Unforeseen Consequences of Doing Good

I would be MORE eager to support more animal rescue efforts if this were part of a broader effort to liberate ALL animals globally (rather than merely rescuing some animals at the expense of others; 'competitive rights' where some lose - "food animals" - in order to feed the rescued animals).

When they address this issue so that the pining souls who adopt countless animals are at least conversant with the topic of why farmed animals deserve to NOT be killed for food, I'll be  ore likely to be on board with the companion animal rescue effort.  Most 'pining souls' are NOT conversant with the topic at all, have no idea that there MIGHT be future options such as cloned meat or even collective buying of non-hinsic vegan-friendly pet food, etc.  For them, it's more about providing solace, a home, and food and veterinary attention to individually rescued animals than about a global noncompetitive ecological justice for all.  With pet-food, we have a deep ecological and inter-species moral problem on our hands, and it demands a deep and profound conversation across the entire humane movement, but most folks are recoiling from the conversation, presumably from the anxiety of losing the appearance of their moral high ground if they acknowledge that we really don't know what we're doing here.

Unforeseen Consequences of Doing Good

I would be MORE eager to support more animal rescue efforts if this were part of a broader effort to liberate ALL animals globally (rather than merely rescuing some animals at the expense of others; 'competitive rights' where some lose - "food animals" - in order to feed the rescued animals).

When they address this issue so that the pining souls who adopt countless animals are at least conversant with the topic of why farmed animals deserve to NOT be killed for food, I'll be ore likely to be on board with the companion animal rescue effort. Most 'pining souls' are NOT conversant with the topic at all, have no idea that there MIGHT be future options such as cloned meat or even collective buying of non-hinsic vegan-friendly pet food, etc. For them, it's more about providing solace, a home, and food and veterinary attention to individually rescued animals than about a global noncompetitive ecological justice for all. With pet-food, we have a deep ecological and inter-species moral problem on our hands, and it demands a deep and profound conversation across the entire humane movement, but most folks are recoiling from the conversation, presumably from the anxiety of losing the appearance of their moral high ground if they acknowledge that we really don't know what we're doing here.

Militant WHAT?

I recall how actor and comedian Woody Allen, in writing about his metaphysical agnosticism and his struggles with religious, ethical, and metaphysical issue, noted that he did NOT aspire to being world's best-known agnostic (or atheist).

That self-deprecating spirit is very different from the militant and seemingly hostile atheism we see around.

But then, it might be occasioned by a sensitivity to what appear to be public professions of faith (typically INSIDE buildings, thanks to property protections in the name of "freedom of religion").

To me, it always seemed impossible to deny something we could not coherently define; so, in that sense, a clear statement of atheism seemed irrational, where agnosticism is not because we could describe, with growing bodies of analysis along with neurological and other evidence how certain kind of knowledge, how some kinds of knowledge may be impossible for us.

Harvard's Vegan CIO Dr. John Halamka unworried by report linking microchips to tumors

Monday, September 10, 2007

Halamka not worried by report linking microchips to tumors

Dr. John Halamka (left) is used to fielding questions about the radio frequency identification chip embedded in his arm, and not just when he sets off security alarms atHome Depot.

The chief information officer at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center,who had the microchip containing his medical data implanted in 2004, says he isn't worried by an Associated Press report that the US Food and Drug Administration ignored studies linking the chips to cancer in mice when it approved the devices.

"The chip is ceramic, surrounded by medical-grade glass that is, to my knowledge, invisible to the immune system," he said in an e-mail today. "Thus, I cannot imagine how a chip could induce tumors."

Halamka said he has talked to veterinarians who have implanted thousands of the chips into dogs and cats, with no side effects. He suspects that the studies of mice are not applicable to humans because mice are predisposed to developing tumors at the site of any injection.

"I've had no side effects or tumors," he said. "Should I ever develop any issues with my implanted chip, you'll be the first to know!"

Posted by Elizabeth Cooney at 04:12 PM