Your thoughts on animal rights

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I am against it. Completely. Make up is not a necessity (anymore).

I wear make up on occasion, but I only buy products that aren't animal tested. Many big companies now (like Loreal) use a type of synthetic skin to test their products on. That's fine by me.

Fake skin - that was testable is very new - it's also still very expensive. As cost come down - that will be the standard way to test makeup and other products. Maybe even someday we'll be able to grow organs that we can do some initial medical testing before moving onto the animal testing.

Don't put words in my mouth, JD.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I said - "You seem to view everything that mankind does as being evil." It's just an observation I've made - whether you feel it's a right or wrong one - doesn't mean I was putting words in your mouth.

I'm coming at this from a completely biological point of view. Remember, I'm not a big fan of the good vs evil concept... that suggests an ideological system that I don't subscribe to. First, and foremost, I swing towards science. Humans, in every sense of the word, are parasitic. That does not mean, however, that we are not capable of "good."

Well then by science - we have evolved into a parasitic creature - if you only look at it in scientific terms. And if we are parasitic - then every creature on earth - given the oppurtunity would be parasitic. Which in essence is true - we all live off of each other.

And as you know, humans are responsible for more extinctions than any other factor.

I disagree with that. I don't think anyone can state one way or the other whether humans cause more extinctions than any other force. I think a lot of fanatical environmentalists would like people to believe we do however.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well then by science - we have evolved into a parasitic creature - if you only look at it in scientific terms. And if we are parasitic - then every creature on earth - given the oppurtunity would be parasitic. Which in essence is true - we all live off of each other.

Yep. I wouldn't say that we evolved into it though. I would argue that hominids were always parasitic.

2. (Bot. & Zo["o]l.) Of or pertaining to parasites; living on, or deriving nourishment from, some other living animal or plant. See Parasite, 2 & 3.

JD
I disagree with that. I don't think anyone can state one way or the other whether humans cause more extinctions than any other force. I think a lot of fanatical environmentalists would like people to believe we do however.

Well, let me rephrase it then. There are MORE extinctions associated with the intervention of hominids, than at any other time.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants

Well, let me rephrase it then. There are MORE extinctions associated with the intervention of hominids, than at any other time.

Tell that to the dinosaurs then. And all the other animals and plants and trees that were killed at that time.

[BeardofPants]

Okay, okay, apart from Dinosaurs!

[BeardofPants]

Edit to above: should be mass extinctions.

As the human population grows and our demand for natural resources increases, more and more habitats are devastated. Today, we may be losing 30,000 species a year -- a rate much faster than at any time since the last great extinction 65 million years ago that wiped out most of the dinosaurs. Given that an unknown "catatrophe" (no, not smoking! ) was responsible for that lot of extinctions, I hardly think that it's comparable to the mass extinctions leading up to the current era.

Better?

[Rána Eressëa]

Originally posted by osszie
it's a shame that they don't steal, lie, cheat, rape, murder (with the exception of mink), go to war, or conciously treat each other with evil intent

Many animals steal, many murder, some of them rape, and they almost all fight (battles and such).

Originally posted by Starr Polish
While I am against animal testing for things like cosmetics and toiltetries, since we have other methods that are just as if not more effective, I am not completely against animal testing.

If it has to do with research involving things like cancer and genetic diseases, it doesn't really bother me. This is mostly because this could actually benefit us in a way that is more than petty, unlike cosmetic testing.

Humans should test it on themselves, especially if they tend to use it on themselves.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Edit to above: should be mass extinctions.

As the human population grows and our demand for natural resources increases, more and more habitats are devastated. Today, we may be losing 30,000 species a year -- a rate much faster than at any time since the last great extinction 65 million years ago that wiped out most of the dinosaurs. Given that an unknown "catatrophe" (no, not smoking! ) was responsible for that lot of extinctions, I hardly think that it's comparable to the mass extinctions leading up to the current era.

Better?

Back peddler.

I don't really trust the numbers - we have no idea. Where did you get that number from? I'm not saying that we don't cause extinctions.

[osszie]

ok, ok, folks........there was a subject to the thread up there^^^^


geez start another thread

and (as a quick p.s).......thanks for the info

ooh my brain hurts

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Back peddler.

I don't really trust the numbers - we have no idea. Where did you get that number from? I'm not saying that we don't cause extinctions.

And you never backpeddal?

It is an avg. estimate that I pulled off a number of sites. A conservative estimate, I might add.

I don't trust numbers either, BUT these figures are at least semi-observable. *shrug*

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
And you never backpeddal?

It is an avg. estimate that I pulled off a number of sites. A conservative estimate, I might add.

I don't trust numbers either, BUT these figures are at least semi-observable. *shrug*

Nope- don't back peddle. Restate my opinions so they're more understandable sometimes.

What happens when a previous species evolves into a more refined species and the other one dies out? There have been many species that humans have declared extinct and have rediscovered.

There was a resent episode in Washington where members of the EPA - made up of environmental fanatics - put hair of a endangered animal on trees to prevent humans from occupying the area. When the samples went to the lab for testing - it was determined that the animal was in a local zoo. Afterward they claimed they just wanted to test the lab and make sure they were reliable.


osszie -
Yeah - I know this doesn't deal with the topic.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
There have been many species that humans have declared extinct and have rediscovered.

These few instances are FAR outnumbered by the rate of mass extinctions. Like it or not, humans are either directly or indirectly responsible for them. Now, this thread is going on at the xenite forum as well, and someone posted something that I thought was valid to this argument.

Steve Faust:
... truely believe in the wild animal trade because their habitat is rapidly disappearing. I spent some time in the wilds of Guyana, South America and believed man would never spoil the region where I'd encamped. Wrong! All the beautiful Macaws are gone now because a Japanese company came in and cut down all the palms to make a million a day selling canned heart of palm to their clients. Without the palms, there is no fruit upon which the Macaws survive. Exported animals often become breeding stock. I know that with regard to reptiles, there are more of many species in domestic breeding colonies than in the wild. Some don't even exist in the wild anymore and breeders, motivated by profit, maintain genetically viable populations. Zoos don't.

[BeardofPants]

JD:
What happens when a previous species evolves into a more refined species and the other one dies out?

This is not mass extinction. Either way, the extinctions occur as a process of being filtered out of the breeding population over millions of years, rather than just "dying out" suddenly. Depending on the criteria, the ones with less desirable traits simply find it harder to attract mates to produce viable offspring, or find it harder to adapt to the changes within their ecosystem. Unless the changes are catastrophic, the organisms with the lesser fitness are filtered out gradually.

[jerseydevil]

Here is what ABCNews had on about the episode in Washington.

The Canada lynx is getting some people very excited. An environmental
group burned down a ski lodge in Vail because they thought it MIGHT
threaten the lynx.

There are tens of thousands of lynx throughout North America, but because
the bureaucrats weren't sure there were any in southern Washington state,
they commissioned a million-dollar study to find out.

They placed pieces of carpet soaked with a catnip mixture on trees, hoping
a lynx would then rub up against them and leave some fur. Sure enough --
samples the biologists sent to the lab contained hairs from a Canada lynx!

This is a frightening prospect for people who like using the land.
Finding a threatened species can set in motion a series of events that can
wreck your life if you're a rancher or farmer or just someone who wants to
drive in the woods. It's a reason lots of people in southern Washington
are scared of the government's environmental police.

As land-rights activist Mike Paulson put it, "We basically say if you
have an endangered species in your area, we are going to take your
livelihood away, we're going to destroy your communities, and we're going
to make it very difficult for your families to survive."

That didn't happen this time, because it turned out the government's
biologist were caught cheating! The lynx hair sent to the lab came from a
lynx that lives in a cage, miles away from where the biologists claimed
they found the hair. How could this happen?

Jim Beers, a Fish and Wildlife biologist for 31 years, says his agency
changed from promoting science to pushing what some believe is fanatical
environmentalism. Now he says the agency is "staffed with environmental
radical activists" who will twist facts until they get the results they
want -- and what they really want is to ban people from forests.

"Once you establish that there are any lynx in the area," Beers says, "the
areas in between suddenly become very urgent to not allow road to be
built, not allow the ski slopes to come in ... not allow grazing ...
ultimately, not to let you or I drive our wives and kids in for a picnic."

The biologists do have an explanation; they weren't trying to cheat, they
say, they were just testing the labs to make sure they could actually
identify lynx fur.

Beers replies: "That's the same as you telling me that you caught them
walking out of the bank with money and they said, 'Oh, we were just seeing
if the system works here, we were going to return it tomorrow.'"

Were the biologists fired for cheating? No. How often do governments
fire anyone? They were "verbally counseled," but they are still on the
job. It makes me wonder what other parts of their science we don't know
the truth about.

That's one of the reasons why i would have to see where the 30,000 number is coming from before saying I believe it.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
That's one of the reasons why i would have to see where the 30,000 number is coming from before saying I believe it.

Fair enough.

I just did a google search. I, by no means, say that these figures are reliable. They are just estimates.

Either way, whether the figures are reliable or not, they DO tell a story about several species being lost irretrievably every year. And profiteering is largely responsible for most of them.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Fair enough.

I just did a google search. I, by no means, say that these figures are reliable. They are just estimates.

Either way, whether the figures are reliable or not, they DO tell a story about several species being lost irretrievably every year. And profiteering is largely responsible for most of them.

Well then people should get on Brazil's case and other countries. What the companies do - although in many instances I disagree - is not illegal. Companies main purpose is provide a product or service and in return to make a profit from it. The Brazilian rainforests need to be protected by Brazil - people shouldn't expect companies to save them. But one of the reasons why Brazil and other countries allow the rain forest to be clear cut - is because they profit from it.

[Duddun]

If you want modern medicines and cancer drugs and HIV drugs and everything else- then we have to use animals - or else get a bunch of humans. If anyone is against animal experimentation and feels we should not use them - then I would expect those people to put their money where their mouth is and volunteer for the battery of experiments that is required for a drug to go through initial testing. Of course most of them will die - but it will keep the worlds human population in check and it is for a good cause anyway.

Imagine if we were the animals and we were being killed from being tested on stuff that humans were scared to do on themselves.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well then people should get on Brazil's case and other countries.

Yes. But. Where do you point the blame? It is not just Brazil, as you pointed out. Contrary to belief, it is not just the developing countries that are responsible. Europe, New Zealand, Australia, America: these countries are all pulling the puppet strings as well, in the case of deforestation, and destroying habitats.

The question is, how can we make this planet more sustainable without "destroying peoples livelihoods"?

I despair, I really do. It seems like there is nothing we can do to get around it. Even those who try and avoid certain products, can't guarantee that they're leading a completely guilt free life. I don't eat meat. I don't buy cosmetics that are tested on animals, but how do I know exactly what I'm impacting upon in my puny little life? I'm just as responsible as the next person for my methane and carbon emissions. I might not drive a car, but some of the aerosols I use are damaging to the environment, and therefore damaging to some habitats.

Oh god, I think I just depressed myself at the futility of it all, again....

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Duddun
Imagine if we were the animals and we were being killed from being tested on stuff that humans were scared to do on themselves.

You have to look further - I already said that it didn't bother me when I mentioned the orginal Planet of the Apes. In the original movie - Zera discected humans and did experiments on them. To me - I just viewed it as they were the superior being.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I despair, I really do. It seems like there is nothing we can do to get around it. Even those who try and avoid certain products, can't guarantee that they're leading a completely guilt free life. I don't eat meat. I don't buy cosmetics that are tested on animals, but how do I know exactly what I'm impacting upon in my puny little life? I'm just as responsible as the next person for my methane and carbon emissions. I might not drive a car, but some of the aerosols I use are damaging to the environment, and therefore damaging to some habitats.

Not to mention that the computer and monitor you are using have many toxic by products - all technology does. These all go into the environment after they are disposed of.

By the way - I agree with your statement here.

The question is, how can we make this planet more sustainable without "destroying peoples livelihoods"?

Too many environmentalists are of the attitude that no matter how it affects other's lives - if it destroys an animal it's wrong. There is no grey area. We have to work on finding a balance.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Not to mention that the computer and monitor you are using have many toxic by products - all technology does. These all go into the environment after they are disposed of.

...and the refrigerator, and my pot (as in pots and pans, not the illegal stuff) burning, and my tv, and farming, etc, etc, and so forth. *sigh*

These are all having an indirect impact upon habitation, and consequently, are impacting upon species within their niches. Oh well. There's always speciation....

And yes, I agree with YOUR statement: we have to find a balance. It is madness if we try to cater to any one direction more than the other. However, given the choice between a species dying out, and being lost forever, and someone losing profit, well, I'd go with the species that is dying out. BUT, I think that in cases like this, there should be some kind of state funding that could be used to help out the persons effected, judged on a case by case scenario. Obviously, a corporation could afford to sink costs a little better than say a farmer, who loses his land.