Consider: Why the Lobster?

Another topic that was brought up in class was the idea of reflex vs. choice. Reflex is defined as an involuntary and nearly instantaneous movement in response to a stimulus (a stimulus being an internal or external change in environment). Choice is defined as the mental process of thinking involved with the process of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one option. Those definitions definitely support the idea of reflex over choice. I think that is a valid claim. The lobster was just put in a boiling pot of water, I'm pretty sure it's not enjoyable for them. However, I also don't feel that reflex is the only explanation. Reflex really can't explain why a lobster who doesn't attack other lobsters in the wild, starts attacking them in captivity. I think in this case its more of a behavior, or fear specifically. It is in an unknown habitat, with people and tons of lobsters around. That would be stressful and fearful to me as well. The question then arises, are behaviors comparable or parallel to feelings. It was stated in the footnote on page 252 that many scientists feel behaviors are completely different that feelings. I don't find this to be true at all. Behaviors are viewable feelings. If someone is sad, you can see it in their face. They aren't smiling, usually slouched down, etc. Same with pain. Vet's recognize when animals are sick by their outward appearance and stance. When an animal is hunched over or laying around unlike normal, we see this behavior as a sign of what they are feeling. When our behaviors are so linked to feelings, how can anyone say other creatures have no feelings mere behaviors. This then asks a question in my head, how much can you trust scientists who make our medicines or design our equipment. Animal testing is another big problem in this world. Everyone is under the impression that animal testing is the only option, when really animal testing is pretty awful and we have way better options that are not being put to good use. And beyond that 90% of all drugs that pass animal testing turn out harmful for humans. Doesn't sound very reliable to me. People are so narrow minded. It really shows when we express our "superiority" over other creatures. Just because we experience something, people assume animals can't comprehend or learn. Animals are so much smarter than us. They have natural instincts on a daily basis and we just don't. Throw us in a wild vs a domesticated cat. Cat wins. Animals can survive on their own. They don't need us, we need them and therefore believe they need us. Apple trees don't need humans to live, we just feel they do because everything evolves around us. Rather disgusting when you think about it. What are your views on whether its reflex vs choice? Do you think behaviors are linked to feelings?

The rest below is my overall thought on what was said in class on Tuesday:

Aside from the possibility that lobster is tastier when cooked alive, why is the lobster treated differently than many of the other animals we choose to eat. We don't boil a chicken alive or even a fish. I think many people would have a bigger problem with boiling a chicken than say the lobster or a fish. Why is that? Why should the lobster be treated differently than a chicken or a cow or a pig, etc. Is it our disconnect with nature, especially the ocean. Chickens are something we see quite regularly. Is it because we have a better connection with chickens than lobsters that is more morally wrong to cook a chicken alive than a lobster. While many disagreed with livestock being treated better than many think it is true. Yes, you always hear about the worst situations but good farmers want their products to be of good quality. If their cattle are stressed, their meat is tough and not juicy which doesn't sell well and will get a lower grade rating. This all comes down to less profit, maybe even the loss of money. If anyone has taken an animal science class, especially the meat science class, they would understand a whole lot more what is involved. Butterball for example was in the news lately. Everyone raged about it, myself included. I'm sure many families didn't buy butterball turkeys for their Thanksgiving or Christmas celebrations because of this. And more power to you, but you must understand not every place is like this. Some places are even worse than butterball, but some places treat their livestock better than some treat their dogs. You find what you seek. If you look for negativity, you find negativity and the same for positive aspects. I feel awful for all those animals that are killed for us to eat, it is rather disgusting and saddening, but I hope the evil people in these companies are eliminated. People that think its funny or even don't show any empathy towards animals that they slaughter are disgusting. While I could never do anything to hurt an animal or any creature at that, I understand people need to eat. We need to use our minds for better things. We need to create better ways of going about our normal buisness

I think it is very important that we are grateful for what is put on this planet for us. Like what Glazebrook wrote in her article, when was the last time you touched a tree, the same should be for thanking what was lost for us to eat. The Native Americans that roamed this planet freely before the settlers came did kill many buffalo by driving them off cliffs. I have visited one of the cliffs personally. As for them being wasteful, I think that is ridiculous. They had whole villages to feed, not just a single family. Ten buffalo wouldn't even feed a few dorms on the PSU campus. Another thing that was brought up was poisoning. If anyone has worked at a vet office before, they might have seen an animal come in that was poised. People rush in with their dogs and cats who are bleeding from every opening on their body. This is horrific. What person would do this? Why is it OK to poison a rat but as soon as you get to a dog or cat the whole world shuts down. This all links back to what people know. Yes, scientists know what happens, but the general public is completely oblivious. I am a vet student and I never knew what rat poison did until I started studying the topic. Yes all this information is out there, but it's not something we look for. It's not in our nature (or lack there of) to know what pain and suffering we give to other living creatures. I am always amazed at what we do to animals that is perfectly fine but if done to a person, well that person would be sentenced to death. Even, excuse my bad word choice, "simple" things like discipline is looked at completely different. Telling a dog no and smacking it is perfectly fine, even if it does whimper and limp. Smacking a child will make you a child abuser. I have no empathy for this kind of thing. You hit your dog to me thats like hitting your child and should be punished the same way. All that moral obligation is complete bull. If we have any morals we would treat all living things equally.