[-V-]

The Washington Post reported that new definitive testing, done in England, confirmed that a Texas animal that federal officials earlier declared to be free of mad cow disease actually had did have the brain-wasting ailment.

And AP reports today that:

U.S. spurned key test that found mad cow disease

A test that turned up mad cow disease in one animal this month could have been used by the Agriculture Department last year, but it wasn't.

A third and more sophisticated test on the beef cow suspected of having mad cow disease would have helped resolve conflicting results from two initial screenings, but the United States refused to perform it last November.
Americans won't know for another 10 or 15 years just how badly they've been screwed by the McDonald's and other flesh peddlers and to what level our government has covered it up but as a vegetarian at least I should have enough of my faculties left to contemplate it all while most of you wander the streets something out of George Romero's "Land of the Dead" while the insider politicians watch from their ivory tower.

I'm not into the Bible but you have to admit it has the makings of divine justice levied by the creator on humankind for the rampant abuse and defiling of his/her/its beautiful creatures in the modern world's factory farms for the sake of a 99 cent burger and the mere pleasuring of their palates.

As referred to in "The Meatrix" thread:
http://progressivesonline.com/showthread.php?t=150


"Even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his people. And ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast in any of your dwellings" (chap. vii v.23).
"While the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed the wrath of the Lord was kindled against the people, and the Lord smote the people with a very great plague" (chap. xi, verses 20, 23).
"He that killeth an ox is as he that slayeth a man; . . . yea they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations" (chap.Ixvi, verse 3).


At a minimum it would make for another great George Romero sequel for "The Dead" series...

Bon Apetite, carnivours! :eek:

[Nicodemus]

There are some rumblings out there that the upsurge in Alzheimer’s is actually misdiagnosed vCJD. vCJD is BSE (aka Mad Cow) in humans.

But pardon me for a sec whilst I remove my tinfoil hat...

Prions (misfolded proteins) cause Scrapie in sheep, BSE in cattle, Wasting Disease in Elk and deer, and so on.

Here's the fun part... Prions have been found in water, plants, dirt, and sludge as well.

Misfolded proteins are nasty little molecules. While their "correctly" folded counterparts are soluble in water, they themselves are near indestructible.

What could be more fun than that?

Word on the wire is that the EPA has several less-than-well-publicized testing projects underway at wastewater treatment plants in search for what they believe is there (prions). If this is the case, and the fear that would cause such testing turns out to be fact, then some farmers labeled "organic", the ones buying sludge for nitrogen and phosphorus, are giving their veggies a dose of prions as well, prions that the plants will suck up and pass along. And not only that, the supposedly clean (laughing as I type it) water that these plants pump into waterways is carrying prions as well.

NOTE: Don't read the above as me stating "All organic growers use sludge". They don't. You just better know if the grower you trust uses it or not.

Even so, if an animal with prions present in it's central nervous system dies near your favorite source of sustenance, whether it be animal, vegetable or mineral, if that particular vegetable you love so much produces or passes along prions, if your grocery store is less than accurate in what produce goes into its organic section, if your groundwater supply has been contaminated and so on, then you've got some prions floating around in your brain already, meat-eater or not.

But wait... There’s more... Prions can be transmitted through blood transfusions. Filters are being developed now that will supposedly weed prions out of blood. Are being... meaning haven’t hit your local hospital yet!

Even more?

Yeah baby...

Standard sterilization methods will not destroy prions, so if you’ve been exposed to surgical equipment or facilities that at some time or other has been exposed to prion bearing tissue, then it’s possible that they have been transferred.

Hand me the cranial saw, I’ve got some splatter to dose the operating room with!

Certainly there are ways to lessen your exposure to extreme quantities, such as eating organic beef rather than your average grocery store fare (or not eating meat at all as mentioned), eating organically grown vegetables from a reputable source you’ve researched rather than just made assumptions about because it’s a vegetable, bathing near and outlet of a waste water treatment plant etc, but good luck dodging the bullet anyway!

I stopped eating Beef quite some time ago, and afterward cut out Pork, Lamb and Venison (though I will have to admit I was very tempted to make some venison jerky recently), but I still enjoy a good free range chicken part or egg, and a heck of a lot of marine animals. Still, knowing what I know, and with my complete distrust of anyone out to make a buck I figure I’m still getting some prions here and there. My only hope is that I’m like one of those people in the UK who seem immune to those nasty prions in the short term. In the long run, who knows? Maybe you all will know if my posts become incomprehensible... That is if they aren’t already... All three of them... LOL

Anyway, to make an extremely long rant short, if you believe that because you’re a vegetarian you’re not exposing yourself to “Mad Cow” (in actuality prions), think again. The world is riddled with prions, and the way we live near ensures we’re passing them along like bad email jokes.

Now to be the AHole people usually accuse me of being:
God, Gaia, Grandfather, the Great Spirit, The Big Cheese, Fate, or whatever your particular POV calls it (if anything), might be kicking in a mechanism for natural population control because we sure aren’t doing anything about it ourselves. Not that I think such a thing should be regulated by law, but rather by a self imposed ethic.

And aren’t ethics a funny thing?

Ethical seems to be personal POV much of the time, and it’s all subject to what we’ve been exposed to throughout our lives.

In any case, if you’re a fan of the Bible, then you know we’re all Job anyway, and subject to every form of pain and suffering no matter how holy.

Of course this is all opinion. I could be wrong.

[Jane of Arc]

Excellent post Nicodemus! Well done and very informative.

I'm a vegetarian because I like animals better than people. :thumbup: Just kidding. (I think.) I could not a eat a rack of lamb anymore than I could eat a leg of homo sapian.

I buy as much 'organic' food as I can and grow my own vegetables in the summer. I can only try my best to be Prion free. It ain't easy.

Another curse on vegetarians, as well as flesh-eaters, :D is trying to avoid all the "Franken food" and buy only 'GMO-free' soy, corn and other vegetables.

[FDRfollower]

It sounds more like another reason we have to kill globalization before it kills us. Let's all thank Dame Maggot Thatcher for destroying the regulatory system in Britain that would have nipped Mad Cow in the bud. Let's thank the few food cartels around for enforcing an insane monoculture that is ripe for another "Irish Famine" anytime. Even your soy foods are part and parcel of the cartel system, destroying the population in Brazil by taking land away from local farmers.

Re-regulate, before its too late!

Cute Bible quotes -V-! :evil: But I'll stop eating meat when the animals stop eating meat.

[-V-]

I'll stop eating meat when the animals stop eating meat.

animals are not our guide on how to live our human lives:

1. if so, we could justify killing our male neighbors to have the females to ourselves, incest, kill our own babies if they are born defective, etc.. There was a time when we could get away with living like apes, umm but that was when we were apes.
2. looking to animals for examples on how to live our lives is like an adult looking to a child for guidance instead of the reverse
3. if you claim to be "superior" to animals because of your ethics and intellect you're obligated to apply both of those tools in all of your decisions, including what to eat. Both dictate that it is healthier and more ethical not to abuse and kill animals for food.
4. Even animals do not have the "right" to kill and eat each other, they simply have the "power" to. Survival of the "fittest".

I know you are not a "survival of the fittest" guy FDR. You are a compassionate, ethical, intellectual, liberal.

The above are just a few of the many "inconvenient truths" on this issue. Full details are in The Meatrix and 3 other threads within this Animal Preserve forum.

Before you is a
RED PILL (http://www.mcdonalds.com/)
and a
BLUE PILL (http://www.themeatrix.com/)

Click the red pill and you stay in the world of illusion
and self serving rationalizations (sponsored by McDonalds)

Click the blue pill and you'll find out how deep the rabbit hole goes...

[FDRfollower]

Oh boy! -V- and I have something to disagree on. (sort of) :D I thought I would start off with something from old honest Abe.

webpage of the whole speech )click( (http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/discoveries.htm)

Lecture on Discoveries and Inventions
On April 6, 1858, Abraham Lincoln gave his first lecture on "Discoveries and Inventions" before the Young Men's Association of Bloomington, Illinois. In 1859 he delivered it at Illinois College in Jacksonville, Illinois. He repeated the lecture in Decatur, Springfield, and Pontiac, but turned down future requests, saying, "I am not a professional lecturer. Have never got up but one lecture; and that I think, a rather poor one."

All creation is a mine, and every man, a miner.

The whole earth, and all within it, upon it, and round about it, including himself, in his physical, moral, and intellectual nature, and his susceptabilities, are the infinitely various "leads" from which, man, from the first, was to dig out his destiny.

In the beginning, the mine was unopened, and the miner stood naked, and knowledgeless, upon it.

Fishes, birds, beasts, and creeping things, are not miners, but feeders and lodgers, merely. Beavers build houses; but they build them in nowise differently, or better now, than they did, five thousand years ago. Ants, and honey-bees, provide food for winter; but just in the same way they did, when Solomon refered the sluggard to them as patterns of prudence.

Man is not the only animal who labors; but he is the only one who improves his workmanship. This improvement, he effects by Discoveries, and Inventions. His first important discovery was the fact that he was naked; and his first invention was the fig-leaf-apron. This simple article -- the apron -- made of leaves, seems to have been the origin of clothing -- the one thing for which nearly half of the toil and care of the human race has ever since been expended. The most important improvement ever made in connection with clothing, was the invention of spinning and weaving. The spinning jenny, and power-loom, invented in modern times, though great improvements, do not, as inventions, rank with the ancient arts of spinning and weaving. Spinning and weaving brought into the department of clothing such abundance and variety of material. Wool, the hair of several species of animals, hemp, flax, cotten, silk, and perhaps other articles, were all suited to it, affording garments not only adapted to wet and dry, heat and cold, but also susceptable of high degrees of ornamental finish. Exactly when, or where, spinning and weaving originated is not known. At the first interview of the Almighty with Adam and Eve, after the fall, He made "coats of skins, and clothed them" Gen: 3-21.

Ok, -V-, I just want you to quantify something for my satisfaction. In the other thread, you spoke of "thinking, feeling, animals". In what way do animals "think"? As Lincoln mentioned, animals generally haven't changed their mode of existance since before written history, which wouldn't indicate that they have the means to think. In what particular circumstance do you qualify an animal with the ability to "think"? Thanks.

[-V-]

In what particular circumstance do you qualify an animal with the ability to "think"? To answer the question directly you need only look at a study released this week about Meerkats teaching their young: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060713/sc_nm/science_meerkats_dc_1
While animals are known to learn from one another by watching, the team at Britain's University of Cambridge said they had demonstrated that the animals actually teach, as defined by clear principles.

But I'll be happy to go deeper than that.

I assume your question implies that the treatment of animals should be related to their ability to think. I propose that the question is irrelevant. The following are excerpts from a school research paper I wrote 14 years ago:
(full text http://progressivesonline.com/vegetarian/anti-meat-research-paper.htm)

Many rationales are used to alleviate the human animal's guilt for de-valuating the life of the non-human animal; several of them are rooted in the belief that because animals simply do not think, look, or behave the way people do, their lives are of little value.

The brain of most animals is more sophisticated than that of a human infant as well as mentally handicapped and senile adults, yet the animal is slaughtered for any reason and the human life is preserved at any cost. Peter Singer points out in his book Animal Liberation, that if intelligence were to validate discrimination, "human beings with an IQ under 100 would be the slaves of those over 100". It could also be said that society would be justified in using the body parts of the insane for food and clothing.

The fact is, that even if the value of life were to be measured by intelligence, it could not be measured by human standards. In the words of Mark Twain, "It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb to his dull perceptions". Using senses of sight, sound, and smell, up to hundreds of times more sensitive than humans, animals can interpret and apply the information they need for navigation, feeding and mating. Their mental capabilities are matched to their environmental needs.

While there are unique distinctions between the human and non-human brain, studies also shed light on the similarities:

Comparing the "structure and function of the human brain with the brains of animals," scientists have found that "the striking similarity between the human and non-human brain is seen in the electrical activity patters of electroencephalograph (EEG) readings" during wakefulness, dreaming, and daydreaming."

Dolphins have brains the same size as humans, chimpanzees can use tools, and studies show both species can reason, form societies, use a language of their own, and comprehend human sentences.

"Pigs actually have one of the highest measured IQ's of all animals, surpassing even the dog" (Robbins), yet we pamper the dog and abuse and slaughter the pig.

Terms like inferior beings, dumb beasts, and lower life forms are frequently tossed about because it suits human purposes. Meanwhile, we forget the warning that history has echoed time and again that the most dangerous and destructive feeling a human being can posses is that of superiority, and that the weakest and most selfish action a human being can take is the one that will satisfy his own needs at the expense of others. And yet, instead of learning and evolving into the higher life form of which man stakes his claim, our actions continue to serve as an aberration of his needs and a travesty of nature.

The Nazi's threw Jews in the oven under the guise of being the "master race". Human's throw chickens in the microwave under the guise of being the "master species". While man and woman may indeed have "dominion over all living things" by virtue of their capability of destroy them all, our role should be as parent to child, not as master to servant.

For 200,000 years homo sapiens have walked the earth, a mere fraction of the time that other creatures have reigned "supreme". In another 200,000 years or so, human descendants will be as intellectually superior to present day man as we are now to baboons. One can only hope that if, today, the earth were visited by "superior" beings from another world, that they would see man as more than just a meal.

During the time of human slavery, philosopher Jeremy Bentham extended his concern to the non-human animal when he proposed that, "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" Researchers provide the answer:

"As for the chemistry of the central nervous and endocrine systems, we know that there is no difference in kind between human and other animals. The biochemistry of physiological and emotional states differ little between mice and men"

Earlier, in 1965, reports by British government committees also concluded what anyone who ever owned a dog or a cat already knew.

"Animals are capable of suffering, not only from physical injury, but from fear, stress, anxiety, etc.. In fact, an animal's nervous system is nearly identical to ours" (Singer).

In addition to the ability to feel pain, it is a creature's ability to experience pleasure, even "love", that gives it a reason and purpose for living beyond that of mere survival and reproduction. The monogamous mating relationships and the parent/child bond of many species is testimonial to how deep these feelings can run. Cases of animals starving themselves after the loss of a mate and confronting certain death in the defense of their young are not uncommon. As Robbins puts it, "Animals can suffer precisely because they have the ability to give and receive love, and a need to do so."

[zaphod80]

Bravo! What an great post, -V-. Very enlightened and well stated.
So, what about invertebrates or insect life? Or fish/crustaceans? Should we consider them 'sentient', and if so what rights should they have?

[FDRfollower]

To answer the question directly you need only look at a study released this week about Meerkats teaching their young:

But I'll be happy to go deeper than that.

I assume your question implies that the treatment of animals should be related to their ability to think. I propose that the question is irrelevant. The following are excerpts from a school research paper I wrote 14 years ago:

Hmmm. That was not quite what I was getting at. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm generally on the side of animals too. I've had cats and dogs and hung around a lot of farms and ranches and lived in the country for a portion of my life. I've cried over baby birds that have been thrown out of nests (even trying to raise one, though unsucessfully:( ) and never participated in any hunting or played the usual cruel pranks young people carry out on available animals. So my concience is clear on that.

You misunderstood me, I just wanted to see how you viewed the "thinking" of animals, since that implies a lot. This part bothers me some, having run across animal rights activists at a card table in downtown Oakland, whereby, their presentation seemed to take their cue from the anti-abortion campaign with the use of gorey bloodspattered photographs and simple emotional response. I asked the activist a question, and his response had some similarity to your post, in that cows and chickens, etc. are "thinking" animals with a complex language, so therefore, we should leave them alone. When I asked what the animals comunicate, bringing up the fact that I can communicate to any other human, some problem like Plato's doubling of the square or Eratosthenes experiment in measurement of the earth's circumference as a means of how people communicate ideas, whereas, no animal, whether ancient or modern, can, the poor guy had a freak out and refused to talk further. I'm glad you're a little more reasoned. :) The meerkat article is cute, but do you really think that that's "thinking"? Have those meerkats actually changed their mode of existance since meerkats first appeared on the planet? Why is it, that meerkats have a relatively fixed population, as all animal species do, with man, being the only exception?

I had the time finally, to go over your paper, which I want to research more. I got to watch the meatrix too and view some of the discussion on their site. I had come to a lot of your conclusions earlier regarding the way the factory farms, run by IBP and similar cartels operate and the potential "Irish famine" awaiting us under their regime. But the "just buy from your local farmer", seems to me, waaaaay too limited. Just asking people to change their lifestyle is a loser in the long run. You're dealing with an aspect of Globalization, not just with some "big companies". That means ultimately, you have to confront the powers of international finance and the axioms of your congressperson, who all think that you can't interfere with "the market", even if it's killing us. It's the policy, not just simple greed. Would you agree?

Also, I disagree with the use of "survival of the fittest", since that was designed for the use of the racist oligarchs of the British empire, more then a means of describing how the biosphere functions.

[-V-]

The meerkat article is cute, but do you really think that that's "thinking"?

Meerkats are cute -- the article is pure science. I don't understand on what grounds it could not be an example of "thinking". You wouldn't question whether a 1 year old child can think and they are far less impressive than meerkats.

http://www.stuf***anuse.com/topics/animals_think.htm
The average dog is as smart as a 2-year-old to 27-month-old child and about six months ahead of cats mentally, he (Dr Bradshaw) said.

Since you seem to be most interested in animal's communication skills consider this from the same source:

"Cats learn to miaow in ways that manipulate their owners but it's got nothing to do with evolution at all - it's a learned response," says Dr Bradshaw, an animal behaviourist. Many cats seem to have a set of miaows they use for different contexts, he says.

For example, a cat might choose a particular noise to signal it wants to be let out and a different one to demand to be fed. But when you compare cats, there is nothing in common between these miaows, he says. This suggests that each cat learns how to get its owner's attention, something that is nothing to do with genetics.

Have those meerkats actually changed their mode of existance since meerkats first appeared on the planet? Why is it, that meerkats have a relatively fixed population

All animals, including meerkats have drastically changed their mode of existance over thousands of years, but of course, that is the evolutionary process. Humans can speed up their intellectual evolution by passing on knowledge through books and ProgressivesOnline.com. However, studies have shown that elephants pass on learned knowledge to future generations without the aid of the Internet.

The meerkats population is controlled by predation and environmental factors. There have been cases of frogs, rabbits, and kangaroo epidemics but I wouldn't give them any more extra credit than human being for spreading like a virus and wreaking havoc on this planet's ecosystem (see deforestation, global warming, etc.)

Again, however, I don't see intelligence or communication being key to animal rights issues. The main point is that despite our electronic exchange here being evidence of how intellectually advanced we are, it only gives us the ability, but not the moral license to abuse or kill animals.

[-V-]

thank you and welcome zap!

what about invertebrates or insect life? Or fish/crustaceans? Should we consider them 'sentient', and if so what rights should they have?

Their ability to suffer is the main issue. Insects have a very basic nervous system and, as far as we can tell, very little emotion. I was watching Woody Allen in "Annie Hall" the other day and alongside me sat an itsy bitsy spider. I looked over at it in the middle of the "lobster behind the refrigerater scene" and nothing. Not even a giggle.

If a mosquito lands on my arm in my house I see no problem defending myself with a crushing blow. It was about to cause me pain and possible disease. Since there is no chance of rehabilitation I believe a swift death is within ethical bounds in this case. But in no case would I consider locking it in a cage and torturing it for years, even if it tastes good.

Other insects that I can catch I simply escort out the door. If the life of the thing is of more value to the thing than my need to kill it, I don't.

In the case of animals, very few of us are on an island without a means to access comfortable clothes, fruits, vegetables, etc.. The leather is better off on the cow as is the ham on a pig and no one should pay someone else to abuse and murder them for their own pleasure.

[zaphod80]

OK, I see your point tin. I guess its a better philosophy and better karma to think that way. I question how much suffering a fish, etc., can have. I gave up fishing and eating any meat a long time ago, but I'm by no means vegan, and I question a fishs' capacity to have an 'awarness of self' enough to conceptualize pain. They may have a pain response, but do they really 'experience' pain? I've done a little research on this, and it seems to be a pretty intensly debated subject.

Anyway, going back to the original thread(sort of), where are all these prions coming from? I mean, besides God.

[Michael DeM]

I question how much suffering a fish, etc., can have. I gave up fishing and eating any meat a long time ago, but I'm by no means vegan, and I question a fishs' capacity to have an 'awarness of self' enough to conceptualize pain. They may have a pain response, but do they really 'experience' pain? I've done a little research on this, and it seems to be a pretty intensly debated subject.

As far as I'm concerned, fish are indeed sentient beings that have the capacity to feel pain just like other animals. I'm no expert on this, but I don't think I need to be to see that another animal struggling for life has feelings too. Anyway, there's a new book out that I saw at the local bookstore the other day called "Pleasure Kingdom." The author, Jonathan Balcombe, gives many examples of how animals not only feel pain but also feel various forms of pleasure. There's a chapter in the book that includes fish and insects, so you might want to check it out sometime.

[-V-]

"You can have my [Big Mac/Whopper/White Castle/etc.] when you pry it from my cold stiff fingers"

the irony is that his love for Big Macs/Whoppers/White Castles/etc. probably caused the heart attack or mad cow disease that killed him.