sinope: I will continue to use the phrase "survival of the fittest" because it is incredibly relevent to the discussion on this board. Furthermore, that is what Darwin intended in his theory on evolution, more directly however, his theory on natural selection. By Darwin's theory, we as the human race have been "naturally selected" as the next race to become the dominant one. Also, I don't understand where you are coming from with the "elimination of competition" quote? When did I ever refer to that? There is no competition to the human race (as of yet.) Therefore, how could we eliminate something which does not exist? And, I'm sorry to break it to you, but survival of the fittest means, that the whatever the stronger, fitter, faster, smarter race is shall survive to live on this earth. That IS Darwin's theory. From this information, we can logically deduce that we are the next race and have been since the existence of man. If these animals ever learn to think for themselves and express their emotions, then maybe they can stop "the inhunmane acts" which we humans commit. Also, you are starting to drop into another topic when you are discussing destroying ecosystems. I would ask that you please contain yourself to the topic at hand so that it is easier to understand the references you are trying to make. Also, a good read of Darwin's theory would be good for you.
Brucelee: You are right, natures way is not taking of animals and breeding them, at least not directly. Natures way is survival of the fittest through evolution. The human race has evolved to become the most intellegent race on the face of the planet. Therefore, we must exploit anything in order to perserve our dominance in this world. If that means killing animals inhumanely, it's worth it. I would be glad to test and inhumanely kill 5 million rats and birds if just one person could be saved through the research. You must understand this. It is the way that it has always been throughout history, both with humans and animals. For example, when the dinosaurs existed, the most powerful survived until the ice age. T-Rex's claimed dominance for their carnivorous habits while the herbavors ran from them. Also, would you say that when a falcon grabs a praire dog and mutilates it for either the sake of food or otherwise is humane? Yes, because this is the way of nature. Sure, it is grotesque, but at the same time, it serves a purpose. In this same way, animal testing is serving a purpose to advance our race.
If animals could think for themselves, than maybe they wouldn't be in this position. However, they can not. They are the inferior species, and until they become superior, then our dominance will contiune and the survival of the fittest theory will reign.
Italian,taking animals and breeding them to test on is not natures way,humans havent done nearly enought good to outweigh the bad to what we have done to this planet and its creatures.The real problem here is that humans make animals suffer in human test labs and human farms,most of these animals dont have one moment of happines in their entire lives.This is not survival of the fitest,animals dont kill for sport or pleasure,or for some rediculous science project,they dont catch other animals and put them in a Ukranian circus or zoo where they like humans do.To say animals owe anything is totaly stupid,if anything we owe them.
itl stln- what planet are you on??? You truly believe that animals should be grateful for all the "care" and "safety" we've provided to all speicies on this planet?? really. Take animals from the wild, so they can live better lives in a cage!!!!! how considerate. stop using the phrase, survival of the fittest, to justify the destruction of anything.
The fox chases the rabbit; sometimes he eats, sometimes he doesn't. thats the rule of nature, NOT- fox catches rabbit, breeds them, and sells them to other foxes, while destroying wolves and anything that eats rabbits. OR us Plowing over wild ecosystems for agriculture purposes, and farming purposes, and then killing off anything left that threatens our possesions- like wolves or foxes that would eat our precious cows.
Elimination of competition isn't in darwin's theory of survival, so stop thinking that it's a NATURal situation. soon nothing will be left if we keep taking.
The way i think of it is: animals have given us so much; food, helped us discover new vaccines, etc, that its the least we can do to treat them humanely.
First of all, zoo animals and test animals are completely different. When was the last time a test was preformed on a lion or a giraff? Furthermore, the animals in a zoo are generally brought there to seek refuge as well as to provide entertainment for the human population. Zoos are basically animal sanctuaries and you activists should be happy for that. However, these test animals are bred for destruction. Therefore, there is no damage to the normal animal population. And yes, I do realize that their are alternative methods out there, however, when all else fails and animal tests are necessary, we should utilize this for the sake of humanity. If we can find a cure for AIDS, I would gladly sacrifice 1 Million rats, mice, birds or other speices to save one human life. If you disagree, then that is truly sad. To think that you would let someone's mother, father, brother, sister, wife, husband, or child for the sake of saving an animal is absurd and disgusting.
And do not try to humanize these creatures, for they are far from being human.
can you please post the primary articles that conclude that we can replace animal testing pertaining to mutagenic and tumor growth potential with cell-line cultures and computer models? while the ames test was a revolutionary screening test for carcinogens, it hardly stands alone in contributing to the knowledge of cancerous agents.
i understand where you're coming from. however, it is important to review all literature, whether political or academic, with a grain of salt. i find the conclusions in the cut-and-pasted article a bit farfetched as far as the sweeping scientific statements are concerned. if we could review the data that they used we could formulate more objective opinions.
This message is in response to ItalianStallion's inquiry as to why we should care 'how it dies?'. Well, before I answer your question, I'd like to become Socrates and ask why you feel that pets and animals in zoos should be treated humanely(free of unnecessary suffering)? Aren't these beings animals just like those who are being forced into unthinkinably painful experiments? Aren't giraffes and lions that are displayed in zoos animals, just like those who have the misfortune of being boiled alive and starved in factory farms? Do you believe that having a rat's internal organs corroded by a substance that is clearly corrosive, for the sake of finding out the affects of a caustic substance on that animal's skin is fair? Clearly you fail to recongize the undeniable fact that, while nonhuman animals may not have 100% of human mental qualities, they have the capacity to feel pain, happiness, stress, and calm. For these reasons, we need to begin to mitigate their pain, and work towards ending all UNNECESSARY pain brought against them. To comment on your last statement of, 'If advances can be made, then it doesn't really matter.................'. The majority of the animals that are experimented on in US labs are birds, rats, micce, and guinea pigs. Now, these animals are overtly different in their physiology, however data from these experiments( these animals reactions to certain substances) are being used as the probable affects of humans. Thats simply absurd! The way a mouse reacts to a certain substance as opposed to the way a human would react is totally different. For instance: Boric acid, is fatal to mice and pets, however it is used to prevent yeast infections. Besides there are up and coming alternatives to these bloodbaths called animal experiments:
The following is a brief overview of some new test methods that should be used in the EU chemical-testing programme to reduce or eliminate animal use:
Acute (short-term) toxicity can be studied using cell culture (in vitro) systems, since the actions of toxic chemicals are often focused at the cellular level. For example, a series of four cell culture tests can predict toxicity in humans with nearly 85 per cent accuracy (compared to 65 per cent in acute toxicity studies using animals). This method should, within several years, be able to replace the horrendously cruel use of animals in acute lethal poisoning testing.
Skin irritation testing can be carried out without any animal use, with the aid of human volunteers who agree to participate in brief and non-invasive ‘skin patch’ tests. Testing for irreversible skin irritation (corrosion) can also be carried out using such widely accepted non-animal methods as CORROSITEX™, EPIDERM™ and the EPISKIN™ reconstituted human skin test. The rate of chemical absorption through the skin can also be modelled in cell culture using human skin from cadavers. The above methods are all largely accepted by government regulators internationally and should be used as total replacements for skin irritation, corrosion and absorption testing in animals.
Eye irritation testing is almost identical to skin irritation testing, i.e., a chemical that is a skin irritant will also be an eye irritant. Therefore, eye irritation testing in animals should be discontinued immediately. Government regulators should instead use the results of non-animal skin irritation or corrosion tests to predict potential eye irritancy.
Skin sensitisation cannot, as yet, be studied using strictly non-animal methods. However, a less-invasive test method that also reduces the number of animals used (called the Local Lymph Node Assay) has been developed and should be used in place of the current Guinea Pig Maximisation Test.
Repeated dose toxicity can be studied using cells cultured from different body tissues to estimate the effects of a chemical on different organ systems. For example, human liver cells in culture could be exposed to repeated low doses of a chemical in order to study how the substance is broken down (metabolised) by the body and to identify any toxic byproducts (metabolites) that may be produced in the process. Stable human cell cultures have been produced for kidney, nervous, immune, reproductive and other essential organ systems. A ‘tiered’ testing strategy that combines several of these tissues in culture with the use of computer and mathematical modelling has the potential to do away with animal use in repeated-dose toxicity studies.
Genetic toxicity (mutagenicity) can be studied entirely without the use of animals. Three methods in particular (the Bacterial Reverse Mutation Test, In Vitro Cell Gene Mutation Test and the In Vitro Chromosomal Aberration Test) have been accepted by government regulators worldwide as valid alternatives to using animals. Therefore, genetic toxicity testing in animals should be discontinued immediately.
Reproductive toxicity and certain aspects of male and female reproductive function can be modelled to some extent in vitro, and several cellular components of reproductive organs can be maintained in cell cultures. Although no test method has yet been used or validated for routine use in reproductive toxicity studies, it is possible that a battery of such systems may in the future be able to model a large proportion of the male and female reproductive cycles, thereby reducing or replacing animal use in reproductive toxicity testing.
Developmental toxicity (teratogenicity) can be studied in cell cultures using an embryonic stem cell test, which is currently being validated as a screen for birth defects. Preliminary reports indicate that the in vitro embryonic stem cell test can predict toxicity in humans with greater than 80 per cent accuracy. It is hoped that within several years, this method will be able to eliminate animal use in developmental toxicity testing.
More generally, the following computer-based modelling approaches have shown great promise in contributing to the replacement of animals in toxicity testing:
Structure-activity relationship (SAR) analyses use computers to predict biological responses to chemicals based on their molecular structure, weight and electronic charge. SAR data can be used to estimate whether a specific chemical produces effects such as toxicity without the use of animals. SAR’s have been found to predict effects such as skin sensitisation, developmental toxicity and carcinogenicity for related groups of chemicals with 85 to 97 per cent accuracy. Although SAR models have proven to be extremely useful in the screening of chemicals, they are not stand-alone replacements. Therefore, they must be used in combination with other non-animal methods, such as cell-culture systems.
Computer-based mathematical modelling involves the use of computers to model living biological systems, such as the human circulatory and respiratory systems. For example, physiologically based biokinetic models (PBBK’s) use computers to study the absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of a chemical by the body. They can also be used to determine the relationship between the dose of a chemical and a particular metabolic effect. One such model, the ED01, studies tumour production in response to chemical exposure. It can detect increased tumour activity of 1 per cent at exposure levels much lower than those used in rodent toxicity studies.
For consumption and testing, who cares if the animal is dealt with humanely or not? Yeah, I agree that pets and zoo animals should be treated humanely, but why these others? They are going to be killed anyways, so who cares how it dies? These animals are not human nor do they display human feelings, emotions, or attributes. So why should we be treating them like us. The end justifies the means my friend. And if advances can be made, then it doesn't really matter how they were obtained.
No offence to all the animal rights people out there...i don't see why people get so upset about testing medicines etc on animals. if its done humanely, and if it helps improve/save someone elses life why not do it? and if people don't like the way animals are killed for meat, why not just NOT EAT meat...and leave it at that? >>also, a terrorist organisation called the Animal Liberation Front? wtf?
The problem is not that we eat animals or use them for tests,the problem is we make them suffer,have any of you seen any secret footage of what goes on in animal test/vivisection centres.If you would have seen some of the bad stuff then maybe you would be as disturbed as i am about the subject.
Animal rights is absurd. Even in the animal kingdom, before the existence of man, it was survival of the fittest. Now, it should remain with the pesence of man. We have been very generous to the animals on this planet. We have done our best to conserve our resources and save animals from extinction by natural selection or human intervention. We even reduce our pollution levels to help save speices and their habitats. But to halt animal testing when a cure for a disease is possible is ludacris. If there ever was found to be a successful use of animal testing for any disease or disorder or drug, then we should exploit it for the sake of saving the human race. This is the way that the animal kingdom has always been. Who are we to interrupt the natural flow of the world? We must continue to live by the age old philosophy of survival of the fittest, for that is animal rights as it always has been.
This letter is in response to gshold. You are correct, only in regards that there are many problems in the world. However, you are wrong that the incessant, disgusting abuse of animals isn't one of them. I think that addressing and spending some time to stop the exploitation of one type of beings is just as important, whether those beings are sentient, nonhumans animals or humans. Besides, the slaughter of 28 billion animals annually in USA for food is an enormous concern for us all! Health: 70 % of all antibiotics produced in USA go into the feed of livestock. Due to this massive amount of drugs going into these animals, whom are then eaten, there has been substantial evidence that a myriad of human antibiotic resistant viruses have come into existence! Aside from the antibiotics, hormones are fed to the dairy cows( who are sent to the slaughterhouse once their milk production declines) to keep them pregnant, and producing milk. Milk from these factory farm cows is tainted with pesticides, and hormones that they indubitably seep into our drinking milk. I could talk forever regarding the direct health effects meat has on our bodies( NOt to mention that meateaters have a higher chance of dying from the number one US killer, Heart disease. But our environment also suffers. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations reports that animal agriculture heavily contributes to acid rain, greenhouse gases, watershied contamination, and decreased biodiversity(due to clearcutting of forests to make room for factory farms.) Last but not least, these animals suffer unneccesarily, which is the highest atrocity. Take for instance, chickens are stuffed 8 in a cage, so that they are never able to spread their wings. Many are forced to live in their own waste, which the ammonia from their feces have deleterious health impacts on their respiratory systems. Since these sentient animals are living in egregious conditions, abnormal dangerous behavior is prevalent. Because the chickens resort to pecking violently at one another(an example of neurotic behavior), the meat industry has come up with a brilliant solution to this problem! They've decided to cut their beaks off with 1500 degree farenheit knives(without anesthesia). The slaughter of these chickens is even more horrific. Since their death is done under mechanic knives, they are often conscious when their throats are slit, or when they are electricuted. To make a long lecture short. My feelings are best expressed in the words of the late Jeremy Bentham: "The question is not,'Can they reason?' nor,'Can they talk?', but rather 'Can they suffer?'"
Ingrid Newkirk, National Director of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA, based in Norfolk, Virginia, is one of the most active animal extremist groups, with direct links to the terrorist Animal Liberation Front.)
"I don't believe human beings have the right to life. That's a supremacist perversion. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." --Audubon, Nov. 1990.
"Even if animal tests produced a cure [for AIDS], we'd be against it." -- Vogue, Sept. 1989.
" Six million people died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses." --Washington Post, Nov. 13, 1983.
"You can't legally deface someone's property--but if you're somewhere and no one's looking, go ahead" -- Animal Rights '97Conference, July 1997.
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation." -- Harpers, Aug. 1988.
Wayne Pacelle, Vice-President of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS operates out of Washington, D.C., and "strongly" opposes any type of hunting.) "If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would."-- Associated Press, Dec. 30, 1991. "We want to stigmatize hunting, we see it as the next logical target and we believe it is vulnerable." -- Field & Stream,June 1991.
"Having hunters oversee wildlife is like having Dracula guard the bloodbank." - Field & Stream, June 1991.
Michael W. Fox, Vice-President, Humane Society of the United States "We're not superior. There are no clear distinctions between us and animals." -- Washingtonian, Feb. 1990.
"The life of an ant and the life of my child should be granted equal consideration." -- Inhumane Society, Fox Publications.
"Only a few of the million you kill would of [sic] bitten you." (Expressing opposition to the use of bug sprays) --Returning to Eden, Fox Publications.
Cleveland Armory, Founder, The Fund For Animals (The Fund for Animals is a New York City-based group that focuses on getting animal extremists appointed to state wildlife commissions.)
"Hunting is an antiquated expression of macho self-aggrandizement,with no place in a civilized society." -- U.S. News & World Report, Feb. 5, 1990.
"These blood thirsty nuts claim they provide a service to the environment. Nonsense! A hunter goes into the woods to kill something, period" -- U.S. News & World Report, Feb. 5,1990.
Rod Coronado, Animal Liberation Front/Earth First! (The Animal Liberation Front is a terrorist group first organized in England. Its terrorist acts in the U.S. can be traced back to 1982.)
"Launch your own campaign against the fur industry . . . Find a fur shop in your area and smash or etch its windows. Liquid steel ruins locks; Bomb threats only cost a quarter. If you live in an area where furs are worn, fill a squirt bottle with red dye or battery acid and let fly. If you're presentable enough to get into a fur shop department store, take a razor blade and slash the coats." --Earth First! Newsletter, Vol. xii, #2, 1991.
(Note: Rod Coronado is currently serving time in a Federal penitentiary for arson of a research facility at Michigan State University.)
David Forman, Co-Founder of Earth First! (Earth First! is a radical environmental group based in New York and New Mexico.)
"I think the whole concept of private property as an ultimate good has got to be replaced. There's a higher good out there than private property." -- Animal Rights Reporter, June 1989.
Sinope, you're right, I was just messing around. I realize that all life is interconnected in world ecosystem, and I'm aware of the cruelty towards animals inherent in the process turning them from living creatures to just meat. My brothers are vegans, I've heard what happens to the animals. I know there are many alternatives to meat (some things made with tofu are really good, despite how uncooked tofu looks...) but those aren't really practical for many people still living with their families. You'd have to buy it, cook your own meal, and so on. So maybe it's not terribly difficult, but I'm lazy... So I just have this to say: I know where you're coming from, but some people aren't bothered or concerned enough to become a vegetarian or an animal rights activist. I guess it just boils down to apathy. And to answer your last question... I confess, at times when I've been fairly hungry I have gazed longingly at my cat's tail and envisioned sausage links, or at her body seeing at least the equivalent of a chicken breast. However, I don't think a lot of pets are big enough to even constitute an appetizer, really.
Actually, I'm not so easily convinced that Native Americans were complete saints compared to us -- in Utah, archaeologists have found a site where something like 50 buffalos were apparently chased off a cliff in one hunt.
Other than that, sinope, I totally agree with everything you said.
Nice word play (surely unintentional). People fail to realize that everything is interconnected. It says alot about a person and the way they live their life, if they will go out of their way to squash an ant; read between the lines. PETA and other animal rights activists just try to raise social awarness about the treatment of animals.... maybe not ants specifically but to fact that there is industrial farms that assembly line style bleat cows (slicing the throat to let all the blood out) while they're still alive.
Stuffing 20 chickens in a little box, and cutting their beaks off, so they don't eat each other.
Activists just see something wrong w/ the disrespection toward life and lack of compassion toward living creatures of all spieces; including our own. If you can look at another LIVING creature, and actually feel a sense of superiority over that creature; i ask you to thoughtfully reconsider, because most likely your attitude towards animals reflects the person you are and radiates in everything you do.
I know there's hunters and people who'll say, "Don't we have to eat!!!!!" Would you eat your pets?? WHy not??? If you were starving would you????? most likely.......i would to if my dog didn't eat me first. i'm not talking about survival... i'm talking about excessivily surving, in a gluttonous, greedy society due to the "taker" mentality. Native Americans hunted and killed animals....but they understood the balance, thanked the animal for sacrificing it's life so they may survive, utilized every scrap of the animal, and took no more than was needed. White men killed the buffalo for fun and practically wiped them out.
Next time your petting your pet, or talking to them, think about hanging um on a meathook, gutting them, and throwing cunks on the grill; UMMMMMMMMMM.
Topics 
