Harvard scientist guilty of misconduct

The New York Times is reporting that Harvard University has found a prominent researcher, Marc Hauser, “solely responsible” for eight instances of scientific misconduct.

Dr. Hauser is a leader in the field of animal and human cognition, and in 2006 wrote a well-received book, “Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong.”

Harvard’s findings against him, if sustained, may cast a shadow over the broad field of scientific research that depended on the particular research technique often used in his experiments.

More.

Should we clone Neanderthals?

Zach Zorich of Archeology explores the scientific, legal, and ethical obstacles to cloning Neanderthals:

The ultimate goal of studying human evolution is to better understand the human race. The opportunity to meet a Neanderthal and see firsthand our common but separate humanity seems, on the surface, too good to pass up. But what if the thing we learned from cloning a Neanderthal is that our curiosity is greater than our compassion? Would there be enough scientific benefit to make it worth the risks? "I'd rather not be on record saying there would," Holliday told me, laughing at the question. "I mean, come on, of course I'd like to see a cloned Neanderthal, but my desire to see a cloned Neanderthal and the little bit of information we would get out of it...I don't think it would be worth the obvious problems." Hublin takes a harder line. "We are not Frankenstein doctors who use human genes to create creatures just to see how they work." Noonan agrees, "If your experiment succeeds and you generate a Neanderthal who talks, you have violated every ethical rule we have," he says, "and if your experiment fails...well. It's a lose-lose." Other scientists think there may be circumstances that could justify Neanderthal cloning.

"If we could really do it and we know we are doing it right, I'm actually for it," says Lahn. "Not to understate the problem of that person living in an environment where they might not fit in. So, if we could also create their habitat and create a bunch of them, that would be a different story."

"We could learn a lot more from a living adult Neanderthal than we could from cell cultures," says Church. Special arrangements would have to be made to create a place for a cloned Neanderthal to live and pursue the life he or she would want, he says. The clone would also have to have a peer group, which would mean creating several clones, if not a whole colony. According to Church, studying those Neanderthals, with their consent, would have the potential to cure diseases and save lives. The Neanderthals' differently shaped brains might give them a different way of thinking that would be useful in problem-solving. They would also expand humanity's genetic diversity, helping protect our genus from future extinction. "Just saying 'no' is not necessarily the safest or most moral path," he says. "It is a very risky decision to do nothing."

Hawks believes the barriers to Neanderthal cloning will come down. "We are going to bring back the mammoth...the impetus against doing Neanderthal because it is too weird is going to go away." He doesn't think creating a Neanderthal clone is ethical science, but points out that there are always people who are willing to overlook the ethics. "In the end," Hawks says, "we are going to have a cloned Neanderthal, I'm just sure of it."

Link.

Singer: Should this be the last generation?

Philosopher and ethicist Peter Singer asks, is a world with people in it better than one without?

Excerpt:

Put aside what we do to other species — that’s a different issue. Let’s assume that the choice is between a world like ours and one with no sentient beings in it at all. And assume, too — here we have to get fictitious, as philosophers often do — that if we choose to bring about the world with no sentient beings at all, everyone will agree to do that. No one’s rights will be violated — at least, not the rights of any existing people. Can non-existent people have a right to come into existence?

I do think it would be wrong to choose the non-sentient universe. In my judgment, for most people, life is worth living. Even if that is not yet the case, I am enough of an optimist to believe that, should humans survive for another century or two, we will learn from our past mistakes and bring about a world in which there is far less suffering than there is now. But justifying that choice forces us to reconsider the deep issues with which I began. Is life worth living? Are the interests of a future child a reason for bringing that child into existence? And is the continuance of our species justifiable in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings?

Call 1-800-New-Organ, by 2020?

[Linda MacDonald Glenn is guest blogging this month]

Growing a set of new teeth, or new kidneys, or new eyes, or whatever it is you need, is something we could do as soon as 2020, according to a report that was issued by the Department of Health and Human Services a few years ago. In a follow-up to George's previous post, I'll be following and reporting on issues in regenerative medicine, with a focus on nano-scale materials and technology. The NIH uses the term 'regenerative medicine' interchangeably with 'tissue engineering' and defines it as "a rapidly growing multidisciplinary field involving the life, physical and engineering sciences that seeks to develop functional cell, tissue, and organ substitutes to repair, replace or enhance biological function that has been lost due to congenital abnormalities, injury, disease, or aging.” And researchers are doing amazing things: Gizmodo has posted videos from Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine, about how lab grown tissues are benefiting patients now.

Regenerative nanomedicine will, understandably, likely be embraced for all the promise it holds -- but there have been concerns expressed about the ethical, legal, and social implications, particularity the nano part. Nanotechnology has the potential to have the greatest impact in three areas: energy, medicine, and environmental remediation. Of these three areas, nanotechnology in medicine is the most likely to be accepted by the public, starting with therapeutic treatments and then moving over to enhancements. But it does raise some interesting questions, such as can nanomedicine be considered separate and apart other nanotechnologies? And what does 'nanotechnology' encompass anyway? Pinning down a usable definition of nanotechnology has been harder than anticipated.

For a quick peek into some of the issues, you can check out the series of YouTube videos my colleague and I did at the Human Enhancement Conference in Kalamazoo earlier this year, which I'm hoping to post on Vimeo shortly. I'm also following Gizmodo's feature This Cyborg Life and am intrigued by the question, what is the enhancement that you would like to have the most? (and keep it decent, folks, comments are moderated here!) For the readers of Sentient Developments, I'll tell you mine, if you tell me yours....

You can check out Linda's original blog at the Women's Bioethics Blogspot.

What About the Animals?

Michael Anissimov is guest blogging this month.

In considering a possible transhumanist future where cybernetic implants and other enhancements must be designed for the use of billions of people, I worry about an associated slaughter -- that of all the animals that must be used as test subjects for the enhancements before they can be made to work. Considering that some modifications will surely involve replacing the limbs, organs, and just about every part of the body, and always be accompanied by the risk of immune rejection, it seems heartless to subject millions of test animals to excruciating death by torture.

This aspect of technological progress is almost never discussed by transhumanists, yet it is so important.

The situation gets even worse with the application of robotics. To meet the increased demand for the design and testing of implantable devices, what if vivariums (animal testing facilities) are greatly expanded and automated? That could make them even worse than they already are -- tiny sterile cages in overlit rooms with bleach-white walls. Today, just as many "environmentally conscious" people happily (but at comfortable removal) subject intelligent animals like pigs to inhumane treatment in the world's factory farms, "nice people" in the future will have no compunctions to condemning millions of animals to death by torture if it will help the next cybernetic implant get designed. Why?

In advocating for transhumanism, is one in fact also inadvertently advocating for the mass mutilation of innocent and defenseless animals, who belong out in the field, not in the laboratory torture chamber, where they never see the light of day?

To a certain degree, yes.

Is there another way? Thankfully so. In discussing this issue with George, he pointed me to a Times Online article titled, "Animal experiments could end in a generation". This is some of the best news I have ever heard. My father, who works at Genentech, tells me all about how vivariums for major biotech companies are often in out-of-the-way neighborhoods with a complete absence of signs identifying the owner or purpose. If what they are doing is ethical, then why do they have to hide it so conspicuously? From the Times article:

The use of animal experiments could be replaced by research on “virtual human beings” and tests on banks of living cells within a generation, scientists say.

Computer modelling and advances in cell biology will allow researchers to assess new drugs far more precisely and without the involvement of animals. One innovation is the development of “micro-lungs” — lung cells extracted from transplant tissue, grown in a laboratory culture and then tested with drops of toxicants such as cosmetics to assess the response.

Can you imagine that, for many decades, the standard practice has been to administer toxicants directly to the lungs of test animals such as rabbits and rats? Although these animals may be dumber than humans, they clearly can feel pain, and much of the physiology in the brains of rabbits and rats is similar to human brains. It seems extremely likely to me that they have conscious experiences. We will have an opportunity to learn more about this when we can create brains at will and combine primitive brains with more advanced knowledge sets or intelligent agents that can reflect on the details of their mental experience.

Michael's blog: Accelerating Future.

Amazing images of lost South American tribe

Anthropologists recently conducted a fly-by over a tribal village in the Envira rain forest near the Brazilian-Peruvian border. It is strongly suspected that these Amerindians have never made contact with the modern world.

Assuming this is not a hoax or error of some sort, the captured images are nothing short of incredible -- as if the anthropologists had traveled back in time. During the course of the fly-by (done by plane) the team was able to observe living arrangements, work areas, gardens, and even behavior.


After its first pass, when the plane returned an hour later, the tribe was ready having painted their bodies red and brandishing their weapons. Some were painted in black. The aboriginals were undoubtedly confused by the plane, probably figuring it was some sort of large creature or spirit.


Direct contact with the tribe was never a consideration; a number of anthropologists hope that tribes like this one remain untouched.


According to Miriam Ross of Survival International, a group that works to protect the world's remaining indigenous peoples, "These tribes represent the incredible diversity of humankind. Unless we want to condemn yet more of the earth's peoples to extinction, we must respect their choice. Any contact they have with outsiders must happen in their own time and on their own terms."


Aside from the fear of tampering with a primitive society, the risk of transmitting diseases is significant; these people have virtually no immunities and would likely be hit hard.


"These pictures are further evidence that uncontacted tribes really do exist. The world needs to wake up to this, and ensure that their territory is protected in accordance with international law. Otherwise, they will soon be made extinct," says Ross.

This discovery brings to mind a number of ethical issues and considerations:

What if some of these people need medical help and medicine?

Is it ethical for us to not let them know about the greater world around them?

How could we ever have consent for contact and/or cultural uplift? Should it be assumed? Why? Why not?

Are we sufficiently justified in keeping this tribe in a zoo-like scenario?

If eventual contact is unavoidable, why wait until then? Would contact with the modern world ever be 'on their terms?'

How would we feel if we discovered that we were being observed and purposefully held-back by a more advanced civilization?

Is this the kind of cultural diversity that we want to preserve? If so, why? To what end? Does cultural diversity benefit the lost tribe?

What does it mean to say that we risk their "extinction?" Is it accurate to equate the extinction of a culture with that of a species? What are the consequences of a lost cultural mode for a) those who used to participate in it and b) for those who will never be a part of it? What are the consequences relative to the benefits of adopting a new culture?

While I don't have all the answers to these questions, I did (peripherally) address a number of them a couple of years ago in my paper, "All Together Now: Developmental and Ethical Considerations for Biologically Uplifting Nonhuman Animals."

Here's the relevant excerpt:

UPLIFT HAPPENS
Nature versus nurture

Biological uplift is one of two major ways in which an organism can be endowed with superior or alternative ways of physical or psychological functioning. Memetic uplift, or cultural uplift, is distinguished from biological uplift in that it typically involves members of the same species and does not require any intrinsic biological alteration to the organism. While biological uplift is still set to happen at some point in the future, cultural transmission and memetic uplift have been an indelible part of human history.

Memetic uplift can be construed as a soft form of uplift. Memes are by their very nature rather ethereal cultural artifacts, whereas biological uplift entails actual physical and cognitive transformation. That’s not to suggest that inter-generational non genetic transfer of information is subtle. Society and culture have a significant impact on the makeup of an individual.

That said, human psychology is powered by genetic predispositions that function as proclivity engines, endowing persons with their unique personalities, tendencies and latent abilities. This is why the environment continues to play an integral role in the development of the entire phenotype. How persons are socialized and which memes they are exposed to determines to a large part who and what individuals are as sentient, decision-making agents. Consequently, people are constrained and moulded in a nontrivial way by their culture-space. Humans have moved beyond their culturally and phenotypically primitive Paleolithic forms owing to the influence of an advanced culturally extended phenotype and the subsequent rise of exosomatic minds and bodies.

An Example of Memetic Uplift

One of the most striking examples of memetic uplift was the colonization of the Americas by the Europeans. From a macrohistorical perspective, the clash of European and indigenous American civilizations was one between a post-feudal monarchist society and a Stone Age culture. The wide technological and cultural gap separating the two societies gave the Europeans a considerable edge in their ability to successfully wage an invasion that resulted in the embedding of their political, economic, and religious institutions on the continent. The Europeans were also proactive about “civilizing” aboriginal peoples -- in some cases forcing them to attend English schools or converting them to Christianity. Today, very few aboriginals, if any, are able to maintain a lifestyle that even modestly resembles life in pre colonial times. The colonization of the Americas resulted in the emergence of an entirely new set of cultures.

This period of history was traumatic in a real sense and it is often considered one of the more regrettable periods of human history. Yet the episode raises considerable food for thought and the opportunity for some thought experiments. Would it have been ethical to allow the aboriginals to continue living a Stone Age life? Assuming this is truly an example of cultural uplift, in which ways was it a success and in which a failure? These are difficult questions with complex answers. However, as history has shown, the intermingling and assimilation of disparate cultures was and is an indelible part of the human condition. Information swapping is a developmental reality that has been largely unavoidable.

Conceptions of progress and the rise of cultural relativism

The European colonization of the Americas, along with other similar episodes, is an extremely sensitive area of debate, often leading to discussions that skirt the fringes of acceptability in terms of political correctness.

Part of the problem is the rise of cultural relativism, particularly as it as it pertains to the assessment of ancient life and how it compares to modernity. Objective assessment is often difficult, in part the result of the romantic perceptions many people carry of pre-civilizational existence and the cynical take some have in regards to modern life. Factors contributing to this sentiment include the disruptive nature of technological advance on individuals and cultures, the failed totalitarian experiments of the 20th century, the two catastrophic world wars, the rise of apocalyptic threats, and the calamitous effects of modern society on the environment.

Driving this negative view of modern society even further is the prevailing pseudohistorical romanticization of primitive life evident in popular culture and perpetuated by a number of intellectuals. What the biblical "Garden of Eden" and Rousseauian "noble savage" myths often fail to take into account, however, is how nasty, brutish and short life used to be. A strong case can be made that social and technological progress happens for a reason, namely the steady improvement of conditions and the pursuit of a more dignified and fulfilling life for individuals. Humanity is a self-domesticating species. Virtually all episodes in which primitive cultures are influenced by more advanced ones represent precursors to the biological uplift of highly sapient nonhuman species.

Read the entire paper.

The struggle to make vegetarianism the new normal

Wow.

In my wildest dreams I would have never imagined the kind of negative response I got to my vegetarian rant. My attempt to stir debate was set aflame on account of my tone, which as Martin Striz correctly noted, "psychologically primed [my] readers for a certain kind of response by framing the discourse in a disparaging tone to begin with."

Clearly, I misjudged the severity of this 'disparaging tone,' while my efforts to infuse humour and levity into the piece clearly failed; I obviously need to work on that.

But one thing I certainly learned from this exercise is that people are hypersensitive to rather forceful attacks on their dietary habits and their choice to eat meat. I clearly hit a soft-spot in a way that enraged a number of my readers. I even lost a number of regulars -- a consequence I find most fascinating. While I'm sure that many of these individuals were upset at my attitude and my over-the-top effort to proselytize, I have to think that the subject matter had a lot to do with it as well.

As I learned from writing this article, one cannot yet stand on a soapbox and make the declaration that eating meat is wrong without the fear of severe reprisal (particularly in the way that I did!). This exercise was a very clear reminder to me that vegetarianism is still very fringe, as is the broader effort to advocate for animal rights.

In other words, the debate hasn't yet been normalized in our society. Arguing for an end to livestock today would be tantamount to arguing for same-sex marriage in the 19th Century.

Now, I've pissed off my share of readers over the years. I'm a polemicist and I wear that label like a badge. I'm used to all the negative feedback and ad hominem attacks. In fact, I consider a polemical article a failure if I get very little response; it means I didn't say anything of import, I didn't push any buttons.

But this last article, jeez did I ever hit a nerve.

And over what?

Meat.

It wasn't like I was saying we should abandon democracy or throw away the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I wasn't suggesting that we bomb Iraq or that we should be forced to wear clown suits from now on.

Nope, it was about meat.

I told my readers in very blunt terms that the practice of eating meat is unethical and that they should consider converting to a vegetarian diet. That message earned me the most abuse of any post I have ever written about anything.

Meat.

Yes, I used a big stick approach, but that was very deliberate. It was an effort to get attention.

One commenter suggested that I should have written a very polite article in which I carefully made my points. Sure, I could have done that -- but no one would have read it. Instead, with my sensationalistic approach I brought thousands of people to the article.

Did I change any minds? Well, maybe -- I know that at least one couple has converted to vegetarianism on account of my article. But my intention to change minds was indirect; what I really wanted to do was pass on the message that eating meat is very uncool -- and I think that accounts for a lot of the anger.

The in-your-face nature of the post was intended to upset and cajole. I wanted meat eaters to know what I think of their habits. I wanted them to know that there are people in our society who look at their eating choices with disgust and disdain. This is a very serious issue -- about as serious as it gets because we are talking about the welfare of living, breathing creatures (not to mention the environment).

Another reason for all the negative feedback is that a significant portion of my readership could care less about animal rights. They visit my site to read about transhumanism, science, futuristic technologies, the search for extraterrestrial life, and so on. The sudden shift to animal welfare and vegetarianism must have certainly seemed like a huge disconnect and a real turn-off.

But there is good reason for this; much of my transhumanist methodology is derived from non-anthropocentric personhood ethics. At its very core transhumanism is about the acknowledgment of worthwhile and morally valuable personhood space outside of Homo sapiens -- whether it be the personhood of advanced humans or more 'primitive' non-human animals.

Consequently, this ties directly into my futurist activism; I want to help create a future in which animals do not have to suffer to the degree that they do today. Sure, technology can and will help to make that happen, but today we have to use common sense food choices.

Now, in regards to the accusation that I'm a 'bigot' or intolerant of meat eaters, that's an interesting point. Bigotry, I suppose, is relative. Let's imagine for a moment that I had written an article titled 'Racists are bad people,' or 'Homophobes are bad people.' Do you think I would have received the same kind of negative response? Hardly. Aside from a few anachronistic and unenlightened perspectives I'd get a slew of comments saying, 'right on, brother.'

But the fact that I didn't get these sorts of supportive comments, aside from a small minority, indicates to me that our transition to a mostly meat-free society is a process still in its infancy.

And yes, this is not just my vision for the future, it's also an imperative and a prediction.

The ultimate goal is an end to livestock and to make vegetarianism the new normal (eventually we'll have lab grown meat at our disposal, but until then vegetarianism is a good short-term fix). How do we achieve this goal? Well, we can continue to pussy-foot around the issues and act like everything is okay, or we can raise a stink much like I did. I don't tolerate racism, homophobia, religious prejudice and sexual discrimination, nor do I tolerate speciesist meat-eating culture.

Yes, I realize that this perspective will turn off many of my readers, but for that I make no apologies.

And I don't believe I'm out of line with these sorts of comparisons. I assign high-moral worth to non-human animals. They are not our property to do with as we please. This is a crucial social issue as millions upon millions of animals suffer needlessly every year.

In closing, to those of you were offended by my rude and belligerent tone, please accept my apologies. For those readers who were angered by my message itself, please ask yourself what it is you're getting so upset about and contrast that with what I'm so upset about.

I would like to see less animal suffering, improvements to human health and a reduction in environmental degradation.

You want to eat meat.

Does this not seem disproportionate to you?

Meat eaters are bad people

That's right -- you heard me, bitch.

If you eat meat you're a bad person.

And you’re probably deluded too, desperately clinging to quasi-sensical rationalizations that are supposed to justify your cruel and filthy habit.

Yup, you guessed it -- I'm through being Mr. Nice Guy when it comes to dealing with meat eaters. I’ve passed a personal tipping point, so to speak, mostly on account of my having to suffer through far too many dinner conservations in which I'm exposed to ridiculous and unfounded arguments intended to support the practice of eating flesh.

Ultimately, when it comes right down to it there is no excuse for eating meat.

Let me repeat that.

There is no excuse for eating meat.

All justifications for doing so – including those rare arguments that actually manage to make sense – are weak to the core. There’s no possible excuse that outweighs the damage and suffering caused by consuming meat.

I would now like to take the time to debunk some of the more common fallacies I’m forced to listen to (and supposedly tolerate) on a regular basis:

Fallacy #1: “Humans evolved the capacity to eat meat, so it’s justified”

When a person tells me this I get the urge to smash tofu in their face.

This is the oft used appeal to nature. Advocates of this view – whether they realize it or not – are essentially suggesting that ‘might makes right’ – that because humans sit atop the food chain they can pretty much kill and eat whatever they want. I’ve even heard guys use this argument to uphold their sense of masculinity – as if eating defenseless animals who were killed by machines that dip them in electrified pools of water somehow affirms their manliness.

Funny, I have a different measure of what makes a man.

Looking at this argument another way, the appeal to nature asserts that evolved traits are inherently good. The line of thinking goes like this: Evolution is natural, and what is natural is good; and because humans evolved the capacity to eat and digest meat, the practice of eating meat must also be natural and subsequently good.

This is the naturalistic fallacy and it leads to all sorts of problems. Given this line of thinking we should also condone other human traits that came about through evolution, namely rape, murder, pedophilia and cannibalism. Obviously we’re not about to do this any time soon. We know very well that many people cannot be left to their own hard-wired devices; this is why we have self-corrective memes (i.e. ethics, laws, etc.) and why we need to have police and penal systems.

More to the point, however, is the acknowledgment that overriding our evolutionary baggage is part of the human mission. Having Darwinian processes guide our moral compass is sheer lunacy. Where is the morality in ‘survival of the fittest?’ Evolution may have helped us describe how we got here, but it most certainly won’t help us move forward as a compassionate species.

Fallacy #2: “Humans evolved the capacity to eat meat, so it’s a necessary part of a healthy diet”

Yeah, right.

That’s why heart disease is the leading cause of death; hundreds of thousands of people die prematurely each year because of too much saturated fat from meat and dairy products. It's no secret that meat consumption promotes heart disease, cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, and every other major degenerative disease. The Western meat-obsessed diet is a major contributor to the host of health problems currently endemic in our society.

Meanwhile back at the tempeh ranch, not only do humans fare very well without meat, they actually thrive without it.

A number of dietitians are now claiming that human physical performance peaks when people go off meat and other animal bi-products. Carl Lewis said his best years as a sprinter came after he transitioned to a vegan diet. Word of this is slowly getting out and an entire sub-culture has emerged around this revelation.

Philosopher Peter Singer hit the nail on the head when he said that if alternative means of survival exist, one ought to choose the option that does not cause unnecessary harm to animals. And as Charles Eisenstein has said, “It is just plain wrong to take another animal's life unnecessarily; it is bloody, brutal, and barbaric.”

Makes sense to me. We don't need meat to survive or to remain healthy. Consequently, we have no business raising and killing animals for food. The ongoing practice of doing so is pure extravagance.

Fallacy #3: “Being a vegetarian is too difficult and I’d never find anything to eat”

In other words, you’re lazy, unimaginative and you have the taste buds of a 5-year old.

Get over it. A chunk of meat does not reside at the center of the Universe. There are plenty of other options.

Which brings to mind another infuriating but common misconception – the twisted notion that vegetarians only eat vegetables. What nonsense. How about a good old fashioned plate of pasta and thick tomato sauce? Or a pizza covered in mushrooms and hot peppers? A plate of nachos and refried beans, anyone? How about meatless lasagne, stir-fries, curries, chillies and casseroles? Pancakes covered in syrup, sweet potato soup, and a fresh blueberry pie...

In fact, I’ve never eaten better since becoming a vegetarian five years ago. I now eat a diverse array of foods and I’m much more competent and knowledgeable in the kitchen.

Moreover, even the most meat-centric of us (my old self included) can find worthy substitutes. I often enjoy fake ham sandwich for lunch. For dinner I like to throw a veggie patty on the barbecue and slather it with HP and Tabasco sauce. I also enjoy burritos stuffed with simulated ground meat. Add the right spicing, condiments and marinade to this stuff and you're practically there.

Fallacy #4: “Taking the life of an animal isn’t cruel because they’re worthless, stupid and probably not even self-aware”

Again, patent nonsense. These are the lies that people tell themselves as they bite into a sirloin steak – the kind of re-assurance they need to convince themselves that what they’re doing is not evil.

It’s also a sign of our speciest tendencies. As humans, we don’t kill each other because we know that other humans do not want to die. The same should hold true for our relationship with non-human animals. They don't want to die either, but they're given no choice and no protection.

Indeed, the de-valuing of animals is a lie. Farm animals are remarkably intelligent and emotional. As professor of animal husbandry John Webster has said,

"People have assumed that intelligence is linked to the ability to suffer and that because animals have smaller brains they suffer less than humans. That is a pathetic piece of logic, sentient animals have the capacity to experience pleasure and are motivated to seek it, you only have to watch how cows and lambs both seek and enjoy pleasure when they lie with their heads raised to the sun on a perfect English summer's day. Just like humans."

Yes, animals deserve an experiential life free from suffering and torment. We, as the dominant species on the planet, have to pay particular attention to their needs.

Biologist Marc Bekoff has noted, "When animals are seen as automatons with no emotions, it is easy to treat them as mere property with which humans can do as they please." Exactly -- and we need to move away from this sort of parochial thinking as quickly as possible.

Along these lines I highly recommend the book, The Pig Who Sang to the Moon: The Emotional World of Farm Animals by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson.

Fallacy #5: “Livestock aren’t treated poorly”

People who make this claim are either terribly misinformed or just plain ignorant. The reality is that modern farming practices are an absolute travesty.

Pigs are typically kept in stalls so small and narrow that they can never turn around or rest properly. Many develop respiratory problems and neurotic coping behaviors such as repetitive bar biting and sham chewing (chewing nothing). Chickens and turkeys are often packed twenty to a cage and pumped with antibiotics. Their beaks have to be clipped to prevent them from pecking at one another. And as for cows, well, read this excerpt from an April 2001 Washington Post article which describes typical slaughterplant conditions:

The cattle were supposed to be dead before they got to Moreno. But too often they weren't.

They blink. They make noises, he said softly. The head moves, the eyes are wide and looking around. Still Moreno would cut. On bad days, he says, dozens of animals reached his station clearly alive and conscious. Some would survive as far as the tail cutter, the belly ripper, the hide puller. They die, said Moreno, piece by piece...

"In plants all over the United States, this happens on a daily basis," said Lester Friedlander, a veterinarian and formerly chief government inspector at a Pennsylvania hamburger plant. "I've seen it happen. And I've talked to other veterinarians. They feel it's out of control."

I could go on and on, but I'm sure you're getting the point and you'd probably get more by reading other accounts of how pigs, cows, chickens and other farm animals are mistreated. I also recommend the book, Slaughterhouse: The Shocking Story of Greed, Neglect, And Inhumane Treatment Inside the U.S. Meat Industry by Gail A. Eisnitz.

Fallacy #6: “Eating meat isn’t that bad for the environment”

Guess again. Raising meat is environmentally nasty and an inconvenient truth.

Given the climate change hysteria currently gripping the planet, one would think that maintaining hordes of livestock would be a hot-button social and political issue. But it’s not. That would be too inconvenient. The ongoing practice of raising animals for food is being ignored as a subset to the larger environmental catastrophe currently in effect.

Animal protein, for example, requires tremendous expenditures of fossil-fuel energy—eight times as much as for the same amount of plant protein. The average meat consuming diet burns the equivalent of a gallon of gas per day. All the livestock in the U.S. consumes five times as much grain as its human population. Americans are outnumbered by their farm animals by a ratio of 25 to 1.

In terms of land use, one-sixth an acre of land can feed a vegetarian for a year, while three acres are required to provide the grain needed to raise a year's worth of meat for the average meat-eater.

The toll on water resources is just as bad. Grain-fed livestock consume 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food they produce; this compares to 2,000 liters required for soybeans. The meat industry accounts for nearly half of the water consumption in the U.S. – 2,500 gallons per pound of beef compared to 25 gallons per pound of wheat.

And what goes in must come out; 1.6 million tons of manure gets sent back into the environment every year in the U.S. In addition to this, residues of antibiotics and synthetic hormones are increasingly showing up in municipal water supplies.

And I have only scratched the surface.

So, as you’re heading off in your hybrid car to get solar panels for your home, just remember that as a meat eater you’re only being partly environmentally conscious.

Fallacy #7: “Eating meat is my personal choice, and since I respect your desire not to eat animals, I would appreciate your respecting my preference”

Sorry, I will do no such thing.

As Colleen Patrick-Goudreau has retorted, "The problem with this justification is that it assumes there is no victim, no other. It implies that the meat-eater’s desires, traditions, culture, or taste buds are superior to anything — or anyone — else and that because of this, he or she is absolved from the harm eating meat causes."

Remember, this is not about you.

The truth hurts

As for me personally, I do not profess to have achieved any semblance of moral perfection. You don’t need to remind me of my hypocrisies and inconsistencies; I am very much aware of them and I am my own worst critic. I am not vegan, for example, but I hope to transition to that diet eventually.

But at least I’m trying; I'm making an effort to live a life in which I mete out as little suffering as possible to other living creatures. I'm also trying to reduce my global footprint. And if that means giving up meat, which I used to eat with great delight, then so be it.

And yes, I’m on my high-horse now -- but I’m sincerely trying to make a difference. If my tone pissed you off then I succeeded in my goal. I’m deliberately trying to cajole you so you'll reconsider your eating habits.

And in my own naive way I’m hoping that some of you will now actually consider a vegetarian diet.

William Crawley interviews Peter Singer

Why BC was right to seize Jehovah's Witnesses babies

There is a high-profile case currently making news in Canada involving a Jehovah's Witnesses family whose three infants were seized by the government of British Columbia so that they could be given potentially life saving blood transfusions. The babies are three of four surviving sextuplets born in early January. The case raises a number of issues, including the limits to religious freedoms, the obligations of parents and the state, and the right to refuse medical treatment.

It is my opinion that the BC government acted appropriately and with complete justification; they were forced to act a) as a result of the parents' gross negligence -- religiously influenced or otherwise, and b) on behalf of the infants who were in need of state protection.

At a peripheral level, the issue is of significance to the therapy versus enhancement debate. Given changing conceptions of normal human functioning and health, it is an open question as to whether future interventions (such as the elimination of genetic disorders) should become mandatory, or if parents should be given the option to refuse treatment.

Before I get into my analysis, however, here is a run-down of what has transpired in BC thus far:

The events

Canada's first sextuplets were born in early January and that was in and of itself big news. The babies, four boys and two girls, were delivered after only 25 to 26 weeks of gestation -- one naturally and the rest via Caesarean -- and each weighed less than 2 pounds each.

They were smaller than an adult hand and were immediately placed in intensive care where they were listed under fair condition. Their vital signs were stable and within normal limits, but because they were born so premature, they were initially given an 80% probability of surviving. Preemies have underdeveloped organs and immune systems which make them more vulnerable to infection.

One baby died days after birth, and then another in the following weeks. The surviving four babies were clinging to life.

The sextuplets were born to Jehovah's Witnesses, a Protestant Christian sect that forbids blood transfusions and organ transplants. It is not uncommon for preemies to undergo blood transfusions; they tend to suffer from low hemoglobin and experience blood loss as a consequence of frequent blood tests.

Instead, the parents insisted on alternative measures including careful attention to minimal blood sampling, clinical acceptance of lower hemoglobin levels, use of erythropoietin and iron to stimulate natural production of red blood cells and other medical procedures.

Concerned about the surviving infants, the provincial government began to scramble and mobilize for more drastic action. On 29-January, under Section 29 of the "Child, Family and Community Service Act," and with the support of the Supreme Court, the government took temporary custody of one infant to allow for what was deemed an essential blood transfusion.

On the next day the Ministry of Children and Family Development asked the parents for permission to perform a blood transfusion on a second infant, but they received no response. The second child was taken into protective custody and given a blood transfusion. According to the father, he "could not bear to be at the hospital when they were violating [his] little girl." He complained that it was unfair of the ministry to label them as unfit because they "choose alternative medical treatments to blood transfusions."

Eventually the third baby was taken to the hospital, with the fourth remaining under the parents' guardianship. The Vancouver parents are now in a legal battle with the province, claiming the government violated their religious freedoms.

Religious freedoms

This case is an excellent example of why there needs to be a clear delineation between the church and state. Religious injunctions often contribute to poor and ill informed decisions. The state, on the other hand, can remain impartial and perform due diligence on matters of religious consequence. It is for this reason that I have also argued for the separation of church and bioethics.

The parents, who are clearly very happy to be parents and who claim to be looking out for their children's best interests, are refusing to allow treatment on nonsensical grounds. Scriptural or aesthetic justifications that inhibit life saving interventions are arbitrary and negligent at best (I say arbitrary because the mother utilized fertility treatments to help her get pregnant).

In our liberal democracies, the right to practice religion is largely a policy of tolerance. Citizens are given the benefit of the doubt in free societies to worship as they see fit. But it is a freedom that is endured so long as the social contract is maintained. One cannot break the law and decry that their religious freedoms have been violated. It is for this very reason, for example, that Sharia law will not be introduced in Canada despite pressure to do so.

The BC government did what they needed to do. Moreover, it is their responsibility to intervene in cases such as these. This is why we have governments. The parents made an extremely poor and dangerous decision on behalf of their children who were in no position to offer protest or defend themselves.

Parental obligations

But where do we draw the line? Is it merely life saving interventions that need to be enforced? Will enhancement technologies change this situation?

Like blood transfusions, future technologies will change expectations about what can and should be done. Access to genetic technologies, for example, may one day result in mandatory therapies that eliminate genetic disorders. This practice may become so standard and accepted that failure to do so may eventually be considered abusive.

There's the further risk that children born with preventable conditions will sue their parents for failing to intervene when they could have done so.

Consequently, the state will likely establish a minimum set of mandatory therapies. Creating such a list will not be easy, as there will forever be disagreement as to what constitutes a 'disorder' and how to discern the line between therapy and enhancement. This will become all the more complicated when traits that come about via enhancement start to normalize to the point where the absence of such endowments prevent an individual from partaking in society in the same way that the lack of an education and illiteracy does today.

These are not easy decisions, but neither is the choice to become a parent. Prospective parents must realize that the decision to have children comes with a requisite set of obligations. They need to ensure as is most reasonably possible that their children be given all the benefits that health technologies can bring so that they may live healthy, full, and open-ended lives.

The right to decline treatment

This case also raises the issue of the 'right' to decline treatment. The Jehovah's Witnesses parents, who were acting on behalf of their infants, claimed not only that their religious freedoms had been violated, but that they were unjustifiably prevented from using alternative therapies.

There are two things to consider here.

First, with two babies already dead and another 4 clinging to life, the decision to seize the children and force blood transfusions was not made lightly. The doctors chose to err on the side of caution as failure to act could have resulted in their deaths. Severe cases are not a time to experiment with alternative therapies. Moreover, aside from hurt religious sensibilities, the blood transfusions did not cause any harm.

The second issue is more complex as it deals with informed consent and the right to refuse treatment. As a supporter of voluntary euthanasia and alternative medicines, I believe that citizens deserve the right to manage their health in the best way they see fit (self-injury is a related issue, but one that falls outside the bounds of this particular post). Consequently, an adult Jehovah's Witness has the right to refuse a blood transfusion -- even if it is a foolish decision.

As for children, society is set-up such that parents make critical decisions on their behalf until they reach the age of consent. In this sense, children are a special class of citizens. They don't have the full spectrum of privileges that adults have -- for example they cannot vote or drink alcohol.

At the same time children also have special protections. The state, in conjunction with children's aid societies, are within their bounds to take a child into protective custody when the parents have been declared unfit. Parents have the authority to make decisions for their kids by default, but that privilege can be taken away from them when necessary.

In the case of the BC sextuplets, the decision to withhold treatment was tantamount to negligence and even abuse. Had the babies died as a consequence of insufficient treatment, the province would have been within their bounds to charge the parents with child abuse causing death and possibly even homicide. The rationale behind the parents' inaction makes no difference, whether it be instigated by religion, mental illness, or alcohol.

Closing notes

I am certain that the parents' decision to withhold treatment was an extremely difficult one and that this is a very trying time for them. It may take some time before they achieve any sense of normalcy again. They will have deal with the fact that their children were given blood transfusions and move on. I certainly hope that they will not look at their infants as being any less special. Moreover, I hope that their community will not shun them out like they have done to others in similar cases.

I also hope that when all is said and done that the parents will look back one day and be grateful that action was taken to save the lives of their children.

Latest podcast available

My latest audiocast has been posted here. You can subscribe to this feed.

In this episode I ask the question: when did intelligence first emerge in the Universe? I also discuss the stupidity of Star Trek's Prime Directive, bald women in science fiction, and mind-controlling parasites.