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

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Mr. Anderson, Feb 10, 2003.

  1. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #1
    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
     
  2. funkywhat2 macrumors 6502a

    funkywhat2

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    #2
    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.
     
  3. rainman::|:| macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #3
    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
     
  4. MacFan25 macrumors 68000

    MacFan25

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Location:
    USA
    #4
    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".
     
  5. macfan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #5
    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.
     
  6. rainman::|:| macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #6
    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
     
  7. macfan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #7
    Indeed, they have said and do say that animals should have rights similar to those granted to humans.
     
  8. rainman::|:| macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #8
    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...

    pnw
     
  9. macfan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #9
    From the horses' mouths... I haven't independently verified them, but they provide a flavor...

    Jews = broiler chickens. Any questions?
     
  10. Mr. Anderson thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #10
    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
     
  11. rjrufo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Location:
    Boston
    #11
    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.
     
  12. Mr. Anderson thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #12
    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
     
  13. macfan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #13
    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.
     
  14. Mr. Anderson thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #14
    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
     
  15. macfan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #15
    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.
     
  16. Mr. Anderson thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #16
    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
     
  17. macfan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #17
    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.
     
  18. Mr. Anderson thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #18
    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
     
  19. macfan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #19
    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.
     
  20. Mr. Anderson thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #20
    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
     

Share This Page