By the same token, organizations like PETA pound us with scare tactics to try and get our sympathy and sincere concern. This slowly turns into money from our wallets. I'm not saying PETA is lying to us, but I'm also not saying they're telling us the truth. But they have to make money somehow, right?
So what exactly is going on here? It just looks like capitalism to me, really. I mean, it's the way our country runs. You can't sell a product unless there's a need. If there's no need for it, then you create the need. Once the need is created in the people you just let consumerism take it's course. You're kid is too hyper for school? Now you can buy his focus for him! Feel guilty about the dying polar bears? Well, now you can buy your guilt off!
But is this really fixing anything? And if it isn't why do we keep feeding these phony causes? It's because we're born into these paradigms....If doctors are always diagnosing your kids then they're probably always right. They have a PHD and therefore can't be swayed by money. And Sue's kid from across the street has it, so it's normal if my kid has it too (semantic contagion anyone?). And they treat him with drugs so it's probably normal for me to do it too. PETA is a huge, respectable organization so they can't be doing shady things like killing off all their stray animals. Plus they're all hippies and animal-lovers so none of them care about money!
Not to get all "every-human-is-innately-evil" on you, but it does seem like all these companies care about, despite their noble intentions, is just getting a few bucks. I'm sure not everyone that works for them is trying to rip you off, but the way the system works sure does suggest it. Maybe if we all stepped out of these paradigms and really looked at the world we might be able to stop these scams before they become these huge powerful organizations.
Ah. Such are the consequences of living with a society that attempts to allow the widest range of attitudes to live together. 'Live and let live' sounds great in theory, but when someone's paradigm gets directly in the way of ours, at what point are we responsible for intervening?
ReplyDeleteI am of the mindset that animal testing is tragic, but a necessary evil to prevent nasty things from befalling our human brethren. If PETA thinks animal testing is an unmitigated evil, they likely can't see any redeeming value in allowing testing to continue unabated. So they try to abate it (well, they try to eliminate it). Interestingly, those who are the targets of PETA's actions also face a choice: to allow the interdiction of their testing facilities, or to intervene themselves and resist.
I can't say there's a good solution out there for the entire melting pot, but it seems to boil down to priorities. If we value the experimental animals' lives equally with our own, we have the same duty to them as we do to any humans. If not, we must sacrifice some of the animals to elevate our own species.