Sunday, July 13, 2008

Feed children first

America’s vivisectors to the world: “Go to hell you poor hungry little bastards.”

In 2004, 2.6 billion people did not have access to basic sanitation. Poverty and the resulting nutritional deficits result in underweight children. Over a quarter of the world’s children are underweight. In 2000, this led to 3.4 million child deaths.

Meanwhile, vivisectors in the U.S. apply for funding to study the life-extending effects of caloric restriction, funding to create new animal models of obesity, addiction, heart disease, and stroke even though 80% of premature heart attacks and strokes are preventable with a healthy diet, regular activity, and abstaining from tobacco products.

Imagine watching millions of people starve but deciding to spend your life torturing monkeys to learn a little more about the neural circuits involved in fear. That’s sick.

Sicker still are the fear-mongering lies used to justify their glass bead games. They claim that improved health in the U.S. is the direct result of their cruelties and that if they stopped sacrificing animals, healthcare would collapse. But healthful food and sanitation are the real reasons that people are healthy as the statistics above demonstrate clearly.

If vivisectors really cared about people, they’d close their labs and demand that the money they would have used go instead to feed hungry children.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Of course, the entire NIH budget is worth only a couple of months of the war in Irak.

So, we can stopping killing people first to feed the children of the world while still moving science forward.

Rick said...

"We" don't need to decide anything; those who consume millions torturing animals and justifying it with the claim that they are doing so because they care deeply about humans should send the money back and demand that it be spent feeding people. Hunger is a health problem that could be solved readily. If a disease swept the globe with a tenth of the detrimental effect many vivisectors would be applying for grants with claims of new animal models and deep felt concern. The status quo puts the lie to their concern.

Anonymous said...

You are confused. Public health is not the exclusive domain of NIH.

You have this strange idea about vivisection being the source of all evil in this world. You should look elsewhere; for example, in oil dependence.

Rick said...

No. Vivisection is not the source of evil. It is evil.

There is much evil in the world. Vivisectors add much to it.

Vivisection is largely the domain of the NIH. No other single entity public or private contributes nearly as much.

But that's beside the point. If vivisectors actually cared about people, they'd quit asking for money and demand en masse that it be used to feed hungry kids.

Anonymous said...

"If vivisectors actually cared about people, they'd quit asking for money and demand en masse that it be used to feed hungry kids."

If people actually cared about people, they'd quit engaging in wars, stop destroying the environment, etc...

If you don't like how the US spends your tax dollars go complain to them.

Jeremy Beckham said...

anonymous said:

"If people actually cared about people, they'd quit engaging in wars, stop destroying the environment, etc..."

Correct, and Rick here is just suggesting we add one more thing to your list: "they'd stop torturing monkeys." Believe me, I think the vast majority of animal advocates, abhorring the oppression of the weak and underprivileged in so many ways, are also against many of the things you speak of.

The point we make is that it is certainly much more consistent for someone concerned about the general suffering of humankind to advocate feeding, housing, or even bringing already-available medical treatment to poor and destitute populations, than to continue squandering away billions of dollars in animal torture in the name of "basic research." 25,000 children die a week due to dehydration. Those deaths are resulting not because we need to unlock the secrets to biological mysteries - but because there is a paucity of political and social will to give a damn about poor children. Especially no one has yet discovered how helping poor children can be turned into a profitable business venture (unlike vivisection and research into conditions and diseases of the upper classes). And vivisectors are part of that problem.

Another question: why is it that I've noticed that most of those involved with animal research have an enormous amount of wealth? Does this seem consistent with a humanitarian vision to you? Or are you the type that saw no sad irony when the G8 summit recently discussed the dismal global food shortages at length mere moments before beginning their posh 19-course dinner?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/08/food.foodanddrink

Why aren't these vivisectors, so enamored with the welfare of humankind, taking the majority of their income and feeding it back into humanitarian NGOs and efforts instead of purchasing luxury sedans and homes?

What a strange cognitive dissonance this charitable bunch has...

Rick said...

anonymous wrote: "If you don't like how the US spends your tax dollars go complain to them."

You're probably right. It's just not fair to expect vivisectors to take responsibility for their own behavior.

Anonymous said...

"Those deaths are resulting not because we need to unlock the secrets to biological mysteries - but because there is a paucity of political and social will to give a damn about poor children."

Why are scientists the ones to blame because of the lack of social will? It is a generalized phenomenon. Yet, you appear to blame just one group.

"It's just not fair to expect vivisectors to take responsibility for their own behavior."

Nobody expects you nor any of your ALF colleagues to take responsibility for the violence you are promoting either.