Pet Cloning: A Response to Bridgette

Bridgette asks the question of: Would you ever try to get your pet cloned?

My answer is no. As much as I love my cat now, and my two cats and one dog who have passed away, I would not want to see them cloned because there is only one of them. Cloning a pet does not mean they will be the same. I don't know much about clones myself, but everyone thinks the original and the clone will be the same. I think it is possible for the clones to have a completely different personality. Also, cloning is an expensive process, from what I have heard. To me, it is not worth spending a crap ton of money for a copy. Copies do not live up to originals, in my mind.

This is supposed to be my last blog post, but I will still pose a question in case anyone would like to answer, or at least would like something to think about. What do you feel the pros and cons of cloning are?

An Extension of Ethical Examples in Modern Media

Last week I talked about Fullmetal Alchemist and Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood. I will be doing the same for this post, because of chimeras. They were mentioned in the biotechnology chapter, which we talked about recently, so I thought it would be appropriate.

Sunday morning, I saw the fourth espisode of Brotherhood at 1:30 AM. In this episode, the Elric Brothers travel to the house of an alchemist who was able to give chimeras the ability to speak as a human would. Chimeras had existed before, but they had never before been able to speak like a human. The story the Elric brothers are told is that this first speaking chimera told the alchemist that it wanted to die, so its wish was granted. This was how the alchemist became a State Alchemist, but he was in danger of losing this license. To pass the re-examination, he fused his daughter and their dog together into a chimera, after the brothers had visited and gotten to know them. (I should also mention that the mother was gone. I think she passed away.) In the end, the new chimera had to be killed, much to the heartbreak of the brothers and many fans of the show. (Note: These same events also took place in the original Fullmetal Alchemist, but I have not seen that episode myself.)

So now my question is this: Does this apply to chimeras made through biotechnology at all? What are your reactions to this based on what we have read about?

Speciesism: A Response to Skyla

Skyla asks: Topics such as racism and sexism are serious in our society but why do people push speciesism under the rug as if it is unimportant or a nonexistant problem?

I believe it is because humans may not see their treatment of animals as speciesist, or may not even realize that their treatment of animals is wrong in some way or that they are treating animals differently than they deserve to be treated. They don't think that animals should get as much care, love, and attention as a human and so ignore the animals, as well as ignore speciesism. Sad to say, many people do not see animals as equals but as something lesser than humans. Since that is the norm, they may not even second-guess that there is a name for this, or that it is wrong.

My question now is this: How can we make these kinds of people see that they are being speciesist? Would they even care if they knew?

Ethical Examples in Modern Media

Forgive me for sounding like a total dork here, but as we were sitting in class the other day and talking about the "yuck factor", I couldn't help but note some similarities between what we are talking about now and two anime series, Fullmetal Alchemist and Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood. Both of the series have the same premise, but from what I have heard Brotherhood is closer to the manga than is the original Fullmetal Alchemist.

In the series we have the two brothers, Edward and Alphonse Elric. They lost their mother to sickness, and so they made a plan to use alchemy to bring their mother back to life, by using human transmutation. Their father is an alchemist, but he has been out of the picture for quite some time. After years of studying alchemy (which does exist in their world; it's a world parallel to ours) they make the attempt, but it goes horribly wrong. A portal to another dimension opens, reaching out for a toll because, in alchemy, there is a law of equivalent exchange: you cannot create something out of nothing. At first, Ed loses his leg below the knee, and his brother is taken and rendered apart. In their place is a creature, maybe female, that is supposed to be human but is only human in the barest of senses: it is made out of blood, with sunken areas where the eyes and mouth would be. Viewers do not see what happens to this creature, but in desperation, Ed crawls over to a suit of armor and knocks it over. (When a state official goes to investigate after all of these events, viewers do see a dark stain on the floor.) At the cost of his arm, he is able to rend Alphonse's soul to the armor. From then on, any time anyone encounters the brothers without knowing them already, if they find out about Al, that he's not just wearing the suit of armor, they recoil because, to them, it is unnatural.

This made me think greatly of transgenesis, taking genes from one species and transferring it to another, like with taking Al's soul and binding it to the suit of armor. Also, how everyone recoiled from him definitely reminded me of the so-called "yuck factor".

My question now is: Are there other parallels between what we've been discussing in class and what has been discussed here?

Growth Hormones

Now that we're talking about Bio-Tech, I thought this would be a good time to post this blog. On the sides of certain food products nowadays, there will be disclaimers of "No growth hormones have been used in this product..." The places I've seen them the most are on Ben & Jerry's ice cream and on the side of Odwalla bottles. With so many foods being produced with growth hormones or some kind of hormones, so it's nice to see some companies sticking to natural products. Of course, some of these claims may not be true. I was told of a story with Snapple Apple by my friend, and how the bottle claims that there were real apples in the drink. Yet when he looked at the ingredients, there were no apples in sight.

My question now is: How many of these "no hormones" claims can be believed from these big companies?

Animals as Property?: A Response to Jake

Jake asks: Does calling animals property propogate the propensity to abuse animals?

I made the point once in class, as Jake does in his post, that calling animals property gives humans the idea that they can do whatever they want with said animals. The idea that an animal is property may mean to some that the animal needs to be taken care of, based solely on the idea that, "This is mine." Most people take care of the things they own, but what about people with short tempers? They can kick or kill an animal and use the claim that, "It's my property." Any sane person would know that this is wrong, and this sentiment does not hold up well in court. Calling animals property would, I feel, hurt animals more than it helps them. It devalues them more so than they already are by some.

My question now is: How do we fix this devaluation of animals? What can be done about it?

Compassion

The point was made the other day by several of us in class that religion alone was not a compelling argument for animal ethics because not everyone follows the same religion and some people don't follow religion at all. Yet I've noticed that many different religions still teach the same basic principles, and from the readings we have done plus knowledge I've gathered on my own, compassion towards others and towards animals seems to be a key theme (though I do acknowledge that some of it depends on your interpretation of certain texts).

Compassion is something that just about anyone could understand. In its bare sense, I take it to mean to be kind to others and treat them with respect. A lot of humans don't necessarily think about treating animals this way, and that is where a lot of problems surrounding the treatment of animals and the debates in animal ethics come in.

My question now is: Would it be possible to spread animal ethics to those who do not follow religion based on compassion, or is this idea still limited by religion?

Lifestyle Dogs: A Response to Becky

Becky asks the question: Because animals give us so many health benifits does that give us a reason to breed dogs so that there is at a right dog for everyone's lifestlye? That is to say, different dogs are specifically designed for a certain lifestyle.

We've discussed in class how purebred dogs have health problems because of inbreeding. Bad genes are passed along as well as the desired genes, causing many problems like hip dysplasia in larger dogs and breathing and upper respiratory problems in the brachycephalic dogs like pugs. In the beginning, dogs were bred to fit certain lifestyles. One small dog breed were kept in the sleeves of Chinese nobles to warm hands. Dogs like border collies and shelties were bred for hunting. Dachsunds were bred to go into burrows made by animals to hunt them out while bulldogs were bred to fight bears. Nowadays, there are dogs suited for certain lifestyles. Small, low-maintenence dogs are best suited for people living in apartments while an energetic dog like a border collie or a greyhound does best in places where they can run around and get a lot of exercise.

Long story short, dogs have already been bred to suit our needs and now it is a matter of choosing a dog that bests fit our lifestyles. If someone wants to get a dog for their health, a calm and friendly dog such as a labrador or a golden retreiver might be best.

My question now is: Why are animals such as cats and dogs the ones highlighted when it comes to having animals for health reasons when there are so many other wonderful and calm animals that can be kept as well? In this regard, I mean keeping a ferret, a rabbit, or a bird, to name a few examples.

Cats and Dogs

I have had three cats and one dog in my lifetime, and I am a fan of both. Curious, I looked up how long cats and dogs have been domesticated and I found that dogs have been domesticated for about 15,000 years and cats have been domesticated for about 9,500 years. With all of the talks about pets in class, I thought this would be a good topic to discuss. As has been noted in our various discussions, dogs are more dependent than cats. If a dog were to try and survive in the wild, it would have a harder time on its own than a cat. Cats have more of an independent streak and would be able to fend for themselves better in the wild than a dog. It is possible that a part of cats' independence is because they have not been domesticated for as long as dogs, but it is hard to say for sure.

My question now is this: What makes dogs so different from cats that they need to depend on us, while cats do not?

The Practice of Petkeeping: A Response to Hallie

In response to my post, Hallie asks the question: If petkeeping does need to be eradicated, what is the best way to begin that process? Should we do it all at once, or take steps toward the goal?

I have answered a similar question before about slaughterhouses, and my answer is the same. In the practice of petkeeping, small steps should be taken to eradication. Imagine if petkeeping were to be ended tomorrow: suddenly there would be millions, if not billions, of pets without a home. Pet owners would be distraught at having to give up the beloved members of their family. (The ones that care, anyway.) Shelters would suddenly be swarmed or ended, because there is nowhere else for the pets to go. What would happen to them? A lot of them can't survive on their own, and there is no one to care for them because petkeeping has ended. (Granted, this picture may be a bit extreme, but it does drive my point home.)

Another alternative would be to outlaw dogs and cats and any other pets from having any more young. This would allow people to enjoy the pets they have now, allow more pets to be adopted or bought, yet after this generation of pets there would be no more. Hopefully it would also cut back on the number of stray animals. Again, it would be an extreme shift for humans. Humans who enjoy the company of their animals would suddenly have no more and have no means by which to bring another pet into their family. Because humans and animals have lived together for so long, what happens to one will definitely affect the other, which is why I am inserting humans into this argument.

Tackling the different facets of the pet industry one at a time seems like the most rational solution to me. Someone made the point in class about outlawing puppy mills. Getting rid of the illegal ones is a good start. The illegal ones are where the most problems occur; everything is overcrowded and filthy, there is no room and the animals are all infested with parasites, and there is little to no food or water. It's disgusting. That is a practice that defintely needs to be stopped. There are so many directions to go in from there.

I now have two questions for you:
1) What would your next step be in eradicating the practice of petkeeping?
2) If we were to eliminate zoos and aquariums, how should we go about it?

Endangered Species

Yesterday in class, the topic of endangered species came up. The question was whether or not we should work to preserve the habitat in which endangered species lived in and then let nature take its course. However, I wondered if we should work to save any endangered species that were endangered because of humans in the first place. There is nothing that can be done about the Galapagos Tortoise. If I remember correctly, there is only one left alive in the world, and as far as I know humans had little to no part in the decline of that species. (If I am wrong, please let me know. I will edit this post accordingly.) In that regard, there is no need to intervene.

There are other species that have been hunted to extinction because of humans, such as the Tasmanian Tiger. Many other species are now endangered because of the loss of habitat, also due to humans. It is at this point that we run into the sticky situation that has been brought up many times in class: Do we step back and let nature take its course, or do we try to intervene to fix the problem that humans created? Personally, I feel that we should fight to save these species. Yes, perhaps they would have died out eventually without us, but we are greatly accelerating the rate in which they do so. As such, I feel we need to fight to keep these species alive for as long as we can.

My question is, what do you think?

Tracking Devices: A Response to Nick

Nick asks two questions. His first question is: Is the attatchment of these (neighly wieghtless to the animal) transmitters morally justifiable if the researchers claim to do it for the end result of "knowing the habits and migratory patterns of these animals"? Many claim that such data would provide information on how to best 'protect' these animals and their ancient system of life of which migration plays a large role.

To answer this question, I do feel that these transmitters are morally justifiable when used for gathering scientific research. The transmitters do no harm to the animals, and most of them fall off after a certain amount of time. The information gathered can be helpful to scientists and researchers, as Nick points out, in mapping migratory routes. This way, these routes can be patrolled more strictly (if necessary) during migratory seasons and the animals can be protected more from humans.

Nick then asks: What is the difference between a (supossed) securly attatched transmitter on an animal and a human's cell-phone?

The difference is that humans know about the transmitters in their phones while animals have no idea what transmitters are. It is possible an animal may not even know that a transmitter has been attached to them. Another difference, as I metioned earlier, is that the transmitters on the animals generally fall off after a certain amount of time. With humans, the transmitter is working as long as the phone is active.

My question is this: Can you think of any other differences between animal transmitters and transmitters in a phone?

Babs

All the talk of having pets being morally wrong made me think. All of the pets my family has had during my lifetime have all, in a sense, been rescued. None of them came from shelters, yet none of them came from breeders either. For this post, I would like to talk about our one remaining pet, Babs, because it is the story I can tell the best.

We took Babs in as a kitten. She appeared in our neighborhood out of nowhere when I was five years old. The first time I saw her, my parents and I had just left the house to go somewhere. A little black kitten darted from the yard under one of the cars parked in our driveway. After a few moments of coaxing, she came out. My mom opened her car door to see if the kitten wanted to come with us, but she just sniffed the outside and did not get in. My next memory of seeing her was at my next-door neighbor's house. She tried to come into the house when the door was open to let me in, but my neighbor shooed her out, saying something about how she was a pest. I felt sorry for the little kitten.

Finally, there was a night when my parents took her into our house. I can't remember why, but I do know they were going to let her back outside the next day. When they did, it was pouring hard outside, and the kitten just sat on our front porch at our door, meowing and meowing to be let back in. My parents finally decided to bring her back into the house. My guess is that, since we already had two cats and a dog, they weren't thinking about having another cat and that is why they tried to put her back outside. This idea is also fueled by the fact that after they brought her back inside, for the next few days, my parents brought her around the neighborhood, asking if she belonged to anyone. They also put an ad in our town's newspaper. No one came forward and claimed the kitten. When no one else stepped forward, my parents made the final decision to make her a part of our family. We took her to the vet, got her checked out, named her Babs after the vet told us she was a girl, and she has been ours ever since.

Babs has led a happy life since we took her in. She loves attention and will seek it out when she wants it. She knows when she's supposed to be fed and will remind us of it until she gets her food. She knows who to go to so she can sit in a lap and be petted, and she knows who to go to when she wants to play. Or if she's lying down and one of us starts to play with her, she'll join in if she feels like it. When she's not playing or wanting attention, she can be found in numerous spots around the house where she likes to go and lie down and be comfortable.

With all that said and the arguments against keeping pets, is it wrong to take in a stray animal and give it a happy life that it would not have were it left alone?

Seal Watches

Talking about preserves, safaris, and whale watches and how they can be unsuccessful in that it is possible no animals will be seen got me thinking. In Chatham on Cape Cod, I have departed for many seal watches. They caught my attention because I had heard of many whale watches before, but never a seal watch. They take place in the summer, and there are always seals. I can't remember how expensive they are, but they are local, which means we don't have to go too far out on the water, and they are entertaining, and we learn a bit about the seals during our trip. The best part is that the seals are not contained in any sort of area and are free to come and go as they please. I have not heard of seals being injured by the boats, and it gives credit to the people doing the tours that they actually slow the boats down. That said, it is not impossible for seals and other marine life to be injured by boats. Manatees are a good example. Still, the seal watches seem to have the best of all worlds. The seals are not confined, so they can come and go as they please, and they are in their natural ocean habitat. There is a guarantee that they will be seen (or at least, I have never not seen them when I've gone on these), and we learn a bit about the seals.

With all that said, I have one question: If endeavors such as this were guaranteed to be successful, would they be more popular?

Wearing Fur: A Response to Emily (Part Two)

Emily's question of "Are there times when wearing fur is morally justifiable?" still stands here. It wasn't until this morning that I thought of another way/reason that wearing fur can be morally justifiable. I know there are animals out there (sheep, llamas, alpacas, maybe even long-haired rabbits) whose fur is shaved in the summer to make the animals more comfortable. The heavy fur is removed, the animals' coats are lighter, and they won't be as hot. The fur is then taken, processed, and made into yarn or other materials and turned into clothing. In this way, the animals are not killed - in fact they are quite comfortable - and we get warm, comfortable clothing to wear. To me, it's a win-win situation for all.

That said, I have two questions: 1) Do you still see this as wearing fur? 2) Are there any downsides to this?

Fur as Clothing: A Response to Emily

Emily asks: Is wearing fur morally justifiable?

In our society, I don't think it is. I made this point in another blog, but fashion companies are making a push for realistic-looking faux fur on the designer school level. They look, feel, and part like real fur, and as a result, more students and faculty are looking to faux fur as an alternative. Also, they watched a video of how animals are treated in the fur factories. Even big-name designers are fooled by the look and feel of the faux fur, and many are making the switch.

That said, some societies may need fur for clothing. It goes along the same lines as subsistence hunting, but instead of hunting for food, you use the fur. Not to say that the food still isn't used. In any case, if there are no other viable alternatives, using fur can be morally justifiable.

My question now is, if there are viable alternatives to real fur in our society (like the realistic faux fur), why do some still use real fur?

Aldo Leopold

There is a quote among Aldo Leopold's piece, Game and Wildlife Conservation [1932], that really struck out at me. It said,

"I realize that every time I turn on an electric light, or ride on a Pullman, or pocket the unearned increment on a stock, or a bond, or a piece of real estate, I am 'selling out' to the enemies of conservation. When I submit these thoughts to a printing press, I am helping cut down the woods. When I pour cream in my coffee, I am helping to drain a marsh for cows to graze, and to exterminate the birds of Brazil. When I go birding or hunting in my Ford, I am devastating an oil field, and re-electing an imperialist to get me rubber. Nay more: when I father more than two children I am creating an insatiable need for more printing presses, more cows, more coffee, more oil, and more rubber, to supply which more birds, more trees, and more flowers will either be killed, or what is just as destructive, evicted from their several environments," (Leopold 451).

I realize this is a long quote, but it is worth mentioning. The last statement "evicted from their several environments" is true enough. Animals like deer are leaping across roads to get from one forested area to another, or are overpopulating an area because they can't go anywhere else, either thanks to humans building a town or city nearby, or roads being all around. Creatures like bears and coyotes, which are seen as dangerous creatures, are coming into contact with humans because their habitats have become smaller, thanks to human population, and they are looking for food. Sometimes these encounters end dangerously because a pet will be attacked. I don't know how likely it is for these animals to attack humans, but I won't discount it. Raccoons go through trash and are seen as pests, but again, they have been forced out of their natural habitat. They are trying to survive.

As for the rest of Leopold's quote, he wrote this piece in 1932. The damage may have been done then, but my guess is that it certainly has grown since. There are more people on the planet now than there were then, and so the demand for things like cream, coffee, paper, rubber, and oil are higher than they were before. That is especially true for rubber and oil, because there are more cars on the road than there were in the 1930s, and because cars today are more efficient than cars back then.

My question now is this: do others think that the destruction Leopold addressed back then has increased since? Why or why not?

A Response to Hallie

Hallie asks: Do you feel that members of your family or close friends are less ethically in the wrong when they do something you deem to be immoral than people you have never met or do not have a relationship with?

In her post, Hallie mentions how her family hunts deer and later eats the venison. To answer her question, I think some people do feel that their family is less ethically wrong, while others don't but are more willing to forgive or overlook some things like hunting.

Of course, there are some things I would hope people would stop a family member from doing. If anyone in my family were to ever abuse an animal - not feed it enough, not give it enough attention, kick or hit it for no reason - I would speak up and stop it. (Of course, no one in my family ever would do this - it's just an example.) When it comes to strangers, people also speak up in the defense of animals. I've seen enough animal cop shows to know that when people see a major problem with the way an animal is being kept or treated, they report it, whether or not they know the owner of the animal.

Of course, there are differences between keeping a pet and hunting. For one thing, as has been mentioned repeatedly by many people, when a person takes in a pet, they are taking on the moral responsibility for that animal. They need to be the ones to look after it, and if that cannot happen, they should not get a pet in the first place. With hunting, the intention has never been to take care of an animal, but to go out and kill it for a trophy, food, or what-have-you. So perhaps the fact that the animal is going to die or has already died plays a part.

What I would like to know is, is it easier to speak out against something when you know it can be changed (changing the conditions for an abused animal) than when it can't (a deer that has already been killed)? This question is not limited to family and friends or strangers; it can be for both.

Food Allergies

This is a thought that struck me today, so the first thing I did was jump on here to write this. It seems that so many food allergies are popping up today than ever before, both in the variety of allergens and the number of people allergic. There are nut allergies, soy allergies, gluten allergies, and so many more. I know it is hard to avoid these things in food, but fortunately there are more products being made without these ingredients. To me it seems that unless prepared with one of these ingredients, meat carries none of these harmful allergens. For those who eat meat and have an allergy, I feel as if they have more options.

I do know that for anyone with an allergy, proper management of a diet is in order, be they meat eater or vegetarian. But my question now is this: Is it harder to be a vegetarian if you have a food allergy? I mean no offense by this post, I am only curious to know.

Shelter Pets: A Response To Sarah

Sarah asks: Are we morally obligated to save animals in shelters that have been abused and forgotten about?

The only answer I can think of is to save an animal from an untimely death for nothing done wrong. Of course, "done wrong" is a loose term if you follow Regan's principles, but it is the phrase I will go with here. Animals are left in shelters when an owner can no longer care for a pet or a pet is taken in as a stray or is unwanted. Unless the shelter is a no-kill shelter, the chances of an animal being euthanized is high. Shelters are too crowded and not enough people are adopting these animals.

But with the shelters, there is another overlying problem here. Some owners are lax in breeding prevention and let their pets outside, where it is possible for another animal to become pregnant. This can then create unwanted pets that will eventually be dumped in shelters if there is no one to take them in. Also, as I mentioned in my post on exotic pets, a pet owner will buy a young, cute animal, and grow bored with it, will not be able to care for it, or it will not be cute anymore, etc., and will dump the animal in a shelter.

I have seen circumstances like this where it is not a pet owner's fault. Sometimes an owner is forced to move and if they move into an apartment, there is a chance they will not be able to keep a pet. Also, I saw this on the show Pit Boss that I also mentioned in a previous post. There was a family who had a dog who was half pit bull living on a military base and the father was away on duty. If I am remembering correctly, the military already had a law saying no full pit bulls could be kept on the base, but then another was passed that no pit bull mixes could be on the base either. This was based on breed discrimination alone. The family clearly loved the dog and was broken-hearted. Fortunately for that dog, Mila, the mother in the family called Shorty Rossi who took the dog with him and found her a new home. Unfortunately, not so many pets in Mila's situation are so lucky.

Clearly there needs to be some reform, but should the reform be in the shelters, in the practice of keeping a pet, or the pet industry?

Animal Arguments on the Human Level

In class yesterday, Kim made an excellent point in the case of animal ethics, something to the effect of we wouldn't use humans for experiments, why use animals? (Please correct me if I am wrong, Kim, if you read this.) Dr. Johnson has also used the point many times of saving your own daughter over the neighbor's many times to prove a point, although there have been some variations as of late (your daughter having a hang nail versus the neighbor's daughter drowning). But even in the readings I have noticed a pattern.

Even in our readings, many of the arguments for and against animal ethics have been brought to the human level, the latest being in Brody's piece. So while this post is not very long, it brings up an interesting question: Why is it that the most compelling arguments on either side of animal ethics are often brought to the human level?

Exotic Pets: A Response to Kim

Kim asks, "Should it be legal to keep exotic pets?"

My answer: only in extreme cases. I do not think it is right to kill a tiger or a cheetah or gorilla simply to take its young and sell them as pets, as often happens. However, if these animals were abandoned or rescued from homes as pets, I think that would be a reasonable reason to have them. Here, I don't mean as a pet, but in a wildlife sanctuary where animals can live out their lives with trained professionals who can properly care and handle them, and where the animals can live out a happy life. So here, although they are being kept, they are not just pets. Animals who are taken from their parents at a young age cannot be released back into the wild, and so the only answer for the rescued ones is a sanctuary or a zoo.

Another common occurrence in the exotic pet industry is that the animal was bought because it was cute when it was young. When it grows up, the owner does not want the pet anymore because they are no longer cute, they are too large, they underestimated the strength of the animal, they simply cannot care for it any more, or a combination of any of these factors. This happens with pets we would normally have too, such as a dog or a cat. As Kim made clear in her post, if you cannot properly care for a pet, do not get one in the first place. That holds especially true for these exotic animals.

With all of this, I have not touched on the extreme case of keeping an exotic pet. The only situation I can conceivably think of is keeping one that was abandoned, orphaned, or rescued to give it a better life. But even then, as I stated before, it is better for these animals to be in the care of a professional who knows how to handle the animal. If the person who has the animal in its care is a professional and is sincerely trying to give the animal a better life, it can be acceptable, though I myself do not condone the practice. Also, the animal would need plenty of space to run around, roam, and exercise.

My question now is this: Should these different sanctuaries allow the animals to breed to battle the extinction of endangered species?

Omnivores

As much as I think America goes overboard with the slaughtering of animals for meat, I thought I'd like to expand on something that came to me earlier in the night. And I hope that no one in the class takes offense to this, because none is meant at all.

A friend and I walked to Angie's for subs, and I ordered a turkey sub while she got a chicken parmesan. Later in my room as I was eating the sub, I thought to myself that humans are omnivores, and they are not the only ones. Bears are also omnivores, as well as many other animals out there. Do humans really have to give up on meat?

I know that I personally would probably not be able to make it as a vegetarian. I get hungry easily and it often takes quite a bit to fill me up. Salads and pasta don't cut it for me. Believe me, I've tried. Cereal does a pretty good job, but I have to eat two or three bowls, depleting my cereal and milk resources faster than normal. What really helps is having some kind of meat. Plus, I like the taste of it. I will admit, I know that there are things out there like Boca meat and tofu and other meat replacements that I have not fully tried, but I'm not sure how easy it would be for me to give it up.

This is the question I would like to pose. Is there evil in humans eating meat if they don't have to when nonhuman animals do the same?

Kelsey's Question

In her latest post, Kelsey asks the question: In your opinion, which method of approach do you think is more logical and/or the best to take in regards to animal ethics, especially the slaughtering of animals?

Kelsey's blog mainly talks about absolutism versus incrementalism, and the effects each approach has on animal ethics. This is a tough question, because both views have their high and low points. A high point of absolutism is that everything would start over and there is a great chance for change. But how can it be guaranteed that history won't repeat itself if this were the case? How can we stop the treatment of animals from coming back to where it is now?

Incrementalism, what has been happening now, has made positive steps forward. Because of exposure to the creulty behind killing animals for fur, many companies have been producing realistic faux fur, so real that it's tricking fashion experts. This exposure is changing the minds of fashion students and experts about using real fur and switching to the faux fur as well. The downside of incrementalism though is that it is slow. Yet because there is a foundation to work off of, steps are being taken in the right direction to improve animal laws and rights and their quality of life. To me, I feel like incrementalism is more logical because of that foundation to work off of.

My question now is, what are the chances of history repeating itself with incrementalism? How about absolutism? Are the chances greater for one side or the other?

Little People?

I wanted to talk about this last week after we watched the movie, but before I could write the quote down, I forgot it. Thanks to someone in class the other day (sorry that I can't remember who), I remembered it. There was a quote in the movie about treating pets like little humans, and I thought of something interesting. It is true that there are many people out there who dress up their pets in one way or another because it looks "cute", and I've even seen videos of something as ridiculous as a dog wedding. Yet I think there are legitimate reasons for dressing pets up as well.

I've seen many animal shows, a lot of them about dogs and how to take care of them. In some cases, there are real reasons to put clothes on dogs and to take care of them in the same way as humans. With dogs like Chihuahuas and the Chinese Crested, a sweater can be essential in the winter so that they do not freeze. I even remember that my mom wanted to get a sweater or a blanket for our dog to have in the winter when he got older. Also with the Chinese Crested, since their bodies have mostly no hair, it is a requirement to put on sunscreen in the summer and to even use acne products on them. They can get acne just like we can. (You can look this up on the Animal Planet website. Just look at the Chinese Crested clip for Dogs 101.)

For Huskies and Malamutes that are on sled dog teams, booties are another essential. They give the dogs more traction and also help to protect the pads. (Of course, I don't advocate using dogs for sledding unless it's something the dog enjoys.) At the same time though, I've also seen countless clips where dogs are wearing booties and walking around funny because they aren't used to them. I feel bad for these dogs because they look so miserable while the person holding the camera just stands there filming or is laughing.

Now I have to ask, can you think of other reasons that a person would dress up their pet?

No Touch Monkey!

Okay, so many of you are probabaly wondering about the title of this post. It's the name of the book I just read, by Ayun Halliday. The full name of the book is No Touch Monkey!: And Other Travel Lessons Learned Too Late. The entire book is her memoirs of different travels, and in the essay titled On Dress, Ayun recalls a trip her and her husband made across the desert on camelback in India. If a camel misbehaved in any way, the handler would hit and beat the camel in the face. There was one quote in particular that really stuck out at me, though. Halliday wrote:

"I couldn't bring myself to look her in the face, partly because I'd heard that camels' foul-smelling sputum could blind you if they spat in your eye, but also due to the cruelty of that wooden plug staked through her nostrils. The urban primitive movement was just gathering steam, and as a subway-riding city dweller, I'd seen my fair share of septum piercings and oversized jewelry whose purpose was to stretch. Still, I couldn't help noting that those were modifications humans had inflicted upon themselves by choice. I reckoned that if I were an animal and some two-legs drove a chunk of wood through my nose, I'd feel pretty f***ing stoned to get payback. I wouldn't hesitate to buck any brightly turbaned turkey making a show of steering me by yanking on a nylon cord," (Halliday 209).

My question this time is an easy one. What is your opinion on this quote?

Bryan's Question

In his latest post, Bryan asked the question, "If you were start to fix the pet industry, where would you start?"

Bryan brings up points like putting animals in good homes and fixing problems with breeding, and to me these are the places to start. One thing that can be done to start is to find and eliminate any illegal puppy mills, where animals are bred in the masses and disease runs rampant. In these conditions, animals are kept in cramped and dirty quarters, with little to no fresh food and water, and there are too many animals. Finding these and getting rid of them would be a positive step in the beginning.

As for fixing breeding problems, there are simple steps that can be taken. Spaying and neutering animals ensure that they do not create unwanted or uncared for pets. Yes, I know this can cause pain in an animal, but overall spaying and neutering can extend an animal's lifetime. Also, education about this is essential. I remember watching a show on Animal Planet called Pit Boss, all about an organization run by Shorty Rossi. He runs a talent agency and a Pit Bull rescue all in one. In one episode, he was called into a neighborhood by a fourteen-year-old boy who was concerned because an un-neutered male would escape from his yard and wander around the neighborhood. This dog had impregnated many dogs, including the dog the boy owned. Not to mention that the male was also the female's daughter. In this case, Shorty and his employees went into the neighborhood to talk to the owner. They informed him about the problems of not neutering his dog and told him about a clinic where the dog would be neutered for free. They also went around the neighborhood and talked to the people who lived there about the same points. The people were all open and recipient about what the group was talking about. In the end, the owner did agree to have his dog neutered. The reason he hadn't before was because he saw it as a sign of masculinity and toughness for his dog. (Of course, I may not be remembering that bit entirely accurately, so if anyone else has seen this, please let me know.)

Overall, I think these are good places to start, and education about these and other issues is especially important. The more people know and learn, the more something will be done about it. So now my question is, do you think the reason others don't spay or neuter an animal is because they also see it as a symbol for something?

Consciousness versus Unconsciousness

In our readings, there has been a large debate over whether animals are conscious or not. Some have the view that they are conscious, conscious of what they want, conscious of their pain, yet others knock these arguments aside by saying that animals may have wants and feel pain, but they are not aware of this and so are not conscious. Bermond describes consciousness as "knowing that you know," yet I agree with the point brought up in class today that this sounds more like self-consciousness than consciousness in general.

In the essay we read, Lynch argues that humans and animals are conscious, yet their levels of consciousness may vary, and uses the examples of driving and having a headache to describe his views. Through this, Lynch conveys his beliefs that there are varying levels of consciousness. Yet at the end of Lynch's argument, there is another two pages written by Jane Duran, agreeing with his statements and yet pointing out what she sees as flaws in his argument. According to Duran, the only degrees of consciousness are being awake (being conscious) or being asleep (being unconscious).

Reading that really struck a chord in me. I understood where she was coming from and, to me, it makes a lot of sense. I understand what everyone else is saying when they use the terms "conscious" and "unconscious", yet there are so many different ways to use a word. As we have seen in class, sometimes we have to be careful with the ways in which we use words in our arguments.

Having said all of that, I am curious. How would you define consciousness and unconsciousness? How would you define the terms in the case of animal ethics?

A Response to Laura

Laura asked the question, "Do you think that people that are unable to speak don't have rights?"

The answer is that they do. People who cannot speak still have rights because of the fact that they are humans. Humans have more rights (or more substantial rights) than animals, despite the attempts to change that. This means that humans who are sick, blind, deaf, dumb, senile, in a coma, or with any other affliction you could possibly imagine, have rights. Why? The answer simply is because they are human. Humans grant other humans rights, and any human is then protected by that umbrella. In fact, in some cases, having a certain affliction could possibly grant a human more rights if something is done to them. Has anyone ever noticed that a person with a disability who has been wronged is advocated for more and covered more in the news? (Or is this just my perception? Of course, this is not right or wrong. It is only an observation.) It is because they are unique in a way that most other humans are not.

The question is then, what about animals? Why can't animals have the same rights that we as humans do? What is causing the big debate over animal ethics and animal rights? I was going to go on from there, but I think that's a good question to leave everyone with.

The Death of an Animal

Frederike Kaldewaij believes that animals should not be killed because it does the animal harm; it is in the best interest for the animal to keep living. The animal can no longer enjoy life if it is killed, if life was ever enjoyable at all. Here I am referring to what Kaldewaij points at, animals raised for food. With the conditions most of these animals live in, life cannot be pleasant. Kaldewaij does not directly mention animals raised for their fur or leather, but the same must be said. The animals are killed, their lives cut short, all enjoyment gone.

But what about animals that are euthanized because they are suffering? Some animals are euthanaized simply because the animal shelters are too crowded, and that definitely goes back to Kaldewaij's arguments. But an animal who is sick? I wasn't there when one of our cats was put to sleep and I don't really remember what happened. All I remember there was my parents trying to tell me and me refusing to believe it, wanting to think she had just fallen asleep instead. I was there for the other one, but it was only later that I learned it was because a teeth cleaning operation had put her into a coma. What I do remember was crying in the backseat on the way home, convinced that life would never be the same again. (I was fairly young when both of these happened.) When our dog was put to sleep it was even worse. He had been a part of our family for twelve years and we had known him longer, since we adopted him from my aunt. He had been living with a congested heart condition (or some congestive condition) for about two years and it made him cough, but otherwise there seemed to be no change. The day before we put him to sleep he had collapsed but still got up and kept going. That and the fact that he had kept going for so long made me think he was a fighter, and sometimes I wonder if we did the right thing.

To sum it all up, here is my question. If an animal is suffering (no matter if they are a pet or not), is euthanizing them in their best interests, even when they are young, or is it cutting a life short?

Another Question

I'll admit that I think the last question I posed was terrible. I did not think on it enough, yet something yesterday and today helped me think of another one.

I'm sure that many are familiar with the Pokemon series, be it the game, the show, or both. In it we have the Pokemon (various animal-like creatures) that are pets, those that are shown in beauty competions, but the most well-known use is training them for battle. There are many good trainers that treat their Pokemon well, and there are other various factions throughout the series that treat their Pokemon poorly, sometimes working them to death or killing them for sport. Yet the overall theme of Pokemon is still training them to use them in battle, often times so much so until they are defeated by another Pokemon and faint. (They can be revived by using potions or by taking them to a Pokemon Center to be healed.)

So far, I have done nothing but sound like a total geek, but there is a point to this. With the popularity of the Pokemon series, especially for people of our age who probably remember when it first came out, my new question is this: Does this series and others like it help shape our ideas of how animals should be treated?

Mary's Question

This post is a response to Mary Marcil's question: Is there a line in which using animals as a use for food or materials or other necessities stops, and exploitation begins?

When it comes to food or materials, yes, there is. There are many examples throughout history of earlier cultures hunting animals but always treating them with respect. The most well-known example I can think of is the different Native American tribes that used to span across North America. Animals would be hunted and killed, but the hunters would always respect the animals' spirits and thank them. Every part of the animal was used, all of the meat, the hide, and the bones. Nothing was wasted, and when it came to hunting the tribes only took what was needed and no more.

Though some people coming from European descent honor these traditions, most people do not. Many animals are slaughtered for meat and other materials, and who knows how much of the complete animal is actually being used and how much is thrown away. Also, the amount of meat being produced is likely more than humans actually need and the leftover meat is thrown away and wasted.

As for other necessities, when it comes to farm animals used for things like meat and eggs, it is also possible there to only take what is needed and let animals roam, like on small farms. It is the large farms with animals crammed in everywhere that exploit them. Animals for transportation used to be a large necessity here, and  may still be in other parts of the world. Overworking an animal is exploitation. Giving an animal rest when it is needed and giving an animal the commands needed, as opposed to hitting an animal so hard as to cause harm, is another way in which an animal can be treated without exploitation. There is a line, yet it is crossed all too often.

So now my question would be: What is your opinion on using dogs to herd other animals? Does it cause the animals undue stress or does it not matter?

Animal Rights

After reading the texts and doing my Q&A for this week, an interesting thought occurred to me. Humans often stand up for those who are oppressed, and the case is no different for nonhuman animals. Nonhuman animals are being abused and exploited, so therefore many  believe they should have rights. Of course there are the dissenting voices saying that nonhuman animals are lesser and therefore should not have rights. They do not have the same interests, the same inherent values, or the same self-awareness that humans have. Yet maybe another question to be asked in these days is, if animals were not abused and exploited, would they need rights?

This is a tough question to answer. After all, many humans are not abused or exploited and still have rights that protect them from harm. The same can be said of nonhuman animals living a "happy" life, such as a loved family dog or cat, yet many more animals are still being exploited and abused. Factory farming still happens, lab animals are still being used, and animals are often used for sport, yet because it all happens behind the scene for most people, we do not even think about it. We do not think about how the meat ended up on our table so long as it is there. The same goes for how we got the leather for our couches or clothing. The way to make people see is to bring it to their attention. Perhaps then the conditions for nonhuman animals would be made better. As it is for the moment, the fight for animal rights is still going on, and probably will for a while (if not forever; after all, look how long it has already been going on).

Now my question is, even if conditions for nonhuman animals were improved, would humans still want to grant them better conditions?