Animal Testing: right? wrong? many shades of grey?

[dragon wench]

I am currently doing some research on PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), which has led me to some interesting sites.. and questions...

Such as this page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/print/science/hott ... rint.shtml

and this:

http://www.fbresearch.org/education/opponents.htm

What Opponents Say
About Animals and Animal Research

The humane and responsible use of animals in medical and scientific research has the overwhelming support of scientists. Here are what opponents to animal research – none of them scientists – have to say.



Chris DeRose
Former actor, Director of Last Chance for Animals
"If the death of one rat cured all diseases, it wouldn't make any difference to me." 1



Ingrid Newkirk
President and co-founder of PETA
After an underground group called The Justice Department mailed 87 razor-blade laced threats to medical researchers studying news drugs on primates, Newkirk said: "Perhaps the mere idea of receiving a nasty missive will allow animal researchers to empathize with their victims for the first time in their lousy careers.I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren't all burning to ground. If I had a more guts, I'd light a match." 2


"Animal liberationists do not separate out the human animal, so 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 are all mammals," said Ingrid Newkirk. Even if animal research were to produce a cure for AIDS, "We'd be against it." 3


"Even painless research is fascism, supremacist, because the act of confinement is traumatizing in itself." 4



Bill Maher
comedian and PETA celebrity spokesman
"To those people who say, 'My father is alive because of animal experimentation,' I say, 'Yeah, well, good for you. This dog died so your father could live.' Sorry, but I am just not behind that kind of trade-off." 5



Michael W. Fox
veterinarian and former advisor to the Humane Society of the United States
"The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration." 6



Alex Pacheco
co-founder of PETA
"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause." 7


"We feel animals have the same rights as a retarded human child." 8



Bruce Friedrich
PETA campaign coordinator
"It would be great if all the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories and the banks who fund them exploded tomorrow." 9



Tim Daley
member of the Animal Liberation Front
"In a war you have to take up arms and people will get killed, and I can support that kind of action by petrol bombing and bombs under cars, and probably at a later stage, the shooting of vivisectors on their doorsteps. It's a war and there's no other way you can stop vivisectors." 10




References

1. Venant, Elizabeth, and David Treadwell. "Biting Back: Animal Researchers, Industries Go On The Offensive Against Increasingly Militant Activists." Los Angeles Times, April 12, 1990.

2. Letter to the editor, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, November 1, 1999.

3. Vogue, September 1989.

4. Washingtonian, August 1986.

5. Politically Incorrect, broadcast on ABC October 22, 1997.

6. Fox, Michael W. Inhumane Society: The American Way of Exploiting Animals. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1992.

7. Bartlett, Kay. Associated Press Newsfeatures. January 3, 1989.

8. Bishop, Katherine. "From Shop to Lab to Farm, Animal Rights Battle Is Felt." New York Times. January 14, 1989.

9.Speech at the Animal Rights 2001 conference. July 3, 2001. Quoted in a guest column by Richard Berman in USA Today, November 1, 2001.

10. 1987 BBC interview, quoted in a report to Congress, August 1993

And for PETA's perspective, you can check here:http://www.peta.org/


So.. what do you think....

[Magrus]

I'm pro-animal, anti-human. So, unless someone is testing products on animals, FOR animals, I believe it's wrong. Why? It simply does NOT make sense to me that you cage a monkey and toss chemicals on it to see whether or not it will have adverse effects on a human. They're two different species. If you wish to see the effect of said chemicals on a human, pay a human. I see it as worse than forced child labor. That animal they have locked away has no choice in the matter, thats like rape.

It's my firm believe, every single one of those doctors testing chemicals on animals should be locked away on charges similar to aiding a kidnapping, cruel and unusual punishment, and murder if any animals have died under their care. Those animals didn't wander in there and say "hey doc, shower me with odd things you cooked up in a lab, and while your at it, toss me in a cage and inject me with new medicines to boot". They were either dragged out of their homes, or their ancestors were and they've been bred to do this kind of thing. If the police found doctors with children stuck in cages for the same purposes those doctors would burn before they hit a court room. Why should it be different for animals?

[Tower_Master]

I'd have to respectfully disagree with you on that one, Magrus. I'm torn on the issue of animal testing, and I see valid arguements for both sizes, but I absolutely DO NOT agree with the comparison of an animal to a human being. I absolutely value the life of any human being over that of something such as a chimpanzee. Like I said, I don't think animal testing is the answer, but it's FAR better then testing on human beings; and if some phenomenally amazing medical breakthrough is derived through it (like a cure for AIDS), I'd find it really hard to argue against the use of that cure to save a human life.

[Rob-hin]

Unless the animal has a say in it all, you can't test on it.
Our problem is not his problem, so why bother it with it? Simply because we walk up straight and are 'smarter'? No way.

That said, there's the other side of the story.
What if I grew up to be a researcher? What if I or a family member got ick and animal testing could get a cure?

I don't know what's right...
Perhaps only when the would-be-medicine is in an advanced stage and there is little chance of it hurting the animals.

My solution would be, test it on real animals, like those skumbags who steal/rob/rape/abduct people/women/children in the Tsunami desaster areas. Let them pay back their debt to the world, they are worthless in any other way.

Sorry if that's a bit cruel but that my take on it.

[Magrus]

I do believe there have been proposals to use inmates here in the U.S. for testing as a form of speeding up their release dates before, probably quite a few times. People blabber about humanitarian laws and how it'd be cruel to the inmates. I think it's a good idea. Point and case, the use of animals in labs, IMHO, is simply a cheap form of testing products on. Why PAY someone to test them on when you can breed critters and just feed them and hose their cages down and get interns to take care of them?

Well, why dump money into the prisons. Offer a solution, have inmates sign papers saying they subject to testing if they so wish and if they cooperate, take that as something along the lines of community service or some such thing in their bids for parole. Have them give back to the community they helped to destroy.

Also, all of these medicines, humans were not meant to exceed a life span of 40-60 years, and survive horrible wounds or diseases. It creates overpopulation. I believe that would be the cause of the rate of progression in such horrible things popping up like new and worse forms of virii, diseases, and cancer every decade or so. People are MEANT to die, not live forever. If people don't die on a natural time scale, things are thrown out of whack. If we had cats, dogs, cows and such living for 3 times their natural life spans as a whole, there would be far too many to deal with. Resources would be depleted and space would become an issue for them. Sound familiar?

[dragon wench]

Personally...I'm very torn on this particular issue.

When it comes to wearing fur, eating factory farmed meat, cosmetics testing, then my stance is very clear. In such situations, there is absolutely *no* justification for animals to be exploited in this way.

But when it comes to animal research... my sentiments become much more muddy... When I was in my late teens/early 20s, and very idealistic, I was opposed to the use of animals, period. Then... eight years ago I watched my mother suffer and die from terminal cancer.. this changed my perspective somewhat, and I readily admit, had there been a cure available derived from animal testing, I would have been the first person attempting to obtain it for her.

I don't know...


What I do have a problem with, however, are the militants who advocate violence in order to further their cause. While I understand how a group that feels voiceless and disenfranchised can be driven towards terrorism, I can't condone it. I also don't think it really does anything more than cause yet more needless bloodshed. I'm talking about the nutbars that go about blowing up laboratories...

Regarding using rapists, murderers, and the like for the experiments... I fully appreciate the sentiment, and at one point I said much the same thing.. but as is the case with the capital punishment debate, what if they have the wrong person? And, where does it end? I, for one, am extremly uncomfortable with state-endorsed murder and experimentiation upon human subjects...... Think NAZI Germany......

[CM]

Better animals then humans. Animals are not our equals regardless what anybody says. If you are gonna test it and it saves human lives. I say go for it. Btw these bastards are terrorists not the ones in Iraq.

Magrus animals are supposed to die as well. How cares how? Do you normally give a damn how a human dies? I don't. A dead man is a dead man. Same with animals.

[Rob-hin]

[QUOTE=dragon wench]Regarding using rapists, murderers, and the like for the experiments... I fully appreciate the sentiment, and at one point I said much the same thing.. but as is the case with the capital punishment debate, what if they have the wrong person? And, where does it end? I, for one, am extremly uncomfortable with state-endorsed murder and experimentiation upon human subjects...... Think NAZI Germany......[/QUOTE]

I see your point.
If we were to set in this path, where will it end, right?

It could go very much in the right direction... in in the wrong direction. But this is not to discuss that.

As for animal testing, I am still against... sort of. Too bad I can't see it as simple as I'd like. It could solve problems/deseces.

One thing I don't have to think about is animal testing for cosmetic means. That is just wrong and should be (and in some countries is) forbidden.

[Magrus]

Magrus animals are supposed to die as well. How cares how? Do you normally give a damn how a human dies? I don't. A dead man is a dead man. Same with animals.

This is very true. No, I don't care how most people die, and in my post...

If people don't die on a natural time scale, things are thrown out of whack. If we had cats, dogs, cows and such living for 3 times their natural life spans as a whole, there would be far too many to deal with. Resources would be depleted and space would become an issue for them.

I believed that I had made it clear that everything is supposed to die on a natural scale. There's simply supposed to be a natural order, and balance of things. I could care less if some animal or human died, thats beyond the point. The point being, those animals are dying for something that doesn't have anything to do with them. For example, there is a natural food chain, predators eat prey. Whether that be a cow eating grass, or a hawk eating a rabbit, or a wolf pulling down a deer.

Let's take into account that where I live, there is an over population of deer for example. This is because those deer still have places to live around here, but the predators that kept their numbers in check were driven off hundreds of years ago. To prevent these deer from jumping in front of cars, its encouraged people hunt them. Their natural predators were replace by vehicles and rifles. If the wolves and such that were their natural predators were still here however, and those wolves somehow figured out a way to live a healthy, normal life for lets say triple their average life span. We could assume they would breed 3 times their normal amount, creating a huge population of wolves, in which they would decimate the population of deer in that area. They would then be forced to move onto other areas, still breeding too much and create problems all over. They would strip the countryside of their food source and have to keep relocating.

This is exactly whats been happening with humans. Why? Humans used to have a high mortality rate. They would have a family, and chances were you'd lose a kid or two out of a handful before they reached maturity, and there was a good chance the mother died in the process too. You'd catch some disease, and chances were better it would kill you than not for the major ones. You would die before you hit 50 unless you were rich or among the nobility and often you would die trying to hunt for food as well. It kept the population down to a somewhat reasonable level.

Granted, this isn't the topic at hand, but it does relate. Is it a good idea to have all these cures in the first place, regardless of where they came from? I myself have no qualms about sitting down and having myself a nice, big, juicy hamburger. Why, well, thats part of the food chain. If the systems for meat production weren't in place that are there now, I'd be out hunting something myself. It's natural for humans to crave and eat meat. Looking on other species out there, if a lion or something loses a limb, or is sick, they die. They cannot keep up and they die. Along those lines, it may seem harsh, but it's realistic in a world with limited resources.

My step-mother will probably die within a year because of lymphoma, which is a horrible thing true. She's a wonderful person and makes my father happy and helped him straighten out his life and such. That's besides the point though, she survived the cancer once before ten years ago, and would not have if those medicines weren't around for her to treat what she had. I would dearly miss loved ones who died from such illnesses if they weren't cured, but it would solve a good number of the problems in the world today if say, those cures weren't around and 1/4 of the population of the world died off within the next 20 years from disease and old age. You would have less people to feed, less need for oil and gas, less war, less waste, less population, etc.

Regarding using rapists, murderers, and the like for the experiments... I fully appreciate the sentiment, and at one point I said much the same thing.. but as is the case with the capital punishment debate, what if they have the wrong person? And, where does it end? I, for one, am extremly uncomfortable with state-endorsed murder and experimentiation upon human subjects...... Think NAZI Germany......

As for that, those people were prisoners and weren't given a chance, which I believe would be wrong. If someone voluntarily submitted to it though, there absolves any wrong. You can't ask a rat if it would mind you injecting it with something you just made to see if it will destroy its liver or make its heart stop. It will squeek at you and run away. A human however, can deliver a response you understand and say yes or no to your proposition. If a no is delivered, then it shouldn't be done, it's that simple.

With having the wrong person, thats ALWAYS been a problem with the legal system. The attempts to fix it aren't fool proof, and there always comes into the equation corruption in the legal system. A judge isn't a robot, it has feelings and wants too. I have an uncle as a judge and I know if I ever showed up in his court for a crime, he would be horribly nasty to me with whatever sentence I got just to see to it no one thought he was giving favors to anyone he was related to. Either way, leniancy, or going overboard, is wrong but that won't change how he acts. There's nothing there but a simple family thing, getting into vast sums of money, or powerful people, its easy to bend rules and hide things to throw someone else in jail rather than jail a rich and powerful person.

Besides, saying that it is horrible to do such experimentations on humans, as it reminds you of Nazi Germany, does that not set bells off in your head of how wrong that would be some other species? It screams of blantant injustice and favoritism to me. Granted, humans possess a brain that allows higher thinking than other species, and the ability to use this brain to create tools and such for themselves. That does not give them the right to do such things to other species without a thought, when doing such a thing to another human being is considered a most heinous crime by everyone around. Thats just like picking out a race of choice and demanding everyone outside it is free game for whatever sick and twisted games you might wish to play. If I, as a white person, said that everyone else not white should be caged and tormented, there would be no end to the trouble I would recieve for such a comment. Why should it be different for other species?

[dragon wench]

[QUOTE=Magrus]My step-mother will probably die within a year because of lymphoma, which is a horrible thing true. She's a wonderful person and makes my father happy and helped him straighten out his life and such. That's besides the point though, she survived the cancer once before ten years ago, and would not have if those medicines weren't around for her to treat what she had. I would dearly miss loved ones who died from such illnesses if they weren't cured, but it would solve a good number of the problems in the world today if say, those cures weren't around and 1/4 of the population of the world died off within the next 20 years from disease and old age. You would have less people to feed, less need for oil and gas, less war, less waste, less population, etc.[/quote]

And how would you feel if it were your biological mother or father? Or a lover? Can you honestly and baldly state that you would not seek to cure somebody extremely close to you regardless of how that cure was obtained? I don't disagree that humanity has had a less than positive impact on the globe. However, (and no personal offense intended), I think it is morally bankrupt for anyone to state (as in some of the quotes I cited in my original post) that they would be opposed to sacrificing the life of a single rat, even if there were absolute certainty that it would cure 50 people of AIDs.
At one time I had the same stance as you Magrus, but life experience, and a lot of reflection as a result, have caused me to question much of what I previously believed.

[QUOTE=Magrus]As for that, those people were prisoners and weren't given a chance, which I believe would be wrong. If someone voluntarily submitted to it though, there absolves any wrong. You can't ask a rat if it would mind you injecting it with something you just made to see if it will destroy its liver or make its heart stop. It will squeek at you and run away. A human however, can deliver a response you understand and say yes or no to your proposition. If a no is delivered, then it shouldn't be done, it's that simple.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. But how do we know with certainty that those prisoners would, in fact, be freely volunteering for such experiments? I frankly do not have so much faith in the prison system as to believe that abuses would not occur.

[QUOTE=Magrus] saying that it is horrible to do such experimentations on humans, as it reminds you of Nazi Germany, does that not set bells off in your head of how wrong that would be some other species? It screams of blantant injustice and favoritism to me. Granted, humans possess a brain that allows higher thinking than other species, and the ability to use this brain to create tools and such for themselves. That does not give them the right to do such things to other species without a thought, when doing such a thing to another human being is considered a most heinous crime by everyone around. Thats just like picking out a race of choice and demanding everyone outside it is free game for whatever sick and twisted games you might wish to play. If I, as a white person, said that everyone else not white should be caged and tormented, there would be no end to the trouble I would recieve for such a comment. Why should it be different for other species?[/QUOTE]

Indeed, and it are realities like this that cause me to wrestle with the issue. I would, ultimately like to see a time where medical research can rely entirely on computer simulation and other alternatives that do not involve animal testing, and I would like to see research dedicated to this end. In the meantime, however, what do we do?

Do we adopt the extremist and nihilistic position that we should just let everybody die off because we have screwed up the planet so badly? I can see the logic of this, and looking at it in a cold, objective light, it would be better for the planet as a whole. Yet, as much as I see that angle... I can't support it. Moreover, with the exception of militant organisations like PETA, few will endorse such a view. Thus, from a purely practical standpoint, it is an unworkable solution. Unless, of course, you are advocating armed rebellion.. but I don't think that will get you very far either.

[Magrus]

And how would you feel if it were your biological mother or father? Or a lover? Can you honestly and baldly state that you would not seek to cure somebody extremely close to you regardless of how that cure was obtained? I don't disagree that humanity has had a less than positive impact on the globe. However, (and no personal offense intended), I think it is morally bankrupt for anyone to state (as in some of the quotes I cited in my original post) that they would be opposed to sacrificing the life of a single rat, even if there were absolute certainty that it would cure 50 people of AIDs.
At one time I had the same stance as you Magrus, but life experience, and a lot of reflection as a result, have caused me to question much of what I previously believed.

I've not much care for either of my parents, what I went through because of them saw to that so thats a bad example. A lover however, I've lost one thank you, and it's an extremely horrible experience. I did the best I could to save her, and it didn't work. She's been gone for more than a year now and I'm still not over it. Regardless, I've an extremely different view on death than most so, my view on it is going to be off from the majority.
As for sacrificing one life, to save hundreds, that I have no problem with. In a situation where I would be forced to defend loved ones, well everyone coming after them would burn, and I wouldn't give a care at the consequences.

My two points were,

1. I find it highly unethical to test on creatures unable to agree to such testing.
2. The results of such testings, good or bad, cause both good and bad results.

It's my belief, that without all of such medical advances, there may very well be no cancer, or aids, or such horrible maladies. I may be wrong, I won't know as thats not the situation here, they exist and need to be dealt with and thats the reality of it. I look at it subjectively and coldly for the simple reason that, too many people put their own wants and needs above whats best for everything around them.

Agreed. But how do we know with certainty that those prisoners would, in fact, be freely volunteering for such experiments? I frankly do not have so much faith in the prison system as to believe that abuses would not occur.

That would be a problem, and I don't place any faith that such abuses wouldn't happen. Abuses occur today, and they haven't been fixed either. It would still be a step in a direction the leads to choice rather than enforced testing though. Working out the kinks in such a plan isn't something I'll bother with, simply because, who would implement it? Who's bothered so far to stop the things that occur in prison's as of now? It would take too much effort, and cost more money to fix that system, and why bother on criminals is the attitude I've seen. My aunt married a prison guard who's worked at Attica for years. I've no clue if the prison's know outside NY but it's quite famous around here and the stories he tells are quite brutal at times.

Do we adopt the extremist and nihilistic position that we should just let everybody die off because we have screwed up the planet so badly? I can see the logic of this, and looking at it in a cold, objective light, it would be better for the planet as a whole. Yet, as much as I see that angle... I can't support it. Moreover, with the exception of militant organisations like PETA, few will endorse such a view. Thus, from a purely practical standpoint, it is an unworkable solution. Unless, of course, you are advocating armed rebellion.. but I don't think that will get you very far either.

It isn't practical. Why? If you take down one system in place in our world, three or four that happen to be based off it would be criplled and our lives would shut down and chaos would reign supreme. This is all just opinions and speculations. If suddenly medical research testing on animals was abolished, people would riot because they aren't emotionally stable from seeing their loved ones die and cause havoc because of it. If inmates were used, their families would have fits over the first few people who ended up having horrible results from the testing. It would be stopped and then there would a loss of what to do. I'm simply voicing my opinion on how things should be in a natural order of things. Going back to such a thing would completely change the face of this planet as it is today, but overall, the majority of the inhabitants here would be happy.

Such a thing will NOT happen so long as it is left to humanity short of an apocolyptic danger threatening humanity and that change being the only salvation from said danger. I felt the need to voice a position that most would not take on the issue, one that IS coldly subjective and ignores the blantant favoritism of the human species in the situation. If such a thing happened more often, this world would be a better place IMHO. If had been an ongoing thing to counter the rampant abuse of this place by humanity over the past centuries, the small little changes over time might have been easier to accept rather than a complete restructuring of everything in everyones lives as would be needed today.

Back to your comment on sacrificing one life for many, well. Another take on it, yes, I agree with it. I'd have no qualms seeing to it a life was given to protect the innocent. I'm an advocate for those unable to defend themselves, plain and simple. Whether they're human or not. If my life was sacrified to better thousands of others, animals or not, who were deserving of such a thing, so be it.

I've no intention on acting upon said views, what good would it do? I'd be locked away or shot. I can't change the way things are, I just do what little I can in the small part of reality around me.

[Xandax]

I'm in the "torn" camp on this one to, as I usual am on many "difficult" subjects.

Animal testing for cosmetics I find despicable. It is only because the industries are use to putting so many various chemicals and what not into cosmetics that they don't really know how the substance would react onces combined and used.
It is not only cruel to the animals it is cruel to humanity and it is totally unneaseacry, because many such items could be remade with more natural ingredients which "unfortunally" just cost more, so apparently it is cost-effective (sheez).

As for medical usage of animal testing, then I'm mostly in favour. If we can find the cure to diseaces via testing animals, then I think testing can be justified.
I find many of the quotes in the original post to steam of a "black and white"-perspective of the world. "They are wrong, so we must do everything (wrong) to make them right". Such people rarely have considered the implications of their "crusade" (sounds familiar - huh. )
I rarely wish something bad happening to others, but I'd think a hefty does of reality upon them would be quite good, so they maybe can see that nothing is black and white (but shades of grey).
It is the same with people releasing minks from "mink farms" (don't know proper english term for it) into the wild completely messing up with the ecosystem where they are released, and most likely condeming the minks to a painful and slow death due to starvation.

[Shai Hulud]

[QUOTE=Magrus]If you wish to see the effect of said chemicals on a human, pay a human.[/QUOTE]
This isn't pay to play for scientists...

Using consentual inmates as test subjects, in theory, is a great idea. However, what nation's governmental force is so ethically sound that you trust the information they give.

I do understand the concept of testing on animals, but, when it comes to chemicals, I don't think my shampoo will clean my hair any better if its tested on Algernon.

For disease research there are countries who will process experimental techniques on humans (I will leave off any of the countries who do to keep from any offense). IMO this is probably going to become the best method of finding many different cures. Not that it is any better than any of the other methods but it will allow scientists to recieve truthful answers from people who have these alements. The ability to monitor progress and document patients recovery will be the keys to expanding research for particular cures.

[Vicsun]

[QUOTE=Shai Hulud]I do understand the concept of testing on animals, but, when it comes to chemicals, I don't think my shampoo will clean my hair any better if its tested on Algernon. [/QUOTE]It's not aobut cleaning your hair better, it's about making sure your hair stays on your head after you've used the shampoo.


[quote="Xandax]I'm in the "]
I concur with what you've said

[Moonbiter]

I concur with what you've said

Me too. It's an age thing. I was anti-everything when I was in my "hurt your parents" years, and oh boy do I ever hate thinking about those times. If a 100 billion rats die to find a cure for aids, cancer, alzheimer, diabetes, parkinsons... let them die.

Besides, the day I take a single word from PETA seriously is the day you may forcibly send me off to the funny farm.

[Vicsun]

[QUOTE=Moonbiter]Me too. It's an age thing.[/QUOTE]
I'm 17 and I think that technically classifies me as being in the anti-everything stage

sorry for the spam

[Chanak]

@DW: I'm coming into this a bit late, but it's such a good topic, I couldn't resist posting here.

Volumes of arguments can be made for and against the use of animals in medical research. When I weigh them both, I find the scale tipped in favor of using animals for medical research subjects. The fact is, we can thank control groups of animals for many advances in medical science. Certain animals share characteristics with humans. Chimpanzees are a 99% genetic match.

I don't think very highly of PETA. Their arguments are at best irrational. Judging by their public postures and stances, every single member had better be a true vegan, or they're making complete fools of themselves. (well, okay, I think they do that anyway, but that's another matter) Humans are not unnatural...we are part of the planet, and have as much right to exist as any other life-form. It's a fact that animals consume other animals...it's part of the natural cycle. It's also proven that humans are best nourished by an omnivorous diet. PETA doesn't like this. They are a hypocritical bunch to say the least...why aren't they out there hugging antelopes in order to save them from being eaten by lions on the African savannah? If an ant is a dog is a boy, then a boy is an eagle is an antelope. A lion killing an antelope is the same as a human killing a cow. This is what makes PETA a laughing stock to me.

[dragon wench]

@Chan, lol! I had the sneaking suspician I'd see you here eventually

I'm inclined to agree in terms of humans being omivorous. For a long time I was a pure ovo-lacto vegetarian. A couple of years ago I began listening to my body when I experienced steak cravings at specific times of the month. Result? Far less irritability and almost no cramps.. Also interesting, I have noticed that since I have reintroduced red meat into my diet (though I still do eat a lot of vegetarian and vegan meals) my skin is in much better shape. I have always suffered from dry skin and eczema, but I have observed that more omnivorous eating habits mean I am far less dependant on the topical cortisoids I previously needed on a daily basis.
IMO, what is really at stake here is *where* the meat comes from, if it is range and organic (or hunted) and therefore not full of antiobiotics, hormones and god knows what else, than I really do not see the consumption of flesh as a problem. Either ethically or from a health perspective. Provided it is in moderation of course

As far as PETA goes... IMO they are on the same level as certain fundamentalist religious groups. I consider them to be self rightious zealots who will stop at very little to achieve their ends.

[Xandax]

[QUOTE=Chanak]<snip> A lion killing an antelope is the same as a human killing a cow. This is what makes PETA a laughing stock to me.[/QUOTE]

Withouth sharing the PETA (or similar) viewpoints, I do thing that the main difference is that the Lion dosen't "cultivate" the antelopes, placing them in cages (and some situations/animals; treat them very poorly) untill a time they needs to be killed to be used for food.
If mankind hunted when needed and killed what he would eat then the analogy would be the same, but I hardly think it can be used for our modern days of farmed foods.

[Chanak]

@Xan: I think it does. The lion uses what it possesses to kill an antelope - burst of speed, claws, power, and fangs. Humans use what they possess to kill a cow - brains and opposable thumbs. "Kill a cow" is metaphoric here, of course.

If the lion possessed more brainpower, it would probably set up game preserves, tax cheetas and leopards, and declare war on hyenas.

A human's creativity, logical prowess, and penchant for tools is as natural as a lion's anatomical weaponry. Certainly, given the chance, the lion would kill as many antelopes as it could. However, running one down is a chore and the big cat is not always successful. While humans are animals, they have something no other animal possesses (in the same measure, anyway). Farming is the natural evolution of picking berries and digging for roots in the woods. I personally see no fundamental difference between a lion hunting and a human farming.

EDIT: I should point out that I agree with both you and DW concerning the treatment, housing, and diet of livestock. Livestock (especially chickens) that are permitted to live a lifestyle as close to what they did prior to being domesticated will invariably be a healthier animal. They naturally pursue a balanced diet and do very well without the soup of antibiotics and hormones pumped into them. I kept a gaggle of chickens while I lived in the countryside of Tennessee. I let them range freely during the day, and housed them at night in a portable roosting pen I constructed especially for them. The major purpose of the roosting pen was to keep them safe from nocturnal predators such as possums and skunks. If you are familiar with chickens at all, you will know that they are the most vulnerable when they roost at night. The secondary purpose was to provide the hens with an attractive place to lay their eggs (I built several nesting boxes inside, and stuffed them with dried grass and hay, which they love).

I had the lead chef of a 4-star Memphis restuarant hounding me for my hens' eggs. The shells were firm, the yolks dark and the whites were thick. Comparing one of my chickens' eggs to something you buy in a store was startling: the store-bought egg was watery and fragile, while mine were the exact opposite. All my chickens ate was what was available in cow pastures, the forest, and cracked corn (just corn, nothing else added) I would buy in 50 pound bags from the local feed store. I used the cracked corn to encourage them to enter their roosting pen at night. They drank water from my well, which was straight out of the ground about 120 feet below. I had 14 hens and 2 roosters, and in a 5 year period I only lost one to predation, and 2 to old age (I let the old hens live despite the fact they hardly layed any eggs at all. I let them live because I noticed that they were meaner than the roosters were, and would chase off cats and even smaller dogs that came too close ).