Here is the play list:
1. Prince - Animal Kingdom
2. The Colourfield - Cruel Circus
3. Luminous Frenzy - McEmotion
4. Robert Wyatt - Pigs (in there)
5. The Style Council - Blood Sports
6. The Playthings - Life in a Bowl
7. Howard Jones - Assault & Battery
8. Cerrone - Supernature
9. Poison Girls - The Offending Article
10. Cecil McCartney - Sacrifice
11. Paul McCartney & Wings - Wild Life
12. X-Ray Spex - Peace Meal
13. The Smiths - Meat is Murder
14. Consolidated - Stoned (Live Bass Mix)
15. Dead Prez - Be Healthy
16. The Playthings - Nursery Rhymes
17. Crass - Merry Crassmas
There are some great songs here. Love Pigs (in there), Sacrifice, Wildlife, and Meat is Murder
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Friday, July 22, 2011
Give your opinion on animal tests
The University of British Columbia is doing a survey on public opinion of lab tests on animals. I'm going to fill it in and will definitely bare in mind the findings of this article which rigorously discusses the effectiveness of animals to predict human responses.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
A list of companies that test on animals (or don't)
While I don't like many of PETA's publicity stunts and tactics, they have provided a list of companies that sell personal and household product that do or do not test on animals. It is quite shocking to see which companies test on animals for such benign products like tooth paste! Please consult and try to modify your purchases as much as possible. We vote with our money! Our purchases should reflect our values and ethics.
Is animal testing a useful predictor of human reaction?
Read this paper for a fascinating, compelling and thorough discussion on the predictive power of animal vivisection.
This excellent academic paper uses evidence from many decades of animal testing to argue convincingly that animal studies which test the effects of medicine and the toxicity of chemicals do NOT predict the performance of medicine or toxic effects in humans. The success of prediction is sometimes worse than tossing a coin, i.e., worse than random, and this is the case for even our closest relatives. Yet animal experimentation is on the increase in many places (The U.K. for example), and primates, dogs and cats are still used to this day in the US and Canada. Unfortunately, animal testing will probably increase with increased public pressure to test whether chemicals are carcinogens, as well as the toxicity of GMOs. While many top scientists have pointed out how ineffective animal studies are in predicting effects in humans, many scientists argue that they are "useful", especially when they can cherry-pick particular results to benefit their companies. This is a clear example of how so-called objective scientists who do "real" science, are completely blind to their own lack of objectivity and scientific credibility.
So if many scientists recognise how useless animal studies are for predicting human response, and considering that animal experimentation necessarily inflicts terrible pain and suffering to animals, why do they continue? I wonder if it is simply to whitewash the public, make us feel that the products and medicines we consume are safe.
It's hard to believe that I wanted to be a scientist. Of course, not all scientists have to be completely closed-minded, accepting of the status quo and unethical. Just a large proportion of them, like most human beings.
It's also completely bizarre to me how people can train to be vets, presumably out of some love of animals, and in the end be warped to support the status quo of terrible factor farming, slaughter houses, and medical testing. These vets supposedly do check-ups on these places, and turn a blind eye to the attrocities that they see there. The one thing that has become clear to me now is that people will generally just go with the norm, no matter how terrible and injust it is.
This excellent academic paper uses evidence from many decades of animal testing to argue convincingly that animal studies which test the effects of medicine and the toxicity of chemicals do NOT predict the performance of medicine or toxic effects in humans. The success of prediction is sometimes worse than tossing a coin, i.e., worse than random, and this is the case for even our closest relatives. Yet animal experimentation is on the increase in many places (The U.K. for example), and primates, dogs and cats are still used to this day in the US and Canada. Unfortunately, animal testing will probably increase with increased public pressure to test whether chemicals are carcinogens, as well as the toxicity of GMOs. While many top scientists have pointed out how ineffective animal studies are in predicting effects in humans, many scientists argue that they are "useful", especially when they can cherry-pick particular results to benefit their companies. This is a clear example of how so-called objective scientists who do "real" science, are completely blind to their own lack of objectivity and scientific credibility.
So if many scientists recognise how useless animal studies are for predicting human response, and considering that animal experimentation necessarily inflicts terrible pain and suffering to animals, why do they continue? I wonder if it is simply to whitewash the public, make us feel that the products and medicines we consume are safe.
It's hard to believe that I wanted to be a scientist. Of course, not all scientists have to be completely closed-minded, accepting of the status quo and unethical. Just a large proportion of them, like most human beings.
It's also completely bizarre to me how people can train to be vets, presumably out of some love of animals, and in the end be warped to support the status quo of terrible factor farming, slaughter houses, and medical testing. These vets supposedly do check-ups on these places, and turn a blind eye to the attrocities that they see there. The one thing that has become clear to me now is that people will generally just go with the norm, no matter how terrible and injust it is.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Tracking animal abuse
This is a web application that tracks where the latest animal abuses in agriculture have occurred in the U.S. It's an example of one animal activist activity that can be achieved geospatial web technologies. Any other ideas? Is there anyway I can use my boring GIS and mapping skills to help animals?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)