Animal Rights

Is it justified to intentionally injure animals if it will possibly save human lives in the future? The army obviously believes so.

The plan is for soldiers to shoot live pigs and then practice treating their wounds as part of a medical exercise. Apparently, this will enable troops to treat wounded soldiers when there is not a doctor or other medical professional nearby.

Though I can understand the merits of the learning first-hand how to dress a wound, I really don't believe that it is necessary to torture innocent animals to do so.

PETA suggests other methods, such as high-tech human simulators. Besides this alternative, I think it would be advantageous to have people in the military learn from following emergency ambulance squads or shadowing an emergency room technician. Maybe they could be given basic medical skills during their training in the army.

However, the army representative (Major Derrick Cheng) says, I quote, "Those alternative methods just can’t replicate what the troops are going to face when we use live-tissue training.” Um...that is repulsive. Live-tissue training?

And somehow they think it is better because they anesthetize the animals. Yeah, it's okay to be carving holes with bullets into these pigs because they are numb to the pain right? And we'll fix them right up, okay?

This is an outrageous act of animal abuse. Sadly, it probably cannot even compare to the violence seen by troops in real life.

This image is from www.ecosherpa.com

There's been all sorts of meat substitutes over the years for the vegetarians who can't seem to let go- quorn, tempeh, veggie burgers, veggie hot dogs, etc. But there's nothing like the "real" thing, right?

Apparently, soon there will be. In an extremely controversial move, the animal rights organization PETA has decided that it will pay $1 million to anyone who develops a commercially viable form of vitro meat- meat grown out of a tube.

These "tissue cultures" are suppose to be safer, more nutritious, more humane, and cause less pollution. Obviously, though, one can see where they would cause uneasiness.

No one really likes the idea of eating something that was grown artificially in a lab- not just chemically produced, like aspartame and food additives, but actually grown. Vegetarians, vegans, and others who advocate eating "whole" and "natural" foods surely will be turned off by this humane meat. Additionally, the thought of eating any kind of animal flesh at all may disgust those who have abstained from meat for a long period of time.

Sure, vitro meat may be a more sustainable way to continue Americans' insatiable appetite for slabs of steaks and meatloaf. Crops won't have to be used to feed animals, and the pollution from agriculture will decrease. Manufacturers may truly label the vitro meat with "no animals were harmed in the making of this product."

Personally though, I definitely feel queasy at the prospect of living tissue being grown artificially, but who knows? Maybe this is the trend of the future. Maybe one day down the road we will all be sitting down to a nice steaming dinner of vitro meat and scoff at the days when sustenance had to come from the killing of an animal.

To read more, go to this New York Times article.

The image above is from Science Blogs.

Back in 2007, Artist Guillermo Vargas caused a violent outburst of protest on the internet when he used a starving dog off the street as an object of artwork. Apparently, he tied up the emaciated dog, placed bowls of food just out of its reach, and allowed the public to come in and view the slowly dying animal as "art."

This exhibit, titled "Eres lo que lees," according to Vargas, was intended to create public awareness of the thousands of starving dogs in his hometown in Costa Rica. Obviously, there was an immediate outcry against the artist. Thousands of online viewers signed petitions when photographs of the animal were placed on the internet. Facebook group
It is hard to distinguish between the facts and the rumors, but according to some sources, the animal died the day after the display. However, the art gallery stated that the dog was not tied up and actually had been fed.

When Vargas was invited to repeat his display at the Central American Visual Arts Biennial, many protested. The World Society for the Protection of Animals contacted officials to make sure that no animal abuse would take place at the event. WSPA

However, a startling new turn has occurred in this already twisted story. Apparently Vargas has told the public that the whole incident was in fact a hoax. He intended to trick the world to show the irony of the situation- millions of people are horrified at the starvation of one animal while many more creatures are dying in the streets right in front of their homes.

Many do not believe Vargas is telling the truth and is lying to save his reputation against the multitude of internet users petitioning against him. Guillermohabacusvargas.blogspot It is truly hard to tell what is reality- most of the information is from individual bloggers as opposed to a credible news site.

However, the whole situation does bring up a good point. Obviously, it is cruel to force a helpless animal to die, even as a statement to some larger truth, but there are indeed millions of animals that do starve right before us. Though there is a difference between choosing not to feed a stray animal and deliberating withholding food from a captivated animal, does it matter to the animal if he dies because he cannot reach the food in front of him or because he wanders for days without finding a scrap of nourishment? Are people angrier because they are forced to confront the reality of a dog's fate of starvation, when they convince to themselves that the dog on the street will be fed by someone else?

No matter what his intention was, Vargas did give everyone something to think about.

The image above is from Latinaviva.com

In the past few years, a few events have brought more attention to animal rights. These incidents range from the abandonment of pets during Hurricane Katrina and widespread pet food contamination to Michael Vick’s dog-fighting and Oprah’s recent show about puppy mills.

According to USA Today, PETA’s membership has risen to 1.8 million and the Humane Society’s to 10.5 million.

This year, 28 state legislatures are expected to strengthen bans on dog/cock-fighting and 13 states are considering bills to regulate puppy mills.

The book and movie Fast Food Nation (Google Books) educated millions of Americans about the horrors of the industry. Since then, 330 colleges have stopped or reduced the use of eggs from hens housed in battery cages. Mass retailers are also following the trend- examples include Burger King and Hardee’s. Grocery stores display more meat and eggs labeled “free-range” or “grass-fed,” and sales of organic agricultural products have sky-rocketed.

Additionally, there is a campaign in Massachusetts to ban commercial greyhound racing by 2010.

Many other reforms have happened and are in the process of being passed. In fact, some people compare this burst of animal activism to the civil rights activism in the 1960s and the environmentalism in the 1970s.

However, it is important to realize that even with these successes, there are still many other concerns in the world today. Destruction of natural habitats, horrifying agriculture practices, and domestic animal abuse are some of the many problems that must be addressed. Sadly, most issues are not acted upon by the general public until a tragedy strikes.

Of course, awareness is the first step, and it is a great sign that people are reacting to the recent news.

For more information, visit
USA Today

The adorable picture is from www.kloudiia.com