Environment Defense

7/30/2019 Environment Defense

1/87

***Only Environmental Case Neg***


2/87

File NotesFile completed by the following hard working students:Sammy, Vinny, Tori, Lailay, Maki, Christie, Rahi, Maddie, and Brandon aka Chris

This file is used as a hodge-podge of answers to Environmental advantages. We did not do a lot of unique warming work since there are already several waves of climate work done by other labs;however, we did do some Warming Rhetoric K work so there is some specific analysis against warmingadvantages. The aff answers to this K are in the 7Wk Apocalyptic Rhetoric Aff so we did not cutadditional answers here.


3/87

**Animal Rights**


4/87

Kills Human Rights

Animal rights destroy human rights-devalues mentally ill, blind, disabledBaughan 09 Loretta- Animal Rights is Wrong, -the founder, editor and publisher of Spaniel Journal. Award winning professionalphotographer, webdesigner, owner of Autumnsge, LLC. Loretta is a member of the Dog Federation of Wisconsin, the National Rifle Associationand is the Wisconsin contact for the Sportsmen and Animal Owners Voting Alliance. She resides in northern Wisconsin, with her husband,Steve, and their three children. Published by Spaniel Journal(file:///C:/Users/Maddie/Documents/Animal%20Rights%20is%20Wrong%20by%20Loretta%20Baughan.htm) MK

Some fanatic animal rights believers advocate for "non-human" animals to be granted "personhood" and legal rights enabling individuals and

groups to take owners to court on behalf of their animal. In reality, it is human life they wish to devalue, lowering us toa status equal with - or less than - animals. 'Animal rights promotes the idea that people should have nomore rights than animals. As PETA cofounder and national director Ingrid Newkirk puts it, "I don 't believe human beings have the'right to life'. That's a supremacist perversion. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. " --AnimalScam by Kathleen Marquardt, Herbert M.Levine and Mark LaRochelle, pg. 5 (1993) '34 chimpanzee, dog, or pig, for instance, will have a higher degree of self-awareness and a greater capacity for meaningful relations with others than a severely retarded infantor someone in a state of advanced senility. So if we base the right to life on these characteristics we

must grant these animals a right to life as good as, or better than, such retarded or senile humans. " --quoting Peter Singer in The Animal Rights, Environmental Ethics Debate by Eugene C. Hargrove (1992), pg 20 "The animal rightsmovement would allow people no more rights than rats or cockroaches. The real agenda of thismovement is not to give rights to animals, but to take rights from people - to dictate our food, clothing, work, recreation, andwhether we will discover new medicines or die. Animal rights pose an extraordinary threat to our health, freedom,and even our lives. "


5/87

We begin with Byrons The Deforme d Transformed as an allegory for the efforts of U.S. disability studies first to disengage from, and then to re-engage with, disabled bodies. In the drama, rejection of the apparently visceral life of disability for the evidently social ideal of a classical and

able body encapsulates the double bind that confronts those who inhabit disabled bodies: one must either endure thecultural slander heaped upon bodily difference or seek to evade the object of derision. Such erasures of disabled people have historically been achieved through such cultural solutions as institutionalization,isolation, genocide, cure, concealment, segregation, exile, quarantine, and prosthetic masking , among

others. As a theatrical effort to destigmatize the disabled body, Byron s play much like research in disability studies over the pasttwenty years aims to debunk the fictions of desirability that invest the able body . In critiquing the presumeddesirability invested in able bodies, disability studies has sought to destigmatize disabled bodies only by default. In the mid-1990s, U.S. disability

studies returned to encounter the sloughed-off disabled body after the perfectible, able body had been rethought as amatter of epistemology , as opposed to biology. We argue that disability studies has strategically neglected the question of theexperience of disabled embodiment in order to disassociate disability from its mooring in medical cultures and institutions. Although recentlydisability criticism has been calling for a return to a phenomenology of the disabled body,3 this return has been slow in coming. Like feminized,raced, and queered bodies, the disabled body became situated in definitive contrast to the articulation of what amounted to a hegemonic

aesthetic premised on biology. Within this cultural belief system, the normal body provided the baseline fordeterminations of desirability and human value.

Animal rights unethical, inhumane, and unnecessary-justifies AuschwitzSchmahmann and Polacheck 95 - *partner in the firm of Nutter, McLennan and & Fish. **associate in the firm of Nutter,Mclennan and Fist (David Schmahmann and Lori J. Polacheck: 22 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 747) LexisNexis(http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/) MK

In pressing the boundaries of existing statutory and common law, proponents of radical change in the way humans interact with animals seekto have our institutions take an unprecedented step: to endow animals with legal rights. n1 What this means -- what "rights" for animalsunavoidably entails as a matter of constitutional and civil law -- raises issues that go to the core of our assumptions about ourselves and aboutthe nature, aims, and limits of our institutions. The term "animal rights" poses vexing definitional issues, and these issues are complicated by

the imprecision with which the term is so often used. Many people loosely associate "animal rights" with the ideathat people have a moral, legal, or custodial duty to treat animals humanely . Such a gloss allows the notion of rights for animals to appear mainstream and to elicit support across a broad spectrum. Peter Singer, who first articulated the ethical basis uponwhich much of the contemporary animal rights movement rests, prefers to avoid the use of the word "rights" altogether. "The language of rights is a convenient political shorthand[,]" Singer wrote in his seminal book, [*748] Animal Liberation. n2 "It is even more valuable in the era of

thirty-second TV news clips than it was in [Jeremy] Bentham's day ; but in the argument for a radical change in ourattitude to animals, it is in no way necessary. " n3 Lawyers, however, in analyzing issues of animal "liberation" (Singer'spreferred term), often find "rights language" indispensable. In an article advocating rights for natural objects, Professor Christopher Stonearticulates his common understanding of the meaning of "rights" in this context. n4 Professor Stone argues that animals should be "holders of legal rights" and that an entity cannot be said to hold legal rights unless a public authoritative body is prepared to review conduct inconsistentwith those rights. n5 Further, each of the following three additional criteria must be satisfied: "[F]irst, that the thing can institute legal actions atits behest; second, that in determining the granting of legal relief, the court must take injury to it into account; and, third, that relief must run

to the benefit of it. " n6 Radical changes in our legal institutions would be necessary if animals were to be"holders of legal rights" as so defined . Proponents of animal rights strongly advocate just such changes and an outcome in whichour legal institutions would serve the perceived interests of animals as readily as legal institutions presently serve human interests. As onecommentator has explained: Time and time again, without exception, animals are denied the independent jural standing they deserve and are,instead, systematically treated as if they deserve the law's attention or [protection] only if some human interest is harmed or benefited -- forexample, our interests in property, or our recreational or aesthetic interests. Thus does existing law continue to foster the no longer tenablemoral belief that all our duties to animals are indirect duties. In doing so, the law continues to perpetuate a system that is, in this respect,

unjust to the core. For the justice of how animals are treated by us must be fixed by how they are benefitedor harmed , not by whether we care about this. n7 [*749] To facilitate the idea of animals as "jural persons" n8 andto shift the focus to the harm or benefits to animals, numerous commentators -- and some lawyers incases in litigation -- have recommended the creation of guardianships for animals . n9 Some people have alsoadvocated a shift in the focus of legal proceedings from the impact on humans to the impact on animals. n10 This Article explores the issue of legal rights for animals. Section II provides a brief overview of the foundations of animal rights theory. Section III discusses some of the

critical flaws in the arguments animal rights advocates make in opposition to the use of animals inmedical research . Section IV identifies ways in which the concept of legal rights for animals would threaten thedelicate balance of power between government and individuals . Section V summarizes the existing laws that governour treatment of animals and shows that such laws fail to recognize legal rights for animals in the sense dicussed above. Finally, Section VI
http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n1http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n1http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n1http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n2http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n2http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n2http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n3http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n3http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n3http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n4http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n4http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n4http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n5http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n5http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n5http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n6http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n6http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n6http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n7http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n7http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n7http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n8http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n9http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n9http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n9http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n10http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n10http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n10http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n10http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n9http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n8http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n7http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n6http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n5http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n4http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n3http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n2http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n1http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/


6/87

explains how the doctrine of standing helps to insure that our court system does not become a forum for interspecies disputes. It is ourthesis that it would be both implausible and dangerous to give or attribute legal rights to animalsbecause such extension of legal rights would have serious, detrimental impacts on human rights andfreedoms . This Article is not, however, aimed at those who urge that we interact with animal life in ways that are humane, esthetic, andenvironmentally sound. Nor is this Article aimed at those who worry that society's present ways of producing food and conduct ing researchmay be wasteful and disruptive of nature's balance. Instead, this Article is aimed at those who believe that every individual animal, in itself,

possesses certain rights which, when violated, give rise to claims that may be pursued legally at the animal's "behest" and for relief running tothe animal's "benefit." [*750] II. AN OVERVIEW OF ANIMAL RIGHTS THEORY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS The entire edifice of animal rights theory,

it seems, rests on the notion that animals, if mistreated, suffer as do humans: Animal rights are built upon a misconceivedpremise that rights were created to prevent us from unnecessary suffering . You can't find an animal rights book,video, pamphlet, or rock concert in which someone doesn't mention the Great Sentence, written by Jeremy Bentham in 1789. Arguing in favorof such rights Bentham wrote "The question is not can they reason? nor, can they talk? but, can they suffer?" The logic of the animal rightsmovement places suffering at the iconographic center of a skewed value system . n11 Whether or not animals suffer, however, only begins theanalysis. As interesting as it is to dwell on the relative capacities for suffering of various species n12 and the possibility that some animals may

suffer less under human control than when left alone , n13 the ability to suffer cannot, standing alone, be the sole toolwith which access to legal rights and remedies is analyzed. n14 While the capacity for suffering may be a commondenominator of humans and animals, and is easily polemicized, legal rights have their origins in and are intertwined witha multitude of complex and subtle concepts that may include, but are in no means limited to,suffering. n15 Perhaps because the common view of the moral and legal status of animals is based on a bright line separating animals frompeople, animal rights activists are preoccupied with the similarities between animals and people. Some animal rights theorists contend that atleast some animals have the capacity for reasoning, language, and self-consciousness [*751] and therefore can and should be holders of legalrights . n16 Professor Tom Regan argues that because animals are "the experiencing subjects of a life" and may directly be benefited and harmed

by human acts and conduct, people owe direct moral duties to animals which translate into animal rights. n17 Yet, the differencesbetween humans and animals cannot be ignored, and those differences have made possible all of civilized life. Furthermore, while there are as many formulations of what makes humans "human" as there are philosophers who have considered thesubject, n18 it is a central feature of animal rights theory -- and its major danger -- to dismiss as high sounding rhetoric any attempt to catalogthose features that do indeed distinguish humans from animals. In Animal Liberation, Peter Singer deftly attempts to discount rebuttals to hiscentral thesis that "I have and know of nothing which enables me to say, a priori, that a human life of any quality, however low, is morevaluable than an animal life of any quality, however high." n19 Singer writes that "[t]o introduce ideas of dignity and worth as a substitute forother reasons for distinguishing humans and animals is not good enough. Fine phrases are the last resource of those who have run out of arguments." n20 Even relatively moderate commentators like Andrew Rowan concede the battleground on this point: The various criteria

mentioned above [rationality, linguistic ability, the human soul, a God-granted dominion over animals, or the fact thathumans are unique in being moral agents as well as objects of moral concern ] which have been proposed asconferring a unique moral status on humans have all been strongly challenged [*752] in the last decade. In most cases, I believe, they havebeen found deficient. n21 Singer is right, of course, that once one dismisses Hebrew thought; n22 the teachings of Jesus ; n23 the views of St.Aquinas, St. Francis, Renaissance writers, and Darwin; n24 and an entire "ideology whose history we have traced back to the Bible and theancient Greeks" n25 -- in short, once one dismisses innate human characteristics, the ability to express reason, to recognize moral principles, tomake subtle distinctions, and to intellectualize -- there is no way to support the view that humans possess rights but animals do not. In theend, however, it is the aggregate of these characteristics that does render humans fundamentally, importantly, and unbridgeably different fromanimals, even though it is also beyond question that in individual instances -- for example, in the case of vegetative individuals -- some animalsmay indeed have higher cognitive skills than some humans. To argue on that basis alone, however, that human institutions are morally flawedbecause they rest on assumptions regarding the aggregate of human abilities, needs, and actions is to deny such institutions the capacity to

draw any distinctions at all. Consider the consequences of a theory which does not distinguish betweenanimal life and human life for purposes of identifying and enforcing legal rights. Every individualmember of every species would have recognized claims against human beings and the state, andperhaps other animals as well. As the concept of rights expanded to include the "claims" of all livingcreatures, the concept would lose much of its force, and human rights would suffer as a consequence. Long before Singer wrote Animal Liberation, one philosopher wrote: If it is once observed that there is no difference in principlebetween the case of dogs, cats, or horses, or stags, foxes, and hares, and that of tsetse-flies ortapeworms or the bacteria in our own blood-stream , the conclusion likely to be drawn is that there is so much wrong thatwe cannot help doing to the brute creation that it is best not to trouble ourselves about it any more at all . The ultimate sufferers arelikely to be our fellow men, because the final conclusion is likely to be, not that we ought to treat the[*753] brutes like human beings, but that there is no good reason why we should not treat humanbeings like brutes. Extension of this principle leads straight to Belsen and Buchenwald, Dachau and
http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n11http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n11http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n11http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n12http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n12http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n12http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n13http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n13http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n13http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n14http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n14http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n14http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n15http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n15http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n15http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n16http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n16http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n16http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n17http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n17http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n17http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n18http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n18http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n18http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n19http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n19http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n19http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n20http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n20http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n20http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n21http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n21http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n21http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n22http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n22http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n22http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n23http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n23http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n23http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n24http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n24http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n24http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n25http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n25http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n25http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n25http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n24http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n23http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n22http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n21http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n20http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n19http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n18http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n17http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n16http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n15http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n14http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n13http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n12http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n11


7/87

Auschwitz, where the German and the Jew or Pole only took the place of the human being and theColorado beetle . n26 To some extent, it is a challenge to the value of civilization to dismiss the Judeo-Christian ethic as anthropocentric orspeciesist n27 and thus deficient, and to minimize the significance of the capacity to express reason, to recognize moral principles, and to planfor ordered coexistence in a complex technological society. "The core of this book," Singer writes in Animal Liberation, "is the claim that todiscriminate against beings solely on account of their species is a form of prejudice, immoral and indefensible in the same way thatdiscrimination on the basis of race is immoral and indefensible." n28Such an equation, however, allows Ingrid Newkirk, founder of People for theEthical Treatment of Animals (PETA), to state that "[s]ix million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die thisyear in slaughter houses." n29 The only "pure" human being, Newkirk has theorized, is a dead one. "[O]nly dead people are true purists, feedingthe earth and living beings rather than taking from them. . . . We know it is impossible to breathe without hurting or exploiting." n30 These

forms of doctrinaire " animal rightism" ignore the value that society has placed on human life which enablessociety to function in an orderly fashion. In effect, the extreme positions of animal rights activistsdevalue human life and detract from human rights . n31 "The belief that human life, and only human life, is sacrosanct is aform of [*754] speciesism," Singer writes . n32 But if the sacredness of all life is equivalent, what is one to make of animals that kill each other and the often arbitrary nature of life and death and survival of the fittestin the wild? What is one to make of the conflict between the seeming arbitrariness of the killing thattakes place in nature and the ethical content of human existence that starts with the certainty thatthe life of every individual person is uniquely sacred? Sometimes the statements of contemporary radicalenvironmentalists and animal rights activists display a profound misanthropy. "If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bringhuman population back to ecological sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS," writes one author us ing the pseudonym Miss Ann

Thropy. n33

"Seeing no other possibility for the preservation of biological diversity on earth than a drastic decline in the number of humans,Miss Ann Thropy contends that AIDS is ideal for the task primarily because 'the disease only affectshumans' and shows promise for wiping out large numbers of humans." n34 Ingrid Newkirk hascommented that even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, PETA would "be against it." n35 The point is that reverence for human life must be both the starting point and the reference point forany ethical philosophy and system of law that does not immediately become unhitched from itsmoorings in civilization. With respect to animals and their similarities to humans, Singer's dismissal of "fine phrases" notwithstanding,the fact that debate exists about the ethical consequences of such differences is almost distinction enough. It is we -- humans -- whoare having the debate, not animals; and it is a unique feature of humankind to recognize ethicalsubtleties. This ability to recognize gradations and competing interests is what defines the rules thatwe live by and the system of rights and responsibilities that comprise our legal system. Animalscannot possess rights because animals are in no way a part [*755] of any of these processes . On the otherhand, any duties we may have respecting our treatment of animals derive from the fact that we are part of these processes.
http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n26http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n26http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n26http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n27http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n27http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n27http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n28http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n28http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n28http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n29http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n29http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n29http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n30http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n30http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n30http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n31http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n31http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n31http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n32http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n32http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n32http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n33http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n33http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n33http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n34http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n35http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n35http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n35http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n35http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n34http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n33http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n32http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n31http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n30http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n29http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n28http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n27http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1343485451799&returnToKey=20_T15219941684&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.573242.8223229375#n26


8/87

Human Rights 1 st

Human welfare should come first-Humanizing animals dehumanizes usOzboy 11- May 22, 2011 ,Australian, born and raised in Sydney. geologist, scientist, teacher, musician, storeman, charity worker, designedsoftware systems currently in use in Australia, New Zealand, South-East Asia, UK andUSA. (http://libertygibbert.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/animal-welfare-a-good-cause-gone-bad/) MK

I guess I must be a speciesist, because I definitely do draw a philosophical distinction between humans andanimals, even the higher ones ; to regard humans as merely one more species of animal is to cascade a stringof contradictions; far from elevating animals, it de-humanizes us literally. The reductio ad absurdum of this line of thinking was (almost) reached in 2008, when the European Court of Human Rights rejected an appeal on behalf of one Matthew Haisl Pan, togrant him a court-appointed guardian and accord basic rights such as life, freedom of movement and welfare. The appellant, being unable toread, write or even speak, and with no prospect of ever being able to do so (Mr Pan being, in fact, a chimpanzee), belonged to an animal shelter

in Austria facing bankruptcy. That hasnt stopped efforts by activists to have hi m legally declared a human (he nowhas his own Facebook page - so I guess its official). Wouldnt it be simpler to have the activists declared to be chimps?In the end, animal welfare is important, but human welfare is even more important. A few examples will serveto illustrate : It is not cruel when I quickly and humanely end the life of pests that threaten my crops. In fact,

Im licensed to do so, although I have gone to great lengths (electric fences and so on) to ensure that these days it almost never comesto that . I also have no compunctions about blasting away any copperhead or tiger snakes I see in mybackyard during their breeding season; frankly, my familys safety is more important to me than the live sof any animals, no matter how endangered (these arent). When I come across them in the bush, however, I leave them be; after all,theyre not hurting me, and theyre great at keeping down vermin. Funny though, for all the good snakes do out in theenvironment, somehow you never see ALF or PETA on the warpath for their welfare. I guess its themisfortune of snakes not to be as cute and cuddly as baby fur seals or orangutans, and to be demonized(literally) in the Bible: the Jews of the animal kingdom. Nor is it cruel to raise animals for food, although I believe it is amoral imperative to raise those animals in as close to a natural environment as is safe for them; givethem a really good life; and when the time comes for them to be slaughtered, it is done quickly,painlessly and without their knowing that death is imminent. Believe me, meat definitely tastes better this way. I realisethis sounds like it pertains only to organically raised meat, but even on industrial-scale production, it remains a guid ing principle. Ive always

been impressed by the work of the cow whisperer, autistic savant Dr. Temple Grandin, in re-designing stock marshaling infrastructure inslaughterhouses to reduce animal stress.
http://libertygibbert.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/animal-welfare-a-good-cause-gone-bad/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eypY1LnmiMAhttp://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6307901221http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154792/dolphinoplastyhttp://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154792/dolphinoplastyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrelapshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_snakehttp://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/about/id/600677/n/The-Cow-Whispererhttp://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/about/id/600677/n/The-Cow-Whispererhttp://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/about/id/600677/n/The-Cow-Whispererhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_snakehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrelapshttp://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154792/dolphinoplastyhttp://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6307901221http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eypY1LnmiMAhttp://libertygibbert.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/animal-welfare-a-good-cause-gone-bad/


9/87

Destroys Med Research

Animal medicinal research vital to advancesBotting 97 former scientific adviser to the Research Defense Society in London (Jack H. Botting: Animal Research is Vital to Medicine)Published by Scientific American Magazine, February 1997(http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ISSUEID_CHAR=F1C2CBCD-B61D-4FDF-9F7E-9E8CCB2A04A&ARTICLEID_CHAR=02EA00AB-617F-40F7-98ED-D09F652DA20)MK

Experiments using animals have played a crucial role in the development of modern medicaltreatments, and they will continue to be necessary as researchers seek to alleviate existing ailmentsand respond to the emergence of new disease . As any medical scientist will readily state, research with animals is but one of several complementary approaches. Some questions , however , can be answered only by animal research . We intendto show exactly where we regard animal research to have been essential in the past and to point to where wethink it will be vital in the future . To detail all the progress that relied on animal experimentation would require many times theamount of space allotted to us. Indeed, we cannot think of an area of medical research that does not owe manyof its most important advances to animal experiments . In the mid-19th century, most debilitating diseases resulted frombacterial or viral infections, but at the time, most physicians considered these ailments to be caused by internal derangements of the body. The proof that such diseases did in fact derive from external microorganisms originated with workdone by the French chemist Louis Pasteur and his contemporaries, who studied infectious diseases indomestic animals . Because of his knowledge of how contaminants caused wine and beer to spoil, Pasteur became convinced thatmicroorganisms were also responsible for diseases such as chicken cholera and anthrax.
http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ISSUEID_CHAR=F1C2CBCD-B61D-4FDF-9F7E-9E8CCB2A04A&ARTICLEID_CHAR=02EA00AB-617F-40F7-98ED-D09F652DA20http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ISSUEID_CHAR=F1C2CBCD-B61D-4FDF-9F7E-9E8CCB2A04A&ARTICLEID_CHAR=02EA00AB-617F-40F7-98ED-D09F652DA20http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ISSUEID_CHAR=F1C2CBCD-B61D-4FDF-9F7E-9E8CCB2A04A&ARTICLEID_CHAR=02EA00AB-617F-40F7-98ED-D09F652DA20http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ISSUEID_CHAR=F1C2CBCD-B61D-4FDF-9F7E-9E8CCB2A04A&ARTICLEID_CHAR=02EA00AB-617F-40F7-98ED-D09F652DA20


10/87

**Biodiversity**


11/87

No Impact

Extinction claims overstated species will reboundEconomist, 9 - The Economist online offers authoritative insight and opinion on international news,

politics, business, finance, science and technology (Second life: Biologists debate the scale of extinction in the worldstropical forests, The Economist, http://www.economist.com/node/12926042, January 15, 2009)//TWR

A RARE piece of good news from the world of conservation: the global extinction crisis may have been overstated. Theworld is unlikely to lose 100 species a day, or half of all species in the lifetime of people now alive, assome have claimed. The bad news, though, is that the lucky survivors are tiny tropical insects that few people care about. The speciesthat are being lost rapidly are the large vertebrates that conservationists were worried about in the first place. This new view of theprospects for biodiversity emerged from a symposium held this week at the Smithsonian Institution inWashington, DC, but the controversy over how bad things really are has been brewing since 2006. That was when Joseph Wright of theSmithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama and Helene Muller-Landau of the University of Minnesota first suggested that thedamage might not be as grim as some feared . They reasoned that because population growth is slowing inmany tropical countries, and people are moving to cities, the pressure to cut down primary rainforest

is falling and agriculturally marginal land is being abandoned, allowing trees to grow. This regrownsecondary forest is crucial to the pair's analysi s. Within a few decades of land being abandoned, half of the original biomass has returned . Depending on what else is nearby, these new forests may then be colonised by animals andadditional plants, and thus support many of the species found in the original forest. Dr Wright and Dr Muller-Landau therefore reckon that in2030 reasonably unbroken tropical forest will still cover more than a third of its natural range, andafter that date its area at least in Latin America and Asia could increase . Much of this woodland will besecondary forest, but even so they suggest that in Africa only 16-35% of tropical-forest species will become extinct by 2030, in Asia, 21-24%

and, in Latin America, fewer still. Once forest cover does start increasing, the rate of extinction should dwindle.
http://www.economist.com/node/12926042http://www.economist.com/node/12926042http://www.economist.com/node/12926042


12/87

Loss Inevitable

Biodiversity loss inevitable invasive species, climate change, and pollution affecting95% of land and 83% of water resources

Ly, 11- Epoch Times staff writer. The Epoch Times is a multi-language, international media organization. (MimiNguyen Ly, Global Biodiversity Loss Inevitable With Protected Areas Only, The Epoch Times,http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/science/global-biodiversity-loss-inevitable-with-protected-areas-only-59685.html, July 28, 2011)//TWR

It is not enough to set aside "protected areas" to prevent global biodiversity loss . This message comes from acomprehensive assessment by North American scientists published today, July 28, in the journal Marine Ecology ProgressSeries. Biodiversity is declining at an alarming rate, despite extensive efforts to increase the number of protected areas over the past 30 years now more than 100,000, covering 17 million square kilometers of land and 2 million square kilometers

of ocean. This rate is expected to accelerate due to unsustainable demands on Earths ecologicalresources from human consumption an d population growth. Biodiversity is humanitys life -supportsystem , delivering everything from food, to clean water and air, to recreation and tourism, to novel chemicals that drive our advancedcivilization, explains lead author Camilo Mora of Hawaii U niversity at Manoa in a press release. Ongoing losses have prompted strong calls to expand protected areas as a remedy."Protected areas are a valuable tool in the fight to preserve biodiversity," Mora says. "We need themto be well managed, and we need more of them, but they alone cannot solve our biodiversityproblems." "We need to recognize this limitation promptly and to allocate more time and effort to the complicated issue of humanoverpopulation and consumption. "Why Protected Areas Are Not Enough The minimum target for effectivebiodiversity conservation is 30 percent of the worlds ecosystems, but this is simply unachievable at their current growth rate: it willtake 185 years for land and 80 years for oceans to reach this target, which is insufficient in the face of rapidclimate change, habitat loss, and resource exploitation predicted to cause widespread speciesextinction before 2050. One limiting factor is funding for effective management of protected areas the requisite $24 billiona year estimate is four times the current global expenditure . Despite strong support, budget growth is s low andprobably will not rise significantly in the near future. Furthermore, even if the 30 percent target were reached,

intense conflicts with humanitys needs fo r housing and food would occur, displacing many peopleand impairing their livelihoods. A compromise between the two is unlikely to achieve biodiversitypreservation. Another problem lies in the inability of protected areas to counteract human stressors on b iodiversity. They are mosteffective against overexploitation and habitat loss. But climate change, pollution, and invasive species continue tocause losses, with 95 percent of land and 83 percent of ocean protected areas are vulnerable. Manycurrent protected areas are not large enough to sustain viable populations, nor close enough to maintain a healthy exchange of species acrossprotected populations. The study authors affirm that biodiversity loss is unlikely to stop without confronting humanitys ecological footprint."The international community is faced with a choice between two paths," says fellow author Peter F. Sale, Assistant Director of the UnitedNations Universitys Canadian -based Institute for Water, Environment and Health, in the release. "One option is to continue a narrow focus oncreating more protected areas with little evidence that they curtail biodiversity loss," he added. "That path will fail." "The other path requiresthat we get serious about addressing the growth in size and consumption rate of our global population."

Biodiversity loss now - inevitable climate change and lack of effective policiesEuropean Commission, 08 (Planning for the inevitable: the impact of climate change on biodiversity,http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/116na6.pdf, July 17, 2008)//TWRMany scientific reports suggest that unavoidable changes in climate will happen over the next 40-50 years as aresult of past emissions . Areas seen as most vulnerable to climate change include the Mediterranean and southern Europe, mountainand sub-arctic areas, and densely occupied floodplains and coastal zones. Annual temperatures could increase by 2.0-6.3 degrees centigrade by

2100. Rainfall could also increase by 1-2 per cent per decade for northern Europe and decrease by 1 per cent in southern Europe. Eventsaffecting habitats and biodiversity will include heat waves, droughts, storms and rising sea levels. The
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/science/global-biodiversity-loss-inevitable-with-protected-areas-only-59685.htmlhttp://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/science/global-biodiversity-loss-inevitable-with-protected-areas-only-59685.htmlhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/116na6.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/116na6.pdfhttp://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/science/global-biodiversity-loss-inevitable-with-protected-areas-only-59685.htmlhttp://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/science/global-biodiversity-loss-inevitable-with-protected-areas-only-59685.html


13/87

impact may cause species to move towards the north and an increase in extinction rates. Mitigationremains the key focus of climate change policy, with less attention given to understanding how toadapt to inevitable rising temperatures. The pressures of climate change present a major challenge, not just for biodiversitypolicy, but also for land use policy, which affects biodiversity. The EUs 2006 Biodiversity Communication and its Action Pla n set an agenda foraction to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010, as agreed in the Gothenburg summit, 2001. However, biodiversity continues to decline underpressure from land use change and development. For example, as water supplies for urban populations shrink, building new infrastructuresmay place stress on existing ground and surface water systems and the flora and fauna that rely on it. The research 1 reviewed land use plansand policy in three countries: France, the Netherlands and the UK. It looked at their use of natural resources, management of water and coastalzones, plans for designated sites and case studies on urban, rural, inland and coastal sites. The policies were examined for their ability toaccount for biodiversity adaptation to climate change and to identify ways of integrati ng spatial planning and biodiversity policy. Spatialplanning has a broader sense than land use, in that it accounts for all activities and interests that concern a particular area. The authors foundthat although dynamic biodiversity is becoming more fully realised in spatial planning policy, existing EU directives such as the Birds Directive(CEC 1979), the Habitats Directive (CEC 1992), and the Natura 2000 network set up to create a network of protected sites, by themselvescannot fully protect landscape features necessary to support biodiversity under a period of prolonged climate change. They recommendclimate -proofing plans through the use of Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment. Land use plans sho uldbe integrated with the adoption of common objectives, time horizons and boundaries. The study also highlighted the need for more flexibleresponses to climate change, with stakeholders safeguarding habitats in between protected areas. This would result in more robustconservation planning across whole landscapes, reducing fragmentation of sites and creating corridors and networks for wildlife. Internationalcooperation was also found to be critical, as wildlife moves across national boundaries. Integration with agriculture, transport and water

sectors would also lead to a better capacity to adapt to climate change. Barriers to putting a fully effective policy in placeinclude: planning time-scales that are too short, a lack of consensus on intervention measures,

uncertainty on the actual impact of climate change impacts, conflicts of interest and public opinionwhich is sensitive to change, especially in treasured landscapes.


14/87

Invasive Species Solve

Invasive species fill niches in environments and restores native environmentsScience Daily, 11- Science Daily is a news website for topical science articles. It features articles on a wide

variety of science topics including: astronomy, exoplanets, computer science, nanotechnology, medicine,psychology, sociology, anthropology, biology, geology, climate, space, physics, mathematics, chemistry,archeology, paleontology, and others.(Invasive Plants Can Create Positive Ecological Change, Science Daily, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110211095555.htm, Feb. 14, 2011)//TWRA team of scientists has discovered that human-introduced, invasive species of plants can have positive ecologicaleffects . Toms Carlo, an assistant professor of biology at Penn State University, and Jason Gleditsch, a graduate student in the Departmentof Biology, have studied how invasive fruiting plants affect ecosystems and how those effects, contrary to prevailing ideas, sometimes can bebeneficial to an ecological community. The team's research, which will be published in the journal Diversity and Distributions, is expected to

affect the way environmental resource managers respond to ecosystem maintenance. "Among conservation biologists,ecologists, and managers, the default approach is to try to eliminate and root out non-native, invasiveshrubs -- anything that seems to change an ecosystem ," Carlo said. "The fundamental goal is to return a natural area toits original, pristine state, with the native species occupying the dominant position in the community. But the problem is that mostnative communities already have been changed beyond recognition by humans, and many nativespecies are now rare. " Carlo explained that his team wanted to test whether certain well-established, invasive fruiting species havenegative or positive effects on bird and fruiting-plant communities. "We wondered: Are we sometimes doing more harm thangood when we eradicate plants that, despite being introduced recently, have formed positiverelationships with native animals?" To be considered invasive, a species of plant must have been introduced by humans, and itmust be dominant numerically in the new environment.To test the impact of an invasive fruiting-plant species on native bird communities, Carlo and Gleditsch sectioned off an area of centralPennsylvania known as the Happy Valley region, where honeysuckle -- a non-native fruiting plant that is considered invasive -- grows inabundance. They then assessed the abundance of bird species and fruiting plants -- including honeysuckle -- within the area. After comparingtheir data with similar data from urban, agricultural, and forested areas, they determined that the abundance of honeysuckle predicted thenumbers and diversity of birds within the region and even beyond the region. That is, the honeysuckle and bird communities had formed arelationship known as mutualism -- a term that describes how two or more species interact by benefiting mutually from each o ther's existence."The abundance of fruit-eating birds in the Happy Valley region is linked to the abundance of honeysuckle," Carlo explained. "Honeysuckle

comprises more than half of all the fruits available in the landscape, and it benefits birds by providing them with a source of food in the fall.Meanwhile, birds benefit honeysuckle by dispersing the plant's seeds across a wider geographical area, helping the species to occupy more andmore territory in areas already affected by human activities." Carlo explained that returning this particular ecosystem to its honeysuckle-freestate could harm many species of native birds that now seem to rely on honeysuckle as a major food source in the fall. The team also tested thehoneysuckle's influence, not just on birds, but on o ther species of fruiting plants. First, they grew native fruiting plants known as Americannightshades in pots in a greenhouse. When the fruits were ripe on each plant, they then placed them into both honeysuckle-dense areas andareas area without honeysuckle but dominated by other native and non-native fruiting species. "We chose the American nightshade because itis native and common in the Happy Valley region," Carlo said. "Also, it is easy to manipulate experimentally, and its fruits are eaten -- and thusdispersed -- by native birds." In the area in which honeysuckle grew in abundance, the rate of fruit-removal of Carlo's American nightshadeswas 30-percent higher than in the areas without honeysuckle. Carlo explained that in the honeysuckle-rich area, birds were present inabundance. These birds allowed the nightshades to receive more seed-dispersal services -- an ecological process known as facilitation. "Thenewly introduced plants piggybacked on the success of the honeysuckle, which is a common phenomenon because fruit-eating birds usuallyfeed on a variety of fruit -- whatever happens to be available to them," Carlo explained. "The same birds that ate the honeysuckle also ate theAmerican nightshade, dispersing the seeds of both plants. It's a win-win-win for all three: the birds, the honeysuckle, and the nightshades."Carlo also explained that in Pennsylvania there are now three to four times more fruit-eating birds such as robins and catbirds than there were just 30 years ago, especially in landscapes of high human presence. So scientists should conclude that, while some invasive, human-introduced

plants are definitely problematic, others could serve to restore ecological balance by providing essential food resources to native migratorybirds that populate areas affected by humans . "Invasive species could fill niches in degraded ecosystems and helprestore native biodiversity in an inexpensive and self-organized way that requires little or no humanintervention, " Carlo said. In addition, Carlo explained, while eliminating an invasive species could result in harm to the newly formedbalance of an ecosystem, large-scale attempts to remove species also could be a waste of time and taxdollars. He explained that when managers and agencies attempt to eradicate an invasive plant from aparticular ecosystem, the species often ends up growing back anyway . "Nature is in a constant state of flux, alwaysshifting and readjusting as new relationships form between species, and not all of these relationships are bad just because they are novel or

created by humans," Carlo said. "We need to be more careful about shooting first and asking questions later --


15/87

assuming that introduced species are inherently harmful. We should be asking: Are we responding to real threats tonature or to our cultural perception and scientific bias?" Support for this research is provided by the Penn State Department of Biology and thePenn State Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences.


16/87

No Salmon Impact

Biodiversity loss does not affect sock eye salmon-quick ability to evolveLevine and Shiewe, 01 -American Scientist is a bimonthly science and technology magazine

published since 1913 by Sigma Xi. Each issue includes four to five feature articles written by scientistsand engineers. These authors review research in all fields of science. Each issue also includes the work of cartoonists such as Sidney Harris, Benita Epstein, and Mark Heath. (Philip and Michael, PreservingSalmon Biodiversity, American Scientist, http://www.bluefish.org/biodiver.htm, May/June 2001)//TWR Although the value of genetic diversity is often taken as a truism by conservation biologists, for somespecies the loss of variability does not necessarily increase the likelihood of extinction. The biologicaldiversity seen in the northern elephant seal, for example, is very low; yet there is no evidence that this animal is endangered because of it.Faced with certain changes to salmon biodiversity, fisheries biologists must determine whether or not salmonids are fundamentally likeelephant seals. The answer depends in large part on two factors: first, the extent to which salmon have adapted to their local environments andsecond, the speed with which salmon adapt (or readapt) to their surroundings. Because much of the diversity within and among Pacific salmonhas at least some genetic component and because there is little gene flow among these populations, one expects to see some local differencesin homing ability, disease resistance and response to stream flow, for example. The failure of most attempts to transplant stocks to a newhabitat also suggests that salmonids have evolved specializations suited to particular local environments. Nevertheless, the possibility remainsthat some highly variable traits do not reflect genetic adaptations. This hypothesis receives far less attention than adaptationist theories, yetevolutionary biologists acknowledge that populations of any species may diverge randomly as a result of genetic drift over generations. Toevaluate local adaptation (or lack thereof) among salmon, one needs some idea of how much drift has taken place. A recent survey of sockeye

salmon sheds some light on this question. Jay Hensleigh and Andrew Hendry of the University of Washingtonexplored the response of sockeye to the direction of the current. This species is particularly sensitive to flow becauseafter emerging from the gravel river bottom, young sockeye must move to lakes where they grow. Fry born in outlet streams must migrateupstream to get to the lake; fry born in inlet streams must travel downstream. This response is genetically determined and is usually understrong selection pressure, because fish that migrate in the wrong direction will die. Remarkably, however, some sockeye spawn on the beachesof lakes. Because these fish do not need to travel upstream or downstream, there is no selective pressure for this behavior. Hensleigh andHendry tested the response to stream flow in two sockeye populations: one from an inlet stream (genetically programmed to migrate

downstream) and one from a lake, which had been established 13 generations previously by salmon from an inlet stream. Usinglaboratory raceway s, the two researchers found that both groups migrated downstream. Surprisingly, though, fry from the lakeshowed a greater tendency to migrate downstream than the inlet population did. Presumably, thisresult reflects genetic drift. Or it may be that natural selection indeed operated but for an entirely

different trait that was by happenstance linked to the gene controlling downstream migration . In anyevent, this study shows that salmon may possess an array of traits that do not necessarily reflect the selective pressures of their local

environment. Yet even if the majority of these traits do reflect local adaptations, the long-term persistenceof salmon will not be hampered by the loss of some genetic diversity if the fish can evolve rapidlyenough . Just how quickly can a new trait arise? By again examining these same two populations of sockeye, Hendry, in a paperpublished last year, suggested that reproductive isolation and evolutionary divergence can happen inas little as 13 generations . Specifically, among sockeye, the size of the male body is sexually selected (females almost always matewith the larger males) and reaches a maximum among beach-spawning populations, because shallow water limits the size of stream-spawning

males. After only 13 generations, males of beach-spawning sockeye had significantly larger bodies thanmales from the parent stream-spawning population these lake dwellers had evolved to reflect theirnew environment in just decades. These findings remain controversial, but regardless of whether they prove to be in error,Hendry and coworkers have raised the specter that the conservation of a wide spectrum of observable traits is not

necessarily of paramount concern a somewhat surprising outcome . How then should resource managers chargedwith saving salmon respond?


17/87

Tech Solves

Tech solves biodiversity loss Carpenter, 11 -Carpenter is an independent consultant based in Massachusetts, USA. Previously, she

worked with USDA, USAID and the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy ( Janet, Impacts of GE Crops on Biodiversity, ISB news report, http://www.isb.vt.edu/news/2011/Jun/Impacts-GE-Crops-Biodiversity.pdf, June 2011)//TWRKnowledge gained over the past 15 years that GE crops have been grown commercially indicates thatthe impacts on biodiversity are positive on balance. By increasing yields, decreasing insecticide use,increasing use of more environmentally friendly herbicides, and facilitating adoption of conservationtillage, GE crops have contributed to increasing agricultural sustainability. Previous reviews have also reached thegeneral conclusion that GE crops have had little to no negative impact on the environment. Most recently, the U.S. National Research Councilreleased a comprehensive assessment of the effect of GE cro p adoption on farm sustainability in the U.S. that concluded, *g+enerally, *GE+

crops have had fewer adverse effects on the environment than non- *GE+ crops produced conventionally GE crops can continue todecrease pressure on biodiversity as global agricultural systems expand to feed a world populationthat is expected to continue to increase for the next 30 to 40 years. Due to higher income elasticities of demand andpopulation growth, these pressures will be greater in developing countries. Both current and pipeline technology hold great potential in thisregard. The potential of currently commercialized GE crops to increase yields, decrease pesticide use, and facilitate the adoption of conservation tillage has yet to be realized, as there continue to be countries where there is a good technological fit, but they have not yetapproved these technologies for commercialization. In addition to the potential benefits of expanded adoption of current technology, severalpipeline technologies offer additional promise of alleviating the impacts of agriculture on biodiversity. Continued yield improvements in cropssuch as rice and wheat are expected with insect resistant and herbicide tolerant traits that are already commercialized in other crops. Technologies such as drought tolerance and salinity tolerance would alleviate the pressure to converthigh biodiversity areas into agricultural use by enabling crop production on suboptimal soils . Droughttolerance technology, which allows crops to withstand prolonged periods of low soil moisture, is anticipated to be commercialized within five

years. The technology has particular relevance for areas like sub-Saharan Africa, where drought is acommon occurrence and access to irrigation is limited. Salt tolerance addresses the increasingproblem of saltwater encroachment on freshwater resources. Nitrogen use efficiency technology isalso under development, which can reduce run-off of nitrogen fertilizer into surface waters. Thetechnology promises to decrease the use of fertilizers while maintaining yields, or increase yieldsachievable with reduced fertilizer rates where access to fertilizer inputs is limited. The technology is slated tobe commercialized within the next 10 years.
http://www.isb.vt.edu/news/2011/Jun/Impacts-GE-Crops-Biodiversity.pdfhttp://www.isb.vt.edu/news/2011/Jun/Impacts-GE-Crops-Biodiversity.pdfhttp://www.isb.vt.edu/news/2011/Jun/Impacts-GE-Crops-Biodiversity.pdfhttp://www.isb.vt.edu/news/2011/Jun/Impacts-GE-Crops-Biodiversity.pdfhttp://www.isb.vt.edu/news/2011/Jun/Impacts-GE-Crops-Biodiversity.pdf


18/87

**Oil Spills Good**


19/87

Peak Oil Wrong

Peak Oil Wrong

A) New oil boomMonbiot 12- is the author of the bestselling books The Age of Consent: A Manifesto for a New World Order and Captive State: TheCorporate Takeover of Britain, as well as the investigative travel books Poisoned Arrows, Amazon Watershed and No Man's Land. His latestsbooks are Heat: how to stop the planet burning and Bring on the Apocalypse? (George, A boom in oil production has made a moc kery of ourpredictions. Good news for capitalists but a disaster for humanity, We were wrong on peak oil. There's enough to fry us all, 7/2/12,http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/02/peak-oil-we-we-wrong)//RP

The facts have changed, now we must change too. For the past 10 years an unlikely coalition of geologists, oil drillers, bankers, militarystrategists and environmentalists has been warning that peak oil the decline of global supplies is just around the corner. We had somestrong reasons for doing so: production had slowed, the price had risen sharply, depletion was widespread and appeared to be escalating. Thefirst of the great resource crunches seemed about to strike. Among environmentalists it was never clear, even to ourselves, whether or not wewanted it to happen. It had the potential both to shock the world into economic transformation, averting future catastrophes, and to generatecatastrophes of its own, including a shift into even more damaging technologies, such as biofuels and petrol made from coal. Even so, peak oilwas a powerful lever. Governments, businesses and voters who seemed impervious to the moral case for cutting the use of fossil fuels might,

we hoped, respond to the economic case. Some of us made vague predictions, others were more specific. In all cases we were wrong.In 1975 MK Hubbert, a geoscientist working for Shell who had correctly predicted the decline in US oilproduction, suggested that global supplies could peak in 1995. In 1997 the petroleum geologist ColinCampbell estimated that it would happen before 2010. In 2003 the geophysicist Kenneth Deffeyes saidhe was "99% confident" that peak oil would occur in 2004. In 2004, the Texas tycoon T Boone Pickenspredicted that "never again will we pump more than 82m barrels" per day of liquid fuels. (Average dailysupply in May 2012 was 91m.) In 2005 the investment banker Matthew Simmons maintained that "Saudi Arabia cannot materially grow its oil production". ( Since then its output has risen from 9m barrels a day to 10m, and it has another1.5m in spare capacity.) Peak oil hasn't happened, and it's unlikely to happen for a very long time. A report by

the oil executive Leonardo Maugeri, published by Harvard University, provides compelling evidence thata new oil boom has begun . The constraints on oil supply over