Comments on: Man becomes God!

By: Bill Hawthorne

Bill Hawthorne — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:38:50 +0000

Hello,

My name is Bill Hawthorne, and I represent maacenter.org, a leading web resource for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma cancer information. Our organization is dedicated to increasing awareness of the terrible health consequences of asbestos exposure through the distribution of the best informational materials and public outreach efforts.

I found your site through a search and decided to contact you because of its high environmental and green presence which is extremely important in our movement. Your viewers are extremely savvy and motivated. The promotion of how buildings should now be built using sustainable green products to avoid asbestos and mesothelioma as well as the awareness of past buildings and preventative steps in avoiding asbestos exposure are extremely important. My goal is to get a resource link on your site/blog or even to provide a guest posting to be placed.

I look forward to hearing from you. Please feel free to check out our website. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Bill

By: Holly

Holly — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:21:56 +0000

I ask this sincerely, if you’re concerned about animal rights do you still eat meat? We can talk all we want about treating animals this way or that. But until we change our lifestyle that’s all it is, talk.

By: Y. Verhoeven

Y. Verhoeven — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 02:35:50 +0000

Should you also shun the enslavement of yeast cells to make beer? I mean trillions of hapless little cells, forced under anaerobic (we cruelly cut the oxygen supply to them) conditions to ferment genetically modified or selectively bred vegetation in order to produce alcohol. Then once they finish making the alcohol, their yeasty bodies die a cruel, horrible death in their own alcoholic wastes. How is this any different?

Say no to forcing organisms to work for our benefit? As Peter Grant already brought up, if you turn your back on biotechnology, than you should also turn your back on beer, flour, grain, chickens, cows, yogurt and even your family pet. It’s neither good nor bad nor otherwise, but the foundation of humanity is based on technological advances that are also biologically based. Let’s start with the creation of bread and move from there, shall we?

Understand that when you say no to the technology that gives you the quality of life that you live, also think that it is the same technology that gives you things like flu vaccinations, insulin, and innovative chemotherapies. What is more ethical? The lives of bacteria, or the life of a family member?

The current regulations are that govern scientific research are pretty good at preventing “mad scientists” from going off the deep end and overlooking an animal’s welfare and well being. In the US, research is heavily regulated, and most researchers are not these power-hungry crazed people that you may envision. Science fiction is not real science. Before coming to too many conclusions, understand the technology behind it first. (Like, it’s impossible for mice with ears to breed more mice with ears because of the way it’s done, as aussiecynic pointed out.)

By: Peter Grant

Peter Grant — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:24:29 +0000

We have been exploiting and deliberately modifying farm animals and crops for thousands of years through selective breeding. We allow those with characteristics we find favourable to breed and destroy the rest. This is a slower process, but it achieves the same goal. Ancient horses were little more than ponies. Cattle have become more docile and produce more milk. Cultivated grains produce much larger seeds and in excessive quantities, far more that they require to reproduce. Most domesticated animals have been so radically modified that they can no longer survive in the wild. I am not debating the morality of this, simply pointing out that it has been going on for a long time, and if you wish to be consistent you will have to condemn thousands of years of agriculture as well and go back to being a hunter-gatherer.

By: Dagny

Dagny — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:08:02 +0000

My personal instinct is to leave animals be. Why can’t we experiment on humans if we need to find cures or test hypothesis. That’s not moral. However, if I had a sick child and testing on animals could save him or her, I’m not sure I wouldn’t change my mind.

Dagny
http://www.onnotextiles.com
bamboo and organic clothing

By: aussiecynic

aussiecynic — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:44:11 +0000

thanks mate…..
the whole process of using animals its a total disgrace… I dont understand why we think we have the right to do this…

By: Joshua

Joshua — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 06:26:32 +0000

I need to clarify my statements, because they need no correction.

The picture of the green rabbit displayed above is artist Eduardo Kac’s bunny Alba. However, it is certainly far more common to make transgenic animals (such as those expressing fluorescent proteins) for medical purposes, rather than artistic reasons.

Also, the ear was grown from bovine cartilage cells seeded onto a degradable ear-shaped scaffold, which was implanted under the skin of the mouse’s back.

By: aussiecynic

aussiecynic — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 03:08:10 +0000

I need to correct you on two counts Joshua….
The glowing rabbits are for a scientific experiment in which they take a gene from Jellyfish which has a florescence and insert into the cells of the rabbit… this will be they hope be used in tracing the paths of tumors, and blockages amongst other things….. and the mouse was not implanted it was grown in early stem cell research…
There is a natural selection process as far genes go whith all creatures …. the creatures do not get a choice in the process it is done to them, not for them… for our own needs not theirs

By: Joshua

Joshua — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:54:13 +0000

Actually, the fluorescent rabbit, Alba, was for art, not medical research. And that mouse had an ear implanted on its back – no genetic modification there (that I’m aware of).

Now, as for their existence being manipulated – we do that all the time. Why, we can’t ask an animal (or a person for that matter) if they would like to come into existence. You didn’t consent to be born. You didn’t choose your parents, nor what genes you got. So why should it be any different if we breed animals asking them if they’d like to be born, and give them genes that they didn’t ask for? Not even humans get this choice.