That's Just Not How It Works

I have noticed throughout my biology studies that the general public is grossly unaware of the rigorous ethical standards that biological and medical research has to adhere to. While with medical research I started to understand why after reading The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, the misinformation that circulates regarding animal research is astounding, more so that very few people actually step up to correct it. While with other forms of misinformation that circulate in the public there are plenty of people who are not necessarily experts in that field that step up to the plate to refute it, there seems to be a general lack of knowledge when it comes to the ethical process when conducting research on animals. Television also tends to perpetuate the stereotype of the at-worst-sadistic-at-best-indifferent scientist (while also perpetuating old stereotypes in medical research as well – both the placebo and treatment groups get the treatment at the end of the clinical trial guys, I get it makes for good dramatic television to pretend otherwise but enough already), and it doesn’t help that the media go right along with it instead of taking the time to educate the public on a little known fact. I’ve been thinking about writing a post detailing the process for a while now, and a few days ago this post came up on Pharyngula. I’ll let PZ Myers explain:

Now in those old observations, we weren’t really manipulating either the brain or the environment: you don’t get to do that with human babies! All we were doing was documenting the natural progression of synaptic connection density — which, by the way, declines rapidly as the brain learns and refines. What we could see anatomically is that as young children adapt to their environment, the brain is busily pruning and shifting connections — but what we couldn’t see is what was causing those changes, or what effect those anatomical changes had on visual processing.

For that, you have to tinker. And since you can’t do that with human babies, you have to go to animal models.

And the most common animal models for studying the visual system in humans are mammals: cats (also ferrets, for technical reasons involving some of the pathways). And since we’re interested in the plasticity of the brain in young, developing animals, you can see where this is going.

Neuroscientists do experiments on kittens.

(…)

I’ve done experiments like these in the past, and even more substantial surgical manipulations. The investigators know how to do these experiments humanely: we know about anesthesia, for instance, and anything involving surgery on animals is tightly policed by Institutional Review Boards (actually, they tend to be discouraged by IRBs, but that’s a different complaint), which usually have veterinarians serving on them. If Buyukmihci has evidence that these surgeries were done in a way that did not minimize suffering, he should speak up, and the neuroscience community would join him in deploring them.

But these protocols went through Cardiff University’s ethical review process and the Home Office Animals in Science Regulation Unit. There’s no reason to think they were anything less than impeccable.

Ralph Cook, some politician or bureaucrat: “It’s an academic producing a paper which is meaningless and can’t be transferred to humans. Vivisection is completely wrong.”

No, actually, most of this research isn’t just an abstract pursuit of knowledge (although there’s nothing wrong with that, either). This is research that is directly applicable to alleviating human suffering. Treatment of visual system disorders in children is informed directly by these kinds of experiments: they tell us about the sensitivity of the visual system to abnormalities in inputs and long term effects of sustained aberrations. I had a child with ‘lazy eye’ at birth: the doctors (as well as the parents in this case) knew how important it was to correct this problem as quickly as possible, and gave us protocols (tested in cats!) that we could implement until she was old enough to get surgery.

(…)

Scientists don’t do these experiments to get their jollies torturing kittens. These are experiments that advance our understanding of the wiring of the brain.

I agree that there is an amount of suffering involved, and having done similar work, I also know that good investigators do their best to minimize it. My second job as an undergraduate was as an animal care assistant in a surgery, and one of the things I was paid to do was to spend a few hours a day just playing with post-op cats and kittens, and making sure that their housing was clean and comfortable. These were conscientious scientists. They needed to do these experiments, but they also cared about the animals. I was really impressed with their concern and respect for the animals they had to do experiments on.

So after the Mirror published yet another ridiculously misinformed and biased article, they sent it to a poll, expecting of course for the public to outrageously vote No! Kitty experimentation not OK!

I went over and voted yes, not because I think it’s awesome to randomly experiment with cats, but because I understand how these experiments work and how, at the moment, they’re the best and only option we have. Trust me, scientists are looking for ways to avoid using animals in research: it’s complicated, it’s expensive and getting the experiment approved by the ethical review boards is grueling and time-consuming. Unfortunately at the moment we have no other option, and the decision at the end is that the knowledge gained from these experiments is worth it. I understand that not everyone will agree with me, it’s not as cut-and-dry as some of the other online polls I’ve voted in, but I voted the way I felt was right.

Well, the Mirror was not happy that it’s grossly biased poll did not pan out the way they wanted it to, so what did they do? They reposted the exact same article with the exact same poll, changed the title, and added the subtitle 

Animal lovers across Britain were left out outraged by our story yesterday, however, in our poll, just 54% of people said it was wrong

Golly gee! How did our hatchet job get such mixed reviews?! No assholes, that’s not how it works.

You don’t just get a do-over because you don’t like the results. How about doing a follow-up article about why people didn’t fall for your stupidly biased approach, actually going into what bioethics is and how it works? How many times are you going to lazily repost the exact same article under a different title before you accept that the numbers are not on your side?

This time, just to spite them, I want to vote from a few different computers.

You all should go vote too, if for no other reason than sending the message that you can’t ask people a question then ignore the answer just because you don’t like it.

Bad Science: When There's No Science At All

I have to admit I do enjoy National Geographic. Sure some of the articles can be a little wishy-washy, but the pictures are stunning and it definitely keeps my attention and keeps me company far more than an any “women’s” magazine ever would (no, I could give a shit if those are Angelina Jolie’s real boobs, and if she has an eating disorder it is none of my business). This month, however, when flipping through I came across an article that bothered me called Rhino Wars.

The article talks about the illegal trade in rhino horn from Africa to Asia, where it is rumoured to have medicinal properties ranging from fever reducing properties to a cure for cancer. Despite the lack of scientific peer-reviewed evidence, many people believe in this and even doctors suggest it as a possible treatment for cancer.

Because of this demand, poachers have driven all five species of rhino onto the Endangered Species List, selling the horn for up to twice its weight in gold. This has also led to entrepreneurs trying “rhino farming”, where they keep the animals alive and sever their horns two-three inches above the base, which ensures its re-growth within a few years. While it doesn’t seem like an optimal solution, the argument for rhino farming is that it makes for competition for poachers (who kill the rhino before severing its horn) and is a good way to ensure the species' survival. However, there is one big glaring problem that this NatGeo article completely fails to mention:

What about the millions of people that are duped into paying a fortune for something that most likely doesn’t work?

This is where the lack of science becomes incredibly bad science. A search through the literature on this subject has led me to only two studies, from the 1990s, on the effects of rhino horn on hypothermic rats. OK, so it seems as though they have been published in an actual journal with an actual Impact Factor, which is a good start. Unfortunately I cannot access the full article in order to take a good look at their methods, but here is an excerpt from one of the abstracts:

Intraperitoneal administration of an aqueous extract of rhinoceros horn at 5 2.5 and 1 g/ml, showed a significant antipyretic effect in rats with hyperthermia induced by subcutaneous injection of terpentine oil. Similar assays with extracts of the horns of saiga antelope, water buffalo and cattle at 5 g/ml also caused a significant drop in fever

Let’s say for the sake of argument that this is true, and that this effect translates over to humans. So rhino horn reduces fever, so what? So does paracetamol. We already have drugs that do this. Also notice that cattle horn has the same effect. Well, if you have to use some kind of horn, why not use one from an animal that is already farmed and has the same effect?

Here’s the problem, I cannot find a single peer-reviewed paper on the effects of rhino horn on cancer treatment. So what the hell are we waiting for?!

Although I highly doubt that rhino horn will have anti-cancer properties, I have explained again and again that not thinking something likely is no reason to not investigate it. There are doctors that are suggesting this, there need to be studies done. If one, two, three studies are done that show no health benefits, these results need to be plastered in these doctors’ faces and all over the news, only that way can we have any hope of educating people and getting them to devote their efforts to other, tried and tested treatments, possibly saving lives. You want to save the rhino and decrease poaching? Start by decreasing the demand.

And what if these studies demonstrate that rhino horn actually does have an anti-cancer effect? Well great! We can start looking for the active ingredient in the rhino horn so that it can be purified in the lab.

If it turns out that rhino horn does aid in cancer treatment then maybe I’ll be in favour of expanding and trading from rhino farms, at least until scientists are able to identify and replicate the compound that has these medicinal properties. But, until then, I think that rhino farming is a terribly flimsy band-aid over this festering problem.

By supporting rhino farming you are supporting financial interests in keeping the rhino horn trade alive. You may decrease the poaching and black market trade a little, but you are supporting people that do not want it to get out that rhino horn doesn’t have the medicinal benefits people think, because that would hurt sales. I know that there are going to be people that believe in traditional medicine no matter what, but to think that education could not make a huge dent is ridiculous. You only have to look at the past hundred years to see how this is not the case.

The fact of the matter is that, while NatGeo is right to point out the lives of rhino’s that are being saved, they fail to make the more obvious point. It is not just rhinos that are losing lives in this “war”, it is countless sick, desperate humans that are losing their lives as well.

On Flogging A Dead Horse

A few days ago I alluded to a youtube user, who has now given me the permission to identify him as Andrewh313, who was peppering me with questions about the morality of meat eating, and to whom I responded in a blogpost hoping it would be the end of it. Alas, it is not, but it will be soon. I had given him the benefit of the doubt when I saw him misinterpreting my words and rehashing old arguments in saying that he probably was getting his various comment threads of arguments mixed up and not getting the full meaning of my words in the limited comments of youtube, but it seems I was wrong. He has responded to my post with another infinite PM, telling me to post it here. I will, with a few short comments and that is it. I said I would not readress this issue any more unless there was a new thread of discussion to address. Although he is still harping on the same issue, in the spirit of fairness and clarity I will post his rebuttal in its entirety, no editing, so you can see exactly what he is saying and decide for yourselves whether or not you think I should have continued further. So here it is, with my comments in red

Hello,

Sorry it took me so long to respond. I read your blog, and would have posted this as a comment had there been space. I encourage you to post my last epistle and this one to your blog, if you'd like. I have been thinking of starting a blog myself, and I may do the same for your words if you have no objection.

I suppose your restatements of my points are correct if rather facile. However, the bit about intelligence is not correct. I posed that problem to you as an example of the use of Reflective Equilibrium to examine our moral premises. I did not believe that you really believed that intelligence is the deciding factor in what sentient beings on this earth may be killed and which may not. I was trying to show you that whatever moral premise you hold that protects the right of human life can and ought to be extended to animals, but more on that in a bit.

Let us look at your introductory words first, shall we?

"First of all, all of us make the distinction between things that are OK to kill and things that are not based on "intelligence", or rather neurological complexity... Here, we are going to draw the line at animals that possess brains and are capable of feeling pain, for the sake of argument."

I would not use the word "intelligence" at all. I do not feel comfortable eating plants because they are "dumb". "Neurological complexity" is, as you say, the better term. Consciousness is what I am really going at. But all's well thus far. How convenient, since "consciousness" is not a scientific concept, does not have a conclusive definition that can be agreed upon, and cannot be measured. But it we have compromised on neurological complexity, so we can continue with that

"Secondly, it would be an incomplete answer without pointing out that there is a biological precedent for this opinion.... It is the most natural thing that exists...."

Oh! How you make me cringe. I hope your readers are smart enough to realize that this is a non-argument, as I hope you realize. Although you said, "please don't ask me to readdress something I have already stated because I wont", I suppose I will. I repeat again that just because something is "natural" or has a precedent is no argument for its merits. To say otherwise is to commit Hume's Is-Ought Fallacy. How sickened would we be to hear a conservative say, "The oppression of homosexuals has a long historical precedent." or "One group of people going to war to kill and take the resources of another is a natural thing. Chimps are our closest relatives, and they do it." Thankfully, this kind of arguing is not salient in your rhetoric. I never said its natural therefore its moral. I am fully aware that things that happen in nature are not precedents of morality. However it would be asinine to deny that we are creatures who have evolved certain instincts and that some of those are still ever present in our systems. Conveniently he left out how I ackowledged this when I said "However, we have developed the neurological complexity necessary to be able to override these instincts in the pursuit of logic and morality", but lets continue

But you do have an untruth in this paragraph: "...there is no animal that would put the survival of an animal of a different species over one of its own." It is of course well known that dogs will defend their human companions to the point of their own deaths. It is simple, Darwinian instincts of course. Wrong. Dogs have been bred for thousands of years to be extremely loyal to their owners. A wolf, an animal with "darwinian instincts" (by which I presume you mean instincts developed from natural selection) could give two shits if a human is in trouble. Even given the manipulation of dogs instincts over thousands of years by humans, you will still find yourself in a tight spot if you ask a dog to choose between its owner and its own puppies. Either way, you even quote me, I said "over one of its own (species)", not "over itself". An extremely important distinction. Dogs are social animals, like us, and it serves the species if some of its members are sacrificed. This is, as you know, why human's display the same behaviors. You may counter by saying, "Well! Animals have no understanding of death. A dog that gives its life doesn't know it's going to die. Therefore, it's not really making a conscious choice to die." This is not a point I am making in this part of the post at all. It's not about choice and choosing to die on the dogs part, its about what naturally evolved instincts will cause an animal to do, and occasionally it means sacrificing yourself for a child. Its called gene selection theory, and it is well demonstrated in the natural world.  This may be so, but your point would still be moot, because that would mean that human's are the only sentient beings that are capable of taking death into consideration when making choices. We certainly do choose to dole out a lot of it, don't we?

Now, what is this about meat produced in European factory farms? You say you are morally comfortable buying meat produced in European factory farms. Really? Do you really believe animals do not suffer in those places? Do you really trust the moral integrity of EU agribusinesses that defend scorching off the beaks of chickens with hot irons because, if they do not, the chickens will peck at each other and that would be more cruel? Do you think it is naïve of me to say that, in that case, we shouldn't be raising chickens at all? Example no. 2 of putting words in my mouth. I never said that every single animal in the whole of the EU is kept well and happy. I explained the methods of killing animals in the EU has been standardized to minimize suffering and fear. I am aware that there are battery farms in the UK, I dont live there and wouldnt buy battery farmed chicken eggs even if I did. Ive been to many farms were chickens are raised for eggs and meat and not a scorched beak in sight. I am not saying that there are not places where animals suffer in the EU, I am saying that it is not difficult to get your animal products from a place where they do not, so long as you make a conscious decision to do so. Do you think I am foolish or idealistic for being outraged that one EU member, the UK, has blocked legislative proposals such as "Cages for poultry should be large enough for a bird to be able to stretch one wing at a time" and "Any animal should at least have room to turn around freely" because these proposals were "too idealistic"?! (Cited from Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation"). Do you honestly believe that animals do not suffer in such places?

Forgive me for attacking you, my friend, but you are smart enough to know that animals do suffer in European factory farms. Forgive me for being accusatory when I say that you probably do not exclusively purchase the free-range beef Why the hell not? free-range meat tastes much better, its not filled with hormones or other crap, the animals are happier, why the hell wouldnt I buy all my animal products free-rage? Its a win-win-win that you see "roaming around huge fields, just as nature intended." (Assuming that those grass-fed cows aren't shipped to CAFOs after a certain age, as most are in America. No, they are the property of the family that owns the butchers on the same land. They own the land, kill the animals, sell them out the front of the shop) Please, my friend, do not insult my intelligence by saying that animals do not suffer in EU factory farms, because you also insult your own intelligence. For the record, the whole "my friend" thing is quite condescending and thus increasingly annoying
Now I move on to the challenge that I issued to you with my last epistle. I challenged you to tell me why you believe that it is wrong for a human to kill another human, and I told you that any moral precept you believed should be logically extended to animals. Let us see what you came up with.
So, you rest your opposition to killing humans due to the suffering it causes. Really? You make a note that even if the death is sudden and painless "you are still causing pain and suffering to that person's friends and family." I do not believe, madam, that you would have ever couched your belief that killing humans is wrong in such terms had it not been for me pressing you on the issue. I do not believe that you have spent your life believing that the physical act of killing someone is not immoral Of course it is immoral. you asked me WHY is it immoral.. I do not believe that you believe that the only reason why we should not painlessly murder another person is because it would upset his or her family. I gave you multiple reasons why I, personally, think it is immoral. true not many ask that question but I gave you reasons, plural, why. To say that each of those reasons by itself is insufficient is silly. And really, you dont think that causing a person extreme suffering because by taking away a loved one from them immoral also? I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that one. If you don't think that the suffering of family is a factor, you should also be pro euthanasia for comatose patients even if it is not what the families want, because the only people that would suffer in that case are the person's loved ones that don't want the person to die.

You have the good sense to realize the problem with this logic:

"What if you kill a person that has no friends, no family, no acquaintances whatsoever, by sneaking up on them and smacking them over the head so they don't know whats coming, cause them no pain, just kill them."

Your answer to this shows, I think, just how little thought you have given this issue. "Well what fucking sense would that have??!" Yea, what fucking sense would it have? What fucking sense is there in murdering another human being? Why would anyone ever do that? But maybe a murder would ask you "Why not? Why shouldn't I painlessly remove a sentient being from this world if it gives me pleasure?" Our society expects you to be able to explain why it is wrong to kill another human with no pain for them or their family. You do not explain it. All you say is that "I would be also astounded and morally outraged at someone doing the exact same thing to a stray dog."No that is not "all I say" about it. I also point out we are straying into hypotheticals because a person that fits that description is an anomaly, if existing at all. I also talk about people's choice over their own lives, but you do eventually get to that, although you frame it as if it was a seperate issue. And yet you are not outraged by our systematic killing of pigs, who are smarter than dogs, and we do it merely for our own pleasure. You are not even making an argument here.
It is wrong to painlessly kill a human being for pleasure, and it is wrong to painlessly kill any sentient being for pleasure. This is your moral opinion, and I don't have a problem with it.

So, after you made this nonsense argument, you moved on to a completely different argument nope, same argument, but fine go ahead to condemn human killing. Perhaps the logic was to throw two incompatible arguments at my challenge? Maybe one would stick. Let's see:

"Humans are unique in that, because of the fact that they know their life is finite, they have the capability of making choices.... Call me crazy, but I don't like the idea of robbing a person of that choice, because I wouldn't want anyone to rob me of it either."

Ah! I applaud you for such a subtle and erudite rejoinder. Humans are the only creatures that know they will die and have the power to choose which they would prefer. It is wrong of us to deny another human the right to choose whether they would like to live or die. Because of this logic, I am sure that the profoundly retarded should have their lives protected, because they would surely want to live if they had the intelligence to make the choice Example 3 of putting words into my mouth. You're teasing all the reasons I give and asking each them to stand up seperately, on their own, to every single different circumstance that exists in this complex world of ours. Forgive me for not having such a simplistic view of morality as that, giving me a single platitude that fits all. I gave multiple reasons that can cope with multiple circumstances of death and killing, they are to be taken together as such. I am also sure that animals should be killed, because they would surely want to die if they had the intelligence to make the choice. I can't find any logical absurdity with this argument at all.

Or maybe my moral precept that suffering is wrong would be better. No sentient being should have to suffer a loss of life. No sentient being should be made to lose their conscious experience of existence, unless their lives would have nothing but pain, hence euthanasia. Maybe this is a more sensible morality. Here you go with consciousness again. How do you know a chicken has a conscious experience? You dont, it is an ongoing debate as to what that even means. Right now all you have to go on is your opinion on the subject, not fact.

On to your final words:

I repeat that I did not believe that you believed that animals should be killed because they are unintelligent, but you go on to harp on the point. "First of all it is pretty much impossible to give a pig an IQ test...." Cute of you to call it an IQ test. Condescending of you to call me cute Psychologists study the mental capacities of animals and humans. With the possible exception of art, which may be an emergent property, human brains are better only by extent. "Human brains are just different from pig brains in too many ways." Really? "For example, even if a person has the 'problem-solving capabilities' of a pig... would they still have the capability of emotional suffering and distress, of forming social bonds and interacting with humans." No. There are profoundly retarded human beings that lack this capacity. Still waiting for a citation on this. As someone who has volunteered with the mentally disabled I find it quite obtuse (at best) of you to equate the capabilities of problem solving with the capability of emotions and emotional suffering. Give me a well studied example of a mentally handicapped person that lacks the capabilities of emotional suffering, other than the one I gave that you completely glossed over, and we can discuss this further. If not stop bringing up disabled people There are human beings who are otherwise normal but have lost the mental capability to form emotional bonds. Once again you have to be a little more specific. Do you mean sociopaths? Autistic people? Each case has a unique answer with regards to what they are and are not capable of. Should we not worry about killing them? Are their lives less valuable? You do not believe this. No I dont, then again I never said I did

If you do not like my comparison with the mentally retarded, fine. Let us compare animals with the mind of a human infant. Infants have emotion, in all likelihood, but their brains are utterly inferior to a dog's, which have emotion as well. An infant cannot solve problems. An infant cannot reason. You see how you are the one constantly bringing intelligence into it. We have discussed that the capability of an animal to solve problems has nothing to do with the morality of killing them.  An infant cannot even form lasting memories or function on its own. To a newborn, the world is likely a haze of experience with each memory quickly disappearing. You know this how? No animal could live with such a brain. Bullshit again. Animals live just fine with much, much less. There are plenty of animals out there with no brains at all and they get on splendidly The frailties of the infant brain is sometimes cited by apologists of infant genital mutilation. There are people who believe that that it is ok to inflict the agony of circumcision and clitoridectomy upon the mind of a child. I believe this is a sick and monstrous belief, and I hope you do as well. Yes I do, but it has nothing to do with what we are discussing here.

If we are to be consistent with our moral actions in this world, it is clear that higher mental faculties should not be considered the deciding factor. It is wrong to deny life to any sentient being, according to you and we should be consistent on this point. I leave you now with the words of Jeremy Bentham, a man who lived in a time when it was legal and socially acceptable to own and torture another human being:

"The day has been, I am sad to say in many places it is not yet past, in which the greater part of the species, under the denomination of slaves, have been treated by the law exactly upon the same footing, as, in England for example, the inferior races of animals are still. The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been witholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognised that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog, is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" Yes they can suffer, but we talked about suffering and it being wrong over and over again. Enough now.

You have made it clear that your morality is not just "it is wrong to cause suffering", because that would leave the door open to killing animals while not causing them suffering. You have said " It is wrong to deny life to any sentient being". Of course the intended subtext there is "it is wrong for humans to deny life to any sentient being". Even if you have decided that other animals are sentient you still ackowledge that there is a fundemental difference between our mental faculites and that of other (in your opinion) "sentient" animals. We are the only animals that can make moral decisions or ponder the morality of doing anything.  

So that is your morality in a nutshell. Mine is more complicated, based on a more complex view of how we came about thinking about morality in the first place. You seem to possess the arrogance of those that think that there is only one opinion that can be based on solid logic and that all other opinions are based either on false evidence, false facts, bad logic or no logic at all. If you believe that it is really your problem, not mine. 

Not a single new point was brought up. No new thread of discourse, just a load of twisting words, nitpicking and repetition. This is why I am letting this dead horse lie. If someone else has something fresh to say please do, I will listen. If not, stay tuned for some drastic changes in topic :)

Tough Questions: Is Eating Meat Immoral?

Ever since I uploaded a Penn and Teller Bullshit! episode about PETA I've been getting a swarm of comments about the morality of meat eating, what I think about it, how I justify myself etc. Not only are 500character comments very limiting, I am also getting extremely tired of repeating myself. Prompted by waking up this morning to the longest PM I've ever seen, I've decided to explain myself once and for all here. If there are follow-up questions ask them here, but please don't ask me to repeat things I have already stated.

I am using the PM in question as a model for my answer as it seems to cover the basics of coming to an opinion on the morality of the subject.  To summarize the main questions that are being asked of me here, I guess they can boil down to the following:

1. How can you justify treating animals in a way that you wouldn't treat humans, when we are all related and species barriers are just an arbitrary distinction?
2. If you don't think it is morally wrong to kill an animal, why is it not morally wrong to kill a human being?
3. If you agree that animals suffer the way humans do, how can you support an industry that thrives on this suffering?
4. Since there are mentally retarded humans that have the same IQ as a cow or a pig, and you base your "OK to kill" morality on intelligence, either it is OK to kill retarded people or it is not OK to kill pigs.

If I have misinterpreted any of these points please correct me.

OK so this is what I think about the whole thing.

First of all, all of us make the distinction between things that are OK to kill and things that are not based on "intelligence", or rather neurological complexity, at some point. We are biologically related to every living organism on Earth, including plants and bacteria. Here, we are going to draw the line at animals that possess brains and are capable of feeling pain, for the sake of argument.

Secondly, it would be an incomplete answer without pointing out that there is a biological precedent for this opinion. Of course there is a biological precedent for giving your own species more importance than any other. It is the most natural thing that exists and there is no animal that would put the survival of an animal of a different species over one of its own. The instinct becomes even stronger when it comes to family members. While mathematically it makes sense that you should kill your sister, or mother, or son to save 10 other people, there are very few people out there that would be able to make such a choice. There is also a biological precedent for eating meat, we have evolved as omnivorous animals and as such it is a normal part of our diet. However, we have developed the neurological complexity necessary to be able to override these instincts in the pursuit of logic and morality, something that we are unique in being able to do as a species. So, given that we are smart enough to be able to figure out ways to survive without meat etc, can we still morally justify our doing so?

I responded that the thing I find to be immoral is causing animals to suffer, whether it be emotional or physical suffering, both for humans and other animals. We can agree that while humans hold first prize in being able to suffer emotionally (especially since right now we're talking about farm animals, not other more intelligent ones that are not routinely killed for food), other animals have the capacity to feel pain. That should not be done in my opinion. Great, so far we agree.

The problem that follows is the anthropomorphic idea that killing a farm animal is the same as causing it pain and suffering. I understand that the US is behind when it comes to legislation with regards to minimizing animal suffering, but in the EU and especially in Italy it is much simpler to buy meat from animals that have not suffered. First of all, EU regulations state that each farm animal be killed in a swift and clean way that does not cause them pain or fear. Cows are taken to a room and killed with a swift blow to the head delivered by an air-pressure gun which gives the exact amount of force necessary to instantly kill, removing human error that might stun the animal and cause it unnecessary pain. Pigs are walked into a chamber that contains CO2, they fall asleep and die without even knowing whats going on (this happens often enough with humans that we are sure its painless, people die in their sleep without even knowing what is happening). Chickens are killed with a swift electric current delivered to the neck, stopping their heart instantly and none of that running around with a snapped neck shit. When I drive past my favorite butchers at Testa di Lepre I can see the cows roaming around huge fields, just as nature intended. Here it is really not that hard to make sure you are buying meat that has lived a normal happy life until being killed in the most humane way possible. For this reason, I do not have a problem with buying and eating this meat. Compared with how their ancestors had it as being prey animals, being chased down (extremely scary) until exhausted and then having their throat gashed (if chased by a big cat) or being disemboweled and eating while still twitching with life (if chased by wild dogs) I'd say they have a pretty sweet deal.

OK so moving on to humans. As I said I do not agree with causing pain and suffering. If you kill a human being chances are you are causing them pain and suffering. Humans know what death is, that they are going to die, and they are often terrified of the idea. Killing a person for sadistic pleasure means by definition causing them pain and that is immoral to me. Even if you sneak up on them and smack them over the head you are still causing pain and suffering to that person's friends and family, just because it is emotional suffering it is still suffering. I also don't think you should kill any animal for no reason. What if you kill a person that has no friends, no family, no acquaintances whatsoever, by sneaking up on them and smacking them over the head so they don't know whats coming, cause them no pain, just kill them. Well what fucking sense would that have??! Apart from the obvious point that you would be extremely hard pressed to find a person that fit that description, I would be also astounded and morally outraged at someone doing the exact same thing to a stray dog. What the fuck would you even do that for? Now surely there is some residual instinct of putting your own species above all others, but there is also one other thing that sets humans apart. Humans are unique in that, because of the fact that they know their life is finite, they have the capability of making choices. I don't mean the choice between turning left or right that might incidentally affect your lifespan, I mean they can make a conscious choice with what direction to bring their lives in, and even to end it if they like. Call me crazy, but I don't like the idea of robbing a person of that choice, because I wouldn't want anyone to rob me of it either. That is why I am pro-euthanasia, I feel that just because someone is not physically capable of fulfilling that choice they should not be robbed of it.

That brings us full circle to the mentally disabled. Here I find a flaw in the science of talking about people with the intelligence of pigs. First of all it is pretty much impossible to give a pig an IQ test, but even if you could I really don't think its a fair comparison. Human brains are just different from pig brains in too many ways. For example, even if a person has the "problem-solving capabilities" of a pig (only for the sake of argument at this point, I am still waiting on any citation of a mental disorder that is said to put that person's intelligence on par with a pig's), would they still have the capability of emotional suffering and distress, of forming social bonds and interacting with humans. Also there are the people around them, parents and loved ones that care for them to take into consideration. The only almost comparable situation could be someone in a vegetative or semi-vegetative state. Someone that is not capable of interacting with others, are not aware of the presence of their loved ones in a conscious way, someone with no hope of recovering the damage done to their brains. In these situations I am once again pro euthanasia if that is what the family wants.

This is my conclusion based on my moral logic. I do not think that others have to reach the same conclusion, because as I have said may times, morality is subjective. Many people morally object to my view on euthanasia, that's fine. All I ask is that your opinion be based on real facts, although I have already dealt with false facts surrounding vegetarianism here. It also irks me to be accused of having an opinion about something "just because", which I have also discussed before.

I hope I have been clear. If there is another aspect of this you want me to address, or I need to be more clear on something please let me know. Just please don't ask me to readdress something I have already stated because I wont.

Anyway, this is going to be my last post for the next four days seeing as I am taking that wonderful "immaculate conception" four day weekend and not taking my computer. If I come across one and I have something to say I might peek in before then, but if not I'll see you all on Monday

Going Back to Original Meanings

It's one of the oldest tricks in the book. Take a word that your opposition identifies with, twist it's meaning so that it becomes an insult, watch the other side scamper away and try to find another term to define them and even use that old word to fling at each other in insult. What's more pathetic than people who do that is people who let it work by running away from the new meaning they have found attached to that word.

Words are words, we can decide that they mean whatever we want them to mean. That is why, whenever engaging in any kind of debate with someone, I get very fiscal about defining the words we are going to use before we get started. It may sound like arguing semantics, but it can put a pin in the squirming worms of apologist talking points before you allow them to waste a half hour of your time.

Here I am not trying to say that one word has one absolute meaning and that they can never be redefined. I am saying that, in protest of this sneaky tactic we should not run away from these new meanings that have cropped up for perfectly fine words. We should embrace those old words that define us, and to have a little fun we can invent new words to take on the false meaning that have since been attached to them. Here are some examples:

1. Feminist
Original Meaning: A person who argues for or defends equal rights for women
It Has Become: Hairy-armpitted hippie lesbian know-it-all who wants to castrate every man who dares even look at a woman's ass in passing.

Pfft please. I may piss off a few of the "new" feminists by saying I don't give two shits if a man looks at a woman's ass, any more than I think men should care if I take a gander at a particularly fine man-ass that happens to cross my path. It's only natural. Of course that does not mean that a man should treat a woman differently because of the fineness of her ass, or think it appropriate to grope her regardless of what she's wearing, but that is a completely different story. I want a respectful environment for my fellow vagina-bearers, not the fucking thought police.

However I have been called a feminist as an insult quite a few times. I have to admit that even I started to say "ugh I'm NOT a feminist, just because I think you're a moron when you tell me to get back in the kitchen!" Sexism is something that people don't think exists anymore, so they take equal opportunities for granted and think that if there are still "feminists" around then they must just be here to break our balls. Screw that. Be proud to be a real feminist, and to the women that do fit the above-mentioned description here's a new word for you:
                                                                Female Supremacist


2. Animal Rights Activist
Original Meaning: A person who advocates for better living conditions and against the needless causing of suffering towards animals
It Has Become: PETA-loving vegan vandal who advocates for the bombing of medical research centers

As a researcher AND an animal lover, I find this one quite upsetting. As I said before in my post on veganism, vegetarianism and animal rights, I think that this new definition does a great disservice to those who want reasonable legislation to be passed on behalf of animals. I want to ban puppy farms, not pet ownership. I want cows, pigs, sheep and chickens to have good living conditions, not to ban the sale of meat. It is also the members of the last category that fuel this separation as well, saying that you cant really be an animal lover unless you are firmly on their side. Let's face it, a vegan world is never going to exist. So let's compromise: we will keep the term animal rights activist, since we might actually be able to acheive some changes on the legislative level, and you can have:
                                                                   Vegan Fundamentalist


3. Liberal - In the US
Original Meaning: A person who advocates for the freedom of the individual and their rights
It Has Become: 1. God-hating atheist communist who is also secretly a totalitarian nazi sympathizer
                         2. Pussy

OK (1) the most extreme case scenario, but not too far off if you put together all of the ways that Fox News has used the term. What's worse is that this one has worked wonders, and now you have the left scampering over to the term "progressive", which is slowly put surely going down the same sad road as liberal is. Stop running people. Say it proudly! You are standing up for  LIBERTY and EQUAL RIGHTS for every citizen, things that are undeniably patriotic and American. And for all of you who ran for the hills at the potential of criticism from the other side, you all can keep:
                                                                    Pussy


                
Any more words I've forgotten? Let me know

Thoughts on: Vegans, Vegeratianism and Animal Rights

I have had this one mulling around in my brain for quite some time, but it's such a big one that I really haven't has any concrete idea as to how to approach the subject in a coherent fashion. I guess I'll just have to wing it.

I have many mixed feelings about this, and I suppose that the reason why I wound up feeling so strongly about it is because of something that is going to sound controversial and a little polemic on my part: Veganism has become something like a fundamentalist religion.

OOOH no how can you say such a thing!! Well, for two main reasons:

1. The obnoxious conviction that their way of living is the only sane and rational way of living and that anyone who does not agree is either sorely misguided or just plain evil
2. The use of faux science to support their extreme lifestyle
--> If you are a vegan that does not fit one of these two points then relax, take a deep breath, I'm not talking about you.

I call it an extreme lifestyle because let's face it, it is. It goes against a person's biology and nature. That is not to say that it can't be done, and if an adult makes the choice and becomes a vegan I have absolutely zero problems with that, to each his own. I am an unabashed believer in personal freedom. I loathe people who randomly harass strangers for smoking thinking that they're doing them a favor, and yet if they see a morbidly obese person waddling down the cookie aisle have nothing but kind words for them. Let other people do whatever they like.

When you start trying to convert people to your way of life, whether you're a Jehovah's Witness or a Vegan, I might raise an eyebrow and find you annoying, but generally speaking I will remain quite unphased.

However the moment you start spouting made-up facts and faux science in order to support your own lifestyle and convince others that your beliefs are inerrant, I will rip in to you just like I would any young-earth creationist or holocaust denier. Making shit up is just disrespectful, and using fake science to convince other people to change their lifes is dishonest and cruel. So this is my ripping apart some common talking points that I have heard in favor of vegetarianism and veganism so far:


1. Humans are not meant to eat meat. That's why we cook it. We can't digest it, because we were never meant to eat it.

Grade-A Bullshit. Haven't you ever heard of sushi?!

But that's fish that's not meat

This is one thing that annoys the crap out of me. An animal's habitat does not make it any less of an animal. Animal flesh is animal flesh, whether it lives on land, in the sea or underground. Of course there are differences between different animals, but the difference between a chicken and a pig is really no greater than the difference between a chicken and a tuna. Animals are animals and meat is meat.

Anyway even disregarding the immaginary distictions between land animals and water-dwelling ones, ever heard of steak tartare? My grandmother regularly eats minced, spiced and raw pork, she is eighty-eight years old and she digests it just fine. The reason cooked meat is better for us than raw meat is simply a hygeine one. Raw meat can contain parasites that can infect us, and cooking it kills them, therefore rendering that meat safer and healthier to eat. And yes, other animals get infected regularly from their food as well. Considering that parasitic species outnumber non-parasitic species 4:1, that should hardly be surprising.

Of course humans were "meant" to eat meat. That's why we don't have fermenting bacteria in a ceacum like plant-eating animals do. That's why we have canines and incisors for ripping and tearing our food. That is why one of the essential vitamins we need to survive is B-12, which is only found in animal products. We are omnivores by nature, like it or not.


2. Deforestation happens to create pastures for livestock, so it's wrong to support that

OK, well deforestation also happens to create fields for agricultural purposes too. Do you ever hear anyone decide to not eat vegetables for that reason alone? If you're against farming that's fine, be against it. However that means that you should not have any moral objections against eating a duck you shot in the woods, or a trout you fished with a line from the stream. You should also be growing all of your own vegetables and be completely self-sufficient. Great. But most of the people who pull out this argument are not, which I call hypocrisy.


3. Meat is high in fat and cholesterol and low in vitamins, so it's healthier not to eat it

Um so what? When did the argument become either eat ONLY meat or eat ONLY vegetables? We are omnivores, not carnivores, we're supposed to eat a healthy balance of both. Of course there are people who eat way too much meat and are unhealthy because of it, but that's hardly an argument for cutting out an enormous portion of your diet entirely. Some people eat way too many carbs and become enromously fat and sick and even develop diabetes, but that is an extremely poor argument in support of choosing a carb-free diet.


4. I can't be a meat-eater because I support animal rights

Guess what: so do I. I find making an extremism distiction between supporting animal rights and eating meat one of the great hindrances to legislation for the protection of animals. Personally, I try to always eat organic and free-range meat because I believe that, just because we eat meat, it does not mean we should cause animals to needlessly suffer. I understand that we are all animals, and humanely killing a cow for food is no more evil to me than when any other animal kills to feed itself or its family. However that does not mean that we should grow chickens in cages that are smaller than they are, or slaughter pigs en masse as they spend their last moments in terror. We have the capabilities to avoid such unneccessary cruelty, and I think we should take steps to do so. But I think that the only way that certain countries will get up-to-date with regulations against these acts of cruelty is if the people start seeing it as something that most people are in favor of, not just a handful of extremists that want to ban the killing of animals anyway so what difference does it make if the conditions they're kept in are repulsive.

Well this is an extremely long subject and I only managed to touch on a tiny fraction of it, but if there are other veins of this ongoing debate that you will like to adress just start a thread!