Wired wrote an article on AA & 12 Step Programs.
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/06/ff_alcoholics_anonymous/5/
I sorta liked it. Could've been worse, certainly.
Showing posts with label wired. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wired. Show all posts
Back and Forth on Animal Experimentation
This email chain was in response to an article in Wired.com about animal experimentation. The article is on the wired website here: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/mf_optigenetics/
I thought I'd post it on my website and see if anyone cared to voice their feelings on this.
Please chime in with your comments on this debate, your feelings, or the article in the Wired magazine.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009, rekzkarz wrote:
> Michael & Wired,
>
> As someone that is not particularly religious, nor 'PETA', nor a vegetarian, I was still disturbed by the positive spin built into this article on mixing mice brain genetics with pond scum (chlorophyll) and then having LEDs inserted into the mice brains -- and not once any question about morality, or if this is acceptable, or the question of 'means to an end' is relevant, etc.
> The fact that 'Frankenstein' is not written in the article is noteworthy, but what I find more lacking is the absence of ANY moral questioning.
> Perhaps it's too 'retro' to put the question in Wired ('what the fuck are these mad scientists doing to these living creatures in their secret laboratories'), but I was struck by the total lack of rights of living creatures to the extent that, from our 'warped human-focussed scientific perspective', it seems all creatures are nothing more than tools for human progress.
> Who gave these people the right to torture & warp these animals 'in the name of science'?
> I think a bizarre side-product of your article is the disgust I feel at reading how real scientists are actually WORSE than the most evil doctors in scifi and films!
>
> Ari -- rekzkarz.com (blog)
> sent via iPhone-bot
--- Michael Chorost, the author, wrote me back on 11/8/09 ... but when I told him I had posted his response to my blog, he demanded I take it down immediately and said he had not given me permission.
I didn't know I needed permission to post his response, but I am a nice guy, so I'm taking it down.
But I'm leaving MY responses here, and the link to the article: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/mf_optigenetics/
In some ways, my experience with this article in Wired reminds me of when I read an old Wired (15th Anniversary) cover "Nuclear Power is the new Green fuel" or something, and was completely obsessed with arguing with that writer & disputing the entire basis of the article.
(In fact, I'm going to email the writer, Amanda Grsicom Little, again about this damned propaganda article!)
This guy has a blogpost article supporting how Wired was on the right track with nuclear power.
Nope, sorry dude. WRONG!
Give me a break! While the Sun is nuclear powered, the Earth is completely powered by solar, wind, and thermal. The only reason we would need nuclear power is because we continue increasing our demand for power, and keep producing all this garbage!
But that's not a winning strategy (for us or the rest of the creatures of the Earth)!
OK, back to animal experimentation...
--------------
Sent today Nov 9, 2009 by Ari
Michael,
I look forward to another response from you, please.
If I agreed with the core underlying issue, that human life must be preserved at all costs, I might agree with the explanation.
But I think the moral issue for me is that human life is not the apex of creation, the peak of the evolutionary process, which must be preserved. (In many ways, if you look at our world, doesn't it seem like the union of {human lack of foresight + greed + industrial revolution} can be seen as the biggest threats to life the Earth has ever faced?)
My view is that LIFE must be preserved, and that if humans understood their roles on Earth better, our moral goal would be to preserve 'all life in reasonable proportion', which would include inalienable rights to life for both plants & animals. Right now, human life is unacceptably dominating the Earth and destroying far too much of the Earth's billion-year evolved ecosphere -- and we are just now starting to feel the price of our unrestrained exploitation.
Humanity is continuing forward blindly, without considering the impacts of technology. (This is one of my problems with Wired, a magazine which endorses all forms of corporate-sponsored gadgeteering but hasn't seemed to realize that this makes a lot more non-biodegradable garbage.)
Rather than spending billions on preserving human life at all costs (incl torture & experimentation on animals, and billions of $ on R&D), and simultaneously spending billions on war machinery and the world domination industries...
Humanity could be using it's vast resources to:
* Clean up the refuse of the industrial revolution
* Restore the old-growth forests
* Switch over to renewable (non-destructive) power
* Help ALL people around the world live their lives to the best potential (ie making famine and environmental decrepitude into expressions of the past)
However, I see your point.
We need lots of $$$ in animal experimentation to help wealthy, 1st world children (and adults) to live to their fullest -- even while the already living & healthy children of 2nd & 3rd world countries starve to death b/c of lack of resources.
So far in this response, I hadn't even brought up the question of whether animals have inherent rights to life, liberty, equality, etc. I didn't even mention (until now) the fact that, simply b/c animals cannot speak a human language, they are treated as means to an ends, rather than our fellow brothers & sisters who have evolved over billions of years and share most of our DNA.
From my perspective, in one hundred years or so, the animal experiments you describe will likely be seen as equivalently evil and vile to the human experiments performed on Jews by the NAZI's.
But I say that b/c I can see from a larger perspective. It's a continuation the cycle of domination and exploitation which has in it's origins slavery, forced prostitution, and empire.
Here's a simple test to determine if the animal experimentation practice is sound morally, or is it reprehensible, cruel, and unjust:
How would you feel about this if the roles were reversed, and the animals were the superior life-form performing experiments on humans to ensure their extended survival?
Would you volunteer to be a test subject to have your brain experimented upon?
Why not?
As I said, I look forward to this next response from you.
Ari
rekzkarz.com
I thought I'd post it on my website and see if anyone cared to voice their feelings on this.
Please chime in with your comments on this debate, your feelings, or the article in the Wired magazine.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009, rekzkarz wrote:
> Michael & Wired,
>
> As someone that is not particularly religious, nor 'PETA', nor a vegetarian, I was still disturbed by the positive spin built into this article on mixing mice brain genetics with pond scum (chlorophyll) and then having LEDs inserted into the mice brains -- and not once any question about morality, or if this is acceptable, or the question of 'means to an end' is relevant, etc.
> The fact that 'Frankenstein' is not written in the article is noteworthy, but what I find more lacking is the absence of ANY moral questioning.
> Perhaps it's too 'retro' to put the question in Wired ('what the fuck are these mad scientists doing to these living creatures in their secret laboratories'), but I was struck by the total lack of rights of living creatures to the extent that, from our 'warped human-focussed scientific perspective', it seems all creatures are nothing more than tools for human progress.
> Who gave these people the right to torture & warp these animals 'in the name of science'?
> I think a bizarre side-product of your article is the disgust I feel at reading how real scientists are actually WORSE than the most evil doctors in scifi and films!
>
> Ari -- rekzkarz.com (blog)
> sent via iPhone-bot
--- Michael Chorost, the author, wrote me back on 11/8/09 ... but when I told him I had posted his response to my blog, he demanded I take it down immediately and said he had not given me permission.
I didn't know I needed permission to post his response, but I am a nice guy, so I'm taking it down.
But I'm leaving MY responses here, and the link to the article: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/mf_optigenetics/
In some ways, my experience with this article in Wired reminds me of when I read an old Wired (15th Anniversary) cover "Nuclear Power is the new Green fuel" or something, and was completely obsessed with arguing with that writer & disputing the entire basis of the article.
(In fact, I'm going to email the writer, Amanda Grsicom Little, again about this damned propaganda article!)
This guy has a blogpost article supporting how Wired was on the right track with nuclear power.
Nope, sorry dude. WRONG!
Give me a break! While the Sun is nuclear powered, the Earth is completely powered by solar, wind, and thermal. The only reason we would need nuclear power is because we continue increasing our demand for power, and keep producing all this garbage!
But that's not a winning strategy (for us or the rest of the creatures of the Earth)!
OK, back to animal experimentation...
Sent today Nov 9, 2009 by Ari
Michael,
I look forward to another response from you, please.
If I agreed with the core underlying issue, that human life must be preserved at all costs, I might agree with the explanation.
But I think the moral issue for me is that human life is not the apex of creation, the peak of the evolutionary process, which must be preserved. (In many ways, if you look at our world, doesn't it seem like the union of {human lack of foresight + greed + industrial revolution} can be seen as the biggest threats to life the Earth has ever faced?)
My view is that LIFE must be preserved, and that if humans understood their roles on Earth better, our moral goal would be to preserve 'all life in reasonable proportion', which would include inalienable rights to life for both plants & animals. Right now, human life is unacceptably dominating the Earth and destroying far too much of the Earth's billion-year evolved ecosphere -- and we are just now starting to feel the price of our unrestrained exploitation.
Humanity is continuing forward blindly, without considering the impacts of technology. (This is one of my problems with Wired, a magazine which endorses all forms of corporate-sponsored gadgeteering but hasn't seemed to realize that this makes a lot more non-biodegradable garbage.)
Rather than spending billions on preserving human life at all costs (incl torture & experimentation on animals, and billions of $ on R&D), and simultaneously spending billions on war machinery and the world domination industries...
Humanity could be using it's vast resources to:
* Clean up the refuse of the industrial revolution
* Restore the old-growth forests
* Switch over to renewable (non-destructive) power
* Help ALL people around the world live their lives to the best potential (ie making famine and environmental decrepitude into expressions of the past)
However, I see your point.
We need lots of $$$ in animal experimentation to help wealthy, 1st world children (and adults) to live to their fullest -- even while the already living & healthy children of 2nd & 3rd world countries starve to death b/c of lack of resources.
So far in this response, I hadn't even brought up the question of whether animals have inherent rights to life, liberty, equality, etc. I didn't even mention (until now) the fact that, simply b/c animals cannot speak a human language, they are treated as means to an ends, rather than our fellow brothers & sisters who have evolved over billions of years and share most of our DNA.
From my perspective, in one hundred years or so, the animal experiments you describe will likely be seen as equivalently evil and vile to the human experiments performed on Jews by the NAZI's.
But I say that b/c I can see from a larger perspective. It's a continuation the cycle of domination and exploitation which has in it's origins slavery, forced prostitution, and empire.
Here's a simple test to determine if the animal experimentation practice is sound morally, or is it reprehensible, cruel, and unjust:
How would you feel about this if the roles were reversed, and the animals were the superior life-form performing experiments on humans to ensure their extended survival?
Would you volunteer to be a test subject to have your brain experimented upon?
Why not?
As I said, I look forward to this next response from you.
Ari
rekzkarz.com
Nuclear is Green? Sure, and I'vegot a bridge to sell you...
I was shocked and amazed months ago reading an issue of Wired lamely describing nuclear power as 'the new Green power'.
What's most amazing about people arguing nuclear power is a green power is they rarely seem to understand that when green power sources break down or have problems, nothing is destroyed. Also, I'm not sure where nuclear power enthusiasts want to place the nuclear waste, but IMO it should be on their property. Bush just bought thousands of acres of land, let's put all that waste on his land! HA
We are a democracy, yes? When do we get to vote on whether we use earth-friendly power sources or earth-unfriendly power? Oh, that's all passed to our democracy representatives, the rich people who clearly share our interests and desires on where to lead our country and our planet. Bush is clearly 'just another US citizen' with the good heart who wants to help out... or not.
NOT.
Bush is really 'just another rich US white Aryan racist' who is doing his best to accumulate and maintain a power division between rich and poor, while pulling out as much revenue as he can (for family, cronies, friends) before they can push for Armageddon and the earth will blow up and they'll be judged for how much successful capitalism and exploitation they achieved.
I think the whole 'red state/ blue state' boxes we lump US states into are so poor b/c the USA is largely PURPLE. Some groups have more influence in some areas, but many elections are decided by so few votes... and tampered voting machines.
Personally, I want to see Cindy Sheehan elected as a rep for SF because her main goal is to get Bush's Impeachment on the table, which Nancy Pelosi (IMO a traitor to the USA and also impeachable) has blocked, an act which violates the US Constitution.
I've already heard Obama speak about his desires to make conciliatory gestures to the Right Wing to get some things he wanted passed. (Listened to his speech yet in Berlin, Germany? Give it a listen!) Did anyone ever hear Bush or Reagan make pleas to reconcile with the Left Wing, or them express willingness to negotiate??? It's always Left that appeases, and the Right that demands less partisanship while getting their way in most areas and robbing the poor people blind.Has anyone in US media called the latest scandal, the USA home loan scandal, anything like fraud or crime or even a disgusting mismanagement of funds by corporate leadership? Is there any accountability? Have any of these 'free market' advocates suggested that the banks which mismanaged loan practices be forced to suffer for their bad management?
I find it amazing how fast it all gets pushed back to the public and tax revenues to bail out another American banking fiasco. (Does everyone remember that Bush Sr's brother was the head of an S&L during that scandal? Do you think he paid even one cent for his own accountability? Or did that entire scandal get paid by the US public in the form of taxes.)
I was just in Venezuela for the month of June filming a documentary. From what I was able to see, I guarantee you that 90%+ of what the US media covers about that country is falsehood. The 'horrible and dictatorial' revolution taking place in Venezuela is called SOCIALISM. The people who are benefiting are POOR PEOPLE who now have free medical, subsidized food prices, subsidized gas prices, and incentives to purchase their homes.
The revolution in Venezuela is their government is taking oil revenue (which is enormous), nationalizing it, and re-distributing that wealth to the people suffering ath the lowest levels.
Can anyone imagine the USA doing that with our 'record billions in profits' that are going right into the hands of corporate executives with no accountability for the gas price hikes which are destabilizing the US economy... imagine if those record profits were taxed at a higher rate, and that money instead went into:
a) free medical for all
b) schools
c) food subsidies
d) gas subsidies
e) free college educations
The reason Bush gave everyone a '$600 spending incentive' is because his presidency has stolen more public money than they expected (via illegal warfare, contracting private mercenary firms, Haliburton, allowing 9/11 to happen w/o taking any action -- despite being informed prior to the (supposed) attack, and more), so maybe it was guilt money...?
Bush went after Social Security, b/c the wealthy are not comfortable with poor elderly people living comfortably after slaving their whole lives for wealthy executives, and while he was trying to privatize that money they were arguing it was because the social security fund was unstable -- and then he advocated spending trillions to kill Iraqi people in a country that never attacked the USA. Priorities? Oil over people, military before public, guns before butter. Did you really have any confusion here anyway?
Nah -- Bush doesn't suffer an ounce of guilt. He feels he's chosen by God. That money is to help you all spend happily while the USA splits into a society of wealthy landed aristocracy and poor serfs, with a middle class getting shattered by govt corruption.
Whew! Long rant!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)