Animal rights

COWS CAN BE POTTY TRAINED – SERIOUSLY

A really great article popped up on my feed by David Grimm in Science magazine.  He stated that research has been done which shows cows can be potty trained, just like many other animals.  My first thought was, of course, “Cool, now I can have a house cow!” but there is a deeper moral implication to this.  Industrial farming locks animals up in tiny cages because its easier on the humans to sluice down a waste trough than to clean up after free ranging animals.  The dairies that tried to give their cows more freedom had cow droppings every where – inside the barns as well as out in the barn yards.  So utilitarian ethics reduced cows to bio-machines that produced milk and dairies became giant warehouses for cows.

The experiment cited said 16 calves were led down a corridor to a specific area technically called the cow commode.  Grimm said the use name was the Moo Loo.  The calves were given a diuretic so the team could control the visits.  As soon as a calf peed, it was given a treat by the researcher.  The team reported that 10 of the calves very quickly learned the desired behavior, and looked to the researcher immediately after they peed, some of them mid-stream.  This also has the moral implication that cows are aware of their behavior.  According to Grimm, the research team said cows have the cognitive ability of at least a human two year old.  It took only 10 visits or less for each calf to use the Moo Loo properly.

The environmental impact could be staggering.  Cow urine creates ammonia, which can transform into the highly toxic nitrous oxide.  Jan Langbein, co-author of the study, said that given that there are hundreds of millions of dairy cows in the world, “studies have shown that capturing 80% of cow urine would lead to a 56% reduction in ammonia emissions.”

So rather than fear mongering about green house emissions and how toxic cows are, maybe we should just use the simple solution and teach them how to use a Moo Loo.

RECOMMENDED READING:

Death and Dying

CULTURE OF DEATH – WHY MAKE LIFE BETTER FOR OTHERS WHEN DEATH IS SO MUCH EASIER

We live in a sick and twisted society where narcissism is rewarded and hard work and integrity are punished.  We no longer have community values, we have “What’s in it for me” values. As for the “Why should I care” question, this is what happens when the people who are the biggest weasels make it to the top and you become inconvenient to their goals.  The historic old-age pension plan of community life – the young are cared for by parents who are then cared for by their children when they grow old – does not exist as a societal norm in the 21st century. No, when you are old and inconvenient, we are not going to take our resources and help your life be better, we are simply going to make death the easiest choice. And package our greed and laziness in such a way that it doesn’t bother our conscience and makes you the bad guy if you object to be told to go die because you need help.

 

RECOMMENDED READING:

“Suicide Machine” That Lets You Experience Death Now Ready for the Public to Try

Animal rights

REPOST: “A DELICIOUS HISTORY OF MEATLESS MEAT”

I really enjoyed this.

A Delicious History of “Meatless Meat”

Looking for some comments on what people think about the new vat-grown meat.  Clean language and consideration necessary for commenting.  Have we reached the age of the Jetsons?  Most of us are ok with technology vs nature on the issue of robo pets but what happens when its something we eat?

 

Also under Animal Rights:

The Rat Race is On!  Rats Learn to Drive!

Dr. José Baselga, the chief medical officer at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, in 2015.
Foundations for Ethics

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Funding for research should come from a disinterested party.  This isn’t the reality we live in.  Most funding comes from large corporations who want validation for their existing products or expect a new product to be the result of the research.  Funding thus creates an inherent bias that is the antithesis of scientific research.  The reality of such funding has created new terminology within the field such as “corporate research” but the media has not adopted it.  The media gives the public heavily biased information that has the integrity of science glossed over it.  And dangerously, that conflict of interest bias is creeping into peer reviewed journals.

A recent CBS report stated: 
“One of the world’s top breast cancer doctors failed to disclose millions of dollars in payments from drug and health care companies in recent years, omitting his financial ties from dozens of research articles in prestigious publications like The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet.” (1)   

In this case, conflict of interest resulted misconduct such as: 
“At a conference this year and before analysts in 2017, he put a positive spin on the results of two Roche-sponsored clinical trials that many others considered disappointments, without disclosing his relationship to the company. Since 2014, he has received more than $3 million from Roche in consulting fees and for his stake in a company it acquired.” (2)

STRICTER CONFLICT REGULATIONS

While such corporate sponsorship has undoubtedly produced results beneficial to the public good, such a relationship puts a serious strain on the integrity of academic research.  The academy needs to enforce stricter rules mandating full disclosure of conflict of interest, including amounts individuals and organizations are paid.  And perhaps a limit on how much a corporation can pay to influence research.  One suggestion is the creation of a general corporate tax.  The money would go into a pool fund for research that is then distributed by the government.  This solution would raise its own problems.

Not all paid research produces untrustworthy results.  But the general public has a right to question whether these medicines and protocols are in our best interest.  Is research just producing the best financial results for big corporations?  Has a more efficient, less profitable solution been deliberately overlooked?  One has to suspect it may be if the researcher is being paid millions of dollars for his results.  Ergo, we need full disclosure.  Our lives may depend on it.

(1)(2) CBS News report

human life versus money on a scale
Foundations for Ethics

INTRINSIC VALUE

The meaning of life is at the heart of what ethics deals with.  Are we random mutations that have no plan or purpose for our existence?  Are we unique creations of a kind and loving God imbued with intrinsic value?  We will come up with very different answers to ethical problems depending on our position on a sliding scale between these two extremes.  Most religions fall somewhere closer to the latter. Most utilitarian approaches fall closer to the former.  While many people today want to live in a secular society, history has shown that choosing a position of intrinsic value is better for the people.

An example of how this plays out is that most Western countries have a high government standard regulating human testing of new products and medicine.  Western countries are historically high on the intrinsic value score.  So many researchers are turning to Third World countries that are low on the intrinsic value score.  There may be little or no government regulation.  They then perform research that many people would consider unethical.  There is often no informed consent.  Researchers can lie to subjects and mislead them about consequences and long term care.  Corporations justify such research by claiming it is for the greater good.  The quicker they develop their product, the more people they can help.  Humanity is taken as a conglomerate whole rather than individuals who have rights that should not be violated.

WHY SPEAK UP?

High intrinsic value scores grant the individual autonomy and informed consent.  Low intrinsic value scores use Utilitarian ethics and say that the primary principle is the most good for the most people.  While Utilitarian ethics sound good on the surface, the point is to get below the surface.  Utilitarian ethics can make a strong case for slavery as more people benefit than are abused.  Therefore, it is critical that while we embrace a secular society to be inclusive of all races and religions, we still maintain that human beings possess a fundamental dignity that governments and corporations cannot violate.

Finally, Utilitarian ethics seem to be chosen primarily by privileged individuals at the top getting the most good. Those of us in the middle need to speak up and add our voices  to the small group of people paying the price.  Circumstances can change and we might find ourselves in the smaller group one day.  Therefore, enlightened self interest insists on the ethics of bioethics and the intrinsic God-given value of life.