Wednesday, February 17, 2010

T, 5:40pm

T,R 9:50am

T,R 8:25am

Is factory farming ethical?

 

What is factory farming? Read here, about ethical consequences of factory farming:

Factory farms hold large numbers of animals, typically cows, pigs, turkeys, or chickens, often indoors, typically at high densities. The aim of the operation is to produce as much meat, eggs, or milk at the lowest possible cost. Food is supplied in place, and a wide variety of artificial methods are employed to maintain animal health and improve production, such as the use of antimicrobial agents, vitamin supplements, and growth hormones. Physical restraints are used to control movement or actions regarded as undesirable. Breeding programs are used to produce animals more suited to the confined conditions and able to provide a consistent food product.

The large concentration of animals, animal waste, and the potential for dead animals in a small space poses ethical issues. It is recognized that some techniques used to sustain intensive agriculture are cruel to animals. As awareness of the problems of intensive techniques has grown, there have been some efforts by governments and industry to remove inappropriate techniques (...) In the UK, the Farm Animal Welfare Council was set up by the government to act as an independent advisor on animal welfare in 1979. It expresses its policy as five freedoms: from hunger & thirst; from discomfort; from pain, injury or disease; to express normal behavior; from fear and distress.

There are differences around the world as to which practices are accepted and there continue to be changes in regulations with animal welfare being a strong driver for increased regulation. For example, the EU is bringing in further regulation to set maximum stocking densities for meat chickens by 2010, where the UK Animal Welfare Minister commented, "The welfare of meat chickens is a major concern to people throughout the European Union. This agreement sends a strong message to the rest of the world that we care about animal welfare.”

For example, in the UK, de-beaking of chickens is deprecated, but it is recognized that it is a method of last resort, seen as better than allowing vicious fighting and ultimately cannibalism. Between 60 and 70 percent of six million breeding sows in the U.S. are confined during pregnancy, and for most of their adult lives, in 2 by 7 ft gestation crates. According to pork producers and many veterinarians, sows will fight if housed in pens. The largest pork producer in the U.S. said in January 2007 that it will phase out gestation crates by 2017. They are being phased out in the European Union, with a ban effective in 2013 after the fourth week of pregnancy. With the evolution of factory farming, there has been a growing awareness of the issues amongst the wider public, not least due to the efforts of animal rights and welfare campaigners.

The evolution of the human mind (it helps for understand Chapter 2)

A video by Martin Sereno, exploring the origins of the human mind. What gives humans the enormous advantage of cognitive powers over animals? Sereno talks about animal minds (remember we're animals).

Monday, February 8, 2010

"Gays are too precious"

T 5:40pm

T,R 9:50am

T,R 8:25am

Gays in the military

Don't ask don't tell. Our current policy stopping gays and lesbians from serving in the military spells like bad faith. The practice karks back to 1916, to the so called "neutral blue discharges" given to homosexual servicemen. Up to 1947, a servicemember found to be homosexual but who has not committed any homosexual acts while in service, would receive an undesirable discharge. Those who were found guilty of engaging in homosexual conduct were dishonorably discharged.  We know that homosexuality was taboo in the 1950's. But the 1960's Civil Rights Movement changed that false perception. Let's see what the present science says:

1- Empirical evidence fails to show that sexual orientation is germane to any aspect of military effectiveness including unit cohesion, morale, recruitment and retention (Belkin, 2003; Belkin & Bateman, 2003; Herek, Jobe, & Carney, 1996; MacCoun, 1996; National Defense Research Institute, 1993). 2- Most experts believe that military effectiveness is related to military service members’ shared commitment to a common goal that motivates them to work together to achieve the goal (MacCoun, Kier, & Belkin, 2006; MacCoun, 1996). Leadership of the group is also considered crucial. Sexual orientation is irrelevant to task cohesion, the only type of cohesion that critically predicts the team’s military readiness and success (c.f. Herek & Belkin, 2005). (Taken from WKPD).

What do we learn? That other than sexual preference, there is NO DIFFERENCE between a homosexual and a heterosexual person. 

Does that matter? Yes and no. There's the ideological power of dogma and plain unfounded hate.  For some people homosexuality is wrong because of their religious views. God doesn't like it.

Here, again, the science:

Homosexuality refers to an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them. Sexual orientation is distinct from other components of sex and sexuality, including biological sex (the anatomical, physiological, and genetic characteristics associated with being male or female), gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female), and social gender role (adherence to cultural norms defining feminine and masculine behavior). Sexual orientation is matter of important choice and self-definition. 

Coming back to the argument above: Some people talk about the problems of sharing quarters with a homosexual in the military, (as if homosexuals were predators by nature). How about heterosexual stalking? Is it any different?

BREACH OF ARMY DISCIPLINE: If heterosexual harrassment is treated as a breach of army discipline and decorum, why can we not do the same with homosexual harrasment?

This is a hot topic and I want the class to probe it. Again, you can see where I stand. If you disagree with my take it's Ok. Just be ready to support your views.
___________
FACT: Of the 26 countries that participate militarily in NATO right now, more than 22 permit gay people to serve; of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, two (Britain, France) permit gay people to serve openly, and three (United States, Russia, China) do not.