AsahiSuperDry

Wait, what? Animals are incapable of self restraint? Survival of the fittest has no application in the modern model of human existance? Humans are the only social creatures that are able to communicate? Are you serious?

I may have stated that in a bit of a confusing way/improperly. The survival of the fittest doesn't hold mainly because people have access to treatments/surgery. Please, if you think I am wrong in the self-restraint (consciously, the ability to will) idea or in general then try to give evidence/reasons instead of just stating a questions and the like, "Are you serious?"

tofuguy

I may have stated that in a bit of a confusing way/improperly. The survival of the fittest doesn't hold mainly because people have access to treatments/surgery. Please, if you think I am wrong in the self-restraint (consciously, the ability to will) idea or in general then try to give evidence/reasons instead of just stating a questions and the like, "Are you serious?"

That makes more sense. Still, if you are stranded on a desert island do you become an animal as a result of being removed from the modern conveniences we take for granted?

And I'm sorry for the response- it just started with so many assumptions I believe to be false I honestly did not know where to begin. Self restraint seems so obvious as a survival mechanism in so many animals I'm not sure how you would want one to go about "proving" it. Watch a cat hunt its prey and you'll see restraint as it waits for the perfect moment to pounce. Watch the video I posted earlier and you'll see the lioness exercising restraint when it actively goes out of its way not to eat the little antelope.

On the issue of social animals and communication, there are too many examples to know where to begin. From whales to ants, from wolves to crows, there are countless examples of social behaviors and communication in the animal world.

We like to define ourselves as unique, self aware, emotional and intelligent creatures but you can find shades of any of those "human" characteristics throughout the animal kingdom.

And of our most prized accomplishment, intelligence, at what point do you pass that magic line in the sand? If a dolphin can exercise more problem solving ability than a toddler, does that make the toddler's life less significant? If you are under the influence of a drug and cannot make sense of the world around you, are you no longer human?

These aren't simple questions but I believe that observing the world around you with an open mind will reveal that we are not as alone as some would like to believe. Am I saying that you shouldn't eat animals? No, but I am suggesting that you pause and think about what it is you are really doing and respect the animals you kill and consume.

I would disagree on some parts but I don't really hold those matters to be significant as it is dependent on your preference. And how you decide how the world is like as a whole is also dependent on your preference (choice). But I can somewhat agree to conclude to "respect the animals you kill and consume."

To MrsStrife: Just stating that there is evidence now that animals have a consciousness (feeling suffering and pain part especially).

tofuguy

To MrsStrife: Just stating that there is evidence now that animals have a consciousness (feeling suffering and pain part especially).

Oh, I know they have concioussness and feeling. However cows that are slaughered don't panic, or have heart attacks before they are killed. Also when they are killed, their spine is severed to make death instant and painless. It happens every day, almost every minute. I'm sure just cows alone humans have killed and slaughered billions since mass meat production began. BILLIONS!!

It honestly doesn't bother me even when I think about it. It would only bother me if I had a pet cow named bessy that I grew up with, played with, tipped over.. Then one day I found someone took her and turned her into kobe beef (mmm kobe beef). I would be extremely emotionaly impacted with tears streaming down my face, as I take another delicious bite of bessy steak.. mmmm steak...

Well I think it's perfectly normal to slaughter.. because we need to survive.
Other than all the arguments here, I think it's safe to say killing animals for food and not for the heck of it is completely fine. Meh!

MrsStrife

Vegetarians who cite killing animals for food is wrong generally say this because animals have a consciousness and therefore feel pain and emotions. This is, of course, un-provable, but a reasonable assumption based on what we can see. By the same argument however, so do plants. It is merely that plants operate on a much different time scale to us. Plants still exhibit all of the features dictated by any definition of conscious that you care to use, they go towards things that benefit them (light, nutrients, etc.) and try to stay away from things that will harm them. They have all the signs of a living thing, and they also demonstrate awareness (E.G. the roots will always grow down, showing an awareness of gravity, don't argue this, they can clearly grow upwards too, so my point holds) and react to these stimuli. Also, humans are not designed to be vegetarians. Animals who are herbivores all have a relatively large pancreas, whereas humans and carnivores either don't have a pancreas or have a small one.

Humans are not designed to be vegetarians. It's very difficult to get all the nutrients you need through vegetables alone. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's quite clear that humans are designed to have meat as part of their diet.

Time lapse video does show some extraordinary plant behavior as do more active plant specemins like the fly trap. The biggest and most obvious difference is that plants don't have a brain and most of this takes place on a celular level rather than being instructions given from a single thought center. To a degree, you could say the same thing about any of our involuntary bodily functions- look at the way the body responds to a piercing or a topical solution on the skin.

As for pain, that's a very interesting thing. Pain is one of the few things that has no "standard" image when looking at a brain scan. There's no "pain" part of the brain. It is theorized that everyone feels pain differently and from a purely scientific standpoint, it's very hard to "prove". An interesting study was done not to long ago where patients in pain were able to look at a real time scan of their brain and by trial and error, were able to focus on different sections of their brain and reduce the pain close to that of medical grade pain killers.

But it's hard to argue that pain doesn't exist. It's a negative reaction meant to keep us from doing things that hurt us and a survival mechanism found in almost all animals. Simple observation would clearly show you that animals are capable of suffering. I find it hard to take any argument to the contrary very seriously.

tofuguy

But I can somewhat agree to conclude to "respect the animals you kill and consume."

Sounds good to me ;)

I find it very intriguing that most of the discussion (i bothered to read all comments before answering) is focused to the fact of killing animals to feed yourself... nobody has assesed other points of view of the question. I'm reffering to animal studies that finally end in the death of the animals, such as most of scientific studies. Billions of mice and rats (not even talking about how many flies have!) have died for the sake of humankind, as test subject for a number of treatments or other studies. Most people agree with killing animals for feeding, but there is a lot less people who approve of animal studies. I'm a scientist myself, so I know the killing animals part of studies is often really necessary, and cannot be replaced by anything (nor in silico studies or cell cultures), simply because nothing to date can exactly reproduce a complete living being with all its complicated reactions. For example, if you have a candidate vaccine, you MUST test it before use... How do you do it? You cannot use cell cultures, as whole immune system are composed of many different types of cells, encased in a whole body. So you have to use an animal model, usually mice. And what happens with them after the study concludes? Usually, for the study to be completed you have to sacrifice the mouse, so you can see what happened inside it. Mouse are too small to take biopsies, so if you want to have a look to a mouse spleen and see if it's infected, you usually remove it complete for analysis.
I work in a university, as a grad student in a biochemical lab. Obviously there's an animal facility in the university, that used to house a number of monkeys. While the monkeys were here, we got a lot of problems with animal liberation groups. They came to the main entrance and begin yelling for the "freedom of the apes" or something like that... Well, the monkeys weren't in a jungle, but they weren't being mistreated either, and no studies were being performed in them at the time, but the group would manifest almost every week, till the university managed to send the monkeys away to a reservation in Europe. Then, the activists stopped coming... What's my point? The animal facility is STILL here in the university. It houses rabbits, mice, rats, hamster and other animals (not monkeys). Why then the animal liberation groups stopped coming? Research is being done on a whole number of species yet... but none of them LOOKS human enough!! I frankly think that is stupid! If you are an animal liberation activist, then be a good one and don't sectorize your animals. All animals must be free or they must not. As a scientist, I don't like animal studies, but I know they are an essential part of science, and they will benefit lots of people, so I accept them.
Uhm, I think I wrote too much, so I'll leave this point opened for discussion, if anyone wants to.

reisboy

I find it very intriguing that most of the discussion (i bothered to read all comments before answering) is focused to the fact of killing animals to feed yourself... nobody has assesed other points of view of the question. I'm reffering to animal studies that finally end in the death of the animals, such as most of scientific studies.

...

I work in a university, as a grad student in a biochemical lab. Obviously there's an animal facility in the university, that used to house a number of monkeys. While the monkeys were here, we got a lot of problems with animal liberation groups. They came to the main entrance and begin yelling for the "freedom of the apes" or something like that... Well, the monkeys weren't in a jungle, but they weren't being mistreated either, and no studies were being performed in them at the time, but the group would manifest almost every week, till the university managed to send the monkeys away to a reservation in Europe. Then, the activists stopped coming... What's my point? The animal facility is STILL here in the university. It houses rabbits, mice, rats, hamster and other animals (not monkeys). Why then the animal liberation groups stopped coming? Research is being done on a whole number of species yet... but none of them LOOKS human enough!! I frankly think that is stupid! If you are an animal liberation activist, then be a good one and don't sectorize your animals. All animals must be free or they must not. As a scientist, I don't like animal studies, but I know they are an essential part of science, and they will benefit lots of people, so I accept them. Uhm, I think I wrote too much, so I'll leave this point opened for discussion, if anyone wants to.

I'm glad you brought that up. To quickly address the issue of the animal rights group only caring about the monkeys, I might give a brief pause at the relative intelligence compared to other animals but believe you are absolutely correct. The idea of only saving the "cute" animals is absurd.

Using animals for testing is a much harder line for me to draw. I definitely believe in and support medical research and am very greatful for the extra time that I have with those I care about as a direct result. At the same time, I recognize that this testing can require some degree of animal suffering and death and that's something I feel I have to qualify with a greater need. I really don't know how I'd define that.

In the end I suppose I appreciate the work that is being done and simultaneously feel guilty about the animal sacrifices necessary for the advancements. I don't know if there is any good middle ground but if you came up to me and told me that killing some mice would prevent the cancer my wife will have in 20 years, you'd be hard pressed to get an argument out of me. I think that if push came to shove, most animal activists would feel the same way.

I think killing animals is only right for food. Humans are omnivores, so if they don not choose to be vegetarian, they should be able to eat meat. However, hunting or killing animals for fur and leather is wrong, because we don't really need that stuff. Also, I think that if you really do have have to eat meat and kill animals for that, it should be done in a way that causes the animal no pain, just instant death. It's gonna become your steak, no need to make it suffer. I also don't approve of eating "exotic" animals, the word "exotic" meaning everything that's not cows or pigs (eww.) or farmbirds and fish. Eating lambs and such is just wrong.

BlackMoral

I also don't approve of eating "exotic" animals, the word "exotic" meaning everything that's not cows or pigs (eww.) or farmbirds and fish. Eating lambs and such is just wrong.

I disagree with that, as stated on my previous post. As AsahiSuperDry says:

AsashiSuperDry

The idea of only saving the "cute" animals is absurd.

Why should "eating lambs and such" be wrong? What is the "superiority" of lambs over pigs? I'm not mocking you, I'm really lost as to why would be right to eat a piglet, but not a lamb. To me (and, I bet, to a lot of people) a pig can be eaten as much as a lamb, or a cow, or a chicken... How come exotic animals can be protected? I agree if you tell me you might spoil the ecosystem and such, but if the to-be-eaten animals are grown in a farm or something like that, there's no "ecosystem spoiling" due to eating them (well, to build the farm there surely was a lot of ecosystemic destruction, but one can argue that it was necessary to survive, so I won't discuss that).
I hope you can answer me back, i really want to know your reasoning.

AsashiSuperDry

At the same time, I recognize that this testing can require some degree of animal suffering and death and that's something I feel I have to qualify with a greater need. I really don't know how I'd define that.

As AsashiSuperDry says, scientific studies often require some suffering or death from test animals, and that's something you have to cope with. There's a whole bunch of variations to how scientist see the animals they're working with (in my lab we work with mice and sometimes rabbits, and I have been able to see a good number of people's reaction to them). Some think that god gave the humans the right to use everything that lives in the Earth, so you can use animals or plants and not feel guilty because god intended so. Some think you should treat animals with respect, and do not joke at their expenses or make them suffer, and even apologize to them when suffering is inavoidable. A few simply don't care and just do what they have to do, though some of them don't kill the animals and ask someone else (usually the caretaker of the animal wing). I myself try to distance from the mice, so I don't feel to guilty, I know its use is unavoidable, so I just try to do the best I can in not making them suffer needlessly when manipulating or sacrificing them, though every time after we work with the mice we feel totally stressed and mentally tired, you can't just shake the knowing that you have been working with other living-sentient being. Others don't like working with animals and refrain from it if possible, one girl once came with me to work with mice (we weren't even killing them, we just gave them an oral vaccine, so there was no suffering implied, as we sedated them before) and simply couldn't do it, she just broke down and began crying.
The point I'm trying to rise here is that even between the scientists there are different views about animal use, ranging from top to bottom.

i think the killing of animals for un-necessiry reasons is just plain barbaric!! over in kenya the kill lions with a pesticide that is highly toxic. . . . at the rate they are going lions will be exyinct!?!?! i for one want lions around so my children and their children can see their dangerous beauty. . . . .

I don't mean to break up the current discussion but in response to the orignal question asked and some of the responses I've seen since, I thought I'd share a study I stumbled across today. It's certainly not the only one of its kind as you can see examples of intelligence and tool making in several animals but this is a quick read with a short video of one of the birds in action.

In short, scientists presented 4 birds with a series of problems to solve. One of those was a small basket with worms out of reach and a small wire. All 4 of the birds promptly created a hook out of the wire to retrieve the food. Keep in mind that these birds were raised in captivity without outside influence and were only 5 years old (think about the types of problems 5 year old humans are able to solve).

Article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1187429/Rook-hook-proves-bird-brains-equal-monkeys.html

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTtDbyQTQV0

Pretty interesting video, AsashiSuperDry
Thanks for the contribution.
I think this evidence adds to the arguments about human not being exclusively special in our planet, and that we cannot divide animals and decide which ones can be killed or not so easily, the argument that some species are more important than others is not valid.
dark-angel-jojo, though I don't support useless killing of anything (not animals, nor plants), I bet the ones killing lions in Kenya are farmers that think they have good reason to do so, albeit they may be wrong.