I just visited, and after seeing a commercial, it allowed me to see what I think is the premium site. However, I can not find the articles to which you refer.
These don’t seem to be them.
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=S'(X%20-Q1'%2B%200%20S
Lefty or Sly Frog–Can you explain why we need to know how burns kill someone? There really is no treatment after someone has died. Or do they just burn the dogs to the point of death and then treat them?
My W.A.G. would be that it is not about treatement, but instead about how burns form.
Come back soon. I think I love you.
I honestly don’t remember the exact details, but I believe that they burned the dogs to a point that the dogs looked as if they’d been scalded by a pot of boiling water or been trapped in a burning building–that is, until they looked like the sort of patients that regularly came into the burn center. And then they studied the effects of these burns, and especially studied how the dogs responded to highly experimental treatments, in the hopes that one of these highly experimental treatments would prove effective in healing such horrific burns.
Daniel
I doubt this story will make a dent in UB’s willful ignorance, but cnn.com is reporting on Evacuees anguished at leaving pets behind:
and this is the crux of it. people do get attached to their animals. and if rescuing an animal eases human anguish then am all for it. I note that in none of these 7 pages anyone is saying they want to rescue farm animals or idigenous fauna, so really its all about people and their emotional props. ( hey its better than a bottle) its no different than someone running out of a burning house and going back to rescue a photo of old auntie edna! if it gives comfort to stressed out folk then I think its worthwhile.
as for back in the original post, I just thought that …ok some dude is at considerable risk to himself taking food and clothing to NO but on his return journey is taking potential food out of NO. then I re-read and realised it was pets he was rescuing. okay hats off to him, if the property has value to a person then I don’t care whether its animal, mineral or vegetable its still a service to a human being
Nope, you got them. Particularly in the first one, there is discussion regarding some of the uses of live animal testing, and it touches on why they still use live animals in certain circumstances.
(When I mentioned the article, I was talking generally in response to someone’s post on live animal testing and why they still do it. I apologize if you thought it was relevant to the New Orleans animal rescue discussion; it was not in reference to that.)
No, I thought you were specifically talking about testing burn cures on dogs.
And it’s people like you tht make me like dogs better. I gave an honest , heart-felt response , and don’r expect anyone to agree with me … But I stand by what I said. Untill you have known the kind of pain I have been subjected to for 45 long years , you have no idea where I am coming from .
And BTW… I am a she/her , not he/him .
It’s probably a lot like the pain I’ve been subjected to for twenty-four long years. People have betrayed me, ridiculed me, made me feel like shit… but I’d still save them over an animal. Hell, if it came down to choosing between seeing one of my old pets slaughtered in the most brutal way possible and knowing that some Ethiopian kid was going to lose his pinky finger, I’d save the kid and his finger. Other living things, be they human or non-human, are not just implements to our own happiness. They have worth on their own merits, and while I know it will make me sound like a psychopath, I believe that a human life has more worth than a non-human one, both to the human and to the world at large.
You don’t have to agree with me on this, I’d still save you over a pet anyway. Too bad you wouldn’t do likewise.
If you seriously think that the differences between humans and animals are skin deep, or end at the animals’ lack of opposable thumbs, you need a biology lesson stat.
There’s that qualifier “probably” again.
Care to elaborate on this statement?
That’s silly and irrelevant: a biology lesson would tell you that you share 99% of your DNA with chimpanzees, and that there are tremendous differences between one person and another, and that the same neurological responses that indicate our own perception of pain, love, anger, and suffering occur in many other animals. None of that, naturally, means that you’re obligated to support animal rights.
Papsett, I hear where you’re coming from, and I hope you’re never put in a position where you need to choose whether a person or another animal dies. Most people are fortunately never in that position.
Daniel
Recently released results of the Chimpanzee Genome Project indicate that we share 96% of our genes with chimps. Cite.
This of course doesn’t change my perceptions regarding the signifigance of other animals to me as an individual, to humans in general, and to the global ecosystem. But I wanted to get the more recent numbers on the table for the sake of the discussion.
D’oh! I thought I’d heard it was 99% according to those figures. My bad.
Daniel
Actually, reading more carefully, the cite says:
So it looks as if either figure may be correct, depending on what you mean by sharing DNA.
Daniel
Humans have a consciousness. We have complex systems of communication. We have the ability to make decisions. We are one of the few animals who can change our environment, for better or worse, and we’re the only ones who do it intentionally. We’re the only animals who can plan for, or even imagine, the future, and one of the only species who can think about or care about the past (apparently chimps and elephants have death rituals that point to their being able to understand the past, but it is not definite). All of this is due to differences in the brain. A lot of people treat animals as if they were just little furry retarded human beings, but in fact the differences between the species are very deep. We share the majority of our genes with flatworms, too. A lot of those genes are stuff that just codes for “life in general,” meaning that all living things have those genes.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that animals can’t suffer or feel pain or that their lives don’t matter; it just means that we are very different from them. Personally, I think the way humans treat their “furbabies,” like they were children or siblings, is demeaning to both the humans and the animals. It ignores the true reality of human-animal relations, and sometimes prevents the humans from forming bonds with creatures who can reciprocate our feelings on our level. Which leads to people wanting to save non-humans over the other creatures operating in our same reality. Which is what I’m taking to task.
I support animal rights–the right of animals not to suffer needlessly, the right of animals to be left alone in their natural environments. I just don’t believe their lives are equal to human ones, or even close to it.
:dubious:
The Houston SPCA is taking in thousands of animals from Louisiana, including pets belonging to refugees. To donate to this effort, go here.
I’m not thinking of myself. I get enough attention and love from other people, thanks. I’m thinking more of the “furparents” whose mental health may be compromised by their pathological devotion to their pets.
bolding mine
How prevalent a phenomenon is this? Can you provide a reliable cite? Do you have any credentials that would qualify you to make judgements concerning “mental health” and “pathological devotion”?