Better LCDs Trump an Animal's Right to Live and Be Left Alone?
Published October 28, 2009 @ 07:16AM PT
Researchers from the University of Queensland, University of Bristol, and University of Maryland have determined that "the Mantis shrimp possesses the most complicated visual system of any known animal." What and how they can see is amazing. One of the professors explains in more detail:
They have more receptors for seeing colour than any animal on the planet - their visual system is really most like a satellite. . . . The animal has to scan space to build up an image sequentially much like a radar. They have this scanning system which contains a lot of information such as polarised light, circular polarised light, colour in 12 channels and ultraviolet in six channels.
One of the arguments that animal rights advocates put forth consistently is that other animals aren't inferior to human animals but different from us. In many cases, they have skills and abilities that we don't have, that we can only dream of, abilities that should (and sometimes do) awe us and earn our respect for who they are. But typically, though we may be impressed by what they can do, respect is something we still refuse to give because we're too busy trying to figure out how we can benefit from what they do -- in other words, how we can benefit from experimenting on them, killing them, and dissecting them.*
The discovery of this shrimp's remarkable eyesight is no exception. We're not content to stop at this point -- to share with the world what we now know, write it up in science journals and National Geographic, develop a healthy respect for the species, and then let the animals be. Instead, we're going to continue capturing and killing these shrimps so that we can study them. And for what higher purpose shall we do this? To create better LCD screens and DVD technology -- you know, very necessary life-saving, life-affirming, life-improving stuff.
The examples of how most human animals view all other animals as nothing more than tools, here only to serve our purposes, available to be experimented on and killed at our whim, for whatever reason, are all around us, always. And this is just yet another instance of that. We don't need better screens and better DVDs (seriously, whose life is going to fare notably better or worse depending on whether we get a great new screen or DVD technlogy -- other than the people who stand to gain financially from developing and selling the technology?). We don't even really need to know how the shrimps' eyes work or why.
We need to leave them the hell alone.
Links:
- Brisbane Times: Not Just Another Shrimp on the Barbie
- Wired: Mantis Shrimp Eyes Might Inspire New Hi-Def Devices
- Wired: Shrimp Eyes May Hold Key to Better Communications
*And yes, crustaceans feel pain.
---
Photo by Jens Petersen of peacock mantis shrimp retrieved from Wikimedia Commons
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
There Is No Such Animal as "Seafood"
-
Botox Kills Animals Even Better Than It Kills Wrinkles
-
Creating and Celebrating Primate Obesity and Diabetes
Comments (5)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Stephanie is an independent animal rights advocate, a vegan, a tree-hugging environmentalist, and a freelance editor and writer. She lives in St. Louis with an aging corgi-lab and an adolescent rescued pit bull.
That is some f*cked up sh*t right there.
I'm not going to lie here, I would condone it if it was for something a long the lines of seeing for the blind, improving eyesite, etc.
But for this? Sad.
Posted by Paul Hockhousen on 10/28/2009 @ 08:47AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Why would it be acceptable even in that case? Yes, it would help people, and I'm all for helping people, but not at the expense of someone else. It wouldn't be acceptable to use humans in experiments to benefit a greater amount of people, and the same applies to using nonhuman animals for the benefit of humans. All sentient beings have the right to bodily autonomy, whether human or nonhuman, and regardless if the violation of that right could benefit "the greater good."
Also, non-animal research doesn't hinder scientific breakthroughs. There are many effective alternatives to animal experimentation, so there will continue to be progress in the area of medical research even without the use of animals. As society shifts away from the speciesist mentality that nonhuman animals are expendable, as well as from the misconception that it is necessary to use animals, there will be more advancement in finding non-animal models/methods in research, which will be all the better for both animals and humans.
Posted by Chelsea Dub on 10/28/2009 @ 03:23PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I don't see other animals as expendable. All I'm saying is that if it will help improve the lives of a great number of people, then I'm not going to complain about it.
But yes, any solution that can be found without such a blatant waste of life is highly preferable.
Posted by Paul Hockhousen on 10/29/2009 @ 04:17PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Well, admittedly, plants can do plenty of things that humans - and all animals - cannot do. Heck, bacteria can do lots of things that humans cannot do. That is not why we should leave them alone.
Posted by Luella - on 10/29/2009 @ 07:13PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thank you Stephanie - excellent observation and conclusion. "We need to leave them the hell alone."
Posted by Bea Elliott on 11/02/2009 @ 10:20PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.