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!