Brainless Cows? The Horror....

The discussion of brainless cows really made me cringe in class today. I mentioned how much of our food is altered from its natural state and then continually reproduced in such a manner. As a student of science, I can usually find the necessary point of such research but in this case I cannot.

Background:
The era of genetically modified food started with 'Golden Rice' which was altered to carry the beta carotene gene. It was done to hopefully help stop childhood blindness and other ails because rice is so vastly consumed and this type of rice is relatively inexpensive to produce and make available for plantation. There are always concerns of GM foods cross contaminating non-GM foods as well as escaping into nature. This has occurred recently, as GM corn for cattle contaminated a shipment of corn for human consumption. I can't remember what the corn was made to do for the cows, but I am guessing it had more starch in it to fatten them up faster. It only caused concern when people who had eaten the corn had an allergic reaction to a specific protein added to the corn. An open question but, what if no one had an allergic reaction? If the corn somehow made it into nature, as with GM animals (like glowing bunnies, fish, pigs, and primates) the devastation it may cause is somewhat immeasurable because 1) we haven't experienced one yet but, 2) as with any foreign species introduced into a new environment it may completely take over the ecosystem, as with zebra mussels or purple heather.

I gave some examples of GM foods such as the tomato and roses that one would have no idea it was modified unless they had taken a course in botany. Tomatoes now contain far too many and incomplete 'locks' which are the folds in the fruit containing the seeds, (cucumbers also have this, it's the middle part) and many commercial roses are anatomically incorrect, lacking many reproductive parts making it necessary to cultivate them by clones from the mother plant.

Which brings me back to the original concern:
Scientists are presenting research to the FDA taking steps to allow cloned beef and other animal products on our shelves. Moving forward from this they are now researching 'brainless' cows. As we conversed in class, often the focus is the suffering of the animals instead of the act of killing them. I doubt that by somehow producing 'brainless' cows you will convince many vegetarians, let alone vegans, to begin consuming meat. The animals are alive, and then are butchered for food, which is the same regardless of whether they have a brain or not. This is where many vegetarians have the issue of eating meat; for me, even though I may like the taste (as shown in my example of my fake bacon - facon) I simply do not want to be responsible for the death of an animal so I may eat because I am able to biologically (and psychologically!) be content only eating plant foods, along with 100% organic milk and eggs (cage-free as well, of course) which does not harm the animal if cared for properly and is a completely natural function. Instead you are giving PETA another reason to go to the extremes to stop such research, when extremes are not the correct path either. Derek compared potential laws against meat consumption to Prohibition, which is entirely accurate. We cannot outlaw something, even if it's well intentioned, when the vast majority of people disagree with it in some way. Can you imagine if the production of meat went into underground operations? The Horror....

Rat in a Microwave....

The discussion was good today as usual. It was interesting to observe how hard it was to stay on track once comparing the laws of animal rights to that of abortion. Also, I liked the point of "ill-gotten gains." We have to admit the enormous amount of knowledge gained from researching animals as well as the equally immense damage it has done to the lives of such organisms great and small. The best example in class was from Kyle, "If I put a rat in a microwave for pleasure, it is drastically different from putting a rat in a microwave for research." Many of Tom Regan's points came up like dog in a life boat ---> save the human, and mostly the class agreed.

There did seem to be a good balance of opinions in the class and comprehension of meat eaters and non meat eaters. Many did agree that the consumption of animals and animal products may be ethical as long as the practices allowing the products to be on our shelves were done humanely and within ethical living standards. Derek started the class off by rewording the question from "is it morally right for the average US citizen to eat meat" to "is it morally wrong etc..." It is important because it captures the issue within the question. It is easier to say no to the second than to the first which is probably the best answer, if I interpreted it correctly. The key with any diet is moderation, attention to portions, knowledge of where your food comes from, and what is in your food. A vegetarian would be just as unhealthy with an improper diet as would a meat eater. The food market should take in the sacrifice the animals make for our benefit and be respectful of it by urgently providing universal, ethically proper living conditions and preparation standards.

Not Convinced Yet...

After some scanning of pro-meat consumption articles, it is still hard for me to be convinced meat eating at the current rate is necessary and ethical now or in the future. Some points to consider for the meat industry however, is the type of iron compound in hemoglobin and in meat. It is a great source of the natural, high quality, necessary compound and also protein. Some meat cuts can be very lean and meat in one's diet is common, healthy, and natural of the human species and many others.

Although with this type of diet and any other diets the proper portions, balance, and variety is essential to overall health. I do not have any issue with people who eat meat properly and act consciously of their choices. We have teeth in such a way for a reason, and bears as a more extreme example, are also omnivores.

However, how this diet choice reaches our stores is providing much of the ethical problem in consuming meat for the average family. Factory farming provides many economical problems for the area hosting the manufacture and the treatment of the animals giving their lives is deplorable. Health standards plummet, and contaminations are common from the horrible monotony of factory job conditions and standards. If the public is educated to the benefits of proper moderation and variety of food groups in one's diet, even vegetarianism, the market should be forced to respond to please the consumer. The demand for more wholesome and organic food is an excellent example. The consumers should continue to hold the meat industry and all food regulation involvement to a high standard of quality. If meat consumption must continue after all, then at least we can look forward to proper ethical treatment of the animals and sanitary standards finally met with urgency.

more on factory farming...

In the discussion of agnosticism and atheism, it is interesting to think about the compatibility of religion and the presence of evil in the world. Most apparently, in my knowledge, for example is Christianity. With the ideal of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-merciful God how then can evil and sins be explained beyond human nature and balance? For all religion, let alone humanity, in order for us to distinguish good from evil we must have both; but this balance could be argued as created by god or cultures of the world. I really liked the point in class of the powers of god limited from possessing both qualities, to simply omnipotent. It could be argued the same moral sophistication, if not more, would apply to deities as humans, but the same behavior at a more powerful level would also apply. This reflects a slight resemblance of Greek and Roman mythology in explaining the behavior of gods, to me.

That line of thought relates to the other point of religion, more specifically god(s) being a tool created by mankind, much like a saw, or the class example of an ax. We use this tool or ideal, to instill into people that one should follow and live by good because of the nature of evil and also, by the way, because this god said so through no verifiable and specific evidence. Then, if humans did not exist, would god? Naturalistically speaking, god would not exist, as the heavens may not exist now, other than in our own imagination. So then and there it may be a real thing in terms that we all make our own "heaven" and "hell" within ourselves and actions based on the morals of cultural upbringing and acceptance truly guide our beings and the idea of a god makes it easier or more important to follow.

Siding with Knowledge

After all of the reading, it is still difficult for me to determine which is more rational, atheism or agnosticism. I would conclude atheism is more logical just because of all the discussions from naturalism versus supernaturalism, which is why I suspect we read and discussed that material to prepare for this reading and thought process. From the evidence I have experienced and observed in my life time it would be easier for me to draw conclusions that a God, especially in the Christian sense, does not exists, instead of proving that one did exist.

Agnosticism is easy for me to relate with because I like the use of it in terms as a stance of knowledge which is touched on in the main reading a bit less than the article posted on Prof. Johnson's blog but makes the same correlation. It is easier to assert that one has knowledge of a general view and when evidence presents a different conclusion one may effectively observe and review their position accordingly without probable attachment. For theists however, their emotional attachment to what they believe in is more sided or drastic involvement because they are not in middle ground and most likely have deep ties to the belief with family and friends. In other words, it would be much more difficult for a theist to adjust their lifestyle around a challenge to, or a loss of, their faith in the religion they follow. Partly this may be because many religions teach to remain firm in one’s faith despite its temptations and challenges. I choose to side with knowledge in order to trust what I've learned and agree is real with my peers. In many ways I choose a more naturalistic view to label myself with before I would term it as agnostic.

Atheism / Agnosticism Posting

I like the About.com article posting because it looks at how to distinguish Atheism from Agnosticism, and vice versa in a simplified manner. The other required reading also examines the rationality of the argument atheism versus agnosticism, however this piece simply focuses on Agnosticism holding its own ground as a valid category and stance on the "knowledge of whether gods may exist or not instead of a belief in whether god does or does not exist." The author Austin Cline makes a point that there may be theistic agnostics, who "may believe in a god without claiming to know for sure the god exists," or atheistic agnostics which claim "to disbelieve gods exist but claim to not know for sure."

I also concur the degrees of agnosticism make it well-suited for either theism or atheism. In many ways one could compare it to the social classes of our society, particularly the great variances of middle class; upper and lower. Negative social views plague that of lower classes as they do for atheists. They may be seen as narrow minded, however theists may be seen in this light just as easily for their persistent history of moving into territories and converting individuals, disrupting traditional belief and custom because the theists way was the right and only way to live. I do not think it is fair to hold anyone absolutely to their prior belief of theology without waiver because part of human nature is growth of knowledge and resources, and from discussions of naturalism and supernaturalism, none of us may rationally be certain of the belief in deities or god(s).

Theory of 21 Grams

To clarify my last post, energy is included in physics. I am not quite sure what I mean by my fundamental belief in energy controlling or explaining everything. I suppose it is a big part of why I took this course. One could consider energy in the scientific or psychological point of view. Have you ever entered a room and immediately felt the mood of the space set by those already there? This is an example, I would suppose, of the emotional or psychological use of energy transfer.

Within physics, the law of energy which states matter can neither be created nor destroyed, I think many unexplainable things can be understood at least partly. Certain occurrences and testimonials of experiencing the supernatural could be because of energy displacement, voltage irregularities, and magnetic fields. Also, evidence of the "soul" or spiritual part of ourselves has been linked to science with the 21 gram theory. However, this is another theory which has scientific roots and was carried out with a huge helping of faith, and yes I do mean the term with all the baggage.

When the experiment was performed it was done so under conditions which would currently be considered possibly unethical and certainly imprecise. The theory basically states that when an individual dies, the body mass decreases to 3/4 an ounce, or 21 grams. This experiment would be difficult to replicate and the weight loss could be explained by many things including the ceasing of the heart beat. It causes the blood to stop circulating and the exchange of oxygen with carbon dioxide; liquids begin to evaporate because the gaseous exchange once contributed to regulating temperature of the body and blood no longer does, thus explaining the loss. On an experiment done with dogs as subjects, no loss was measured, and this could be because dogs pant to keep cool, whereas humans sweat. I am prone to think this theory could be another perfect example of naturalism vs supernaturalism which attempts to use science for the leap of faith to bridge the gap.

Naturalism Article

I read the article Prof. Johnson posted on 2/26 by Craig Lee Duckett and really liked it. It certainly helped to explain the distinct naturalist, empirical, or skeptic point of view opposite of supernaturalism. I think its another well written piece with some emotion or moderate excitement to it, which this topic is prone to. I share a lot of the same points like assessing my environment and given situations by what I can naturally observe and explain first, then move on to other possible explanations.

I went to church as a child, but was always more interested in the natural world around me. From this fascination I chose an education in biology and philosophy. I love the way this has influenced my understanding of the world around me and how I make decisions and draw conclusions. To me, most everything can be explained by the physical world around us which we all agree is real. I only think my upbringing as a child makes me ponder the possibility of specific religious supernatural events; however I firmly remain agnostic after every examination. When something cannot be answered by any logical measures at the moment and I become thoughtful of the supernatural, I rely on the laws of energy. The most important base of these laws is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. I feel that energy is the base of everything and this with the laws of physics can logically explain numerous occurrences including supposed evidence and interactions with the afterlife or supernatural world.

I am not threatened by various religions holding their own interpretation of truth above my own incomplete notion, and I strive to always be tolerant and open minded of any view. I think if I were to be part of those emotions it would hinder my ability to have an educated exchange of views in a beneficial conversation. I think individuals taking supernaturalism as far as hindering the health of their family and themselves by not using surgery or medicine is just as dangerous as unethical scientists pushing the limits of humanity.
.