December 31, 2001
10:35 AM   Subscribe

So I open up my copy of the seattle weekly yesterday on the bus, and the entire back page is devoted to the aforelinked PETA "Mean Greenies" ad, urging folks not to donate monies to the World Wildlife Federation, Environmental Defense, and the Natural Resource Defense Council. That ad must have cost a pretty penny, so how strange (thought I) that it was encouraging folks to abstain from giving this holiday season.

Well, perhaps not abstain entirely -- presumably they wouldn't mind if you just crossed "WWF" off your check and wrote "PETA" in its place. But that begs the question: is this a legitimate campaign -- trying to "out" these organizations that claim to be environmental but are harming bunnies in the background -- or is this just a turf war, with PETA trying to horn in on some other folks' fund?
posted by Shadowkeeper at 10:37 AM on December 31, 2001

How surprising, a controversial PETA campaign which gets their organization in the news. I bet they never saw that one coming!

If hooking a car battery up to a monkey's brain will help find the cure for AIDS and save somebody's life, I have two things to say... the red is positive and the black is negative.

--Nick Dipaolo
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:56 AM on December 31, 2001

Translation:
PETA: "You're not allowed to tell Big Companies to test their pesticides or chemicals on animals, because animals are HOLY."
Big Company: "OK, we'll just make sure that our new stuff kills weevils, and if it happens to make cute squirrels bleed out their asses, which would usually make us reconsider if we caught it in testing... it's your lookout."
That sound you hear? It's the gun going off into the foot.
posted by darukaru at 10:58 AM on December 31, 2001

Everytime I see PETA doing something like this, it makes me want to choke a squirrel.
It's just a normal PETA ad, wanting us to find out about the horrors inflicted upon helpless animals everyday so we can survive and eat meat.
horrors of horrors.
Now, excuse me while I go slap on the leather jacket, reach into my leather wallet, and pay for a tasty double-cheeseburger with Bacon (50 cents extra! what a deal!) and think all this over.
posted by bradth27 at 11:02 AM on December 31, 2001

some folks don't want to donate to charities that hurt animals, and this ad points out some such charities that said folks may not have known about. whats so odd about that? would you want to donate money to a foreign aid fund that gave money to the taliban? maybe if you people weren't so busy bending over backwards to find things wrong with the PETA, you would be surprised to find that they do have a point every now and then.
posted by mcsweetie at 11:19 AM on December 31, 2001

While I sit at home reading MetaFilter in my hemp sweater, hemp pants, and hemp slippers.
posted by fleener at 11:20 AM on December 31, 2001

Hey, at least they have a nice looking blogger template and use the silkscreen font...
posted by machaus at 11:27 AM on December 31, 2001

For example, despite killing hundreds of thousands of animals in cruel chemical toxicity tests, the EPA has not banned a single toxic industrial chemical in more than 10 years using its authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act....

The EPA's addiction to animal testing is so pervasive that even when evidence from human population studies implicates a chemical, the results are ignored by the EPA for the sake of conducting more and more animal studies.

these are good points and worthy of consideration. PETA opposes all animal testing of all kinds; most of the people I know support animal testing if there is no effective alternative.

I think most people like to believe that animal testing is done in a responsible way, but which of us is going to go out and try to find out? if the EPA is using unneccessary testing, the results of which have never provided a result that is conclusive enough to affect their decision-making, it seems to me that they should stop.
posted by rebeccablood at 11:28 AM on December 31, 2001

Are they better than the Green Meanies?
posted by panopticon at 11:39 AM on December 31, 2001

I think this is a more useful ad than some famous half naked actress or whatever. I had no idea the NRDC advocated animal testing; I have a cousin who works for them, who eats meat but only organic/free range & who says his co-workers have almost convinced him to go vegetarian. So I'd assumed they were pretty animal-friendly.

I'm vegetarian and lean toward animal rights-ish stuff, but agree that people go too far and become fanatical, and fanatics of any stripe make me uncomfortable. I agree that when it comes to medical stuff, it's sad but not unethical (western medicine has saved my life), but the better computer models get, the less necessary it will be.

And some of the tests were simply repeats & left over relics that weren't needed, but companies weren't restructuring or saying, well we've figured the answer out to that, so you're all fired. PETA made them work out a solution by bringing attention to the problem.
posted by mdn at 11:46 AM on December 31, 2001

The EPA's addiction to animal testing is so pervasive that even when evidence from human population studies implicates a chemical, the results are ignored by the EPA for the sake of conducting more and more animal studies.

Rebecca, i agree this is a good point but i also think one of the reasons people don't trust PETA is because, as you say, thay are opposed to all animal testing. When an orgnization says they are completely opposed to animal testing, if they later say X person is not responsibly doing animal testing it can't really be trusted, since that implies there is a responsible way to animal test which we already know the organization doesn't believe. their argument is flawed, even if the data is correct.
posted by rhyax at 12:09 PM on December 31, 2001

I don't see why there's any inherent contradiction between environmentalism and animal testing. The point of environmentalism is to preserve the environment as a means to humanity's survival. Animal testing of, say, medicines can serve the same goal.

PETA's goal has nothing to do with humanity, however -- to them "animals" means all animals except humans -- so they completely miss the point. As usual.
posted by kindall at 12:12 PM on December 31, 2001

rhyax:

you know their biases, so you know enough to try and find independent confirmation of their data. but I feel that they are still doing us a service by bringing this to our attention. who else is going to do so?

(in fact, I believe radical organizations of all stripes do us a service by bringing their arguments to our attention. we consider their argument, probably reject it, but delineate for ourselves where we *do* fall on the spectrum. perhaps concerning a subject we had not bothered to consider previously.)

their argument is flawed, even if the data is correct.

*you* believe their argument is flawed. and even then they may not lose in a formal debate, which would be based on their arguments, not whether you agree with their premises.

the more important point is that you may not accept all of their premises, but you may come to a similar or identical conclusion after you weigh their data against your own set of premises.
posted by rebeccablood at 12:40 PM on December 31, 2001

Let me start by saying I am not trolling here.
Does anyone here not have a problem with animal testing at all?
I mean, it's just a bunch of monkeys and rabbits, in my opinion.
Is there anyone else here who thinks that way, or am I just a heartless bastard?
posted by bradth27 at 12:52 PM on December 31, 2001

Okay Okay, I think most of the sane people here can agree that a) minimizing animal testing is Good and b) the animal testing that must be done should be as humane as possible. That being said, if a shampoo is going to burn somebody's eyes out of thier sockets would you rather it was a cute cuddly fuzzy bunny rabbit or someone you love?

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that the "Not tested on animals" label is a complete sham. Either they paid someone else to do the testing or they used an old formula that was tested many years ago. No CEO really wants to be questioned in a court of law about why they did not do "standard" tests which would have told them that thier product does horrible things to people.
posted by ilsa at 1:00 PM on December 31, 2001

Okay Okay, I think most of the sane people here can agree that a) minimizing animal testing is Good and b) the animal testing that must be done should be as humane as possible.

Okay, I guess that answers my question. :)
I am totally nuts, and a heartless bastard as well.
And to find this out on New Years. Bummer.
posted by bradth27 at 1:04 PM on December 31, 2001

PETA: "You're not allowed to tell Big Companies to test their pesticides or chemicals on animals, because animals are HOLY."

Everytime I see PETA doing something like this, it makes me want to choke a squirrel.

PETA's goal has nothing to do with humanity, however -- to them "animals" means all animals except humans -- so they completely miss the point. As usual.

I'm always surprised by all the vitriol directed towards PETA (not to mention ignorance regarding the organization's mission.) They're promoting the Ethical Treatment of Animals. That's what they do.

Looking for some "hidden agend" is pretty odd since they agenda has always been made as plain as day (look, it's in their name!). That agenda also happens to encompass a variety of members with a variety of belief from the moderate to the extreme.

They just think it's wrong and stupid to hurt other animals (including other human animals). When does this become twisted into a hatred of humanity or deification for animals?
posted by ahughey at 1:08 PM on December 31, 2001

PETA is obviously biased, and I've rarely seen them owe up to any claims they have made.

I choose to ignore them.
posted by Down10 at 1:09 PM on December 31, 2001

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that the "Not tested on animals" label is a complete sham. Either they paid someone else to do the testing or they used an old formula that was tested many years ago.

but that's the point - until PETA came along, a lot of companies were still testing new products even when it was you know, soap, or something - something we'd long ago concluded was safe. They just had departments set up to test these things and so would run the products through them "just to be sure" but really, just inertia, avoiding the dissolution of a department.

any inherent contradiction between environmentalism and animal testing.

I don't think anyone was claiming there was - it's just probably a lot of animal rights people are also environmentalists. This campaign is just letting you know what you're supporting.

I mean, it's just a bunch of monkeys and rabbits, in my opinion.

Would you feel comfortable if your neighbor tortured local dogs for fun, though? I mean, I understand when you're dealing with a "lesser of two evils" type thing, but do you really have no sympathy at all with the ability of animals to experience basic emotions, like fear and pain and comfort?
posted by mdn at 1:25 PM on December 31, 2001

When it comes to an organization that works to try to protect the environment, I'm a big believer in a hands on approach. I wish that groups like PETA would also focus upon the positive efforts of groups that strive to make a direct difference. Sometimes it seems like they are activists only for the sake of being activists. How about being active, rather than just being an activist? How about efforts to spearhead programs to clean areas? How about publicizing the work of animal rescue and rehabilitation groups? How about getting involved in such efforts? I see PETA working so zealously on telling people what not to do, that it gives me a negative image of them.

My disappointment with PETA probably springs from having been involved with an organization like Tri State Bird Rescue and Research. Their efforts to educate the public, and to involve volunteers in rehabilitation efforts has given many people an insight into our place in nature. The first time a wild blue jay flew over to me and landed on my shoulder because it was in a place were it was comfortable enough to do so is something I won't forget.
posted by bragadocchio at 1:29 PM on December 31, 2001

"Would you feel comfortable if your neighbor tortured local dogs for fun, though?"

No.

Would I feel comfortable if my neighbor were testing products on animals before releasing them for the consumption of the general public?

Absolutely.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:34 PM on December 31, 2001

They're promoting the Ethical Treatment of Animals. ... they agenda has always been made as plain as day (look, it's in their name!).

Well, that'd be dandy, except that they don't merely promote the ethical treatment of animals, they have taken it upon themselves to define it. Ethics arise from reason, and animals do not possess sufficient faculties to adhere to any system of ethics. No matter how nice you are to the lion, the lion still feels free to eat you. Animals don't understand Kant's Categorical Imperative or the Golden Rule. I don't see how they can possibly enter into any sort of social contract with humans.

From a utilitarian standpoint you could equate "humane" with "ethical," if you were to assume that the suffering of a chicken or rabbit is as important as the suffering of a human being. Which is more or less the approach PETA uses. It is an approach that a reasonable, thoughtful person might reject (or might not, that's beside the point), and rejecting it does not necessarily mean you endorse cruelty or are less than compassionate. Unfortunately, PETA has already claimed the moral high ground for themselves, so by opposing them you risk allowing yourself to be perceived as "unethical." This is no accident on PETA's part, you can be sure.
posted by kindall at 1:41 PM on December 31, 2001

Would you feel comfortable if your neighbor tortured local dogs for fun, though? I mean, I understand when you're dealing with a "lesser of two evils" type thing, but do you really have no sympathy at all with the ability of animals to experience basic emotions, like fear and pain and comfort?


Well, animal testing and what you have compared it to are two totally different things.
If my neighbor was torturing local animals to find a possible cure for cancer, or even create a better dishwashing liquid, no, I wouldn't care.
But if he was just torturing animals for fun, I would probably say something like,
"Wow, that guy is weird. Pass the peas, please."
No, just kidding.
"just for fun" doesn't mean the same thing as "for research purposes".
Unless I'm drunk, and using it as a pick-up line.
posted by bradth27 at 1:43 PM on December 31, 2001

"just for fun" doesn't mean the same thing as "for research purposes".

great, then we're all on the same page here. You made it sound as if it were totally weird to try to minimize pain in research. Like I said, I completely understand the choice when it's the lesser of evils, but if we're able to find better ways to test things, or if the tests were redundant already, then why keep doing it? If you can understand why someone might be uncomfortable if animals were being tortured for no reason, then you can understand why people might hope to minimize pain in animal research.

I think there are worse things going on in the world than animal testing, but I also don't like to support unnecessary pain for other creatures, if it can be helped.
posted by mdn at 2:00 PM on December 31, 2001

This is no accident on PETA's part, you can be sure.

To continue that thought, and to answer ahughey more directly, this is why they get so much vitriol. Not the "you should treat animals better" bit, but "if you disagree with us you are not Ethical." Setting themselves up as the arbiters of animal ethics when I'm not even convinced there can be such a thing... and acting as though their position was the natural (indeed, only possible) position -- well, it really rubs me, and apparently a lot of others, the wrong way.

I don't have any feelings one way or the other on whether torturing animals is right or wrong. (If it is wrong to do it for fun, it is surely wrong to do it for any reason. Actions are right or wrong independently of their motivations. But note my comments on "right" vs. "correct" below.) It is not something I would do, and it is not something I would like people to do to an animal I liked (e.g. my cat, Maggie). But I recognize that my emotional attachment to an animal, or to animals in general, does not constitute a moral imperative. PETA doesn't act as if they understand this. Things are right or wrong independently of whether we like them or dislike them. Sometimes things are wrong, but they are less wrong than other things, which makes them correct if not right. (For example, if one of your tenets is that killing is wrong, it can still be correct to execute a confirmed murderer without it being right to do so.) PETA never seems to acknowledge shades of gray.
posted by kindall at 2:13 PM on December 31, 2001

Well, that'd be dandy, except that they don't merely promote the ethical treatment of animals, they have taken it upon themselves to define it.
anytime anyone promotes doing the "right" thing, they are obliged to define what they mean by that. However, their point is that we should reflect on and make conscious ethical choices when we interact with animals. No one would rally for the ethical treatment of shoes, or televisions.

>Ethics arise from reason,
or not - this gets into Kant v. Hume...

and animals do not possess sufficient faculties to adhere to any system of ethics. No matter how nice you are to the lion, the lion still feels free to eat you.
well, that's not entirely clear - it's possible that if you & the lion had a long standing relationship from early on, this wouldn't happen - consider guard dogs who will attack strangers and be friendly to those they know. Anyway, lions do adhere to a system of ethics within their own group. They just don't extend it to those they don't instinctually recognize. But that's true of most humans too.

Animals don't understand Kant's Categorical Imperative or the Golden Rule.
Nor do babies. Therefore, we can eat babies.

I don't see how they can possibly enter into any sort of social contract with humans.
no one's claiming there should be a rational agreement between humans and the animal world. The point is, animals can feel fear and pain and it's no fun for them either. Since we are capable of recognizing this, we can make decisions about whether to inflict this on them or not. yes, animals will never lobby congress for animal friendly laws. But if it's possible to minimize their pain without harming others, isn't that the ethical thing to do?
posted by mdn at 2:27 PM on December 31, 2001

"Therefore, we can eat babies."

mdn, you may want to get together with fuq. You can decide between you who brings the potato salad.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:37 PM on December 31, 2001

If it is wrong to do it for fun, it is surely wrong to do it for any reason.

I agree with this , in a general sense. But you have to step back and try to see why the issue at hand is considered wrong before making such a statement.
Is it wrong to kill an animal for fun, and if so, is it a moral issue or a legal issue? The argument could get pretty heated when working within different cultures and trying to come up with a definitive answer to that one.
For instance, is homosexuality wrong, to do "just for fun?"
Certainly not to me, but here in the United States, homosexuality is considered wrong morally AND legally in some states and within quite a few houses of worship, but this does not alltogether count it as wrong, in many people's minds. It just makes me think that a few laws should be reconsidered, and people should lighten up a bit, or mind their own business.
So if my neighbor was torturing animals for fun, I guess it would be wrong, yes, but only because I feel that that animal would be better off being used for food. I feel that animals, no matter how cute they are, are only here to feed something else.
Therefore, as I rant and rave and start to lose ground on my topic, heh,
I don't think that applies here, as certain laws and moral issues defend both sides of the argument. Animal testing is legal, and torturing animals in the backyard for fun is not. However, what one person calls torture (and therefore wrong) , another may call farming. I have popped the head off many a chicken, and have sliced the throat of too many pigs to list. But I ate every one of them, and I am here because of it.
Today, I am lucky enough not to have to do such things, and for the sake of convenience, I buy it at the store.
Is the treatment of these animals in the slaughterhouses across America wrong?
depends upon the person.
posted by bradth27 at 2:40 PM on December 31, 2001

Nor do babies. Therefore, we can eat babies.
Cheap shot. We practically do eat babies, even though every baby has the potential to understand these things.

My problem with PETA is that it doesn't seem to recognize any higher imperative than treating animals in the manner it defines as ethical. This seems like a sort of arrogance. From their FAQ (italics mine):

"Helping animals is not any more or less important than helping human beings -- both are important."
posted by coelecanth at 2:58 PM on December 31, 2001

I support PETA wholeheartedly.

No matter how nice you are to the lion, the lion still feels free to eat you.

Well, congratulations all you meat-eaters and animal experimenters. Superb ethical reasoning, that. You exist on EXACTLY the same moral plane as the lion...or the hyena...or the shark. It's ok for us to do whatever we want to animals, because by God, they'd eat us in a flash.

I can't help but point out that I've seen dogs eating their own feces....oh, never mind. The level of the moral imperative and reasoning here kind of spoils any lame attempts at humor for me.

They'd eat us, so let's eat them..or exploit them...or make a few quick bucks off them. They're voiceless and primitive. Who'll know? Who'll care? So much for the supposed superiority of you meateaters and animal users, that supposed superiority that people of your ilk use to justify practically everything done to animals.

I don't have any feelings one way or the other on whether torturing animals is right or wrong.

Now why doesn't that surprise me. That particular sentence is the most offensive thing I've ever read here...and however banal it may be, it is worthy of nothing but contempt.

But for all you who retain the remnants of a conscience, let me ask you this. Based on all this hysteria that passes for reasoning among meat-eaters and corporate animal testers, why not just go ahead and test your worthless little products on microcephalic or otherwise severely retarded children? You'll be able to develop ever so much safer products, given that the testing is done on our own species.

And after all, these children are not like the rest of us, right? I mean, they're primitive and voiceless, and any given chimpanzee or border collie is intellectually superior to many of these poor children, right? And the rest of us will benefit from their brief pain, right? Why, think of the benefit to our economy...classes of extraordinarily safe products and drugs. I mean, who wants their own normal child to get an oh so painful eye burn when it could have been prevented by testing on some poor retarded child that's not going to live much longer anyway, right?

Well, if you have a problem with that particular plan, stop and think about the suffering you create in the world with your hypocrisy toward animals.

Stop and think. Unless, as I pointed out, your moral and ethical development never moved past the level of the hyena...never moved farther than "it tastes good"...never grew beyond "it will make us some money."
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 3:04 PM on December 31, 2001

Norfolk, Virginia (Reuters) April 2 - While U.S. authorities take precautions to prevent foot-and-mouth from entering the country, the president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, possibly the world's most influential animal rights organisation, openly hopes the disease crosses the Atlantic.

"If that hideousness came here, it wouldn't be any more hideous for the animals -- they are all bound for a ghastly death anyway. But it would wake up consumers," said PETA co-founder and president Ingrid Newkirk. Interviewed on Friday in the office she shares with four cats, Newkirk said: "I openly hope that it comes here. It will bring economic harm only for those who profit from giving people heart attacks and giving animals a concentration camp-like existence. It would be good for animals, good for human health and good for the environment."

PETA's extremism alienates many who are troubled by the abuse of animals.
posted by Carol Anne at 3:20 PM on December 31, 2001

Okay. I don't have a problem with that.
posted by bradth27 at 3:21 PM on December 31, 2001

( in reference to fold_and_mutilate's statement.)
posted by bradth27 at 3:22 PM on December 31, 2001

We practically do eat babies,
whoa, what part of town are you living in?

even though every baby has the potential to understand these things.
a) not every baby b)many grown people with the potential to understand don't actually think about "ethical systems" - they just act nice to people they like. Just like other animals. c) is potential for something enough? is there no difference between the acorn and the oak? etc...

My problem with PETA is that it doesn't seem to recognize any higher imperative than treating animals in the manner it defines as ethical.
I personally agree this is going too far, but understand where it comes from; many people are uncomfortable making distinctions between profoundly retarded people and our most brilliant thinkers when it comes to saving lives... PETA simply extends that beyond the seemingly arbitrary line of species.
posted by mdn at 3:29 PM on December 31, 2001

fold_and_mutilate:

If you support PETA "wholeheartedly", then you support their statement that ""Helping animals is not any more or less important than helping human beings -- both are important." Therefore, human beings and animals are equal, according to PETA, whom you support wholeheartedly. Since human beings and animals are equal in PETA's eyes, it's no less moral for us to kill and eat a cow than it is for a lion to kill and eat a gazelle. By their standards, it is OK to "...test your worthless little products on microcephalic or otherwise severely retarded children", because animals and people are equally important.

So, why hasn't PETA come out publicly with their support for testing products on humans? Because, even in their minds, humans are superior to animals, otherwise there'd be hordes of PETA supporters lining up at laboratories to volunteer their own children up for testing in order to prevent all the horrible suffering by the poor little animals.

It'd be the right thing to do, don't you think? After all, animals are just as important as people, right?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:29 PM on December 31, 2001

(sorry about the italics)
posted by mdn at 3:32 PM on December 31, 2001

Here's some fuel for the fire.

There are too many deer in a certain area and they're overgrazing and causing traffic accidents. The herd needs to be culled (no more predators) and animal rights activists don't like any of the proposed means. One of them objected to rifles and said that shotguns should be used instead. (GOOD thinking.) Another proposes that they should capture the animals, inject them with contraceptives, and then release them again -- which won't cut down on their current numbers.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 3:54 PM on December 31, 2001

Yeah, you gotta love an organization which finances arsonists and advocates crime and accosts children in the streets. They're so morally above us.
f&m, don't you have some flyers about the evils of circuses to post?
posted by darukaru at 3:59 PM on December 31, 2001

I'm seeing a lot of the the "animals are like stupid people" suggestion. Here, in their FAQ, they knock down the straw-man argument that superior human intelligence justifies our use of animals:

"There are animals who are unquestionably more intelligent, creative, aware, communicative, and able to use language than some humans, as in the case of a chimpanzee compared to a human infant or a person with a severe developmental disability. Should the more intelligent animals have rights and the less intelligent humans be denied rights?"

But I suspect that deep down, the belief isn't that animals are like stupid humans -- it's that humans are nothing more than smart animals. Lots of people believe this, and it presents the sort of bind where the only reason for us to, er, dominate other animals is because we can.

Personally, I believe that whether you're equally nice to animals and human beings, or equally cruel to animals and human beings, the suggestion that animals should receive the same considerations as humans is suspect.

That probably makes me a radical. Try out this hypothetical: would you kill the last lion on earth to prevent it from killing the six billionth person? No? What if your child was the six billionth person? The thing that scares me about PETA is, I feel certain I know what their answer would be.

As for the thing about practically eating babies: sorry. It's the worst sort of hyperbole. I just don't think we do a very good job of making sure that every new human being is taken care of.
posted by coelecanth at 4:02 PM on December 31, 2001

"One of them objected to rifles and said that shotguns should be used instead. (GOOD thinking)."

Yes, that's an example of some real critical thinking there. Let's make sure that the deer is peppered with shot so none of the meat can go to feed the hungry or homeless, and end up having to toss its carcass in a landfill. Or better yet, let the cute little deer multiply unchecked, and starve to death or get smashed on the highways.

Years ago there was an incredible surplus population of deer in my area. A proposition was floated to increase hunting tags to allow a single hunter to take two or three deer. No dice. Single-deer tags stayed, and the population continued to increase through several mild winters.

Then a really, really harsh winter hit, and deer starved to death by the tens of thousands because they couldn't get through the snow to the grass below. Even though farmers and the Division of Wildlife put out feed, the death rate was better than 90% of the population. The once-healthy herds have yet to come back some twelve or so years later. Instead of a viable deer population, we now have a ragtag herd filled with a few very old bucks and thousands of one- and two-year-olds which, odds are, won't survive in great numbers this year either.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:14 PM on December 31, 2001

The bit about animal testing and the EPA is hogwash, and PETA knows it. The EPA basically doesn't ban toxic chemicals, because that would be silly; you wouldn't be looking at a monitor right now if someone hadn't used toxic chemicals as solvents to fashion its housing.

What the EPA does do with animal testing is determine the environmental impact of various chemicals so that it can figure out what amounts of chemicals can be released where and still maintain acceptable losses.

We have acceptable losses everywhere. We drive because we believe that thousands of people dying per year is an acceptable loss if it means getting to places faster. PETA runs ads because it believes that printing them presents and acceptable loss in terms of animals killed by exposure to the polutants produced during and after printing.

The point of EPA is to calculate acceptable losses and then force companies to adhere to them. Don't think that GM wouldn't be dumping and emitting toxic solvents and paint residues all over the place if it wasn't for EPA testing. Sure, we already knew they were toxic. But the point is to figure out how toxic they are so that acceptable losses may be calculated.
posted by Ptrin at 4:16 PM on December 31, 2001

coelecanth:

Thanks for the word "hyperbole". I was trying to think of it earlier, but couldn't pull it out of the recesses of my brain.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:16 PM on December 31, 2001

In the spirit of "post first, check the facts later," I just checked with my EPA-working father about the animal testing bit.

Apparently, only one segment of EPA uses animal testing. They are the Research and Development branch. Of course, they are completely uninvolved with policy making, making the "banning chemicals" argument even weaker and sillier. Anyway, the point of EPA R&D is to test stuff that's on the horizon, which is really quite nice for companies that would like to advertise "no animals harmed." Moreover, this is actual honest-to-God testing, not the "tested for approval" rubber-stamping that big business pulls all of the time in the environmental arena.
posted by Ptrin at 4:28 PM on December 31, 2001

No problem. Coincidentally, "recess" is just where I plan to take my brain for a while. Happy New Year Metafilter!
posted by coelecanth at 4:48 PM on December 31, 2001

I'm always surprised by all the vitriol directed towards PETA..

Why? The antaganonism people feel toward PETA has less to do with their goals(although some of them are negligible at best) and more with the shrill, dogmatic, sactimonious tone of much of their propoganda(although I do admit to supporting the "Don't Drink Milk, Drink Beer" idea).
Minimizing testing on animals, OK. Eliminating it entirely, not feasible at this point. Becoming a vegetarian yourself, dandy. Shoving it down my thoat, very bad. As Jim Goad says "Morality ceases to be morality when it's imposed on someone else, then it becomes something more like immorality."
My other main beef with PETA and their ilk is that I'm always seeing PETA-phile celebrities at black-tie galas to save some endangered hermit-crab while the unemployed and homeless humans outside the charity ball are ignored.
posted by jonmc at 4:49 PM on December 31, 2001

Nor do babies. Therefore, we can eat babies.

Babies are human beings. Human beings can reason. Once we have determined that a category of sentient possesses the capacity of reason, it seems reasonable to extend the rights of a reasoning being to all members of that category (including young ones). This is what I refer to as the "better safe than sorry" rule.

No one would rally for the ethical treatment of shoes, or televisions.

They could. If you treat your shoes well, they will last longer, thereby requiring fewer precious resources to replace them over your lifetime -- resources that could be used for other purposes. Ethical treatment of a television, of course, would probably involve not having one at all. But when you talk about "ethical treatment of shoes" the discussion necessarily revolves around how your treatment of your shoes affects other people and society. When you talk about "ethical treatment of animals" somehow the animals themselves are supposed to become the focus. But ethics are about obligations among members of a society; animals will never be members of our society because they are incapable of even understanding the concept. (No being can have rights without also having responsibilities.) So all ethics can really be used for is to discuss the ramifications to human society of the various ways we might treat animals. That is, of the ways we might treat animals, which will benefit society most? This is insufficient for many people because of their specific or general emotional attachment to animals, so they attempt to include another class of being in their ethical system, one with rights but no responsibilities, one with entitlements but no obligations. This is like putting a square peg in a round hole.

But if it's possible to minimize their pain without harming others, isn't that the ethical thing to do?

Well, it certainly is a nice thing to do. Nice for the animals, at least. As I said, I'm not convinced it's a moral imperative. There is pain, and there is suffering -- the latter requiring self-awareness, the former only a nervous system. Virtually any multicellular organism can feel pain, but significantly fewer (so far as we know for certain, only one) can suffer. As far as I can tell, the issue of whether causing the suffering of various animals is right or wrong is undecideable by traditional ethical systems, that is, the type that every one of us (including PETA members) have internalized.
posted by kindall at 5:22 PM on December 31, 2001

i was just rereading f_&_m's monumentally self-righteous and sanctimonious screed. In all the post's I've read by him/her s/he's exhibited a truckload of self-satisfied sanctimony and absolutely zero sense of humor to leaven his/her righteousness. This may be ultimate definition of tiresome, not to mention preachy and intolerant.
However, villifying f_&_m publicly would only feed his/her/it's(i use pc pronouns cos f_&_m's profile tells us nothing about him and i dont fee like arguing about sexism) so instead i suggest we take up a collection and mail some Omaha Steaks his/her way.

Actually f_&_m, i'd like to leave you with a little advice from Mr Bob Dylan:

Half-wracked prejudice leaped forth
'Rip down all hate,' I screamed
Lies that life is black and white
Spoke from my skull. I dreamed
Romantic facts of musketeers
Foundationed deep, somehow.
Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now.
posted by jonmc at 6:17 PM on December 31, 2001

I went out for dinner a bit ago and on the car radio I heard an ad claiming that a large percentage of animal abusers were abused as children and went on to abuse their own children, so therefore we should report animal abuse to the authorities. (This link is, I imagine, pretty well-established.) The spot was, predictably, paid for by PETA. This is an excellent example of the ethical issues arising from human interaction with animals and of how PETA can, when they feel like it, put out a serious ad that makes a legitimate point.

fold_and_mutilate: Save your flattery ("the most offensive thing I've ever read here") for those more susceptible to it. No, you can't have my Bud Light.
posted by kindall at 6:43 PM on December 31, 2001

fold_and_mutilate, you've been dragged through the trenches lately it seems! I just wanted you to know that I thought your comment was really inspiring. if someone wants to call you self-righteous on account of your ability to make your point effectively, then maybe it would be best if they did so via e-mail since that kind of trash talk does nothing to further the debate (although to be fair, neither does this) and speaks unfavorably of their argumentative skills. address the issue, not the arguer!
posted by mcsweetie at 7:13 PM on December 31, 2001

mcsweetie-"address the issue, not the arguer!"

I did that a couple of comments up, I'm just stating an opinion. You know my posts well enough to know that I usually give people(even those whose opinions I violently disagree with) the benefit of the doubt. However, I do ask that they

a) acknowledge that opinion's are like assholes, everybody's got one and they all smell the same

b)say something remotely original. all of his opinions from what i've seen from leafing through the posts on his profile page are utterly predictable. Even the most rightward or leftward leaning among us occasionally deviate from the party line.

and most importantly

c) leaven your screeds with some humor, or failing that some compassion rather than being judgemental,which is what I was trying to do with the Dylan quote.

And also, mcsweetie and m_&_F despite our differences-Happy New Year..
posted by jonmc at 7:34 PM on December 31, 2001

"Four legs good, two legs bad".
posted by Mack Twain at 10:23 PM on December 31, 2001

fold_and_mutilate - I've been waiting months for your answer to this question:

You're driving through a narrow curving tunnel. As you come around the corner, you clearly see both a baby and a group of two cats in the road. You are going too fast to stop in time, even if you scrape along the wall. They are spread out so that you must hit either the baby or the cats. Which do you choose to run over?

Now I think you may have provided a clue here:
congratulations all you meat-eaters and animal experimenters. Superb ethical reasoning, that. You exist on EXACTLY the same moral plane as the lion...or the hyena...or the shark.

This statement is content-free unless you start with the belief that humans should occupy a higher moral than other animals. If we accept that that statement is sincere, then this statement must be insincere: I support PETA wholeheartedly.

There is a fundamental conflict in your statements, fold_and_mutilate. I do not see how they can all be sincere. Please clarify or correct this situation.

I would also appreciate it if you took this opportunity to finally answer the tunnel question directly. It's not complicated.
posted by NortonDC at 11:02 PM on December 31, 2001

Norton, with all due respect, those kinds of moral set-piece dilemmas are usually a crock. For instance, though it was not directed at me I would answer it this way: "I'd try to miss them all, and probably fail."

But the fact is that in real life it doesn't work that way. If you've got time to pick either-or you've probably also got time to stop. If not, you probably don't have time to make a reasoned ethical choice and will be reacting from instinct and reflex.

A different way to put the problem would be this: If you had a dying child and knew you could save it by sacrificing two cats in the process of creating a medicine to save that child, would you do so?

Or this: Would you sacrifice a pig to save a human? That's not farfetched at all; it's being experimented with now. Transplant organs are not available in adequate supply, and there's a group experimenting with the use of pig organs for transplant into humans. (If they can make it work, it will be a medical miracle and in my opinion well worth doing.) Is it worth sacrificing one pig to save one human?

The reason those are better questions is because they truly are ethical choices which are made slowly and deliberately.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 11:11 PM on December 31, 2001

fold_and_mutilate has every opportunity to make a slow and deliberate choice - months, in fact. And in this very thread he has demonstrated a willingness to engage exotic circumstances to probe ethical boundaries. I've been waiting for a very long time for his direct answer on this one.

I want to hear it. I doubt he wants to share it.
posted by NortonDC at 11:19 PM on December 31, 2001

answer the tunnel question

yeah, or what if on one side is a group of children you don't know and on the other side is your own son/ daughter... or what if one side was a group of severely retarded people and on the other side was your favorite philosopher / scientist...

or there's peter singer's construction - on a train, would you switch tracks to avoid hitting a child you didn't know if it meant running into your $100K sports car -yes? then why didn't you donate that 100K to orgs that save starving children - etc... I agree with Steven that these constructions oversimplify. Personally, I do value human life above animal life, and I do recognize that death is part of the deal and we can't save every creature, etc - all I'm suggesting is that if it's possible to limit suffering, we should do it. I couldn't walk thru a factory farm and slaughterhouse without feeling a little ill, so i won't eat meat, and I buy organic eggs & dairy.

kindall, treating your shoes well isn't the same as treating your shoes ethically, which i'm sure you realize. As for the nice vs. imperative thing, there are other ways to look at ethics than through the Kantian lens. Aristotle considered ethics the function of a man, living ethically the path to happiness and fulfillment; Hume considered virtue to be an agreeable quality, essentially that which makes us feel good (not simple pleasures but a deeper feeling of benevolence). So being "nice" has been considered being "ethical"

There is pain, and there is suffering -- the latter requiring self-awareness, the former only a nervous system.

and shall we discuss how many thousands of shades of gray there are in between? have you ever been drunk, or concentrating deeply on something, & noticed a change in yr level of self-awareness? Animals may not be able to think in language, but it seems clear they experience the world in some sort of meaningful way. I have no problem with considering humans above animals, just as I consider animals above plants, and therefore have no ethical issues with killing vegetables for my dinner. But just because we'll rescue the humans in the burning building first, doesn't mean we'll leave the dogs to die if it's possible to save them without harming anyone else.

(sorry to go on so long. feel free to email me instead)
posted by mdn at 10:36 AM on January 1, 2002

How many of you have any idea of the treatment of animals on factory farms, for example? It seems we're all talking about animals without having any idea of whether their suffering or not, or how they are suffering. Go see what you're buying before you comment on it.
posted by 4midori at 11:03 AM on January 1, 2002

4midori:

The majority of the meat I eat is raised on my wife's grandfather's farm. I've spent many a cold February morning helping a cow give birth to a breech calf which would have otherwise killed them both. I've hauled hay, dug wells, helped round up the herd for inoculations and examinations, and spent long nights on the mountain looking for strays. I've been there for births and slaughters, as well as at the packing plant to help with the butchering. I've also killed, cleaned, skinned, butchered and wrapped deer, elk, duck, rabbit and other animals to provide meat to feed my family and others.

I also worked for two summers at a meat processing plant, where it was my job to pull hundreds of pounds of meat from one conveyor line to another, cut out unusable portions, and load pallets full of frozen meat into trucks for shipping to grocery stores.

Now, do you think I know what I'm buying? Am I qualified to comment on it?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:27 PM on January 1, 2002

I have a bit of a different perspective on this. One of the reasons that I changed careers out of biology was because I came to the realization that even if I got to position where I was doing ethical research, that research would most likely be appropriated by corporations and used in ways that maximize short-term profits at the expense of long-term sustainability. One my objections dealt with the entire issue of animal research.

I am not opposed to all animal research, that one of my irritations with PETA is their tendency to translate the issue into black and white binaries. So as a typical problem what do you do when your neighborhood is overrun with feral cats or dogs? Do you allow nature to take its course with the understanding that it may result in the extinction of local species? Or do you manage the problem invasive species by setting traps, killing, and/or sterilizing the problem species? This was a problem that PETA attacked when they criticized survivor for showing contestants catching and eating European rats. However European rats are an invasive species throughout most of the Pacific and have caused the extinction of dozens of other species.

So what I'm hearing from PETA is that we should exercise a superior ethical moral prerogative in treating animals better than what we do now. This is a goal I certainly agree with. On the other hand we should not exercise a superior ethical moral prerogative in engaging in practices of herd management in order to prevent the ecological equivalent of famine.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:36 PM on January 1, 2002

How many of you have any idea of the treatment of animals on factory farms, for example?

Saw a documentary on chickens once. Mostly, it made me glad I'm not a chicken.
posted by kindall at 11:00 PM on January 1, 2002

How many of you have any idea of the treatment of animals on factory farms, for example?

Worked in a chicken processing plant, VERY briefly. Not because of the gore, but because the equipment had a nasty habit of removing digits. I liked mine, so resigned.

I've seen factory farms for chickens and cattle. Most are not anywhere near as bad as PETA shows, because the loss of animals in shifting environments (heat wave kills chickens packed too tightly in chicken houses, for instance) is too acute. Instead, it's packed but not overly so.

I've culled a hog. I've snapped the head off a chicken or two, and eaten what I've hunted. It's pretty acceptable to me. I was allowed to grow up with summers at farms, so I got to see where my food comes from, and it doesn't bother me at all to drain the blood out of my dinner.

BUT.....

I won't eat veal. I prefer lamb from butchers I know (kosher, if possible) to beef, for flavor and quality of life of the animal, and I pay a premium for it. I only buy chicken from approved companies, because of how the meat is processed (and thus the possibility of contamination).

I also recognize that humans are above other life. I just don't make the distinction that animals superceed plants. Motility shouldn't equate to superiority. Plants can feel pain, so it has been shown. Problem is, all the animals I eat tend to survive by eating plants. So, I'm a vegetarian by the transitive property of digestion. I can't get away from plants no matter how much I try.
posted by dwivian at 6:06 AM on January 2, 2002

Plants can feel pain, so it has been shown.

Where? Are you confusing roald dahl short stories with reality? Plants have no nervous systems; there is absolutely no reason to believe that plants have any capacity to experience the world. And I seriously doubt many people feel no difference between picking a tulip and shooting a dog.

(okay, I'm done, for real...)
posted by mdn at 9:54 AM on January 2, 2002

And beyond that, as competent psychologists will tell you, pain is an interpretation. Sensing damage is not the same as feeling pain. I doubt the ability of plants to interpret.
posted by NortonDC at 11:43 AM on January 2, 2002