By PATRICK COURREGES
Acadiana bureau
LAFAYETTE -- An animal-rights group is calling for banning
or restricting the chaining of dogs here.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, known for attention-grabbing ads
and protests, has sent letters to the Lafayette City-Parish Council calling for
action, to either ban chaining or set a limit on how many hours a dog can be
chained in a day.
The letters, and a PETA billboard on the subject expected to be erected by
the end of the month, come in response to a late-December discovery of 11 dogs
-- seven dead and the remainder malnourished -- in a Lafayette man's yard.
Many of the dogs, both alive and dead, were chained.
In the letters, PETA makes its case on two fronts: chaining the animals is
cruel and doing so creates a public safety hazard because chained dogs get more
aggressive, and therefore more dangerous if they break loose.
Since dogs are social animals that want room to roam, keeping them chained up
by themselves can make them more likely to attack people, said Daniel Paden, an
animal-cruelty caseworker with PETA.
"They're going to become territorial and aggressive over the few feces-filled
square feet they are allotted in life," he said.
Paden said children are especially vulnerable to attacks from such animals
when they break free, or when a child wanders into a chained dog's yard.
Animal-control officials agree with PETA on the point that dogs shouldn't be
kept on short chains, but not necessarily on the public-safety point.
Troy Venable, acting director of Lafayette's Roicy Duhon Animal Center, said
he hasn't seen that chained dogs are more dangerous when they break free.
He said what he and his officers have found with chained dogs is that they
are greater flight risks when freed.
"A lot of times, when we get them off the chain, they're running," Venable
said. "When they see freedom, they're gone."
Lafayette has no rules on the length of chains used for dogs or how long
owners can chain their dogs.
In East Baton Rouge Parish, dog owners have guidelines for chaining.
For most of East Baton Rouge Parish, the rule is the chain must be at least
five times the length of the dog, measured from nose to the end of the tail,
said Hilton Cole, East Baton Rouge Parish Animal Control Center director.
He said Baker, part of his jurisdiction, recently passed a rule limiting dog
owners to one hour a day of keeping animals chained.
"That's very profound, very powerful," Coles said.
Cole said that was in response to complaints about people keeping dogs for
fighting, a case in which the dogs are often kept chained.
"It's kind of sad, in my opinion, that dogs should be chained at all," he
said.
"Anyone who loves dogs and anyone who understands dogs knows the dog is a
companion animal, and generally a running animal."
He said while he would like to see dog-chaining banned, he understands the
pinch some people might feel who love dogs, but can't afford to build a fence.
Cole said he agrees with the statements that chained dogs are likely to be
more aggressive.
The issue is not quite so simple as PETA makes it out to be, said Bonnie
Beaver, an animal behaviorist and president of the American Veterinary Medical
Association.
"That's one of the twisted truths," she said. "Part of it is accurate and
part of it is not."
Beaver is a professor at the department of small animal medicine and surgery
at Texas A&M University.
Dogs on short chains can be more aggressive in defending the smaller amount
of space they have, Beaver said.
"Smaller territories lead to a heightened defense of the territory," she
said.
That's not the whole picture, though, Beaver said.
The other part is more complex, having to do with the general nature of the
breed of dog, whether it is used to dealing with people and whether its
experiences with people have been pleasant, she said.
In many situations where people keep dogs chained, the dogs haven't had a lot
of good experiences with many people, Beaver said.
Simply banning or restricting chains is not the answer; treating dogs well
is, she said.
Source: http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/011305/new_dogs001.shtml
And How About Twisted
Minds?
PETA's claws come out and slash at city over dead
cat
Group says not enough was done to rescue feline stuck up a
tree
Posted: Jan. 12, 2005
Animal control officers in Milwaukee County may round up some 13,500 stray
pets and problem critters a year, but it is one dead cat that has raised the
hackles of the national office of People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals.
The group sent a letter Wednesday to Mayor Tom Barrett calling for a
"mandatory animal control protocol for rescuing stray cats and dogs" - something
already in place.
It also issued a news release outlining the "tragic death" of a cat stranded
in a tree. The cat in question, which apparently died nameless on Friday, had
been stranded in a tree in a north side auto salvage yard for at least four
days.
According to PETA, "frantic calls" to the Milwaukee Area Domestic Animal
Control Commission and other agencies "were met with indifference and inaction."
And, before PETA could arrange to rescue the animal itself, "all that remained
of the cat was a pool of blood near the tree."
But Len Selkurt, executive director of the animal control agency, said its
officers responded only to find the cat could not be reached. The salvage yard
was fenced in and two guard dogs were patrolling the ground inside. What's more,
several power lines were in the area.
"There was no way of getting to the animal," Selkurt said. "You can't just go
climb up into the tree, in the winter and in the snow, risking people's life and
limbs."
Selkurt said the officer who went to the scene couldn't get the guard dogs
taken inside or chained up inside at the salvage yard on W. Mill Road. PETA,
though, maintains a salvage yard employee also tried to get the cat down.
"The key is, people need to pull the dogs in," said Selkurt. "If the animal
climbed up the tree, it can climb down it."
<snip>
Source: http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/jan05/292358.asp
Fishing for complements
By Richard Donkin
There is
strand of opinion in angling that applies the domino theory to the campaign for
animal rights. Once the fox hunting packs and their followers have been
disbanded in the UK, the theory goes, the shooters will be next on the list and,
when the last grouse has hit the heather, the campaigners will turn to the
rivers.
<snip>
Source: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a461a3ec-59b7-11d9-ba09-00000e2511c8.html
Does This Give New Meaning
To Twisted Truths?
Or
The New Religion of
Transhumanism?
Or
Animal Rights Has A
Clincher?
Autotrophs: new kind of humans appears who neither drink
nor eat |
| 01/13/2005
18:20 |
|
It is not ruled
out that they will replace us at a new evolution
stage
People all around the world
were storming supermarkets and grocery stores on Christmas and New Year's
Eve. There was a small group of people, though, who did not even think
about eating anything for Christmas. In fact, they do not think about food
at all. Such people call themselves autothrophs - they do not eat at all.
The term designates an organism that makes its own food. Autotrophs can go
on hunger strikes for years and even decades.
|
Irina Novozhilova, the
president of the center for protection of animals' rights, expressed
her opinion about phenomenal individuals, who can live without food
and water.
"The idea to turn down
food as it is appeared long ago. Russian philosophers, particularly
Vernadsky, were thinking about a possibility for a human being to
live on something non-material. Vernadsky was certain that man is an
energetic creature that can nourish himself from the energy of
space. Some people can prove it today that it is possible to live a
normal life without physical food.
"All living beings on our
planet can be divided into two categories - autotrophs and
heterotrophs. The majority of plants constitute the first category -
they receive energy from non-organic substances - sunshine or air -
and process it during the photosynthesis. Humans and animals make
the second category: they nourish themselves with other living
beings. Therefore, the people, who can live on the solar and space
power, are closer to plants than to other humans. There is a group
of autotrophs in Moscow. They gather in the Konstantin Vasiliev
Museum, where they share experience with others. If a woman
breastfeeds her child until it turns seven years old, for example, a
child will be able to become an autotroph already by eight - simply
and painlessly. A mother neither drinks nor eats, but she has enough
milk to feed the baby. There are such women in Moscow. I often
interact with people, who reject food completely. At first they
become vegans - they exclude all products of animalistic origin from
their menu in other words. After that they gradually turn down the
vegetal food too. When people stop eating physical food, they also
stop consuming any kind of liquid. They drink nothing.
"I would not say that
scanty nourishment exerts a negative influence on their state of
health. They are rather vigorous and cheerful people. However, I
would like to warn everyone that it is impossible to quit drinking
water and eating food in a moment. It should be done slowly, step by
step, with short-term temporary starvation. A lethal outcome would
be inevitable otherwise. A person will be killed either with
starvation or their own wastes. The 70-year-old Indian yogi Pralad
Djani is one of the most renowned contemporary autotrophs. This man
has not been eating or drinking anything for 62 years, since the age
of six. Indian doctors examined and tested him: they placed the man
in a special room, outfitted the room with surveillance cameras and
sealed the bathroom. As it turned out, Pralad Djani's body was
functioning absolutely normally. The body was producing urine,
although it was being absorbed into the urinary bladder. The yogi
said that he was receiving water from air. He also said that there
was a tiny hole in the palate, from which drops of "heavenly" water
penetrated into his mouth.
"Russia's most famous
autotroph's name is Zinaida Baranova. The old lady from the city of
Krasnodar is 67 years old. She was approaching her new existence
very slowly. At first she gave up meat, then she turned vegetables
down. She has been living without food and water for 4.5 years
already. Scientists of the Bauman Institute examined her organism
and were very surprised to find out that the woman's biological age
corresponded to 20 years. Professor Spiridonov came to conclusion
that the pensioner was a perfectly healthy lady; all her systems and
organs, except for the stomach, were functioning normally. Indeed,
she is a very energetic and bubbly person. She got rid of all
diseases, even chronic ones. She said, however, that it was rather
hard for her to get used to the new lifestyle. She was suffering
from cramps, exhaustion, dry mouth, etc. There were moments, when
she thought she was dying. The woman's health improved in 1.5
months.
"Doctors say that
autotrophs make a fundamentally new type of self-sufficient human
beings. It is not ruled out that they will replace us at a new
evolution stage. Modern science has already confirmed the ability of
a human being to maintain itself. Dietitians were recently saying
that the B12 vitamin was naturally contained only in animal foods.
Vegans, therefore, were supposed to die, since they could not
receive the vitamin. However, doctors found out that the
concentration of the B12 vitamin was fine with vegans. The situation
became clear, when scientists discovered the synthesis process in
the intestines. It became known that human beings could live on
their own microflora. Medics have already discovered that the human
intestines produce microorganisms that can synthesize amino
acids." |
Read the original in Russian: (Translated by: Dmitry Sudakov)
Pravda.Ru |
|
Related
links:
Megapolist
Express
|
Source: http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/14815_autotroph.html |
An Epistle for the New Religion of
Transhumanism
James Hughes is a transhumanist
evangelist, says Wesley J. Smith, and Citizen Cyborg urges followers to be true
to their faith while revealing its nihilistic shortcomings
By Wesley J. Smith
Special to Betterhumans
1/12/2005 12:58 PM
James Hughes may be a bioethicist and a professor of health policy at
Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, but his real calling is as an
evangelist for the nascent materialist quasi-religion of transhumanism. In this
sense, Hughes' first book,
Citizen
Cyborg, is not merely a polemic; it is an epistle urging transhumanists
to remain true to the tenets of their faith.
Transhumanists, Hughes
tells us, plan to break the constraining chains of natural human existence
through various genetic, computer and machine "enhancements." But the underlying
theme that permeates Hughes' fervent advocacy is faith in science as the true
savior of humankind. Indeed, his belief in our capacity to exert technological
mastery over life is so wholehearted, he asserts that perhaps within this
century, transhumanist tinkering will free us from most of the ravages of
disease, disability and aging, make up for any inborn lack of talent or athletic
ability, perhaps even lead to the defeat of death itself. Not only that, but
eventually the transhumanized will become so superior to the merely human that
some will evolve themselves into a super race of "posthumans."
And here's where transhumanism becomes a quasi-religion. The reality of human
suffering and our knowledge that we are born to die, can cast a dark shadow over
even our happiest hours. Historically, humans have sought succor—some would say
escape—in religious teachings that posit a purpose behind it all and the hope of
eventual eternal transcendence.
But Hughes and most of his fellow transhumanists, being good materialists,
believe that what you see is all you get. Moreover, transhumanism is nihilistic
at its core, holding that being merely human is wholly inadequate to attaining a
truly fulfilled and happy life. For transhumanists, humans aren't smart enough,
strong enough, pretty enough or healthy enough for life to really be worth
living. Besides, it is all over so soon. To put it crassly, life sucks and then
you die.
Defeat the infidels!
But wait! Salvation is nigh! We may have rejected that old time religion, but
the faith of transhumanism still offers us the eschatological hope of a new
promised land. Through applied science, genetic engineering, biotech, nanotech,
cybertech and every other kind of tech, we can eliminate suffering, enhance our
inadequate capacities, become self-designing super beings with creative powers
akin to gods, perhaps even attain immortality itself. And we don't even have to
pray.
But first, we must defeat the infidels! As with many high priests before him,
Hughes spends almost as much time castigating unbelievers who threaten the holy
project—the dreaded "bioLuddites"—as he does in promoting his own beliefs. And
in the process he undercuts his arguments badly by engaging in rank caricature
and hyperbole. Rather than grapple seriously with the sober and reasoned
arguments of his philosophical opponents, Hughes instead casts verbal stones.
Thus, early on he asserts that bioLuddites "have given up on the idea of
progress guided by reason," and that by opposing transhumanism, they are
"rejecting liberal democracy, science and modernity."
Nonsense. Public intellectuals such as Leon Kass, the chairman of the US
President's Council on Bioethics who Hughes makes a special point of repeatedly
castigating, are not anti-science, destroyers of progress or lacking in reason.
Indeed, if anything, they have an acute understanding of human nature, the
dangers inherent in utopian projects—which transhumanism unquestionably is—as
well as the historical evils caused by movements that discarded the intrinsic
worth of all human life in search of a corporeal New Jerusalem.
The dangers of redefining people
Indeed, the dogma of transhumanism opens the door to the worst forms of
oppression—although let me be clear that this is not Hughes' intent.
First, there is personhood theory, which holds that being human is not
morally relevant per se. Rather, what matters is whether an organism (or
machine) possesses sufficient cognition, say being self-aware, to be deemed a
"person." But once we create subjective criteria for measuring the moral worth
of people, once we say that some humans are persons and some are something less,
the very concept of universal human rights is lost because moral value becomes a
matter of who has the power to decide who matters more and who matters less—or
not at all. Indeed, Hughes is so intent on destroying human exceptionalism in
order to promote transhumanism that he wants to enhance animals genetically so
that they can verbally communicate and, he thinks, thereby prove that the
measurement of moral worth should not be human centric.
Illustrating the danger of personhood theory—and the stakes in the personhood
debate—Hughes denigrates human embryos, fetuses, presumably infants who are,
after all, not "self-aware" and those with profound cognitive disabilities to
the status of "property" or "sentient property." Just as African-American slaves
were dehumanized to justify their oppression, Hughes' invidious categories strip
these human lives from any and all rights, except perhaps to the "right not to
suffer unnecessarily."
Since babies are not persons under Hughes' self-aware personhood standard,
this would presumably include permission for infanticide. (Adding heft to this
concern, his favorite philosophers, oft referenced in Citizen Cyborg,
appear to be infanticide proponents Peter Singer and Jonathan Glover.) This
human non-person killing license could also be coupled with harvesting of cells
or organs and/or non-therapeutic experimentation—ideas already proposed by many
bioethicists—simply to benefit "persons." If one believes that human life
matters simply because it is human, these suggestions are clearly beyond the
pale. But if one adheres to personhood theory, reducing the status of some human
lives into mere natural resources makes logical sense.
"It's all about me"
Another dogma of transhumanism could be summarized with the phrase, "It's all
about me." As I read and pondered what Hughes proposes, I was struck by the
sheer solipsism of it all. Transumanism is obsessed with me-me, I-I. If being
part of a group consciousness rings my bell, I should be able to do it. If I
want to download myself into a computer, so be it. Perhaps I could become part
of a "Borg" collective, as imagined by the writers of Star Trek. Indeed,
in transhumanistic belief, my individual yearnings over what I want my body to
be, are elevated to the near-absolute right to make it so, even if that means my
redesign will pass down the generations.
In this regard, Hughes asserts that the transhumanizing license should also
include the right to absolutely control the genetic makeup of our children. But
that would not free them to be what they wanted to be: It would pre-select and
fabricate them to be driven by the power of biology to become what we wanted.
And if transhumanizing parents would be individually fulfilled by creating, say,
a disabled child, well that's the cost of "choice"—although Hughes suggests that
such parents pay to fabricate anti-enhanced children themselves.
Hughes is clearly an intelligent man as well as a very talented writer, and I
have no doubt that Citizen Cyborg will be consumed whole by committed
transhumanists. But I doubt whether the book will have much of a proselytizing
impact. Hughes is far too facile in his faith in the power of technology to
overcome all difficulties. (For example, he suggests that genetically designed
children will simply be able to turn on and off their genes if they don't like
the transhumanized choices made by their parents.) His assumption that greater
intelligence would ipso facto lead to happier lives is misguided. (Some of the
happiest people I have ever met were developmentally disabled. Some of the
unhappiest were intellectuals.) His assurance that the dark eugenic heart of
transhumanism would result in more freedom rather than coercion and oppression
is naïve. (Indeed, in a telling section, he suggests that "we are obliged not
only to choose children without disabilities, but also to create enhanced
children, so long as the enhancements are safe and available." Would such a duty
require parents of Down's children to abort or that disabled babies be killed if
they can't be cured?) His prescription of "democratic transhumanism," in which a
future world government would pay everyone on the planet to genetically redesign
themselves and their progeny to assure equal access to posthumanity, seems
utterly ludicrous. (We do, after all, live in a world where war never ceases and
millions of children die from malnutrition, measles, and malaria.)
As for wisdom: I didn't find much in Citizen Cyborg. For that
important human virtue, I'll take Leon Kass.
Award winning author Wesley J. Smith, is a senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute and a special consultant for the Center for Bioethics and Culture. He
is an international lecturer and in 2004 was named one of America's foremost
experts in bioengineering by the National Journal. His Website is www.wesleyjsmith.com.
Source: http://www.betterhumans.com/Features/Reviews/Book_Reviews/Nonfiction_Reviews/review.aspx?articleID=2005-01-12-2
Courtesy: Jim D.
