Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Animal cruelty: root's of societal ignorance

  1. research employing animals is fine as long as they are properly euthanized

  2. not so concerned about elimination of meat/deaths, rather animal cruelty

  3. animal employed drug research is asbsolutely integral to society's well being

  4. way too busy to consider this issue or don't think it worth being considered

  5. animal employed drug testing and research should be legally banned

  6. vivisection should be legally banned

  7. the "meatrix condition" should be legally banned

Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Aug 11, 2005 #1


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Anyone here an animal right's activist (not quite sure if this is the right term, the most general term being preferred)?

    -Farm animals being enclosed/penned upin unsuitable living conditions (such as those associated with the big business meat industries)

    -chemical experimentation on animals, e.g. cosmetic industries

    -vivisection (you don't want to know)

    I'm not so much against eating meat per say, even game hunting. But I've recently been convinced that the situations emphasized above deserves much societal concern. The aspect of chemical experimentation of that relating to drug testing is somewhat of a more difficult issue to consider though.

    My argument relates to the animal cruelty. How prevalent are such practices today (of those that I emphasized)? I've recently seen a "meatrix" video (although I'm not quite sure on whether they're blowing things out of proportion), I'm pretty sure that chemical experimentation still occur and are prevalent (I'm not so much against this one as long as the animals are euthanized properly), how about vivisection (this borders on complete ignorance, people who perform such acts should be punished severely).
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 11, 2005 #2


    User Avatar

    Personally, sometimes I think all animal rights activists are like PETA - i.e. radical and blind - but I see you are not, you think well. :smile:

    It depends on what you call unsuitable living conditions. Those of a cow or chicken are somewhat different from that of people.

    I was about to say, that the "Meatrix" video sounds like another totally-blown-out-of-proportion piece of propaganda from PETA... until I found out it was.

    I suggest learning the facts from a non-biased source, as well as hearing arguments from both sides, and deciding for yourself.
  4. Aug 11, 2005 #3
    How about an option that's more like

    I don't feel I know enough about it to make an informed decision.

    Because that's where I belong.....I hate the idea of animals needless suffering but I cannot say there is never a time where it could be justified. I need to know more about to really have a solid position.

    Now as far as commercial farms treating animals like crap.... :mad: that pisses me off to no end. What kind of heartless loathsome person would want to keep a chicken locked up in tiny cage during the chickens short forsaken life? Just plain pisses me off..... :grumpy:
  5. Aug 11, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    yeah, not completely confiding in the meatrix video, but referring to such situations as mentioned-extremely confined cages, "living in their own ****, slowly dying" type of situation. Although I'm not absolutely sure if even such conditions exist today, which was my initial question.

    Chicken coops (somewhat spacious allowing plenty of motion), as well as relatively decent conditions do not concern me so much (doesn't have to be paradise)
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2005
  6. Aug 11, 2005 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Since your biggest concern seems to be animal experimentation, I will point out that it is HEAVILY regulated. In the US, all institutions that receive NIH funding have to comply with the NIH Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals. That covers the mice and rats. If you use any other mammalian species, from other rodents right on up to primates, USDA regulates use of those. Then there is an independent organization that provides accreditation to institutions, AAALAC, and inspects the use of ALL species. This last accreditation is considered the gold standard, and you are going to have trouble getting animal studies funded if you aren't at an AAALAC accredited institution. Every institution that conducts animal research is, by law, required to have an institutional animal care and use committee that is composed of scientists, a veterinarian, and an "advocate" for the animals; at least one person on the committee must be from outside the institution. This committee reviews EVERY protocol that involves animals and ensures that all the methods are appropriate and properly treat the animals, that anesthetics and analgesics are suitable, that personnel are properly supervised and trained, etc. There are regular inspections of all facilities. There are also anonymous hotline numbers posted all over the place in animal facilities for people to report violations if they see them.

    Violations that involve endangerment or mistreatment of animals are all required, by law, to be reported by the institution, and action must be taken to remediate the problem, be it by revoking an investigator's protocol and not permitting them to order animals to revoking their funding, and if an institution were to have repeated violations by multiple investigators, suggesting an institution-wide problem, funding agencies have the right to revoke ALL funding to ALL investigators at the institution (they actually can do that with a single violation if they wanted to, but usually the more practical solution is to just shut down the lab of the investigator who committed the violation).

    Our animals have better housing conditions than our students do.
  7. Aug 12, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    that's nice to know, thanks for the info
  8. Aug 12, 2005 #7
    That's not really an 'option' outside of some place like, say, Iran. Do you mean something like, 'is * an inaccurate propaganda film'?
  9. Aug 12, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I guess people will all ways eat meat, unless there is a world wide bse outbreak
    and chicken flu at the same time.
    there is no reason to be cruel to animals, if we eat meat the animal it came
    from should have a natural as possible life.
  10. Aug 12, 2005 #9
    I totally agree....that is why I supplement my diet with fish and other various game I have taken from the field. I have alot of respect animals and I try for as quick and clean a kill as possible.

    When you buy meat from the store, you have no control over how the animal was treated or killed.
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2005
  11. Aug 12, 2005 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    yeah that was one of my questions, I was actually shown the video during a human geography elective course that I took during my undergraduate years...was wondering how prevalent are such practices
  12. Aug 22, 2005 #11


    User Avatar

    So you think a humane hunter-gatherer society would be best?
  13. Aug 23, 2005 #12
    As far as being the easiest on nature, yes....

    The American Indians lived in perfect harmony with nature. They used every part of the animal and wasted as little as possible. I am not saying I would prefer that society return to caveman days but at the very least supplementing your diet with food you have personally taken from the field is much better for you and for the environment.

  14. Aug 23, 2005 #13


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You know how they neuter male piglets? They showed it on television once on a entertainment show to raise awareness, I had to change channels, the pigs don't get analstetics because that would cost the farmer too much (time/money). You could just leave their jewels on, but that makes the pigs agressive and more difficult to handle, it also makes the meat more tough so they take them off.
  15. Aug 24, 2005 #14


    User Avatar

    Tell me again why we should be hunting for our own food instead of buying is better for the environment.

    Townsend, the Native Americans were expert observers of the natural world, and didn't like the "old-growth" forest in and around where Yellowstone National Park is today. The forests may look astonishing and impressive, but they're dead landscapes for game. They set fires, making sure the forests burned down periodically. They made sure there were only islands of old-growth forest in the midst of plains and meadows. The forests that the first Europeans saw were hardly "primeval." They were cultivated. The Native Americans changed them to their liking. Its not surprising there is more old-growth forest today then there was one hundred and fifty years ago. Today its all romantic mythology.

    Early Native Americans hunted mammoth and other large animals to extinction, they burned forests and changed the environment to suit their purposes.
  16. Aug 24, 2005 #15
    This is the first I've heard of this. I would like to know more about it. Could you point me to a reference?
  17. Aug 24, 2005 #16
    Please don't present your opinion as fact. There are many theories on the subject.
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2005
  18. Aug 24, 2005 #17
  19. Aug 24, 2005 #18
    How much methane gas is put into the air by commercial farms? Who really controls the living conditions that animals have on farms? Sure there are regulations for some animals but nobody even seems to care about poultry and yet it is a staple of the American diet. How much habitat is used for growing crops that could be used support wildlife?

    On the flip side, tell me what negative impact is there on the environment from hunters and fisherman who actually care about wildlife and the environment? Seeing as everyone I know that hunts and fishes takes great care to obey laws and buys expensive licenses that are used to maintain wildlife habitat it would seem to me that at least the law abiding hunters only do good for nature and wildlife.
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2005
  20. Aug 24, 2005 #19
    Not to mentioning the processing and packaging of mass produced food is usually composed entirely of non degradable substances.
  21. Aug 25, 2005 #20


    User Avatar

    This may be a long post.

    You got me there, yes it has not been proven, it is only one of the three major theories. Like Global Warming.

    Decomposition of organic wastes from natural sources, mostly marshes adds up to 23%.

    From mineral fuel extraction: 20%
    From digestion by animals: 17%
    From bacteria on rice fields: 12%

    During the past 200 years, the concentration of this gas in the atmosphere doubled, passing from 0.8 to 1.7 ppm.

    [PLAIN]http://www.niwa.cri.nz/pubs/wa/09-1/ice-graph.jpg [Broken]
    At exhibit one, I show a rather interesting graph, taken from the New Zealand's National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, showing the strong correlation between CO2 and CH4 atmospheric concentrations, and solar insolation, over the last 400,000 years derived from Antarctic ice cores from Lake Vostok. "The parallel changes in CO2 and CH4 are believed to have caused about half the amplitude of the temperature changes, with the other half probably due to changes in solar insolation."

    Gladly. I didn't either, and found it rather interesting.
    From: The Smithsonian Institution's National Zoological Park website (http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/2002/6/firetime.cfm [Broken])
    From Science magazine (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...oken=d966391bdd955642f5e79addb1fa062d1fa34276):
    From the Forestry Research Community in Corvallis (http://www.fsl.orst.edu/coops/ama/ncama/guidch2.htm)
    On the flip side, as you say, tell me how much habitat for wildlife is NOT used for crops?

    The CIA puts it at about 99% actually. (http://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/xx.html)
    arable land: 10.73%
    permanent crops: 1%
    other: 88.27% (2001)

    That's quite a bit, I don't think animals need much more. And that's just land, Earth's seven oceans are much more highly populated than the land is, and you can't grow crops over the oceans very well can you?

    I think everyone cares about the environment, simply because we live in it. Some people care for it on a higher level. The environment is the complex of physical, chemical, and biotic factors that act upon an organism and all organisms, and ultimately determines its form and survival. We owe our lives to the environment, we came from it, and will recede into it.

    To look at it a different way, the hunters and fisherman happen to change the environment, which is apparently "bad," at least by your standards. They kill things, they reap, and I guess humankind can never live successfully if they still live to reap...

    Sorry to ruin your fantasy world, but here in Guam, and many many other places worldwide, some participate in various illegal fishing techniques. The first one that comes to mind is one that was featured in the popular movie Crocodile Dundee II, where the protagonist starts off the movie by throwing a stick of dynamite into the water, and a load of fish falls into his boat (if my memory isn't failing me).

    Actually it is a very effective way of fishing, but it is outlawed pretty much everywhere in Western civilization for obvious reasons.

    Another illegal fishing practice that is more common, is to add a cyanide solution into the sea-water, and scoop up the deceased, floating fish.

    Yellowstone Park, the first wilderness to be set aside as a natural preserve anywhere in the world, was called a National Park in 1872, by Ulysses Grant. No one had ever tried to preserve wilderness before, they assumed it would be much easier than it proved to be.

    When Theodore Roosevelt visited the park in 1903, he saw a landscape teeming with game. There were thousands of elk, buffalo, black bear, deer, mountain lions, grizzlies, coyotes, wolves, and bighorn sheep. By that time there were rules in place to keep things the way they were. The Park Service was formed, a new bureaucracy whose sole purpose was the maintain the park in its original condition.

    Within 10 years, the teeming landscape that Roosevelt saw was gone forever. The reason for this was because of the Park rangers, they were supposed to be keeping the park in pristine condition, and had taken a series of steps that they thought were in the best interest of preserving the park.

    The Park Service mistankenly believed that elk were becoming extinct, they tried to increase the elk herds within the park by eliminating predators. To that end, they shot and poisoned all the wolves in the park, of course not intending to kill all of them. They also prohibited local Native Americans from hunting there, even though Yellowstone was a traditional hunting ground.

    Totally protected now, the elk herd population exploded and they ate so much of certain trees and grasses, that the ecology of the park began to change. The elk ate defoliated trees that the beavers used to make dams, so the beavers vanished. That was when manages found out that beavers were vital to the overall management of the region. When the beavers vanished, meadows dried up, trout and otter populations receded, soil erosion increased, park ecology changed even further.

    By the 1920s, it was clear there were way too many elk, os the rangers shot them by the thousands. The change in plant ecology seemed permanent; the old mix of trees and grasses did not return.

    It also became clear that Native American hunters had exerted a valueable ecological influence on the park lands by keeping down the numbers of elk, moose, and bison. This recognition came as a part of a general understanding that the Native Americans strongly shaped the untouched wilderness white men thought they saw.

    North American humans had exerted a huge influencee on the environment for thousands of years, by burning palins grasses, modifying forests, thinning out specific animal populations, and hunting others to extinction - capitulation to a superior species.

    The rule forbidding Native Americans from hunting was seen as a mistake, but it was just one of many that continued to be made by the Park Service. Grizzlies were protected, then killed off, Wolves were killed off, then brought back. Radio collars research was halted, then resumed. Fire prevention policies were instituted, with no understanding of the regenerative effects of fire. When the policy was reversed, thousands of acres were burned so hotly to the ground that it was sterilized, and forests did not grow back without reseeding. Rainbow trout were introduced in the 70s, that species killed off the native cutthroat species. And on and on and on and on.

    It is a history of ignorant, incompetent, intrusive interveintion, followed by disastrous attempts to repair, followed by attempts to repair damage caused by repairs. Just as dramatic as any oil spill or toxic waste dump, but in these ones there are no evil awful big corporations, or fossil fuel economy to blame. These are disasters caused by environmentalists, the very people who wanted to protect the environement, who made one mistake after another.

    Passive protection, leaving things alone, doesn't preserve the status quo within a wilderness any more than it does in your backyard. The world is alive, things are constantly in flux. Species are winning, losing, rising, falling, exploding, bottlenecking, taking over, being pushed back. Merely leaving it alone doesn't put it in a state of supsended animation. Its like locking your son or daughter in their bedroom and expecting them not to grow up.

    Humans do care what happens to the environment in the future, and try hard. Humans just don't know what they are doing. And it keeps happening, banning DDT, Solar panels, abolishing CFCs.

    Why are we interferring with the course of nature? Why do some try to keep it the way it is? Why do some blame humans for changing it? It will change for better or for worse, if we are here are not here. If humans were in this state of development before the last ice age, we would blame each other for causing it.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook