jane goodall - Jezebel

posts about #janegoodall more →
"We Are All Part Of The Animal Kingdom"
If I Could Talk To The Animals
10 Best Talk Show Moments Of 2008
Martha Stewart & Jane Goodall's Goofy Gorilla Greetings Sound Like Crazy Sex

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

atomic
09/11/09

In reply to "We Are All Part Of The Animal Kingdom"
Jane Goodall is an amazing scientist who shows that one doesn't needs to test on animals or eat them to work or live. She is a constant inspiration in my life and I credit her for planting the seed of empathy in me.
Reply

suck_it_monkeys promoted this comment Edited by atomic at 09/11/09 1:12 PM atomic was starred atomic was unstarred

thesciencegirl
09/11/09

In reply to "We Are All Part Of The Animal Kingdom"
I love her point about how scientists should have empathy. I have said this myself, although in the context of having empathy for fellow humans.
Reply

thesciencegirl was starred thesciencegirl was unstarred

WashingMyHair
09/11/09

In reply to "We Are All Part Of The Animal Kingdom"
Her answer to the question below gave me a little more hope. Thank you Jane!

Q-Do you think there is still hope for this planet despite all the bad things we have done to our environment?

A-When I was doing the research for this book, I met so many extraordinary people who rescued species from the brink of extinction when everybody else laughed at them. One example is the California condor. At one time, there were just 12 of these birds left in the wild and one in captivity. Now there are 300. This bird would have gone but for a small group of people who would not give up. As long as we have people like that, there's hope for the future.
Reply

Edited by WashingMyHair at 09/11/09 10:57 AM WashingMyHair was starred WashingMyHair was unstarred

CurtCole
09/11/09

In reply to "We Are All Part Of The Animal Kingdom"
I think empathy would help in just about every aspect of society. There wouldn't be debates about universal healthcare, gay marriage, equal pay for the sexes or reproductive rights if more people were capable of recognizing that what makes others different isn't wrong, it's just different.
Reply

CurtCole was starred CurtCole was unstarred

OneTwoPunch
09/11/09

@CurtCole: Excellent. Empathy is a skill. Once acquired through daily practice, its benefits can reach far and wide.

Empathy, in its truest sense (not some shallow politically correct white-wash, where we are all the same) can change the world.

It's about clarity, and reality, and seeing others, and the world, as they truly are, not as one wishes them to be.
Reply

CurtCole promoted this comment OneTwoPunch was starred OneTwoPunch was unstarred

Ailatan
09/11/09

@CurtCole: Perfectly said. I can't add anything more.
Reply

Ailatan was starred Ailatan was unstarred

wtfox?!
09/11/09

@CurtCole: I wanted to put on my fake-hysterical conservative evangelical voice and shriek some incoherent reply... but I'm tired and kind of sad today, so I will simply agree and Internet-hug you.
Reply

wtfox?! was starred wtfox?! was unstarred

OneTwoPunch
09/11/09

In reply to "We Are All Part Of The Animal Kingdom"
True! I once had a discussion with my father about his role as a cattle rancher. In order to kill animals routinely, farmers typically refer to them as crops as "growing cattle" , in an effort to put them lower down on the food chain than they are, like ears of corn, and to create an objective distance.

He went on to quote the oft-used Biblical phrase of "man's dominion over animals", whereas I pointed out the dominion over does not neccesarily mean "kill all of them and eat them"! It may mean to oversee and protect, like a shepherd with his flock.

I then went on to say "But we are animals, too, Dad. We are mammals."

The look on his face, as I bested him intellectually, of surprise, happiness and astonishment, is something I will always carry with me.
Reply

CurtCole promoted this comment Edited by OneTwoPunch at 09/11/09 10:34 AM OneTwoPunch was starred OneTwoPunch was unstarred

CurtCole
09/11/09

@OneTwoPunch: I had a similar moment with my father, who took me hunting and had me kill a deer at the age of 9. Granted, I still eat meat, but I don't kill it and I don't eat it if it was raised on a factory farm.
Reply

CurtCole was starred CurtCole was unstarred

OneTwoPunch
09/11/09

@CurtCole: True. My father is a great man, and I am thankful for our conversations. He always says, if you really want to eat meat, have the balls to go out there and kill an animal, and then we'll talk. And so he does. I can respect his choice, because it comes from an honest place.

I do not know if I have the wherewithal to kill, since I've never tested myself in that regard. I suspect if it was my family's life or death, and a deer's, I would choose the deer.

As it stands in my urban life, I am mostly vegetarian, out of respect for my far-remove from nature.
Reply

Edited by OneTwoPunch at 09/11/09 10:39 AM OneTwoPunch was starred OneTwoPunch was unstarred

GirlyQ is a manta ray
09/11/09

@OneTwoPunch: I agree with the "If you can't kill it, or see it killed, don't eat it". I worked on an open graze organic lamb ranch for a summer, and in that time killed lambs, chickens, and helped with cows. I don't eat anything I couldn't kill.

I also learned there's a way to respect and treat animals, EVEN and ESPECIALLY if they are giving you sustenance.
Reply

wtfox?! promoted this comment

OneTwoPunch
09/11/09

@GirlyQ ain't a-marchin' anymore:

Exactly. It's this reverence towards the animals who provide sustenance and life, a real regard for them instead of creating some fake reality that all meat grows in shrink-wrapped packages.

In many Native american cultures, a prayer of thanks was offered up, as a way of honoring the life spirit to the animal who's life was taken. In Christian cultures, we too also have prayers of thanks before meals.

That, to me, shows the proper respect towards nature and animals.

ps- How Silence of the Lambs!
Reply

OneTwoPunch was starred OneTwoPunch was unstarred

GirlyQ is a manta ray
09/11/09

@OneTwoPunch: I know, right? I said that as my "Unique fact about me" for a class, and one guy went "Do people really do that??" No, lamb pops up out of the ground. Like weeds.
Reply

MilointheMeadow
07/20/09

In reply to If I Could Talk To The Animals
There's a fantastic book out called "Thanking the Monkey" that acknowledges that animal research may need to take place for lack of a better substitute. However, one of the concepts presented in the book proposes a compromise in which medical testing could take place, followed by a pain-free existence in retirement at a sanctuary or something. It was an interesting idea, and at least *attempts* to please both sides of the issue.
Reply

MilointheMeadow was starred MilointheMeadow was unstarred

colormeroutine
07/20/09

In reply to If I Could Talk To The Animals
I know a lot of people are going to disagree with me on this, but I find these debates over "whether or not animals are as important as people" to implicitly imply that we are more important than animals by their very existence. We ARE animals. Animals eat other animals. It's not any more inherently immoral when we do it than when a wolf does it. Yes we are smarter. Yes, that means we get an advantage. I don't think there's anything wrong with using that advantage. Obviously unnecessary cruelty is not ok, but beyond that? That's how evolution played out
Reply

colormeroutine was starred colormeroutine was unstarred

WashingMyHair
07/20/09

@colormeroutine:
Unnecessary cruelty - that's the thing. Some may argue (legitimately) that what you view as acceptable is considered unnecessary cruelty to that animal. It's just not a black and white issue.
Reply

WashingMyHair was starred WashingMyHair was unstarred

MilointheMeadow
07/20/09

@colormeroutine: We could also argue that animals behave strictly out of instinct, whereas we have the presence of mind to make decisions based on their potential outcomes. And for me, if a potential outcome results in the unnecessary death/torture of an animal? I won't be acting on my instinct alone.
Reply

MilointheMeadow was starred MilointheMeadow was unstarred

Marsgaret
07/20/09

In reply to If I Could Talk To The Animals
I know Jane Goodall, and I have to say she radiates some kind of energy that makes you understand sainthood--not church-sanctioned sainthood but the notion of all-pervasive goodness. In a way, she is not of this world. Walking across the courtyard of where I work, she bent down a picked up a piece of plastic some workman had dropped and handed it to me saying, "Can you do something with this? Don't throw it away. Use it for something. We throw too much away." She can also tell an awesome dirty joke.

PS, the piece of plastic is now on a shelf in my office as THE PIECE OF PLASTIC JANE GOODALL GAVE ME. So, just like she asked, I used it for something.
Reply

thesciencegirl promoted this comment Marsgaret was starred Marsgaret was unstarred

thesciencegirl
07/20/09

@Marsgaret: my best friend met her once, and was floating on a cloud of hero worship for days afterwrad.
Reply

thesciencegirl was starred thesciencegirl was unstarred

BUNNYLUV
07/20/09

@Marsgaret: She spoke at my school and I remember so well the way she radiates with positive energy.
Reply

Her Grace promoted this comment BUNNYLUV was starred BUNNYLUV was unstarred

sciencerules
07/20/09

@Marsgaret: A Jealous. I have one. She's seriously one of my personal heroes, and it's a goal of mine to meet her before I die and just say....thanks.
Reply

sciencerules was starred sciencerules was unstarred

sciencerules
07/20/09

In reply to If I Could Talk To The Animals
Oh, Jane. You are one of my personal heroes, but I must respectfully disagree. Jezzies, feel free to pile on, but I do animal research. I give mice cancer and others in my lab give them heart disease, in the attempt to lessen the burden of these diseases on humans. When I go check on my mice, I sing them songs (no, really, the mouse room is kind of creepy and loud, so I like it too) and talk to them, and I feel awful on sacrifice days. Doing animal research isn't always "nasty." Researchers aren't heartless people who kill animals for fun. At least, I think.
Reply

sciencerules was starred sciencerules was unstarred

thesciencegirl
07/20/09

@sciencerules: I agree with what you've said. I give mice infectious diseases and I kill them (in humane and approved ways), and when I have to sacrifice them, I feel it, deeply, every single time. I don't know any scientists who take animals' lives lightly.
Reply

thesciencegirl was starred thesciencegirl was unstarred

valkyrei
07/20/09

@sciencerules: Actually, animal testing is not effective. 95% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in humans. Models are and have been developed that are way more effective.

Plus, if cancer is so horrible a disease, how can you justify giving it to someone? Just because they aren't human doesn't mean they don't deserve to live and to not be shot up with diseases.
Reply

sciencerules promoted this comment valkyrei was starred valkyrei was unstarred

sciencerules
07/20/09

@thesciencegirl: We've talked about your research before, and I'm sorry you got piled on down below, because I totally agree with you. Do people know about the IACUC (or the appropriate acronym) guidelines for responsible, ethical animal research? Because those guidelines do take into account the animal's physical and emotional distress, as reported by weight loss, self-harm, etc.
Reply

sciencerules was starred sciencerules was unstarred

Raederle
07/20/09

@sciencerules: I work in science as well, though not with animals. Using animals is always a last resort, and no one I know sacrifices a mouse lightly. This is not fun and games.
Reply

Raederle was starred Raederle was unstarred

valkyrei
07/20/09

@Raederle: Actually, in many labs that I have worked in mice are sacrificed lightly. There were laughs and smiles involved.
Reply

thesciencegirl promoted this comment valkyrei was starred valkyrei was unstarred

thesciencegirl
07/20/09

@valkyrei: I have made jokes about the mice, but as a coping mechanism (just as I did in my medical school anatomy lab). Sometimes, laughs shouldn't be taken at face-value (though of course I can't speak for the labs you worked in).
Reply

Edited by thesciencegirl at 07/20/09 3:15 PM thesciencegirl was starred thesciencegirl was unstarred

colormeroutine
07/20/09

@sciencerules: I agree with you, at least in terms of medical testing. Cosmetics though? Not so much
Reply

colormeroutine was starred colormeroutine was unstarred

elliebean
07/20/09

@sciencerules:

I think you make a thoughtful point regarding much of the use of animals not being out of nastiness in the sense that it is not necessarily malevolent.

Should animals just NOT be used AT ALL? For food, clothing, testing, pets? I think the lines are delicate, and the range of perceptions is vast, depending on our background. Might I also mention that we, in "developed" countries, often have the luxury of even worrying about these animal rights issues? I don't think I'd think twice about eating my pet goat if I or my family was hungry and had no other source of nutrition.

Having said that, if we take "nastiness" to mean that we don't always think about animal welfare, our right to use animals, placing our needs above the needs of animals and what is acceptable and what isn't, I would say that we do need to think deeply about what we are doing, how much we are doing it, and whether or not we are doing it for the right reasons.
Reply

sciencerules promoted this comment elliebean was starred elliebean was unstarred

inabook
07/20/09

@valkyrei: She doesn't give diseases to someone. She gives them to mice-- animals-- to help learn about the disease so that she can help people. Equating a mouse to a human is ridiculous.
Reply

inabook was starred inabook was unstarred

sciencerules
07/20/09

@valkyrei: 95% of drugs that are ever developed fail animal tests, too. The current theory in drug development is to throw a library of compounds at all the tests we have and see what sticks. It's brute force, but it's led to some very effective drugs.

Cancer is an awful disease, you're right. I justify giving it to these mice because a) they are carefully monitored by me personally and sacrificed before their suffering begins to affect their quality of life, and b) these mice are specially bred without immune systems. They wouldn't last a minute in the real world and thus have a much better life with me, and my crazy songs, and stories that I tell them.
Reply

sciencerules was starred sciencerules was unstarred

Paul.B.Dodd
07/20/09

@sciencerules: I don't like going into the animal facility either. I work in science as well and I admire your ability to do animal research. I can't. I work with bacteria and cell culture. It's just cleaner.
I think people outside of science should know that mammalian experiments like mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, they cost a lot of money. Besides the humanitarian and ethical reasons, animals experiments is never trivial for us because this work is expensive and necessary.
Reply

sciencerules promoted this comment Paul.B.Dodd was starred Paul.B.Dodd was unstarred

LolaQuinn is full of beans
07/20/09

@valkyrei: Show me the original study that produced that statistic, because when I google it all I get are a bunch of animal-rights propaganda sites citing that same stat with no source. also, show me the non-animal model that properly imitates the working of the human brain.
Reply

sciencerules
07/20/09

@Paul.B.Dodd: That's a really good point, and one I hadn't thought to bring up. Animal experiments are exhaustively planned (in fact I'm putting off planning one right now) so as not to waste taxpayer dollars as well as animal lives.
Reply

sciencerules was starred sciencerules was unstarred

allib
07/20/09

@sciencerules: I have such respect for people like you who do this research so that the rest of us can benefit from the resulting medical advancements without having to consider what it takes to get there. I did some animal research for a year or so, and even knowing the animal was in no pain, I found it grueling and had to switch projects. Some recognition for the courage it takes to do this work would be a nice change, rather than constantly having to defend against accusations of being heartless and nasty.
Reply

sciencerules promoted this comment PreposterousHypothesis approved this comment allib was starred allib was unstarred

deeemer
07/20/09

@thesciencegirl: I also gave mice HIV for years. To this day, I refuse to let my son have a rabbit, gerbil, guinea pig, or hamster as a pet. They look too much like mice.

And yes, we have vets overseeing our research and our cages to ensure that we treat the animals as humanely as possible. But how else are we going to eliminate HIV and cancer? Is there a human being that wouldn't mind stepping up the plate? And before anyone mentions that there are in vitro models that work just as well, let me say that with regards to HIV - THEY DON'T.
Reply

Evie Havok promoted this comment deeemer was starred deeemer was unstarred

thesciencegirl
07/20/09

@deeemer: I can't have rodent pets either. :-/

As for the inadequacy of in vitro models, you are right.

There's a researcher at my university who does great work on HIV, and he does many of his preliminary studies in these wacky in vitro genital epithelial models... but at the end of the day, his final tests are in rhesus monkeys.
Reply

thesciencegirl was starred thesciencegirl was unstarred

Diziet_Sma
07/20/09

@sciencerules: I'm sure you're right. The caricature of the ignorant, evil scientist who is in denial over the moral and actual ramifications of their work is laughable. Where have we seen these kinds of untruths bandied about before? Oh yeah. The characterization of abortion doctors by the pro-life lobby.
Reply

Edited by Diziet_Sma at 07/20/09 4:26 PM Diziet_Sma was starred Diziet_Sma was unstarred

MilointheMeadow
07/20/09

@sciencerules: I'm sorry, I just got really nauseous when you said "sacrifice days." My former roommate was a lab researcher and had to take a course on How to Kill Something Humanely. She told me some days she just didn't bother. To do it humanely. (Not roommates anymore.)
Reply

MilointheMeadow was starred MilointheMeadow was unstarred

MilointheMeadow
07/20/09

@valkyrei: I would love to promote your comment, but it looks like someone beat me to it. I'm in full agreement - and so is the EU when it comes to monkeys, especially.
Reply

MilointheMeadow was starred MilointheMeadow was unstarred

vwbugirl
07/20/09

In reply to If I Could Talk To The Animals
This is most likely the PMS talking but quite frankly I wish people would go all out or be quiet.

Be vegan and save the animals if that is what you want. Nothing annoys me more than people who are ALL about the animals (usually the cute ones) then eat the ugly ones and try to be all "but I love animals"!

(This is not a response to Jane but the general animal talk of the thread)
Reply

Her Grace promoted this comment Edited by vwbugirl at 07/20/09 3:04 PM vwbugirl was starred vwbugirl was unstarred

Yahtzii
07/20/09

@vwbugirl: So I have to be a vegan to love animals? And for what it's worth, my favorite meat is the cutest of all (lamb). I feel like I can be a responsible omnivore and still respect and care about earth's creatures, whether or not I eat them.
Reply

Diziet_Sma promoted this comment Edited by Yahtzii at 07/20/09 3:17 PM Yahtzii was starred Yahtzii was unstarred

inabook
07/20/09

@vwbugirl: I'm a meat eater who would like to, once I can afford it, eat only locally organically small farm raised meat, or meat I raise myself (bunny hutch!). I think that people who abuse their pets are horrible. I'm a big fan of scientific research on animals, even if it means hurting or killing them, but I believe in doing it in a way to limit suffering as much as possible. I want pets, and I will never be vegetarian, though I will endever to have most of my days be meatless. Should I just give up and not do anything?
Reply

inabook was starred inabook was unstarred

andBegorrah
07/20/09

In reply to If I Could Talk To The Animals
This is why I only conduct my home cosmetics testings on animals that cannot talk or dance and are in no way anthropomorphized or animated.
Reply

andBegorrah was starred andBegorrah was unstarred

lizardbits
07/20/09

@andBegorrah: Don't be naive Jimmy, if a cow could he'd eat you and everyone you care about.

:)
Reply

Her Grace promoted this comment lizardbits was starred lizardbits was unstarred

Penny_Esq
07/20/09

In reply to If I Could Talk To The Animals
I think those of us who aren't scientists immediately think of Silver Springs, for example. Or the "pit of despair" primates who were used for mental health research. When you see that stuff, you wonder whether the suffering is worth it, and you REALLY want there to be alternatives. And then some animal welfare groups will tell you that there ARE alternatives, and then it's easy to vilify people/studies who don't use them.

In reality, most researchers don't delight in the suffering of their subjects. But it is hard to wrap one's mind around killing sentient beings every day, even when it's for the greater good. There's a cognitive dissonance on both sides - I don't want to think about the animals on whom my medications were tested, for example, so I keep taking them and also object to vivisection as though I could have the benefits of the meds without animal testing having come first. Likewise, there are labs in which the animals are deliberately not named or socialized so as to allow the researchers to do their jobs without getting emotionally attached. But the difference between my kitties at home and the ones in labs is solely that my kitties are pets who are loved. So aren't you left with the understanding that in order to perform medical research on animals, you have to be desensitized? I wouldn't go so far as to say researchers are "nasty," but isn't it necessary to be desensitized in order to be able to perform invasive and sometimes painful tests?
Reply

Penny_Esq was starred Penny_Esq was unstarred

Zombie Ms. Skittles
07/20/09

@Penny_Esq has a new job!: I think there's a fine line. Testing medication on pigs before people? I couldn't do it, but I'm not going to get up in your face about it. Dripping shampoo into the eyes of bunnies until they go blind? Not so much my thing. The lab that does research for Iams food flushing a live kitten down a drain? Somebody fetch me my pitchfork, please.
Reply

valkyrei
07/20/09

@Penny_Esq has a new job!: Why does it matter if scientists don't delight in torture? Would it make you feel better if a serial killer derived no pleasure from murder?
Reply

cwisto moweina has got yer goat promoted this comment valkyrei was starred valkyrei was unstarred

sciencerules
07/20/09

@Penny_Esq has a new job!: To be fair, Harry Harlowe's pit of despair experiments were considered extremely unethical at the time, and I think (check me if I'm wrong) may have been conducted in his own facility or with his own funds or both.

Speaking as an animal researcher (albeit one who has determined not to work on any animal higher than a guinea pig as a personal point), yes, you do get desensitized, a bit. But you also have to realize that the kind of people who do animal research are also the kind of people who loved dissections in high school--people who naturally go "oooh" instead of "OH NO" or "EWWW" when they see exposed organs and whatnot.

It's worth mentioning, too, that surgeons go through a similar desensitization process to be able to view cut open human beings as a matter of course. No one is suggesting that they are "nasty."
Reply

sciencerules was starred sciencerules was unstarred

cwisto moweina has got yer goat
07/20/09

@valkyrei: wow, did you just read that one sentence of her post?
Reply

Edited by cwisto moweina has got yer goat at 07/20/09 3:15 PM

colormeroutine
07/20/09

@sciencerules: You're correct, he did do it independently and even then it wouldn't have passed and IRB review at a university or other established institution
Reply

colormeroutine was starred colormeroutine was unstarred

Penny_Esq
07/20/09

@Zombie Ms. Skittles: No, I hear you and I completely agree. As a middle schooler, right around the time I was first buying makeup, someone handed me a flier about Proctor & Gamble's animal testing policies, and that was the last time I ever bought Cover Girl or Pantene or any other P&G product. Once I learned about Iams, I stopped buying their pet food.

I absolutely disagree with testing on animals for non-medical purposes. I do my research on the products I buy - for example, Lancome/L'Oreal says they don't test their final products on animals, but what they don't say is that they use animal-tested ingredients. So I buy makeup (Fresh, Estee Lauder, etc) that's truly cruelty free. I use Method cleaning products. I feed my cats Solid Gold or Pet Promise. I truly do everything in my power to buy only cruelty-free.

BUT. I also take some prescription medications, and the fact is, the law requires medicines be animal tested before they're released for people. I wish it weren't necessary, but I'm not going to stop taking my Wellbutrin and my birth control because somewhere in their chains of development, they were tested on animals. So as distasteful as I am sure I would find it to be personally involved in such testing, it is not something I have the right to be sanctimonious about, not as long as I'm benefiting from it every day.
Reply

Penny_Esq was starred Penny_Esq was unstarred

Penny_Esq
07/20/09

@valkyrei: Actually, to some extent the law does recognize a difference between a serial killer and, say, a woman who kills her abusive husband. And yeah, I do feel better about the latter - murder out of necessity (subjective though that may be) - than I feel about the former. I feel better about a soldier who struggles with having killed in war than I feel about a soldier who reduces his targets to racist stereotypes, dehumanizing them, and not blinking when he kills them.

I actually think serial killers by definition enjoy what they do, and I think the apt comparison is to kids who light stray dogs on fire for fun. There's just no comparison between assholes like Michael Vick and someone who uses animals in medical research, and I suspect the scientists in this thread would resent the comparison. They don't kill animals for the hell of it, because it's entertaining and Lost is a rerun. They do it because it's a necessary precursor to finding cures or treatments for insidious human diseases. And if/when I suffer from one of those diseases, I will take my prescription medication and be sad but grateful for the animal testing that went into its development.
Reply

Penny_Esq was starred Penny_Esq was unstarred

Penny_Esq
07/20/09

@sciencerules: I didn't know that about the pit of despair experiments, and I'm really glad to hear it.
Reply

Penny_Esq was starred Penny_Esq was unstarred

MilointheMeadow
07/20/09

@sciencerules: Usually human beings have to consent to surgery. Animals, on the other hand...
Reply

MilointheMeadow was starred MilointheMeadow was unstarred

mbprice
07/20/09

In reply to If I Could Talk To The Animals
Look, not to get all slippery slope here, but I think it's worth thinking about how much we owe to animals. Protecting them from abuse? Sure. Not subjecting them to unnecessary pain and suffering? Again, sure. No medical testing at all? One could make the argument. Not eating them? Again, the argument can and has been made. Forsaking agricultural and architectural construction so as not to disturb their habitats? Protecting prey from death at the hands of predators?

Those last two dive off the deep end, but I'm not sure where, exactly, the line is drawn, which is why we have to have these discussions. The argument that I have some others have made is that Jane Goodall's remarks on this particular point are somewhat reductive and don't accurately portray the way most researchers think. It's less that I disagree with her opinions as I do disagree with her characterization of the researchers. And that cheapens the debate and makes it harder for us to collectively draw our line somewhere.
Reply

Edited by mbprice at 07/20/09 3:00 PM mbprice was starred mbprice was unstarred

Cimorene
07/20/09

@mbprice: "Forsaking agricultural and architectural construction so as not to disturb their habitats?"

You think that dives off the deep end? Protecting animal habitats is, at this point, necessary to continue to live on an earth that resembles what we live on today. Three bears have been killed in Buffalo and it's suburbs this summer because they've strayed into, like, pizza place parking lot and gas stations. Why? Because people keep saying "fuck forsaking construction so as to not disturb their habitiat, I want me a cul de sac!" And the suburbs expand and expand and expand like cheese left in the sun. And then the bears come into our pizza places and get shot by hepped up cops and then the bear is dead. And it's our fault. Who the hell says people are so damn special anyway? I mean I rather think so, being a person, but is my opinion more valid than, say, a bear's? In a larger sense? No.
Reply

SarahMC: I'm doing this! promoted this comment Cimorene was starred Cimorene was unstarred

inabook
07/20/09

@Cimorene: But where do we draw the line with habitats? Growing a garden in your backyard alters the habitats of the animals who had been living there previously.... even if they were the tiny, tiny non cute animals. And don't we deserve a habitat? Beavers certainly harm the habitats of other animals too...
Reply

inabook was starred inabook was unstarred

s
07/20/09

In reply to If I Could Talk To The Animals
I participated in Team In Training for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society when I as 17. I asked my aunt for a donation and she refused with a long explanation/tirade about how L&L Society tests on animals and how I was contributing to the torture and deaths of animals by giving them money. I continued with the program because my mom said "If her daughter was diagnosed with cancer, she would give her dog over for testing in a heart beat if she thought it would save her daughter." Animal testing is something with which I still struggle. I am more likely to buy a product that says 'not tested on animals' but I do not check the labels every time I buy something. I have friends and family that have done testing on animals (cats and monkeys and humans) for work or schooling (in the medical fields) and I trust that if these people who I respect so much, are okay with what they have done, there is more to this story than all animal testing is horrible. I have still not quite decided where I stand on the subject myself though. If animals can help us cure cancer or HIV, then I am hard pressed to say no to testing.
Reply

Zombie Ms. Skittles promoted this comment s was starred s was unstarred

Yahtzii
07/20/09

@SundaysAndCybele: I ran a marathon for TNT and at there were at least five people holding signs that said "LLS research saved my life." That was enough validation for me.
Reply

sciencerules promoted this comment Yahtzii was starred Yahtzii was unstarred

veronykah
07/20/09

@SundaysAndCybele: I have to disagree with your mother. If I was diagnosed with cancer I still wouldn't give up my dog if I thought it might save me. Sorry. Not happening.
Reply

veronykah was starred veronykah was unstarred

WashingMyHair
07/20/09

@veronykah: The fact people would give up a pet to research for illnesses has a bit of irony to it. Medical study after study shows that pet animals are often cited at a huge part in helping people survive or cope with devastating illness.

The one clear thing that it shows is that animals do more for us, in so many more ways than our world ever gives them credit for./Sighs
Reply

WashingMyHair was starred WashingMyHair was unstarred

MilointheMeadow
07/20/09

@veronykah: I agree with you. No way in hell would I subject my pooch to cruelty. NO WAY.
Reply

MilointheMeadow was starred MilointheMeadow was unstarred

Evie Havok
07/20/09

In reply to If I Could Talk To The Animals
So, everyone brings morality into this issue but when other issues are being discussed everyone just forgets about it or gets offended when its brought up (issues like adultery, abortion, politics, etc.). But when it comes to the animals it's important? You know, sometimes the outcomes of these experiments are more important then how they came to be.
Reply

Evie Havok was starred Evie Havok was unstarred

SarahMC
07/20/09

@Evie Havok: I'll remember that when I begin my research on orphaned and sickly human babies.
Reply

SarahMC was starred SarahMC was unstarred

cwisto moweina has got yer goat
07/20/09

@Evie Havok: yes, but why wouldn't they be done in a way that causes the least amount of suffering to a, you know, sentient creature that can feel pain?
Reply

thesciencegirl
07/20/09

@Evie Havok: I don't think we can simply argue that the ends justify the means, but I do think that it's possible to consider the cost to the animals in deciding the worthiness of a research project, and do so in an honest and internally consistent manner.
Reply

thesciencegirl was starred thesciencegirl was unstarred

thegogglesdonothing
07/20/09

@cwisto moweina has got yer goat: You'd be surprised at the ethical institutional review requirements for animal use at major universities. Minimizing animal suffering is absolutely a stated concern.
Reply

cate3710 promoted this comment

inabook
07/20/09

@SarahMC: I'm doing this!: Yes, because humans and mice are totally the same thing.
Reply

inabook was starred inabook was unstarred

cwisto moweina has got yer goat
07/20/09

@thegogglesdonothing: I know, I've read them for my university. I was just responding to the question as to why morality is a part of the discussion. When you're dealing with sentient creatures, the ends and then means must be considered, which is why the ethical requirements are in place.
Reply

SarahMC
07/20/09

@inabook: I never claimed they were. Just because they are not the same does not mean one is more important.
Reply

SarahMC was starred SarahMC was unstarred

Evie Havok
07/20/09

@inabook: Horrifyingly, to some people they are just because they're "sentient."
Reply

Evie Havok was starred Evie Havok was unstarred

SarahMC
07/20/09

@Evie Havok: And what evidence would you like to put forth that objectively proves humans are superior or more important than all other living creatures?
Reply

SarahMC was starred SarahMC was unstarred

Eriu
07/20/09

@Evie Havok: If we're going to consider everything that has been/can be excused by "the end justifies the means" I think you'll have a hard time proving that it is a morally sound foundation for your argument. It's a complicated situation, and I don't think it's easy to take either side, but that's just a gross oversimplification. Unless by your comment you mean that you don't care about morality at all, regarding any issues. In which case, nevermind.
Reply

Evie Havok promoted this comment Eriu was starred Eriu was unstarred

kaiwhakamarie
07/20/09

@SarahMC: I'm doing this!: Thank you. I see both sides of the argument, but I'm genuinely curious as to why it's automatically assumed that human life is more important than animal life? According to whom?
Reply

kaiwhakamarie was starred kaiwhakamarie was unstarred

Evie Havok
07/20/09

@Eriu: You're right about me simplifying this. While I do consider the morality involved in other issues when it comes to the morality of animal testing . . . well, it's not something that I'm invested in.
Reply

Evie Havok was starred Evie Havok was unstarred

SarahMC
07/20/09

@kaiwhakamarie: Yup. "Because humans are humans" is not a sufficient answer. It's just a logical fallacy.
Reply

SarahMC was starred SarahMC was unstarred

inabook
07/20/09

@SarahMC: I'm doing this!: You didn't say it directly, but you did imply it in your reply to Evie Havok. You had to have known that was the logical conclusion any intelligent reader would make.

Humans are fundamentally different from other animals for a huge variety of reasons-- the fact that we can even have an ethical debate alone demonstrates that difference. And as such, I do feel that humans are more important than other animals-- in part because I am human, but also in part because of the way we have culture, language, ethics, morality, and consideration for other species. I believe in the value of animal testing, and I don't believe its a bad thing.
Reply

inabook was starred inabook was unstarred

sciencerules
07/20/09

@SarahMC: I'm doing this!: I'll bite. I, personally, find humans superior and more important than other living creatures because we are the only animal, to date, that has demonstrated consciousness or the presence of a mind. Although other animals are undoubtedly intelligent, this is where I draw a hard and fast line.

Additionally, for personal reasons, I refuse to experiment on "higher" animals--pigs, cats, dogs, primates, etc, anything greater than a rat. This is an option that all researchers have.
Reply

sciencerules was starred sciencerules was unstarred

SarahMC
07/20/09

@inabook: Mice and humans aren't the "same thing;" they are different animals. You are right that I don't privilege humans over animals, though. Should less intelligent humans be used for the benefit of smarter ones? That's what your argument about the inferiority of non-human animals sounds like to me. Non-human animals communicate in their own ways. Just because they don't speak English (or your human language of choice) doesn't mean they're not communicating. The idea that non-humans don't have complex societies is an ignorant one.
Reply

SarahMC was starred SarahMC was unstarred

deeemer
07/20/09

@SarahMC: I'm doing this!: So.. . if you have such love for all animals, do you open your home to rodents? If you found a rat in your kitchen, you'd let it live? And what about cockroaches? Or flies? They communicate.
Reply

WashingMyHair promoted this comment deeemer was starred deeemer was unstarred

WashingMyHair
07/20/09

@deeemer: I have such a love for animals that I don't use products that kill bugs and animals...just products that deter them. Also, I wouldn't kill a rat if I didn't have to, I'd trap and remove it...something I've never had to do with rats, but I've done with mice, spiders and other bugs.

The whole thing has shades of gray. The general ideas of what SarahMC is getting at all have merit. Even if you disagree with them.
Reply

WashingMyHair was starred WashingMyHair was unstarred

kaiwhakamarie
07/20/09

@WashingMyHair: Yep. Same.
Reply

kaiwhakamarie was starred kaiwhakamarie was unstarred

inabook
07/20/09

@SarahMC: I'm doing this!: They don't have morals and ethics like we do. They don't have emotions on the same levels we do. They don't have the same bonds and connections we do. They don't get consent before they have sex. They don't think about whether they're killing the animals they eat in an manner or not.

Also, I wasn't using intelligence of individuals as a base-- and intelligence of individuals is very different from intelligence of the general species.
Reply

inabook was starred inabook was unstarred

SarahMC
07/20/09

@inabook: They feel pain, fear, terror, loneliness, frustration, and a host of other things we humans feel. Including connections to other animals.
I don't really care if they can't do calculus.
Reply

SarahMC was starred SarahMC was unstarred

MilointheMeadow
07/20/09

@inabook: There are *multiple* studies that show how animals form bonds and connections to each other. Anyone with a beloved pet knows there is a bond. Furthermore, the fact that humans DO have "morals and ethics" should be enough to make us think of kinder ways to impose our will on "lesser" species.
Reply

MilointheMeadow was starred MilointheMeadow was unstarred

Cimorene
07/20/09

@kaiwhakamarie: Well once upon a time a man told other men this story, about an older more powerful man (big long beard) who lives in the sky, and he told the first man that he gets to have dominion over all the other non-man things, like mice and dogs and cows and women. And the bearded man in the sky (we're supposed to call him Father because everyone knows that Father makes all the rules and Father is the final arbiter of good and evil in this world) said it was cool.

And obviously the way people treat animals has nothing to do with the way, say, men treat women? white folk treat non-white folk? the powerful treat the weak?
Reply

SarahMC: I'm doing this! promoted this comment Cimorene was starred Cimorene was unstarred

inabook
07/20/09

@MilointheMeadow: I wasn't arguing that animals can't form bonds, but that their bonds are different. If we want to play the mentioning studies without actually citing them game, I can play that too-- I could also go FIND the cites to studies that support my view, since I've actually read some of them. (the actual studies that is, not other organization's possibly manipulated press releases relating to studies.)

Our morals and ethics DO make us think of kinder ways to test on animals. Or are you not familiar with IRBs and other regulations?
Reply

inabook was starred inabook was unstarred

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion