Non-vegans, please do NOT demand that I not serve shark's fin at MY wedding
Do We Really Love Our Animals?
Many people keep pets: dogs, cats, fish, terrapins, rabbits, the list goes on. Pets have been said to relieve stress and bring joy to those who own them. Ask any pet owner if he really loves his animal, and you are likely to get a resounding yes. They may fully mean what they say, but is this answer true in all senses?
Gandhi once wrote, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the ways its animals are treated.” Singapore is considered by the United Nations as a developed nation. However, if she was to be judged by Gandhi’s standards, she may, perhaps still be considered as ‘developing’ because the majority of her population eats meat and allows animal testing to take place. In 2002, Singaporeans consumed a staggering 71 kilograms of meat per person. This, of course, pales in comparison with the 120 kilograms per capita for the United States. However, given our Asian heritage and the emphasis on carbohydrates such as rice in the daily diet of Asians, this amount is simply enormous, especially when this figure is put side by side with the average for Asia: 28 kilograms. To meet this great demand, humans have invented devices known as ‘slaughter-houses’ and ‘factory farming’.
‘Slaughter-houses’ — the term itself it not a nice one. The vast majority of people who eat meat do not bother to consider the pain an animal goes through so that they can enjoy their hamburger; it does not even occur to most that their meat comes from something that once breathed and moved around, just like they currently do. Supermarkets nowadays with their packaged foods only serve to further conceal this gruesome fact from their modernised customers. A single trip to a slaughter-house can turn many hardcore carnivores vegetarian; perhaps it would be good for those who never intend to set foot in one of these establishments to consider why.
The invention of ‘factory farming’ can be used as evidence to show the innate ability of humans to put themselves in front of all else, such as in their gross misinterpretation of Niccolo Machiavelli’s “the ends justify the means”. As the name suggests, ‘factory farming’ is a process in which animals are raised in confinement in highly overcrowded conditions so that one can obtain a high yield with minimum input. To receive a greater total in net production, animals are often overcrowded to the point where they balance precariously on the fine line between life and death; antibiotics and pesticides are often used to keep them on the side of the living as long as they can be of service to humans. The very fact that factory farming is carried out despite individual animals being less productive (due to their inability to move, eat properly etc.), simply because there is greater productivity per cage of animals, clearly shows us that humans care way much more for themselves than for their animals.
A common argument in support for the meat industry is that the human body requires meat — we would not have canines if we were meant to be herbivores. However, studies have shown that we can get all the necessary nutrients from plants. In fact, vegetarians are believed to have a healthier diet than meat eaters. The eating of meat has been linked to the contraction of colon cancer due to the amount of iron it contains; certain plant foods, on the other hand, have been known to protect the body from cancer. Also, vegetarians can worry less about heart disease which is associated with the saturated fat found in red meat.
Animal testing is yet another way that humans show their lack of respect for the animals around them. To ensure that products are safe for human consumption or use, tests have to be conducted on them before they are let out into mainstream circulation. And what better subjects for scientists to use than animals: living, breathing specimens with systems that model our own. The law prohibits, and rightly so, the use of human subjects for such experiments. Many people think that animal testing is ethically acceptable because animals, unlike humans, are not rational, thinking beings. The words of philosopher Jeremy Bentham are a perfect rebuttal to this, “The question is not, ‘Can they reason?’ nor, ‘Can they talk?’ but rather, ‘Can they suffer?’”
The terms ‘vivisection’ and ‘LD50’ are common in animal testing. ‘Vivisection’, defined by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) as “the practice of experimenting on live animals”, literally means ‘cutting alive’. Every day, live animals such as mice, rabbits, guinea pigs, dogs and monkeys are burnt, starved, irritated, shocked, mutilated, poisoned and electrocuted, all in the name of research. ‘LD50’ stands for ‘Lethal Dose, 50%’, which is the amount of substance that kills off half the members of a tested population, and is used as a general indicator of the substance’s toxicity. Consider the number of animals that have to die slow, painful deaths so that the LD50 of a drug can be determined. Can we truly say we love our animals if we allow such suffering to occur?
A poster on the wall of an animal research facility attempts to explain the need for animal testing. A leukemia patient, a little bald little girl, weakened from chemotherapy stares out at you with her big, brown eyes, imploring you to understand that animal testing is necessary as part of the research for the cure to give her a new lease of life. It is hard for any of us who have not experienced first-hand the effects of cancer to fully comprehend what that little girl is going through, or even to know the grief of her family members. Advocates who seek to put an end to animal testing will be quick to point out that hundreds, if not thousands, of animals will have to die for the creation of this drug. The seemingly irrational words of George Orwell in his book Animal Farm come to play here: “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others”. Although scientifically classified as part of the animal kingdom, Man has always seen himself as superior to all the creatures around him, and as such, he justifies using them for his own purposes. There is also another fact to consider — that the treatment is useful to not only that one patient, but all current and future patients as well. This is a valid argument, provided that every piece of research produces an effective drug. Every year, many hopeful new medicines are found to be lacking. The numbers simply do not add up. Humans cannot claim that they really love their animals if they are willing to sacrifice so many of them in the hope of finding cures.
Thankfully, the majority of us is not so far detached from our emotions, or consider ourselves so much higher on the evolutionary scale than animals, that we can stomach a steak if we were forced to watch the cow being butchered just before part of it is served to us on a plate. However, ignorance is a poor excuse for a non-vegetarian who makes use of products that have been tested on animals. Owning a pet does not automatically make one a lover of animals. As long as we, humans, continue with our carnivorous ways and allow animal testing to be carried out, we do not really love our animals.
Gandhi once wrote, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the ways its animals are treated.” Singapore is considered by the United Nations as a developed nation. However, if she was to be judged by Gandhi’s standards, she may, perhaps still be considered as ‘developing’ because the majority of her population eats meat and allows animal testing to take place. In 2002, Singaporeans consumed a staggering 71 kilograms of meat per person. This, of course, pales in comparison with the 120 kilograms per capita for the United States. However, given our Asian heritage and the emphasis on carbohydrates such as rice in the daily diet of Asians, this amount is simply enormous, especially when this figure is put side by side with the average for Asia: 28 kilograms. To meet this great demand, humans have invented devices known as ‘slaughter-houses’ and ‘factory farming’.
‘Slaughter-houses’ — the term itself it not a nice one. The vast majority of people who eat meat do not bother to consider the pain an animal goes through so that they can enjoy their hamburger; it does not even occur to most that their meat comes from something that once breathed and moved around, just like they currently do. Supermarkets nowadays with their packaged foods only serve to further conceal this gruesome fact from their modernised customers. A single trip to a slaughter-house can turn many hardcore carnivores vegetarian; perhaps it would be good for those who never intend to set foot in one of these establishments to consider why.
The invention of ‘factory farming’ can be used as evidence to show the innate ability of humans to put themselves in front of all else, such as in their gross misinterpretation of Niccolo Machiavelli’s “the ends justify the means”. As the name suggests, ‘factory farming’ is a process in which animals are raised in confinement in highly overcrowded conditions so that one can obtain a high yield with minimum input. To receive a greater total in net production, animals are often overcrowded to the point where they balance precariously on the fine line between life and death; antibiotics and pesticides are often used to keep them on the side of the living as long as they can be of service to humans. The very fact that factory farming is carried out despite individual animals being less productive (due to their inability to move, eat properly etc.), simply because there is greater productivity per cage of animals, clearly shows us that humans care way much more for themselves than for their animals.
A common argument in support for the meat industry is that the human body requires meat — we would not have canines if we were meant to be herbivores. However, studies have shown that we can get all the necessary nutrients from plants. In fact, vegetarians are believed to have a healthier diet than meat eaters. The eating of meat has been linked to the contraction of colon cancer due to the amount of iron it contains; certain plant foods, on the other hand, have been known to protect the body from cancer. Also, vegetarians can worry less about heart disease which is associated with the saturated fat found in red meat.
Animal testing is yet another way that humans show their lack of respect for the animals around them. To ensure that products are safe for human consumption or use, tests have to be conducted on them before they are let out into mainstream circulation. And what better subjects for scientists to use than animals: living, breathing specimens with systems that model our own. The law prohibits, and rightly so, the use of human subjects for such experiments. Many people think that animal testing is ethically acceptable because animals, unlike humans, are not rational, thinking beings. The words of philosopher Jeremy Bentham are a perfect rebuttal to this, “The question is not, ‘Can they reason?’ nor, ‘Can they talk?’ but rather, ‘Can they suffer?’”
The terms ‘vivisection’ and ‘LD50’ are common in animal testing. ‘Vivisection’, defined by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) as “the practice of experimenting on live animals”, literally means ‘cutting alive’. Every day, live animals such as mice, rabbits, guinea pigs, dogs and monkeys are burnt, starved, irritated, shocked, mutilated, poisoned and electrocuted, all in the name of research. ‘LD50’ stands for ‘Lethal Dose, 50%’, which is the amount of substance that kills off half the members of a tested population, and is used as a general indicator of the substance’s toxicity. Consider the number of animals that have to die slow, painful deaths so that the LD50 of a drug can be determined. Can we truly say we love our animals if we allow such suffering to occur?
A poster on the wall of an animal research facility attempts to explain the need for animal testing. A leukemia patient, a little bald little girl, weakened from chemotherapy stares out at you with her big, brown eyes, imploring you to understand that animal testing is necessary as part of the research for the cure to give her a new lease of life. It is hard for any of us who have not experienced first-hand the effects of cancer to fully comprehend what that little girl is going through, or even to know the grief of her family members. Advocates who seek to put an end to animal testing will be quick to point out that hundreds, if not thousands, of animals will have to die for the creation of this drug. The seemingly irrational words of George Orwell in his book Animal Farm come to play here: “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others”. Although scientifically classified as part of the animal kingdom, Man has always seen himself as superior to all the creatures around him, and as such, he justifies using them for his own purposes. There is also another fact to consider — that the treatment is useful to not only that one patient, but all current and future patients as well. This is a valid argument, provided that every piece of research produces an effective drug. Every year, many hopeful new medicines are found to be lacking. The numbers simply do not add up. Humans cannot claim that they really love their animals if they are willing to sacrifice so many of them in the hope of finding cures.
Thankfully, the majority of us is not so far detached from our emotions, or consider ourselves so much higher on the evolutionary scale than animals, that we can stomach a steak if we were forced to watch the cow being butchered just before part of it is served to us on a plate. However, ignorance is a poor excuse for a non-vegetarian who makes use of products that have been tested on animals. Owning a pet does not automatically make one a lover of animals. As long as we, humans, continue with our carnivorous ways and allow animal testing to be carried out, we do not really love our animals.
posted by Shelly at 12:03 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home