Skip to main content

Home/ New Media Ethics 2009 course/ Group items tagged chicken

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Weiye Loh

Our conflicted relationship with animals - Pets. Animals. - Salon.com - 0 views

  • In his fascinating new book, "Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat," Hal Herzog looks at the wild, tortured paradoxes in our relationship with the weaker, if sometimes more adorable, species.
  • it's the human-meat relationship. The fact is, very few people are vegetarians; even most vegetarians eat meat. There have been several studies, including a very large one by the Department of Agriculture, where they asked people one day: Describe your diet. And 5 percent said they were vegetarians. Well, then they called the same people back a couple of days later and asked them about what they ate in the last 24 hours. And over 60 percent of these vegetarians had eaten meat. And so, the fact is, the campaign for moralized meat has been a failure. We actually kill three times as many animals for their flesh as we did when Peter Singer wrote "Animal Liberation" [in 1975]. We eat probably 20 percent more meat than we did when he wrote that book. Even though people are more concerned about animals, it seems like that's been occurring. The question is, why?
  • What was it about the two giant viral videos of the past few weeks -- the London woman, Mary Bale, who tried to trash that cat; the Bosnian woman who threw puppies from a bridge
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • The bigger thing is they're both pet species, though. I've been thinking about this. I just went back this morning, and I uncovered a piece in the New York Times from 1877. And it's actually fascinating. They had a stray dog population, so what they did is they rounded up 750 stray dogs. They took them to the East River, and they had a large metal cage -- it took them all day to do this -- they would put 50 dogs at a time, 48 dogs at a time in this metal, iron cage, and lower it into the East River with a crane.
  • they both involved women. And this is a little bit of an anomaly, because if you look at animal cruelty trials and (data), I think it's that 90 to 95 percent are men behind them. So that's one reason why this went viral; it's the surprising idea of women being cruel in this way.
  • drowning animals was actually an acceptable way of dealing with pet overpopulation in 1877. Now it seems horrifying. I watched that girl toss those puppies into the river, and it was just horrifying.
  • rooster fighters had a fairly intricate set of moral logical framework in which cockfighting not only becomes not bad, it becomes actually good for the moral model for your children, something to be desired.
  • the most common rationale is the same one that you hear from chicken eaters: It's natural. It's really funny, I was telling a woman one time about these cockfighters, and she was telling me how disgusting it was and somehow it came around to eating chicken. I said, "Whoa, you eat chicken, how do you feel about that?" and she said, "Well, that's different because that's natural." That's exactly what the rooster fighters told me.
  • the cockfighters take good care of them, as opposed to the chicken we eat, which usually live very short, very miserable lives.
  • the fact is, there is actually less harm done by rooster fighting than there is by eating chicken.
  • There's a number of people that are bitten by pets every year. There's a shocking number of people that trip over their pet and wind up in the hospital. There's the fact that pets are the biggest source of conflict between neighbors
  •  
    Our conflicted relationship with animals Why do we get so angry with animal abusers, but eat more animals than ever before? An expert provides some clues
Weiye Loh

Chickens are capable of feeling empathy, scientists believe - Telegraph - 0 views

  • When chicks were exposed to puffs of air, they showed signs of distress that were mirrored by their mothers. The hens' heart rate increased, their eye temperature lowered - a recognised stress sign - and they became increasingly alert. Levels of preening were reduced, and the hens made more clucking noises directed at their chicks.
  • Researcher Jo Edgar, from the School of Veterinary Sciences at the University of Bristol, said: ''The extent to which animals are affected by the distress of others is of high relevance to the welfare of farm and laboratory animals. ''Our research has addressed the fundamental question of whether birds have the capacity to show empathic responses.
  •  
    Domestic chickens display signs of empathy, the ability to ''feel another's pain'' that is at the heart of compassion, a study has found.
Chen Guo Lim

Anti plagiarism is (un)ethical - 20 views

I think there is a need to investigate the motivation behind using these softwares. Suppose a writer has recently come across an article that seemingly have plagiarised, thus using the software to ...

Turnitin plagiarism

Weiye Loh

Is Crowdfunding the Future of Book Publishing? | The Utopianist - Think Bigger - 0 views

  • And just like Kickstarter, if the book doesn’t reach its targeted goal, your donation is refunded to you.

    I

  • One thing is for sure–traditional publishing isn’t getting anymore lucrative. That means under the current system, if you’re not selling a sure thing, publishers probably aren’t going to buy it. Hopefully crowdfunding sites like Unbound can change all of that–it sure beats waiting for a wealthy benefactor, anyway.
  •  
    writers now have a different option: crowdfunding their next novel. That's the idea behind Unbound, a new site from the U.K. that allows donors to pledge cash to authors in exchange for things like signed hard copies of the book, goodie bags and invites to the launch party. You can even choose to fund the entire project, in which case you get … I don't know, say, a back massage and a chicken dinner. The point is, you're directly involved in the process. And just like Kickstarter, if the book doesn't reach its targeted goal, your donation is refunded to you.
Weiye Loh

Johann Hari: The religious excuse for barbarity - Johann Hari, Commentators - The Indep... - 0 views

  • If you are engaged in an act of cruelty, there is an easy, effective way to silence your critics and snatch some space to carry on. Tell us all that your religion requires you to do it, and you are "offended" by any critical response.
  • In Britain, it is a crime to kill a conscious cow or sheep or chicken for meat by slashing its throat without numbing it first.
  • You are allowed to skip all this and slash the throats of un-numbed, screaming animals if you say God told you to. If you are Muslim, you call it "halal", and if you are Jewish you call it "kosher".
  • ...11 more annotations...
  • Back in the Bronze Age, or the deserts of sixth-century Arabia, it was sensible to act this way. You needed to know your meat was fresh and the animal was not sick, so you made sure it was alive and alert when you killed it. As Woody Allen once said, it wasn't so much a commandment as "advice on how to eat out safely in Jerusalem". But we have much better ways of making sure meat is fresh and healthy now. Yet for many religious people it has hardened into a dogma, to be followed simply because it was laid down in their "holy" texts long ago by "God".
  • Of course, they claim that this practice isn't cruel at all. Henry Grunwald, chairman of the main body overseeing the certification of kosher meat, Shechita UK, says that when you slash an animal's throat "there is an instant drop in blood pressure in the brain. The animal is dead." Similarly, Raghib Ali, of the Oxford Islam and Muslim Awareness Project, says: "It's not cruel, it is better for the animal."
  • This has been proven by science to be false. The Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) is the Government's senior panel of independent scientific experts on this area, and their investigation found that "the prevailing scientific consensus that slaughter without pre-stunning causes very significant pain and distress". The FAWC chairwoman, Dr Judy MacArthur Clark, explains: "To say [the animal] doesn't suffer is quite ridiculous."
  • Kosher butchers never numb their animals. Most halal butchers now use some stunning, but the RSPCA warns that it is at a much lower dosage to guarantee the animal is still alive when it is killed – so it doesn't properly protect them from pain.
  • in Britain this kind of animal cruelty is becoming standard. Over the past few years, there has been a dramatic abandonment of the numbing of animals before killing them, in the name of "respect" for a religious minority.
  • The halal and kosher meat industries are fighting even tepid proposals by the European Union to ensure that all meat made from unstunned animals must be clearly labelled. They claim this will render their businesses "economically unviable". Isn't that an extraordinary confession – that if people knew what they were buying, the companies would go bust?
  • Atheists who criticise religion are constantly being told we have missed the point and religion is really about compassion and kindness.
  • But here's an example where most members of a religion choose to do something pointlessly cruel, and even the moderates demand "respect" for their "views". Their faith makes them prioritise pleasing an invisible supernatural being over the screaming of actual living creatures. Doesn't this suggest that faith itself – the choice to believe something in the total absence of evidence – is a danger that can lead you up needlessly nasty paths?
  • It is true that, at the moment, there is a frightening rise in real bigotry against Muslims and, to a lesser but still significant extent, Jews.
  • But the only consistent position is to oppose viciousness against these minorities, and to oppose viciousness by these minorities.
  • We need to be much more self-confident in criticising religious claims. Your ideas do not deserve any special status because you say they came from an invisible, supernatural being.
Weiye Loh

Rationally Speaking: Some animals are more equal than others - 0 views

  • society's answer to the question “Is it acceptable to hurt animals for our pleasure?” isn't always “No.” Odds are that most of the people who objected to the dog fighting and crush videos are frequent consumers of meat, milk, and eggs from industrialized farms. And the life of an animal in a typical industrialized farm is notoriously punishing. Many spend their lives in cages so confining they can barely move; ammonia fumes burn their eyes; their beaks or tails are chopped off to prevent them from biting each other out of stress; and the farm's conditions make many of them so sick or weak that they die in their cages or on the way to slaughter. As a society, however, we apparently believe that the pleasure we get from eating those animals makes their suffering worth it.
  • many people will object that eating animals isn’t a matter of pleasure at all, but of the need for sustenance. While that may have been true for our ancestors who survived by hunting wild animals, I don’t think it has much relevance to our current situation. First, it's questionable whether we actually do need to eat animal products in order to be healthy; the American Dietetic Association has given the thumbs up to vegetarian and even vegan diets. But even if you believe that some amount of animal product consumption is medically necessary, we could still buy from farms that raise their livestock much more humanely. It would cost more, but we could always compensate by cutting back on other luxuries, or simply by eating less meat. By any reasonable estimate, Americans could cut their meat consumption drastically with no ill effects on their health (and likely with many positive effects). Buying the sheer amount of meat that Americans do, at the low prices made possible by industrialized farms, is a luxury that can’t be defended with a “need for sustenance” argument. It’s about pleasure — the pleasure of eating more meat than strictly necessary for health, and the pleasure of saving money that can then be spent on other things we enjoy.
  • there are several reasons why people regard consumers of industrial farming differently than consumers of crush videos and dogfighting. The first has to do with the types of animals involved: pigs, cows, and chickens simply aren't as cute as dogs, bunnies, and kittens. I don't know how many people would explicitly cite that as the reason they're willing to inflict suffering on the former and not the latter, but it seems to play a role, even if people won't admit as much. People who have no qualms about a pig spending its life in a small, dark crate would nevertheless be outraged if a dog were treated in the same way.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • Cuteness is a pretty silly criterion by which to assign moral status, though. It's not as if unappealing animals are less intelligent or less sensitive to pain.
  • And if you have any trouble seeing the absurdity of basing moral judgments on cuteness, it helps to try out the principle in other contexts. (Is it worse to abuse a cute child than an ugly one?)
  • But I think the biggest reason that different examples of hurting animals for pleasure elicit different reactions from people is not about the types of animals involved, but about the types of pleasure.
  • One objective difference people might cite is the fact that a desire to eat meat is “natural” while a desire to watch kittens being crushed is not. Which is true, in the sense that our species did evolve to eat meat while a fetish for crushing kittens is an aberration. But using naturalness as a criterion for moral rightness is a dubious move. First, it seems rather arbitrary, from a logical perspective, which is why it's often referred to as the naturalistic fallacy. And second, it would justify some pretty unsavory “natural” urges, like rape and tribalism, while prohibiting other “unnatural” urges, like the desire to wear clothing or to refrain from having children.
  • The closest thing that I can find to a morally relevant distinction between industrial farming, dogfighting, and crush videos is this: While it’s true that all three acts cause animal suffering in order to give people pleasure, the nature of that tradeoff differs. The consumers of crush videos and dogfighting are taking pleasure in the suffering itself, whereas the consumers of industrially-farmed meat are taking pleasure in the meat that was produced by the suffering. From a purely harm-based perspective, the moral calculus is the same: the animal suffers so that you can experience pleasure. But the degree of directness of that tradeoff makes a difference in how we perceive your character. Someone whose motive is “I enjoy seeing another creature suffer” seems more evil than someone whose motive is “I want a tasty meal,” even if both people cause the same amount of suffering.
  • And I can certainly understand why people would want to call a crush video enthusiast more “evil” than a person who buys meat from industrial farms, because of the difference in their motivations. That's a reasonable way to define evilness. But in that case we're left with the fact that a person's evilness may be totally unrelated to the amount of harm she causes; and that, in fact, some of the greatest harm may be caused by people whose motivations seem unobjectionable to us. Apathy, denial, conformity; none of these inspire the same outrage as sadism, but they've caused some pretty horrible outcomes. And if you believe that it's wrong to make animals suffer for our pleasure, but you reserve your moral condemnation only for cases that viscerally upset you, like dogfighting or crush videos, then you're falling prey to the trap that Isaac Asimov famously warned us against: “Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right.”
Weiye Loh

Singapore Finds Freedom of Expression in Its Food - Newsweek - 0 views

  • Singaporeans are the toughest critics I know when it comes to food; the same person who worries about too openly expressing dissatisfaction with the government will not think twice of berating a hawker for serving a bowl of fish porridge deemed substandard. We try our best to keep them honest—and this, perhaps, inspires them to greater heights.
  • Settlers from India, Europe, China, and Malaysia flocked to Singapore, and the country’s fusion-style cuisine was born, meshing flavors and cooking styles from the various far-flung lands. The sedate chicken rice from China’s Hainan Island was spiced up with garlic, pandan leaves, and chilies. Fried Roti John—named for the British soldiers, or Johns, as the locals called them—combined a Western baguette-style bread with minced mutton, beaten eggs, and a plethora of Indian spices.
  • I’d never questioned such devotion to food until I moved to Chicago in the 1990s and realized that these practices sounded more than a little peculiar to the American friends
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Outsiders might consider it incongruous that a country with a reputation for limited free speech could foster such creative cuisine. But I maintain that it is precisely those limitations that make Singapore’s food scene so dynamic; it’s simply the safest outlet for no-holds-barred expression. In politics and religion, silence might be best in Singapore, but with food there are no restrictions. “Is there freedom of speech in Singapore?” responded Willin Low, chef of the well-regarded “Mod Sin” (shorthand for Modern Singaporean) restaurant Wild Rocket. “I don’t know about that because I have only one mouth and I am busy eating.”
  • t food has great symbolic power in Singapore. “We were an immigrant society where the most important thing was having enough to eat,” says Violet Oon, the Julia Child of Singapore. “So the greatest sign of success was having a fat baby.” (I remember unsuccessfully trying to explain this concept to an American boyfriend who got tremendously miffed whenever my parents showed up for a visit and remarked with big smiles, “You’ve put on weight!”)
guanyou chen

How to Build A Dinosaur - 3 views

Dinosaurs ethics genetic engineering chicken

started by guanyou chen on 22 Oct 09 no follow-up yet
1 - 8 of 8
Showing 20 items per page