Animal rights group calls on China to respect rats

[Tonington]

I think people need to drop the false dichotomy here. Advocating for animal rights is not a choice of "Will I advocate for human rights or will I advocate for animal rights?"

If you looked at these groups I am sure that you would find the animal rights groups supporting expanded human rights.

Why not use the rat? The lab rat is probably the best symbol for animal rights, and using such a symbol during a Year of the rat can be very effective.

Rights in general are piss poor in China. Largest market in the world. Species on the red list being sold for consumption. Perhaps it's time to start making fake tiger balls and shark fins. Let the placebo effect rule them. Not like their products are so safe to begin with. Shark fins don't even have flavour...

 

[Praxius]

but they are working on human rights.

why would they have to wait to address animal rights?

why can't work occur on both fronts? Is our scope of understanding that limited?

Well I feel that both could be approached at the same time, but if they focused more on human rights first, ie: what they feel is justifiable rights for all humans in their country and what they personally would like to be treated as.... then that will help give them a better perspective on how to approach animals, which would be similar to the approach they made on humans.

Doing it the other way first or at the same time, might either miss some points for the animal rights found in the human rights, or who knows... screw the whole thing up.

Focus on one thing at a time I believe. Also, working on human rights first, will in turn help improve the quality of life for those humans who are in control of these animals in question. Improve the quality of life for humans, you improve the quality of life for the animals.

Not to mention, if they impose rights and restrictions on animals before they focus on the human rights, then those who haven't received any assistence in basic human rights and equality then have to be forced to meet these new requirements for animals, when they themselves are living in poor conditions, or being treated like crap.... it just wouldn't work.... or be very difficult in doing so.

Doing both at the same time might for some in power, seem daunting or too much to deal with all at once. I'd rather then take the time to do things right and make sure they cover all steps required, then to try and work on two different things at the same time just to please everybody. At least this way they're still working on it.

 

[DurkaDurka]

but they are working on human rights.

Do you really believe them? I think China is full of **** and will tell you whatever you want to hear.

 

[karrie]

Praxius, you're saying that the Chinese individuals need to have a focus you've predetermined for them.

A vet or a lab worker isn't going to be in a position to push a human rights agenda. Their knowledge is focused in a different area. Their interest is focused in a different area. They should all quit and get different areas of interest/work so that their focus corresponds with what you've decided it should be, based on their country as a whole?

There's a word for thinking like that.

 

[karrie]

Do you really believe them? I think China is full of **** and will tell you whatever you want to hear.

Yes... the Chinese are all full of ****. What a racist bunch we have in here today.

The gov. may not be listening the way they say they are, but the activists are there. They're pushing. They're voicing their concerns and demands. It would be nice if their government was listening more.

 

[DurkaDurka]

Yes... the Chinese are all full of ****. What a racist bunch we have in here today.

The gov. may not be listening the way they say they are, but the activists are there. They're pushing. They're voicing their concerns and demands. It would be nice if their government was listening more.

I was referring to the government,perhaps I should have appended Government to China.

 

[karrie]

I was referring to the government,perhaps I should have appended Government to China.

Well, this isn't about the government exactly. This is about what activists should or shouldn't push for. The assertion is that PETA should sit on their hands in a country with a horrific animal rights record, because human rights aren't good enough.

Well, the two aren't mutually exclusive. And the day that rats have more rights than people, perhaps they'll push harder for people.

 

[DurkaDurka]

Well, this isn't about the government exactly. This is about what activists should or shouldn't push for. The assertion is that PETA should sit on their hands in a country with a horrific animal rights record, because human rights aren't good enough.

Well, the two aren't mutually exclusive. And the day that rats have more rights than people, perhaps they'll push harder for people.

I don't think PETA is the ideal organization to be pushing for these changes, they are too brash and in your face to deal with China I think.

 

[karrie]

I don't think PETA is the ideal organization to be pushing for these changes, they are too brash and in your face to deal with China I think.

? China has a branch of PETA. That's what the whole article is about. If the Chinese are too brash and in your face to deal with the Chinese, then the Chinese have more problems that they could possibly hope to recover from. lol.

 

[DurkaDurka]

They have a Asia-Pacific branch, I highly doubt they operate in China. I can't imagine China tolerating that sort of criticism from within.

 

[Praxius]

Praxius, you're saying that the Chinese individuals need to have a focus you've predetermined for them.

Did I say need? I thought I was just expressing what made sense to me? They'll do whatever they want in the end.

A vet or a lab worker isn't going to be in a position to push a human rights agenda. Their knowledge is focused in a different area. Their interest is focused in a different area. They should all quit and get different areas of interest/work so that their focus corresponds with what you've decided it should be, based on their country as a whole?

There's a word for thinking like that.

See you jumped the gun. I didn't say they needed to do what I explained above, it just seemed the most logical way to tackle the situation imo. I imagine there are many other ways of working on this besides what I mentioned.

And yes the lab workers might not give two rat tails about how they treat their animals, but did you considder that some of the conditions these animals live in are based on what's available to humans and their income available to put towards those conditions? If they have to focus on their own rights and hardships in their everyday lives to survive, which they require human rights for to begin with, then how could you expect these people to follow new rules and regulations protecting those animals, which would most likely include them having to put out more money and more of their own limited resources to meeting those demands or face jail time/punishment?

Sure the government could work on animal rights first over their own citizens, but then the question remains as to how well those people could follow those rules and regulations.

What I was saying is they could work on the human rights first, then back to back, start working on animal rights right after those rights for humans have been implimented. Then when they have to follow the new guidlines on animal treatment, they'd collectively be in a much better position to follow them.

If they are told that now their business or home requires better quality living conditions, food, treatment for the animals in their care, and they do not have anything additional coming their way to meet those demands, then it's sort of a blood from stone situation.

And trying to impliment both at the same time I imagine would be not just an organizational headache, but a financial one, having to dish out money all over the country at the same time to meet all the required demands so that people have the rights and protections they need, and possibly the proper pay for what they do in order to improve the quality of life for those animals in their care/responsibility.

You make it sound like some of these people who test on animals, or keep them in zoos don't really care about animals that they test on or have held up... but maybe some actually do, but just don't have the resources to do anything about it. We have people here in our own country who care and those who don't care as well. It's a global thing, not just social. Some personally, without any animal rights implimented, might actually want to improve those animals lives while in their care, who knows?

We have animal rights here in Canada, but those rules and regulations existing do not force or change my attitudes on how I treat animals. I have always treated animals with as much respect as possible since I was a wee lad. If I have no rights, and I am working just to get by and survive because the guy I work for is cheaping out on me, then my priorities are going to be for myself over any animals in my care, as unfortunate as that is.

My main concern is not which one gets worked on first, or both, but the actual ability for them to impliment the new regulations as best as possible.

 

[Praxius]

Well, this isn't about the government exactly. This is about what activists should or shouldn't push for. The assertion is that PETA should sit on their hands in a country with a horrific animal rights record, because human rights aren't good enough.

Well, the two aren't mutually exclusive. And the day that rats have more rights than people, perhaps they'll push harder for people.

But see that wasn't what I was trying to say either.

I didn't say the PETA should just sit on their hands, but I felt they should have gone about this with a much more mature and knowlegable approach in which the government could relate to. Once again, trying to use the Rat as their focal point on animal rights because is the Year of the Rat is about as effective as going to the US Senate and saying "What would Jesus Do?" ~ It's not going to work very well even if they're mostly religious fanatics or not. It puts a spin on the whole situation that just doesn't seem serious.

Most of the above which I was explaining was more towards the government's position and some of the probable complications they may have to go through. I just don't think they'll be doing much for animals until they focus on humans. Is it right? Probably not, but if they're going to do anything, I imagine it'll be for humans first and animals second.

 

[Praxius]

I don't think PETA is the ideal organization to be pushing for these changes, they are too brash and in your face to deal with China I think.

That's what I was leaning on. Their approach isn't the right approach, esspecially when you're dealing with a country such as China. If China is going to give flack back at Canada because of some comments our politicians made about their human rights record and pretty much dismissing it, what makes people think PETA is going to have a better chance with animals?

I'm just trying to be realistic is all.

 

[karrie]

Most of the above which I was explaining was more towards the government's position and some of the probable complications they may have to go through. I just don't think they'll be doing much for animals until they focus on humans. Is it right? Probably not, but if they're going to do anything, I imagine it'll be for humans first and animals second.

Hmm... see, many of the animal rights that are being asked for will come at the expense of foreign business investment (fur trade and labs are prime examples of areas that have been invested in largely by foreign interests). I can see a government being more willing to enact rights for industrial animals, where it costs them little to nothing, than willing to enact human rights in prisons and labor sectors where it WILL cost them. That could just be my jaded view talking of course.

 

[Scott Free]

You don't think scientists should have to follow guidelines on how they treat their animals, based strictly on their capability to carry disease in the wild?

I think it's silly.

There are two reasons for worrying about the ethical treatment of animals: 1- people believe in karma, 2- people feel sympathy for them. Neither reason is practical or makes any sense in terms of nature.

Animals generally feel a little empathy for each other especially if they are in their kin group; other than that animals don't, as a general rule, worry themselves about the ethical treatment of each other. I have never seen a cat concerned for a mouse. A lion seems oblivious to the suffering of a gazelle.

As our environment is supposedly degrading and the propaganda about this increases ( no one has been able to explain to me how our carbon emissions are causing the polar caps on mars to melt for example), it seems to me people are giving intention to nature and evolution that do not exist. I'm sure people think if they are nicer to nature then nature will be nicer to us. It is natural for humans to think this way. We tend, as a species, to ascribe intent to the things around us even when there obviously is non.

If a country wants to treat animals ethically that's fine but to try and force the issue is the height of stupidity in the face of evidence. There simply is no logical reason for it unless you believe in a sky god or karma.

 

[Praxius]

Yeah, see I'm not an expert on their proceedures and how they would plan these things out, but I know it's not as simple as PETA tried. Trying is always good.... but even myself living here in Canada with my own Canadian ways, if the same argument was presented to me, I'd tell them to bugger off and come back when they have something worth while to present to me, rather then mooching off my Chinese New Year and country's way of life to prove their case.

Present facts, figures, comparisons to other nations, and present a proposal on what would best work in my country, not what works in some other country not like mine.

*shrugs* Meh, that's pretty much all I have to say, lol.

 

[Tonington]

If a country wants to treat animals ethically that's fine but to try and force the issue is the height of stupidity in the face of evidence. There simply is no logical reason for it unless you believe in a sky god or karma.

You can't think of any reason to makes laws for the ethical treatment of animals? I can, and they affect us directly.

 

[Scott Free]

No I can't. What is the reason?

 

[Tonington]

There's actually two very good reasons for it. They're not really related to research though there are good reasons for that, and I guess I'll get to that after the main reasons, aside from a strictly ethical viewpoint which not everyone will share.

It's stress.

Let's go with the economics first. Most farmers don't have access to expensive lab equipment. They have no real way of measuring stress except when it is acute, like say shock from a big change in environment. However, by far the more costly form of stress is chronic. Chronic is when many factors build up over long periods of time. Denying animals range of movement, keeping them confined in large social groups, not giving them clean conditions. These are all factors which lead to chronic stress.

When the animals are stressed, they do not grow as well. The conversion of feed into body mass goes down, it may even require antibiotics as a therapeutic in their diets to bring the feed conversion ratio back up. But even still, it will not be as efficient as if the whole problem had been avoided in the first place.

So, from an economic perspective, it is in the farmers best interest to keep their animals as healthy as possible. Wasted feed, anti-biotics, all cost money, a lot of money. The temptation by farmers to push the envelope and grow as much as they can is actually less efficient, and will adversely affect the bottom line.

The second is health related. I already explained how stress is bad for the animals, but it's also bad for us as consumers. When an animal is stressed, their immune system is compromised. Therapeutic levels of anti-biotics in some cases may not be enough to avoid disease, even from normally ubiquitous pathogens. That poses a direct threat to food safety and security.

Diseased animals in the food chain can bring outbreaks of dangerous disease to humans. Think bird flu. Why do you think so many cases are in SE Asia? It's because they don't have proper husbandry techniques, and insufficient codified animal welfare laws. Food security is also at risk. Maybe the pathogen doesn't effect us, but instead destroys entire herds of animals. Then what do we do? Grain reserves are at all time lows. We'd be in one helluva mess.

So there's two reasons. We've already implemented them here, but we can't watch all farms at all times. Remember Bovine spongiform encephalitis? People still try to dodge the rules for pursuing profits, without realizing the harm they are actually doing.

Even for research purposes their are very good reasons. How do you think stress might skew results in laboratory settings? Any investigation should always seek to avoid confounding variables, and stress is definitely one of them, unless you're researching stress responses.

 

[Nuggler]

So, ah, China; Start respecting rats, ok?:roll: