> It amazes me how casually we experiment on bees and other beings as if they have no feeling 

Bacteria, fruit flies?  I don't know of anyone who objects to using them as test subjects for experiments.

The more similar the animal is to us, the more people dislike their use as test subjects.  This view, that more complex organisms have richer, more fulfilling lives and that "full life" correlates with "Moral Worth", is the usual rationale behind the anti-animal testing protests.  A more intelligent animal is thought to be more capable of suffering.

The above reveals a lot about how racism works - the more something or someone is "like us", the more we empathize with them.  The less they are like us, the less we empathize.  Over the years, I have made dozens of complex sturdy plastic puzzle boxes that entertain octopi.  A shrimp or other treat is placed inside. The more complex the puzzle, the better, as an octopus is far more intelligent than anyone can imagine, and they get smarter with experience, of course.  But they only live about 5 years, which seems tragic, as they can solve puzzles that require step-by-step assembly instructions with diagrams for their human keepers to merely assemble them.  So, they are clearly "maybe as smart as us", but they are so different from us, we see no problem with keeping them in human care, and taking them out of their natural environment for mere education and entertainment of children.

But animals who are "more like us" (mammals: mice, guinea pigs, hamsters, horses, monkeys...) are used in medical testing simply because they share common features with us.  Pigs have cardiovascular systems so similar to ours that pig heart valves have been installed in humans for 30 years.

Specific to insects, they do feel "pain", we call it “nociception”, as calling it "pain" would give aid and comfort to the PETA types.  But do bees "suffer" if they are used in a study that merely presents conditions that they might be exposed to in commercial pollination, such as exposure to herbicides and pesticides?  If so, then they also suffer in commercial pollination, and we need to be more "humane" to them.  But how, when life in nature is no picnic for bees (or any other animal)?  Which is better?  "In nature", or "in human care"?  Does "human care" have to comply with "OSHA regs for animals"?  What's a union workday for a bee, and how do we convince them to clock out after 8 hours and take a rest?  Not gonna happen - they literally work themselves to death, and call it a good life.  Bees are God's wind-up toys, and they are wound up only once.  They are not "humane" to themselves or their nestmates, so we can't use such concepts with bees.

I don't have a dog any more, as I travel too much, but for the first 55 years of my life, I had a dog at my feet or at heel 24 x 7.  A working dog is said to enjoy making his master happy, and claimed to enjoy his work.  I agree with this completely.  One can easily see how a dog expresses joy when working sheep or cattle, but the sheep and cattle are not so happy.  At a sheepdog trial, one hopes that all the sheep are from the same herd, but even then there are cliques within that herd, and WHICH sheep are assembled into a set for your dog to work can make a big difference.  Five who are buddies and want to stay together, and one who is not a member of that clique, and has no interest in staying with the others can make the fetch and drive much more work, and likely makes for more "upset" sheep.  Some sheep are clearly more active in morning vs afternoon, and that makes a difference too.  But a sheepdog trial is a "game" where I get a small trophy and bragging rights because my dog "properly" intimidated sheep into moving around a field in specific ways.  And I spent endless hours teaching my dogs how to do this with style.  Are my dogs' ribbons and trophies one bit different from the self-awarded medals worn by some two-bit warlord who controls three valleys in the province of Veryverybahd in the country of Idontunderstan? Its hard to argue with the claim that they aren't.

> but wonder about alien abductions and "anal probing;" 

This is, of course, nonsense, but we have lots of humans that do far worse to other humans, so we do not need to imagine "aliens" to fill that role.  We have Jacob Zuma, Saudi prince Mohammed bin Salman, and Ghislaine Maxwell.  And more.

In Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment", Raskolnikov claims that "extraordinary men" are a separate class of people from most people.  But this is to justify his murder of the pawnbroker and the pawnbroker's sister.  

This lame sense of entitlement has become a common view among people who have never read Dostoevsky, and therefore don't realize how childishly transparent their posturing is.  They honestly believe that the "extraordinary men" can ignore laws and societal norms to realize their "vision for the future", but just like Raskolnikov, they have no vision for the future beyond enriching themselves at the expense of others.  This sums up much of "neo-conservatism", and makes (at least USA) politics more understandable.  This is why some books are part of a "classical education".  A true "extraordinary man" accepts that all societies need rules, and agrees that even the well-heeled must remove their shoes at airport security.

Our view toward animals is made off the same egotistical stuff that Raskolnikov used to excuse himself for murder.  We want to feel superior, so we rationalize away.

That said, my wife takes several medications that would not be sold if not for animal testing required by (USA) FDA, and without a few drug-eluting stents and the fancy drugs, she might not be here among us, and reminding me to do my 45 mins on my Concept 2 rowing erg, and hence keeping me in shape, too.  I am *glad* for the animal testing, as we live in an age of miracles, and if we work out and eat our veggies, we might both live to 125.  My wife's life is "worth" any amount of animal suffering required to sustain/extend it, and so is yours.

In contrast, a lack of animal testing is now a sales point for cosmetics.  It was made clear that cute little bunnies were used to test cosmetics, and the users of cosmetics had a high overlap with the demographic who will not stand for cruelty to cute bunnies.  So, the "good" served by the "necessary cruelty" has to be of great value, such as saving millions of human lives.  Mere vanity or fashion is insufficient.  This is a sign of hope, as it shows a set of values DOES exist.

How many people die each year because they tried to avoid a small animal in the road, and lost control of their vehicle?  This shows that we are not quite rational in all this (or that we massively overestimate our driving skills).


   

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html