Welcome to the Class Blog!

12/19/2012

Contribute to this blog to boost your participation grade and to provide us with your insights. You can post thoughts on the readings, links, news articles, or other materials that are relevant to the course (and appropriate).

53 Comments

Matt Paras

1/18/2013 01:33:58 am

I read this article the other day and I think it provides an interesting example of what we talked about in today's class. Because of the horrible economy in Greece, people are raiding forests for wood to heat their homes. Government officials have become concerned about smog from all the fires. I think these issues are very interesting examples of human/nature interaction and are a concrete way to look at the conflict between ecosystems, the interests of a tree (should it have them), and those of humans.

Perhaps more interestingly, the article also details the dilemma of a forestry official who catches a tree-raider. I imagine the official evaluates how the intrinsic value of the tree (or its extrinsic value to the ecosystem and society as a whole) stacks up to its extrinsic value for the tree-raider (or the intrinsic value of the tree-raider's comfort and health, and the value of helping a countryman).

Matt Paras

1/18/2013 01:35:00 am

Sorry, here's the link to the article (was originally hyperlinked in the text): http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324442304578232280995369300.html?mg=reno64-wsj

Leiter Colburn link

1/27/2013 05:55:26 am

I came across this article today entitled "Why Hunting Your Own Dinner is an Ethical Way to Eat" by Lily Raff McCaulou, in which she outlines five main reasons why she believes hunting wild animals makes eating the meat of that animal ethical. I thought this article was interesting because she presents some persuasive arguments regarding the ways in which hunting is positive, including the fact that hunting has a light environmental footprint compared to that of commercial farming. I thought her second point about the lack of misery wild animals endure was particularly interesting because while hunting might be a better alternative to buying meat from commercial farms, does the environment and/or circumstances in which an animal is killed really make a difference? I thought this question relates to the idea of “the circle of our moral concern” and the belief that humans are the dominant species, which Hursthouse addressed in her article. Would we feel better if a human being, who lived a prosperous and happy live (like wild animals), was killed in a nice neighborhood than if a human being, who was on medication and ill all of their life (like commercially farmed animals), was killed in a “bad” neighborhood? Or should we not even make this comparison because human beings are simply more valuable than nonhuman animals? Like McCaulou, Rosalind Hursthouse points out the irresponsibility and wastefulness of eating meat from commercial farms. However, while McCaulou argues that hunting wild animals, an action she claims further connects her with the ecosystem and the animals she kills within that ecosystem, offers an ethical way to eat meat, Hursthouse would argue that all hunters lack regard for another’s suffering and the author’s desires for meat are "greedy and self-indulgent". I thought this was interesting because it makes you questions whether or not you should be relieved and happy that another individual is not investing in commercial farming or whether you should be saddened that another individual’s has chosen to personally kill a wild animal.

Jane Eisenach

2/9/2013 01:25:17 am

Hi Leiter,

I looked for the article you mention, and I found it on the author's blog. I thought I would add the link for others:

http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2012/07/02/55-why-hunting-your-own-dinner-is-an-ethical-way-to-eat/

I agree with you that this is an interesting part of the ethics of hunting v. not hunting animals.

Jane

Shayna Benjamin

1/30/2013 06:39:48 am

Iran recently 'shot a monkey' into space, with reasons that are very much unknown-- they claim that he was sent up in a rocket, but did not divulge any other information as to what scientific basis they had for doing so. This led me to dig around and find that in many space programs (namely America and Russia's) the use of animal astronauts are not new at all, and scientists have been using them since the beginning of our 'space journey' as testers. This brings up the question of whether the usage of LIVE animals is really necessary? In addition, what significant data (none that I could find personally) could actually support the usage of live animals as 'tester astronauts' in modern-day science? Here is an interesting article referencing the Iranian monkey: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2013/01/iran_monkey_in_space_how_do_space_programs_choose_animals_for_missions.html

Jane Eisenach

2/9/2013 02:36:41 am

I have to admit that I didn't really want to read the article you mention because I knew it would upset me -- I know what happens to the animals. But, I did read it and I give the author credit for pointing out that almost all the sentient nonhuman animals who have been used in space flight died either during the flight or in reentry, which was a pretty awful way to die unless the animal was sedated. Was there any mention of the Iranian monkey's outcome in any of the news articles? I read a couple of articles, but didn't see anything.

Noor Pahlavi

2/21/2013 03:04:33 am

In response to your question, Jane, it seems that the Iranian monkey made it back alive. This is according to the Islamic Republic of Iran. If this is true, it would be a huge scientific breakthrough for their space program.

Noor Pahlavi link

1/30/2013 07:13:47 am

I thought this story was interesting given our recent class discussions about virtue ethics and compassion. This couple decided to save a baby dear and nursing it to health without a permit, despite this being against the law. The couple now faces faces up to 60 days in jail and a $2,000 fine.

http://rt.com/usa/news/couple-jail-baby-deer-122/

Rebecca Goldberg link

2/5/2013 04:31:23 am

This tragic yet heroic story was in the news in a neighboring town back home over Christmas break. A doggy day care bus caught on fire with two dogs inside. The driver risked his life and was able to save one of the dogs.
"Thamann’s hands were burning. He was inhaling too much smoke. Flames started to scorch his head. Finally, a bystander grabbed Thamann’s jacket collar and dragged him away from the burning bus, Poquette said. She’s heard from witnesses that the man who pulled Thamann away from the fire was convinced he otherwise would have died trying to save the dog."
He suffered severe burns, all to try and save two dogs. Most people would not risk their lives to do this. It just got me thinking about how different people value animals differently. Obviously the driver sees the dogs' lives as just as important as a human's life.

Jane Eisenach

2/9/2013 01:39:10 am

I have to admit that Peter Singer, true to his reputation, got me all stirred up! As someone who is passionately interested in animal issues (like a lot of you, I know), I want to understand how he approaches conflicts that arise in the real world between humans, the environment, and sentient animals. I came home and wrote a rant (it was truly a rant) about "deer in my back yard," but I couldn't figure out how to post it, and now that I've cooled down, I think I'll post about it later. But, my larger point is that there are big moral issues regarding wildlife that are very tough. We don't want wildlife to suffer -- that's basic for animal lovers. But, what constitutes "suffering," and when there are multiple kinds of suffering, how do we make moral decisions? When talking about deer, this ties into Leiter's post on hunting, of course. More on this later after I've re-written the rant!

Jane Eisenach

4/2/2013 06:44:27 am

I meant to follow up on this post some time ago, so even though we have moved on to other topics, I want to add a few more thoughts about the difficulty of making moral decisions "in your backyard."

My husband and I live in a heavily wooded area of Fairfax County. In fact, our property is partly bounded by a very large tract of parkland. As you've all probably read, most suburban areas of the United States have an ongoing crisis associated with overpopulation of deer, and Fairfax County has a big deer problem. For us, this problem is a very real part of our lives. We have herds of deer that browse across our property every day. They bed down at night in our front and back yards, and we get to know almost intimately the various families. (Deer are matrilineal, by the way -- herds consist of multiple generations of female deer and their fawns or yearlings.) I am enchanted when I see the deer in my yard -- in spite of many thousands of dollars worth of damage they have done to our landscaping, which has been eaten almost to nonexistence. I am also heartbroken at the suffering that they endure through injury from cars or from starvation. Many deer have been hit by cars in front of our house, and many times I have called Fairfax County police to come shoot them as they have thrashed around with broken backs or legs in our front yard. I have also saved a lot of injured or starving deer over the years. As I said on the first day of class, it almost seems as if they (and other wild animals I have helped) seek me out. So, you can see that it's morally very difficult for me to wrestle with the larger issue -- what should we do about the deer problem? Kill them? Let them live?

A few years ago, I took a course that had a "sociology" title but actually became a course on survey methods. I had always wondered how my neighbors felt about the deer problem, so I conducted a mailed, written survey of our area under the supervision of my professor, who is the director of the polling and survey operation for the US Catholic church. (In other words, he's a pro.) I got a remarkably high rate of response, partly due to the methodology of the survey and partly due to the strong feelings that people have about the topic. The survey results were published in a Georgetown publication, and I thought you might like to see them -- I am posting the link below. If you have time to read over it, I would love to hear your thoughts. What you YOU do in the situation my neighbors and I find ourselves in? What is the right moral choice?

http://cara.georgetown.edu/staff/webpages/New%20Social%20Scientist%20Review.pdf

Jane Eisenach

Leiter Colburn link

2/12/2013 12:33:39 am

http://www.nytimes.com/video/2013/02/03/world/asia/100000002041681/citizen-zhu.html?ref=crueltytoanimals

I think this topic of animal trafficking, and animal poaching is fairly significant because these actions cause the tigers great pain, and, even if a tiger is saved from these illegal poachers, it is forced to spend the rest of it's life in a cage as it is too challenging to release them back into their natural habitat for a number of reasons. Furthermore, this video mentions the fact that the tiger population as a whole has plummeted drastically in the past few years. So, putting aside the ethical issues I mentioned above, it is also important to note the potential environmental and ecological issues as a result of trafficking, poaching, exploiting, and caging so many tigers in Asian countries.

Kening Ye link

2/14/2013 04:54:22 am

3D printing technology is something really hot right now in the science and technology world. It was very surprising for me when I came across this article: maybe scientists are one step closer to be able to utilize stem cells to produce organs to those who are in need.

In class, we have explored multiple approaches in determining and valuing animals. So far there is no particular schools of thought or moral theories that seem to have problems with stem cell research. After all, according to consequential-ism, stem cell research is beneficial to humans or even animals. One possible reason I think it would be because of religious reason (that God created us so we must not attempt to repeat or try re-create partial humans.)

Kening Ye

2/14/2013 04:56:13 am

This is the link:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/06/3d-printed-human-embryonic-stem-cells/

Leiter Colburn

2/18/2013 06:34:10 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tJYzia6KUbs

This is the preview of a new documentary about speciesism that is supposed to come out sometime this summer (June-August) in the US, Canada, UK, and Brazil....and here is the Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/Speciesism

Caroline McDevitt

2/20/2013 07:14:42 am

I found this article today on animal rights activists in Alabama protesting Walmart's suppliers' treatment of pigs. In both Birmingham and Montgomery, activists from Mercy for Animals, who are on a multi-city tour, have been standing outside of Walmarts with extra large inflatable pigs stuck inside a small cage. The purpose of the protest is to engender awareness for the mistreatment of pigs by Walmart's suppliers in factory farms. The suppliers subject pregnant pigs to be housed in very small cages for extended periods of time; Mercy for Animals is advocating to end the cruel treatment of the pigs by preventing consumers from purchasing pork products from Walmart. Many states have phased out these crates, yet many more have yet to follow the trend. I thought this article was especially interesting because most people would endorse with the protest; however, even those who do not support cruelty to animals are not willing to change their lifestyle to verify this, like Jeff Tyson who is mentioned in the second article. Tyson also doesn't support animal cruelty yet he was grilling hot dogs bought from Walmart next to the protest.

Here are the links to the articles:
http://blog.al.com/montgomery/2013/02/animal_rights_activists_use_10.html
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2013/02/animal_rights_activists_protes.html

Jordan Redfield

2/26/2013 10:53:05 am

I wanted to respond to our discussion of complicity at the end of class and the discussion question, “Is complicity really a type of moral wrongdoing? To what extent is someone responsible for being complicitous?”
I agree that, when associating with a particular institution or organization, it is difficult to unearth everything morally objectionable about their interactions, endeavors, etc. The Georgetown-sweatshop example that Laura gave in class is an example of this. Many students/fans likely purchased Georgetown apparel under the assumption that it was the product of morally permissible manufacturing. I do not consider the purchasers responsible for this type of complicity, nor do I consider them moral “wrongdoers.”
However, if there is a succession of events during which a morally impermissible act has occurred - and a person knowingly engages in the succession (though not the actual act), this is a case of moral wrongdoing and complicity… one in which responsibility must be shouldered. For example, if a shopper knows that the meat they are buying is factory farmed, acknowledges that factory farming is wrong, and yet continues to buy the meat and consent to the harm of the animals because it is “convenient” or because they consider themselves detached from the factory farming that has produced the meat, this is complicity - and I consider it a type of moral wrongdoing. The buyer is knowingly perpetuating the practices of an institution that he or she deems morally objectionable.

Noor Pahlavi

2/28/2013 05:58:28 am

After Tuesday’s Degrazia lesson, I wanted to ask about the difference is between culpably complicitous and complicitous.
I also wonder if you can be complicitous without being blameworthy. The comments people raised left me considering: At what point should one assign blame to people who are ignorant?

Degrazia argues that individuals should “Make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support to institutions or practices that cause extensive, unnecessary harm” (DeGrazia 159). I considered this when reading the following article about Beyonce:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/06/peta-slams-beyonce-animal-responds-super-bowl_n_2631854.html

To what extent does wearing an all leather outfit at such a high profile event as the Superbowl make her complicitous? People criticize her for failing to prevent harm, one of Degrazia’s criteria for complicity.

Shayna Benjamin

3/11/2013 05:40:52 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M_oKQ9Dzitc (Rats laughing)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2011124/Cows-best-friends-stressed-separated.html (Cows have best friends)

I found out two very interesting facts over this past break that may be of interest to my fellow classmates: 1) when rats are tickled they respond by laughing, and 2) cows form bonds with each other, and are able to have 'best friends'. Rats and cows are both subject to huge discrimination by humans--rats are seen as lowly, and are one of the most (if not the most) utilized animals in lab experimentation, and cows are used for their meat and skin. Many people claim that rats and cows (among many animals) are not sentient enough to feel pain or understand what is going on, this is apparently enough justification for the gross acts committed against them. These two discoveries, however, further concrete the point that humans really cannot determine how much animals can perceive!

Leiter Colburn link

3/12/2013 04:49:22 am

http://www.ecorazzi.com/2013/03/10/watch-justin-timberlake-brings-snl-on-down-to-veganville/

Justin Timberlake performed a skit on SNL recently about veganism and at the end briefly talks about doing what is "right" by not eating meat.

Amy Mardis link

3/19/2013 04:07:02 am

Hi all,

I read an extremely interesting article on NPR this morning. The federal government is currently proposing the testing of a vaccine on children that would allow them to be immune to anthrax. The vaccine is currently used in millions of adults in the military to prevent against the possibility of a bioterrorist attack, but scientists are still unsure how the drug will work in children. The proposal has been brought to a bioethics panel, who has quite a few issues with the idea. The panel is weighing the possibility of a bioterrorist attack along with how much pain the test would cause children. The government, on the other hand, is worried that if an attack does occur while the panel is still weighing the issue that citizens would be angry about why the government hadn't done more to protect its citizens if it had the proper technology. What do you all think? Should the government be allowed to test this anthrax vaccine on children?

Amy

3/19/2013 04:08:11 am

Here's the article if you're interesting in reading it:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/03/19/174550155/bioethics-panel-warns-against-anthrax-vaccine-testing-on-kids

Carmen link

3/22/2013 12:38:42 pm

Hi Everyone,

I just read that information was released about records showing that PETA has been euthanizing animals. They raise the question of whether or not euthanizing animals is ethical. Tying this to class, would you guys consider this a moral duty if an animal is not considered 'adoptable' and would therefore either live suffering of a health problem or just lonely in at a shelter cage?

On a personal story, my one of my neighbors back home had a small dog with throat cancer who had trouble eating and the vet suggested euthanizing him. However, while at their appointment, the dog seemed so full of energy and his eyes made her regret the option, canceling the procedure and returning home with her dog. He lived about three more years after that vet visit. Three years which would have not been in the company of his loving owner, had my neighbor chosen to end his life there. Towards the end, the cancer even almost left somehow and he was able to eat things without having his owner feed him individual pieces as much. Although the animals that PETA claim to have euthanized do not appear to have had a loving home, although they would have continued to live alone and possibly unwanted (though fed and cared for), was putting an end to their lives correct?

http://news.yahoo.com/peta-euthanized-1-675-animals-2012-185825122.html

Jordan Redfield

4/3/2013 11:39:59 am

The article states that 1,675 animals were euthanized, but what percentage is this of the total animals in the shelter? Also, during what time frame were these animals euthanized? If it is a large shelter, or if these animals were euthanized over a long period of time, then perhaps they did all fall within the "aggressive, on death's door, or somehow unadoptable" category. If the opposite context defines the statistic (small shelter, short period of time), this figure should cause raised eyebrows.
I think that euthanasia has a place, and PETA does not have a provocative campaign against euthanasia (to my knowledge); however, with their stauch opinions, I would expect them to turn to euthanasia as a last resort for the animals entrusted to their care. My 14-year-old dog was euthanized when she her hips and hind limbs no longer functioned, and I truly believe that it was the appropriate decision considering the excruciating pain and low quality of life that this previously sprightly and active canine was subject to. But this is a specific example... in many cases, it seems that potential pets and shelter animals are too easily declared unadoptable. Perhaps PETA is humane in its use of euthanasia... perhaps it is negligent. Most information is necessary to opine further.

Jordan Redfield

4/3/2013 11:40:06 am

Carmen Hernandez link

3/29/2013 02:11:40 pm

Just saw this article and thought it was something to think about. We often do not wonder how the candy we eat got to the store, but this article mentions a few things that are not too ethical (affecting the rainforest when getting cacao and unfair worker labor). And yet, even if we are aware of certain things, like how the Mars company (owners of Skittles, Sneakers, Milkyway, M&M's, Starburst, etc) are known to torture animals in testing their candy, we still find ourselves purchasing the yummy treats. But even if we decide to buy less of these candies, are we still morally wrong because we are aware and do not do anything to help the animals and continue to consume? Thought I would share since we are in a break known for sweet goodies. (Ironically the images of cute bunnies and chicks is the marketing being used).

Jane Eisenach

4/2/2013 11:09:50 pm

Fellow animal lovers, you will love this! One of my favorite reading treats each week is the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal. It is packed with loads of interesting articles and information -- no business news! Last week, there was a full-page article on the front page of the "Review" section, "The Brains of the Animal Kingdom." The article discusses the latest discoveries about the intelligence of animals. In my mind, this is the sort of information that is key to considering which animals are subjects of experimentation and which ones are not. The question, "Just how sentient are they?" rings in my head as we consider these issues, and this article should give everyone pause. I think it's wonderful, by the way, and I submit that we are only beginning to understand the unique comprehension abilities of animals. Here's the link:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323869604578370574285382756.html

Jane

Jordan Redfield

4/3/2013 11:15:30 am

Hi Jane,
Thank you for posting this article. I, too, find myself repeatedly asking the question, “Just how sentient are they?” in considering experimentation. I am also taking an Animal Behavior course this semester, and this article touches on some of the topics that we have discussed… probably because de Waal coauthored one of the studies that my professor presented. Brosnan and de Waal (2003) conducted a study of fairness in capuchin monkeys and recorded results that suggest a keen sense of fairness in the animals. Having discovered such traits in capuchins, I presume that most humans would be more hesitant to permit their use in experimentation than, say, rats. But is this because rats are less sentient, or is this because we design our experiments in the midst of the overwhelming bias that is anthropocentricism? Perhaps rats are less sentient, but I think that the answer to the latter questions is definitely “Yes!” I was happy that de Waal addressed this and gave examples of how scientists are attempting to discover the sophistication of various species by “meeting [them] on their own terms” instead of measuring their abilities and worth as if they are merely lesser humans.
Jordan

Jordan Redfield

4/3/2013 11:15:58 am

Noor Pahlavi link

4/4/2013 07:19:45 am

This is an op ed from the New York times in which the author suggests eliminating the ability for animals on factory farms to feel pain using genetically modified engineering. He discusses the same scientific advances mentioned in our reading regarding scientific progress in the understanding of pain (p653). Savulescu discusses sentience as a possible requisite for moral status. If the calves in the NY times article deserve moral consideration due to their ability to feel pain, is ensuring that they suffer less the moral thing to do?

Noor Pahlavi

4/4/2013 07:20:47 am

Link didn’t show: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/opinion/19shriver.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

Noor Pahlavi link

4/9/2013 08:11:04 am

This is an article from yesterday about people injecting ferrets with steroids and selling them as poodles.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/08/ferrets-rodents-sold-as-toy-poodles-argentina_n_3037094.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular#slide=270975

Jordan Redfield

4/9/2013 01:53:59 pm

Below is the link to an interesting CNN article that relates to our class last week on genetic modifications. It discusses the fluorescent protein gene, the engineering of animals specifically for medical research and includes an interview with Emily Anthes, author of "Frankenstein's Cat: Cuddling up to Biotech's Brave New Beasts."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/29/tech/innovation/biotech-animals-emily-anthes/index.html?iref=allsearch

Phillip Benevides

4/9/2013 03:57:31 pm

This is a tad late, but I had been having a difficult time finding the site that corresponds with it, but this post goes back to the debate that we had. I was reading and according to this website: http://www.animalresearch.info/en/designing-research/why-animals-are-used/ "Many basic cell processes are the same in all animals, and the bodies of animals are like humans in the way that they perform many vital functions such as breathing, digestion, movement, sight, hearing and reproduction. To treat disease, doctors and scientists must understand how the healthy body works. This, in turn, leads to an understanding of what happens to the body when we fall ill and how this can be put right." I'm not trying to re-open the debate, but I just wanted to post this because it shows that although there are many alternatives to animal testing (which many people brought up during the debate), animal testing is useful because it helps the potential drug act in a 'warm body' as opposed to no physical body at all. If the drug is in a body, then scientists and researchers can exam what it will potentially act like in a human body. I thought that this was interesting because it's making the claim that although different animals have different bodies and chemical makeups, when compared to humans, they are still used to see how the drug will act in a living body.

Amy Mardis

4/9/2013 09:52:38 pm

This article from NPR relates to both our discussions of medical testing on animals and the issue of genetic modification of animals:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/04/09/176696630/genetically-modified-rat-is-promising-model-for-alzheimers

Rats were given human gene mutations which caused them to develop Alzheimer's. Unlike previous testing on mice and rats related to Alzheimer's research, this specific line of rats began to develop cellular conditions the brain that are extremely similar to the process that a human with Alzheimer's experiences. This data has been seen as extremely hopeful, as this is the first time that a rodent has responded with this many similarities to a human with the same condition. Consequently, the labs have already begun to test possible Alzheimer's drugs on the rats.

While reading the article a few questions came to mind that you all might have opinions on:

- Would these findings justify an increase in animal testing by this lab to speed up or increase the chances of finding a cure to Alzheimer's in humans?

- Since the genetic makeup of rats is so drastically different than that of humans, is this research actually as promising as it appears to be? Even if a drug is found to reverse the effects of brain damage on a rat is it likely that the same drug would work on humans?

- Suppose this experiment was instead performed on a chimp. Would there be any extra moral ramifications linked into this situation? Is than an increased "yuck factor" at the idea of injecting a chimp with Alzheimer's gene mutations?

- Since there have already been hints at a large benefit for humans, do the researchers have a duty to consider the cage size and similar environmental factors for the rats in the study? Or does this "duty" fall back on the moral checklist since scientists can already claim they are doing this human benefit?

These are just a few of the things that popped into my head while reading the article, though undoubtedly there are many more issues or questions raised with this topic. Let me know what you all think!

Amy Mardis

4/9/2013 09:52:47 pm

Amy Mardis

4/9/2013 09:53:00 pm

Jordan Redfield

4/28/2013 01:36:43 pm

Thanks for the article and questions!
I think that there is benefit in focusing on Alzheimer's as we consider the ethics of genetic modification. After all, many people are effected either directly or indirectly by Alzheimer's. The most challenging cases - as evidenced by our readings and class discussion throughout the semester - are those that tug at one's heartstrings.
This is only a short article, and one written for a general audience, so it is difficult to discern exactly how promising the research is. If this genetic modification of rats allows for significant travel down the road to a cure for Alzheimer's (and how can we really predict this?), I think that the research should be continued. I generally feel this way regarding animal research (including genetic modification) with rodents. Aside from the transfer of a significant amount of genes to more sentient beings, there is no cause for great alarm with genetic modification for the purpose of medical advancement. On the other hand, if this is a long-term project and/or one that will require the use of many rats, the facilities and the project should be subject to greater regulation and control.

Amy Mardis

4/9/2013 09:54:01 pm

Amy Mardis

4/9/2013 09:55:03 pm

Phillip Benevides

4/11/2013 04:39:50 pm

In class today, when we talked about Cannibalism and the goose with the potential "human" encoded inside of them, it made me start to think about fast food and all of the "concerns" that come with this type of food. I read the book "Fast Food Nation" in high school and that book made me realize that all of the meat, especially at joints like McDonalds, Burger King and Taco Bell, do not have the highest quality of food like they advertise. The book stated somewhere that some (small number) percentage of meat can be accounted for as rat (as well as dirt and other bugs). Knowing this is really disturbing especially since many people freely eat food from McDonalds as a "quick snack" or when they are on the go. Knowing that you're potentially eating rat is frightening to say the least, especially with all of the diseases that rats hold. There has been a lot of dispute and debate, mostly from McDonalds, stating that this is not true. Going off of this discovery, I feel as though eating a goose that had bits of human in it can almost be compared to eating a cheeseburger and knowing that there is some rat in it. When you eat it, as gross as it sounds, you're not necessarily thinking about the rat and other types of animals/food that the cow had eaten. This is the same for the goose, at least in my opinion. Once the food is there, the food is there and not eating it because of the human should mean not eating meat because of the rat.

Carmen Hernandez

4/16/2013 12:02:33 pm

It is pretty nasty to think about the things we eat and all the different organisms that were either put there on purpose or by accident. This reminds me of the novel written by American Journalist Upton Sinclair, The Jungle. Although the book was political fiction, it did contribute largely to the regulation of food production and the placement of better laws to prevent gross things from happening. The book describes how men sometimes fell in the boiling lard and quickly disintegrated in it, yet the lard was still sold. Other images include how scraps of meat and rat feces well swept into the pile of meat that would become sausage. Even if human fingers were lost inside the pile of meat did the production continue, causing an engrossing feeling to American readers. Aside from the immoral acts being made towards the meat industry animals (cows being hung upside down as they were headed to be butchered etc), this act of allowing cannibalism in order to not stop production/make more money is another moral act to be analyzed.
Here's is more info on the book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle

Phillip Benevides

4/16/2013 12:30:33 pm

Carmen, I've definitely heard of the book - never read it myself - but I've heard of it and I've had friends who have read it. This reminds me of "Hannibal Rising," the book. When Hannibal murders the last person who had killed his sister, they talk about how Hannibal also ate the soup (which contained parts of his dead sister in it) when he was younger. I feel as though when he was younger, Hannibal did not know that his sister was in it (at least in my interpretation and recollection of the book). He ended up repressing these memories but this is another case where someone was - either forced, or unknowingly- ate something with human meat in it.

Carmen Hernandez

4/16/2013 12:24:17 pm

In class we have been discussing about the possibility of genetically modifying animals to resemble/possibly be close to humans. However, what if we reversed that and made humans be more like animals. Although it does not happen in a lab, cases in which humans are removed from society and live among animals has occurred in the past, especially with children that are said to be raised by animals or just found living alone in the wild. I first learned about these cases in a sociology class. When these children where found, they did not speak like humans and instead made animal-like sounds. In some cases, these children had actually undergone neglect in their home and were never given the opportunity to develop communication skills. Although genetically still a human, would their actions made them less of a human? We tend to feel pity towards them because we know they are not using their intellect as they should and are not aware of what they can reach; so putting this in terms of animals, would an animal that looks like an animal but has a different capacity still be considered an animal? I feel like the child would still be a human despite the conditions it grew up in, so would an animal bred and raised with a higher intellectual capacity not be considered an animal still? It is not morally wrong to teach a lost child the ways of society. In fact, we would be considered to be saving her, but if we surpass the natural intellectual capacity of a normal organism, would we not be morally wrong?

Here are a few sites I found regarding feral children if anyone is interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child)

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/moviesfc.html

Phillip Benevides

4/20/2013 03:56:09 pm

I definitely think that this is an interesting point but I feel as though it's different because the animals we've been talking about were actually modified whereas the feral children (which is extremely sad) are not being genetically modified but are rather being psychologically affected. Their actions would definitely not make them less of a human in the literal sense but I think in the figurative or societal idea of what a human is, it would be different. I personally believe that the child would still be a human and that if an animal was to be given human organs, that they would still be an animal but that their only difference would be that they have a human part in their body. Some of these organs, I feel, are being misconstrued in the sense that they are being taken too seriously when they are in fact only being done to save certain people's lives (at least in the case of a human receiving a nonhuman organ). However, I wanted to reply to this because I do feel like there is the difference between biological and psychological manipulations in children, in this case. Also, because I feel as though the animals should be considered animals even if they have human organs in them.

Leiter Colburn

4/18/2013 07:37:51 am

Researchers from Mass General Hospital in Boston recently removed the living cells from the kidney of recently deceased rat in order to rebuild the organ using new cells from both the human umbilical-vein as well as the kidney cells from newborn rats. Although, this will not be available for humans for a long time, with over 100,000 people on the kidney donar list, this technology could have a huge effect on patients waiting for kidney transplants.
Here is the article: http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-bioengineered-kidney-20130414,0,4202332.story
and the original study: http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nm.3154.html

Phillip Benevides

4/20/2013 03:33:32 pm

Going back to what we talked about during our last class, as to whether or not an organ should be transplanted into a human if they need it, I think it does depend on the situation. Personally, I would want the organ transplanted only if the doctors were sure that my body would not reject it (which is difficult to test). These transplants made me think of a show that used to be on Nickelodeon back when I was younger, "The Amanda Show." The used to have a comedy mini-series in the show called "Moody's Point" and in the final episode one of the characters, Misty underwent a transplant where she accidentally received a baboon heart. She then went on to partake in a gymnastics competition and won but ultimately was disqualified because of her baboon heart. Immediately, everyone in the auditorium looked confused and some looked disgusted by this revelation. This is the link to the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w892-bx4MzY

The clip is around the 2:00 minute mark.

I think it's interesting because it leads me to wonder how people would be treated if they received an organ from a nonhuman animal. Or, in this case, if Misty was to compete in another competition, would they have to judge her differently because of her "advantage" over the other competitors? Or would she not be able to compete ever again? I think that this can also affect someone's choice when deciding if they want to undergo a surgery or not.

Phillip Benevides

4/20/2013 03:33:39 pm

Jordan Redfield

4/28/2013 02:40:53 pm

If I may speculate, I think that there are social issues that recipients of non-human organs would face.
The issue of athletic competition may affect a few select recipients. However, the greater concern is that "organ type" would morph into a marker of socio-economic status. What if extreme social injustice comes to plague the insurance companies and hospital departments that determine which patients receive human organs and which patients receive the "lesser" animal organs. To receive a pig organ would not grant one a competitive athletic advantage but would rather mark one as a victim of biased bureaucratic whims.

Phillip Benevides

4/29/2013 02:48:18 am

I completely agree with this, Jordan. I just wanted to take a different approach to the topic as I thought it might be interesting to look at as well, and since it was something that I don't recall us looking into in class. I do agree with you though. I feel as though, in most aspects, those receiving a nonhuman organ will continue to receive the short end of the stick.

Whitney Jencks

4/23/2013 09:44:06 am

My roommate recently sent me the following video from one of the TED talks last month. This video discusses the possibility of rebuilding extinct organisms overtime through selective back breeding. For example, a duck gave birth to a chicken, because the genetic sequencing of the reproductive organs of the duck had been replaced with those of a chicken. This idea has the potential to expand and protect endangered species and possibly revive those extinct populations. Do we feel morally obligated to repair the damage that humans have caused to extinct animals by genetically reengineering other animals to give birth to them? Is this in any way violating the rights of the animals we will use (like the duck) as a means to return extinct animals to abundant populations?

Also, I think the idea of different organisms giving birth to animals different from themselves poses questions about the possibility of humans using animals as "incubators" if they cannot give birth - a topic Laura brought up in class a few weeks ago in reference to pigs. In the video, the scientist stated that sometimes the pregnancy will come to term, but inter-species clones have potential for respiration problems. Would we want to subject children to this, even if a woman cannot birth the child herself? Personally, I think other options, like surrogacy should be explored first. Although it is likely to be very far in the future before something like this would happen, do you believe we should investigate using this research as another means of human reproduction? This may also result in many different forms of human-nonhuman chimeras.

http://empowrd.org/duck-gives-birth-to-chicken-providing-hope-for-extinct-species/

Jordan Redfield

4/28/2013 01:58:42 pm

On one hand, human innovation and irresponsibility has resulted in the induced demise of many different species, so it seems like an admirable idea to try to nurse a species back into existence (via genetic modification).
On the other hand, we know that extinction of species has occurred throughout history without human recklessness. Evolution is a dynamic process, and species are constantly emerging and disappearing. To artificially engineer extinct species seems to further violate nature rather than pay penance for the past.

Kening Ye link

4/25/2013 12:47:43 am

This article on the Washington Post is about a federal investigation after a 37-year-old federal poultry inspector died with lungs failed to find out the health risks associated with a rise in the use of toxic chemicals in poultry plants. We all have seen part of the documentary Food, Inc in class and we learned that factory farms the conditions for animals are a huge mess. The death of this federal poultry inspector does ring a bell but does not stop what have to happen.

According officials, new regulations (again) will be introduced as soon as this summer and would make poultry production more efficient and transfer more responsibility for inspections to industry. The amount of chemical treatments used on birds (chickens and turkeys) are likely to increase.

What is a little shocking was "federal officials say the enhanced use of chemicals can promote public health by fighting such contaminants as salmonella, government agencies have not conducted independent research into the possible side effects on consumers of using the chemicals. Instead, they review data provided by chemical manufacturers."

As we are wrapping up the class and have discussed what the role of government should play in ethics and public health, this article just reminds me that the reality is a lot more complicated than that. There are interests from the factory farming and chemicals manufacturing industries. There are reactive new rules, one by one, try to cope with the growing food demand and new ways for us to manipulate the lives of poultry. Of course, there are people working out on the filed in and for the industry (workers and inspectors alike), who are partially informed, take the toll.

Food producing, specifically factory farming, seems to move away from the traditional farming concept we share to become a forever scientific enhancement process that can pose dangers to humans.

On the other hand, this article really confirms that the life of being poultry in a factory farm is completely and increasingly not worth living.

Welcome to the Class Blog!

Leave a Reply.

Archives