I have always found it curious that people who protect animals on
the grounds that our use of them is anthrocentric focus on the
animals that are dear to *human* sentiment.  Hardly anyone
complains about the wholesale slaughter of roaches and fleas...

/* End of text from m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.med */

I have always found it curious that people make such stupid comments
on serious ethical issues.  

The organization of insect brains is quite different from that of
mammals, for example, and it would seem to be quite obvious to a
rational observer that the nature and extent of suffering is also
quite different.  Certainly all evidence would lead us to believe that
emotions are missing in insects..

Peter Singer, often considered the founder of modern animal rights
movement, in his book Animal Liberation, who undoubtedly has more
patience than I, does an analysis of the capacity to suffer of
different species.. his starting assumption is simply that all animals
have a right to an equal consideration of their interests - a
reasonable abstract m{*filter*}principle.

Peace,

Gul Agha

An appeal to neurological qualities also fails to explain why so
many animal rights activists complain about the lobster cooking
in the pot but not the roaches smashed beneath the foot of the
cook, or about mice killed in research but not about mice that are
killed by exterminators in kitchens and warehouses.

I am not taking a stand against the idea that we should treat
whales differently from roaches.  But I hear and see very little
in animal rights activists related is so reasonable.  This, of
course, does not detract from those few that do make sense.

Russell

Cheers,

Gul Agha
--
Cheers,

Gul

Sean McLinden

--
Peace,

Gul Agha

Another poster said, basically, that the objections seem to increase as
the animal in question behaves more like us. It seems to me that we should
call it what it is (anthropomorphism). Trying to base it on science is
gonna get you in trouble since, from the point of view of intelligence
and personality (and thought and learning), we really don't know what
distinguishes us from animals (at least, in terms of mechanisms).

Sean McLinden
Decision Systems Laboratory

The line of reasoning (if it can be called that) goes something
like this: (1) an animal activist expresses that he objects, say,
to cats being used in medical research (2) An anti-activist determines,
or perhaps merely presupposes, that the activist has no similar
concern for squished{*filter*}roaches (3) The anti-activist (who was never
asked, by the way) jumps to the conclusion that the activist is
hypocritical, insincere, etc.

What do I think of this?  Not much.  Other posters to this newfeed
have explained adequately why someone might or might not
feel sympathy for a particular species under particular conditions.
But all of those distinctions aside, the particular argument
quoted above is specious.  Analogous would be me saying I liked
playing sports, you saying which sports, me saying I like
playing tennis, but not soccer, and you labeling me a hypocrite
for claiming I like playing sports when I don't like soccer.

Regardless of anybody's opinion on{*filter*}roaches, the activist
outside the cat-research building *demonstrates* more concern for the
welfare of animals than the cat-researcher inside the building.  
I say "demonstrates" because to judge where either person really
stands would involve knowing a lot more about them.  If I wanted
to find out where the activist really was at, my first question to
him would not be the obviously prejudgemental "do you object to
squishing{*filter*}roaches".

Steve

******************** don't forget: Spike 'em! *********************

One does not have to go to a research lab to see people kill
mice.  On any given day, you will more easily find mice killers
by watching who buys traps from the local grocery or hardware
store.  Why this choice?  I do not believe that it is as neutral
as the choice between soccer and tennis.

I have yet to come across any nudist as crazy as the ones I
describe above.  Some animal rights activists have worked hard to
arrive at a view that is consistent both logically and with what
action they propose.  Others (I fear the majority) have not.  It
is not my intent to argue against all concepts of animal rights,
only point out some problems I see.  I welcome any animal rights
activist who will either (1) explain why it is bad to kill mice
for knowledge and mink for fur, but OK to kill mice who are
raiding your pantry, or (2) truly argue that we should not kill any
animal (with certain qualities, but including mammals such as mice
and mink) and describe what the far-reaching impact of this will be.

Russell

The claim that purely "humanitarian" goals are served by animal
experimentation has rung hollow in my ears since I became
familiar with one particular program of dental research involving
dogs.  The researcher-in-charge has a lucrative private practice
and frequently refuses to diagnose and/or treat the problems of
lower and lower-middle income patients because they can't afford
the high cost of his treatment programs.  He played a small role
in bolstering a recent legislative campaign that would have allowed
researchers to seize animals (cost-free) from humane sheltors for
use in experiments.  

I might be willing to grudgingly accept the economic reasons that
underlie the argument that it's OK for working class people to
suffer needless pain and lose teeth if they can't afford to pay
professional fees, but this kind of economic rationale belies the
researcher's contention that his dog research is prompted by purely
humanitarian concerns.  If you juxtapose his treatment of humans
with his treatment of dogs, it becomes apparent that the
only common ground is his willingness to use people/animals to suit
his own purposes.  

What kind of "humanitarian" would cause non-human animals to
suffer great pain by his acts of commission while simultaneously
allowing human animals to suffer great pain by his acts of
omission?  Wouldn't it be better for him to spend his time
treating humans with consent...  regardless of the moneymaking
potential rather than inflicting himself on dogs who surely do
not relish the unnecessary pain?  

BTW, I'm an animal rights activist, but I do not "nearly
always jump" to the conclusions that you've outlined above, nor
do I contend that all researchers have dubious motives.
--
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000