Final paper and thoughts

An interesting discovery was made today! Sperm Whales and a deformed dolphin were observed together nuzzling each other and traveling together.

In other news, my final draft of the paper is here:

          After visiting Japan, the land of the rising sun, and lacking access to red meats for 12 days, I thought I would challenge myself to completely forgo the consumption of red meats (mammalian flesh). In Japan, there was a scarcity of chicken, and a very plentiful supply of fish and plants. It amazed me how good one could feel eating a bowl of rice, a slab of seaweed and some miso soup with fish flavoring. It was then that I decided, I could live a pescetarian life.  After much discussion in my classes at MCLA, I also determined that there are many other reasons to forgo the consumption of animal flesh in favor of plants. It is then that I decided, I should strive for vegetarianism. Following my internal moral compass of “don’t cause harm to anything if you can avoid it,” I am trying to adopt that into my diet, and I am also trying to implement the thought of the animal I am about to consume’s past life, though it is difficult for me to do so for reasons unknown to me that I will try to define. 

               Through much discussion, we as a class have decided that animals of all species deserve to be treated with some form of respect, and thus we should err on the side of caution when considering harming such creatures. I personally do my best to respect every form of life, from a spider in the corner of my closet, to a bird flying gracefully above my head before releasing its waste upon my car, and even the coyotes that wander the woods and occasionally enter my back yard. However when it comes to eating “corpse” I find myself all too willing to grab the phone and call up China Buffet to order some General Tso’s Chicken. I believe this action stems from a sense of habit. 

             Humans can become habituated, as any animal can, into doing amazing things without thinking. The idea of “autopiolet” is a strong example where a human can talk to their lover while driving in the rain on a windy road, and navigate just fine, both conversationally and physically. The daily grind of a human can be exhausting physically and mentally, even though little conscious thought was put into the day. Just as we become used to a day full of stress because “that is how it has been and will be”, we too can become used to a specific taste. Alcoholism is an example where someone willingly ingests a toxin just so they can consume it the next time with less thought about the taste and physiological strain on their body, and thus alcohol tolerance is gained. 

         How tolerance relates to me is my consumption of chicken. Entering Aramark’s cafeteria, I go to the salad bar and look for beans, whether I find them or not, I will still go to the grill and search for a chicken patty to sate my appetite, I then consume the chicken patty because, “it tastes how it always has and I always have eaten them, they fill me up, so why stop?” This is problematic because I become so entranced in consuming the flesh of a poor chicken that I fail to allow my self-conscious the time to think about what I am doing and regain control over my body to prevent said action. Since I never have the thought, I never feel guilt until someone brings it up directly later on and I recall scarfing down one or two patties.

      I understand that animals feel pain, I also believe that animals are fully conscious of their surroundings. By fully conscious, I mean they are fully able to interoperate signals such as pain, light, and pressure, and relate it to their lives. Whether they can relate it to other animals like us humans and arguably cetaceans and primates can do, I doubt, but that is besides the point. The point is that animals can feel pain, and that it is not right to harm a being that can feel pain. Relating that to the human self, we have come up with the idea of the “golden rule” which dictates that one should do unto others that which he(she) wishes to be dealt to unto himself(herself). I try to live my life by this principal, leading people by example, sacrificing my time to assist others in hopes they they will pay it foreword onto someone else and better the world that way. It is that line of thinking that has me worried about myself and my consumption of animals. 

         I feel remorse when I personally harm a living being, even stepping on an ant, I will say a little prayer in my head wishing that I hadn’t done that and that the ant can forgive me for quashing its life candle. I can even feel remorse towards objects, not necessarily their owner, but if I drop something, I will apologize to the object, for reasons I question to this day. 

               Indirect harm is another thing. I will feel remorse if I witness another being being harmed, such as a rabid beaver that was chasing kids getting shot in the skull by a .22. It didn’t try to terrorize and harm those children, it was just possessed and influenced by the rabies. which makes me a little relieved that, at least the beaver won’t have to live its life suffering from the disease. If I am unable to see said harmed animal however, I find myself thinking less and less of the suffering the animal must be going through. I still understand that suffering occurs in slaughter houses, but without actually coming into contact with an animal prior to its evisceration, or witnessing the defiling of it’s body, I do not feel guilt. It is an odd concept that I have reflected deeply on after eating 3 chicken patties in a row, but not during the consumption of said flesh.

           Perhaps it is the proof of harm I hunger for more then the animal’s flesh itself? I have heard of dolphins being captured and killed by fishing nets mistakenly, however when I eat fish I feel absolutely no guilt until I hear a news story concerning dolphins, then I think on how to better the practice of fishing, and think about fish farms, but then I remember another news story about how horrible fish farms are and get frustrated as there seems to be no real “moral” answer. Concerning fish, I could honestly, regardless of my morals, never forgo the succulent taste of sushi. I could give up all other forms of meat but I do not think, even if I owned a fish and it was taken from me and cut up into sushi, I would still consume it.

          I would probably be hesitant as I think back to the good times of the enjoyment it has provided me voyeuristically watching it and teaching it how to eat food out of my hands, but if I am not slaughtering the fish, and if I knew it was slaughtered humanely, I would consume it. If it wasn’t slaughtered humanely, I would think on how it was brutalized, but its death would be entirely in vain if it was just cut up and thrown away due to my morals saying “don’t eat it” and I feel it would be a service to it to end its life within my gut rather then degrading slowly in the ground because at least something would benefit from its death.

          I believe vegetarianism and, to a “greater” degree, veganism, is a fantastic ideal that can be and should be strived for by many, but I can never see myself forgoing at least seafood in a diet. I have been trying to limit my chicken consumption, and increase my fish and bean consumption as a form of protein while keeping greens the majority of my meals, but it is hard with so little time to eat in a day. I feel vegetarianism is morally justified, yet not morally obligated in our society as there will always be meat as long as corporations posses the funds and market shares. For me personally, I will strive for pescetarian while keeping an ideal that perhaps one day, with an extreme amount of effort, I could be a vegetarian, and that is why I believe vegetarianism is morally justified and should be a goal for myself and other empathetic individuals.

Final Countdown

I have decided to post my present copy of my paper:

       I am not morally obligated to become a vegetarian, though I would like to believe it is in a human’s best interest to try. I personally cannot ascribe to a vegetarian diet not due to medical reasons, nor due to overwhelming empathy for animals, but because I cannot forgo, in my present life and food availabilities, some form of meat. I have worked to give up on red meats (wild mammal, bovine and porcine flesh) yet I cannot forgo white meats (chicken, turkey, and duck) and seafood (fish, arthropods, mollusks). I fully actualize the implications of eating red meat, but I did not forbid myself from eating it for a moral reason, I simply decided after my visit to Japan during spring break, and after eating mainly fish with the occasional fowl, I would try to live without it because, I can survive 12 days off of plants, fish and white meat without getting sick, why not continue the trend? 

       Reflecting back on the idea of the horrible treatment of animals in slaughter houses, I do feel empathetic for their present state, however it is not enough to drive me from consuming their flesh for that reason alone. I plan on exploring the moral, economic, ecological, and medical implications of a fully vegetarian, or at lest pescetarian diet, of which I would like to believe I could ascribe myself to, yet cannot at this present point in my life.

     Through much discussion, we as a class have decided that animals of all species deserve to be treated with some form of respect, and thus we should err on the side of caution when considering harming such creatures. I personally do my best to respect every form of life, from a spider in the corner of my closet, to a bird flying gracefully above my head before releasing its waste upon my car, and even the coyotes that wander the woods and occasionally enter my back yard. However when it comes to eating “corpse” I find myself all to willing to grab the phone and call up China Buffet to order some General Tso’s Chicken. 

      In my life I have always been busy and a snackivore, if I have the ability to acquire quick proteins and energy, I will take that chance, no matter what that means, from eating a can of beans as I study to going to McDonalds on the way to work and eating a few hamburgers. I picture myself having the time to sit down and enjoy cooking pastas, the occasional fish, salads, stuffed shells, and possibly a large, hearty meal for all my friends, but that is a distant illusion when one has but two free, non class or work-related hours total between 9:00 and 21:00 on any given day. I believe the main reason why, despite my love of all creatures, and my sympathy towards livestock, I can still consume a chicken patty sandwich from Aramark without guilt or remorse, sometimes 2-3 of them if I am particularly hungry and low on blood sugar. 

      I understand that animals feel pain, I also believe that animals are fully conscious of their surroundings. Do they posses the awareness of chimps and cetaceans I don’t believe so, but I do feel that animals can understand empathetic and electrical responses given off by other creatures, and they can reciprocate them towards other beings. I feel remorse when I personally harm a living being, even stepping on an ant, I will say a little prayer in my head wishing that I hadn’t done that and that the ant can forgive me for quashing its life candle. I can even feel remorse towards objects, not necessarily their owner, but if I drop something, I will apologize to the object, for reasons I question to this day. 

      Indirect harm is another thing. I will feel remorse if I witness another being being harmed, such as a rabid beaver that was chasing kids getting shot in the skull by a .22, it didn’t try to terrorize and potentially harm those children, it was just possessed and influenced by the rabies. which makes me a little relieved that, at least the beaver won’t have to live its life suffering from the disease. If I am unable to see said harmed animal however, I find myself thinking less and less of the suffering the animal must be going through. I still understand that suffering occurs in slaughter houses, but without actually coming into contact with an animal prior to its evisceration, or witnessing the defiling of it’s body, I do not feel guilt. It is an odd concept that I have reflected deeply on after eating 3 chicken patties in a row, but not during the consumption.
      Perhaps it is the proof of harm I hunger for more then the animal’s flesh itself? I have heard of dolphins being captured and killed by fishing nets mistakenly, however when I eat fish I feel absolutely no guilt until I hear a news story concerning dolphins, then I think “oh the poor dolphins.” This mentality I feel is the same as the majority of the USA with regards to boycotts and similar movements, “it doesn’t concern me, and I am such a small contribution to this action that I won’t do anything if I am there or not there.” This is problematic as a single stone can’t always start an avalanche, meaning that if I say “I won’t eat this meat”, and I don’t eat meat, I believe it will do nothing for the animal rights movement as a whole, since such a problem requires a gradual escalation of awareness and constant thought from the entire population to do anything. A very pessimistic thought, and since I like to be as optimistic as I can, I try not to think of the suffering that I am unaware of. It is a selfish mentality, but I like to think that, in the lifestyle I live now, eating no mammals, I am leading by example rather then action.

      Morality aside, looking from an ecological perspective, producers such as plants, produce a ton of energy from the sun. This energy is then eaten by a primary consumer and that consumer gains about 10% of the energy that the producer converted.(in our society, this is the cow), that cow is then eaten by a secondary consumer (humans or ground up into pig’s slaw) and 10% of that energy is then converted up to the secondary consumer meaning we as secondary consumers gain only about 1% of the energy that plants produce. In my botany class we discussed that it takes about 15 cows worth of energy to sustain a human for a day, while if we relied on plants, we would be in much better shape energy efficiency wise. 

       The ecological benefits don’t stop there. Millions of acres of forests have been cleared to make room for grazers such as cows, while those acres of flat grassland could be repurposed into fields of fruits and vegetables that could feed twice the population that the cows provide. In this age of rapidly growing populations, it is crucial to have enough food for your population, and crops, if not grown in monocultures and grown with more “organic”(I personally detest that word as a label for plants but that is another argument) practices, could sustain this population growth. 

       I believe vegetarianism is a fantastic ideal that can be and should be reached by many, but I can never see myself forgoing at least seafood. I have been trying to limit my chicken consumption, and increase my fish consumption while keeping greens the majority of my meals, but it is hard with so little time to eat in a day. I feel vegetarianism is morally justified, yet not morally obligated in our society, and I believe it never will be an obligation in my life, just a choice that I plan to keep going towards, even if I can never make it.

Freedom!

A Response and Further Brainstorming to Mr. Finnivan

I would probably not use a computer again if I saw this every day...

Responding to my initial brainstorming, Mr. Finnivan brought up some good points about animal activism and encouraged me that my "reason" or lack-there-of for trying to shift to pescetarianism and eventually vegetarianism is not just a "whim" but has the potential to lead by example. Upon further reflection, I can attest much of what I am doing to my housemate who, after witnessing Food Inc., he was disgusted at the idea of eating "corpse" and thus he doesn't eat red meat, or chicken anymore. He still eats fish, however, but I admired his dedication when I taunted him with tantalizing teriyaki chicken, and my long-time personal favorite, (I still have dreams about eating it sometimes even though I refuse to eat it when I see it sitting there) Pulled Pork. I also admire how he had a similar response whenever I asked him "why are you a pescetarian?" he would respond with "I don't really know, I'm not doing it for making a statement, I just don't like eating corpse."

Maybe my view on if vegitarianism is morally requires is up to the person in question on an individual case, rather then a generalized case. I feel that is it was a moral requirement, it wouldn't work out, as there will ALWAYS be people going against morals, wether on a whim, or to make a point, or to get revenge, every law will be broken, questioned, and re-worked. That's why we have laws and why we acknowledge those examples of laws being broken.

An example:
Prostitution is illegal. People can easily ask "why" and the simple answer is, "it's the ownership of a person and goes against their ethical rights" but there will be individuals who still practice it for the sake of convenience, desperation, or to make ends meet. Take the poor, starving teenager who has been disowned by her parents for having a child. She must find some way to pay for her own life and her child's, and prostitution is an easy trade for her, and makes quite a bit of money, therefore she goes against the rules and is able to survive.

Though prohibition of prostitution is a little different from morally requiring people to forgo the practice of eating animals, the basic principal that "it is morally wrong to own a person, and to sell said person's flesh." goes hand-and-hand with the argument for vegetarianism  Even if cows, pigs, chicken etc. are not considered moral persons like whales and apes are, it still goes without saying that it is a cruelty to said animals.

Even though it is a cruelty, there are conditions where is is absolutely justifiable, like an many boreal and arctic regions where conditions for agriculture are scarce if non-existant, and food security is anywhere from 5%-35% anualy. Food security being the % of the population that lives without the risk or fear of starvation. These people rely on hunting and gathering for most of their sustenance and don't have access to readily available dietary supplements that could give them the required nutrients for survival. This is saddening, but the worse part is, with such a high dependance on meat, they suffer from many more food-borne illnesses, and parasites. Poor meat regulation, poor conditions, hunting, poor cooking and poor education has lead to outbreaks of parasites much worse then your "giardia" from contaminated water, or even tapeworms. How about a worm that lives in-between your cells and will slowly destroy your muscles to keep itself warm?

Parasites are actually another reason why I don't really like the idea of eating beef or pork.  Even though the parasites are cute, I wouldn't want them living within me. It doesn't unnerve me as much as others, but I really would like to go without a tapeworm, or ascaris,  or Trichinella, but sometimes it is unavoidable.

I have gone though a rant, and have decided that I will try to mention these ideas:

Reasons for Vegitarianism-
-> Ethical Treatment
Animals as Subjects-of-a-Life
Relation to Prostitution

-> Disregarding "Ethics"
Parasites/ Health
Economic Concerns
Ecological Concerns

Reasons why it should be a case-by-case basis
Economic Availability
Hunter/Gatherer Communities
Restricted Product Availability

He's Nuts!

The Final Count Down

Our final assignment is to, in no more then 3 pages (doublespaced), attempt to finish either of he following statements:
I am morally obliged to be a vegetarian because...
I am not morally obliged to be a vegetarian because...

This seems a daunting task since I usually attempt to argue against others to "stir the pot" of ideas and provide counter arguments. Since I have been doing this for most of my life I am not quite good at coming up with my own ideas, and especially not arguing for or against them. It is here that I will write most if not all of my thoughts and ponderings so be prepared for useless thoughts that will hopefully become some form of communicable idea.

So here begins the brainstorming process, I will decide on what vegetarianism constitutes.

Vegetarianism is eating (not consuming for later reasons) only plant based products as a primary source of food. Eggs, and dairy products are acceptable. I presently practice a semi-vegetarian lifestyle, eating poultry, eggs, fish and consuming milk and other dairy products, but I hope to shift to pescatarinism.
-> The lacto-ovo vegetarian does not eat the flesh of animals, but does eat both eggs and dairy such as milk and cheese from cows or goats. The ovo-vegetarian eats eggs but not meat. The lacto-vegetarian is similar to the lacto-ovo-vegetarian, but excludes eggs from his diet. A vegan not only excludes meat, but also all dairy products, eggs and foods which contain any product from animals, even gelatin. Pescatarians eat eggs and fish, but no beef, pork or poultry, while a semi-vegetarian generally follows a vegetarian lifestyle, but occasionally eats animal flesh.

i do this mainly because I have decided that, since I survived in Japan for 12 days without red meat, I think I can live without it. I am still iffy on ham... I love it so, but I consider it red meat due to it's porcine origin. Soon, I hope to exclude poultry (mainly chickens) from my diet. Looking at that statement  I feel this could be a moral shift towards vegetarianism  but then I  evaluated if there was a deeper reason why I a doing this, and I found none other then the potential dislike of Taenia solium and Taenia saginata, two tapeworms that have cute scolecies, yet... who wants tapeworms. I do care for life, but I unfortunately can't ever see myself picketing by a farm. I'm too passive to be an activist. It does give me a little sense of moral light to say "I am not eating this meat, therefore some animal somewhere doesn't need to die.

In Botany we discussed Food chains and looking at an example of energy efficiency. If we act as a primary consumer (eating plants) we would be able to support about 12 times the population as where we act as secondary consumers (eating meat from grazers, ruminants, insects etc) as energy is not conserved, only about 10% of the total energy is transferred between each level, so eating a cow yields more energy then a lion (assuming both were the same size) which is probably why we don't eat lion meat, because it would cause extinction of lions to feed all of the people of the earth.

This makes me wonder how many cows go into one hamburger... I don't exactly want to think about that... the cows probably form one huge burger tree from which burger pods are released, and the burgers can be plucked from the tree by McDonalds farmers who then slice the burgers into smaller, edible patties. So it seems that all the meat is put into one big vat and turned into burgers, so many cows make one burger!

Hello there! I'm just a drifter looking for a new home!
(Taenia Saginata, the beef tapeworm! Hope I didn't gross people out!)

Response to Mr. Fitzpatrick

After reading 'Property' under law, I thought on what was said regarding animal "ownership" and Brian brings up a good point about economic use of animals, that being, there shouldn't be any. As he puts it, "animals are not capable of entering into a contract and therefore any utilization of them in an economic setting is forced labor."

Now, I am not a political science major by any means, but I wanted to look into this idea of "what is defined as forced labor and I found out that in the USA constitution, 13th amendment  forced labor is defined as "Labor or service obtained by: threats of serious harm or physical restraint, any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe he would suffer serious harm or physical restraint if he did not perform such labor or services, and/or the abuse or threatened abuse of law or the legal process."

Looking at animals such as pets or test subjects, or food animals being used for forced labor... I don't believe they fall into that category. We are not actively threatening them or making them believe that, if they don't function well, they will receive harm. They probably can't even link "good performance = no harm" rather "this action = harm" I would say that, assuming animals have rights, it isn't a forced labor situation, but more a case of exploitation, extortion, and exaction. The flesh and organs being property of the animal and, since there is no legal way to sign away your organs as an animal (like we can through organ donating), we are taking their bodies and using it for ourselves as though they have no rights to their own property.

I believe that there needs to be a compromise when it comes to animal property rights, since animal products are still useful in our society, even though we are making progress towards separating animals as economic items, yet there are somethings that we have trouble going without, such as drugs and, under current laws, we are required as scientists to test on the lowest form of life, getting progressively higher and higher in the photogenic tree before reaching human testing. If we can find a way to diverge from that to human testing, we would save many animals, yet we would be faced with the predicament of "well, this may kill you or not, we will see" which we want to avoid. It is an interesting world we live in now, but we will see where technologies advance us. For now, I feel it is important to try and respect animals as much as possible, but I feel the economics of animal use can't go without some exploitation.

PETA needs some Chicken!

Recently I watched my favorite youtube series, Sci Show, and saw this video which i felt was relivent to our class! For those less biologically lexically literate  in vitro refers to grown in the laboratory and in vivo refers to in a living host (such as animals) Enjoy!

Following a School of Fish: A Respose to Mr. Keefner and Mr. Kelley

Based off of Mr. Keefner's initial commentary of: Captivity and Boredom, and Mr. Kelley's commentary: Response to Kurtiss, I would like to add my own input on the idea of captivity and boredom. When visiting the NE Aquarium (New England), I saw many fish just floating by, not actively looking for anything, not being dead, just kinda floating there. I was disappointed at the lack seeming lack of excitement in their life, but more disappointed in the onlooking children who would gape for a second, tap the glass (even though there are signs that say "don't tap the glass, it will infuriate the Paranas!") and when they saw no immediate movement, they would move on to the next tank. Exactly as we discussed in class about short attention spans to things that are not actively attracting attention or "cute". I found everything fascinating, even looking at a scared fish run from an electric eel as the eel cornered the poor thing in the corner of the tank before killing it, sending the "electricity meter" into the red (killing prey) from the yellow (hunting prey) which suddenly made every kid in the area rush over to the tank after there was a flash of red from the "voltage hitting the red zone." Shortly after the eel had its meal, the kids dispersed as the meter went to green (relaxing/calm) and then to blue (idle/ sleeping) and stayed there for quite a while.

Isn't he just so adorable?

I felt sorry for the eel, being the subject of so many electromagnetic fields then having nothing, and suddenly EVERYTHING is full of electricity (not just the water) all the brain firings of the onlookers trying to intemperate what they missed and play it out int heir heads before they grew bored and completely abandoned the eel. It must have sucked for the eel to suddenly feel so alone. (If you can consider the presence or absence of electromagnetic fields, in addition to an eel being able to feel) There was also an exhibit that made me a little sad... A HUGE goosefish, probably a good 2-3 feet long seemed to take up 1/2 of the width of the tank it was in. Unfortunately for such a large fish, that means it takes a huge effort and swimming sideways for a bit just to turn around. The fish was facing backwards, its eyes away from the crowd, yet open, staring off into space gaping its mouth in an attempt to attract the top-feeding fish in the tall tank to come down and nibble at its upper lip....

Keep a stiff upper lip, buddy. Everything will be okay... I hope!

I felt that most of the fish, with the exclusion of about 3 tanks, were set up in okay, if a little overpopulated environments. But I still felt pretty bad for the fish.

Aquatic Point of View

I visited the New England Aquarium this weekend and beheld a flock of fish. In particular, the poor fish that were in a circular tank. These fish were constantly swimming with no goal, exploration or anything in a dark tank that was circular with a light shining on them as they passed in front of the kids going "wow! That's a lot of fish!" and three seconds later, they proceeded to say "that's boring, lets see the other fish." Looking at these fish, there was a plaque explaining how they have senses that help them see other nearby fish and keep tight formations that can distract and harass predators, I found it interesting and was enraptured by their display, even though the fish must have been bored out of their minds! The seals which were for the most part excited to see people looking at them were happy enough, except for two of them who were brutally mauling, chasing and biting each other to the point of scraping fur and drawing blood. It was upsetting to see them so unhappy that they would fight.

There were other times where little kids disregarded the educational benefits of exhibits. We went to the museum of science and there was an exhibit about archaeology which me and this father were really interested in. The father's kid was not happy. He constantly complained about it being boring and how he wanted to see the baby chicks. The father replied, "Can you sit down and calm down, some people are trying to learn from this." It made me a little upset how unintended most of the kids were about these sciencey things. I remember when I was their age, my favorite thing to do was to look at all the exhibits that were on display! However, not all kids are like me at that age so.... yea.

Overall, I was disappointed at the general disinterest that it seemed kids had in science. The exhibits for the live animals (mainly fish, arthropods, amphibians, and reptiles) seemed rather well put together, not too constrained, the animals had more then enough room to maneuver and, despite the fact that they were still in captivity, I believe the fish and turtles were content with their surroundings.

A Response to Mr. Gaudet

In response to the question Humans and animals. Humans or animals. Humans vs. animals. Are these legitimate separations? There is an interesting battle with words when it comes to distinctions, especially between "humans" and animals, since, as Mr. Gaudet put it, "Humans are animals; so, from where does this fictional distinction come?" I feel this is a very difficult question to answer, especially because I am not as well acquainted with semantics and linguistic history as some people may be. In my best way of understanding this question, I feel it comes down to the human's (and I believe animals share a similar a similar state of mind as well) fear of being attacked by the unknown.

To define this "Unknown", we will call it some unknown other animal. For instance, I have a fear of dogs I am not personally familiar with, as I do not know how they will react to me being around them or trying to pet them. They could be happy with me petting them, or seeing a hand move, they could think I am going to hit them, thus bark and bite. The animal (be it human or otherwise) does not know how the other animal will react to it and thus it will likely try to avoid it if possible, distancing itself from a possibly hostile encounter. Us as Homo sapiens with our language systems, we like to classify things, and classify we do. Since the "wilds" are lands with other animals that haven't been domesticated, killed by us, or possibly discovered by us, we tend to avoid that area of uncertain encounters. Any being that we do not know, without reasonable doubt, how it will react to us, is considered unknown, and thus, wild.

"wild humans" are "humans" who act in ways that are unpredictable, or against the "norm" and thus are regarded with fear for their unpredictability. Much like animals that act in ways we can't predict are termed "wild" animals due to the nature of the "wilds" for which we assume they hail from. I believe this is where the term "wild animals" comes from. We refer to Dogs as "pets" as an overarching umbrella meaning companion animals such as fish, cats, dogs, gerbils, etc. While pigs, cows, and sheep are considered "livestock", minnows and worms and other small creatures are termed "bait".

In colloquia  I believe that anything that is not within our species is termed an "animal" as an overarching umbrella term for "non-Homo sapien beings in the Kingdom Animale".  Humans is a term we made for ourselves I believe to delineate these non-"human" animals from us. This could possibly date back to the time before Darwin's putting together of the concept of evolution, whereby we as Humans were created separately from the other creatures of the earth, and perhaps that term has stuck with us like slang and swears have. We may not want to use them because they don't make sense, but they are there through time so we have to deal with it wether we use them or not.

Dealing with the initial question of using the terms humans and animals as legitimate separations, I believe if we take "humans" to be slang for Homo sapiens, and we take "Animals" to mean "non-Homo sapien species" then I believe we can use those words... however it would be easier to understand if we just said "Homo sapiens vs. non-Homo sapien animals."

An Animal, or a  "Human"?

Travel catches up!

I asked the question "Just because science allows us to perform an experiment or advancement in technology, are we obligated to follow and attempt that endeavor?"

Mainly with regards to animals being used for research, but this question can be applied to many other scientific advances as well, such as the Atomic bomb being dropped on Hiroshima which, after taking Nuclear Age, knowing about my family history and seeing the wreckage and exhibits first hand at the peace memorial in Hiroshima, I felt conflicted in what I knew about science, but that is a discussion for another blog and/or time.

In regards to animal research, I believe Singer brought up testing performed on rabbits to see if new shampoos would harm them. I believe this form of scientific research regarding animals falls under my question. I can understand that companies need to continually churn out new products or they will loose money, but I don't believe it is ethical, defensible, or even necessary to test new products on animals. From an chemistry perspective, if we know the compounds used within the shampoo and the approximate concentration, comparing that with known concentrations/ compounds, we should have our answer without harming more rabbits. Just be cause we can test new products on animals doesn't mean we should in that case.

Another experiment brought up by Singer and a few books I have read relates to deprivation of maternal care for animals. This relates to epigenetics, a new field that is still misunderstood, and I feel needs more looking into, not only for the sake of humans, but possibly for "rehabilitation" of test/ food product animals. If we understand how the environment can affect not only that particular animal, but methylation passed through genes, we can understand how to limit the harm to future generations through the environment. It's not like a chicken with a cut off beak will have offspring with cut off beaks, it's more like a piglet who was taken from the sow before age 1 would lack the constant tactile stimulation of her mother and therefore be less socially compatible  forgoing food, interaction, mating, and being agressive and stressed more easily.

I believe these epigenetic studies are necessary at this point, since we can perform basic behavioral experiments  I feel these should be done for the betterment of not only our species, but other species that, at this point, we use but may in the distant future, release back to the wild.

There are two extremes I have just listed, One where it is absolutely not necessary except to visually express the pain that can be seen by animals (or not seen if they are blinded.... bad joke), and one where it can be beneficial in the long run not only to humans but to the animals we interact with.

An artist's concept of epigentic modification that I quite like

Any thoughts or opinions are welcome

Post from Tokyo!

In our travels I have heard of dogs referee to as items however, a lot of statues of important people have dogs next to them probably to show the loyalty of the samurai but I am not sure. Also we saw a poster depicting different lunches around the world and guess what America's was: steak and frenchfries!!!!!!! Just another observation

First post from the middle of Kyoto

While walking the streets there are many shrines devoted to Kami. One such Kami is that of a boar that save a guy's life. It was then enshrined and I actually had a chance to pray to the Kami, it was an interesting feeling. There were also many dogs around with no leashes. There was even one that had sunglasses and a pink fedora, it looked perfectly content walking through the crowded streets of Kyoto during the lantern festival! I have done no reading as of yet, but it is really interesting seeing the connection to nature and animals people here have

A Response to Mr. Keefner, and Thought Generating

Responding to Kurtiss Keefner's response to me, I can see where he is coming from with regards to the selfish humans attributing rights to ourselves above all other organisms, and by doing so, we have worked the right to life into our laws. I believe that us, as "moral agents" have not necessarily an obligation, but  we should at the very least, respect those who share "mental capabilities" or "social capabilities" with us, such as chimps, and whales. I believe the idea of giving rights to life to "moral Agents" such as ourselves and, perhaps these "persons" (whales and apes) is justified in our mind, but I still have trouble wrapping my head around the idea that we have so much authority as to dictate "what lives". This is something that I can identify and come to a conclusion in my head but have trouble saying or expressing, therefore I'm going to use this post to try and determine what exactly I'm trying to say.

Humans are the top of the "food chain" because of our advances in technology such as holding sticks to strike at a greater distance, or pick insects out of trees or reach further, early agriculture to step out of hunter/gathering, and the advent of cooking meat to aid in digestion and production/ advancement of the telencephelon (fore-brain, cortex, "major part of the brain" "grey mater" whatever, they are all essentially the same thing) Due to this, we were able to think, remember and eventually step towards eusociality.

Us humans, we like to label, it's in our nature, we also like to believe that we can empathize or tell body language saying "my baby looks sick" or "that dog looks hurt" whether we know it or not. This broken thought leads me to the idea that we put rights on ourselves, but rights I feel are a construction of our own minds, we use rights to justify how humans treat humans saying "there's a right to bear arms, or a right to the freedom of speech" these two having nothing to do with animals other then a bear.... that's a joke on bear arms...

Evolution, or looking back on the past? -Relevancy is unknown!

I just don't get why we need to say "this whale has the same rights as me" I try my best to respect animals as much as I can and, maybe I'm being selfish, but I don't care if all animals have a right to life, or if only a few have a right to life, I'm just going to try not to hurt them as best I can unless I need to, and if I do, i'm not going to be sadistic and slowly drive a screw through their brain or anything gruesome, i will try to follow Temple's idea that I should give them a quick, painless death if necessary  after a few warning shots, a shot right between the eyes, rather then shooting it's legs and intentionally making it suffer.

Looking Back on Pages Past!

    When I asked, "Just because something shares 'similar development' with us, and similar attributes to us, does that mean they should have similar rights as us?" with regards to Cavalieri's argument for whales having a basic right to life due to their complex brains and social structures with cultural differences  much like our own. This made me think briefly of our conversations with attributing rights to animals if they share similarities with us. I can't remember exactly who brought up this idea in one of our earlier class discussions, but I remember having an "aha!" moment as that concept made total sense. If mice can forgo food and basic needs for the sake of pleasurable shocks to the brain at the pull of a lever, and we can do the same thing, why don't we think they have a similar desire to rights and not being treated like, well, animals? Though I agree with Cavalieri's idea and examples of the complexity of cetacean social structures and cultural differences between populations, I wonder if that gives them the specific rights that we, as humans have given ourselves.

      I believe this beings it back to Donnovon's criticism of attributing our feelings of how things should be treated to animals: that dog is hungry, it should at this food, it isn't eating the food, it must be sick... we don't know that for sure, maybe it doesn't like the food you are offering it, we are just using our knowledge of how we handle ourselves to analyze animal behavior. Though I personally agree with the idea that any animal would like to avoid being harmed, and I feel we are potentially beyond the times where we need to hunt whales excessively for whale oil, I still feel odd saying "whales have rights as us humans do. I can't explain why in any good way, but I just feel we as humans are pushing our ideas onto animals too much for my liking.

If anyone has any ideas on this, I would appreciate reading them as they may help me formulate my opinions better!

Since there is no picture, I included an article on the coordination of killer whales in attacking a baby whale, and the attempt of a mother to keep the baby above water so it can breathe.

A Response to Mr. McNamara

Responding to the question Andrew posted, Can you really determine if there is “not much going on” in the life of a cow versus that of a human? I like this question, particularly the attached idea that cows can potentially have as simple a life plan as sleeping in the grass in a meadow.  I particularly liked the .gif that Andrew mentioned of the dogs sledding as I have seen my dog attempt this feat, rolling onto her side, then slowly skidding down a snowy hill before rolling over, looking back at us and giving us an ashamed look before walking off on "her highness's" short legs. She is a welsh corgi who has a princess complex. Using my dog as an example, she will wake up, ONLY when she hears food, and she will only act friendly if she wants to get petted. Picturing a day in her life:

*Hear food* wake up! Lets start the day!
Oh, the big thing that smells like "I can get food whenever I want" is moving, lets sniff it!
Oh, it's moving something towards me, I'm going to back away and see if it chases me...
Oh no! It's chasing me! *Hides under the bed for 4 hours*
What to do now.... lets go out again, I want my ears scratched.
Lets sniff the big thing! Wait, the other dog is sniffing it already! *bites at the tall German Shepherd's snout*
Yay! The big thing decided to scratch me, now I don't need to cause this thing more pain to get it away from the attention I desire!
I'm going to go sleep under the bed some more.

it sure is an interesting way to look at animals, them having a "plan of action for the day" and I always thought that and spoke for the animals as a kid until people called me weird for talking like the newt we'd capture. "Oh, this is warm, I'm going to sit on this!" (really my face as I lie down)... I still secretly think that animals and even some inanimate objects have a plan or purpose they are secretly trying to accomplish  (like my pens always disappearing, or my pocket watch only working when I try to go to sleep at my house...)

Gracie (the corgi) and Karina (the sheppie)

A deceptive question? or a memorable one?

Examining my question:

Question 1: The idea of consciousness in animals, and it's evolution from the idea of deceit, do you believe this is the only concept that lead to a “consciousness” if there even is one in animals?

       I believe that deceit would be one major way for animals to come up with a "conscious" that is, being aware that they are aware of their surroundings. Looking at it from an evolutionary perspective, if you are a peacock able to entice a female with the number of eyes in your plumage, you "win" right? What if you didn't have as many eyes as some other male, but you were able to keep a female from seeing that male and other males who had more eyes then you through constant harassment? I believe the peacock analyzing that females choose based on plumage and number of eyes is ingrained in their brain as "instinct"... but the ability to consciously evaluate that "I have less eyes then that other peacock" then, rather than trying your best with what you have and dying, you decide, "I am probably the worst-off peacock... but if I'm the only one that female sees, maybe I can still mate!" You then stalk the female and, if another male approaches  you harass that male until he leaves, never letting him display his plumage. I would say that's consciousness from deceit.

Look into my eyes dear! They are the "best around" 

            Another idea of where "consciousness" may have arisen is the idea of "reciprocal altruism", the likes of which vampire bats exhibit. These bats have developed their brains enough to remember the bats in their groups. When the bats return, if one of them (Batto, in this example) didn't have quite as good a night as another (Vlad, we will call it), Batto will be hungry. Vlad will sense this and offer Batto some of his own blood that he got. Vlad will then remember this favor that he did for Batto and hope that, if Vlad has an unfortunate night, Batto will help him. Should Batto return unsuccessful a second night, as motion that he is hungry to Vlad, Vlad will remember that Batto hasn't returned the favor and will not offer him blood anymore. I think this is consciousness, as having memory has been discussed as a quality to have consciousness. But this goes deeper then just remembering "this might hurt me" this is remembering one specific bat, and remembering that you did something nice for it, so it needs to pay you back before you give it anything more. I think that is an example of conscious decisions that can only be made by some form of consciousness.

I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a Hamburger today!

A Response to Mr. Ishmael

Further commenting on Raj's post about habituation and auto pioleting, I decided to throw another example into the mix, relating to tigers because they are cute. I think this example is more biological then making a habit of things, but it's cool! In Tailand, a tiger that was raised by a pig raises pigs. This is quite interesting, as the video describes since, yes they are "mortal enemies"  but I think it harkens back to what we discussed on Monday in class about how you can develop habits by trying things over and over. In this case, it seems the sow accepted the tiger cub's mewing and body language, offering them food, the cubs suckled and realized that this thing gives food if I'm nice and gentile to it. Since they had no "training" from a parent, they did not learn to hunt, they learned to feed off of the sow's milk (the zoo probably fed them individually some meat as they grew older) I find these stories fascinating. 

I also think that this is how we developed our relationship with dogs or with any pets. I mean, I have a German shepherd who barks and scares little kids who have never met her, but if they try enough, they get used to her... She looks like a coyote and if I see a coyote I get intimidated and reach for my knife or any weapon nearby, but I don't do this to my dog. I believe it is due to me placing extrinsic value on my dog above that of some "wild animal" even if they look similar and are "the same." Now, relating this back to ethics and rights, I feel that any animal can be conscious of it's environment, much like any human can have a memory of where to walk and where not to walk through experiance. To get into neurobiology a bit, it is (as of now, only a theory) the spines on our dendrites within not only the telencephelon (forebrain or "cortex"... the big part of our brain) but the whole body that gives "us" (all animals) our muscle memory and in a few animals (yes.... particularly mammals... especially those above 1 year of age...)  the telencephelon is more developed (or actually develops) giving the animal a sense of "mental memory" and I guess you could say "consciousness." so it's not ethics we are discussing, it's biochemistry!!

A Response to Mr. Keefner

Kurtiss Keefner's question of: "Ought a moral agent act morally towards a moral patient?" seems to be a hot topic in all the readings we have done so far. Reading further then last week's blogging session (Is that cheating?) I came upon R.G. Frey who discusses the interests (or lack there of) of animals. Since Regan's qualification for moral patients part b requires interests it made me wonder (using his logic) if Regan is correct in making a "part b" moral agent. Mr. Frey's analogy of the tractor that performs better if it is well oiled, yet has no verbal or intelligent way to communicate that it has an interest in being well oiled made me wonder if language is a barrier between not only nonhuman animals and humans, but if it's a barrier between having "interests" (or, rather, "wants and desires" as he puts it) and thus, be the subjects of rights as Leonard Nelson was referred to saying.

Donovan would disagree entirely with Frey's argument, saying that we must listen to what the animal is telling us and that there should be no such thing as a language barrier... I seem to side with Mr. Frey in this one, not because I dislike animals, but because, in our world where communication is so essential, it is completely odd to "listen" to something which cannot communicate on the same level as us. A dog can bark, a dog can whine, but are we able to understand anything? Other then the fact that the animal is distressed in some degree. My dog barks incessantly at the slightest sound. the bark sounds angry, but for all I know, my dog could be saying, "hello" or "You are trespassing " or "give me food!" I understand it as, "oh I heard something! Look everything, I heard something! WHEEE!!!" (as she spins around quickly while barking louder and louder with every rotation.)

That being said, if we go back to the original question, should we "moral agents" act morally towards a moral patient, I would say first that, based on Frey's analysis and definitions partnered by Nelson's distinction between needs, and wants... I would say there can be no "a" or "b" moral patient, that everything must be grouped together as one since they are "all the same" and, since they are all at the same level, they have no rights since they have no desire for rights, only an "interest" in their basic needs for survival. Therefore, since they have "no rights" we should act on the side of caution. I liked that discussion in class. "if you are unsure, act on the side of caution" if we don't need to kill something, we shouldn't need to kill it. Try telling that to a wolf that just brutally maimed a squirrel and, if Donovan is correct, the wolf will tell us, "I was hungry and needed to eat, therefore I killed it." Ask a human who just ate a ham sandwich and he will tell you, "I haven't eaten all day and was really hungry!"

I found this picture online and thought it was a little bit relevant...

or I am just insane and enjoy pictures.

To conclude this long post, "I believe a moral agent ought to act 'morally' towards a moral patient, within the bounds of it's own needs."

A thought on Regan

     While reading through Tom Regan's work, I came to a question about his Moral Agency and Moral Patients (a and b). 
I was wondering if there were any examples of non-human animals that could be moral agents. 

Thinking about eusocial and pseudosociatal animals, particularly the honey bee. (not a mammal  as I think all these philosophers consider the mammals too heavily and disregard the arthropods that are social.) When looking at this social insect, they are able to communicate their surroundings, feelings, and remember many locations of flowers, and those who have wronged them. This made me think if they could be considered moral agents, especially int eh case of predation. When a predator (human) approaches the colony, the warriors swarm out and buzz around the antagonists menacingly  Through body language the attacker will usually realize that, "I should not go near as they mean me harm should I approach." Whether this is through OUR own memories and tales of bees stinging us, or through body language alone, I am unsure. The bee will intentionally sting the attacker if they ignore their warnings, aiming to inflict pain and tell them to "go away." This choice is not just "because it's the thing to do" as the bee will die after it's stinger is dislodged in the attacker's flesh. Therefore the bee will do everything in it's power to deter the attacker before it sacrifices itself for the good of the colony. I personally believe this is a fully conscious choice as the bee values it's life enough to try and ward off predators before stinging an attacker and killing itself, yet wishes to do the maximum harm to the attacker to "get the point across"(haha) so it's sacrifice will not be for nothing.

That's my thoughts on that question that I asked.

Initial Thoughts on first reading

My initial thoughts on the preface and the first bit of reading we have done is: I am going to have a tough fight ahead of me. That being said, I am up for a challenge, and probably an introduction would be useful.

I am Andy, a third year biology major with little to no background in philosophy. The one class I took in high school I learned instantly that I dislike Plato's allegory of a cave because I understood none of it through reading. When I asked questions and heard other people's responses I began to understand it's interpreted meaning, and how many people can interoperate the same words in many ways. I began to understand the flow of philosophy a bit more... but only through discussion. In my freshman year, I took Lords of the Ring Cycle, appreciating Wagner's Ring Cycle, and learning a bit about Nietzsche. I liked his name, how it was spelled, and I could kind of grasp some of his ideas.... wether I agree with them or not is another thing, but I started to understand through a handbook, when it came to the actual reading, i was utterly lost. Now in my 3rd year here, I am willing to discus concepts relating to animals, humans, and ethics. We shall see how well I fare, but regardless I am up for a challenge!

Lets begin the fun together! If anyone would like to learn about animal ethics from a biologist's perspective, feel free to read some of my posts!

My feelings on this class's reading make me feel as though there is a bear hunt, and I am said bear battling for my life against the trained dogs of philosophy. I understand not their language, reason, or tactics as they are foregin.... but it hurts... though does it hurt me the same way I could hurt them? This will require deeper thought!