PETA might do some good every now and then but that is more by accident than intent. They are a bunch of complete loonies IMHO.
PETA: Shark Attack Victims Deserve It - 5
- Thread starter WckedMidas
- Start date
props to those who can work in these labs
i don't have the heart or the stomach to do work in a place like that
i don't have the heart or the stomach to do work in a place like that
How did a discussion about PETA being jerks towards shark attack victims transform into a lab animal discussion?
These things happen. The thread has bounced around. But it revolved around animal cruelity
I understand the necessity of animal testing I don't agree with how it takes place most of the time. There is not sufficient animal rehousing or rehabilitation for animals that are tested with non communicable stuff. Its worse that what used to happen to racing animals. I don't put animal life next to human life but I don't think its something we can so frivolously waste or disrespect. I think we are stewards of those animals and we could do better than we do now. PETA totally turns me off though and they don't help the discussion. I imagine a PETA member getting attacked by an animal and not understanding why, to me that foot in the mouth of the shark is a vegan peta members foot, lol. I always imagine mother nature has an ironic sense of humor.
How so? Some animals are adopted out of a test facility depending on what has been done to them while in there. Any of our rodents we used solely for blood work typically found their way to schools science labs. Blood work dogs were typically adopted by staff or family of staff since they grew on us. Though outside of basic testing when you mess with an animal you are in a dangerous spot liability wise as it was raised in a lab environment and was experimented on. Whether it could transmit its disease or not isn't the problem. The behavior of the animal is the concern. Animals can't talk to us so we can not tell if any of our experiments altered its personality all the time or that it will not snap in the future due to something. That is only one of the concerns....
Any of us who have worked in a lab would have preferred to test on some people in our lives instead of the animals under our care. I had no trouble wirking with the rodents but the dogs and going to primate facilities was a bit much at times if you were around the animal enough. In my opinion a lot of the drug cycle could be cut out or erased in some cases if we could proceed with more in depth stem cell research
Re: "I understand the necessity of animal testing I don't agree with how it takes place most of the time."
But how do you know what takes place most of the time?
But how do you know what takes place most of the time?
“We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion.”
There's almost 7 billion people on earth, sure he doesn't say he wants you personally to die but sure sounds like he wants a huge percentage of the human population to vanish
here's the whole quote so you can see i didn't change it to fit my purpose
We should not be living in human communities that enclose tiny preserved ecosystems within them. Human communities should be maintained in small population enclaves within linked wilderness ecosystems. No human community should be larger than 20,000 people and separated from other communities by wilderness areas. Communication systems can link the communities.
In other words, people should be placed in parks within ecosystems instead of parks placed in human communities. We need vast areas of the planet where humans do not live at all and where other species are free to evolve without human interference.
We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion. We need to eliminate nationalism and tribalism and become Earthlings. And as Earthlings, we need to recognize that all the other species that live on this planet are also fellow citizens and also Earthlings. This is a planet of incredible diversity of life-forms; it is not a planet of one species as many of us believe.
We need to stop burning fossil fuels and utilize only wind, water, and solar power with all generation of power coming from individual or small community units like windmills, waterwheels, and solar panels.
Sea transportation should be by sail. The big clippers were the finest ships ever built and sufficient to our needs. Air transportation should be by solar powered blimps when air transportation is necessary.
All consumption should be local. No food products need to be transported over hundreds of miles to market. All commercial fishing should be abolished. If local communities need to fish the fish should be caught individually by hand.
Preferably vegan and vegetarian diets can be adopted. We need to eliminate herds of ungulates like cows and sheep and replace them with wild ungulates like bison and caribou and allow those species to fulfill the proper roles in nature. We need to restore the prey predator relationship and bring back the wolf and the bear. We need the large predators and ungulates, not as food, but as custodians of the land that absorbs the carbon dioxide and produces the oxygen. We need to live with them in mutual respect.
We need to remove and destroy all fences and barriers that bar wildlife from moving freely across the land. We need to lower populations of domestic housecats and dogs. Already the world's housecats consume more fish than all the world's seals and we have made the cow into the largest aquatic predator on the planet because more than one half of all fish taken from the sea is converted into meal for animal feed.
We need to stop flying, stop driving cars, and jetting around on marine recreational vehicles. The Mennonites survive without cars and so can the rest of us.
We can retain technology but within the context of Henry David Thoreau's simple message to "simplify, simplify, simplify."
We need an economic system that provides all people with educational, medical, security, and support systems without mass production and vast utilization of resources. This will only work within the context of a much smaller global population.
Who should have children? Those who are responsible and completely dedicated to the responsibility which is actually a very small percentage of humans. Being a parent should be a career. Whereas some people are engineers, musicians, or lawyers, others with the desire and the skills can be fathers and mothers. Schools can be eliminated if the professional parent is also the educator of the child.
This approach to parenting is radical but it is preferable to a system where everyone is expected to have children in order to keep the population of consumers up to keep the wheels of production moving. An economic and political system dependent on continuous growth cannot survive the ecological law of finite resources.
There is, of course, a complexity of problems in adjusting to a new design that will simply allow us to survive the consequences of our past ecological folly.
Curing a body of cancer requires radical and invasive therapy, and therefore, curing the biosphere of the human virus will also require a radical and invasive approach
It won't be easy but then it's better than the alternative.
What is that quote from? Is there a link to it or anything? I've never heard it before.
The reason I'm curious is that he's complimented my teams on rescue work, and captive programs supporting rehab stuff. It makes me believe he is well aware of the benefits of controlled environmnet situations.
The reason I'm curious is that he's complimented my teams on rescue work, and captive programs supporting rehab stuff. It makes me believe he is well aware of the benefits of controlled environmnet situations.
http://www.aim.org/wls/population-control-2/
http://www.seashepherd.org/commenta...nd-for-life-as-we-know-it-on-planet-earth-340
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sc...st_wants_world_population_below_1_billion.htm
Apparently, saving the whales is more important than saving 5.5 billion people. Paul Watson, founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and famous for militant intervention to stop whalers, now warns mankind is “acting like a virus” and is harming Mother Earth.
Watson's May 4 editorial asked the question “The Beginning of the End for Life as We Know it on Planet Earth?” Then he left no doubt about the answer. “We are killing our host the planet Earth,” he claimed and called for a population drop to less than 1 billion.
The commentary reminded readers that Watson had called humans a disease before and he wasn't sorry. “I was once severely criticized for describing human beings as being the ‘AIDS of the Earth.' I make no apologies for that statement,” the column continued.
Watson was invoking the worst of Robert Malthus, an English political economist who claimed that mankind was overpopulating the earth. That claimed first appeared in the late 1700s. Watson urged some solutions for mankind as part of a process to “need to re-wild the planet”:
· “No human community should be larger than 20,000 people and separated from other communities by wilderness areas.” New York, London, Paris, Moscow are all too big. Then again, so are Moose Jaw, Timbuktu and even Annapolis, Md.
· “We need vast areas of the planet where humans do not live at all and where other species are free to evolve without human interference.”
· “We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion.”
· “Sea transportation should be by sail. The big clippers were the finest ships ever built and sufficient to our needs. Air transportation should be by solar powered blimps when air transportation is necessary.”
· At least Watson was generous and said people could still talk with one another across great distances. “Communication systems can link the communities,” he proclaimed from on high.
The Watson rant kept on going calling for everything from cutting down on the population of domesticated dogs and cats to cutting down on everything else in what he called “simplify, simplify, simplify.”
Watson essentially called for humans to return to primitive lifestyles. “We need to stop flying, stop driving cars, and jetting around on marine recreational vehicles. The Mennonites survive without cars and so can the rest of us.”
http://www.seashepherd.org/commenta...nd-for-life-as-we-know-it-on-planet-earth-340
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sc...st_wants_world_population_below_1_billion.htm
Apparently, saving the whales is more important than saving 5.5 billion people. Paul Watson, founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and famous for militant intervention to stop whalers, now warns mankind is “acting like a virus” and is harming Mother Earth.
Watson's May 4 editorial asked the question “The Beginning of the End for Life as We Know it on Planet Earth?” Then he left no doubt about the answer. “We are killing our host the planet Earth,” he claimed and called for a population drop to less than 1 billion.
The commentary reminded readers that Watson had called humans a disease before and he wasn't sorry. “I was once severely criticized for describing human beings as being the ‘AIDS of the Earth.' I make no apologies for that statement,” the column continued.
Watson was invoking the worst of Robert Malthus, an English political economist who claimed that mankind was overpopulating the earth. That claimed first appeared in the late 1700s. Watson urged some solutions for mankind as part of a process to “need to re-wild the planet”:
· “No human community should be larger than 20,000 people and separated from other communities by wilderness areas.” New York, London, Paris, Moscow are all too big. Then again, so are Moose Jaw, Timbuktu and even Annapolis, Md.
· “We need vast areas of the planet where humans do not live at all and where other species are free to evolve without human interference.”
· “We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion.”
· “Sea transportation should be by sail. The big clippers were the finest ships ever built and sufficient to our needs. Air transportation should be by solar powered blimps when air transportation is necessary.”
· At least Watson was generous and said people could still talk with one another across great distances. “Communication systems can link the communities,” he proclaimed from on high.
The Watson rant kept on going calling for everything from cutting down on the population of domesticated dogs and cats to cutting down on everything else in what he called “simplify, simplify, simplify.”
Watson essentially called for humans to return to primitive lifestyles. “We need to stop flying, stop driving cars, and jetting around on marine recreational vehicles. The Mennonites survive without cars and so can the rest of us.”
