(E&A) More results of humanity's 'progress'....

I don't know who said it originally, and I don't know where I heard it, but there's a saying that goes something like: Progress creates poverty.


Are mobile phones wiping out our bees?
"They are putting forward the theory that radiation given off by mobile phones and other hi-tech gadgets is a possible answer to one of the more bizarre mysteries ever to happen in the natural world - the abrupt disappearance of the bees that pollinate crops. Late last week, some bee-keepers claimed that the phenomenon - which started in the US, then spread to continental Europe - was beginning to hit Britain as well.

The theory is that radiation from mobile phones interferes with bees' navigation systems, preventing the famously homeloving species from finding their way back to their hives. Improbable as it may seem, there is now evidence to back this up."

Concerns raised on China's Global Health Disclosures
"The international and Hong Kong authorities said Monday that they had received little information from mainland Chinese officials about a mysterious ailment killing pigs in southeastern China or about Chinese wheat gluten contaminated with plastic scrap, raising questions again about whether Beijing is willing to share data on global health issues."


Sometimes I wish there was a God, a boss that would come and smack us for being poor excuses for managers. (In a real business, we'da been fired a _long_ time ago...) I know that external authority does not make people good -- you can force someone to do a good act, but the act itself is not truly good. I know that. (Besides that, I'm certain that we'd immediately quibble over why we got smacked, and the shit would just continue with a newfound ferver.)

(3) Hypothetical situations

Hypothetical situations -- What's the real life application?

I invent many hypothetical situations over the course of any given day. Not only does this fulfill my urge to day dream (never during class!), but it also provides interesting 'what if's' that may, or may not, occur. The point is not the situation that is created, the abstract notion of sitting in a lifeboat in the middle of an ocean with a dog that one may or may not own... but the realizing and understanding of the immediate knee-jerk reactions that one has to the situation, as well as consciously pondering the many ways one could potentially react.

That's the real life application, methinks.

(1) Alright, back on the ball...

After today's discussion, I was left debating the religious 'ensouling' of humans, and not animals. First, I assume this particular issue sets aside other religions that may regard both humans and animals as ensouled. With that, I also assume that this is limited to the Christian theology.

I must admit that I have little to no (more no than little) understanding of Christian theology, and I've read snippets of the Bible here and there, but never from beginning to end. So please - correct me if I'm wrong.


God originally created the angels, then he created people. Why?

The most complete (not necessarily correct) answer that I've ever gotten is that God created people because he realized that the angels could not be Good -- they had no choice. (Can't be truly Good if you don't have the option of being Bad.) People were given souls, which gave them free will. I shall assume for the moment that the 'big events' of our lives are, indeed, pre-destined. This, I think, gives us free will over the littler aspects of life. (It's the little things in life that really count, no?) Reactions to the stupid stuff of everyday life add up to create the larger portion of one's experience, choices, and general life.

Virtue is not decided in one grand moment, but over the course of one's life.

So, assuming that humans were ensouled by God and given free will over the (at least) smaller choices in our everyday lives, and that humans are 'special' or 'beloved' over the animals -- we are given the choice to be good or bad with every action and reaction. We are given more choices to fuck up! ...and animals, as far as we know, are not.

Methinks this should tell us something.


I agree with the idea that humans are merely stewards. However, on this occasion, there is no higher boss to come in and punish us for mis-management. (At least not in this life, under the guise of Christianity.)

But the best managers are the ones that do not require an external threat of punishment to do the job. Indeed, the ones that 'make it' (speaking in terms of current society) are the ones that can manage themselves, while managing the job. Self discipline and all that.

And we seem to be lacking in that.

(E&A) Vitamin B12

I'm curious - besides pills and injections, how can one get enough B12?

According to one site, it's only found in animal products. Which leads one to take a supplement, either a pill or injection. I'm not adverse to needles, but I don't like injections. However, it seems that the body absorbs the injections better than the pills. Of course, for the 'financially impaired', the pills are a better option. I've heard of a B12 patch, but the whole 'patch' thing just scares me.

Meanwhile, I'd rather find some other way that doesn't involve turning to man-made alternatives. Is there seriously no plant that has an adequate source of B12?

****
Sources/Quotes about B12:

(source) --

"What does Vitamin B12 do?

Vitamin B12 is needed for normal nerve cell activity, DNA replication, and production of the mood-affecting substance called SAMe (S-adenosyl-L-methionine). Vitamin B12 works with folic acid to control homocysteine levels. An excess of homocysteine, which is an amino acid (protein building block), may increase the risk of heart disease, stroke, and perhaps osteoporosis and Alzheimer’s disease.

Vitamin B12 deficiency can cause fatigue, and some research indicates that individuals who are not deficient in this vitamin have increased energy after injections of vitamin B12. In one unblinded trial, 2,500–5,000 mcg of vitamin B12, given by injection every two to three days, led to improvement in 50–80% of a group of people with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), with most improvement appearing after several weeks of B12 shots. While the research in this area remains preliminary, people with CFS interested in considering a trial of vitamin B12 injections should consult a nutritionally oriented doctor. Oral or sublingual B12 supplements are unlikely to obtain the same results as injectable B12, because the body’s ability to absorb large amounts is relatively poor.

Where is Vitamin B12 found?

Vitamin B12 is found in all foods of animal origin, including dairy, eggs, meat, fish, and poultry. Inconsistent but small amounts occur in seaweed (including spirulina) and tempeh."

****

(source)

"Even vitamin B12, originally thought to be present only in animal products - especially in the liver- is also available from certain lactic fermented foods like sauerkraut; possibly certain seaweeds; spirulina, a blue-green alga; and our own guts (if they are healthy and have not been abused with antibiotics)."

-- Sauerkraut, my loathed enemy... *shudders* (I've been teased about being a bad German because I am still 'acquiring the taste' for sauerkraut.)

However, that last mention of the body making B12 so long as we're healthy and *not abused with antibiotics*... Considering the latest trend of 'drug shopping via commercials', this could be a serious problem.


From the same source as above:

"Is there a vegan alternative to B12-fortified foods and supplements?

Claimed sources of B12 that have been shown through direct studies of vegans to be inadequate include human gut bacteria, spirulina, dried nori, barley grass and most other seaweeds. Several studies of raw food vegans have shown that raw food offers no special protection.

Reports that B12 has been measured in a food are not enough to qualify that food as a reliable B12 source. It is difficult to distinguish true B12 from analogues that can disrupt B12 metabolism. Even if true B12 is present in a food, it may be rendered ineffective if analogues are present in comparable amounts to the true B12. There is only one reliable test for a B12 source - does it consistently prevent and correct deficiency? Anyone proposing a particular food as a B12 source should be challenged to present such evidence."

-- If this report is true (taken from Veganoutreach.org), then am I stuck with finding some man-made alternative? (I suppose I should explain that I'm not necesssarily anti-man-made things, but I'm definitely pro-natural when at all possible, especially when it comes to vittles.)



This vitamin seems pretty important, and we don't require a whole lot in order to keep the necessary levels... Aside from fortified foods and animal products, there doesn't seem to be a way to get around the man-made supplements. Anyone got any ideas?

(E&A) Experimentation & Alternatives

Regan suggests that we find some alternative method for experimentation. While I agree with him on the overall point, I'm not sure what viable alternatives there are.

The only thought I had was using clones. But, are they counted the same as the original creature? I.e., I've a clone of a sheep. Does this sheep have the same rights as the original sheep, even though it was grown in a laboratory?

What other alternatives could we use? Would it be inhumane to use prisoners on death row? (Would such an act be more or less humane than employing the death penalty?)

Is there a way around the 'necessity' of experimentation in general? Maybe I'm focusing on the wrong aspect -- instead of finding alternatives so that the experimentation can continue, maybe we should be asking if the experimentation is even necessary?

(E&A) Nit-Picky Reading (2)

I jumped over to Adams' essay, in light of my previous entry. This particular view intrigues me, mostly because I just don't get it. The connections drawn seem far-fetched -- not necessarily without any merit whatsoever, but odd enough that I have to stop and think, and debate.


“The Rape of Animals, the Butchering of Women” - Carol J. Adams

p. 209 -- “Language thus contributes even further to animals’ absences.” -- I do not think that language alone is responsible for the contribution, rather than the intent of the speaker. With respects to the Adams’ context, ‘meat’ inherently has the underlying themes of butchery and death; we cannot have meat without “violently depriving [it] of all feeling” (210). Is it then that random person X does not immediately associate the meat in the grocery store with a live cow? If I asked that same person: ‘Where did this beef come from?’, the most likely answer would be: ‘A cow’. And if I continued: ‘How did it go from cow to meat?’, I am sure that I’d get a reasonably short answer, like ‘it’s killed’. So the ignorance is not of the origin of the meat, nor the means of getting the meat, but a lack of conscious awareness of the process -- the process is not immediately associated with pre-packaged meat. But Adams maintains that the word ‘meat’, understood as an absent referent, allows us to imagine a dinner plate of food rather than an independent entity. This is true -- until a follow-up question is asked of the person (‘How does a cow become meat?’), at which point they are consciously aware of what, exactly, this meat was. So, I can partially concede to Adams’ point -- specifically that people are not consistently consciously aware of the process of getting meat. “The absent referent is both there and not there” (210).

p. 210 -- “These terms recall woman’s experiences, but not women.” -- This begs two questions. 1) Is she saying that rape only happens to women? 2) I do not understand how the people who have had these horrendous experiences are ‘divorced’ from the idea of ‘rape’, no matter the context -- the word itself carries a graven connotation of forced dominance. While I do not know the face of every single woman (and man and child) that has ever been raped, I do not think that having a face directly attached to the idea of ‘rape’ is necessary for the full understanding of what the verb imports. And I do not think that the word alone is divorced from the victims, collectively or individually. I do not understand how Adams thinks the term has been kidnapped.

p. 210 -- bondage equipment “suggests the control of animals”. -- This seems to be to be a surface understanding of bondage, by which Adams continues the idea of forced dominance, seemingly having not researched the sub-culture (pun intended) to which she is making the analogy. Strictly looking in from the outside, the scene looks like forced dominance of one person over another... but such a view is severely limited in what takes place in a bondage scene.

1) The top does not always have to be a man -- hence Dom/me (‘Dom’ - man, ‘Domme’ - female). So, the violence is not always done to a woman (porno or not).

2) a) Bondage is about respect and trust, beyond the obvious hedonism. The Dom/me respects the submissive in their set boundaries on the scene, and trusts the submissive to tell them if something is wrong. The submissive respects the Dom/me’s decisions about the scene, and (rather explicitly) trusts the Dom/me to allow them control (to whatever agreed upon extent).

b) The Dom/me, assuming all things good and equal, CANNOT exert any control without the submissive’s permission -- thus, all control lies with the sub. You cannot be controlled if you do not give that control, period. Indeed, the key phrase that Adams doesn’t understand is ‘willing victim’ -- the submissive willingly places him/her-self at the mercy of the Dom/me. Nothing is (or should be) forced...

c) The act of bondage is (supposed to be) a consensual contract between the two people -- literally, an agreed upon contract over what can, or cannot, happen during a scene. Thus, if violence is committed, it’s because both parties agreed that such actions are allowed. Likewise, if the submissive is overtly treated like an animal, it’s because the submissive allows or wants that particular behavior to happen; if the submissive does not, then the Dom/me is going beyond the agreed upon bounds, and submissive may immediately hault the scene.

Nevermind that I’m fairly certain that in some (read: at least one) culture, ropes and chains were used for other purposes (raising and lowering a drawbridge, hauling back wood or food to the camp/village, et cetera) than solely for the control of animals. So I cannot agree with this particular claim on any front.


p. 210 -- “Similarly, in images of animal slaughter, erotic overtones suggest that women are the absent referent. ... The impact of a seductive pig relies on an absent but imaginable, seductive woman...” -- .....what movies/images has she seen??? I’m a fan of ‘blood, guts and gore’ movies... I even managed to sit through ‘Earthlings’ (which had its moments) -- I cannot think of a single image of animal slaughter that actually tried to be (even remotely) erotic... I’m willing to admit that I might not be thinking of fleshy women when I look at a pig, since I am a woman; but this seems to border on absurdity. (Or, is this in reference to the idea of a bondage scene as a man using ‘animal-controlling-tools’ on a woman?)



p. 212 -- “Linda Lovelace claims that when presented to Xaveria Hollander for inspection, “Xaveria looked me over like a butcher inspecting a side of beef.” When one film actress committed suicide, another described the dilemma she and other actresses encounter: “They treat us like meat.” Of this statement Susan Griffin writes: “She means that men who hire them treat them as less than human, as matter without spirit.” -- Curiously, Adams does not elaborate on these womens’ careers. However, my guess is that these quotes are from women working in the acting and/or modeling business, something that demands ‘visual perfection’. Lovelace’s word-choice of ‘inspection’ belies my point: In these particular cases, the women were (willing) subjects of a visual form; actresses must look the part -- that’s their job. The subject must be inspected -- not necessarily meant as a derrogatory or condescending gesture towards the woman (although I’m sure that at least one person embraces the exception), but as a mere function of the (visual) business. I wonder if these same women would have thought or felt the same if the director had been female? Would they have guaged ‘the look’ differently simply because of the director’s gender? There’s no surrounding context to these quotes, so it’s difficult to guage the full extent of possible overt ‘objectification’.

p. 213 -- “In The American Heritage Dictionary the definition of ‘lamb’ is illustrated not by an image of Mary’s little one but by an edible body divided into ribs, loins, shank, and leg.” -- This is disparaging, and rather depressing. My Oxford American Dictionary has 3 defintions: 1) a young sheep; 2) its flesh as food; 3) (informal) a gentle or endearing person. It seems imperative to point out that the dictionary that Adams quotes is from 1969, and the OAD was printed in 1979/80 -- quite a shift in 10 or 11 years -- ‘young sheep’ comes first, and inadvertantly presents the violent process of animal-to-food.

p. 214 -- quote from William Hazlitt in 1826 -- “Animals that are made of as food should either be so small as to be imperceptible, or else we should ... not leave the form standing to reproach us with our gluttony and cruelty.” -- I’ve no idea who Hazlitt is -- if he was a person speaking out for animal rights (did they do that back then?), or if he was, as Adams says, “honestly admitting” the truth about the psychologically necessary(?) step of emotional distancing oneself from the animal who becomes one’s meal. Considering the last sentence in his quote, “I hate to see a rabbit trussed, or a hare brought to the table in the form which it occupied while living”, it seems apparent that he was not raised on a farm, and is (I’m guessing) middle class. He realizes the violent process of animal-to-food, and would rather be ignorant of it.


It’s strange to me -- people have morbid fascinations that are socially acceptable (crashes at car races, car accidents in general, the latest craze of funny-because-it’s-not-you Jackass episodes and movies, et cetera), but these are kept at a distance -- the car crash involves someone that you don’t know, or has immediate medical attention and hopefully a spectacular explosion, the wars overseas have casualties that never have faces. Some enjoy ‘blood, guts, and gore’ movies that reveal the anatomy in grusome ways; but even this is at a distance -- the faces are unknown, the situation is a picture or a movie, and no matter the amount of gore, it’s in the form of a picture or a movie, which automatically creates a fictitious air (whether it’s actually fiction or not).

Viewing the dead can be taboo (a la gore flicks), or socially acceptable (funerals). But in either situation, it’s only when you consciously think of someone dying that it hits home. Or, your viewing can remain fictitious if the moment is not personalized, so that the momento mori is lost.

(E&A) Nit-Picky Reading - (1)

In reading Section 4 of The Animal Ethics Reader, I'm finding myself marking the margins with questions that might serve as a means to good discussion. So, I thought I'd share.

In David DeGrazia's "Meat-Eating" (p. 177-183), there are 5 things that I'd like to bring to the proverbial 'Round Table
of Discussion'.


1) A simple question of confusion in the sentences: p. 180 - "...consumers do not need the products of factory farms." I am confused because there seems to be this switch between eating meat (the supposed focus of the essay, based on the title), and eating animal products (milk, eggs, etc.). Is this really a subject that can be so easily switched -- are they synonomous in this particular article? Or is he really trying to focus on one over the other? (If so, I'd assume animal products in general -- but then he should change the title.)


2) p. 181 - "...while American consumers frequently hear that factory farming lowers meat prices at the cash register, they are rarely reminded of the hidden cost of tax subsidies." Is this true?

Here's a PETA based website calling for the taxing of meat (like other harmful-to-health luxuries, cigarettes, alcohol, et cetera).

"You don't really pay for meat at the grocery store -- we all pay for it when we pay our taxes. (And we pay for it again in the form of medical care for heart disease patients.) It has been estimated that hamburger meat would cost $35 per pound without subsidies." (taken from student blog)

"Then, in the early 1980s, ethanol subsidies were used to prop up America's struggling corn farmers. Unfortunately, the usual "trickle down" effect of agricultural subsidies is clearly evident. Beef and dairy farmers, for example, have to pay a higher price for feed corn, which is then passed on in the form of higher prices for meat and milk. The average consumer ends up paying the cost of ethanol subsidies in the grocery store." (taken from STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN ON AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT EXTENSION OF ETHANOL SUBSIDIES)

AskQuestions.org's editor offers a different answer: "The nonprofit Environmental Working Group publishes information about the issue, including a database of farm subsidies. According to their Farm Subsidy Database, the top 10 recipients got 72% of the $143.5 billion US taxpayers paid to farmers over the past ten years. And just seven states took in half of that money, because only those states produce the corn, wheat, rice and cotton crops that account for 78% of the subsidies. Meanwhile, two-thirds of American's farmers and ranchers receive no direct government support." However, this is the money going *to* the farmers directly; this does not account for how the subsidies (might) change the price from the slaughter-house to the table.


Answers.com provided this explanation of farm subsidies: "The premises behind agriculture subsidies are that the nation's food supply is too critical to the nation's well-being to be governed by uncontrolled market forces and that to keep a steady food supply, farmers' incomes must be somewhat stable, or many farms would go out of business during difficult economic times. These premises are not accepted by all lawmakers and are the subject of continual debate. Critics argue that the subsidies are exceedingly expensive and do not achieve the desired market stability."

Later in the same article: "In the dairy industry, the government subsidizes milk production by agreeing to purchase milk from processors at a predetermined price. Dairy farmers receive no direct deficiency payments; rather, they receive from their processor a milk check that includes the federal money.

The international community often attacks the U.S. dairy subsidy programs as predatory, although similar and even greater subsidies are given to many dairy farmers in European communities. U.S. dairy producers claim that until the other producing nations drop their subsidies, it would be economic suicide for the United States to lower subsidies.

The government also subsidizes agriculture through nonrecourse loans. With this type of subsidy, the government loans money to farmers using the farmers' future harvest as collateral. The government sets a per-bushel loan rate at which farmers can borrow money prior to harvest, so that they can hold their crops for later sale when the market price rises. The government determines how much a farmer can borrow by multiplying the loan rate (which is usually equal to the government target price for the crop) by the farmer's base acreage (which is determined by calculating the number of acres the farmer planted of a target crop over several years, and multiplying that total by the farmer's average yield). The crop is the collateral for the loan, and the farmer can either repay the loan in cash and sell the crop, or default and forfeit the crop to the government. If the market price is lower than the loan rate or target price, or if the farmer's actual production rate is below the farmer's base acreage rate, the government's only recourse for recouping part of its loan is to take the collateral crop. This subsidy is used primarily for corn and wheat, with a modified form of the program applying to soybeans, rice, and cotton."

Okay, I understand the need to guard the farmers' paychecks -- we need food. The simple (logical?) jump would be to say: Well, then we need to figure out what food we need. However, this is a different question than: Is it true that "...while American consumers frequently hear that factory farming lowers meat prices at the cash register, they are rarely reminded of the hidden cost of tax subsidies"?

((Later on in the same article: "Many environmentalists opposed farm subsidies for different reasons. Corn and wheat programs came under attack by environmental groups. These groups claimed that the base acreage and deficiency payment system encouraged farmers to produce soil-depleting and erosion-prone crops such as corn year after year, even if the market offered a better price for a different crop. Soil depletion and the need to increase average yields led to heavy use of chemical fertilizers, which in turn added to soil and water pollution." -- Would the argument still be made if the farmers were able to rotate crops? How is this an argument against farm subsidies, rather than bad farming techniques?))


Maybe I'm just not looking in the right places, or using the right search terms, but I can't find any actual numbers to back DeGrazia's claim up. (That, or maybe it's just that well hidden... not sure.)((Wouldn't it be better for him to have provided these numbers to save readers the hassle of finding the information for themselves? Or is this a matter of 'common knowledge' that is unknown to me?))


3) p. 181 -- The 'perverse effect on the distribution of food to humans'. What is it that the animals _actually_ eat? (I shall stay away from the obvious effects of Mad Cow -- which points to the fact that these animals are NOT eating grain...)

NotMilk.com (setting aside the obvious bias) offers up one answer: "Nearly seventy-nine percent of cows are fed sodium bicarbonate. Greater than half of the cows in America receive selenium, yeast, and magnesium oxide. More than one third of America's dairy cows take supplements including zinc methionine, niacin, anionic salts, and tallow (rendered fat) from their deceased brothers and sisters.

Forty-eight percent of dairy cows are fed roasted soybeans! ... Thirty-nine
percent receive dried blood from their own [species]...

Fifteen percent receive ground-up fish... Four percent of cows eat feathers...
Two percent of cows are fed pork."

Another site tell me that it's a mixture of grain and alfalfa hay.

The problem is that I'm finding (online) a mix of biological 'what cows
require' and anti-meat 'what they're getting' with no immediate sources.
It's quite obvious what cows _should_ eat... (and bringing in the
presence of Mad Cow, I guess the answer has been 'provided'... -ish.)


4) DeGrazia's counter-argument on pages 181-2 have a nice touch --
the best way to persuade someone of a point is to make them realize
how this is a matter of 'human-interest'. Of course, this requires the
audience to be more leniant to empathy than apathy...

Which leads my thought train to William O. Stephans' "Five
Arguments for Vegetarianism" (p. 201-207), specifically
p. 202 'The feminist argument from sexual politics' and
p. 205 'Patriarchy of pork or feminist fuss?'.

"Carol J. Adams argues that "to talk about eliminating meat is to
talk about displacing one aspect of male control and 
demonstrates the ways in which animals' oppression and
womans' oppression are linked together." Adams calls this 
connection 'the sexual politics of meat'."  -- Knee-jerk reaction:
this seems extremist, and inadvertantly propagates the 'women are
meat' ...thing. Instead of arguing that we (females) *are* seen as
meat, argue for the ways in which we are completely different than
mere meat! If the problem is oppression, then it must be earthlings'
oppression of other earthlings -- I don't see the point in creating
another 'barrier' between the sexes.

5 minutes of thought reaction: I do realize that this is a snippet from
her book, so I can't say that she doesn't offer any solutions because
I haven't read the book.

However, I cannot understand the 'need' to make such a connection,
and argument, about such a thing...

"If the Feminist Argument from Sexual Politics were the only
argument for vegetarianism, it might not sway the hardened 
skeptic who could object that there is no logically necessary
connection between meat eating and patriarchy. Yet Adams' 
argument does, I think, retain an interesting degree of
plausibility in its own right, and it adds another dimension
to the cumulative case for vegetarianism." (p. 205)

I'm not sold that Adams' argument provides anything for the case
for vegetarianism. Frankly, I wasn't even aware that there was a
connection between sexual politics and meat... it raises the
'categorical mistake' red flag in my brain. (But feel free to correct
me!)

Yet, returning back to the original point of 4), the issue of
empathy and apathy returns, this time in the guise of oppression.
Sex-issues aside, the issue of oppression is preceded by the issue
of objectification. If a creature is thought of as an object, there's no
need for emotional attachment. (My grandfather was raised on a
farm back in the 20's - 30's. He told me that whenever you raise
animals for slaughter, you don't name them. If you've got kids, you 
let them pick one out and keep it as their pet -- and keep the rest
separate. ...in this particular frame of context, it's easy to
understand that these were controls to prevent emotional
attachment.)


Lastly, 5) "In general, the following moral rule, although
somewhat vague, is defensible: make every reasonable effort not 
to provide financial support to institutions that cause extensive
unnecessary harm." (p. 180) -- While I see the drive behind this
statement, I cannot stand by it because I'm not entirely sure how
far this would feasibly go. Decide what causes 'extensive
unnecessary harm' and then don't vote/spend your dollar on that
business. If we decide that everything that causes pollution
should not be patroned, we run into a serious problem -- there's
literally *SO MUCH* that causes pollution that's used on an
everyday basis that it becomes a battle to do almost anything...
While I agree with DeGrazia's theory, this might be an
unreasonable demand when applied.

(E&A) "North Korea hopes big bunnies can shrink food shortage"

"Berlin - A German breeder things that he has the answer to North Korea's hunger problems: his giant bunnies that can grow to be as big as 23 pounds.
Karl Szmolinsky has raised the German Giants, gray rabbits the size of cocker spaniels, for 44 years at his home in Eberswalde, northeast of Berlin.
[snip]
North Korea, apparently, was interested in his rabbits as a possible solution for its hunger-stricken population of 23 million.
The secretive regime of communist leader Kim Jong II has relied on foreign food aid since natural disasters and mismanagement devastated its economy in the mid-1990's and led to a famine estimated to have killed 2 million people.
Diplomats from the North Korean Embassy in Berlin drove out to Eberswalde to see the big bunnies.
[snip]
Smolinsky sold them four females and two males to start a pilot program, and he plans to fly to Pyongyang, the capital of the communist nation, in April at their request to see how things are progressing.
Females produce two liters of eight to 14 offspring each year, so the four could produce as many as 112 rabbits in the first year alone. A single rabbit produces about 15 pounds of meat..."
(taken from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Sun. Feb. 4, 2007, p. 9a)

Seeing that I can't find the article online, I thought I'd type up the majority of it. (I can bring it to class.)

While it's nice to see that people are trying to come up with solutions, I can't help but think that this 'solution' isn't going to be as effective as North Korea hopes. 112 rabbits per year, 15 pounds per rabbit, 1680 pounds of meat -- and 23 million starving people???
I understand that over time the program would help more people, but this solution (like any other) is not the 'quick fix' that is needed.

I don't know enough about North Korea to say whether they should be farming, or what their exports are that they could sustain importing food... But there's gotta be a different solution than this... which *might* work given 5 years, maybe less depending on how the bunnies are (chemically) treated... but I just don't see this as the best possible solution to the problem.

Surely there is a quicker way to get these people the food they require... a quicker yield, a quicker time-frame. Why must North Korea import its food -- has economics trumped our empathy? (Why haven't other countries helped out -- just given them some extra food?)

((It's quite feasible, and indeed highly probable, that there are policies and politics that I'm just unaware of. Frankly, I'm idealistic enough to think that these should not matter in light of mass starvation... But, I've never had much faith in the political systems -- especially when it comes to taking care of the people... So I'll admit my bias, my ignorance, my lack of education. But I seriously don't see why politics and economics should trump morality and empathy. That's just me tho..))

(E&A) Contemplation of Thesis & Topic limitations

I bring this to the round-table-of-open-discussion so that I'm not keeping all my research to myself, and also in the hopes that other people might help to dispell some of the fog that (seemingly) permeates my topic of interest for the research paper...

Okay, so here's my original idea: I propose to research whether or not there are any non-human animals that are 'consciously moral', or moral agents.

However, the topic itself strikes me as being too broad. While I am inclined to limit the research to just primates (those non-human animals closest to the humans in the classification system), I am also aware that other creatures (i.e. dolphins) exhibit behaviors that might be 'consciously moral'. And I'd hate to leave anyone out!

Preliminary Thesis (based on original idea): There are non-human animals that are capable of being moral agents -- that is, non-human animals exhibit behaviors that are not simply a reaction to external stimulus (tropism), but rather are evidence of cognitive awareness resulting in conscious decisions. (For a sharpening of focus, I'd exchange of 'non-human animals' for primates.)


However, Matt brought to my attention that linguistics is really where the debate of non-human animals being 'moral agents' is.

Linguistics, without even doing a search, is going to be a *huge* field to try and wade through. Even after searching through tables of contents of various books, I don't know how to limit the search -- pick one species and begin?

It strikes me that behavior is necessarily included in linguistics, if the primary function of linguistics is communication. (Arguably, humans communicate both verbally and physically with gestures and facial expressions.)

So, I'm currently at a loss of where or how to start in regards to a thesis statement. I've checked several books out from the library, and shall peruse them to see if anything pops out. I've a very broad and general knowledge of this area -- indeed, it's in blob form, which makes it very hard to "carve off corners", as Matt puts it.


Comparison of Human language and Animal Communicatons
(several 'differences' I knee-jerkingly disagree with)

When Apes speak, linguists listen
(.pdf file from .edu site)

Formal Linguistics and precursors to Animal Syntax
(.pdf file from .edu site -- this one looks to be of the utmost importance to this topic, but at first glance... it's written in Chinese. I shall print it up and study it further.)

Lingformant - The science of linguistics in the news
(appears to be an updated blog with *many* juicy articles...)

animalvoice.com
(a page of links on various non-human animal topics)


Obviously there's a lot more out there, but that's what I've garnered from my 'selective dredging'...

As always, I shall keep this updated as I research, including interesting tidbits from actual books! =-)

(E&A) Meat Necessary for Evolution of Brain?

In a recent debate with my boyfriend about the ill-treatment of animals (sparked by my comments on the 'Earthlings' video), he brought up a good point that I had not previously considered..

Is meat necessary for the evolution of the brain?

Is it the protein composition in the meat that pushes the evolution?

Or is it something else in the meat?

((What is it about the meat that causes the evolution?))


If so, then by not eating meat, are we cutting ourselves short of future evolution?

'Meat-eating was essential for human evolution'
excerpt: Milton argues that meat supplied early humans not only with all the essential amino acids, but also with many vitamins, minerals and other nutrients they required, allowing them to exploit marginal, low quality plant foods, like roots - foods that have few nutrients but lots of calories. These calories, or energy, fueled the expansion of the human brain and, in addition, permitted human ancestors to increase in body size while remaining active and social.

"Once animal matter entered the human diet as a dependable staple, the overall nutrient content of plant foods could drop drastically, if need be, so long as the plants supplied plenty of calories for energy," said Milton.

The brain is a relentless consumer of calories, said Milton. It needs glucose 24 hours a day. Animal protein probably did not provide many of those calories, which were more likely to come from carbohydrates, she said.
...
Since plant foods available in the dry and deforested early human environment had become less nutritious, meat was critical for weaned infants, said Milton. She explained that small infants could not have processed enough bulky plant material to get both nutrients for growth and energy for brain development.



'Comparative context of Plio-Pleistocene hominin brain evolution' (a .pdf file from gwu.edu)

Those were the only sources that I found of some reliability (a constant plague when researching online!)...

I'm unsure if this constitutes as a categorical mistake of using evolution to determine ethics. It seems like it is, and seems like it's not...

Obviously evolution cannot determine ethics. But, if meat-eating causes evolution of the brain, then wouldn't that evolution have an (eventual?) effect on ethics?

Am I way off base?

(E&A) 'Earthlings' video

This video was brought to my attention. It's about 1 hour 35 minutes long, and completely heart-wrenching.

I should give a warning, as some of the scenes are bloody disgusting.

Even with that warning said, I cannot allow myself to turn away from reality. Nor should any self-respecting human being.

Earthlings


I just got done watching it. Joaquin Phoenix did an amazing job narrating, his words somber and sonorous. The message eloquent and factual, loud and clear.

Words on a page are easy to dismiss. There's no clear image to see, and we all know that they were written by someone with a presupposed bias. We don't see the person behind the words, looking us dead in the eye as they speak. We don't research and double-check their facts because it's so much easier being blind... willingly blind.

We dismiss the truth because we've been trained to be wary of deceit -- in the printed words, the news blurbs, the photographs, the clipped and censored footage.

I watched this from beginning to end. I cannot forget now. I cannot erase these images from my memory. I cannot 'just walk away' from the truth. I can't just stuff my head back in the blissful sand of ignorance.

This is the problem with knowledge.

You can't unlearn it.

(E&A) Using Vegetarianism & Global Warming to start discussion on another website

While considered a conspiracy website, I usually browse/comment on abovetopsecret.com -- not for the conspiracies, but for the social thoughts that are being pondered worldwide.

I took an article that our Professor posted on his blog, and began a 'thread' (as they are referred to): Cut Global Warming by being a Vegetarian?

The point was to guage people's reactions, and inclue a huge 'IF this is the case...' to see if people were able/willing to set aside their knee-jerk reactions and seriously consider the possibility of vegetarianism, as I am. (Kind of my own worldwide social experiment.)

As expected, there are a few people who are dead-set against it, and refuse to hear otherwise. However, it's very intriguing, even hopeful, that there are some who are, like me, meat-eaters, but who are at least willing to ponder the situation, the possibility.

Someone brought in an article that I'm going to take a closer look at over the weekend: Vegetarian Myths

(excerpt: Agricultural animals have always made a major contribution to the welfare of human societies by providing food, shelter, fuel, fertilizer and other products and services. They are a renewable resource, and utilize another renewable resource, plants, to produce these products and services. In addition, the manure produced by the animals helps improve soil fertility and, thus, aids the plants. In some developing countries the manure cannot be utilized as a fertilizer but is dried as a source of fuel.
There are many who feel that because the world population is growing at a faster rate than is the food supply, we are becoming less and less able to afford animal foods because feeding plant products to animals is an inefficient use of potential human food. It is true that it is more efficient for humans to eat plant products directly rather than to allow animals to convert them to human food. At best, animals only produce one pound or less of human food for each three pounds of plants eaten. However, this inefficiency only applies to those plants and plant products that the human can utilize. The fact is that over two-thirds of the feed fed to animals consists of substances that are either undesirable or completely unsuited for human food. Thus, by their ability to convert inedible plant materials to human food, animals not only do not compete with the human; rather, they aid greatly in improving both the quantity and the quality of the diets of human societies.

That first paragraph sounds dangerously close (if not on target) to the idea that we touched upon in class, as well as in Feuerbach: objective matieralism verses 'sensuous human activity' -- stripping the animals of their value by labelling them as "renewable resources".

The second might have a point, in that the plants that the animals are eating are unsuited for human food. (I refuse to acknowledge 'undesirable', as that is a preference and not a reason.) However, wouldn't that simply require the fields to be planted with something that humans can eat? (There is mention later in the article about the soil of fields that have been used solely for wheat being eroded of their nutrients -- but that is a _fact_ of farming. How is that a defense of meat-eating?)

Someone else brought up Plan B 2.0 : Rescuing a Planet under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble by Lester Brown (the entire book is online for free!).

Same person also brought US EPA - Human Methane Emissions which has a table that shows the recorded (rising!) levels of methane emissions from various sources - landfills, coal mining, et cetera. It's got _lots_ of juicy information!

To curb the car emissions problem, someone brought in Can Soylent Green save the world... and our climate? Welcome to the new biodiesel (excerpt: Algae? Done right, it can yield perhaps 10,000 gallons per acre per year, because it's harvested every two weeks instead of once a year. And folks are experimenting with different forms of algae to see if they could boost that production rate maybe four- or fivefold.

Algae
Photo/Vermont Department of Health

And here's the beauty of growing algae: It needs three ingredients. One is free -- light from the sun. The second can be recycled -- water. The third is carbon dioxide. Yes, that's the same stuff causing global warming -- which will certainly have to be captured at power plants pretty soon.)








As the discussion continues (and I hope to keep it going through the semester, fueled by what I learn in class), I'll keep you guys up to date on my 'social experiment', as well as any further sites of interest. :)