We invented something recently called shipping… you don’t have to grow crops in every place that’s going to eat them, just in the places that support it. My understanding is that there’s plenty of space. A popular stat I’ve heard is that enough corn is grown in the US breadbasket (Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, etc.) to supply everyone in the world, if need be.
Ok, so maybe they are a bunch of nutjobs like a lot of you think. But deep down I am glad, because someone has to do it. Who else is going to get their hands dirty? You? Probably not me in my lifetime, but I am still glad something is being done. I would say even ELF has a place in the world.
Ha ha, but you’re forgetting that if you stopped raising livestock for food, that’s less crops that you have to feed to the animals. Without looking it up, I can guarantee that it takes a lot more vegetable matter to feed livestock to feed humans than it would if the humans just ate the vegetables directly.
No, actually, they don’t.
Even if that something drives more people away from your cause than it convinces to join?
And they use tremendous up amounts of water and land as well.
Oddly enough, I could have almost written this line myself. Almost.
I mean that I’m tired of people in general and the specifically the church ignoring the problem of foster and orphaned kids, and not putting in a major effort to adopt them. Sure there are problems. There’s a thread on the board right now about problems of adopted kids. But I bet those kids wouldn’t rather be in a group home.
I’ve waited a long time to delurk but this is a subject I feel very strongly about so here goes -
My masters degree is in toxicology and I have done work involving the use of animals (mostly cell culture) I therefore feel that I am well informed about most if not all of the issues involved in animal experimentation. As you might expect I have devoted a considerable amount of time soul searching about this and my conscience is clear. I actually feel worse about eating meat (not that I am likely to stop anytime soon).
However I feel that the essential issue is that of whether human life should be placed before that of animals. I believe this to be justifiable and make no apologies for my view. I do nevertheless accept that it would be possible for someone taking the opposite view to know everything I do about animal research and still be opposed to it.
If you feel strongly about this and similar issues by all means take whatever legal means you feel necessary to register your disagreement. I believe that people should take a stand for what they believe in and there are ways in which peacefull protest can help everybody, not all research conducted on animals is necessary (in my opinion) and such action can contribute to changing this. You might be surprised how sympathetic many researchers working with animals are to this.
I also feel though that if you are demonstrating about an issue you have a moral responsibility to be well informed about that issue. Organisations such as PETA are not a good source of such information, if this is your primary source of information then it is likely that most of the things that you think you know about animal research are flat out untrue. I would also add that violent anti vivisectionist activity is almost always counterproductive. Targeting of research facilities drives research contracts to countries with much less animal rights legislation. Targeting of individuals stifles vital debate about the issue. Breaking in to a lab and disrupting research merely guarentees that the work will have to be repeated with more animals.
I couldn’t agree more enignmatic, and that’s one of the best first posts I’ve seen around here. Welcome to the boards.
And QGG–don’t sweat it. It’s a potentially emotional issue and I don’t take your passion for it personally. I think koeeoaddi hit very close to my position, which is that–to me–supporting PETA seems a bit extreme for a rational person, when there are so many other organizations out there who need the help but are a lot lighter on the raving insanity.
Just to add my $.02 to the side of animal research sometimes being necessary.
I will in no way pretend to know all there is to know about any subject, particularly those that involve some of the complex physiology and biology that the school i work for undertakes. I work for the School of Biomedical Engineering at a local university and have spent much time down in the labs where animal testing is absolutely necessary for the research being done.
The current project being undertaken involves the development of prosthetic devices, such as robotic limbs, that interface directly with the brain and function as near as humanly possible to a natural limb.
At this point in the research the scientists involved are simply attempting to understand how the limbs interact with the brain; which neurons fire under which circumstances? How is the feeling of a smooth surface different from the feeling of a rough surface and how is this information transmitted and interpreted? And a large number of other questions that leave me amazed at how much we have yet to learn.
This is where the rats come in. In some cases this information can be passed on by just a single neuron, possibly deep in the brain, and impossible to detect and locate with a standard EEG. Since we have the brain of the rat quite well mapped out…we know which parts of the brain control which parts of the body, they know which neurons to isolate and monitor so as to get a recording of their firing pattern during the experiments.
The rats have extremely small (nanoscale) electrodes implanted in their brains which are attached to leads fixed to the top of their heads. As far as the rats go, they don’t mind. The procedure itself is humane. The rat is anesthetized and given some time to recuperate after the procedure and after it recovers it doesn’t even realize anything has happened to it. They even groom the large block of adhesive (which gained them the nickname of “Frankenrats”) attached to their heads which holds the leads.
In the end the quality of life for many thousands of people will be improved. I personally think that the sacrifice of a few rats is a small one. The are treated humanely in every way, to the point where some aren’t even euthanized but taken home by the researchers when the electrodes lose their ability to perform readings.
QGG I’ll not bash your beliefs, my philosophy is live and let live, allow for reasonable discourse and if minds are changed either way because of it then so be it.
That being said, you may want to find a different analogy. The difference between the animals used and the hypothetical child is that the child has cognitive inelligence and is capable of making that decision for himself. If said situation were ever happen (God Forbid) and I were one of the only people with O+ blood not suffering I would sacrifice myself for my fellow man and I’m sure there are many others who would.
Does the fact that the animal doesn’t have the cognitive abilities to make such a choice make a good reason for it? In my opinion no. Does it make for a vast difference between current animal testing (which is now far more humane than in the past) and the situation you presented. Yes.
If the sacrifice of a few animals will better the lives of many thousands, if not millions of people, I for one am in favor of it.
I don’t wish to sound rude, but unfortunately Meros, you and a few of the other posters in this thread are incredibly misinformed. It isn’t just a case of ‘a few animals’.
You eat them, you wear them, the by-products are used to decorate your face, clean your skin and wash your hair, rid you of wrinkles, plump up your lips…you name it and you can almost guarantee it’s been brought to you courtesy of an animal. Just in the lifetime of one person alone that constitutes way more than a few animals!
All this is done not because it’s absolutely necessary and there are no alternatives, but simply because it’s always been done this way and it’s cheap. So you have to remember when you exploit an animal thats the reason you’re doing it.
As for the medical benefits, there’s no denying that we all take advantage from those. But we have to remember that a lot of the diseases we get come about through our own poor lifestyle choices. One poster mentioned diabetes, a very good example. It’s true that animal-derived insulin helps many people to live normal lives. But if people took better care of themselves in the first place and ate, drank and exercised better, in a lot of cases, that animal insulin wouldn’t be needed.
Obviously no-one wants to live with an illness and none really wants to die and the exploitation of animals is ensuring that we don’t have to. But how selfish are we going to get? How far are we going to take things? We are going to have to deal with the repercussions of living in a world full of people who don’t want to die. This means the clearing of more land so that we can breed more animals to feed and clothe more people…an endless cycle.
Let me preface my reply by mentioning that I’ve been an Lacto-ovo-vegetarian for nearly 15 years. I am also a lover of animals and I adopt just about anything (last count I have 12 cats, 3 dogs, 9 ex-race horses and several ponies, all of which were rescued or abused/dumped animals).
I haven’t read the PETA link that was posted but I wanted to add that I’m generally not too enamoured of these fanatical animal liberationists because they’re dangerous and narrow minded. Even though I make a habit of rescuing all creatures great and small and I believe in giving them a chance, I do admit I am extremely vocal about getting domestic pets desexed before they start breeding…I’ve gotten around 40 cats and 12 dogs “fixed”. I am also very vocal about animal cruelty too, but my main problem with some of these groups is they can be too militant for my liking. That can make them not only myopic, but dangerous. I try to do my bit for the welfare of animals, but by the same token I’m not going to force my beliefs down someone else’s throat like some rabid religious fundamentalist. But generally, I’d like to think a lot of the animal welfare supporters have their heart in the right place because they care.
We are going to have to deal with the repercussions of living in a world full of people who don’t want to die. This means the clearing of more land so that we can grow more crops to feed and clothe more people…an endless cycle.
What solution do you propose? That people start wanting to die (so that the first sentence the above quote is negated)?
Wow. The board is overflowing with fake people. How will we survive our lack of realness?
I’m thinking of a nice get together so we can show our solidarity. I’m thinking barbeque.
Who’s in?
I’m bringing the kobe steak hot dogs!
If I’m the sort of person who doesn’t want animals to die why would I propose that humans should start wanting to die to solve the problem?
I admit I don’t have a simple solution to any of this but I’m simply saying that it would help a lot if people were to be less selfish and think more carefully about the impact their existance has on the world around them.
If every single person ate less or ideally no meat, it would have a significant impact on the problem and maybe we will be able to better sustain all those people whose lives have been extended. It wont solve the problem completely but it will help a lot more than just saying ‘it’s too hard let’s exploit and eat the animals anyway’ as most meat-eaters are currently doing.
It’s certainly true that producing meat is a highly inefficent use of resources. However the problem of distribution rather than production must also be considered. I was under the impression that most western nations produce a large excess of food regardless of their emphasis on livestock farming, and that most of this excess food is destroyed because it is too impractical/expensive to transport it to where it could be more profitably used.
It’s certainly true that producing meat is a highly inefficent use of resources. However the problem of distribution rather than production must also be considered. I was under the impression that most western nations produce a large excess of food regardless of their emphasis on livestock farming, and that most of this excess food is destroyed because it is too impractical/expensive to transport it to where it could be more profitably used.
I don’t know if this is true as you put it. However, in the US we don’t farm as much as we could because of price controls: if farmers produced more, prices would go down. I can’t imagine that it couldn’t be shipped somewhere profitably, given the massive amount of undernourished and starving people in the world.
A group that “shuts down pounds that left their animals in such disgusting states of starvation that they would resort to eating each other’s dead bodies. Rescues circus animals from trainers who thought cattle prods and bullwhips were a-ok ways to discipline them. Sponsors a spay & neuter program where disadvantaged folks can have their animals fixed. And so forth.” But without the assholiness of PETA?
How about a federal tax return?
And some other warm-fuzzy quotes:
“If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we’re going to be, as a movement, blowing things up and smashing windows … I think it’s a great way to bring about animal liberation … I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it’s perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows … Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it.”
— Bruce Friedrich, PETA’s vegan campaign coordinator, at the “Animal Rights 2001” conference
"Serving a burger to your family today, knowing what we know, constitutes child abuse. You might as well give them weed killer. "
— Toni Vernelli, then-coordinator of PETA’s European operations
“Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.”
— PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk, in the September 1989 issue of Vogue
“… the Shining Path of activist groups.”
— CNN “Crossfire” host Tucker Carlson
“Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective. We ask nicely for years and get nothing. Someone makes a threat, and it works.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, in the April 8, 2002 issue of US News & World Report
“It may have been ELF, but then, I sometimes get them confused with ALF, the Animal Liberation Front. And then there’s Earth First! and PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). There’s a lot of cross-pollination between them, and some people here are probably members of two of those groups, or more.”
— Santa Cruz Police Lt. Joe Haebe, speculating about those responsible for a crime spree, in the San Francisco Chronicle, April 11, 2003
“We are complete press sluts.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, in The New Yorker, April 14, 2003
“I wil be the last person to condemn ALF [the Animal Liberation Front].”
— Ingrid Newkirk, in the New York Daily News, December 7, 1997
Sorry to be jumping in so late, but I did find something concerning the above statement. If you look here, Ingrid admits herself, in a letter to the editor, that PETA did fund ELF (admittedly it’s not ALF, but the organizations do have similar goals and methods). She says that it was used for the defence fund of an ELF member, and I believe that is what it was used for, but still, it is funding, and it does show a certain level of involved support for ELF/ALF.
Here is another article dealing with PETA’s funding, although, it is very biased Link.