Sunday, May 31, 2015

The Power Steer

The essay, "Power Steer" by Michael Follan really has made me look at meat in way that I didn't expect to. When reading a essay on how beef is processed basically from the day the calf was born into world and how it meets its end, I thought I would be deterred from beef, but I was wrong. When I got to know the intricacies on how the calf was raised, how they were forced to feed on a corn diet that was not suitable to their stomachs and how much antibiotics are pumped into them, I wasn't really surprised. I felt even though the methods were cruel, they were necessary in order for beef to priced the way it is, and not much will change since the demand for beef is only going to get higher. I surprisingly felt even more comfortable eating meat now since I know the process, which does not have that much of an effect on my feelings. I believe the cattle were put down in a very quick and humane matter. Their living conditions are bad, but I don't their are many other ways to maximize profit, so the practice won't change that much, so I made my resolve, and found it to be acceptable.

Redwall, animals in storytelling

Does anyone remember this cartoon from the 90's-early 2000's:

Yes the epic 13 episode PBS children series, Redwall. Following the tale told by Brian Jacques, this is a tale of the orphaned mouse Matthias, trying to fufill his destiny to become a warrior and protect his home, Redwall Abby, from the infamous rat, Kluny the Scourge. Not to be confused with the modern celebrity rat, Cloony the George:

(J.K Cloony, you're awesome)

The reason I bring back this trip down memory lane that makes us feel like ancient fossils is because Redwall is a perfect example of animals being used as stereotypes and as symbols for various lessons for children in an aspect that anyone of any age groups can understand. How may you ask? Well I'm going to pretend you asked and gladly answer. We see some of the most basic of story plot tropes ever to exist through Redwall: the battle of good versus evil. Evil is represented by:

Yep Cluny the Scourge, who in a world where rodents are the dominate and smartest species, of course the rat is going to be the bad guy. Let's ignore the fact that they're basically just bigger, stronger, and arguably smarter versions of mice, rats tend to be viewed as evil and disgusting, so let's just go with it alright? And let's not forget our hero:

Matthias the mouse. OH MY GRED, HE'S SO ADORABLE!!!!!!!!! Ahem, okay back to my main point. We go with the David and Goliath scenario, where young Matthias is supposed to face off and destroy the God knows how old evil fiend that is Cluny the Geor....Scourge.

It is not an unusual thing to see in children stories who have animals as their main focus. Usually animals we associate with evil are evil and good are good. This has been a sort of unofficial rule of thumb. It's a pattern I believe, that is reflective of a basic human desire: even the tiny can be mighty, and nothing is impossible no matter who you are, blah blah blah.

Children are very impressionable little beasts (don't deny it, they can be right evil devils when cranky or bored) and animals have always been the perfect way for parents to help show them what is good and what is bad, whether they want their kids to be clever like the fox, courageous like the tigers (lions are little female dogs in comparison, no bias at all), wise as an owl, animals have and almost definitely will always be, symbols of how humanity sees the rotten yet beautiful world we live in.

I've been made conscious about my meat-eating.

(Disclaimer: This post is a bit belated.)

After watching the film, Behind the Mask, I was actually made hesitant toward eating meat. While I have not completely abstained from meat, I do not eat with every meal as I used to and I will see the vegetarian dishes/alternatives as viable options. Despite some of the weaker arguments and persuasive attempts in the film (i.e. using Goldfinger's music), the employment of the extremely graphic and intimate videos of animal testing and treatment successfully breached my comfort and complacency in eating meat. Just knowing that much animal testing is done in vain and lacks the endorsement of doctors or statisticians gives a sickening air to the thought of humanity as a whole. Isolating the mere fact that the data collected through the testing goes unused that just exemplifies a mass effect of sadism that I can honestly say I was completely unaware of. At the moment, meat has not been completely cut from diet, but it has been significantly reduced after witnessing how much of my food is derived from pain of such a degree.

Animal Cruelty

Posted above is a video I watched, or a video similar to what I watched in high school. This relates to what we read about last week and I'm hoping this is still relevant since I forgot to post my blog for last week.
I thought this was important because it shows the stages in how baby chicks are being misused and abused by multiple sorting machines, lasers, and forced onto conveyer belts. This relates to last weeks assignment because we were reading about the  horrible living situations in which farm animals are forced into. Anywhere from debeaking through blow torches to pigs eating each others tails because the lack or space for them to turn around.

Friday, May 29, 2015

Grief, Sadness, and the Bones of Elephants

The essay Greif, Sadness, and the Bones of Elephants by Masson and McCArthy is about animal's feeling that is very similar to humans'. They have four sections in their essay named 'Mourning Lost Love', 'Loneliness', 'Imprisonment', and 'Depression and Learned Helplesness'. In these four sections, the author discuss how animals have relevant feelings of that humans feel. They say that when animals love someone, no matter if it's their mate, children, or just any other animals from another species, they build a bond that has strong feelings and is unbreakable. Masson and McCarthy prove their claim by supporting their thesis by many animal stories where animals are shown proving their true feelings of their loved ones.

These stories, included in the essay by Masson and McCarthy, were of Falcons, Elephants, sea creatures, lions, horses, Tigers, and many other animals. These animals are used in the essay to prove that animals, no matter what species they are, can fall in love with another living creature. The authors relate the animals' love to human's love, emotion and affection to prove that we are all the same inside (and by that I mean that our feelings relate to one another) no matter how different we may appear on the outside.

I really liked this essay and somehow made a really strong connection to the animals and their relationship. I always knew that all living creatures had feelings and such, but I never thought that it was so strong that they could tell of their loved ones even by their bones, like the elephants can. I was really touched by this essay and was encouraged to love the animals even more now.


Why Are Elephants Acting Up?

Why is it that elephants are increasingly engaging in aggressive behavior towards humans as well as other animals? Aggression is usually an instinctive response due to discomfort or feeling threatened.  Perhaps this is explains why elephants are attacking humans more than ever before. I believe that we, humans, are threatening the elephants' survival as a species, thereby leading to their aggressive behavior. If no one were threatening them, then they wouldn't feel the need to retaliate and protect themselves. Elephants are among one of the smartest species of animals on this planet and I believe this is a key factor to why they are engaging in such behavior. The elephants have began to realize that humans are threatening their survival through poaching and the destruction of their environment. They're effort to protect their environment in which they live and reproduce is affecting their survival, which has sparked them to become very sensitive to when they feel a human presence. Elephants have made a correlation between humans and their survival, sparking their instinct to protect themselves at all costs. The only way we can stop this from happening is by giving elephants, and other animals the space they need to thrive as a species.

Animals in Disney Movies and in Real Life

As I was watching Frans De Waal’s video, Moral Behavior in Animals, in class today, I was a bit surprised to see the Chimpanzee encouraged his friend to help pull the box. I was taken aback by how intelligent they were. They showed empathy for each other and helped each other out. I have always known that animals have feelings and thoughts, but I never thought they would have specifically empathy or compassion for each other. It made me realize how similar animals are to human. Granted, they are not as intelligent as us, but that is the only thing they lack. It also made me wonder if animals think the same way we do. At the same time, I am also wondering if the animals in the wild have a life similar to what was portrayed in all those Disney movies, such as the Lion King and Nemo. The only difference I see about the life between humans and the animals portrayed in those Disney movies is the physical setting and life style. The animals act and live the same way humans would have if we still live in the wild. 

Are the Elephants Fighting Back?

In the article "Elephant Crack Up" by Charles Siebert it is becoming more evident that elephants are becoming more aggressive, especially towards humans. Now the question arises as to why violent behavior now? Humans have always known elephants to be patient and intelligent creatures that were neutral to our existence. But now as time goes on it seems they have picked up a new attitude. Is it possible that elephants have learned from humans? It was also pointed out that elephants have started to be more aggressive towards each other as well. Animal advocates are concerned and want to find  the cause of the elephants new practice of violent acts.

Okay now that I have given you the facts from Siebert's article "Elephant Crack Up" I want to give you all my hypothesis on what I think the elephants conduct means. After reading the article something struck me as odd. It is only been recently that elephants have been more aggressive. All I could ask myself is why? Why would such loving and cultured animals want to hurt us, or even other elephants? I began to consider about how extremely intelligent elephants are how they have amazing memories and how they deeply they care for their family. But none that would matter if they were angry; angry that their family has been poached and killed. Suffering from heartbreak of their fallen family elephants are confused and hurt. During this time I think it is possible they have watched humans behavior. Humans needlessly hunt and kill with no remorse. Perhaps elephants watch our style of living and see how much power we have by being aggressive. This is a psychological theory of learned behavior over time. Once any animal (including us) starts to become angry, it eats at us. We live everyday taking what we can. This is human nature, but I think we are not the only ones that cope this way. I believe that elephants could have learned our behavior and violent demeanors. Maybe this is giving humans way too much credit but I am guessing that elephants see the way we treat the world and because they are already hurt that poachers have killed their loved ones, they just let the more animalistic traits come through. We all know that elephants are not dangerous animals. I think they have just not had the best role models.

Elephants, gentle giants or giant danger?

Yesterdays discussion topic was about elephants attacking humans, and why that might be. For me, it boils down to humans taking over land talking away their homes, and peaceful environment. Now they are isolated to lands where people can take safari adventures and drive around constantly looking at you. I'm sure humans wouldn't like that either. Perhaps that could be a reason for their aggression. Maybe it would be misread, and the elephant is trying to be playful, but a language barrier prevents us from finding out. I think this video, shows the irritation when there are constantly encroached my humans, the amount of cars passing by is quite a bit. I had an experience like this traveling through a forest in India one evening, the lights of all the cars passing my might have angered its peaceful slumber so it charged to the road. I think instead of blaming elephants for attacking people, blame the cause which are humans.

Ethics Pt. 4

Welcome to the fourth and final part of my Ethics series. Throughout the series, we have discovered the paradox that life is good, but it is necessary to consume other living things to survive, i.e. plants and animals etc.

We have also identified the bridging empathy that sensible beings can cross over, emotion. On a lesser level there is also the central nervous system, which would involve pain and pleasure which would widen the breath and scope of the animal species we can relate to.

Thus I believe that it is not necessarily death for the sake of consumption and the continuance of life that we are trying to stop, but the cruelty that comes along with it. Cruelty is a festering sore that can secrete its venomous fluids out into other arenas of our life. Under the umbrella of this logic, we should eat meat before we drink milk or eat eggs, because the suffering is greatest for the animals like hens and dairy cows that live longer under worse conditions for the sake of continual production. How we stop the cruelty is too large of a question to be tackled at this moment in time. This question leaves the realm of philosophy and enters the realm of practicality that requires years of research, experience and passion.

Hope anyone who is reading this enjoyed my pieces, have a great life.



On Angela Carter, Feminism, and Fantasy/SF

I found this interview with Kelly Link (who is an editor and fantasy author) on Angela Carter, whose stories we're reading for Monday.  It introduces some important questions/topics -- like the feminist potential of fairy tales, and the potential of sf more broadly to imagine radical worlds -- and it even might give you some ideas for summer reading! :)

Interview with Kelly Link on Angela Carter

Tuesday, May 26, 2015


    Take a good look at this picture. Just as I am, you're probably all thinking "oh jeez, are those dogs spoiled!" Yeah...
      I find the whole doggies-wearing-dog-turtle-necks-while-riding-in-a-dog-stroller thing kind of ridiculous. I think it's bizarre that we humans either A) cherish and spoil animals as one of us, or B) disregard the importance of their being all together. The difference between these two types of human-animal interactions is unfathomable. It doesn't make sense to me that on one hand, humans may sleep with their pets in their own bed, talk to them as if they were one of their children, dress them in extravagant clothing, or send them to fancy pet hotels; and on the other hand, may slaughter animals with their own two hands, eat their flesh, or wear their fur on their back. I often wonder if any human working in a slaughter house goes home at the end of the day and pets their dog on the sofa. 
      The difference between the two types of human-animal interaction is the type of animal. Pets (such as cats or dogs) are seen as clean, friendly, comforting companions. Pigs, cattle, poultry and fish on the other hand, are simply seen as resources. Just as discussed in lecture and in some of the readings, pets are often extremely  anthropomorphized, as proven by this picture. Although we humans interact with different species of animals in completely opposing ways, it's all done selfishly. We slaughter animals to benefit ourselves; we enjoy eating their flesh and wearing their skin. Additionally, we have pets to also benefit ourselves. James A. Serpell notes in his essay, Anthropomorphism and Anthropomorphic Selection--Beyond the "Cute Response," that humans having pets is proven to "enhance their own health and quality of life" (88). I find it interesting that we use animals in multiple differing ways, and it's all for our own fulfillment and pleasure. 

Understanding Animals

"Heartography" is a new artistic and scientific project that uses heart rate to determine emotional states such as joy or fear in living beings - humans as well as animals. Grizzler is a dog used in this experiment  - whenever his heart rate reaches a specific level of magnitude, the camera attached to his collarbone, takes pictures of his surroundings. This project is very interesting in that apart from being compelling artistically,  I think it will also help us understand our pets better, their emotions and feelings and their general perception of the world.
 Cooper the cat is the first cat-photographer who takes pictures of almost everything he sees and experiences in his everyday life. And his photographs are amazing because they really are authentic, in the sense that we can see what the world is like from a cat's point of view. You can even purchase Cooper's full color photo book or framed limited edition copies of his original photographs, complete with his "paw-tograph" signature on the back:
 It's important to emphasize that a portion of proceeds from each sold print is donated to PAWS: Progressive Animal Welfare Society, a Washington State organization that focuses on helping animals and promoting respect and compassion for animals' lives:

  "PAWS is a champion for animals—rehabilitating injured and orphaned wildlife, sheltering and adopting homeless cats and dogs, and educating people to make a better world for animals and people. "  Because animals can not speak for themselves. 

Why test products for people on animal's skin when we can use people skin?

Fans of Vsauce 2 rejoice! A new video is out!
Man did this one get me thinking. For those of you that don't know, V-sauce 2 is a channel on youtube featuring a show called mind blow, where the host goes over various emerging technologies and their progress. In this video the 3d printed skin segment (about 18 seconds in) really got me thinking about the video we saw in class, and the various problems with animal testing. We have the ability to test products on actual human skin now, and yet I fear we'll keep using animal testing because companies won't find changing their methods cost effective. As the animal emancipation video described, it is a 9 to 5 job, and the testing facilities will just keep doing what they do until they're told otherwise. I'm sure the printed skin has its problems, but it has got to be more accurate than animal testing. Hopefully more useful technology will come up in the future to replace old and barbaric practices, and hopefully when they do, people will actually decide to use them.

here are the links V-Sauce provides to the articles about the printed skin
First of all, sorry for the curse words! But I just wanted to go with the vegan comics thing and I thought this one reminded me of the article we broke down in section last thursday by Jim Mason and Mary Finelli titled "Brave New Farm?". It I think this comic touches on two separate issues. One is that we treat non-human sentients differently than we treat humans. Not many people think about the fact that we don't really need milk after we are babies, although there are many debates supporting the need for milk drinking well into adulthood. This article also touches on the topic of marketing and using a non-human for our wants without regard to the animal and the suffering involved with that. By slaughtering the animals their misery is at the very least prolonged, although I personally don't agree with the slaughtering of animals. But by keeping the cow alive for it's milk it's suffering is prolonged and then when we are done, we kill them anyway. Thought: what about bottling human milk for consumption? Not cool from a cow, not cool from a human.

Monday, May 25, 2015

Do you want human skin tie to match that coat?

  Many who see this comic are possibly disturbed by the rather inhuman message this comic sends to the audience. Never can A NORMAL HUMAN BEING IN THEIR RIGHT MIND ever consider making products out of their own kin. Just thinking about this makes your stomach turn and your mind very nauseous. So what does the humankind to avoid this problem? They clear their conscious buy making products out of animals instead.

But is there really a difference between human and animal products?

 Jim Carrey answer this question in his famous movie," Ace Ventura" when he grabs the "monopoly guy" and wears him as if he was wearing a fox fur scarf. The reason he does this is because the lady who is wearing the fox fur tells him to try and enjoy the fruits of nature. Of course Ace Ventura makes a point that we as humans are part of this," fruits of nature." Although the scene is rather amusing, it sends an ultimate messages that says; if you can wear fox fur, might as well wear human skin because both acts are just as inhumane.

The reason why both acts are inhumane is because both animals and humans come from nature. The only reason Humans justify the act of using animal based products is that they don't communicate, and if they don't communicate they don't have a conscious. But this is all misjudgment because animals definitely have a conscious and definitely communicate with us humans, just not with words.

I am attaching the link to the ACE VENTURA: WHEN NATURE CALLS  scene below:

Factory Farming and Humane Bacon

In my Anthropology class, I had a reading titled "Hogs, Antibiotics, and the Industrial Environments of Postwar Agriculture" by Mark R. Finlay. According to Finlay, antibiotics’ role in creating indoor confined feeding operations was revolutionary during the time. Researchers found in the late 1940s what came to be known as the “antibiotic growth effect.” Antibiotic feeding also reduced disease among animals, which supported the idea for indoor confined feeding operations. “Although crowding animals together naturally increased their susceptibility to disease, scientists understood that antibiotics could overcome that natural burden. Antibiotics also played a role, challenging the notion that pastures were naturally more healthful environments than confined hog lots” (Finlay). In addition, manipulation of the swine diet enabled farmers to created fortified feeds with antibiotics and vitamins. An NPR article titled "'Tales' of Pig Intelligence, Factory Farming and Humane Bacon" mentions what industrial pigs are fed. It reveals: "It's pretty ugly. The basic ration is corn or soy. Rendered pig meat is also added, making them cannibals. Another addition to feed is something called "feather meal," which is what it sounds like; it's the feathers that come from chicken and turkey slaughterhouses. They can be fed chicken manure, the litter of the floor of chicken houses because manure has protein it. So there are all sorts of things that are quite frightening in the diet of an industrial pig."

Sunday, May 24, 2015

Plutarch-"The Eating of Flesh"

Plutarch, in his extract titled, “The Eating of Flesh”, argues that the production and consumption of meat in humans is corrupt. 
Plutarch conveys this overall idea through his powerful diction when describing the consumption of meat in his extract.  He calls meals containing meat “courses of ghastly corpses and ghosts”(154).  “Corpses” and “ghosts” are often used to describe dead humans, and when Plutarch uses this language for meals containing animal meat, he places non-human animals in the same category as human animals, giving non-human animals the same value as humans.
Furthermore, Plutarch does not understand how a human’s “sight could endure the blood of the slaughtered, flayed, and mangled bodies”(154).  Plutarch uses the grotesque imagery of dead animals to show the cruelty involved in the process of the preparation of meat, further emphasizing the corruption of the process.
Eating meat, according the “Eating of Flesh” is a “savage and intemperate habit” that is a gateway for even more “bloodshed and destruction”(157) in society.  The process of killing the animal is violent, barbaric and unnecessary, according to the author.  Over time, it has become the norm for people to eat meat.  Humans have become unfazed by the harsh reality of the cooked pieces of flesh laying on the plates in front of them, so much so that they no longer see the animal, only the food.  Humans have become ignorant of the fact that their food was once a living, breathing being, just like them.  They tend to forget what violence and savagery was involved in the making of their meals.  Because they no longer view their meals for what they are, which is death, they have grown accustomed to the violence and gore.  This, suggested by Plutarch, has led to further bloodshed outside of the meal, not only with animals, but amongst man as well.

Animal ExMperimentation, Modern Holocaust

What's this thing? A fuzzy wuzzy little mouse? Or is it nothing more than a laboratory test subject? Many people would agree with the latter. Animal testing is a huge business, with animals from dogs, cats, mice and everything in between, all being bred and sold, for experimentation in laboratories around the world.

These subjects are used for cosmetic, pharmaceutical, and even social research, oftentimes with the research being conducted involving negative physical, psychological, and emotional damaging methods. Over 100 million animals every year are killed because of animal testing. I've personally witnessed the damages that testing does to animals. I spent six weeks working in a lab (for confidential reasons I am not allowed to say which one) here I had to have had a hand in watching a group of lab rats literally being gases to death. One of my friends actually had to repeatedly guillotine rats.

Funny thing, if we ever even suggested doing something like that on humans for research, we'd be seeing a huge backlash and we'd be shut down from the public faster than you can say "bye bye birdie". We've actually seen these practices in action before? Where might you ask? In various work camps during, you guessed it, the Holocaust!

So why do we abhor these practices on people but actually encourage it on our fellow living creatures?

Humans, I'll tell you what.

Claudette = Arya Stark

While reading Russell's "St. Lucy's Home" I kept being reminded of the character Arya Stark from Game of Thrones. Claudette is a girl raised by her parents who are werewolves. She is sent away to learn how to 'contain' her wolfdom. This is the same for Arya Stark, whose families house sigil is a wolf. After losing both her parents, Arya is made to lose her wolfdom in similar ways to Claudette. Slowly those around Claudette lose their senses of being wolves and they stop biting and growling with one another. They attend church on Sunday's and the boy's lose their 'wolf tales'. Arya Stark leaves the capitol city with a group of people after her father is murdered. She is told to suppress her anger and violence because it is sure to get her in trouble on the road back to her original home. Arya ends up being all but alone as her friends one by one choose not to roam the forests like a pack and chose the more calm life style of a human. In the end they only differ in that Claudette grudgingly choses to become human and return home, Arya Stark has embraced the her wolf side and decided to roam.

Saturday, May 23, 2015

The Nation's Largest Grocery Retailer

On Friday, May 22nd, Walmart asked its meat, seafood, poultry, deli and egg suppliers to adopt animal welfare standards. These standards included sufficient space and easy access to food and water. With this movement being pushed onto Walmart, it has also been applied to Sam’s Club. Many companies have joined this shift to better animal welfare including brands like McDonalds and Tyson Foods; with antibiotics being a main concern. Walmart asks its suppliers to provide reports regarding their use of antibiotics and asks them to limit treatments. Walmart claims that this is part of a process and they have already made changes sustainable packing reduction or the compaction of laundry detergent. Animal producers have already begun to install new types of housing for their animals while those who do not comply with standards are rejected. The generations of confined spaces and immobilized animals have come to an end as the nation’s largest grocery retailer leads the way.

Friday, May 22, 2015

Richard Dawkin and Peter Singer Discuss Animal Rights

This is a conversation between two great scientists/philosophers, Peter Singer and Richard Dawkins, on the topic of vegetarianism and animal rights. What I found most interesting about this video, and what kept me watching, was the argument Dawkins made about a fetus and an animal. He argues that if those that are pro-life use the capacity to feel pain as a reason to protect the rights of a fetus, why then is it invalid to use that same argument (capacity to feel pain) with animals. He argues that a fetus that has just developed its sensory system would feel much less pain than an adult non-human animal, yet we care more about the fetus. I also really liked Singer's response to the notion that 'if anything capable of suffering is deserving of rights, then we should not eat oysters because they have sensory systems.'  He states that an oyster's sensory system is very basic, so he does not know whether they can feel pain, but that the pain suffered by chickens and pigs is very REAL and KNOWN, and that we can't use the exception to justify THEIR slaughter. The arguments raised by both of these individuals reminds me a lot about Plutarch's piece. I hope this video is as interesting for you guys as it was to me!

Animal Liberation Front

Animal Liberation Front

            After watching the documentary about the Animal Liberation Front, I decided to do a bit of research on them and see what new developments they have had since the movie was made in 2006. The first thing I noticed about the website was that it was a .org website which are usually intended for non-profit organizations, but if the ALF is a non profit organization where do they get all the money for their supplies when they do end up saving animals from companies? I also found this article, which is the first link called “Europe should embrace a cosmopolitan approach to animal rights” which interested me because the author made some interesting points that we have been discussing in class. He mentioned that if an animal has feelings then it deserves to have rights. This argument has created great conflict because some people believe that animals do not “feel” or have the capability to understand without intelligence. He argued that in order to live in a community with animals we must be willing to treat them as equal and let them be if they are not hurting us.

            The second link is to a website that they have for “snitches and informers.” It caught my attention because of the negative connotation snitches has, but when I read the descriptions of the people I was confused. Did the organization hate those people and want the world to see that they were not helping their cause? It seemed to me as if they hated those people for turning themselves in.  

Factory Farming

Factory Farming is probably the largest source of meat for the United States, on one hand I understand the need for large quantities of meat, the population is ever growing and we need ways to sustain ourselves. But, to treat animals so poorly and to keep them in such terrible conditions shows how far removed society has come in differentiating meat from animals. There has been a push for free range meat and I think that is a wonderful option. There would probably be less meat, but in such a heavily meat and food consuming society it might be good to realize how much we do eat and take into perspective the cost on animals. This video was sad to watch, I hope changes do come soon.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Is a Dolphin a Person?

Oddly enough dolphins are indeed mammals just like humans. People think that since dolphins and humans have different habitats that they are not similar but I disagree. Dolphins have many unshakable traits that many humans have. We like to believe we are the superior race, but I think humans are the dolphins of land or dolphins are the humans of the sea. I believe the more interactions we have with dolphins, the more we learn about how intelligent they are. So much so that dolphins have been participating in our military since the 1960's. Many people would argue their intelligence is enough to make them human-like, but I think they are smart enough to know that they are helping humans. They are also performers in our modern society. For example SeaWorld, I know people have many negative opinions about the park according to the orca whales, and I agree. But the dolphins and whales have become a sources of entertainment. Dolphins are very sociable mammals, they stay in their family groups called pods. Traveling together is something they love doing. Also dolphins have been known to help or even recuse humans. Dolphins see humans as sociable as well and are willing to engage interactions with us. They probably sense that we are similar creatures. 
Another similarity is that we both speak in different dialects. Dolphins and humans created different languages within their pods. Different cultures and traditions even form in each pods. 
Again dolphins and humans have yet another similar attribute; they have sex for pleasure. All other animals have sex to simply reproduce, except for humans and dolphins. 
Here is a video where dolphins and humans interact. This video helped me understand how truly intelligent dolphins are.

Brave New Farm?

Once, the farm was thought of as a place of peace and ethical practices. Today, this is a skewed view of the reality that is the factory farm. In "Brave New Farm?" Mason and Finelli mention that factory principles stay the same: keep costs down and manipulate animals' productivity upward. This principle entails maintaining drug-laced, unnatural diets. NPR's recent article, "FDA Wants To Pull Back The Curtain, Slightly, On Farm Antibiotics," adds that farmers and public health advocates have been arguing for many years now about the use of antibiotics in farm animals. The main source of information about antibiotic use on farms comes from an annual report from the FDA, but contains no information about how these drugs are used or on which types of farms. The article explains:
"This leads to some curious discrepancies. Tyson Foods, the nation's largest producer of chicken meat, said that its poultry producers have cut their use of antibiotics by 80 percent over the past two years. Perdue, another large poultry company, has announced large cuts in antibiotic use. Yet the FDA's national totals for all animals show a steady increase in antibiotic use, at least through the most recent report, with includes data from 2013. So what's going on? Is antibiotic use declining in poultry, but rising in other animals? The FDA wants to find out. Under a new proposal,  drug companies would have to disclose whether the antibiotics they sell are intended for use in cattle, pigs, chickens or turkeys." Why haven't these drug companies accounted for where their antibiotics are sold and used? The large poultry companies seem to be hiding under the use of "less" antibiotics in their products, but other meat products are no exception.