Ah, this is my dog, I mean companion....

[Mr. Anderson]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20030209/ap_on_re_us/pet_protection_5

Is it taking things a little too far? All I can think here is about some of the 'owners' in Best in Show.....

But seeing what they're trying to do makes sense. I have a dog and if any ever abused her in front of me, they'd have to stop worrying about the dog and worry about me.

Then there's those couple of cases where idiots killed another persons pets, throwing the dog into traffic or out the window of a 10 story building.

I see why they want to do it, I just hope it doesn't get carried away.

D

 

[funkywhat2]

That's good. I think many pets are treated inhumanely, and that aminals deserve some sort of malpractice protection, as well as the owners. A person can develop an emotional attachment, and if some dumbass vet kills that person's dog, and makes them distraught, then I think some money id in order.

 

[rainman::|:|]

yes, this would make things a lot more serious. animals deserve a hell of a lot better than they're getting right now, and legal recognition as something other than an object will definitely help that.

pnw

 

[MacFan25]

I'm not really an animal rights activist, but I do think that this would be a good idea. Dogs and cats should be thought of as "companions" and not just "property".

 

[macfan]

I think the long term idea is to give animals the same rights that humans have. That seems more than a little nuts. If you want to have a law allowing for greater damages for intentional harm to someone's pet, I'm all for it. However, to set up a system whereby a vet will end up with insurance premiums similar to a medical doctor is foolish on so many levels that it's not even worth considering.

 

[rainman::|:|]

Originally posted by macfan
I think the long term idea is to give animals the same rights that humans have. That seems more than a little nuts. If you want to have a law allowing for greater damages for intentional harm to someone's pet, I'm all for it. However, to set up a system whereby a vet will end up with insurance premiums similar to a medical doctor is foolish on so many levels that it's not even worth considering.

peta themselves don't want animals to have humans' rights, because most rights would be wasted on animals... they do want them to have the right to a comfortable life free from abuse and neglegence. pay a little attention, no one ever said anything about giving animals the rights of humans... not even the extremists...

pnw

 

[macfan]

no one ever said anything about giving animals the rights of humans... not even the extremists...

Indeed, they have said and do say that animals should have rights similar to those granted to humans.

 

[rainman::|:|]

directly from the PETA website. and peta is the organization that regularly sues and boycotts companies for even fringe connections to suspected animal abusers. they're the forefront of the animal rights groups, and use extreme tactics...

"What do you mean by 'animal rights'?"
Animal rights means that animals deserve certain kinds of consideration? consideration of what is in their own best interests regardless of whether they are cute, useful to humans, or an endangered species and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally-challenged human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful or even if everyone dislikes him or her). It means recognizing that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation.

"What rights should animals have?"
Animals have the right to equal consideration of their interests. For instance, a dog most certainly has an interest in not having pain inflicted on him or her unnecessarily. We therefore are obliged to take that interest into consideration and respect the dog's right not to have pain unnecessarily inflicted upon him or her.

However, animals don't always have the same rights as humans, because their interests are not always the same as ours and some rights would be irrelevant to animals' lives. For instance, a dog doesn't have an interest in voting and therefore doesn't have the right to vote, since that right would be as meaningless to a dog as it is to a child.

pnw

 

[macfan]

From the horses' mouths... I haven't independently verified them, but they provide a flavor...

There is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They're all mammals. -- Ingrid Newkirk, PETA's President (in The Washington Times August 29, 1999).

We feel that animals have the same rights as a retarded human child -- Alex Pacheco, Director, PETA, (New York Times, January 14, 1989).

Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughter houses. -- Ingrid Newkirk, PETA's President, The Washington Post, November 13, 1983.

Worth The life of an ant and the life of my child should be accorded equal respect. -- Michael W. Fox, Vice President, The Humane Society (The Associated Press, Jan. 15, 1989).

Surely there will be some nonhuman animals whose lives, by any standards, are more valuable than the lives of some humans. -- Peter Singer, godfather of the animal rights movement, Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd edition, 1990.

Jews = broiler chickens. Any questions?

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by macfan
Jews = broiler chickens. Any questions?

That's going a bit too far, a little extreme, but PETA has been know the cross the line.

Hopefully there will be a day when we won't need to use animals for food, making it all from plants. It possible, just not feasible and there will be the whole taste issue. But so much plant matter is fed to the animals inorder to bring them to market, more than they end up providing themselves as food.

D

 

[rjrufo]

Ok, I just had to reply to the idea that anamals shouldn't be used for food by humans. If you look at nature, you'll see that a lot of animals eat other animals. What's the difference of humans eating other animals, and animals eating other animals? The only difference that I see is that humans farm the animals that they eat, while most other animals hunt the animals they eat.
Anyway, I just had to add my $0.02.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

There's nothing wrong with it, I don't have a problem, but the issue here is not whether its ok or not, but whether we should if food supplies become an issue. As the human population goes up, so does the need for food.

Eventually all the food going to feed even more broiler chickens will be better processed for human consumption instead of chicken consumption. Like I was saying, the chickens eat more food getting to their 'broiling' weight than they provide on the table.

Its a small, simple equation with large consequences.

D

 

[macfan]

Eventually all the food going to feed even more broiler chickens will be better processed for human consumption instead of chicken consumption.

That is highly unlikely. The potential for food production--for both chickens and humans--is no where near tapped out. In 1900, it was predicted by some scientists that the US would face widespread starvation and food shotrages by the 1950s as population outstipped production. In case you were wondering, nothing of the sort happened. It is not, in fact, a "simple equation." Much of the hunger in the world today is a function of political and economic considerations, not food production.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by macfan
That is highly unlikely. The potential for food production--for both chickens and humans--is no where near tapped out. In 1900, it was predicted by some scientists that the US would face widespread starvation and food shotrages by the 1950s as population outstipped production. In case you were wondering, nothing of the sort happened. It is not, in fact, a "simple equation." Much of the hunger in the world today is a function of political and economic considerations, not food production.

Its not just in the US that its going to become a problem and I'm not talking about 10 years from now, more like 50 - 100. It is a simple equation, the basics of which were laid down by Malthus back in the late 1700s or early 1800s. There is always a issue with sustainability of a population given a food source. If the population, globally, continues to increase, more resources need to be devoted to food production.

At some point, I don't know when, food used to 'grow' animals will be better suited, cheaper and more valuable for human consumption.

D

 

[macfan]

In 1900, they were, like you, looking 50 years down the road, not 10.

It is highly unlikely that human population will outstrip the agricultural capacity of the earth to sustain it.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by macfan
In 1900, they were, like you, looking 50 years down the road, not 10.

It is highly unlikely that human population will outstrip the agricultural capacity of the earth to sustain it.

Sure, and they were looking a then current crop yields and population projections. Since 1900 we've managed to do wonders with crop yields, but land, water and production is a finite number which will put an upper limit on the population. It all depends on a few things, what the population growth ends up being and if we can pump up the crop yields. Using genetic engineering it might be possible to do things with crops that we only dreamed about 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago.

But, regardless, the whole system is finite and limited to some population level.

What do you see as being the regulating factor that will allow the crops to feed 10 Billion? 20 Billion?

D

 

[macfan]

We are not going to run out of water. 70 percent of the earth's surface is covered with the stuff, and it is continually recycled by natural processes.

Also, the rates of population growth are falling, particularly in countries that have plenty of food. What does that tell you about Malthus? That the idea that population will increase along with food supply until it all comes crashing down does not seem to hold up.

Is there a popluation level for humans that the earth cannot sustain? In theory, yes. In practical terms, resources are not our problem, politics, economics, and culture are our problems.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by macfan
We are not going to run out of water. 70 percent of the earth's surface is covered with the stuff, and it is continually recycled by natural processes.

70% of the surface of the earth might be water but only a small percentage of that is fresh water. Desalination is not cheap.

Have you ever been to the Colorado River out in the western US? It doesn't flow to the Gulf of California anymore because its all being used before it can make it there. Then there is the whole issue of the watersheds and aquafers. They are not finite resources and they are being used up faster than they are naturally replenished.

I'm not saying its a hopeless situation but one in which the outcome will require a different approach than what we use today. Measures will have to be put into effect to put a cap on the population eventually. Population growth is not a linear function, and add into that modern health practices and medicine increasing the life span overall, we are going to see a population explosion. There are going to be issues, revolving around who has the resources, food etc. and who doesn't, which will lead to conflict. But that's not a good way to regulate the population.

D

 

[macfan]

Overpopulation is yesterday's fear. Rates of population growth are falling, particularly in those countries that have better medical care and longer lifespans. Better medical care and longer lifespans have been associated with lower population growth, and sometimes even contraction.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Here's some light reading - the article in the magazine was much more comprehensive. But it basically outlines the issues. Developed countries are slowing down population growth, but developing countries are contributing even more growth.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/eye/overpopulation/overpopulation.html

It is an issue, regardless what you say. And even if you are in a developed country, you'll feel the effects one way or another. There needs to be better cooperation among nations to educate and better manage resources, or the way things will be settled will be with violence and war.

D