Response to "Human and Animal Interests."

Response #14

In Nick's blog, he talks about how any problem can be solved with a future goal and strategic planning, even animal testing. Some people believe we have no other choice but to put our interests over those of the animals in order to advance as a society. The fact that animals need shelter and food, can reproduce, and try to avoid pain and suffering are parallel to our needs as human beings. Human beings do have interests animals do not share but they can be accomplished without volunteering the usage of animals (whether it be for food, testing, entertainment). Nick says that if we are using animals in a way which does not benefit but actually harms them, then what is the point? It is unfair to exploit animals just for humans 'needs' or desires. He goes on to say testing on animals even for extreme reasons which could save thousands of human lives, like finding a cure for AIDS, is also unacceptable because it does harm and kill animals unnecessarily. In the end, he says animals should not be used just to fix the mistakes of the human race. He asks, "Can human and animal interests be aligned?"

I should hope so. Even though human beings see themselves, more often than not, as the superior species, there is no justification for this. Sure, we are more advanced in some ways, are larger than others, are capable of creating societies and cultures, are conscious, and are (usually) intelligent beings, and have our own language. This does not mean we have the right to belittle other species and deem them as lesser. I think the human race lacks major respect even for other people and especially for animals. Because of stem cells and the advances in the medical field, I see no plausible reason for animal testing. Because there are so many organic and vegetarian food options, I see no reason for hunting and slaughterhouses. Since animals are originally from the wild, I see no reason why they should be taken out of their natural habitats and put on display in zoos. I also see no reason for leather jackets and fur coats. Humans need to rethink why exactly we exploit animals the way we do and ask how this benefits the animals we are harming. Then we will be able to see there are so many alternative ways of doing everything which does not include using animals.

Right now, human interests are always almost placed above animals but I do not understand why this couldn't change. Coexistence is really a beautiful thing.

My question to you is: What needs to be done in order for human beings to start seeing their interests as equal to those of all other species?

Response to "Trophy Hunting."

Response #13

This is in response to Mary's question, "So obviously trophy hunting is an instance where the interests of the human are weighed heavier than those of the animal, but my question right now is, are we really able to justify it, or is it just a pig-headed argument created because it is something that humans can do and makes them feel good?"

Mary talks about how trophy hunting is just another way people show their competitive nature not only to brag to others about their conquests but to compete with animals for their lives. I agree with Mary; that trophy hunting is wasteful because the hunter has no intentions of using the rest of the animal. He or she just wants the head to mount of his or her wall. I do not find there to be any 'sport' in trophy hunting because the animal's life is on the line and he or she is usually, like Mary said, pushed into a corner with its back against the wall (figuratively speaking). The animal has no say in the matter. Trophy hunting is a power trip for the hunter because he or she is trying to overcome a more powerful animal. There is always a risk. Hunting for the sole purpose of gaining a new trophy to brag about is disgusting, to me. I wouldn't appreciate it very much if my head was mounted on someone's living room wall, staring at whoever is watching television that day. It's just sick. In my home state Vermont, most homes have deer head mounted on the walls and they all look the same to me. Once a hunter kills one, why must he or she keep going? What is there to prove?

There is no way to justify trophy hunting. End of story.

My question to you is: What is the difference between trophy hunting and hunting for sport? Which is more justifiable and why?

Factory Farming vs. Animal Hunting.

Which is more ethical?

I know I already blogged about this topic once but I feel as though I should come back to it...

This is a question I have been tossing around in my head for a while. Both, to me, seem like unethical topics because each requires taking a life and causing the suffering of the animal before it eventually dies. Billions of pigs, cows, chickens, horses, and so on are killed each year in factory farms. On the other hand, a little over 100 million animal deaths are reported by hunters each year. Factory farm animals are raised just to be meat. Most of them don't even see sunlight and their growth is altered and advanced by hormones and antibiotics. Animals that will be hunted in the wild live a natural life, eating what they please and enjoying the sun. Hunters then take them away from nature by shooting them for their own purpose; trophy hunting, subsistence hunting, or for sport. Both ways of killing animals provide food for families and consumers but which is more ethical?

Corporations control factory farming and employees are desensitized by the killing of animals every day. Conditions are extremely hazardous to the employees, the animals, and the consumer's health. However, consumers are often oblivious to what they are eating. They are able to detach themselves from the animal they are consuming. Since they didn't directly kill the animal, then don't see the wrong behind their meat. Hunters are required to have licenses to kill animals in the wild and are restricted to certain time periods. This way, people actually kill what they eat and the meat is not contaminated and spiked with growth hormones. Although animals do not consent to being hunted, factory farmed animals don't choose to live the lives they do either. It is hard to say one act is more humane than the other because, to me, taking a life in any way is wrong and it is not right to rank which way is more ethical.

However, I am going to have to say that people who hunt animals strictly for food is a more ethical act than the slaughtering of animals in factory farms for food. I wish both actions would cease but if I had to pick one over the other, hunting wins. Although, if people are just hunting for the sport or for the trophy, then they are just as wrong as the big corporations that kill animals in masses. I understand the point that people eat meat to survive but doing it in a way in which animals suffer from birth is really unnecessary and only killing animals for fun is not any better. Factory farming and hunting are the most controversial topics (aside from animal testing) when it comes to animal ethics. In the end, no one should have the right to take a life, human or nonhuman.

My question to you is: In your opinion, are factory farming and animal hunting comparable and which act is more ethical to you?

Response to "Change."

Response #12

In Sarah's blog, she talks about the big multinational corporations that control the meat industry today and how they also have the power to change the state of factory farming. Profits would be lost but there would be many supporters of the change which could make up for some of the loses. According to Food Inc, there are only a handful of meat companies that hold 80% of the power in the United States; Tyson, Swift, Cargill, and National Beef. They do not want the public to know the truth about what people are eating. Over the past one hundred years, the industry has changed the entire way meat is processed. Chickens have been redesigned to have larger breasts because there is such a demand for white meat. Animals are fed growth hormones and antibiotics so they grow in half the amount of time that they use to. Today, meat industries do not care about the animals nor the people. They care about the profit and the power only.

I don't think the large corporations are afraid of changing; they just don't want to change. They control everyone; the farmers, the assembly line workers, the public, and the animals. Industries do not care how the animals are treated as long as the assembly line is always moving. Conditions are unbearable and workers' lives are always in jeopardy. The large companies recruit illegal immigrants because they can pay them extremely low wages and put their jobs on the line if they speak out to OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) and other regulators.

Consumers think they have thousands of product choices in supermarkets but really only a few companies are involved in producing goods. Healthy and organic foods are much more expensive because meat producers feed their animals cheap corn which drives down the prices. The lower class can not afford to eat well so they find themselves at fast food restaurants because it is all they can afford. The average person eats 200 pounds of meat a year and this is made possible because of the overproduction and meat being more affordable. The result is unsafe food which can lead to E. coli breakouts. Even though big companies do have the ability to change their ways, they don't want to. They have everyone eating out of the palm of their hands. They have finally developed a new way of 'farming' where animals grow twice as fast as they should and the assebly line never stops. They would never sacrifice their profits.

My question to you is: Since big corporations do not seem to want to change their ways, the only hope is with the people. If more and more consumers banded together and refused to support the meat industry, would companies finally listen? Why or why not?

A Peek at Animal Testing.

Animal research, vivisection, animal testing, animal experimentation: Whatever you want to call it, it is still wrong. Here's a short video to give you a better idea of what animals are forced to go through for us... I know this may seem extreme, but this is what happens. Ask yourself: Is this really necessary?

My Take on Animal Research.

When I think of animal research, I picture great apes, monkeys, rats or rabbits with lipstick on their mouths, blisters, cuts, growths on their bodies, scientists sticking needles in their arms, the animals screaming out with terror and about to return them to their small, cold, hard cages where they are kept. I wonder if anything positive can really come of such suffering. Today in class, we talked about Baruch A. Brody and his viewpoint of how animals are inferior and, if testing benefits humans, it should be done. We have an obligation to our own species which overcomes the interests of non-human animals. Then, the point was brought up about where the line is drawn between animal testing. If it benefits cancer treatment research, then is this a more justifiable reason for testing on animals than stopping hang nails from happening? No matter what we test on animals, scientists realize results will differ because animals' anatomy differs from ours and what effects them one way could be totally different on a person. Basically, animals have a different genetic make up so the research that is done may be useless more often than not. So, what's the point of animal testing? Why do some companies choose to still practice it while others go out of their way to show that they do not?

Signs like "If we stop animal testing, who will stop the real killers?" convinces human beings that their interests are superior to animals and that all research is to benefit our species. To me, just like it’s wrong to experiment on children, people of color, disabled people or any human being without their consent, it’s also wrong to experiment on animals. Even though most animals used for animal testing are breed for that purpose, this is not justification to use them in such a way. This is like saying a person gave birth to a child and now that parent can do whatever she wants to the child because she gave it life for her own purposes. Animal testing is also expensive; housing, food, and caring for animals comes at a high cost. Also, because animals used for testing and research are in a lab and not their natural habitat, they are under a great deal of stress which can affect the accuracy of tests. Many drugs being tested on animals react differently when a body is under stress. Sure, there have been many breakthroughs in the medical industry when testing on animals took place but these results could have come about without sacrificing a life / well being of an animal. While there are endless lists of pros and cons about animal testing, but the question remains of whether the benefits of animal testing outweighs the problems associated with the practice?

My question to you is: If many companies and research facilities are able to test their products or ideas without the usage of animals, why is the practice still being performed if it is not necessary? What makes a company or scientist believe the benefits do outweigh the costs?

Response to "Hunting vs. Factory Farming."

Response #11

In Jenna's blog, she talks about her take on hunting and how it should only be done for the survival of a human being and not for sport. She then talks about the conditions of factory farms and how it may be more humane to kill an animal in the wild than have it suffer its whole life, without seeing the outdoors, up to the point where it is slaughtered for human consumption. She states, "If the hunter that is hunting for sport kills the animal and actually eats it and uses it then he has not wasted." In Native American cultures, all parts of an animal was used in order to make use of the life they took. She asks, "Do you think it is “morally” better to hunt an animal yourself then it would be to buy it from a store, where the animal has been produced from such a place as a factory farm?"

I think taking a life (animal or human) in any way is simply wrong, especially for human consumption. However, I can not change the minds of all meat-eaters to choose not to consume animals so buying meat from local farms or hunting animals instead of supporting big industries is better, in my opinion. My uncle owns a meat business, I guess you would call it, where he raises his own cattle and then kills it to sell locally for food. This way is more environmentally friendly, healthy, and the cows at least get to see daylight and have some what of a life. Now, I am not condoning the killing of animals for food but if I was to choose where to get my meat, I would buy from local farms. That way, I'm supporting local businesses (and my Uncle) and I have a better idea of what I am eating. Hunting, on the other hand, is something I could never do because I am actually taking a life out of the animal's natural habitat and preparing it myself. I do think this would be better than having factory farms because, that way, the conflict of how people should not eat animals if they could not kill it themselves would be solved.

My morals go against killing and eating animals all together, but I see how hunting and buying animal meat from local farms could be more humane, healthy, and morally correct compared to supporting the factory farming industry and what they do to the animals they slaughter and employees who work there. If the lives of animals have to be sacrificed for human's satisfaction, hunting is the better way to go. There is nothing good about factory farming... End of story.

My question to you is: Are factory farms and individually owned local/small farms really any different in their ways of killing animals for consumption, in your opinion? Also, in what ways can factory farming be defended as moral and necessary in our society?