All Blog Posts Tagged 'speciesism' - Animal Rights Zone2024-03-29T09:12:57Zhttp://arzone.ning.com/profiles/blog/feed?tag=speciesism&xn_auth=noWhat Is Veganism, and What Do Vegans Eat?tag:arzone.ning.com,2023-09-23:4715978:BlogPost:2849712023-09-23T06:17:27.000ZVezlay Foods Pvt. Ltd.http://arzone.ning.com/profile/VezlayFoodsPvtLtd
<p>A vegan diet, also referred to as veganism, avoids animal products for ethical, health, or environmental reasons. Veganism has been accepted by society, enough that the number of persons adopting <a href="https://vezlay.com/blog/list-of-vegan-food-products-in-india/"><strong>Vegan Food</strong></a> has increased by 350% in the previous decade, according to studies from the.</p>
<p>Veganism can be defined as a style of life in which people avoid all sorts of animal exploitation and cruelty as…</p>
<p>A vegan diet, also referred to as veganism, avoids animal products for ethical, health, or environmental reasons. Veganism has been accepted by society, enough that the number of persons adopting <a href="https://vezlay.com/blog/list-of-vegan-food-products-in-india/"><strong>Vegan Food</strong></a> has increased by 350% in the previous decade, according to studies from the.</p>
<p>Veganism can be defined as a style of life in which people avoid all sorts of animal exploitation and cruelty as much as possible.</p>
<p>A vegan diet can look difficult or artificially restrictive at first glance. Many of the people I serve who are thinking about being vegan have queries about finding enough vegan substitutes for their favorite dishes. However, most people discover that the adjustment is easier than they thought at first once they understand a few fundamentals.</p>
<p>As someone who follows a plant-based diet, I've witnessed an increase in vegan alternatives on supermarket shelves and restaurant menus in the last few years.</p>
<p>You'll find even recently found a vegan version of one of my all-time favorite treats, pastel de nata.</p>
<p>In this essay, I'll define veganism and give some basic information about items to eat and avoid on a vegan diet.</p>
<p> <span style="font-size: 8pt;"><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12230282295?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12230282295?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full"/></a></span></p>
<h2><strong>What is veganism?</strong> </h2>
<p>The Vegan Society claims that a small group of vegetarians who divided off from the Leicester Vegetarian Society in England to found the Vegan Society coined the term "vegan" back in 1944.</p>
<p>They decided not to eat dairy, eggs, or any other products made from animals in addition to not eating meat.</p>
<p>The word "vegan" came about from the first and last letters of the word "vegetarian." The first vegan definition was created in 1949. Over the years, it received a small change to become what it is today.</p>
<p>The Vegan Society's most recent definition of veganism states that it is "a philosophy and way of life that seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing, or any other purposes.</p>
<p>The word "vegan" is frequently used to refer to only a particular diet. But according to this most recent definition, being a vegan goes beyond simply eating a plant-based diet.</p>
<p>Vegans typically strive to avoid any form of animal exploitation or cruelty in all facets of their lives, including the items of clothing they wear, the cosmetics they use, and the pastimes they engage in.</p>
<p>Because of this, a lot of vegans refrain from buying wool clothing, leather furniture, or down pillows and comforters. As an alternative to visiting zoos, circuses, or animal petting farms, they might choose to go to animal sanctuaries.</p>
<h2><strong>Why do people go vegan?</strong></h2>
<p>People generally avoid animal products for one or more of the reasons provided below.</p>
<h2><strong>Ethics</strong></h2>
<p>Ethical vegans believe that all creatures have the right to life and freedom.</p>
<p>They consider all animals as conscious beings that, like humans, want to avoid pain and suffering.</p>
<p>As a result, ethical vegans are opposed to killing an animal for the purpose of eating its flesh or wearing its fur or skin.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Vegans also oppose the mental and physical stress that animals may experience as a result of modern farming practises, such as the small pens or cages in which animals typically live and rarely leave between the time of birth and killing.</p>
<p>This sentiment, however, goes beyond the cruelty of modern farming practices for ethical vegans.</p>
<p>This is because vegans are opposed to consuming products that heavily rely on the slaughter of other animals, especially when alternatives exist.</p>
<p>This includes the slaughter of surplus calves in the dairy industry, as well as the culling of 1-day-old male chicks in egg production.</p>
<p>Furthermore, ethical vegans generally believe that humans should not exploit animals' milk, eggs, honey, silk, and wool, regardless of the living conditions provided to the exploited.</p>
<p>This is why ethical vegans refuse to drink an animal's milk, eat its eggs, or wear its wool, even if the animals are free-roaming or pasture-fed.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2><strong>Health</strong></h2>
<p>Health Some people opt for a vegan diet because of the potential health benefits.</p>
<p>Meat-heavy diets, particularly red meat, have been linked to cancer, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes.</p>
<p>Plant-based diets, on the other hand, have been linked to a lower risk of developing or dying from these diseases.</p>
<p>Reduce your consumption of animal products in favour of more plant-based options to improve digestion and lower your risk of Alzheimer's disease.</p>
<p>A vegan diet can also help to reduce the side effects of modern animal agriculture's antibiotics and hormones.</p>
<p>Finally, vegan diets appear to be particularly effective at assisting people in losing excess weight. A vegan diet has been linked to a lower risk of obesity in several studies.</p>
<p>However, if you follow a vegan diet, you may consume fewer nutrients. That is why preparation is essential.</p>
<p>Consider consulting a healthcare professional, such as a doctor or registered dietitian, to help you plan a vegan diet that will provide you with the nutrients you require.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2><strong>Vegan diets tend to be low in these nutrients:</strong></h2>
<p>vitamin D vitamin B12</p>
<p>calcium, zinc, iodine, and selenium</p>
<p>Vegans may take supplements to supplement nutrients that they may be lacking in their diet.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2><strong>Environment</strong></h2>
<p>People may also choose to avoid animal products to reduce their environmental impact.</p>
<p>Animal agriculture, according to recent data, contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions (GHGEs), which cause climate change.</p>
<p>Meat eaters are thought to be responsible for 2-2.5 times the amount of GHGEs as vegans. This figure is based on self-reported dietary patterns in the United Kingdom.</p>
<p>Ruminant animals, such as cattle, sheep, and goats, appear to produce the most greenhouse gases per gramme of protein. As a result, diets that reduce or eliminate dairy produce significantly fewer GHGEs.</p>
<p>According to one study, a vegetarian diet produces 33% fewer GHGEs than a meat-containing standard American diet with the same number of calories.</p>
<p>A vegan diet has a lower environmental impact, producing approximately 53% fewer GHGEs than a calorie-matched meat-containing diet.</p>
<p>A large portion of plant protein produced today is used to feed animals rather than humans. As a result, producing an animal-heavy diet necessitates the use of more earth's resources than producing a plant-based diet.</p>
<p>For example, producing animal protein necessitates 6-17 times the amount of land required to produce the same amount of soybean protein.</p>
<p>Animal protein also requires 2-3 times more water on average, depending on factors such as season and annual rainfall fluctuations.</p>
<p>Because of all of these factors, experts believe that if nothing changes, our food system will likely outstrip our planet's resources by 2050. Switching to a vegan diet may help to postpone this outcome.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Types of veganism</strong></p>
<p>It is important to understand that being vegan does not always mean you're healthy.</p>
<p>The quality of a vegan diet is decided by the foods that include it. As a result, some vegan diets can provide many advantages for your health, while others may not.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Here are a few vegan diet subcategories that I've seen in my clinical practice over the last few years:</strong></p>
<p>Vegans on a diet. This term, which is often used interchangeably with "plant-based eaters," refers to people who avoid eating animal products but continue to use them in other products such as clothing and cosmetics.</p>
<p>Vegans who eat only whole foods. These people prefer a diet high in whole foods like fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds.</p>
<p>Vegan "junk-food" eaters. Some people eat a lot of processed vegan foods like vegan meats, fries, frozen dinners, and desserts like Oreo cookies and non-dairy ice cream.</p>
<p>Vegans who eat only raw foods. This group consumes only raw or cooked foods at temperatures below 118°F (48°C).</p>
<p>Vegans who eat low-fat raw foods. This subset, also known as fruitarians, avoids high-fat foods like nuts, avocados, and coconuts in favor of fruit. They may consume small amounts of other plants on occasion.</p>
<p>Whole-food vegan diets have a lot of health benefits. If you want to try a vegan diet, consult with a healthcare professional to find the best diet for you.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2><strong>What do vegans eat?</strong></h2>
<p>Here are some essential foods that vegans tend to eat and avoid.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2><strong>Foods that vegans eat</strong></h2>
<p>Avoiding animal products does not limit you to eating only salads and tofu. A vegan diet allows you to eat a wide variety of delectable foods.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2><strong>Here are a few ideas:</strong></h2>
<p>Red, brown, or green lentils; chickpeas; split peas; black-eyed peas; black beans; white beans; and kidney beans</p>
<p>Soy products include fortified soy milk, soybeans, and products derived from them such as tofu, tempeh, and natto.</p>
<p>Nuts such as peanuts, almonds, and cashews, as well as their butters. Sunflower seeds, sesame seeds, and their butters, as well as flaxseed, hemp seeds, and chia seeds, are examples of seeds.</p>
<p>Whole grains include quinoa, whole wheat, whole oats, and whole grain brown or wild rice, as well as products made from these grains like whole grain bread, crackers, and pasta.</p>
<p>Potatoes, sweet potatoes, corn, squash, beets, and turnips are examples of starchy vegetables.</p>
<p>Broccoli, cabbage, asparagus, radishes, and leafy greens are examples of nonstarchy vegetables that can be eaten raw, frozen, canned, dried, or pureed.</p>
<p>Fruits like apples, pears, bananas, berries, mango, pineapple, oranges, and tangerines can be bought fresh, frozen, canned, dried, or pureed.</p>
<p>Algae, nutritional yeast, fortified plant milks and yoghurts, and maple syrup are examples of plant-based foods.</p>
<p>Many of the dishes you currently enjoy are either vegan by default or can be made vegan with a few simple changes.</p>
<p>For example, instead of meat-based main dishes, try meals with beans, peas, lentils, tofu, tempeh, nuts, or seeds.</p>
<p>Furthermore, you can substitute plant milks for dairy products, scrambled eggs for tofu, honey for plant-based sweeteners like molasses or maple syrup, and raw eggs for flaxseed or chia seeds.</p>
<p>You can also select from an ever-expanding range of ready-made <a href="https://vezlay.com/blog/list-of-vegan-food-products-in-india/"><strong>Vegan Products</strong></a>, such as vegan meats, vegan cheeses, and vegan desserts.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that these may have been heavily processed. So, while they are acceptable in moderation, they should not constitute the majority of a healthy vegan diet.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2><strong>Foods that vegans avoid</strong></h2>
<h3><strong>Vegans abstain from all animal-derived foods. These are some examples:</strong></h3>
<p> </p>
<p>Beef, chicken, duck, fish, and shellfish are examples of meat and fish.</p>
<p>Whole eggs and foods containing them, such as bakery products</p>
<p>Dairy products include milk, cheese, butter, and cream, as well as foods made with these ingredients.</p>
<p>Honey, albumin, casein, carmine, gelatin, pepsin, shellac, isinglass, and whey are examples of animal-derived ingredients.</p>
<p>In general, reading food labels is the best way to determine whether a product contains animal-derived ingredients. Many vegan foods are now labelled as such, making them easier to identify when shopping.</p>The torturer of dogs (hundreds of dogs perishing in his enclosed from eyes yard in Ypsonas Agiou Mama cyprustag:arzone.ning.com,2021-12-04:4715978:BlogPost:2816042021-12-04T20:49:28.000ZAnna Zinonoshttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/AnnaZes
<p>The torturer of dogs (hundreds of dogs perishing in his enclosed from eyes yard in Ypsonas Agiou Mama and Atlantidos streets…) WINS. OK. IM out of cyprus FOR EVER. He and his hunter-lobby friends in the area, HAVE WON THE VENDETA THEY STARTED BY KILLING AND THROWING CARCASES OF DOGS ON OUR ENTRANCE IN 2011.…<a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/9879660059?profile=original" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><img class="align-full" src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/9879660059?profile=RESIZE_710x"></img></a></p>
<p>The torturer of dogs (hundreds of dogs perishing in his enclosed from eyes yard in Ypsonas Agiou Mama and Atlantidos streets…) WINS. OK. IM out of cyprus FOR EVER. He and his hunter-lobby friends in the area, HAVE WON THE VENDETA THEY STARTED BY KILLING AND THROWING CARCASES OF DOGS ON OUR ENTRANCE IN 2011.<a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/9879660059?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/9879660059?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full"/></a></p>crankiest cats at the vetstag:arzone.ning.com,2021-12-04:4715978:BlogPost:2817232021-12-04T17:09:05.000ZAnna Zinonoshttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/AnnaZes
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrqyDPc8CUY">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrqyDPc8CUY</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrqyDPc8CUY">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrqyDPc8CUY</a></p>crankiest cats at the vetstag:arzone.ning.com,2021-12-04:4715978:BlogPost:2819062021-12-04T17:09:03.000ZAnna Zinonoshttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/AnnaZes
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrqyDPc8CUY">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrqyDPc8CUY</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrqyDPc8CUY">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrqyDPc8CUY</a></p>The Trust Tecnique between Human and Animaltag:arzone.ning.com,2021-12-04:4715978:BlogPost:2816022021-12-04T17:08:26.000ZAnna Zinonoshttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/AnnaZes
<p>Disclaimer:</p>
<p>I am not affiliated and I win nothing from promoting the Trust Tecnique.</p>
<p>(it costs no more than 8 dollars!!!)</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="https://trust-technique.com/">https://trust-technique.com/</a></p>
<p></p>
<p><span>The course is really well laid out, layering information by introducing a topic and returning to it so you can really “get” it. I have been using this course in preparation for taking on a highly sensitive rescue dog – which has been a process over…</span></p>
<p>Disclaimer:</p>
<p>I am not affiliated and I win nothing from promoting the Trust Tecnique.</p>
<p>(it costs no more than 8 dollars!!!)</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="https://trust-technique.com/">https://trust-technique.com/</a></p>
<p></p>
<p><span>The course is really well laid out, layering information by introducing a topic and returning to it so you can really “get” it. I have been using this course in preparation for taking on a highly sensitive rescue dog – which has been a process over several months. In the meantime, our Beagle, along with all of us, has been reaping the benefits of receiving TT and our new Rescue arrived 5 days ago. I have been doing 3 x 10ish mins a day and he is already a much more chilled out dog. I sent a video of him to his foster home and she literally burst into tears saying she had never seen him so relaxed and at peace. I can’t recommend this course highly enough, it just makes everyone in the family more gentle and thoughtful.</span></p>
<p></p>
<h1 class="entry-title">Messages Of Trust</h1>
<div class="bb-course-excerpt">Understand the Trust Technique on a deeper level, with this stunning look into the animal-human relationship. These messages share unique insights and the essence of what the Trust Technique represents. Its a perfect complement to anyone already on our course or for anyone new wishing to understand the benefits that this method has to offer for you and your own animals.</div>
<div class="bb-course-excerpt"></div>
<div class="bb-course-excerpt"></div>
<div class="bb-course-excerpt"><h2>Message 1</h2>
<h3>Building Trust & Connection</h3>
<p>Creating a relationship beyond emotions that has a shared healing effect</p>
<p>Why a mindful approach changes everything<br/>The importance of thinking feeling levels<br/>How to create a peaceful connection<br/>Helping your animal with physical and emotional healing<br/>Exploring the technique Creative Reaction</p>
<p>Run time 21.51 mins</p>
<p></p>
<h2>Message 2</h2>
<h3>Overcoming Problems</h3>
<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-22a2e007 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor"><div class="elementor-widget-container"><div class="elementor-text-editor elementor-clearfix"><p>A unique and simple way to resolve behaviour problems with regard and kindness.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-28c13c0d elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor"><div class="elementor-widget-container"><div class="elementor-text-editor elementor-clearfix"><p>How animals and people react<br/>The true nature of problems<br/>How a change of perception is a change of behaviour <br/>How animals can realise their own learning without training<br/>Exploring the bigger picture of animal care</p>
<p>Run time 29.36 mins</p>
<p></p>
<h2>Message 3</h2>
<h3>Inspired Possibilities</h3>
<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-22a2e007 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor"><div class="elementor-widget-container"><div class="elementor-text-editor elementor-clearfix"><div class="elementor-element elementor-element-7d98630 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor"><div class="elementor-widget-container"><div class="elementor-text-editor elementor-clearfix"><p>Exploring new levels of communication and trusted co-operation. </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-47246cde elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor"><div class="elementor-widget-container"><div class="elementor-text-editor elementor-clearfix"><p>Understand the spirit of co-operation<br/>Easily teach your animal with full willingness<br/>How to create a two way animal communication<br/>A deep look at interacting with your animals’ intelligence<br/>The future of how we can be working with animals</p>
<p>Run time 39.35 mins</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bb-course-excerpt"></div>
<div class="bb-course-excerpt"></div>
<div class="bb-course-excerpt"></div>All Loro Parque photos I got are in pubic domain by Anna Zinonos volunteertag:arzone.ning.com,2021-11-28:4715978:BlogPost:2814122021-11-28T22:51:37.000ZAnna Zinonoshttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/AnnaZes
<p>Animals monitored by cctv and behind thin cables, birds in cages, this is the ''heaven'' of Loro Parque in Tenerife which I visited in 2012.</p>
<h3 class="post-title entry-title"><a href="https://loro-parque-hell.blogspot.com/2021/11/public-domain-pics-of-loro-parque.html">Public Domain PIcs of Loro Parque Tenerife</a></h3>
<p><a href="https://loro-parque-hell.blogspot.com/">https://loro-parque-hell.blogspot.com/…</a></p>
<div class="post-header"></div>
<p>Animals monitored by cctv and behind thin cables, birds in cages, this is the ''heaven'' of Loro Parque in Tenerife which I visited in 2012.</p>
<h3 class="post-title entry-title"><a href="https://loro-parque-hell.blogspot.com/2021/11/public-domain-pics-of-loro-parque.html">Public Domain PIcs of Loro Parque Tenerife</a></h3>
<p><a href="https://loro-parque-hell.blogspot.com/">https://loro-parque-hell.blogspot.com/</a></p>
<div class="post-header"><div class="post-header-line-1"></div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-7493693942534623350"><p> Hi I am Anna Zinonos the visitor and photographer of these photos here.</p>
<p>These photos I took on my own visit to Loro Parque some years ago. </p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="https://loro-parque-hell.blogspot.com/">https://loro-parque-hell.blogspot.com/</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>This blog update is to say that I release them to public domain. You can use them for (hopefully) antizoo campaigns and such.</p>
<p>Some of them show how animals are monitored by cctv and by thin cables so that there is no ugly image of a ''zoo'' with cages, yet the birds are in real ugly cages.</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="https://loro-parque-hell.blogspot.com/">https://loro-parque-hell.blogspot.com/</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>The quality of the pictures is not good as I took them with a small compact camera. I was bothered in the orca tank ''not to take photos'' and i was rushed away and had to hide my camera. The rest of Loro Parque was easy to photo without employees yelling at me to stop taking photos. This only happened around the orca tank and the dolphin tank also.</p>
</div>Why Wouldn't You Travel More When There Are So Many Wowessays Benefits of Traveling?!tag:arzone.ning.com,2020-07-31:4715978:BlogPost:1781112020-07-31T12:33:12.000ZJameshttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/James11
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong><img class="irc_mi" height="632" src="https://english-skype.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/travelling-smart-tips-for-travel-750x632.jpg" width="750"></img></strong></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong>1. Travel improves your health</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;">From cutting stress to reducing your chances of developing heart disease, the health benefits of travel are enormous. You can sit in a chair all day at the workplace: taking a few walks for your journey is sure to improve your body. For some people, wandering abroad is also a cure for…</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong><img class="irc_mi" src="https://english-skype.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/travelling-smart-tips-for-travel-750x632.jpg" width="750" height="632"/></strong></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong>1. Travel improves your health</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;">From cutting stress to reducing your chances of developing heart disease, the health benefits of travel are enormous. You can sit in a chair all day at the workplace: taking a few walks for your journey is sure to improve your body. For some people, wandering abroad is also a cure for depression and anxiety. Of course, this is not a foolproof treatment, but it can help you feel better physically and psychologically.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Traveling more greatly affects your mental well-being, especially if you are not used to going outside your comfort zone. Trust me: Travel more and your doctor will be happy. Be sure to contact your doctor, they can recommend some medication to help you along your journey, especially if you are visiting areas of the world with potentially dangerous diseases.</span><br/><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong>2. Traveling Let's You Disconnect Your Daily Life</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;">This is closely related to my previous point. We get so caught up in our daily lives that sometimes, just by sticking around, we can do more harm to ourselves</span><br/><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Better than Is your boss killing you? Kids are driving you crazy? Your parents are trying to get you to live the life they want? How long do you think you can handle this pressure before it explodes and everything falls apart?</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Sometimes it is best to take a step back, take a deep breath and take that Tower Bridge Selfie. In all seriousness, traveling is not a bad option - the most natural way to feel that you miss someone or that you miss. The trick is to leave with little preparation to avoid making a mistake during your journey. Also, if you are flying, you start thinking about booking your tickets after a better time.</span><br/><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong>3. Traveling makes you smart</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Make a habit of taking new words in a different language every time you travel and you will see an improvement in your brain abilities, as Dan Roitman wrote in the Huffington Post. If this is the case, start getting familiar with travel jargon.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;">More than "just" languages, travel helps you learn about yourself. You can run into challenging situations where you need to keep resources and think differently. I am sure you will develop a new set of skills, which you no doubt had within you.</span><br/><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong>4. Travel improves your understanding of other cultures</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Why we travel can be different from one person to another, but people who travel always develop empathy and a deeper understanding of other cultures.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Being more understanding and tolerant of a culture that is different from our culture is part of being smarter, but I consider this to be the benefits of travel in itself. There is a quote from St. Augustine, which is "The world is a book and those who do not travel only read one page with <a href="https://www.wowessays.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">essay writing service</a>". You can think of it this way: If you read what's in the news or watch the news on TV and don't question it, you're missing a ton of information. You may think that it makes you smarter and more aware of the world, but it is the exact opposite: it tells your mind in a unique and biased perspective.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Sure, you probably feel comfortable where you are, but it's just a part of the world! If you are a student, take advantage of programs like Erasmus to get to know, experience and understand more people. Dare to visit the areas that you have doubts about. I bet you will change your mind and realize that everything is not so bad abroad.</span></p>Our Cruel Treatment of Animals Led to the Coronavirus - David Benatar (The New York Times)tag:arzone.ning.com,2020-04-13:4715978:BlogPost:1773292020-04-13T11:30:00.000ZKate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥhttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/KateGOVEGANandNobodyGetsHurt
<p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/13/opinion/animal-cruelty-coronavirus.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/13/opinion/animal-cruelty-coronavirus.html</a><br></br><br></br>Opinion THE STONE<br></br>April 13, 2020<br></br> <br></br><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong>Our Cruel Treatment of Animals Led to the Coronavirus</strong></span> <br></br><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The conditions that lead to the emergence of new infectious diseases are the same ones that inflict horrific harms on…</span></p>
<p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/13/opinion/animal-cruelty-coronavirus.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/13/opinion/animal-cruelty-coronavirus.html</a><br/><br/>Opinion THE STONE<br/>April 13, 2020<br/> <br/><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong>Our Cruel Treatment of Animals Led to the Coronavirus</strong></span> <br/><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The conditions that lead to the emergence of new infectious diseases are the same ones that inflict horrific harms on animals.</span> <br/><span style="font-size: 12pt;">By David Benatar</span> <br/><br/>There is the obvious and then there is what should be obvious. The obvious is that the coronavirus pandemic has brought much of the human world to a standstill. Many countries are in lockdown. So far, more than 1.7 million have been infected, more than 100,000 have died, and billions live in fear that the numbers of sick and dead will rise exponentially. Economies are in recession, with all the hardship that entails for human well-being. <br/><br/>What should be obvious, but may not be to many, is that none of this should come as a surprise. That there would be another pandemic was entirely predictable, even though the precise timing of its emergence and the shape of its trajectory were not. And there is an important sense in which the pandemic is of our own making as humans. A pandemic may seem like an entirely natural disaster, but it is often — perhaps even usually — not. <br/><br/>The coronavirus arose in animals and jumped the species barrier to humans and then spread with human-to-human transmission. This is a common phenomenon. Most — and some believe all — infectious diseases are of this type (zoonotic). That in itself does not put them within the realm of human responsibility. However, many zoonotic diseases arise because of the ways in which humans treat animals. The “wet” markets of China are a prime example. They are the likely source not only of Covid-19 but also of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and some outbreaks of avian influenza, for example. (Another possible source of the coronavirus that causes Covid-19 may be one of the many mixed wildlife-livestock farms in China, but humans are responsible for those, too.) <br/><br/>The “wet” markets, which are found not only in China but also in some other East Asian countries, have a number of features that makes them especially conducive to spawning infectious zoonotic diseases. Live animals are housed in extremely cramped conditions until they are slaughtered in the market for those who have purchased them. In these conditions, infections are easily transmitted from one animal to another. Because new animals are regularly being brought to market, a disease can be spread through a chain of infection from one animal to others that arrive in the market much later. The proximity to humans, coupled with the flood of blood, excrement and other bodily fluids and parts, all facilitate the infection of humans. Once transmission from human to human occurs, an epidemic is the expected outcome, unless the problem is quickly contained. Global air travel can convert epidemic to pandemic within weeks or months — exactly as it did with the coronavirus. <br/><br/>It is these very conditions that facilitate the emergence of new infectious diseases and that also inflict horrific harms on animals — being kept in confined conditions and then butchered. Simply put, the coronavirus pandemic is a result of our gross maltreatment of animals. <br/><br/>Those who think that this is a Chinese problem rather than a human one should think again. There is no shortage of zoonoses that have emerged from human maltreatment of animals. The most likely origin of H.I.V. (human immunodeficiency virus), for example, is S.I.V. (simian immunodeficiency virus), and the most likely way in which it crossed the species barrier is through blood of a nonhuman primate butchered for human consumption. Similarly, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease probably had its origins in its bovine analogue — bovine spongiform encephalopathy (B.S.E.), or “mad cow disease.” The most probable mechanism of transmission is through human consumption of infected cattle. <br/><br/><br/>In the future, we should fully expect our maltreatment of animals to wreak havoc on our own species. In addition to future pandemics, we face the very real risk of breeding antibiotic resistance. The major contributor to this is the use of antibiotics in the animal agriculture industry, as a growth promoter (to bring animals to slaughter weight as quickly as possible) and to curb the spread of infections among animals reared in cruel intensive “factory farmed” conditions. <br/><br/>It is entirely possible that the human future will involve a return to the pre-antibiotics era, in which people died in droves from infections that have been effectively treated since the discovery of penicillin and other early antibacterial agents. If so, it may turn out that the antibiotics era was a brief interlude between two much longer periods in human history in which we succumbed in large numbers to bacterial infections. That prospect, which is even more awful than the current crisis, is no less real for that. We, as a species, know about this problem, but we have not yet done what needs to be done to avert it (or at least minimize the chances of its happening). <br/><br/>What these and many other examples show is that harming animals can lead to considerable harm to humans. This provides a self-interested reason — in addition to the even stronger moral reasons — for humans to treat animals better. The problem is that even self-interest is an imperfect motivator. For all the puffery in calling ourselves Homo sapiens, the “wise human,” we display remarkably little wisdom, even of a prudential kind. <br/><br/>This is not to deny the many intellectual achievements of humankind. However, they are combined with many cognitive and moral shortcomings, including undue confidence in our ability to solve problems. In general, humans respond to pandemics rather than act to prevent them — we attempt to prevent their spread after they emerge and to develop treatments for those infected. The current crisis demonstrates the folly of this approach. The closest we come to prevention is the effort to develop vaccines. But even this sort of prevention is a kind of reaction. Vaccines are developed in response to viruses that have already emerged. As the coronavirus experience shows, there can be a significant lag between that emergence and the development of a safe and effective vaccine, during which time great damage can be done both by the virus and by attempts to prevent its spread. <br/><br/>Real prevention requires taking steps to minimize the chances of the virus or other infectious agents emerging in the first place. One of a number of crucial measures would be a more intelligent — and more compassionate — appraisal of our treatment of nonhuman animals, and concomitant action. <br/><br/>Some might say that it is insensitive to highlight human responsibility for the current pandemic while we are in the midst of it. Isn’t it unseemly to rub our collective nose in this mess of our own making? Such concerns are misplaced. Earlier warnings of the dangers of our behavior, offered in less panicked times, went unheeded. Of course, it is entirely possible that even if we are now momentarily awakened, we will soon forget the lessons. There is plenty of precedent for that. However, given the importance of what lies in the balance, it is better to risk a little purported insensitivity than to pass up an opportunity to encourage some positive change. Millions of lives and the avoidance of much suffering are at stake. <br/><br/>-<br/><br/>David Benatar is a professor of philosophy and the director of the Bioethics Center at the University of Cape Town. His most recent book is “The Human Predicament: A Candid Guide to Life’s Biggest Questions.”</p>A Logical viewtag:arzone.ning.com,2019-04-16:4715978:BlogPost:1745062019-04-16T03:34:12.000ZAndy Shirleyhttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/AndyShirley
<p>An ethical approach to life (and this planet) is, I believe, the way to go.</p>
<p>A sustainable way of life is also essential.</p>
<p>Some animals (and even plants!) are carnivores; some are vegetarian; some are omnivores. Before the Neolithic Revolution humans lived with nature. Scientists call pre-agricultural humans 'Hunters & Gatherers'. They had a very varied diet and hunted animals for their meat for over 2 million years.</p>
<p>12 thousand years ago humans first started growing…</p>
<p>An ethical approach to life (and this planet) is, I believe, the way to go.</p>
<p>A sustainable way of life is also essential.</p>
<p>Some animals (and even plants!) are carnivores; some are vegetarian; some are omnivores. Before the Neolithic Revolution humans lived with nature. Scientists call pre-agricultural humans 'Hunters & Gatherers'. They had a very varied diet and hunted animals for their meat for over 2 million years.</p>
<p>12 thousand years ago humans first started growing crops and hunting animals. This revolution in our behaviour/technology started the civilisations of Humanity. It was a very successful strategy in the short term, but threatens, ultimately, life on the planet.</p>
<p>Our agricultural/industrial activity has produced a plague of humanity. The number of humans on the planet at present is unsustainable. A vegan solution to cater for an ever-expanding population is nonsensical. Apart from the ethical issue, cannibalism (such as was practised in South Sea Islands once) would make more sense.</p>
<p></p>
<p>It is no more ethically wrong for humans to eat meat than it is for a cat, or a pig (another omnivore). What is wrong, in my opinion, is cruelty. I have seen pigs slaughtered in an abattoir and I can attest to the cruelty involved. The 2 main issues, I think, is cruelty to sentient beings on the one hand, and gross overpopulation, on the other.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Remember, the worst monster in human history was Adolf Hitler, and he was a vegan!</p>ARE HUMANS THE ONLY VICTIMS OF SLAVERY, ABUSE, AND TRAFFICKING? The Myopia of ‘Human Exceptionalism’tag:arzone.ning.com,2018-01-06:4715978:BlogPost:1686202018-01-06T06:30:00.000ZPaul Hansenhttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/PAULHANSEN
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In a short comment on Culture & Ethics, Discovery Institute’s Wesley J. Smith applauded Donald Trump for declaring January 2018 as “National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month.” Trump’s decree reads in part as follows:</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby…</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In a short comment on Culture & Ethics, Discovery Institute’s Wesley J. Smith applauded Donald Trump for declaring January 2018 as “National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month.” Trump’s decree reads in part as follows:</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 2018 as National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month, culminating in the annual celebration of National Freedom Day on February 1, 2018. I call upon industry associations, law enforcement, private businesses, faith-based and other organizations of civil society, schools, families, and all Americans to recognize our vital roles in ending all forms of modern slavery and to observe this month with appropriate programs and activities aimed at ending and preventing all forms of human trafficking.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/president-donald-j-trump-proclaims-january-2018-national-slavery-human-trafficking-prevention-month/">https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/president-donald-j-trump-proclaims-january-2018-national-slavery-human-trafficking-prevention-month/</a></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Wesley Smith comments as follows: </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">“Human exceptionalism holds that every one of us is inherently equal, in moral value, and properly, under the law. Or to put it another way, no human being should ever be treated as an object, only and always as a subject. Which is why slavery and human trafficking are intrinsic evils that we should strive to eradicate from the face of the earth. But that won’t be done so long as we pay scant attention to the continuing crisis of human bondage in the modern world. So, I applaud the declaration of January 2018 as, “National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Smith ends his post by writing, “Let us hope that this isn’t all decree and no further action. But calling attention to the crisis is most welcome. This is an evil that stains the world.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><a href="https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/a-new-year-and-a-new-commitment-to-eradicate-human-trafficking/">https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/a-new-year-and-a-new-commitment-to-eradicate-human-trafficking/</a></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">I applaud President Trump’s declaration, and I agree with Smith’s response to it. However, I wonder why Smith, who claims to be a Christian ethicist, does not extend his concern about bondage and trafficking to the rest of God’s creatures, who are obviously able to suffer the same abuse or demise. In short, as a Christian ethicist I would revise Smith’s response to read as follows:</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">“No SENTIENT CREATURE should ever be treated as an object, only and always as a subject. Which is why slavery and ANIMAL trafficking are intrinsic evils that we should strive to eradicate from the face of the earth. But that won’t be done so long as we pay scant attention to the continuing crisis of ANIMAL bondage in the modern world.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The needless enslavement or slaughter of bears, tigers, lions, elephants, rhinos, whales, sharks, etc.—and the trafficking of their parts for sale or alleged medicinal purposes—is also “an evil that stains the world.” Yet the plight of non-human animals, which is global in scale, appears nowhere on Wesley Smith’s ethical radar screen. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">It is evident from Wesley Smith’s alarmist writings elsewhere that he thinks respect for “the dignity of human life” doesn’t merely trump respect for animals, but that <strong>‘valuing animals entails devaluing humans.’</strong> Notwithstanding radical views, this is clearly a <em><strong>non sequitur</strong></em> (for which Smith should know better) and the Achilles heel of “human exceptionalism.”</span></p>Responsible Tourism: 3 Animal Tourist Attractions You Should Never Dotag:arzone.ning.com,2017-10-09:4715978:BlogPost:1655302017-10-09T18:30:00.000ZBookAllSfaris.comhttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/BookAllSfariscom
<p><b>As travelers on a quest for new experiences, we are constantly attracted to the unique and adventurous. We crave for a different experience, look to pushing boundaries and find the need to live our lives to the fullest. Because why shouldn’t we? But our travels should be responsible and our actions should always be ethical. </b></p>
<p>While there is nothing wrong with trying to live the best lives that we can, sometimes in doing that, whether consciously or unconsciously, we cause harm…</p>
<p><b>As travelers on a quest for new experiences, we are constantly attracted to the unique and adventurous. We crave for a different experience, look to pushing boundaries and find the need to live our lives to the fullest. Because why shouldn’t we? But our travels should be responsible and our actions should always be ethical. </b></p>
<p>While there is nothing wrong with trying to live the best lives that we can, sometimes in doing that, whether consciously or unconsciously, we cause harm to others. <a href="https://www.bookallsafaris.com/" target="_blank">Traveling to Africa</a> in search of its wildlife may sometimes result in us harming the environment by leaving one too many carbon footprints. Wanting to be in close proximity to an elephant may lead us to want to experience riding it even though they are not meant to be sat on.</p>
<p>There is a balance to everything of course, and the pursuit of travel can be done responsibly, with awareness to the environment and its inhabitants. We can <a href="https://www.bookallsafaris.com/news/eco-friendly-travel" target="_blank">reduce our use of plastic</a> on our travels to reduce our carbon footprint, and we can say no to elephant rides. However, the harm that is caused to our wildlife goes beyond elephant rides.</p>
<p>To help you make conscious and<a href="https://www.bookallsafaris.com/news/responsible-tourism-annimal-attractions"><b> responsible choices</b></a> on your next travel to witness magnificent wildlife, we’ve highlighted the top 3 animal tourist attractions that you shouldn’t do and show you what you should do in its place.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>Riding Elephants</b></p>
<p align="center"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726352?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726352?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750" class="align-full"/></a></p>
<p align="center"> </p>
<p>Riding elephants, as harmless as it may seem, may probably be the most harmful act you can do to an elephant. Elephants are not meant for riding, and as such, have had to go through a cruel and inhumane process to force them to submit to giving rides. Baby elephants go through a <a href="https://expertvagabond.com/elephants-in-thailand/" target="_blank">training crush</a>, a cruel method used to crush an elephant’s spirit by taking it away from its mother, confining it in small spaces with limited ability to move and then beaten into submission. The baby elephant is also pierced with hooks as well as starved and deprived of sleep for days on end.</p>
<p>The elephant’s plight does not end there. Once its spirit is crushed, it spends its days giving rides to tourist while being prodded with hooks by its handlers as a way to control it. Keeping in mind that elephants have an excellent memory, capable of remembering an event for years, means that this agony is embedded in its memory for a very long time.</p>
<p>Elephant rides are very common in Southeast Asia and particularly in Thailand where captive Asian elephants are trained to carry tourists.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>What You Should Do Instead</b></p>
<p>Instead of riding elephants, encounter them in the wild on a safari. There, you can witness these gentle giant’s true nature in their habitat. You can find Asian elephants in small elephant sanctuaries in Southeast Asia and African elephants in many <a href="https://www.bookallsafaris.com/all/s/elephant-safaris" target="_blank">parks in Africa</a>. Keep in mind that wild elephants are not meant to be touched either, so enjoy them from afar or if you’d like a nice picture, take along <a href="https://www.bookallsafaris.com/news/best-travel-camera" target="_blank">a good camera</a>!</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>Watch Dolphin Shows</b></p>
<p> </p>
<p align="center"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726420?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726420?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750" class="align-full"/></a></p>
<p align="center"> </p>
<p>Watching dolphin performing tricks and getting up close and personal with them may be a dream come true for many, but it isn’t for the dolphin. One only needs to remember <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/tilikum-seaworld-orca-killer-whale-dies/" target="_blank">the sad story of Tilikum</a>, the captive orca who was involved in the death of three people. Large sea mammals are not meant to be caged in a tank.</p>
<p>Wild dolphins swim up to 100 miles a day, a great distance that cannot be recreated within a small tank. The constant shows and training that these intelligent creatures undergo as well as the stress of living in a small tank have <a href="https://mpora.com/environment/6-reasons-why-you-should-never-go-to-a-dolphin-show#8JXCRJKGQwOV5l0X.97" target="_blank">shortened a captive dolphin’s life</a> span by half. Remember also that dolphins are social animals with complicated social structure. Reducing them to living in a tank prevents them from communicating and socializing with one another, missing out on important connections that they would have made in the wild.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>What You Should Do Instead</b></p>
<p>Dolphins are extremely friendly, so chances of encountering them in the wild are high. Instead of paying to watch dolphins perform tricks, invest on a <a href="https://www.bookallsafaris.com/all/s/dolphin-safaris" target="_blank">dolphin-watching tour</a> where boats will take you out to the sea in search of dolphins and allow you the chance to watch them in their habitat. If you’re lucky, they might even interact with you!</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>Taking Selfies with Tigers</b></p>
<p> </p>
<p align="center"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726443?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726443?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750" class="align-full"/></a> </p>
<p>There is no doubt about the attractiveness of a tiger. Its beautiful stripes and mesmerizing eyes coupled with its somewhat mysterious presence has long made it a tourist attraction all over the world. So valuable is a tiger that many so-called tiger sanctuaries have popped up in countries like India and Thailand where tigers are bred for the purpose of tourist enjoyment and will never see the wild in their lifetime.</p>
<p>Tigers in tiger sanctuaries are <a href="http://www.angloitalianfollowus.com/the-terrible-truths-from-thailands-tiger-temples" target="_blank">usually sedated</a> to allow tourists to come up close to take a picture with them. For an extra fee, you are even allowed to sit or lie on the tigers while they are chained so close to the ground that they have difficulty standing up. To ensure the safety of tourists, it has been said that some operators remove the tiger’s claws and teeth.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>What You Should Do Instead</b></p>
<p>Instead of visiting questionable tiger sanctuaries, opt to go to reserves and National parks. <a href="https://www.bookallsafaris.com/all/d/asia-and-oceania/india/kanha-national-park" target="_blank">The Kanha National Park</a> in India is an example of a park that you can visit to potentially get a close encounter with tigers. As tigers are solitary and elusive animals, your trip to the park may not garner you an audience with a tiger, but you may still be able to witness great wildlife in the form of leopards and sloth bears!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>As animal enthusiasts, we must always remember that wild animals should always be in the wild and not made to do our bidding. Instead, it is our responsibility to protect them. While there is nothing wrong with wanting to see these animals, it is important that we do so responsibly and ethically.</p>
<p><b>About</b></p>
<p><b>Elaine Clara Mah</b></p>
<p>Elaine is a Contributing Writer for BookAllSafaris.com. She is constantly in awe of the majestic animals living in the wild alongside us and does what she can to help conserve their habitat.</p>Wildlife Conservation Success Stories: Animals That Are No Longer Endangeredtag:arzone.ning.com,2017-06-06:4715978:BlogPost:1629042017-06-06T20:29:30.000ZBookAllSfaris.comhttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/BookAllSfariscom
<p><b>By Elaine Clara Mah</b></p>
<p><b> <a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726340?profile=original" target="_self"><img class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726340?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750"></img></a></b></p>
<p></p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>With the numbers of animals in the wild dwindling at near rapid rate, it seems needless to say that it’s time for everyone to be conscious about the actions that they take each day and start actively protect our wild before they all go extinct. </b></p>
<p>However, the future is not all bleak. Thanks to…</p>
<p><b>By Elaine Clara Mah</b></p>
<p><b> <a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726340?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726340?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750" class="align-full"/></a></b></p>
<p></p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>With the numbers of animals in the wild dwindling at near rapid rate, it seems needless to say that it’s time for everyone to be conscious about the actions that they take each day and start actively protect our wild before they all go extinct. </b></p>
<p>However, the future is not all bleak. Thanks to concerted conservation efforts by governments, organizations and communities alike, some species have managed to fight extinction and increase their survival probability just that bit more. The <a href="https://www.bookallsafaris.com/news/animals-no-longer-endangered"><b>survival of these 5 animals</b></a> is inspiring and a call to action for us to do our part to keep more wildlife species from going extinct!</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>The White Rhino</b></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726679?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726679?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750" class="align-full"/></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The South African White Rhino was first discovered in the 1800s. Things went downhill pretty quickly from then on as European settlers killed the rhinos for sport. Like all rhinos, the white rhino also faced threats of poaching as their horn are considered valuable in traditional Asian medicine. By 1885, the white rhinos were thought to be extinct until a small population of less than 100 of them was discovered in Kwazul Natal, South Africa. White rhinos are now popular animals of interests for tourists in Africa and can be easily found during <a href="https://www.bookallsafaris.com/all/s/rhinoceros-safaris/d/africa-and-the-middle-east/south-africa" target="_blank">safaris in South Africa</a>. Also known as the square-lipped rhino – were intensively protected and bred and now has a healthy population of over 20,000 individuals living in the wild. </p>
<p>Although the white rhino population is considered healthy, however, the same cannot be said for the northern white rhinos. Once widespread throughout Chad, Uganda and Sudan, the northern white rhinos are now extinct in the wild and only 3 individuals left in captivity.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>The Indian Rhino</b></p>
<p align="center"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726866?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726866?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750" class="align-full"/></a></p>
<p>Another rhino species that has managed to claw its way out from the perils of extinction is the Indian rhino. The greater one-horned rhino is also known as the plated rhino as it has thick shields of skin to protect it during fights with other rhinos. The Indian rhino used to roam the river valleys of <a href="https://www.bookallsafaris.com/all/d/asia-and-oceania" target="_blank">India and Nepal</a> was reduced to less than a 100 individuals by 1960 due to intense poaching for its horn and encroachment of its habitat by tea plantations.</p>
<p>The implementation of habitat protection, hunting laws, and anti-poaching measures has been proven successful for these rhinos with the population growing steadily. By 2008, the estimated number of Indian rhinos in the wild climbed to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/shortcuts/2016/sep/05/giant-panda-animals-removal-endangered-list" target="_blank">3,000 individuals</a>, taking it off the endangered list.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>The Panda</b></p>
<p> <a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150727163?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150727163?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750" class="align-full"/></a></p>
<p align="center"></p>
<p align="center"> </p>
<p>The increase of the panda population is one of conservation’s sweetest success stories yet. In the 1960s, pandas were teetering on the brink of extinction with only a handful remained in the wild. Pandas were relentlessly poached for their hides until the 1980s when the Chinese government led a crackdown on poaching. In addition to banning poaching, the government also set up panda reserves – now amounting to 67 covering over <a href="http://www.livescience.com/55991-giant-pandas-no-longer-endangered.html" target="_blank">14,000 square kilometers of habitat</a> – this helped to reverse the decline of the panda.</p>
<p>Decades later, conservation efforts have paid off. Today, there are over 2,000 pandas living in the wild and numbers are set to grow further.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>The Siberian Tiger</b></p>
<p> </p>
<p align="center"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150728335?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150728335?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750" class="align-full"/></a></p>
<p>The Siberian tiger is the biggest cat in the world, rivaling other large cats including the African lion and the Bengal tigers. Siberian tigers are native to the Asian region, specifically Russia, China, and Korea but, as a result of relentless hunting in the 1940s, have been driven to the verge of extinction. At its lowest point, there were only 40 Siberian tigers left in the wild.</p>
<p>Russia <a href="http://mentalfloss.com/article/85893/8-animals-are-no-longer-endangered" target="_blank">banned hunting</a> in the mid-1940s, which allowed for tiger numbers to bounce back to around 500 individuals today – a small number but growing nonetheless.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>The Przewalski’s Horse</b></p>
<p> </p>
<p align="center"></p>
<p>The most fascinating fact about the Przewalski’s Horse is that it is the only truly wild horse left on earth. Other species of horse have been domesticated, one-way or another, by humans. The Przewalski’s horse was discovered over 20,000 years ago and is known as the ancestor of the horses we see today. Due to domestication and environmental issues, the Przewalski’s horse was considered extinct by the 1960s, with <a href="https://www.thedodo.com/8-endangered-species-making-ep-652564299.html" target="_blank">the last sighting of it in the wild</a> was in the Gobi Desert of Mongolia in 1969.</p>
<p>Armed with 9 remaining horses in zoos, conservations programs were put in place to reintroduce them to the wild in China, Khazakstan, and Mongolia. The program has met with success and as a result, today there are about 400 Przewalski’s Horses roaming its natural habitats of Mongolia, China, and the Ukraine!</p>
<p><b>Elaine Clara Mah</b></p>
<p>Elaine is a Contributing Writer for <a href="https://www.bookallsafaris.com">BookAllSafaris.com</a>. She is constantly in awe of the majestic animals living in the wild alongside us and does what she can to help conserve their habitat.</p>
<p> </p>Carnage - It's 2067, the UK is vegan, but older generations are suffering the guilt of their carnivorous past. Simon Amstell asks us to forgive them for the horrors of what they swallowed.tag:arzone.ning.com,2017-03-20:4715978:BlogPost:1621632017-03-20T14:00:00.000ZKate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥhttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/KateGOVEGANandNobodyGetsHurt
<p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p04sh6zg/simon-amstell-carnage">http://www.newstatesman.com/2017/03/simon-amstell-s-mockumentary-carnage-makes-veganism-funny-and-obvious-ethical-choice</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p04sh6zg/simon-amstell-carnage"><br></br>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSreSNaLtZQ<br></br> <br></br> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il9_WV8j6_o<br></br> <br></br> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE--RWHYl9w…<br></br> <br></br></a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p04sh6zg/simon-amstell-carnage">http://www.newstatesman.com/2017/03/simon-amstell-s-mockumentary-carnage-makes-veganism-funny-and-obvious-ethical-choice</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p04sh6zg/simon-amstell-carnage"><br/>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSreSNaLtZQ<br/> <br/> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il9_WV8j6_o<br/> <br/> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE--RWHYl9w<br/> <br/> http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p04sh6zg/simon-amstell-carnage</a><br/> <br/> <a href="http://www.thememo.com/2017/03/21/simon-amstell-carnage-review-veganism-diet-future-of-food/">http://www.thememo.com/2017/03/21/simon-amstell-carnage-review-veganism-diet-future-of-food/</a><br/></p>
<p><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/carnage-review-bbc-iplayer-simon-amstell-vegan-comedy-actually-funny-a7636871.html">http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/carnage-review-bbc-iplayer-simon-amstell-vegan-comedy-actually-funny-a7636871.html</a><br/> <br/> <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/simon-amstell-on-his-new-vegan-mockumentary-carnage">https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/simon-amstell-on-his-new-vegan-mockumentary-carnage<br/> <br/> http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/carnage/48070/carnage-review<br/> <br/> http://www.chortle.co.uk/review/2017/03/19/27110/simon_amstell%3A_carnage<br/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>David Benatar on Reasonable Vegan! Excellent interview with brilliant vegan professor David Benatar by the talented Reasonable Vegan Rebecca Fox.tag:arzone.ning.com,2016-06-27:4715978:BlogPost:1581102016-06-27T10:32:47.000ZKate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥhttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/KateGOVEGANandNobodyGetsHurt
<p><span class="font-size-3">There’s a lot of talk in the vegan community about whether having children is a good idea or not. Obviously the default human position is that giving birth is encouraged, or at least accepted. Most of us exist as a result of the decision to create life, and government policies that attempt to restrict procreation are met with harsh criticism. Conversely, almost every nation offers paid paternity leave…</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3">There’s a lot of talk in the vegan community about whether having children is a good idea or not. Obviously the default human position is that giving birth is encouraged, or at least accepted. Most of us exist as a result of the decision to create life, and government policies that attempt to restrict procreation are met with harsh criticism. Conversely, almost every nation offers paid paternity leave<a href="http://rvgn.org/2016/06/19/better-never-to-have-been-an-interview-with-david-benatar/#footnote-1" class="footnote tooltipstered" id="reference-1" name="reference-1">[1]</a>, and only a minority of nations allow abortions when health is not a factor<a href="http://rvgn.org/2016/06/19/better-never-to-have-been-an-interview-with-david-benatar/#footnote-2" class="footnote tooltipstered" id="reference-2" name="reference-2">[2]</a>.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3">In philosophy, the pro-birth position is called <em>natalism</em> (or sometimes <em>pronatalism</em>), and the moral objection to procreation is called, unsurprisingly, <em>antinatalism</em><a href="http://rvgn.org/2016/06/19/better-never-to-have-been-an-interview-with-david-benatar/#footnote-3" class="footnote tooltipstered" id="reference-3" name="reference-3">[3]</a>. Contemporary antinatalists, like many contemporary vegans, tend to focus on the problem of suffering: put simply, every child will necessarily suffer if they exist, but they can’t suffer if they don’t exist, so procreation results in suffering. Some vegan antinatalists see the act of refusing to partake in animal industry as an expression of antinatalism – without adequate financial incentive, farmers won’t breed more animals for industrial abuse.</span></p>
<blockquote class="pullquote right"><span class="font-size-3">While many humans’ lives are not as bad as those of factory-farmed animals, everybody will suffer considerable evil. The only way to prevent that is not to bring them into existence.</span></blockquote>
<p><span class="font-size-3">Antinatalism has a long and storied history. Socrates is credited with the remark ‘to live is to be sick for a long time’; the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer advanced the idea in the nineteenth century<a href="http://rvgn.org/2016/06/19/better-never-to-have-been-an-interview-with-david-benatar/#footnote-4" class="footnote tooltipstered" id="reference-4" name="reference-4">[4]</a>, and the philosopher/comedian Peter Wessel Zapffe continued in the following century<a href="http://rvgn.org/2016/06/19/better-never-to-have-been-an-interview-with-david-benatar/#footnote-5" class="footnote tooltipstered" id="reference-5" name="reference-5">[5]</a>. More recently the character Rustin Cohle in the television show <em>True Detective</em> expresses clear antinatalist (if misanthropic) tendencies, the comedian Doug Stanhope has proposed paying people not to have children<a href="http://rvgn.org/2016/06/19/better-never-to-have-been-an-interview-with-david-benatar/#footnote-6" class="footnote tooltipstered" id="reference-6" name="reference-6">[6]</a>, and the maniacal YouTube personality Freelee the Banana Girl has made her antinatalist views known.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3">The most comprehensive argument for antinatalism to date was given by the philosopher David Benatar<a href="http://rvgn.org/2016/06/19/better-never-to-have-been-an-interview-with-david-benatar/#footnote-7" class="footnote tooltipstered" id="reference-7" name="reference-7">[7]</a> in his 2006 book <em>Better Never to Have Been</em>. His book made me reconsider many of my prior beliefs about the moral issues surrounding procreation, and I highly recommend it. It’s not a coincidence that Benatar is a vegan, and I was delighted to get the chance to ask him some of the burning questions that I and the community have wondered about.</span></p>
<hr/><h2><span class="font-size-3"><strong>RVGN:</strong> Antinatalists often describe the choice to have a child as a gamble. In <em>Better Never to Have Been</em> you discuss the different potential outcomes of procreation by comparing a scenario in which a person exists to one in which they do not:</span></h2>
<p></p>
<p class="figure"></p>
<div class="frame"><span class="font-size-3"><img class="figure" src="http://rvgn.org/media/figures/benatar/fig2.1.svg" title="Comparison of potential scenarios"/></span></div>
<div class="meta"><span class="font-size-3"><em>Figure 1 : Comparison of potential scenarios</em></span></div>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<h2><span class="font-size-3">Can you explain why you think the odds favour a negative outcome for the offspring of people who chose to procreate?</span></h2>
<hr/><p><span class="font-size-3"><strong>DB:</strong> My view is not merely that the <em>odds</em> favour a negative outcome, but that a negative outcome is<em>guaranteed</em>. The analogy I use is a procreational Russian Roulette in which <em>all</em> the chambers of the gun contain a live bullet. The basis for this claim is an important asymmetry between benefits and harms. The absence of harms is good even if there is nobody to enjoy that absence. However, the absence of a benefit is only bad if there is somebody who is deprived of that benefit. The upshot of this is that coming into existence has no advantages over never coming into existence, whereas never coming into existence has advantages over coming into existence. Thus so long as a life contains some harm, coming into existence is a net harm.</span></p>
<hr/><h2><span class="font-size-3"><strong>RVGN:</strong> In the last few years consent has become an important issue for those of us concerned with human rights. Generally, we believe that potentially harmful actions should not be enacted without the express consent of all those involved. Vegan advocates have pointed out that non-animals are unable to consent to any of the harms we regularly subject them to. Like non-human animals, non-existent people do not have the ability to consent to being brought into existence, and yet we often believe that making the decision to bring new people in the world is acceptable because we can be reasonably sure that they will retrospectively consent once they are able to do so.</span></h2>
<h2><span class="font-size-3">Why do you think this assumption fails to solve the issue of consent?</span></h2>
<hr/><p><span class="font-size-3"><strong>DB:</strong> The assumption that most people brought into existence will retrospectively consent to their creation is likely true. However, it does not justify our bringing children into existence. This is partly because we have reason to think that the preference of most people to have come into existence is an “adaptive preference” — a preference that people develop in order to cope with an unfortunate situation. When the infliction of harm causes the person harmed to come to consent to it, we should be very wary. If, for example, lobotomizing somebody caused that person to endorse the lobotomization, we would not – and should not – think that the retrospective consent justifies the practice.</span></p>
<hr/><h2><span class="font-size-3"><strong>RVGN:</strong> You advance the argument that ‘coming into existence is always a harm’ based on the indisputable fact that all sentient beings will, at some point in their lives, experience suffering. In your work you point out that many people suffer from chronic ailments in addition to the everyday suffering of existence, and how the few neutral or pleasant states we experience are outweighed by these negative experiences. To take an example from my own life I recognise that my chronic (though thankfully mild!) back pain gives me more negative experiences than pleasurable experiences. That said, weighing my back pain against my general ‘chronic happiness’ (or contentment) I think my back pain loses.</span></h2>
<h2><span class="font-size-3">Do you contend that suffering outweigh our contentment for those of us lucky enough to experience chronic happiness?</span></h2>
<hr/><p><span class="font-size-3"><strong>DB:</strong> I do think that the bad outweighs the good in even the happiest lives. The reason why this seems so strange is that (most) humans have psychological traits that lead to their underweighting the bad and thus thinking that in their lives as a whole there is more good than bad. The most prominent of these traits is an optimism bias, but there are others too.</span></p>
<hr/><h2><span class="font-size-3"><strong>RVGN:</strong> In your book you cite several studies demonstrating the optimism bias. Even people who experience extreme misfortunes and suffering tend to have an optimisic view of their lives. This hedonic adaption is obviously evolutionarily advantageous – those of us who found our suffering unbearable were less likely to live long enough to pass on our genes. You draw our attention to how inaccurate humans are in assessing the quality of their lives. But couldn’t this very misjudgement be used as an argument <em>for</em> procreation? That is, if all potential people are going to believe they are happy, then why not create more seemingly happy lives?</span></h2>
<hr/><p><span class="font-size-3"><strong>DB:</strong> First, it’s not true that <em>all</em> potential people are going to have a positive outlook. There are many who find life a struggle. Second, while the misjudgement may make lives less bad than they would otherwise be, it does not follow that the quality of life is as good as it is misjudged to be. It is still possible for life to be worse than one thinks it is. The concern about adaptive preferences applies here too.</span></p>
<hr/><h2><span class="font-size-3"><strong>RVGN:</strong> When someone contends that the pleasure in their lives outweighs the suffering, many antinatalists might remind them of the optimism bias and suggest that they could be incorrect in the assessment of their own wellbeing. This seems to make the claim that suffering outweighs pleasure practically unfalsifiable, and therefore suspect.</span></h2>
<h2><span class="font-size-3">Is there any way that someone could satisfactorily disprove the antinatalists’ ‘suffering outweighs pleasure’ theory?</span></h2>
<hr/><p><span class="font-size-3"><strong>DB:</strong> Noting the optimism bias and other psychological traits that lead to overestimation of the quality of life is only the first step in the argument. We can then point to a host of facts about the good and bad things in life. Here we should recognize some important empirical asymmetries that support a pessimistic conclusion. For example, the most intense pleasures are short-lived but pain is much more enduring. The worst pains are also worse than the best pleasures are good. Injury is swift but recovery is slow. These are but a few examples. All these claims can be assessed against the facts. They are not unfalsifiable.</span></p>
<hr/><h2><span class="font-size-3"><strong>RVGN:</strong> Some opponents of antinatalism accuse antinatalists of falling prey to a ‘pessimism bias’, which is common in people who suffer from depression. How do you respond to people who suggest that your assessment of the relative quantities of suffering and happiness is affected by your own emotional state, and not measurable evidence from the external world?</span></h2>
<hr/><p><span class="font-size-3"><strong>DB:</strong> I am not depressed. I do have a pessimistic view, but that, I argue, is what the evidence warrants. Thus I invite opponents of antinatalism to consider the evidence fairly. I have only gestured at it here, but your readers can find a fuller treatment not only in <em>Better Never to Have Been</em> but also in <em>Debating Procreation</em>(where I debate the issues with David Wasserman).</span></p>
<hr/><h2><span class="font-size-3"><strong>RVGN:</strong> Another question often levelled at antinatalists can be generalised as, <em>if existence is so awful, why not end your life?</em> Does an antinatalist have to be pro-suicide in order to be logically consistent?</span></h2>
<hr/><p><span class="font-size-3"><strong>DB:</strong> No, being an antinatalist does not entail being pro-mortalist, at least not always. An antinatalist can think that it is bad both to begin existing and to cease existing. Indeed one reason why it might be bad to begin existing is that we shall die. This is not to say that death is always bad all things considered. At some point the quality of life may become so bad that death is the lesser evil. It does not follow that one should kill oneself well before that point. However, the prospect that life will get so bad that death is the least bad option is excellent reason for thinking that coming into existence is bad. If we never exist we face neither the suffering of life nor the annihilation brought on by death.</span></p>
<hr/><h2><span class="font-size-3"><strong>RVGN:</strong> Although many vegans either have—or look forward to having—children, we are staunch antinatalists when it comes to the breeding of non-human animals for human consumption or entertainment. Few of us believe we are saving animals’ lives by abstaining from animal products; rather, we realise that we are saving animals from being born by decreasing demand for certain products. How does your antinatalism influence the way you think about veganism?</span></h2>
<hr/><p><span class="font-size-3"><strong>DB:</strong> You’re quite right about the inconsistency. One commonly hears the following sort of argument from meat-eaters: “If we did not eat the sorts of animals that are bred for food, those animals would not have had an opportunity to live. Thus we have done them a favour by breeding them for human consumption.”</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3">This is an appalling argument. Imagine somebody proposing to give many more humans the “benefit” of life by breeding them and then killing them after a short life of suffering. The fundamental flaw in the argument is that nobody has an interest in coming into existence.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3">While many humans’ lives are not as bad as those of factory-farmed animals, everybody will suffer considerable evil. The only way to prevent that is not to bring them into existence. Since that course of action has zero cost for those not brought into existence, we should desist from creating suffering humans, just as we should desist from creating suffering non-human animals.</span></p>
<hr/><h2><span class="font-size-3"><strong>RVGN:</strong> As vegans we are concerned with non-human animal suffering, but as researcher Brian Tomasik has pointed out<a href="http://rvgn.org/2016/06/19/better-never-to-have-been-an-interview-with-david-benatar/#footnote-8" class="footnote tooltipstered" id="reference-8" name="reference-8">[8]</a> we tend to predominantly focus on human-caused animal suffering.</span></h2>
<h2><span class="font-size-3">We know that wild animals suffer from predation, disease and injury and that the majority of suffering experienced on earth is borne by wild animals. Brian argues that as human populations increase, wild animal populations decrease due to our encroachments on their habitats and resource use, and therefore the overall level of suffering decreases.</span></h2>
<h2><span class="font-size-3">If Brian is right<a href="http://rvgn.org/2016/06/19/better-never-to-have-been-an-interview-with-david-benatar/#footnote-9" class="footnote tooltipstered" id="reference-9" name="reference-9">[9]</a> and the number of humans is inversely proportional to overall net suffering, shouldn’t those of us concerned about suffering be pronatalists, or at least not oppose the desires of other humans to procreate?</span></h2>
<hr/><p><span class="font-size-3"><strong>DB:</strong> I agree that the vast majority of (non-human) animal suffering is that of wild animals - caused by other wild animals or by naturally induced starvation, disease and injury. This is cause for deep gloom – another way in which pessimism is supported by the evidence. I also agree that human rapaciousness has encroached on animal habitats and reduced animal populations – in the case of many species to the point of extinction. However, we cannot infer pronatalism from this. Indeed, Brian Tomasik himself recognizes this, and calls only for the inclusion of wild animals’ suffering in our moral calculations and for further research.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3">The problem is that attempting to do good by harmful means is controversial at the best of times. It is still more problematic when the causal networks are so complex that we may well end up having inflicted much more harm than we will have prevented. This error is so common in human history that we ignore it only at our moral peril. The very human activities that reduce animal populations, thereby preventing suffering, also have many (non-lethal) harmful effects on present and future beings. Those who would confidently argue that the benefits outweigh the costs should be reminded that even mass extinction does not reduce suffering if other (sentient) species emerge or proliferate in the vacated niche. It is estimated that 99.9% of all species that ever existed have become extinct. Suffering has not ended. Instead it has instantiated in new species. This is not to say that the extinction of all sentient life will never occur. I am only saying that we should not assume that this will result from rampant human pronatalism.</span></p>
<hr/><h2><span class="font-size-3"><strong>RVGN:</strong> Many vegan parents hope that, by raising compassionate children, they will contribute to future improvements in the world for animals and humans. Though not every child raised vegan will continue that lifestyle, it does seem plausible that a child raised to care about the suffering of others is more likely to make a positive contribution to the world. Because your argument for antinatalism is built upon a concern for the suffering of others, it seems likely that altruistic people would be more likely to adopt that sort of philosophy.</span></h2>
<h2><span class="font-size-3">Are you concerned that by encouraging people not to procreate you could be decreasing the number of altruists in the human population, and therefore slowing ethical progress?</span></h2>
<hr/><p><span class="font-size-3"><strong>DB:</strong> If I am correct that bringing somebody into existence inflicts a terrible harm on that person, we should be worried about prospective parents who are willing to inflict that harm on their potential children in the hope that those children will help spare others suffering. Part of the worry is about those parents instrumentalising their children. How compassionate is it to do that? And what example are they setting? Another worry, however, is whether any child raised even by compassionate people would indeed make the world a better place. In <em>The Misanthropic Argument for Anti-natalism</em><a href="http://rvgn.org/2016/06/19/better-never-to-have-been-an-interview-with-david-benatar/#footnote-10" class="footnote tooltipstered" id="reference-10" name="reference-10">[10]</a>, I point to just how much harm humans cause. Vegans, all other things being equal, do less damage than their omnivorous conspecifics. However, even vegans do some damage. Moreover, all other things are rarely equal.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3">Those who still want to raise compassionate children might consider adopting, thereby saving two birds from one stone. Those who adopt care for a child who would otherwise have had no parents, and they rear it as well as possible. They prevent suffering (of the otherwise parentless child) and they prevent suffering (that that child would cause if it were raised less well).</span></p>
<hr/><h2><span class="font-size-3"><strong>RVGN:</strong> Thank you so much for your time! We hope interested readers will go on to explore your ideas in more detail in your book Better Never to Have Been, and that this interview can contribute to the vegan conversation about antinatalism becoming better informed and more productive.</span></h2>
<div class="original-appearance"><span class="font-size-3">David Benatar is a professor of philosophy and head of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Cape Town. His books <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265" class="external-link" target="_blank">Better Never To Have Been</a> and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Debating-Procreation-Wrong-Reproduce-Ethics/dp/0199333556" class="external-link" target="_blank">Debating Procreation: Is It Wrong to Reproduce?</a> (in which he debates David Wasserman), are available on Amazon and well worth your time.<br/><br/><a href="http://rvgn.org/2016/06/19/better-never-to-have-been-an-interview-with-david-benatar/">http://rvgn.org/2016/06/19/better-never-to-have-been-an-interview-with-david-benatar/</a><br/></span></div>STOPPING HORSE ABUSE – BAN HORSE-DRAWN CARRIAGES IN NYCtag:arzone.ning.com,2016-03-13:4715978:BlogPost:1534312016-03-13T00:00:00.000ZDr. Shenita Etwaroohttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/ShenitaEtwaroo
<div class="separator"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Mhap0GzDNWc/VpquIw8JMTI/AAAAAAAAAT0/euhNt3hTQx4/s1600/stop_horse_abuse_animal_rescue_stickers-r21ef9f5608004ce5bfc352bcff4d1264_v9wf3_8byvr_324.jpg"><img border="0" class="align-center" height="400" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Mhap0GzDNWc/VpquIw8JMTI/AAAAAAAAAT0/euhNt3hTQx4/s400/stop_horse_abuse_animal_rescue_stickers-r21ef9f5608004ce5bfc352bcff4d1264_v9wf3_8byvr_324.jpg" width="400"></img></a></div>
<p><span class="font-size-5" style="font-family: 'trebuchet ms', geneva;">In the 1877 classic novel Black Beauty, audiences learned to empathize with the sufferings of a horse forced to pull cabs through London. Yet 137 years later, horse-drawn carriages are still…</span></p>
<div class="separator"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Mhap0GzDNWc/VpquIw8JMTI/AAAAAAAAAT0/euhNt3hTQx4/s1600/stop_horse_abuse_animal_rescue_stickers-r21ef9f5608004ce5bfc352bcff4d1264_v9wf3_8byvr_324.jpg"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Mhap0GzDNWc/VpquIw8JMTI/AAAAAAAAAT0/euhNt3hTQx4/s400/stop_horse_abuse_animal_rescue_stickers-r21ef9f5608004ce5bfc352bcff4d1264_v9wf3_8byvr_324.jpg" width="400" class="align-center"/></a></div>
<p><span class="font-size-5" style="font-family: 'trebuchet ms', geneva;">In the 1877 classic novel Black Beauty, audiences learned to empathize with the sufferings of a horse forced to pull cabs through London. Yet 137 years later, horse-drawn carriages are still popular in a number of cities around the world, including New York City. Even horse lovers will go for a horse-drawn carriage ride in the city, thinking of it as romantic and fun. Most people do not realize the hardships and suffering that horses working in NYC go through. The harsh reality is that horses are not meant to work long, difficult hours in an urban environment, and this work constitutes nothing less than animal cruelty.</span><br/> <br/> <span class="font-size-5" style="font-family: 'trebuchet ms', geneva;">There are about 220 horses in NYC who work drawing carriages. They usually work about nine hours a day, seven days a week. At the end of the day, instead of being turned out into pastures as is healthy for horses, they are placed in stalls near the Lincoln Tunnel and West Side Highway. They do not have a chance to run around, roll, eat grass, or socialize as is normal for horses. Then, at the end of a long and tiring career, carriage horses do not get to retire out to a pasture somewhere. Instead, most worn-out horses are either slaughtered for dog food or sold to overseas slaughterhouses that will sell their meat to people abroad.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span class="font-size-5" style="font-family: 'trebuchet ms', geneva;"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726280?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726675?profile=original" width="574" class="align-center"/></a></span></p>
<p><br/> <span class="font-size-5" style="font-family: 'trebuchet ms', geneva;">, live their entire lives in an urban environment like NYC. The carriages they must pull are a very heavy load, and they must pull them all day across hard pavement, which is bad for their hooves and joints. Many drivers force their horses to work even in high temperatures, which have caused a number of horses to collapse while pulling carriages. The horses also breathe in exhaust from all the surrounding vehicles, which can lead to respiratory problems. In addition, the horses can be spooked by the many loud sounds characteristic of a large city. In addition to harming themselves, the horses can cause harm to their drivers, passengers, and nearby pedestrians.</span><br/> <br/> <span class="font-size-5" style="font-family: 'trebuchet ms', geneva;">In fact, there have been a large number of accidents coming from horse-drawn carriages in NYC. In only the past two years, there have been over twenty reported accidents. These include horses spooking, crashing into taxi cabs, and falling to the ground. These incidents are dangerous to the people around and are clearly dangerous for the horses. It is simply not worth it to endanger so many beautiful animals and the people nearby in order to have horse-drawn carriages.</span><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726776?profile=original" target="_self"><br/></a> <span class="font-size-5" style="font-family: 'trebuchet ms', geneva;"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726776?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726776?profile=original" width="600" class="align-center"/></a><br/> Luckily, there are a number of great activists and organizations who are working to ban horse-drawn carriages and help NYC’s horses. Ashley Byrne has led efforts by PETA to educate the public about the condition of carriage horses and bring an end to their suffering. The great activists at NY Class, including Allie Feldman, have maintained a growing list of incidents involving horse-drawn carriages and encourage people to take action. The Coalition to Ban Horse-Drawn Carriages, led by Elizabeth Forel, is organizing to affect a ban on the cruel treatment of horses. In addition, Friends of Animals, a fantastic organization led by Campaigns Director Edita Birnkrant, has been organizing protests and keeping pressure on Mayor Bill de Blasio to enforce a ban.</span></p>
<div class="separator"><span style="font-family: 'trebuchet ms', geneva;"> </span></div>
<div class="separator"><span class="font-size-5" style="font-family: 'trebuchet ms', geneva;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9ArpXf7f9xg/Vpq1sB6DcrI/AAAAAAAAAWY/BK7hlgzvrPU/s1600/tumblr_o0wcz8wMfp1rpkql1o1_1280.jpg"><img border="0" height="555" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9ArpXf7f9xg/Vpq1sB6DcrI/AAAAAAAAAWY/BK7hlgzvrPU/s640/tumblr_o0wcz8wMfp1rpkql1o1_1280.jpg" width="640" class="align-center"/></a></span></div>
<p><span class="font-size-5" style="font-family: 'trebuchet ms', geneva;"> Photo Credit: No Walk In The Park </span><br/> <br/> <span class="font-size-5" style="font-family: 'trebuchet ms', geneva;">There are things that you can do to help as well. If you’re visiting New York City or another city that has horse-drawn carriages, do not pay for a ride in a carriage. It may seem like a memorable experience, but you are only contributing to the cruel treatment of that horse. If everyone were to stop taking carriage rides, the industry would soon collapse on its own. If you live in NYC, you can contact your local legislator and encourage them to support a ban on horse-drawn carriages. In particular, NYC mayor Bill de Blasio has claimed that he will ban horse-drawn carriages from New York City’s streets. You can call his office and ask him to keep his word. Horses are suffering every day, and many cannot afford to wait much longer to be freed from animal cruelty. There are many cities, including Key West, Palm Beach, Camden, and Biloxi that have already banned horse-drawn carriages. More and more people are recognizing them as animal cruelty, and enforcing a ban is certainly possible. It’s time that the residents and politicians of NYC care for their fellow creatures and take steps to end the cruel suffering of the city’s carriage horses.</span></p>HELP THE NARWHALStag:arzone.ning.com,2016-02-13:4715978:BlogPost:1533342016-02-13T04:23:53.000ZUttama Andersonhttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/UttamaAnderson
<p dir="ltr"><span><img height="247" src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/t2tMAYWfslqCFpw-inZqvY_6Bhj6EquZkeerYmXQxIgBk-2KfdmQmlZOOTnTL7VlSTVbSLFKNcUJHEWNLVylEtuqtC52rafP9cacSkgS3ZLxkGyvTyK4RolTqi8Rmmipz0vOChmJ" width="624"></img></span></p>
<p><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>IT’S TIME TO EXPOSE THE OIL COMPANIES FUNDING SEISMIC BLASTING!</span></p>
<p><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>This spring, as soon as the ice starts to melt, seismic blasts will reverberate throughout Canada’s East Arctic Ocean off Baffin Island, with foreseeably disastrous consequences to local marine life and coastal communities, and raising the spectre of fossil fuel exploitation…</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span><img src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/t2tMAYWfslqCFpw-inZqvY_6Bhj6EquZkeerYmXQxIgBk-2KfdmQmlZOOTnTL7VlSTVbSLFKNcUJHEWNLVylEtuqtC52rafP9cacSkgS3ZLxkGyvTyK4RolTqi8Rmmipz0vOChmJ" width="624" height="247"/></span></p>
<p><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>IT’S TIME TO EXPOSE THE OIL COMPANIES FUNDING SEISMIC BLASTING!</span></p>
<p><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>This spring, as soon as the ice starts to melt, seismic blasts will reverberate throughout Canada’s East Arctic Ocean off Baffin Island, with foreseeably disastrous consequences to local marine life and coastal communities, and raising the spectre of fossil fuel exploitation in these pristine waters.</span></p>
<p><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>Seismic ‘testing’, as it is known in the oil and gas industry, is the method of choice to look for oil and gas deposits buried deep under the seabed. But it is a violent and traumatic event for marine animals, subjecting them to sounds thousands of times louder than a jet engine, every 10 seconds, 24 hours a day, for weeks on end. The last time seismic ‘testing’ took place in these waters, over 1000 narwhals were killed because they became disoriented and trapped in ice.</span></p>
<p><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>Seismic blasting costs money. It doesn’t just happen. It is pre-funded by oil companies who stand to profit from knowing where the oil is.</span> <span>For months now, volunteers at Parvati.org have been trying to uncover which oil companies are backing the scheduled blasting, in order to encourage them to cease this abhorrent activity. However, this information is not being made available.</span></p>
<p><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>Volunteers are encouraged to join us in calling government employees who we expect know which oil companies are behind the seismic blasting. With consistent, dedicated and heartfelt effort, eventually the names of the companies will come to light and we will be able to engage in public dialogue aimed at stopping seabed blasting for good.</span></p>
<p><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>For more information about this campaign and to get involved, please visit</span> <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RgvPoKiW2oLMqA42eBwVOFcr7ZHFiVotilmKSKQKxcM/edit"><span>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RgvPoKiW2oLMqA42eBwVOFcr7ZHFiVotilmKSKQKxcM/edit</span></a><span>. Please also sign our petitions demanding transparent government and business practices around oil and gas exploration at Parvati.org.</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>Ukrainian sadisttag:arzone.ning.com,2016-01-22:4715978:BlogPost:1525742016-01-22T21:54:41.000ZUkrainianhttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/Ukrainian
<div class="mail-body" id="mailBody"><div class="body" id="displayBody"><span class="xfm_59787961"><span>This is happening today in Ukraine (</span>Zaporizhia <span class="xfm_59787961">city):<br></br><a href="http://www.times.zp.ua/top-news/?ELEMENT_ID=94374" target="_blank">http://www.times.zp.ua/top-news/?ELEMENT_ID=94374…</a><br></br><br></br></span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="mail-body" id="mailBody"><div class="body" id="displayBody"><span class="xfm_59787961"><span>This is happening today in Ukraine (</span>Zaporizhia <span class="xfm_59787961">city):<br/><a href="http://www.times.zp.ua/top-news/?ELEMENT_ID=94374" target="_blank">http://www.times.zp.ua/top-news/?ELEMENT_ID=94374</a><br/><br/><a href="http://www.ipnews.in.ua/index.php/2016/01/20/maloletniy-zaporozhets-vyilozhil-foto-zamuchennogo-im-kotenka-sotsseti/" target="_blank">http://www.ipnews.in.ua/index.php/2016/01/20/maloletniy-zaporozhets-vyilozhil-foto-zamuchennogo-im-kotenka-sotsseti/</a><br/><br/><a href="http://tp.zp.ua/nesovershennoletnij-zhivoder-dolzhen-byt-nakazan-na-sajte-obshhestvennoj-organizatsii-poyavilas-elektronnaya-petitsiya-ot-zhitelej-zaporozhya/" target="_blank">http://tp.zp.ua/nesovershennoletnij-zhivoder-dolzhen-byt-nakazan-na-sajte-obshhestvennoj-organizatsii-poyavilas-elektronnaya-petitsiya-ot-zhitelej-zaporozhya/</a><br/><br/><a href="http://silaslova.zp.ua/14574-zhiteli-zaporozhya-grozyat-raspravoy-maloletnemu-zhivoderu.html" target="_blank">http://silaslova.zp.ua/14574-zhiteli-zaporozhya-grozyat-raspravoy-maloletnemu-zhivoderu.html</a><br/><br/><br/>Local animal welfare advocates appealed to the police to find the sadistic man and bring him to justice. However, the Ukrainian police have refused to perform their duties.<br/>We needs the pressure of international organizations on the Ukrainian authorities to punish sadist!</span></span></div>
</div>Professor David Benatar on The Species Barrier! Excellent episode with pre-eminent philosopher David Benatar, musician Mistro & author Jan Smitowicztag:arzone.ning.com,2015-10-10:4715978:BlogPost:1514352015-10-10T16:00:00.000ZKate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥhttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/KateGOVEGANandNobodyGetsHurt
<h2><strong><span class="font-size-2">Professor David Benatar on The Species Barrier!<br></br> Excellent episode of The Species Barrier featuring interviews and discussions about Antinatalism, Veganism, and more with pre-eminent Professor of philosophy David Benatar, marvellous musician Mistro, and eco-thrilling author Jan Smitowicz.</span></strong></h2>
<h2>The Species Barrier 35 Antinatal</h2>
<h4>October 9th, 2015</h4>
<div class="entry"><div>Episode #35 of The Species Barrier... South African…</div>
</div>
<h2><strong><span class="font-size-2">Professor David Benatar on The Species Barrier!<br/> Excellent episode of The Species Barrier featuring interviews and discussions about Antinatalism, Veganism, and more with pre-eminent Professor of philosophy David Benatar, marvellous musician Mistro, and eco-thrilling author Jan Smitowicz.</span></strong></h2>
<h2>The Species Barrier 35 Antinatal</h2>
<h4>October 9th, 2015</h4>
<div class="entry"><div>Episode #35 of The Species Barrier... South African Professor of Philosophy David Benatar, writer of Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence joins us to discuss his work. Mistro, musical artist from Norway has a new album out called The Tragedy of Birth, and author Jan Smitowicz from America is the writer of revenge novel Orange Rain.<p></p>
<p>Also in the news discussion, we attended the Premiere of Unity (Long awaited followup to Earthlings) and give our thoughts, World Overshoot Day passes, water and food predicted to run out, The Pope's encyclical covers environmentalism and animal ethics, Beyonce's "veganism", techno fixes can't save the oceans, Cecil The Lion and it's been made official that humans are driving The Sixth Great Extinction event in geological history.</p>
<p>Welcome To The Species Barrier... where two vegan, environmentalists question how we interact with the planet and the other animals who call it home. Prepare to have your preconceptions challenged and explore that barrier in place which separates the human animal from other species.</p>
</div>
</div>
<p><br/> <a href="http://thespeciesbarrier.podbean.com/e/the-species-barrier-35-antinatal/">http://thespeciesbarrier.podbean.com/e/the-species-barrier-35-antinatal/</a><br/> <a href="https://ia801502.us.archive.org/35/items/TheSpeciesBarrier35Antinatal/tsb35.mp3">https://ia801502.us.archive.org/35/items/TheSpeciesBarrier35Antinatal/tsb35.mp3</a></p>Vivisectiontag:arzone.ning.com,2015-08-29:4715978:BlogPost:1514042015-08-29T08:14:31.000ZTim Reeshttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/TimRees
<p>Hi,</p>
<p>So horrified was I with regard images of beagles in vivisection labs, I wrote a novel. The result is Delphian and it is available for free if you are subscribed to Kindle Unlimited. If you are not subscribed it is available for a modest fee on Amazon. But forget the sales pitch! Vivisection must stop! It is an hypocrisy. In the book I draw the comparison of aliens arriving on Earth and due to their perceived superior intelligence, they use humans for pharmaceutical…</p>
<p>Hi,</p>
<p>So horrified was I with regard images of beagles in vivisection labs, I wrote a novel. The result is Delphian and it is available for free if you are subscribed to Kindle Unlimited. If you are not subscribed it is available for a modest fee on Amazon. But forget the sales pitch! Vivisection must stop! It is an hypocrisy. In the book I draw the comparison of aliens arriving on Earth and due to their perceived superior intelligence, they use humans for pharmaceutical experimentation. We, rightly would be outraged and even resort to violence to stop the abuse of our fellow man. So it is an hypocrisy to employ the argument "We have the right because we are more intelligent!" We are all of varying degrees of intelligence. Would it be right to abuse downs syndrome people in this way? Vivisection is wrong and must end. My hope is that Delphian goes some way to offering effective counter arguments. To argue my case, although there are scenes describing horrendous animal abuse, I mainly use a Thai girl who is a victim of human traffickers and finds herself in a vivisection lab to focus the minds of people who simply would not get the point were the story solely about animal abuse. Delphian is a thriller and it is commercial fiction. The reason for that is I wish to reach the widest audience with the argument. Please help me to achieve that. All life forms add their own colour into the world and we must embrace all the colours with equal value. Thank you. Tim Rees</p>Interview with vegan philosopher David Benatar about why it's better never to have been borntag:arzone.ning.com,2015-06-11:4715978:BlogPost:1499982015-06-11T08:30:00.000ZKate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥhttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/KateGOVEGANandNobodyGetsHurt
<h1 class="title" id="page-title">Better Never to Have Been Born: An Interview with David Benatar…</h1>
<div class="region region-content"><div class="block block-siteskeleton" id="block-siteskeleton-tabs"><div class="content"><div class="tabs"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="block block-system" id="block-system-main"><div class="content"></div>
</div>
</div>
<h1 class="title" id="page-title">Better Never to Have Been Born: An Interview with David Benatar</h1>
<div class="region region-content"><div id="block-siteskeleton-tabs" class="block block-siteskeleton"><div class="content"><div class="tabs"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="block-system-main" class="block block-system"><div class="content"><div id="node-85341" class="node node-collection node-promoted node-type-collection-detail node-detail node-has-region-body node-has-region-bottom node-has-region-hidden clearfix"><div class="node-inner"><div class="node-contents"><div class="node-body"><div class="fieldlayout-region fieldlayout-region-body fieldlayout-region-body-detail"><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Remember that scene in Frank Capra’s classic 1946 film, “It’s a Wonderful Life,” where George Bailey (played by Jimmy Stewart) has hit rock bottom and is seriously considering jumping off the bridge into the icy cold waves below to end it all? But before George can go through with it, his guardian angel, Clarence, jumps into the frigid water so that George has to save Clarence, instead of ending his own life. One could make the case that philosopher David Benatar’s life consists of many of George’s dark-night-of-the-soul moments.</p>
<p></p>
<img alt="Jimmy Stewart as George Bailey" src="http://www.ttbook.org/sites/default/files/public/images/thumbnails/IAWL.jpg"/>Jimmy Stewart as George Bailey<br/>
<p></p>
<p>When Steve Paulson posed the question “Do you wish you had not been born?” to Benatar, he replied, “Yes, I’d rather not have existed. That’s different from would I rather be dead.”</p>
<p>Benatar says that it’s important to make the distinction between not already existing and already existing. “If somebody is not existing yet and they may never exist, they have no interest in coming into existence. And so we don’t need as much to defeat the harms that they will suffer.”</p>
<p>Benatar is a philosophy professor at the University of Cape Town and the author of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265%3FSubscriptionId%3DAKIAJWAGHMYTPK5725MQ%26tag%3Dwiscpublradi-20%26linkCode%3Dxm2%26camp%3D2025%26creative%3D165953%26creativeASIN%3D0199549265" target="_blank">“Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.”</a> The dedication of his book reads: “To my parents, even though they brought me into existence; and to my brothers, each of whose existence, although a harm to him, is a great benefit to the rest of us.” It reads almost like a piece of Swiftian satire but Benatar assured Paulson that he is dead serious. “So long as a life will contain some bad in it, there’s a net harm to coming into existence.”</p>
<p>Benatar believes that the Pollyanna effect—where our minds tend to remember our more pleasant experiences—keeps us accentuating the positive. “I think we tend to radically underestimate the amount of bad that there is. And so I point to ample psychological literature which shows that humans have this bias towards optimism.”</p>
<p>But Paulson countered that the trials and tribulations of life are often what give it meaning. By overcoming adversity, you will find more meaning and your life will be richer for it. Benatar responded by saying that if you take that idea too far, it could be an argument for inflicting suffering.</p>
<p>Benatar’s ideas about the harms of coming into existence mean that we should never have children. He admits that it’s a radical idea but argues that our biological impulses are not rationally informed. Paulson asked him what that means in the case of someone being pregnant; does Benatar believe the fetus should be aborted? He says that it depends.</p>
<p>“If you’re dealing with a presentient fetus and you say, ‘Well, look in the relevant sense, it hasn’t begun existing,’ then this might imply that you ought to abort, that the morally preferable thing would be to abort. But that’s a spearate view from the anti-natalist view. You have to combine anti-natalism with some views of fetal moral status in order to generate what I call the pro-death view on abortion.”</p>
<p>Although his thoughts are bleak and in many ways life-nagating, Benatar says they’re worth taking seriously. “There are prospective benefits to be gained here because I think if you have a certain sensitivity to the way the world is and to the amount of suffering that there is in the world, not just your own but other people’s, then you might think twice about having children, about participating in a culture that encourages people to have children, that frowns on people who don’t. So I think there’s something to be gained from these things.”</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-rel-seg-show field-type-node-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div id="node-85221" class="node node-segments node-teaser node-type-segments-teaser node-has-region-hard-left node-has-region-body node-has-region-hidden clearfix"><div class="node-inner"><div class="node-contents"><div class="node-left node-hard-left fieldlayout-region fieldlayout-region-hard-left fieldlayout-region-hard-left-teaser"><div class="field field-name-field-image-thumbnail field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.ttbook.org/book/harm-coming-existence"><img src="http://www.ttbook.org/sites/default/files/public/styles/thumbnail_small/public/images/detail/baby_birth.jpg?itok=h-4jcYEp" width="80" height="80" alt="A close up of the face of a newborn baby"/></a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="node-body node-body-hard-left"><div class=" fieldlayout-region fieldlayout-region-body fieldlayout-region-body-teaser"><h3 class=" fieldlayout node-field-title"></h3>
<h3 class=" fieldlayout node-field-title"><a href="http://www.ttbook.org/book/harm-coming-existence">The Harm of Coming Into Existence</a></h3>
<h3 class=" fieldlayout node-field-title"></h3>
<div class="field field-name-field-audio-mp3 field-type-text field-label-hidden clearfix"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item ttbook-audio even"><ul class="wpr-audio">
<li class="0 first"><a href="http://www.ttbook.org/listen/85221" class="wpr-audio-stream" title="The Harm of Coming Into Existence" target="_blank">Listen Now</a></li>
<li style="list-style: none;"> </li>
<li class="1 last"><a href="http://mp3.wpr.org/download.php?f=tbk150531a3.mp3" class="wpr-audio-download" title="Download The Harm of Coming Into Existence" target="_blank">Download</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="service-links"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A//www.ttbook.org/book/harm-coming-existence&t=The%20Harm%20of%20Coming%20Into%20Existence" title="Share on Facebook" class="service-links-facebook" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.ttbook.org/sites/all/modules/service_links/images/facebook.png" alt="Facebook logo"/></a> <a href="http://twitter.com/share?url=http%3A//www.ttbook.org/book/harm-coming-existence&text=The%20Harm%20of%20Coming%20Into%20Existence" title="Share this on Twitter" class="service-links-twitter" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.ttbook.org/sites/all/modules/service_links/images/twitter.png" alt="Twitter logo"/></a> <a href="https://plus.google.com/share?url=http%3A//www.ttbook.org/book/harm-coming-existence" title="Share this on Google+" class="service-links-google-plus" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.ttbook.org/sites/all/modules/service_links/images/google_plus.png" alt="Google+ logo"/></a></div>
<div class="clear"></div>
</div>
</div>
<h3 class=" fieldlayout node-field-title"></h3>
<div class="field field-name-field-teaser field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>At one point in "It's a Wonderful Life," George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) says he wishes he'd never been born. Of course, he ends up changing his mind. But philosopher David Benatar thinks George was right the first time. It really WOULD be better to have never been born.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-vote field-type-fivestar field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div>
</div>
</div>
<h3 class=" fieldlayout node-field-title"></h3>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p><a href="http://www.ttbook.org/book/better-never-have-been-born">http://www.ttbook.org/book/better-never-have-been-born</a> </p>Wildcat Roar: When Mountain Lions Live Under the Housetag:arzone.ning.com,2015-04-18:4715978:BlogPost:1497612015-04-18T06:30:00.000ZJennifer Molidorhttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/JenniferMolidor
<p><i style="font-size: 1.5em;">Originally published on <a href="http://wild-within.com/2015/04/18/wildcat-roar-when-mountain-lions-live-under-the-house/" target="_blank">Wild-Within.Com</a></i></p>
<p></p>
<div class="entry-content"><img alt="" height="394" src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCjM0NMXIAENPQ6.jpg" width="599"></img></div>
<div class="entry-content"></div>
<div class="entry-content"><p>When we take away wild places for wild animals, those animals find ways of showing up in our backyard. Because it was their backyard first … When that animal is a predator, all hell…</p>
</div>
<p><i style="font-size: 1.5em;">Originally published on <a href="http://wild-within.com/2015/04/18/wildcat-roar-when-mountain-lions-live-under-the-house/" target="_blank">Wild-Within.Com</a></i></p>
<p></p>
<div class="entry-content"><img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCjM0NMXIAENPQ6.jpg" alt="" width="599" height="394"/></div>
<div class="entry-content"></div>
<div class="entry-content"><p>When we take away wild places for wild animals, those animals find ways of showing up in our backyard. Because it was their backyard first … When that animal is a predator, all hell breaks loose, suburban-wild style.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The anti-predator myth is exemplified by this week’s <strong><a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-famed-p22-mountain-lion-found-under-los-feliz-home-owner-says-20150413-story.html">hysterical reaction</a></strong> to a mountain lion under a house that borders Griffith Park. It illustrates a cultural paranoia we must conquer if we are going to coexist with wild animals. We don’t have wolves to demonize here in California (other than OR-7, vacationing with his family in Southwest Oregon). We have mountain lions.</p>
<p><img class=" alignright" src="http://hoofnpawvethospital.com/files/2014/06/Wildlife7.jpg" alt=""/></p>
<p>In the past 30 years, <strong><a href="https://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/lion/attacks.html">three people</a></strong> out of more than 30 million have been fatally injured by a mountain lion; less than a dozen fatalities in 125 years (a handful more if you add Canada and Mexico). California Fish & Wildlife estimates a person is <strong><a href="https://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/lion/lion_faq.html">1,000 times more likely to be struck by lightning</a></strong> than attacked by a mountain lion. So why are we so afraid?</p>
<p>Very few people ever see a mountain lion. Coming “<strong><a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-famed-p22-mountain-lion-found-under-los-feliz-home-owner-says-20150413-story.html">eyeball to eyeball</a></strong>” with the lion known as “P-22” in a crawlspace, a worker installing a security system had the surprise of a lifetime this week. But journalists exploited this drama. With apparent glee, they treated this wildcat nap like a car chase or a hostage crisis. Reporters were licking their lips waiting for the armed cult leader to finally drive off the road or open fire on children. Or crawl out from under the house.</p>
<img src="https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/portals/0/Images/OCEO/KeepMeWild/kmw-mountain-lion.jpg" alt="mountain lion" width="346" height="230"/><br/>
<p>Wildlife officials poked that dang varmint with a stick, they shot beanbags at him, hell they even shot tennis balls at him. But that sucker was <em>resistant. </em>In a safe,dark place, he stayed put, while firefighters, wildlife officials, and reporters went nuts. CA Fish & Wildlife finally realized that (as any owner of a cat can tell you) the best way to get him to come out is to <em><strong><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/04/14/california-mountain-lion-p22-under-los-angeles-home/25754503/">leave him alone</a></strong>.</em></p>
<p>And when they did, he left. So the news that obsessed media for a day was that a wild animal crawled under a house that borders a 4,300 acre park (5x larger than Central Park) where the animal lives. Why is this news? Because of the myth and the lore that surrounds apex predators.</p>
<p>Suburban sprawl into wild areas guarantees some overlap with wild animals. That’s why we must talk about protecting native animals by protecting their land and leaving them alone. Instead, there was only panic about the dangers of wild animals and a demonizing of predators.</p>
<p><img class=" alignright" src="http://www.nps.gov/lame/learn/nature/images/mountain-lion-did-you-know.jpg" alt=""/></p>
<p>Mountain lion attacks are extremely rare. Even seeing one is unusual. Mountain lions—aka cougars, pumas, or panthers—are shy, solitary, and stealthy apex predators. They are the ninjas of the California animal world—and they want to be left alone. Lions are not often seen skipping down the mountainside, being goofy, like dogs and coyotes. Mountain lions are, after all, <em>cats. </em>Only in exceptional cases do they allow humans to see them. Mostly, mountain lions are there only when you have no idea they’re there.</p>
<p>As apex predators they are vital to our environment. Destroying mountain lions, by usurping their habitat, destroys entire ecosystems. And that’s just what we’re doing. There are only 4-5,000 mountain lions in California.</p>
<img src="http://blog.nwf.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/11/files/2013/10/Mountain-Lion-Cubs-FB.jpg" alt="" width="1200" height="627"/>Mountain lion cubs – photo by Lorene Auvinen<br/>
<p>Culturally, we love identifying with predators, becoming them, temporarily as mascots and tattoos: wildcats, lions, tigers, wolverines, bears. Unfortunately, people also like shooting them too—the combination of desire and fear is the attraction we feel when we don their likeness in symbolic ways to harness their mythological power. Dominating a dominant animal proves our power, so some seem to believe. Yet we are terrified of coexisting with these predators. That is the suburban mystique all over again: we long for the wild within, while massacring the wild without.</p>
<p>We need to stop mythologizing animals and instead respect them by leaving them alone, and protecting their legal rights, lands, and lives. Coexisting—as anyone with roommates and teenage family members knows—is usually about leaving each other alone. We must make our decisions as a balance between science, ecology, and the highest common good, which includes the interests of animals and the Earth.</p>
<img src="https://naturalunseenhazards.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/mountain_lionnps-e1339820912298.jpg?w=500&h=481" alt="" width="500" height="481"/>National Park Service photo<br/>
<p><strong>What’s the Law?</strong></p>
<p>On June 5, 1990, Californian voters <strong><a href="http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_117,_Habitat_Conservation_Fund_%281990%29">approved Proposition 117</a></strong> – the Mountain Lion Initiative – (called the “People’s Initiative” after Mountain Lion Foundation volunteers gathered more than 680,000 signatures to put it on the ballot). Prop 117 did two important things: it banned trophy hunting and it helped save land for mountain lions to stay wild.</p>
<p>Prop 117 created a Habitat Conservation Fund of $1 million a year until 2020 to “acquire, enhance, restore” wild lands for wildlife. That Proposition also changed mountain lions from “game” hunted for “sport” to “specially protected mammals” who aren’t allowed to be killed for fun.</p>
<p>A property owner can kill a mountain lion who threatens humans or animals only with a depredation permit. This permit is required by law and even with this permit a person is prohibited from the use of “poison, leg-hold or metal-jawed traps and snares.” Breaking this law can lead to criminal charges.</p>
<p>What is usually shared when discussing predators is what to do when you encounter one; people are given a tip sheet for resolving confrontation at an individual level. What is not discussed is how to prevent and avoid confrontation at a socio-cultural level, because that would involve doing things we don’t want to do, like not treating the Earth like a parking lot, not acting on all opportunities for suburban development, and not thinking only of our own immediate interests.</p>
<p><strong><img src="http://www.brucefarnsworth.com/data/photos/498_1mountain_lion_cub_a33974.jpg" alt=""/></strong></p>
<p>That being said, <strong><a href="http://sagehen.ucnrs.org/Documents/visitors/wildlife/lion.pdf">for the benefit of animals, wild and domestic</a></strong>, here are some precautions to avoid the conflict with native animals like mountain lions in the first place:</p>
<p><strong>Facts for <a href="https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Keep-Me-Wild/Lion">Staying Safe and Protecting Mountain Lions</a></strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Mountain lions try very hard to avoid people, but often coexist around us, unseen and unheard.</li>
<li>Mountain lions are found where deer are found; deer are their primary food.</li>
<li>Mountain lions are especially found in the foothills and mountains.</li>
<li>Mountain lions who reveal themselves to humans may suffer rabies or be desperately starving.</li>
<li>Mountain lions who threaten humans are immediately killed – about 100 are killed every year: they can’t be moved (due to conflicts with other lions and revisiting issues).</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Use Nonlethal Control</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Don’t feed or attract deer – it attracts mountain lions and it’s against the law.</li>
<li>Don’t feed raccoons and other mountain lion prey: don’t leave pet food outside.</li>
<li>Not attracting deer means avoiding plants deer like to eat.</li>
<li>Not attracting a lion means trimming hedges that offer hiding places.</li>
<li>Don’t leave children and pets outdoors, especially at dawn, twilight, and night.</li>
<li>Don’t leave yourself outdoors alone on a borderland jogging or hiking path, at dawn, twilight, and night.</li>
<li>Make sure animals are protected with covered shelters.</li>
<li>Protect your perimeters with motion-sensor lights outside your home.</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>What if you’ve done all this and still </strong><a href="http://sagehen.ucnrs.org/Documents/visitors/wildlife/lion.pdf"><strong>see a mountain lion</strong></a><strong>?</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Do not, under any circumstances, get closer.</li>
<li>Do not, under any circumstances, run.</li>
<li>Do not pop a squat, crouch, or lose eye contact.</li>
<li>Do pick up small children.</li>
<li>Do make yourself look bigger and noisier.</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Support mountain lion protection: check out the nonprofit </strong><a href="http://www.mountainlion.org/about.asp"><strong>Mountain Lion Foundation</strong></a><strong>.</strong></p>
</div>The Problems with Dog Breed Specific Legislationtag:arzone.ning.com,2015-03-23:4715978:BlogPost:1497452015-03-23T18:16:37.000ZEric Chaffinhttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/EricChaffin
<p><span>BSL stands for Breed Specific Legislation, which is a term that is commonly used to define specific laws that have been created to put certain restrictions on particular dog breeds and the owners of these particular dog breeds. Generally these BSL laws restrict and or ban the ownership of specific dog breeds, or a general "type" of dog, without any consideration of owner responsibility, history of dog ownership, or past history of dog behavior. When a state, city, or community…</span></p>
<p><span>BSL stands for Breed Specific Legislation, which is a term that is commonly used to define specific laws that have been created to put certain restrictions on particular dog breeds and the owners of these particular dog breeds. Generally these BSL laws restrict and or ban the ownership of specific dog breeds, or a general "type" of dog, without any consideration of owner responsibility, history of dog ownership, or past history of dog behavior. When a state, city, or community introduces a Breed Specific Legislation law, the main purpose of the law is to protect the citizens of this community. The goal of the law is to decrease the number of dog bite attacks by eliminating what some people call "dangerous" dog breeds in the community. BSL is usually focused on specific breeds like: American Pit Bull, American Staffordshire Terrier, Bull Terrier, and all mixes of these breeds. However many other breeds can also be effected by BSL, including Rottweilers, Doberman Pinchers, German Shepards, Bulldogs, and more. </span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p>Breed Specific Legislation will not solve the problem of dog attacks for several reasons. First of all, outlawing a breed will not stop irresponsible people from secretly obtaining banned breeds and subsequently turning them into dangerous dogs through mistreatment and poor breeding practices. The better choice is to educate the public about <a href="http://dogs.about.com/od/caringfordogsandpuppies/tp/Responsible-Dog-Ownership.htm">responsible dog ownership</a>, <a href="http://dogs.about.com/od/faqs/f/spay_neuter.htm">spay/neuter</a> and <a href="http://vetmedicine.about.com/od/terminology/g/G_backyardbreed.htm">ethical breeding practices</a>. Laws should ban irresponsible ownership, not specific breeds, and those laws should be strictly enforced.</p>
<p>The major problem with BSL is that it can create a false sense of security. Any dog can bite, regardless of breed or background. Though there are several factors that can increase the the likelihood that a dog will bite. BSL is also flawed because it is difficult and expensive to enforce. This can apply to any breed or mix of breeds, but let's use the pit bull-type dog as an example. Many of the so-called "pit bulls" out there are mixed breed dogs or poor specimens of "purebred" American Pit Bull Terriers or American Staffordshire Terriers. It is impossible to tell what a dog's exact lineage is based on appearance alone. DNA testing is costly and not 100% accurate. Attempting to enforce breed bans may lead to lengthy court cases that cost taxpayers and dog owners a lot of time and money.</p>
<p>Most of all, BSL is unfair to responsible dog owners. Should an owner with a perfectly well behaved dog be forced to give up that dog just because it happens to "look" like a pit bull-type dog or other banned breed? The general consensus among animal advocacy groups is a resounding NO. The dog's behavior should dictate whether or not it is labeled a "dangerous dog," not its appearance.</p>
<p>Most all dogs are friendly and research shows that the type of breed has no effect on how "dangerous" or if it will increase the likely hood of a dog bite attack. It is important that we know how to interact with dogs, that dog owners know how to train their dogs properly, and that we teach our children the proper ways to interactive with dogs. Education is the answer not BSL.</p>
<p>Resources:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.forgottenpetadvocates.com/" target="_blank">http://www.forgottenpetadvocates.com/</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.doggonesafe.com/" target="_blank">http://www.doggonesafe.com/</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.ohiovalleypilawyers.com/dog-bites/" target="_blank">http://www.ohiovalleypilawyers.com/dog-bites/</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.cesarsway.com/dogbehavior/biting/When-Dogs-Attack" target="_blank">http://www.cesarsway.com/dogbehavior/biting/When-Dogs-Attack</a></p>
<p><a href="http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-legislation/breed-specific-legislation-bsl-faq/" target="_blank">http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-legislation/breed-specific-legislation-bsl-faq/</a></p>
<p><span><span><span> </span></span></span></p>Wanted: Dead or Alive?tag:arzone.ning.com,2014-09-03:4715978:BlogPost:1476202014-09-03T12:10:50.000ZPat Dickenshttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/PatDickens
<p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span class="font-size-3">Zambia bows under pressure to the trigger happy.</span></span></strong></p>
<p><span>In January of 2013, wildlife enthusiasts around the world applauded Zambia for following Kenya and Botswana’s lead in implementing a ban on all trophy hunts. Sylvia Masebo, Minister of Tourism and Arts, publicly acknowledged much support for the move and proclaimed Zambia’s wildlife to be worth more alive than dead. Sadly, the…</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span class="font-size-3">Zambia bows under pressure to the trigger happy.</span></span></strong></p>
<p><span>In January of 2013, wildlife enthusiasts around the world applauded Zambia for following Kenya and Botswana’s lead in implementing a ban on all trophy hunts. Sylvia Masebo, Minister of Tourism and Arts, publicly acknowledged much support for the move and proclaimed Zambia’s wildlife to be worth more alive than dead. Sadly, the minster has subsequently had a change of mind and has bowed under pressure to the trigger happy. Last week Zambia lifted the ban and only big cats will be spared.</span></p>
<p><span>There is no denying that trophy hunting is a lucrative business and brings in huge amounts of revenue. No one disputes the fact that conservation requires an enormous amount of funding. The questions that need answering are as follows. Can eco-tourism sustain wildlife management practices? Are our only options limited to planting vast tracks of tobacco fields or having game farms with professional hunters? Can one save wildlife by killing it?</span></p>
<p>For the rest of the story click <a href="http://blog1.oceans-campus.com/blog/wanted-dead-or-alive" target="_blank">HERE</a></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726272?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726272?profile=original" width="619" class="align-center"/></a></p>Why the Naïve Argument against Moral Vegetarianism Really is Naïve - DAVID BENATARtag:arzone.ning.com,2014-08-04:4715978:BlogPost:1471022014-08-04T09:30:00.000ZKate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥhttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/KateGOVEGANandNobodyGetsHurt
<p>Why the Naïve Argument against Moral Vegetarianism Really is Naïve - by David Benatar</p>
<p><br></br> <br></br> ABSTRACT<br></br> <br></br> When presented with the claim of the moral vegetarian that it is wrong for us to eat meat, many people respond that because it is not wrong for lions, tigers and other carnivores to kill and eat animals, it cannot be wrong for humans to do so. This response is what Peter Alward has called the naïve argument. Peter Alward has defended the naïve argument against…</p>
<p>Why the Naïve Argument against Moral Vegetarianism Really is Naïve - by David Benatar</p>
<p><br/> <br/> ABSTRACT<br/> <br/> When presented with the claim of the moral vegetarian that it is wrong for us to eat meat, many people respond that because it is not wrong for lions, tigers and other carnivores to kill and eat animals, it cannot be wrong for humans to do so. This response is what Peter Alward has called the naïve argument. Peter Alward has defended the naïve argument against objections. I argue that his defence fails.<br/> <br/> <br/> INTRODUCTION<br/> <br/> Moral vegetarians think that it is morally wrong for us to eat meat. A common response to this view, especially among non-philosophers, is what Peter Alward calls the naïve argument against moral vegetarianism. This is the argument that because it is not wrong for carnivorous animals like lions and tigers to kill other animals for food, it cannot be wrong for humans to do so. Peter Alward argues that the naïve argument is not defeated by moral vegetarians’ usual responses to it. I shall argue that his defence of the naïve argument is flawed.</p>
<p><br/> <br/> PETER ALWARD’S ARGUMENT<br/> <br/> According to Peter Alward, a fair formulation of the moral vegetarian thesis is:<br/> <br/> VT: Eating the meat of an animal with properties X, Y, Z, ... that was killed for the purpose of being eaten is morally wrong.<br/> <br/> He presents the basic version of the naïve argument as follows:2<br/> <br/> P1) Lions, tigers and other carnivores eat the meat of animals with properties X, Y, Z,... which have been killed for the purpose of being eaten.<br/> <br/> P2) It is not morally wrong for lions, tigers and other carnivores to do so.<br/> <br/> C) Eating the meat of an animal with properties X, Y, Z, ... that was killed for the purpose of being eaten is not morally wrong.<br/> <br/> The conclusion of the naïve argument is the negation of VT (Peter Alward’s formulation of the moral vegetarian thesis).<br/> He notes that the usual response to the naïve argument is to accept P2 – that is, to deny that it is morally wrong for lions, tigers and other carnivores to eat the meat in question – but to claim that because of some difference between us, on the one hand, and lions and tigers, on the other, it is wrong for us. Two differences to which moral vegetarians usually point are that unlike us, lions and tigers (1) lack the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong; and (2) need meat in order to survive. Peter Alward argues that neither of these facts succeeds in undermining the naïve argument. I shall call these his no moral difference<br/> arguments. </p>
<p>First, he argues that the inability of lions and tigers to know that eating meat is wrong does not show that it is not wrong for them to do so. It only shows that they cannot be held culpable. He provides the analogy of a young child, too immature to yet discern the difference between right and wrong, attempting to slit the throat of his sleeping father. Were the attempt successful, says the author, the child would have done something wrong even though he cannot be blamed for it. Even if, for one reason or another, one thought that actions can only be judged wrong when they are blameworthy, one would still think that the child’s attempt to slit his father’s throat is what Peter Alward calls ‘prevent-worthy’. He says that a revised version of the naïve argument that accommodates this thought would be:<br/> <br/> P1) If it is wrong (i.e. blameworthy) for humans to kill animals for food, then it is prevent-worthy for lions and tigers to kill animals for food.<br/> <br/> P2) It is not prevent-worthy for lions and tigers to kill animals for food.<br/> <br/> C) It is not wrong for humans to kill animals for food.<br/> <br/> Second, Peter Alward argues that the naïve argument cannot be refuted by the fact that lions and tigers, unlike us, require meat for their survival. Here he compares a lion to an ‘innocent person A who has a gun pointed at her head and who will be killed unless she kills someone else B’. One might reason that it is<br/> acceptable for A to kill B if that is the only way to save her own life. But this case, says Peter Alward, is unlike that of the lion. A lion, he says, ‘has to continually kill and eat animals throughout its life. And the numbers do count. The outcome in which A kills B, C, D and E is morally worse than that in which A is killed by the gunman, despite her innocence.’</p>
<p>The upshot of his arguments, Peter Alward says, is that ‘if it is wrong for humans to eat the meat of certain animals, it is also wrong for lions and tigers and other carnivores to do so’. Thus, if, contrary to the naïve argument, VT were true, then we would have an obligation to prevent carnivores from eating meat when we could prevent them from doing so. Since it would be cruel to allow an animal to starve to death, we would be under an obligation to kill them painlessly if they could not be given other food to ensure their survival. He concludes with the tongue-in-cheek injunction, ‘Vegetarians, kill your kitties!’<br/> <br/> <br/> VEGETARIANS, KILL YOUR CARNIVOROUS FRIENDS AND FAMILY?<br/> <br/> Killing their kitties would not be all moral vegetarians would be obligated to do if there were an obligation to prevent animals from being killed and eaten. Almost all humans who eat meat can survive very well without it. However, if their carnivorous practices could not be prevented – perhaps by persuading them to desist from meat or by successfully imposing a ban on the consumption of meat – there would be an obligation to kill them too! In this way, Peter Alward’s ‘no moral difference arguments’, combined with VT, could entail an extreme (but admittedly unusual) animal liberationist conclusion. It would perhaps better be described as an extreme herbivore liberationist conclusion. It would require the killing of (human and non-human) carnivores if that were the only effective way of preventing them from eating the meat of herbivores killed for that purpose.<br/> Of course, Peter Alward is not himself committed to this position. The ‘no moral difference arguments’ alone do not entail this conclusion. Rather the conclusion is entailed by these arguments in conjunction with VT. It is VT that Peter Alward denies. I too reject the extreme herbivore liberationist position and its implicit prescriptions to kill kitties and other carnivores. I shall show, however, that contrary to Peter Alward’s claims and arguments, there are two related ways that a moral vegetarian might do this:<br/> <br/> (1) By denying that VT is the correct (or only possible) formulation of moral vegetarianism.<br/> <br/> (2) By rejecting the ‘no moral difference arguments’.<br/> <br/> My arguments will reveal the shortcomings of Peter Alward’s defence of the naïve argument.</p>
<p><br/> <br/> AGAINST CARICATURES OF THE MORAL VEGETARIAN THESIS<br/> <br/> The first problem with Peter Alward’s arguments is his formulation of the moral vegetarian thesis. Although VT is a formulation which some moral vegetarians might embrace, many would not. VT claims (or at least implies) that the eating of meat of an animal with properties X, Y, Z, ... that was killed for the purpose of being eaten is always wrong (i.e. in every conceivable situation). But many moral vegetarians would deny this. They would claim that while eating this meat is ordinarily wrong, it need not always be so. VT is a caricature of their position. There are a number of possible reasons why a moral vegetarian may be opposed to the eating of certain animals in most circumstances, which would not entail a categorical opposition to eating the meat of those animals. Consider, for instance:<br/> <br/> VT': Eating the meat of an animal with properties, X, Y, Z, ... that was killed for the purpose of being eaten is morally wrong if done for anything less than very weighty reasons.<br/> <br/> If VT' were combined with the quite plausible claim that killing such animals for one’s survival is a weighty reason but killing them for mere gastronomic delight is a trivial reason, one would conclude that it is almost always, but not always, wrong for humans to eat the meat of such animals. Thus some moral vegetarians<br/> might think that it is not morally wrong (even though regrettable) for snow- and ice-bound people, such as the Inuit sometimes are (or have been), to kill and eat certain animals because their very lives are at stake, while it would be wrong for the rest of us to do so. (Of course, if the Inuit could alter their position, as may<br/> now be the case, such that they could avoid dependence on animal flesh, then they would have a duty to do so and it would be wrong for them to continue to kill and eat animals.)</p>
<p>VT' may seem ad hoc to some, but a moment’s reflection should reveal otherwise. All those who reject moral absolutism accept analogues of VT'. For instance, very many people embrace what we might call a moral humanist thesis:<br/> <br/> HT: Killing human beings is morally wrong if done for anything less than very weighty reason.<br/> <br/> People disagree, of course, about what constitutes sufficiently weighty reason. Some might think that killing in self-defence is justified only when one’s life is threatened by an intentional aggressor. Others might also permit the killing of innocent threats – those whose continued existence threatens one’s life but through no fault of theirs. Consider, for instance, the baby whose cries will alert murderous pursuers to the whereabouts of hidden potential victims. Some think that a person’s having committed a murder is sufficient reason to execute him. Others disagree. Some, but not others, think that killing humans suffering<br/> terribly from terminal conditions is morally acceptable. Only absolutists about killing humans reject HT in favour of a principle that categorically rules out any killing of humans. Whether or not one thinks that such an absolutist view is correct, one should certainly recognise that a moral humanist could very well oppose the killing of humans for the sorts of reasons humans are usually killed – malice, intolerance, jealousy, indifference, sport, to attain property, to silence a witness, etc. – without thinking that there are never circumstances in which killing humans is morally acceptable (even if still regrettable). Now, if it is possible for somebody to have a qualified opposition to killing humans, why is it not possible for somebody to have a qualified opposition to killing and eating non-human animals? Why may somebody not think that it is morally wrong to kill animals in order to enjoy the taste of meat, but not wrong to kill them if that is necessary to save one’s own life?</p>
<p><br/></p>
<p>THE LION AND THE INUIT<br/> <br/> Peter Alward thinks that the survival of lions and tigers cannot justify their killing and eating of animals because their survival requires not one killing but continual killing and eating of animals over their whole lifetimes. For this reason, he says, lions and tigers are unlike the case of innocent A who will be shot by a gunman unless A kills innocent B. Even if one thinks that A is justified in killing B in such a circumstance, says Peter Alward, one could not say that A is justified in killing B, C, D and E in order to preserve her life.<br/> But is the gunman a suitable example with which to compare the lion? One reason to think that it is not is that the gunman case involves the killing of humans with properties L, M, N, ..., in addition to properties X, Y, Z, .... Now a moral vegetarian categorically opposed to the killing of any animal with properties X, Y, Z, ... would (likely) be opposed without qualification to the killing of humans that had additional morally significant properties (L, M, N, ...). But a moral vegetarian who had a qualified opposition to killing and eating certain animals could think that killing human animals (with the additional morally significant properties) is still worse and requires even stronger justification. A moral vegetarian who held this view could consistently claim that A’s survival cannot justify his killing a number of beings with properties L, M, N, ..., X, Y, Z, .... but A’s survival can justify his killing a number of beings with properties X, Y, Z, .... More specifically, such a moral vegetarian could think that an iteration of the survival justification is acceptable when the beings killed have properties X, Y, Z, ... but not when they have properties L, M, N, ..., X, Y, Z, .... For these reasons, extrapolation from the gunman example to the lion case is unwarranted. A much better analogy than the gunman is that of those Inuit who are dependent on continual killing and eating of animals for their survival. As I have indicated, VT', being more nuanced than VT, could permit such people to kill and eat animals (so long as they could not survive without doing so), while still prohibiting the rest of us from doing so.<br/> Some might suggest that the Inuit and lions examples are also disanalogous. In the one case, the killing of many animals is necessary for the survival of a human (a being with properties L, M, N, ..., X, Y, Z, ...) whereas in the other case the killing of many animals is necessary for the survival of a non-human animal (which has the same set of morally relevant properties – X, Y, Z, ... – as its victims). I agree that to some moral vegetarians this difference might be morally significant. However, I deny that it need matter to all moral vegetarians. It could be argued that the properties of the being that is killed, not the properties of the killer, are what are relevant in determining whether iterated survival killing is justified. For those who accept this, the Inuit example is more analogous to the case of the lions. According to VT' iterated survival killing by both Inuit and lions of animals with properties X, Y, Z, ... would be permissible.</p>
<p><br/><br/> THE MORAL IGNORANCE OF LIONS<br/> <br/> So far, I have assumed that the moral ignorance of lions is no obstacle to their doing wrong. Now I wish to question this assumption. Peter Alward considers and rejects the objection that an action, even if undesirable, cannot be labelled ‘wrong’ unless it is blameworthy. He says that he is sometimes inclined to view this as ‘a purely verbal issue’. I am never inclined to view it as such. The oddity of labelling any undesirable event as ‘wrong’ can be seen more clearly if we consider natural events like volcano eruptions, floods or rock slides. Any of these events might be undesirable in that they bring about some deaths, but it would certainly be odd to term these events ‘morally wrong’ (unless one thought that they were quite literally ‘acts of God’, in which case they are not mere events but fully intentional actions). Surely it would not be wrong of the volcano to erupt, even if its erupting were undesirable or unfortunate. Now if a volcanic eruption is seen as undesirable but not wrong, why are the non-blameworthy actions of lions and babes not viewed similarly, given that lions and babes are no more responsible for what they do than are volcanoes?<br/> Peter Alward thinks that this is a mere verbal issue because even if one thinks that the lion’s actions are not wrong, one should still think they are what he calls ‘prevent-worthy’. In defence of this claim, he provides the analogy of the young child who attempts to slit his sleeping father’s throat. Although the child cannot<br/> be blamed for this action, we should prevent him from doing it.<br/>But is the case of the child and his sleeping father a good analogy? I think it is not. One significant difference is that the (most humane) way to prevent the lion from killing its prey is to kill the lion, whereas the way to prevent the child killing the father would simply be to remove the implement with which he would Swets = username 192.87.50.3 = IP address Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:43:01 = Date & Time MORAL VEGETARIANISM 109 slit his father’s throat. It is possible for somebody to think that although both deaths are unfortunate, only one – that of the father – should be prevented.17 But what, it might be asked, if killing the child were the only way of preventing him from killing his father? I suspect that some would think it permissible to kill the child, while others would not, and that what view one takes would depend, all things being equal, on whether one thinks that innocent threats may be killed. However, even this modified example cannot serve as a useful benchmark for a judgement about the lion. After all, somebody might think that it is acceptable to kill those who innocently threaten the lives of beings with properties L, M, N, ..., X, Y, Z, ..., but not those who threaten the lives of beings with only properties X, Y, Z, .... Moreover, not everything that is undesirable or unfortunate must be prevented. Among those who reject consequentialism, this is a common view. On such a view, if the only way I can prevent 20 people from being killed is by killing one, I must not prevent the death of the 20. I do not wish to defend this view here, and Peter Alward does not offer a refutation of it. I wish only to note that if one can think this about humans, there is no reason why one should not also think it about non-human animals. What these reflections show is that a moral vegetarian could reject P1 of the recast version of the naïve argument. That is to say, a moral vegetarian can think it is wrong for humans to kill animals for food without thinking that it is preventworthy for lions and tigers to kill animals for food.</p>
<p><br/><br/>CONCLUSION<br/><br/>I have shown that the original version of the naïve argument fails. It caricatures the view of (at least some, but perhaps most) moral vegetarians. The dependence of lions and tigers on meat for their survival is a morally relevant difference between them and us, at least if one accepts a more refined moral vegetarian thesis than VT, such as VT'. The moral ignorance of lions is also relevant and requires the abandonment of Peter Alward’s original version of the naïve argument. Because P1 of the recast version of the argument can be rejected – that is to say, because a moral vegetarian could reject the claim that if it is wrong for humans to kill animals for food it must be prevent-worthy for lions and tigers to kill animals for food – this version of the argument also fails. I have not defended such claims as: (a) VT', (b) the non-absolutist position on killing humans and animals, and (c) the non-consequentialist view that some undesirable outcomes should not be prevented. All I have sought to show is that an oversimplification of the moral vegetarian position can lead one to overlook versions of it that are congruent with views commonly held by philosophers and others regarding inter-human morality. Because of this congruence, these versions of moral vegetarianism cannot simply be ignored. Although it is not immoral, it is certainly unfortunate and regrettable that lions, tigers and other carnivores must kill in order to survive. For many of us, the vast amount of suffering and death that is necessary for carnivores to sustain themselves is striking evidence that the natural order could not have been designed by an omnibenevolent being (who is also omnipotent and omniscient). It would have been better had some animals not needed to feed on others. However, I have suggested some reasons why, all things considered, it might still be wrong (or at least not obligatory) to prevent predators from killing the animals they need to eat for their survival. This is not to say that there are no ways we might be required or permitted to prevent the death and suffering that carnivores bring. For instance, although killing a kitty has costs to that kitty, avoiding a kitty’s coming into existence could have no costs to it. For this reason it seems to me that a stronger case can be made for vegetarians (and others) not to breed kitties than to kill them. I realise, of course, that vegetarians can disagree on the question of whether or not to breed carnivores. I do not mean to offer a definitive argument here. I intend only to show that there are different ways of preventing carnivorous killings and they do not all stand and fall together. Most importantly, we should remember one way of minimising the killing of animals that is readily within each moral agent’s control, is to abandon the eating of meat. As this would not involve any of the costs that it would to lions and tigers, it should receive our primary attention.18<br/><br/><br/>NOTES<br/><br/>1 Alward 2000. <br/>2 Ibid., p. 82. <br/>3 Ibid., p. 87. <br/>4 Ibid., p. 84. <br/>5 Ibid., p. 84. <br/>6 Ibid., p. 88. <br/>7 Ibid., p. 88. <br/>8 As far as I can tell, it is uncontroversial that humans can survive and thrive without meat, as long as they have other sources of nutrition. Clearly some people’s circumstances are such that they have no alternatives to gaining their nutrition from meat. Just how common such circumstances are, is a disputed matter. I cannot settle that issue here. I suspect, however, that there are fewer such cases than many people think. More controversial than the vegetarian diet, which is my main concern in this paper, is the diet of vegans – those who abstain not only from meat, but also from animal products such as eggs and dairy. Two pairs of scientists contributed to a debate on this subject in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. The one pair concluded that ‘all known nutritional risks of vegan diets can be avoided by appropriate dietary planning that results in intakes of nutrients from foods … that meet levels suggested in the Recommended Daily Allowances’ (Dwyer and Loew 1994). The other pair of scientists concluded that ‘vegan diets can be chosen which are appropriate for pregnant and lactating women, infants, children and adolescents’ (Mangels and Havela 1994). <br/>9 That kitties cannot, but humans can, survive without meat, would not undermine the implication that vegetarians should kill those humans who could not be prevented from eating meat other than by killing them. <br/>10 The category ‘herbivore’ may actually be too narrow. A defender of the position I have in mind might think that those that feed on animals only that lack the relevant properties (X, Y, Z, ...) should also be protected. Insectivores may be a possible category, depending on what view one takes about what properties X, Y, Z, ... are. <br/>11 I use the term ‘carnivores’ in a broad sense to refer to all those who eat meat (that is, including omnivores) rather than in the narrower sense which denotes those who eat only meat. <br/>12 If X, Y, Z, ... were thought to be properties like sentience and some cognitive function, then L, M, N, ... could be thought to be properties like higher order sapience and selfawareness. <br/>13 Interestingly, Peter Alward himself, in answering an objection to his position, suggests that the properties of the victim are what count. See p. 86. <br/>14 Alward 2000: 87. <br/>15 Given their harmful effects, these events are prevent-worthy even where they are not preventable. Where the events themselves are not preventable, their effects are sometimes preventable. <br/>16 It might be objected that Peter Alward is not committed to claiming that death-causing volcanic eruptions are wrong, because volcanic eruptions are events whereas Peter Alward is speaking about the deadly actions of lions and babes. The problem with this objection is that it assumes an oversimplified taxonomy. It may indeed be the case that lions and babes act (at least in some sense of that word), whereas volcanic eruptions just happen. However, the actions of lions and babes are not like paradigmatic human actions – to which praise and blame can be attached. The reason for this is that lions and babies are no more responsible for what they do than are volcanoes. In this relevant respect, the actions of lions and babes are like volcanic eruptions and unlike ordinary human actions. My point is that a killing can be wrong only when it is brought about by a responsible agent. <br/>17 The expression ‘X is prevent-worthy’ is ambiguous. It could mean that ‘all things being equal, X should be prevented’ or it could mean ‘all things considered, X should be prevented’. I am adopting the latter interpretation because this is the interpretation required in order for the expression ‘prevent-worthy’ to do the work that must be done in Peter Alward’s argument. If, for instance, the former, weaker, interpretation were adopted, P2 of Peter Alward’s argument on p. 87 could quite easily be denied by moral vegetarians. <br/>18 I am grateful to Environmental Values reviewers for their comments.<br/><br/>REFERENCES <br/>Alward, Peter 2000. ‘The Naïve Argument against Moral Vegetarianism’, Environmental Values 9: 81–9. Dwyer, Johanna and Franklin M. Loew 1994. ‘Nutritional Risks of Vegan Diets to Women and Children’, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics7(1): 102ff. Mangels, Ann Reed and Suzanne Havala 1994. ‘Vegan Diets for Women, Infants and Children’, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7(1): 118ff.<br/><br/></p>
<p><a href="http://www.erica.demon.co.uk/EV/EV1006.html"></a><a href="http://www.stafforini.com/txt/Benatar%20-%20Why%20the%20naive%20argument%20against%20moral%20vegetarianism%20really%20is%20naive.pdf">http://www.stafforini.com/txt/Benatar%20-%20Why%20the%20naive%20argument%20against%20moral%20vegetarianism%20really%20is%20naive.pdf</a><br/> <a href="http://ethik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/inst_ethik_wiss_dialog/Benatar__D._2001_Veg_-_the_naiv_argument_s6.pdf">http://ethik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/inst_ethik_wiss_dialog/Benatar__D._2001_Veg_-_the_naiv_argument_s6.pdf</a><br/> <a href="http://www.erica.demon.co.uk/EV/EV904.html"><br/></a></p>My Love For Animalstag:arzone.ning.com,2014-07-17:4715978:BlogPost:1465662014-07-17T08:03:45.000ZMichelle Jahjahttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/MichelleJahja
<p>I would like to introduce my pets to all of you guys.</p>
<p>I have 3 rabbits in my house in Jakarta, Indonesia. I am now studying in a medical university in Chongqing, China. Here in China i have 1 rabbit and 2 mice, living with my roommate who has a hamster and we currently foster a cat.</p>
<p></p>
<p>All my pets were saved, as in rescued from the worse case scenario</p>
<p>This is Chocolate Oreo, he was bought on such a short impulse, his previous owner threw him away just after 2…</p>
<p>I would like to introduce my pets to all of you guys.</p>
<p>I have 3 rabbits in my house in Jakarta, Indonesia. I am now studying in a medical university in Chongqing, China. Here in China i have 1 rabbit and 2 mice, living with my roommate who has a hamster and we currently foster a cat.</p>
<p></p>
<p>All my pets were saved, as in rescued from the worse case scenario</p>
<p>This is Chocolate Oreo, he was bought on such a short impulse, his previous owner threw him away just after 2 months. I took him since and he is just a happy bunny now </p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726318?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726318?profile=original" width="272" class="align-center" height="365"/></a></p>
<p>Gus and Milky, me and my roommate took them from our pharmacology lab class.</p>
<p>I was so fed up with the school program in China where people don't learn about animals ethics.</p>
<p>I do believe i could be an awesome surgeon without having to use live animals as a tool to "</p>
<p>practice"</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726348?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726348?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750" class="align-center"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726410?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726410?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750" class="align-center"/></a></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726432?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726432?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750" class="align-left"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>Slytherclaw Junior, me and my room</p>
<p>mate found him crying in our apartment building. I was studying that night, i heard this painful crying. I checked outside and found nothing, the next day we're just went home from exam, we found a black kitten in 29th floor, crying in front of the open window, fear he would hurt himself, we ran to that floor and try to catch him. He ran upstairs and we gave him food. Turns out he was so hungry, he ate anything we gave him. Then we successfully bring him home. </p>
<p>He cuddled with me since. I fell in love with him instantly :)</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;" class="font-size-2">This is my 3 bunnies, Herbie (White), Rebel (Brown), and Monci (Grey)</span></p>
<p><img width="750" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726367?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="290" class="align-full" height="512"/></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726466?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726466?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750" class="align-full"/></a></p>
<p></p>How to disable Glue Trapstag:arzone.ning.com,2014-07-03:4715978:BlogPost:1463932014-07-03T15:12:42.000ZCecilia Schmitthttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/CeciliaSchmitt
<p>So my office has glue traps to catch and kill any small critters roaming the hallways. I did some research on what can be done to disable these traps, since I am not a fan of death, especially slow death. The common theme in my research seemed to be oil, that coating the glue with oil disables the stickiness and also the smell of different kinds of oil can be a deterrent as well. So the next question was how to discreetly apply the oil to the traps under the watchful gaze of the office…</p>
<p>So my office has glue traps to catch and kill any small critters roaming the hallways. I did some research on what can be done to disable these traps, since I am not a fan of death, especially slow death. The common theme in my research seemed to be oil, that coating the glue with oil disables the stickiness and also the smell of different kinds of oil can be a deterrent as well. So the next question was how to discreetly apply the oil to the traps under the watchful gaze of the office security cameras. To make a longish story shorter I found a spray-on product containing baby oil that is relatively small and easy to conceal (see picture). I came to work early one day right after the pest control company had re-set the glue traps and discreetly sprayed them down with this "light oil mist" product under the guise of accidentally dropping some office supplies and turning my back to the camera to pick them up. THIS PRODUCT WORKS GREAT! I sprayed each of the traps once, making sure all glue surfaces were covered. The pest company comes to reset the traps once a month and when they came back the following month there were NO creatures stuck in the traps! No bugs, mice, lizards or anything! Usually the traps are really nasty and full of all kinds of things when the pest company comes by. Often the office manager will dispose of some of the traps himself before the pest control company comes by, especially if they start to smell. Anyhoo the office has not become overrun with creatures since I started disabling the glue traps. On the occasion that I do find a bug or mouse I relocate it back to the wonderful outdoors. I hope this information will help others who are anti-glue traps.<a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726330?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="234" height="363" class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726330?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024"/></a></p>China:~Chongqing Welcomes Some New, Very Lucky, New Residentstag:arzone.ning.com,2014-06-26:4715978:BlogPost:1460762014-06-26T15:13:57.000ZHand In Hand With Asiahttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/LisaPrice
<p><span class="font-size-3"><span>Some of the dogs and cats rescued from Yulin arrived in Chongqing about 11pm on 23rd June. Local activists were already at the scene to help Aunty Yang Yu Hua. Aunty Yang's shelter, 重庆杨玉华流浪动物保护站 (Chongqing Yang Yu Hua Stray Animals Protection Centre) posted on Weibo that she urgently needs pet food and canine distemper testing kits and medicines. </span><br></br><span>Parcels and donations from overseas would</span><span class="text_exposed_show"> also be welcome.…</span></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><span>Some of the dogs and cats rescued from Yulin arrived in Chongqing about 11pm on 23rd June. Local activists were already at the scene to help Aunty Yang Yu Hua. Aunty Yang's shelter, 重庆杨玉华流浪动物保护站 (Chongqing Yang Yu Hua Stray Animals Protection Centre) posted on Weibo that she urgently needs pet food and canine distemper testing kits and medicines. </span><br/><span>Parcels and donations from overseas would</span><span class="text_exposed_show"> also be welcome. You can donate via bank transfer to Anty Yang’s bank account:-<br/>Bank: ICBC (Industrial and Commercial Bank of China)<br/>Account number: 9558823100006665203 <br/>Account name: Yang Yu Hua<br/>Photos sourced & translation by NT.<br/>If anyone can help by sending parcels to Anty Yang, please message us and we will get back to you as soon as we can.</span></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726688?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726688?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750" class="align-full"/></a><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726800?profile=original" target="_self"><br/></a><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726800?profile=original" target="_self"><br/></a></span></p>China:~Nearly 2000 Cats Saved From Slaughter!!tag:arzone.ning.com,2014-06-26:4715978:BlogPost:1461532014-06-26T13:14:39.000ZHand In Hand With Asiahttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/LisaPrice
<p><span class="font-size-3"><span>Activists in Hangzhou spent 4 hours on Tuesday (24th June 2014) chasing at high-speed, a truck with nearly 2000 cats on board, headed for slaughter. They managed to intercept and block the truck. From the early morning they guarded the truck, waiting for officers from animal inspection to come at 9am to inspect it.</span><br></br><span>The activists gave a shout out on Weibo, asking people to help them and to bring cat food and cages. They are exhausted and many…</span></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><span>Activists in Hangzhou spent 4 hours on Tuesday (24th June 2014) chasing at high-speed, a truck with nearly 2000 cats on board, headed for slaughter. They managed to intercept and block the truck. From the early morning they guarded the truck, waiting for officers from animal inspection to come at 9am to inspect it.</span><br/><span>The activists gave a shout out on Weibo, asking people to help them and to bring cat food and cages. They are exhausted and many cats have died. Bravo to these activists who rescue these animals from a horrendous death.</span><br/><span>Photos sourced and translation by NT</span></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726415?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726415?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750" class="align-full"/></a></span></p>China:~MORE DOGS (AND CATS!) RESCUED FROM YULIN 2014tag:arzone.ning.com,2014-06-23:4715978:BlogPost:1461462014-06-23T12:01:06.000ZHand In Hand With Asiahttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/LisaPrice
<p><span class="font-size-3"><span>64 year old Yang Yu Hua spent all her 6000 Yuan to rescue about 30 cats and 70 dogs. One of the photos (bottom left) shows her weeping as she leans on the cage, overcome with emotion at rescuing these lucky souls. Anty Yang has a shelter in Chongqing and we previously covered a rescue that she was involved with </span><span class="text_exposed_show">of 50+ dogs, headed for slaughter in December 2013. The dogs were taken to her shelter. <br></br>Photos sourced…</span></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><span>64 year old Yang Yu Hua spent all her 6000 Yuan to rescue about 30 cats and 70 dogs. One of the photos (bottom left) shows her weeping as she leans on the cage, overcome with emotion at rescuing these lucky souls. Anty Yang has a shelter in Chongqing and we previously covered a rescue that she was involved with </span><span class="text_exposed_show">of 50+ dogs, headed for slaughter in December 2013. The dogs were taken to her shelter. <br/>Photos sourced & translation by NT.<br/>Anty Yang has a few hundred animals at her shelter and her resources are limited so if you would like to help her, you can donate via transfer from your bank. <br/>Yang's bank details:-<br/>ICBC Bank <br/>Account number: 9558823100006665203 <br/>Account name: Yang Yu Hua</span></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726406?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726406?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750" class="align-full"/></a></span></p>
<p></p>China:~Our Chinese Activist, Du Yufeng, Stands Up To Bullies Who Try To Disrupt Her Protest At Yulintag:arzone.ning.com,2014-06-21:4715978:BlogPost:1459922014-06-21T14:42:29.000ZHand In Hand With Asiahttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/LisaPrice
<p><span class="font-size-3"><span>This is the 3rd year in a row that our Chinese Activist, Du Yufeng, has travelled nearly 1000 miles from her home in Guangyuan, Sichuan to Yulin, Guangxi to join other activists at the Dog Meat Festival. She and her group protested in front of Yulin Government Offices this morning (June 21st) at around 11:00am despite being hassled by local men! The moment they started handing out leafle</span><span class="text_exposed_show">ts and banners, local men ran to…</span></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><span>This is the 3rd year in a row that our Chinese Activist, Du Yufeng, has travelled nearly 1000 miles from her home in Guangyuan, Sichuan to Yulin, Guangxi to join other activists at the Dog Meat Festival. She and her group protested in front of Yulin Government Offices this morning (June 21st) at around 11:00am despite being hassled by local men! The moment they started handing out leafle</span><span class="text_exposed_show">ts and banners, local men ran to her and grabbed them from her. Undeterred, Du wrote on more banners ready to give out to people but local men snatched them from her again. Du is a strong woman and will hold her ground (as seen in our videos when she confronts dog traffickers!) and she will not give up trying to educate the public about the cruelty involved in the dog meat trade and the health risks from eating dog meat. <br/>Photos sourced & translation by NT</span></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726538?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150726538?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750" class="align-full"/></a></span></p>