I decided to settle on the topic of Animal Experimentation for my final book review for the class. I nearly went with animal abuse, or hunting, but I figured that the moral issues surrouning both of those seem less in question than animal experimentation.
Both laypeople and scientists are of divided mind about vivisection, and reading a book devoted to the moral issues related to it seemed like a smart move on my part. I found a book at Freel Library on it, and I'm looking forwards to sinking my teeth into it.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
We didn't start the fire.
With the events on Patriot's day in Virginia fresh in our minds, it seems to be an appropriate time to address the disturbing habit of humanity for conflict. Having just recently seen Billy Joel perform his hit song "We didn't start the fire" live (last night, actually), this idea is further entrenched in my mind at present.
I can think of no other animal that has this propensity for conflict. We cause mass extinctions, habitat destruction, and mass-murder of nonhuman animals, and we do the same to other humans, as well. The Darfur conflict, the Holocaust, and the Crusades are but some examples, not to mention school shootings like this latest Virginia Tech incident, or that infamous day in 2001, September 11.
What is it about humanity that makes this senseless tendency towards extreme violence so common? Is it biology? I doubt it. We differ only by a chromosome or two from many other nonhuman species, but it is not nearly so common to find murder in the animal kingdom aside from humans.
Granted, nonhuman animals fight occasionally. For breeding rights, and for territory, but even Grizzly bears rarely kill eachother, even in combat. The weaker opponent will back off, not being prevented, by pride, from admitting defeat.
My guess is that it's our culture. The dog-eat-dog competitive spirit that infuses American society, for instance, is no doubt responsible for many social conflicts, including the prevailing distaste for homeless and poor people by the bulk of American society.
I can think of no other animal that has this propensity for conflict. We cause mass extinctions, habitat destruction, and mass-murder of nonhuman animals, and we do the same to other humans, as well. The Darfur conflict, the Holocaust, and the Crusades are but some examples, not to mention school shootings like this latest Virginia Tech incident, or that infamous day in 2001, September 11.
What is it about humanity that makes this senseless tendency towards extreme violence so common? Is it biology? I doubt it. We differ only by a chromosome or two from many other nonhuman species, but it is not nearly so common to find murder in the animal kingdom aside from humans.
Granted, nonhuman animals fight occasionally. For breeding rights, and for territory, but even Grizzly bears rarely kill eachother, even in combat. The weaker opponent will back off, not being prevented, by pride, from admitting defeat.
My guess is that it's our culture. The dog-eat-dog competitive spirit that infuses American society, for instance, is no doubt responsible for many social conflicts, including the prevailing distaste for homeless and poor people by the bulk of American society.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Animal Planet
I'll not deny that I love the Animal Planet channel. Some of the programs are silly, true enough, but it's always nice to see people actually making some effort to conserve wildlife and protect endangered species, as well as domesticated ones.
Some programs, like "Meerkat Manor" got me thinking. Wildlife seems most popular only when it is humanized. The meer kats are famous only for the fact, it seems, that they have names and Sean Astin is narrating what seems to be their motivations and thoughts. It's likely the same reason why the first documentary explained why pet product sales are booming, with little outfits now designed for canine pals.
Must our species always humanize nonhuman animals in order to care about their plight?
Some programs, like "Meerkat Manor" got me thinking. Wildlife seems most popular only when it is humanized. The meer kats are famous only for the fact, it seems, that they have names and Sean Astin is narrating what seems to be their motivations and thoughts. It's likely the same reason why the first documentary explained why pet product sales are booming, with little outfits now designed for canine pals.
Must our species always humanize nonhuman animals in order to care about their plight?
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Second Film- Animal Awareness
Despite the fact that some people believe that animals are not aware of the world around them, or other creatures that exist alongside them, there are plenty of instances where animals have come through for humans without needing to be trained to do it.
The gorrilla at the beginning of the film we saw last class is one example. Instead of ignoring the hurt child, or attacking, the silver-back kept the others of his family unit away from the boy, and touched him gently.
There have been similar instances at zoos were primates have actually cradled injured children that have fallen into their enclosures. Dogs have rescued people, cats I'm sure have done the same in their own way, if only by alerting owners to danger.
Are these not instances of animal awareness beyond simple stimuli (fear, pain, hunger)? The film raised plenty of questions, but I never got the sense that any of them were answered.
The gorrilla at the beginning of the film we saw last class is one example. Instead of ignoring the hurt child, or attacking, the silver-back kept the others of his family unit away from the boy, and touched him gently.
There have been similar instances at zoos were primates have actually cradled injured children that have fallen into their enclosures. Dogs have rescued people, cats I'm sure have done the same in their own way, if only by alerting owners to danger.
Are these not instances of animal awareness beyond simple stimuli (fear, pain, hunger)? The film raised plenty of questions, but I never got the sense that any of them were answered.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Dr. Greek's Suggested Reading
I'm not positive what I'll read for my report on a book for A&E class, but I've got a list that I obtained from the NAVS site that I may look into. I've provided it for use by other students in the class, too, if they are still looking around for something.
They are organized by theme.
********************
Anti-Vivisection
Greek, C. Ray, and Jean Swingle Greek. Sacred Cows and Golden Geese. New York:
Continuum, 2000.
Greek, C. Ray, and Jean Swingle Greek. Specious Science. New York: Continuum, 2002.
Greek, Jean Swingle, and C. Ray Greek. What Will We Do If We Don’t Experiment On
Animals? Victoria: Trafford, 2004.
LaFollette, Hugh, and Niall Shanks. Brute Science: Dilemmas of Animals Experimentation
(Philosophical Issues in Science). London: Routledge, 1996.
Vyvyan, John. The Dark Face of Science. Joseph, 1971.
Vyvyan, John. In Pity and In Anger: A Study of the Use of Animals in Science. Transatlantic
Arts, 1972.
Rupke, N.A. (ed.) Vivisection in Historical Perspective. London: Routledge, 1990.
Logic and Critical Thought
Schick, T.S., and Lewis Vaughn. How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a
New Age. New York: McGraw-Hill 3rd edition, 2002.
Walton, Douglas. Informal Logic. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Brenner, William H. Logic and Philosophy. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,
1993.
Science
Curd, Martin, and J.A. Cover. Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. New York: W.W
Norton Publishing, 1998.
Midgley, Mary. Science As Salvation: A Modern Myth and It’s Meaning. London:
Routledge, 1994.
Midgley, Mary. Evolution As A Religion. London: Methuen, 1985.
*Gross, Paul R., and Norman Levitt. Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its
Quarrels With Science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
*Gross, Paul R., Norman Levitt, and Martin W. Lewis. The Flight From Science And
Reason. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1997.
*"While I strongly disagree with the authors’ opinions on the use of animals in biomedical research and on
their premise of why the animal rights movement exists, the books are never the less well worth reading for
what the authors have to say about how science is viewed in our time," Dr. Greek.
Valiela, Ivan. Doing Science. London: Oxford University Press. 2001.
Animal Rights/Protection
Griffin, Donald. Animal Minds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. University of
Chicago Press 1992.
Regan, Tom. The Case For Animal Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.
Regan, Tom. Empty Cages: Facing the Challenge of Animal Rights. Lanham, MD: Rowman
& Littlefield Publishers, 2004.
Midgley, Mary. Animals and Why They Matter. Athens: University of Georgia Press;
Reissue edition, 1998.
Regan, Tom, and Peter Singer, eds. Animal Rights and Human Obligations (2nd Edition).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989.
Dombroski, Daniel. Babies and Beasts: The Argument from Marginal Cases. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, 1997.
The Legal Case for Animal Research
Wise, Steven. Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals. Cambridge: Perseus
Books, 2001.
Wise, Steven M. Drawing the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights. Cambridge:
Perseus Books, 2003.
Religion and Animal Research
Scully, Mathew. Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to
Mercy. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2003.
McDaniel, Jay B. Of God and Pelicans: A Theology of Reverence for Life. Westminster:
John Knox Press, 1st ed edition, 1989.
Webb, Stephen H. On God and Dogs: A Christian Theology of Compassion for Animals.
London: Oxford University Press, New Edition, 2001.
They are organized by theme.
********************
Anti-Vivisection
Greek, C. Ray, and Jean Swingle Greek. Sacred Cows and Golden Geese. New York:
Continuum, 2000.
Greek, C. Ray, and Jean Swingle Greek. Specious Science. New York: Continuum, 2002.
Greek, Jean Swingle, and C. Ray Greek. What Will We Do If We Don’t Experiment On
Animals? Victoria: Trafford, 2004.
LaFollette, Hugh, and Niall Shanks. Brute Science: Dilemmas of Animals Experimentation
(Philosophical Issues in Science). London: Routledge, 1996.
Vyvyan, John. The Dark Face of Science. Joseph, 1971.
Vyvyan, John. In Pity and In Anger: A Study of the Use of Animals in Science. Transatlantic
Arts, 1972.
Rupke, N.A. (ed.) Vivisection in Historical Perspective. London: Routledge, 1990.
Logic and Critical Thought
Schick, T.S., and Lewis Vaughn. How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a
New Age. New York: McGraw-Hill 3rd edition, 2002.
Walton, Douglas. Informal Logic. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Brenner, William H. Logic and Philosophy. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,
1993.
Science
Curd, Martin, and J.A. Cover. Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. New York: W.W
Norton Publishing, 1998.
Midgley, Mary. Science As Salvation: A Modern Myth and It’s Meaning. London:
Routledge, 1994.
Midgley, Mary. Evolution As A Religion. London: Methuen, 1985.
*Gross, Paul R., and Norman Levitt. Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its
Quarrels With Science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
*Gross, Paul R., Norman Levitt, and Martin W. Lewis. The Flight From Science And
Reason. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1997.
*"While I strongly disagree with the authors’ opinions on the use of animals in biomedical research and on
their premise of why the animal rights movement exists, the books are never the less well worth reading for
what the authors have to say about how science is viewed in our time," Dr. Greek.
Valiela, Ivan. Doing Science. London: Oxford University Press. 2001.
Animal Rights/Protection
Griffin, Donald. Animal Minds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. University of
Chicago Press 1992.
Regan, Tom. The Case For Animal Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.
Regan, Tom. Empty Cages: Facing the Challenge of Animal Rights. Lanham, MD: Rowman
& Littlefield Publishers, 2004.
Midgley, Mary. Animals and Why They Matter. Athens: University of Georgia Press;
Reissue edition, 1998.
Regan, Tom, and Peter Singer, eds. Animal Rights and Human Obligations (2nd Edition).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989.
Dombroski, Daniel. Babies and Beasts: The Argument from Marginal Cases. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, 1997.
The Legal Case for Animal Research
Wise, Steven. Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals. Cambridge: Perseus
Books, 2001.
Wise, Steven M. Drawing the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights. Cambridge:
Perseus Books, 2003.
Religion and Animal Research
Scully, Mathew. Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to
Mercy. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2003.
McDaniel, Jay B. Of God and Pelicans: A Theology of Reverence for Life. Westminster:
John Knox Press, 1st ed edition, 1989.
Webb, Stephen H. On God and Dogs: A Christian Theology of Compassion for Animals.
London: Oxford University Press, New Edition, 2001.
Vivisection
In class today, we discussed the moral implications of a variety of topics, but one caught my attention the most.
The idea that experimenting on animals is considered a "need" by many that practice it, yet other alternatives are available, contradicting the idea of it being a need at all.
The National Anti-Vivisection Society (www.NAVS.org), based in Chicago, IL, combats animal experimentation and fights to close labs that practice it. According to the home page, "NAVS promotes greater compassion, respect and justice for animals through educational programs based on respected ethical and scientific theory and supported by extensive documentation of the cruelty and waste of vivisection."
Instead of experimenting on animals, NAVS suggests using human clinical trials for new drugs, because they are more effective and voluntary. Nobody will be forced into something, as animal test subjects are. Using animal models for human drugs doesn't work very well anyway since human biology is significantly different than animals so that drugs that work on the animals to combat certain things may not work on humans at all.
There is proof that in some cases drugs that cause birth defects in animals do not cause the same in humans. Some tumors in animals go away without drugs, whereas linger in humans without treatment. Why are animal models being used at all?
For the same reason why drugs tested on dogs and that work on dogs should not be used on cats, drugs tested on animals and work should not be used on humans.
The idea that experimenting on animals is considered a "need" by many that practice it, yet other alternatives are available, contradicting the idea of it being a need at all.
The National Anti-Vivisection Society (www.NAVS.org), based in Chicago, IL, combats animal experimentation and fights to close labs that practice it. According to the home page, "NAVS promotes greater compassion, respect and justice for animals through educational programs based on respected ethical and scientific theory and supported by extensive documentation of the cruelty and waste of vivisection."
Instead of experimenting on animals, NAVS suggests using human clinical trials for new drugs, because they are more effective and voluntary. Nobody will be forced into something, as animal test subjects are. Using animal models for human drugs doesn't work very well anyway since human biology is significantly different than animals so that drugs that work on the animals to combat certain things may not work on humans at all.
There is proof that in some cases drugs that cause birth defects in animals do not cause the same in humans. Some tumors in animals go away without drugs, whereas linger in humans without treatment. Why are animal models being used at all?
For the same reason why drugs tested on dogs and that work on dogs should not be used on cats, drugs tested on animals and work should not be used on humans.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Freedom, Religion and Moral Quandaries
In class today, we viewed the documentary: "To Love or to Kill: Man vs. Animals" and I'll admit that at times I could barely keep watching it.
Seeing cats be bashed over the head and boiled alive was very hard for me, as a cat-lover, but that wasn't the only part I had trouble with. The simple fact that humans don't seem to know quite how to deal with animals is more disturbing by far.
The documentary showed both extremes of the situation. Canned hunts and animal experimentation/ consumption practices, to extreme Vegans acting as part of their religion in such a way that it helps foster human starvation and the spread of virulent illnesses like the Bubonic plague because rats are held so sacred that killing them is believed to be an offense against the Gods.
The connection between religion and the treatment of animals was perhaps one of the most interesting, if hard accept, parts of the documentary. Being raised Catholic in America, I did not realize that other Catholic-dominated countries in the world resorted to what amounts to animal sacrifice, especially countries that are considered "modern", like Spain. Throwing goats out of tower windows and torturing bulls until they simply give up the fight (and are then shot on the steps of a church, no less) are sickening displays of ego. Somehow, I don't understand why torturing animals venerates the Catholic Patron saint of animals, Saint Francis of Assisi. It sounds more like an excuse in place of a justification.
The idea that brutalizing animals is somehow a holy and honorable thing makes me sick. It is no better than the Canned Hunts, where the entire idea is not for the challenge of a sport. The idea is an easy kill, skipping all the steps that predators in the wild have to go through, in order to obtain their prey. The animals used in these hunts are purchased beforehand, and given no chance of survival by the hunter. They are killed in such a way that it takes them a long time to die (the ram in the documentary took 45 minutes to bleed to death, suffering all the while), to prolong the "enjoyment" of the hunter for the killing experience, and to preserve the parts taken as trophies, such as the fur and head. The Pigeon Shooting was even less justifiable because the poor birds are not even needed for anything but as targets. The hunters do not make trophies of them, they are simply ground up and used as fertilizer afterwards. This "sport" involves disorienting and starving the birds, and then letting them loose for the few seconds it takes for them to be shot down. How is that a sport, again? And how the heck is it supposed to be a celebration of American Freedom?
Freedom?! How is caging other animals and letting them loose only to shoot them down in their mad attempt to escape a symbol of freedom? That's like starving a human criminal for a week, then letting him out of his cell to race towards a dinner plate, only to shoot him before he reaches it!
Maybe it's all the fault of religion, but I doubt it. Religion is the excuse. Just like it was "alright" for English Crusaders to invade Islamic Countries, it is acceptable to stab and shoot "lesser" animals because a book says so. Please. What kind of garbage is that? No, religion is just an excuse. Humans do these things for ego-trips. The whole "I'm king of the world" thing. They do it for the same reason that rape happens among humans. It's all about power, and the ones that have it lord it over, and force it down the throats of those that don't.
Seeing cats be bashed over the head and boiled alive was very hard for me, as a cat-lover, but that wasn't the only part I had trouble with. The simple fact that humans don't seem to know quite how to deal with animals is more disturbing by far.
The documentary showed both extremes of the situation. Canned hunts and animal experimentation/ consumption practices, to extreme Vegans acting as part of their religion in such a way that it helps foster human starvation and the spread of virulent illnesses like the Bubonic plague because rats are held so sacred that killing them is believed to be an offense against the Gods.
The connection between religion and the treatment of animals was perhaps one of the most interesting, if hard accept, parts of the documentary. Being raised Catholic in America, I did not realize that other Catholic-dominated countries in the world resorted to what amounts to animal sacrifice, especially countries that are considered "modern", like Spain. Throwing goats out of tower windows and torturing bulls until they simply give up the fight (and are then shot on the steps of a church, no less) are sickening displays of ego. Somehow, I don't understand why torturing animals venerates the Catholic Patron saint of animals, Saint Francis of Assisi. It sounds more like an excuse in place of a justification.
The idea that brutalizing animals is somehow a holy and honorable thing makes me sick. It is no better than the Canned Hunts, where the entire idea is not for the challenge of a sport. The idea is an easy kill, skipping all the steps that predators in the wild have to go through, in order to obtain their prey. The animals used in these hunts are purchased beforehand, and given no chance of survival by the hunter. They are killed in such a way that it takes them a long time to die (the ram in the documentary took 45 minutes to bleed to death, suffering all the while), to prolong the "enjoyment" of the hunter for the killing experience, and to preserve the parts taken as trophies, such as the fur and head. The Pigeon Shooting was even less justifiable because the poor birds are not even needed for anything but as targets. The hunters do not make trophies of them, they are simply ground up and used as fertilizer afterwards. This "sport" involves disorienting and starving the birds, and then letting them loose for the few seconds it takes for them to be shot down. How is that a sport, again? And how the heck is it supposed to be a celebration of American Freedom?
Freedom?! How is caging other animals and letting them loose only to shoot them down in their mad attempt to escape a symbol of freedom? That's like starving a human criminal for a week, then letting him out of his cell to race towards a dinner plate, only to shoot him before he reaches it!
Maybe it's all the fault of religion, but I doubt it. Religion is the excuse. Just like it was "alright" for English Crusaders to invade Islamic Countries, it is acceptable to stab and shoot "lesser" animals because a book says so. Please. What kind of garbage is that? No, religion is just an excuse. Humans do these things for ego-trips. The whole "I'm king of the world" thing. They do it for the same reason that rape happens among humans. It's all about power, and the ones that have it lord it over, and force it down the throats of those that don't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
