliefs are "silly".

Who said anything about judgement? I did use the word "seems". I think everyone has the right to express an opinion about silly beliefs.