Animal Rights(was Re: Need Safeguards for Gene-Tinkered Foods)

Jim Wellehan James.F.X.Wellehan at dartmouth.edu
Thu Jul 8 13:02:45 EST 1993


In article <21fhid$si9 at news.u.washington.edu>
toby at stein.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw) writes:
 
> If you _really_ want to be picky, you wouldn't eat any fruit that
> another organism needs to survive, nor would you plant fruit
> trees where they displace native vegetation.

It would seem necessary to eat something in order to provide for
organisms dependant on it.  If I recall correctly, there are more
prokaryotic cells inside a human than human cells.
On a side note, Dracunculus medinensis, the Guinea worm (parasitic
nematode), is predicted by the WHO to be extinct within a few years. 
Should we maintain live specimens?

>  To those who cannot bring
> themselves to kill an "innocent" animal to save a human life, I
> can understand.  However, such persons should have the courage to
> deny themselves (easy) and their children (very, very difficult)
> access to any medical advances that resulted from animal 
> experimentation.

Wouldn't the Child Welfare people come down pretty hard on this?  I
remember some sort of fuss with Christian Scientists over a similar
problem, but don't remember the outcome.

>>This would not be a demonstation of lack of merit of a human to live. 
>>Just because a human (or any organism) dies does not necessarily mean
>>it should.

> "Deserve" and "should" revolve around the concept that the world
> is fair.

No, just that there is such a thing as "fair" or "just".  The world
doesn't necessarily have to be fair for the concept to exist.

> >If you believe that all people deserve a minimum standard of living
> >that could be provided by killing your dogs and diverting those
> >resources to human needs. ;-)
> 
> In principle, I probably do believe it.  In practice, I behave
> differently.  I conclude that I am a selfish hypocrite, not an
> entirely satisfactory state of affairs but one that leaves me
> in the company of many others.

I'd think that you don't really believe it.  Do you really value a
human you've never met or heard of more than your dog?

> Who among us could not do humanity more good
> by donating the time and energy we spend throwing ideas around
> in this forum to teaching a disadvantaged child to read or working
> in a garden to feed a homeless person?

What is best for humanity is debatable.  Is it better to feed a
homeless person or to educate people on birth control?  Who knows,
maybe we'll come up with the answers to all life's problems in this
forum. ;-)

> >I'd like to bring up lemmings, who sacrifice themselves to make more
> >room in an ecosystem.
> 
> If you can document that lemmings use such reasoning, I'm all ears.

I didn't say they used reasoning.  I just think it's an interesting
behavior.  They breed to overpopulation, and then there is mass
suicide.  (This seems like a great niche for a pathogen.  It would save
the lemmings some trouble.)  Is there a potential human parallel?

> Group selection is not the easiest topic to defend, but I'd be
> happy to see somebody give it a try.  Group selection where an
> entire species works "for the good of the ecosystem" is well nigh
> impossible, I'd wager. 
 
> Imagine for a moment that an allele arises that causes one to favor 
> the welfare of the group over the welfare of the individual bearing
> the allele.  Now describe how this allele might spread in the
> population, that is, how is the Darwinian fitness of such an
> individual is increased?

Excessive virulence in parasites is usually selected against.  It's not
usually advantageous for parasites to kill their host.  That's not to
say it isn't common, though.

Jim



More information about the Bioforum mailing list