"Ron" <ro_is DeleteThis @home.com> wrote in message news:ro_is-6D5D79.13421827022005@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <C6oUd.3069$Vf6.125605@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> "Margaret Robinson" <margaret.robinson DeleteThis @utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> > "Ray" <ray DeleteThis @syntex.com> wrote in message
> > news:cvo349$3l6$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> >
> > > I wonder how many Canadian's actually condone this carnage? My bet is a
> > high percentage.
> >
> > You lose your bet. You have no understanding of Canadian politics.
> >
> > Margaret
>
> The last time I was at the hardware store, several people were buying
> insect repellant, poisons and others such contraptions. Why is no one
> championing the right of the cockroach or the gnat to live a life free
> of cruelty and punishment. What of silverfish? What of spiders and
> flying insects.
I personally respect all life. But..
"People have assumed intelligence is linked to the ability to suffer,
and that because animals have smaller brains they suffer less than
humans. That is a pathetic piece of logic."
From;
Cows hold grudges, say scientists
By Jonathan Leake
February 28, 2005
ONCE they were a byword for mindless docility. But cows have a complex
mental life in which they bear grudges, nurture friendships and become
excited by intellectual challenges, researchers have found.
Cows are capable of strong emotions such as pain, fear and even anxiety
about the future. But if farmers provide the right conditions, they can also
feel great happiness.
The findings have emerged from studies of farm animals that have found
similar traits in pigs, goats and chickens. They suggest such animals may be
so emotionally similar to humans that welfare laws need to be reconsidered.
The research will be presented to a conference in London next month
sponsored by animal welfare group Compassion in World Farming.
Christine Nicol, professor of animal welfare at Britain's Bristol University,
said even chickens might have to be treated as individuals with needs and
problems.
"Remarkable cognitive abilities and cultural innovations have been
revealed," she said. "Our challenge is to teach others that every animal
we intend to eat or use is a complex individual, and to adjust our farming
culture accordingly."
Her colleague John Webster added: "People have assumed intelligence
is linked to the ability to suffer, and that because animals have smaller
brains they suffer less than humans. That is a pathetic piece of logic."
The Bristol researchers have documented how cows within a herd form
friendship groups of between two and four animals with whom they spend
most of their time, often grooming and licking each other. They will also
dislike other cows, and can bear grudges for months or years.
Donald Broom, professor of animal welfare at Cambridge University, will
tell the conference how cows can become excited by solving intellectual
challenges.
In one study, researchers challenged the animals with a task where they had
to find how to open a door to get some food. An electroencephalograph was
used to measure their brainwaves.
"The brainwaves showed their excitement; their heartbeat went up and some
even jumped into the air. We called it their Eureka moment," Professor Broom
said.
The assumption that farm animals cannot suffer from conditions that would be
intolerable for humans is partly based on the idea they have no sense of self.
Latest research suggests this is untrue.
"Sentient animals have the capacity to experience pleasure and are motivated
to seek it," Professor Webster said.
"You only have to watch how cows and lambs both seek and enjoy pleasure
when they lie with their heads raised to the sun on a perfect English summer's
day. Just like humans."
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12390397-13762,00.html
Taking Animals Seriously Mental Life and Moral Status
by David DeGrazia
<review>
Most people who approach Taking Animals Seriously will
share an unspoken presupposition. This is that animal activists
take animals too seriously. They lack a sense of proportion.
It's not that gratuitous cruelty to members of other species is
morally defensible. Surely it isn't. If pressed, then all but the
amoral, sociopathic or philosophically bewitched are likely
to grant that wanton animal-abuse is best discouraged.
Instead, the pervasive assumption is simply that animal
suffering doesn't really matter much compared to the things
that happen to human beings - to us. They, after all, are only
animals: objects rather than our fellow subjects. Animal
consciousness, insofar as it exists at all, is minimal and
uninteresting.
Contrast one's likely reaction on learning that the infant or
toddler next door is being abused. Let's suppose that the
abuse is being inflicted for fun or profit - or, more broadly,
for purposes that can be described only as frivolous. In such
a case, then one's intuitions are equally clear. The suffering
of the victim has to be taken very seriously. One has a duty
actively to prevent it. The interests of the child take precedence
over the wishes of the abuser. In extreme cases, the adults
involved in persistent abuse may need to be legally restrained
or even locked up. Indeed, it is cases of failure on our part to
take action to prevent it - or failure to take action by the social
services or child-protection agencies - that demand justification.
To treat the suffering caused by child-abuse lightly would be
to show a sense of disproportion when confronted with the
nature of the practices involved - and our capacity to do
something about them.
Yet here lies the crux.
After Darwin, a huge and accumulating convergence of
physiological, behavioural, genetic and evolutionary evidence
suggests - but cannot prove - an appalling possibility. This is
that hundreds of millions of the non-human victims of our
actions are functionally akin - intellectually, emotionally and
in their capacity to suffer - to very young humans. In the light
of what we're doing to our victims, the consequences of their
also being ethically akin to human babies or toddlers would
be awful; in fact, almost too ghastly to think about.
When we're confronted with such an emotive parallel, all
sorts of psychological denial and defence-mechanisms are
likely to kick in. Undoubtedly, too, animal-exploitation
makes our lives so much more convenient. Not surprisingly,
in view of what we're doing to them, there is a powerful
incentive for us as humans to rationalise our actions.
Numerous pretexts and rationalisations aimed at
legitimating animal exploitation are certainly available; most
of them seek to magnify the gulf between "us" and "them".
Intellectually, however, they prove on examination to be
surprisingly thin.
....
http://www.hedweb.com/animals/degrazia.htm
> What about the cute little vultures and armadillos?
As above.
> There's was a mass dying off of vultures and no one seems to care.
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4617
Looks like there's great concern reading that article.
>> Stay informed about: Stop Canada's Cruel And Senseless Baby Seal Hunt 
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in/Register/Password
