PETA claims that it is working for animals, and that we are the ones abusing animals by eating them, wearing them, and using them for other various purposes. However, according to a recent article over 20,000 animals have been "ut down" by PETA since their launch in 1998.
In addition, during all of 2008 they found homes for merely 7 of the 2,216 animals they took in. Excuse my language but, what the f***? They give us hell for swatting flies, while they kill all the animals that they can't find homes for.
If you read the article, you'll see that they have a budget of $32 million every year, so what happens to that?
Oh, right, they use that to attack us for eating that hamburger. It was probably made using a cow they killed.
That really makes no sense, they don't use that money to help find the animals homes, but for advertising.
So guys what do you think? Does PETA stand for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or does it stand for People Eating Tasty Animals?
No, I definitely realize the advantages of Animal testing, but I don't care about breeding rats quickly, its an ethical matter. Just because a life can be produced more quickly doesn't make it right for extermination. By that grounds, sea turtles should be slaughtering us for fun right about now. The fact that you view it as a matter of time points to the same problem, human superiority. Everyone has it, to different extents, whether its above other humans, animals, insects, anything really. Again, that doesn't make it right, it just means its there. We have a hard time separating ourselves from it, so it doesn't seem like that big a deal when an test animal dies. Doesn't make them any less alive just because another one of their species will rise to take their place much quicker than one in ours
It doesn't matter if its ethical or not, human superiority or not, the fact is, it is to impractical. I would rather see people die than animals, but people are just to hard to replace. Not only that, but we would have millions of people without faces, or genitals, or kidneys, or ears, or whatever walking around. Nobody wants to see that, and most disfigured animals are humanely put to sleep (Fancy for lethal injection). Those that survive relatively unharmed are usually given a pardon and end up in some drawer somewhere.
So we through aside ethics in the face of an easier option? Do we really have a right to say we have ethics then, if they can be discarded simply because we want something done faster?
Those would be the people that were willing to risk it, since they had a choice. It would also force company's to put much more research into how live people would react before they actually test it, instead of the "we can replace it if it goes bad" mentality that lets them test whenever they want, with whatever they want.
I'm not 100% against animal testing, I'm just against pointless animal testing
It's not a 'we can do it faster' situation. It's a 'it's more efficient' situation. It is literally impossible to make anything safe without hundreds of tests. Do you really want your sunblock giving you severe nerve damage? No, I didn't think so. Efficiency is the name of the game. Hence why they don't use dogs or monkeys anymore. Well, they use monkeys for the final tests, but the monkeys rarely die. It is of course faster, but efficiency is the name of the game. If they can buy 50 rats for around $1000 dollars, they have 5 tests automatically. They can't 'buy' people. Not to mention the liabilities associated with it.
but I honestly believe that we're not superior, we're only superior in our own eyes because we define the parameters that test superiority, so of course we're going to win every time.
While we're busy thinking we're superior because we made cities, we forget about what was there before the people and the buildings.
Oh and building homes and cities ie. modifying your environment is part of survival of the fittest. Manipulating your environment is completely natural.
It's not a 'we can do it faster' situation. It's a 'it's more efficient' situation
Practically the same thing
Also, as I've said, I'm not denying that its effective, I'm questioning it on a moral and ethical level. I agree it is much more efficient, but to me that doesn't mean its necessarily the right option. To the company's and some consumers it might be, but then again they're worried about money, nothing else.
What criteria would you suggest then?
One of the major things we miss is balance. Equilibrium is important for long term survival, while we're burning up our resources fast, even if it does make short-term progress. Part of my objection is that any Human who defines these parameters is going to be biased in some way. My example above is biased, and based upon our own perspectives certain things are going to change from person to person. We shouldn't call ourselves superior, or inferior, because we can't truly measure it given that they're infinite number of ways to do that.
Oh and building homes and cities ie. modifying your environment is part of survival of the fittest. Manipulating your environment is completely natural.
Manipulating, sure, destroying? Not so much. Animals manipulate with what resources are in the area, while we're taking completely foreign materials and combining them in areas that aren't necessarily able to handle it. There's this species of plant that was imported from Japan I believe and moved down to Atlanta in the US, in order to try and kill off a species of plant that was overtaking the area. Turns out it did kill it, but now it grows so fast crews work around the clock trying to stop it from spreading onto roads, and they can't find a way to exterminate it. Our attempts to manipulate the environment have gone farther than what those environments can handle.
They're very different. Efficiency is how you can do something as good and as easily as possible, while maintaining quality. Speed is just how fast something can get done. Something can be very slow but efficient or very fast and inefficient. Environmentalists should know that very well.
Our attempts to manipulate the environment have gone farther than what those environments can handle.
Sadly, I agree with you. Manipulating something is okay as long as it's native, but bringing in foreign plants can cause irreversible damage to an environment, due to the fact it has no natural enemies.
Manipulating, sure, destroying? Not so much. Animals manipulate with what resources are in the area, while we're taking completely foreign materials and combining them in areas that aren't necessarily able to handle it. There's this species of plant that was imported from Japan I believe and moved down to Atlanta in the US, in order to try and kill off a species of plant that was overtaking the area. Turns out it did kill it, but now it grows so fast crews work around the clock trying to stop it from spreading onto roads, and they can't find a way to exterminate it. Our attempts to manipulate the environment have gone farther than what those environments can handle.
We humans do manipulate the environment to a greater degree than most animals, as you have noted, but I don't see why that should be considered anything but natural. We are, after all, products of nature just as everything else; it also is quite clear that everything we do utilises available natural resources.
In any case, the concept of survival of the fittest says nothing about what species should do or be able to do. It is not a base for morals. It's simply an observable mechanism for natural selection.
We humans do manipulate the environment to a greater degree than most animals, as you have noted, but I don't see why that should be considered anything but natural. We are, after all, products of nature just as everything else; it also is quite clear that everything we do utilises available natural resources.
If we view the things we create as unnatural, which most people do, then yes, it is unnatural. Even some natural species end up working against most of nature, making them harmful. Still, even if this is natural, it doesn't necessarily mean its beneficial in the long term. As for it being a mechanism for natural selection, we've destroyed that too. Humans no longer evolve the same way, since even those with unfavorable mutations can survive and reproduce due to modern science and the alteration of our environment, and those with favorable have just as much a chance of passing their genes along as those with unfavorable. As a species, we're becoming weaker because of our dependence upon our material things, natural or not.
