The Couch

Of Animal Rights?

Comments on Of Animal Rights?

cripes
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2009
Location: the SE portion of a state in the NE part of the US

Total Topics: 18
Total Comments: 157
cripes
#26 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/13/11 - 8:48 PM:

Monk2400 wrote:




What is 'being uncovered these days' by whom that validates such a supposition?
It may come as a surprise, but the genetic ingredients that assemble you are strikingly similar to those that assemble a fly. So why do you and a fly look so different as adults? The answer lies in where, how, and for how long those ingredients "turn on" during your embryonic development. The intricacies of this early stage of life are now being revealed thanks to the new field of "evo devo," short for evolutionary developmental biology. In this interview, Harvard developmental biologist Cliff Tabin talks about why evo devo is so fascinating, how he keeps up in a dizzyingly advancing field, and how he, like most biologists, was totally blindsided by the discovery that all animals share the same basic toolkit of body-building genes.
Source: www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolu...olution/what-evo-devo.html

Another central idea is that some gene products function as switches whereas others act as diffusible signals. Genes specify proteins, some of which act as structural components of cells and others as enzymes that regulate various biochemical pathways within an organism. Most biologists working within the modern synthesis assumed that an organism is a straightforward reflection of its component genes. The modification of existing, or evolution of new, biochemical pathways (and, ultimately, the evolution of new species of organisms) depended on specific genetic mutations. In 1961, however, Jacques Monod, Jean-Pierre Changeux and Fran├žois Jacob discovered within the bacterium Escherichia coli a gene that functioned only when "switched on" by an environmental stimulus.[7] Later, scientists discovered specific genes in animals, including a subgroup of the genes which contain the homeobox DNA motif, called Hox genes, that act as switches for other genes, and could be induced by other gene products, morphogens, that act analogously to the external stimuli in bacteria. These discoveries drew biologists' attention to the fact that genes can be selectively turned on and off, rather than being always active, and that highly disparate organisms (for example, fruit flies and human beings) may use the same genes for embryogenesis (e.g., the genes of the "developmental-genetic toolkit", see below), just regulating them differently.

Similarly, organismal form can be influenced by mutations in promoter regions of genes, those DNA sequences at which the products of some genes bind to and control the activity of the same or other genes, not only protein-specifying sequences. In addition to providing new support for Darwin's assertion that all organisms are descended from a common ancestor, this finding suggested that the crucial distinction between different species (even different orders or phyla) may be due less to differences in their content of gene products than to differences in spatial and temporal expression of conserved genes. The implication that large evolutionary changes in body morphology are associated with changes in gene regulation, rather than the evolution of new genes, suggested that the action of natural selection on promoters responsive to Hox and other "switch" genes may play a major role in evolution.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolu...nary_developmental_biology


Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#27 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/13/11 - 9:22 PM:

It's amazing how something like listening to the directions of a human can be bred into an animal.

Dogs are incredible animals.
cripes
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2009
Location: the SE portion of a state in the NE part of the US

Total Topics: 18
Total Comments: 157
cripes
#28 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/13/11 - 9:36 PM:

Zenoplata wrote:
It's amazing how something like listening to the directions of a human can be bred into an animal.

Dogs are incredible animals.
May I ask: What's the biological difference between a dog and, say, a cow?
cripes
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2009
Location: the SE portion of a state in the NE part of the US

Total Topics: 18
Total Comments: 157
cripes
#29 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/13/11 - 10:00 PM:

Monk2400 wrote:


Unnatural selection at work. It's called 'good breeding'.

8)
That's interesting! I'd be appreciative if you could point me to some credible science that backs up the notion that voice commands have been bred into dogs.


Edited by cripes on 03/13/11 - 11:56 PM
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#30 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/13/11 - 10:25 PM:

cripes wrote:
May I ask: What's the biological difference between a dog and, say, a cow?


You might have better luck asking a biologist.

I got my dog knowledge from Animal Planet and Discovery.
cripes
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2009
Location: the SE portion of a state in the NE part of the US

Total Topics: 18
Total Comments: 157
cripes
#31 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/13/11 - 10:53 PM:

Zenoplata wrote:


You might have better luck asking a biologist.

I got my dog knowledge from Animal Planet and Discovery.
I'll assume you barbecue both then? smiling face
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#32 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/13/11 - 11:07 PM:

hi cripes, good to see you hug

cripes wrote:
I'll assume you barbecue both then? smiling face

why would you assume this, even if joking? i don't get it confused
cripes
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2009
Location: the SE portion of a state in the NE part of the US

Total Topics: 18
Total Comments: 157
cripes
#33 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/13/11 - 11:13 PM:

libertygrl wrote:
i like eating meat as well.

the question of whether animals can be "murdered" is an interesting one. it relates to a discussion we had some years back about whether animals could be considered "people".

if they are to be considered people, and if it were to be decided that killing them is indeed "murder", or at the very least, morally wrong, what about the problem of animals killing other animals? or torturing them, as i have seen cats do with their prey?

i like animals - i think they should be treated as humanely as possible, meaning i don't think they should be forced to suffer, but i agree with henry in that i don't find anything wrong with killing them for food. and there are animals that wouldn't mind killing me for food either, and i don't really judge them for that.

KN, i'm curious, when you say you support hunting, do you mean for food? or for sport?

So this argument is: we're smarter and more worthy of life (since we're human), but when it comes to justifying killing we're only following the lead of other animal species?

Do you see the contradiction in that?


libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#34 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/13/11 - 11:21 PM:

cripes wrote:
So this argument is: we're smarter and more worthy of life (since we're human), but when it comes to justifying killing we're only following the lead of other animal species?

i never said we were following the lead of other animal species. also, you didn't answer my question.
cripes
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2009
Location: the SE portion of a state in the NE part of the US

Total Topics: 18
Total Comments: 157
cripes
#35 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/13/11 - 11:21 PM:

libertygrl wrote:
hi cripes, good to see you hug


why would you assume this, even if joking? i don't get it confused
Well, if both are equal biologically, why favor one above the other? It's a double standard.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#36 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/13/11 - 11:22 PM:

cripes wrote:
Well, if both are equal biologically, why favor one above the other? It's a double standard.

ah, i see. thank you. although he didn't say they were equal biologically, did he?
cripes
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2009
Location: the SE portion of a state in the NE part of the US

Total Topics: 18
Total Comments: 157
cripes
#37 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/13/11 - 11:34 PM:

libertygrl wrote:

i never said we were following the lead of other animal species. also, you didn't answer my question.
I didn't see what you typed as 'your' argument, I viewed it as an argument you knew of.

if they are to be considered people, and if it were to be decided that killing them is indeed "murder", or at the very least, morally wrong, what about the problem of animals killing other animals? or torturing them, as i have seen cats do with their prey?
To be considered 'people' need not be viewed as the one reason to spare life. Other animal species killing or torturing is not a problem unless we are searching for justification for some disagreeable behavior of our own.

It's nice to see you as well. You were missed.

cripes
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2009
Location: the SE portion of a state in the NE part of the US

Total Topics: 18
Total Comments: 157
cripes
#38 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/13/11 - 11:43 PM:

libertygrl wrote:

ah, i see. thank you. although he didn't say they were equal biologically, did he?
No he didn't - he said he didn't know. That suggests to me they are presumed equal (innocent until proven guilty, right?), so why then cook one and not the other - or eat neither?
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#39 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/14/11 - 12:18 AM:

cripes wrote:
It's nice to see you as well. You were missed.

thank you!

cripes wrote:
No he didn't - he said he didn't know. That suggests to me they are presumed equal (innocent until proven guilty, right?), so why then cook one and not the other - or eat neither?

i don't see how "innocent until proven guilty" is analogous to "presumed equal if ignorant of biological differences". more to the point, if i had asked you, "cripes, how are an amoeba and a cancer cell biologically different?" and your answer was "i don't know" - you would presume them to be biologically identical? i certainly wouldn't.

cripes wrote:
I didn't see what you typed as 'your' argument, I viewed it as an argument you knew of.

i'm having trouble following what you mean.

cripes wrote:
So this argument is: we're smarter and more worthy of life (since we're human), but when it comes to justifying killing we're only following the lead of other animal species?

Do you see the contradiction in that?

yes, if that was someone's argument, i could see how it wouldn't make much sense. that's not my point of view, though.
cripes
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2009
Location: the SE portion of a state in the NE part of the US

Total Topics: 18
Total Comments: 157
cripes
#40 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/14/11 - 12:42 AM:

libertygrl wrote:

i don't see how "innocent until proven guilty" is analogous to "presumed equal if ignorant of biological differences". more to the point, if i had asked you, "cripes, how are an amoeba and a cancer cell biologically different?" and your answer was "i don't know" - you would presume them to be biologically identical? i certainly wouldn't.
I would not be feeding on one and keeping the other as a pet unless I had some knowledge - Would you? We are talking about animals, are we not? I doubt this is a problem regarding knowledge as much as it is a defensive posture.


libertygrl wrote:
yes, if that was someone's argument, i could see how it wouldn't make much sense. that's not my point of view, though.
I see! Perhaps you can clarify it?
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#41 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/14/11 - 1:07 AM:

cripes wrote:
I would not be feeding on one and keeping the other as a pet unless I had some knowledge - Would you? We are talking about animals, are we not? I doubt this is a problem regarding knowledge as much as it is a defensive posture.

perhaps your question could be rephrased like this:

"What is the difference between a cow and a dog, such that someone would be okay with eating one and not the other?"

that is an interesting question. i would assume that it's because cows taste better than dogs?

cripes wrote:
I see! Perhaps you can clarify it?

clarify my point of view? which part is not clear?
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#42 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/14/11 - 1:27 AM:

cripes wrote:

It may come as a surprise, but the genetic ingredients that assemble you are strikingly similar to those that assemble a fly.



It may come as a surprise, but that entire post is irrelevant.

There is no amount of science that can demonstrate that 'I' 'could have been' something other than what 'I' am.

The concept is ludicrous and definitely not scientific in the least. Genetic similarities of all known lifeforms has nothing to do with it. The implication of your statement is what I take issue with. Unless you are arguing for the scientific basis of transmigration of the soul. I'd love to see the peer-reviewed research on that, lol.

8)
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#43 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/14/11 - 1:31 AM:

The difference between helium and hydrogen is one electron. But I wouldn't go filling up your kids's birthday balloons with hydrogen, lol.

8)
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#44 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/14/11 - 1:32 AM:

Also, dogs are eaten in many places, and cows are not in some. The difference is cultural.

8)
cripes
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2009
Location: the SE portion of a state in the NE part of the US

Total Topics: 18
Total Comments: 157
cripes
#45 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/14/11 - 3:03 AM:

Until we learn to respect the lives of all other species which possess a brain and who are not a threat to our survival, we have little basis to consider ourselves compassionate.

We're capable of creating plenty of healthy food products which can sustain us without this torturous way we manage currently. It's not necessary to control breeding of other animals in order for them to live a horrible existence and die an even worse death only to satisfy our pallet and circulate money.

I'd have no problem as a member of the dominant species prohibiting the reproduction of these animals, including pets, to extinction rather than continue as we are.

Look at your dog or cat or bird or hamster and understand that just like you they are beings also, and then understand that cows and ducks and chickens and pigs are beings just like those pets and you.

Our compassion needs to extend beyond our own selfish desires to be true.

Edited by cripes on 03/14/11 - 3:26 AM
cripes
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2009
Location: the SE portion of a state in the NE part of the US

Total Topics: 18
Total Comments: 157
cripes
#46 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/14/11 - 3:55 AM:

libertygrl wrote:


clarify my point of view? which part is not clear?
I've re-read your post and see where I misinterpreted it. Sorry!
cripes
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2009
Location: the SE portion of a state in the NE part of the US

Total Topics: 18
Total Comments: 157
cripes
#47 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/14/11 - 4:07 AM:

Monk2400 wrote:



It may come as a surprise, but that entire post is irrelevant.

There is no amount of science that can demonstrate that 'I' 'could have been' something other than what 'I' am.

The concept is ludicrous and definitely not scientific in the least. Genetic similarities of all known lifeforms has nothing to do with it. The implication of your statement is what I take issue with. Unless you are arguing for the scientific basis of transmigration of the soul. I'd love to see the peer-reviewed research on that, lol.

8)
I understand! Sometimes I attempt to make a point with analogies or metaphors. It's often not the best way to get my meaning across. I should probably stick to literal meanings.

I do appreciate the honesty.

What I was attempting to convey is we all start out the same and as the dominant species we could be more considerate. After all, what good is this larger brain in stewardship if not reasonable and compassionate? I fear it's our destructive and selfish behaviors that pose the most danger to us.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#48 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/14/11 - 4:12 AM:

cripes wrote:
Until we learn to respect the lives of all other species which possess a brain and who are not a threat to our survival, we have little basis to consider ourselves compassionate.

We're capable of creating plenty of healthy food products which can sustain us without this torturous way we manage currently. It's not necessary to control breeding of other animals in order for them to live a horrible existence and die an even worse death only to satisfy our pallet and circulate money.

I'd have no problem as a member of the dominant species prohibiting the reproduction of these animals, including pets, to extinction rather than continue as we are.

Look at your dog or cat or bird or hamster and understand that just like you they are beings also, and then understand that cows and ducks and chickens and pigs are beings just like those pets and you.

Our compassion needs to extend beyond our own selfish desires to be true.


May be slightly 'off-topic', but, to find a truly compassionate human is to find a Buddha, a very rare event indeed. Rest all are imitations 'doing the opposite', i. e. 'be compassionate and you will be more like Buddha!'----To be Buddha is to be compassionate but not necessarily the other way around. This in no way, is a suggestion on my behalf that none should try to be compassionate in whatever capacity possible, but, knowing the truth makes you compassionate and wise without ever trying to do so forcibly!
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#49 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/14/11 - 4:16 AM:

Cripes wrote:
After all, what good is this larger brain in stewardship if not reasonable and compassionate?


Again it will call for discussion on 'reasonable' and 'compassionate' and their necessity. hmm
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#50 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/14/11 - 4:54 AM:

If we appreciate that animals have the same basic emotions and moods (such as happiness, fear, joy, anxiety, pain, ...), we could base our animal ethics on that. As in, give similar value to the suffering or wellbeing of animals as to our own, possibly correcting for the level of consciousness that they achieve.

Of course, the biosphere has a vital role to play. As a system, its value is beyond measure, because we all depend on it for survival. In that sense, it's not the individual plants and animals that have to be protected, but rather the system and the populations that must be preserved at all cost.
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.