tagged w/ Ethics
-
I’m profoundly disturbed by the publication of this paper. We have a constitution that views prior restraint against speech and publication as anathema, but one wonders about the judgment of Nature. Further, I can’t help wondering what the researchers themselves are thinking. From an institutional standpoint, the tenure and promotion committee isn’t going to give much credence to not publishing, so maybe there’s a feeling that there’s a legacy to be made here. If that’s it – and I’m just free associating here – that would mean we have a system that rewards rank sociopathy over the common weal, which is the precise opposite of what the scientific community is supposed to be about. Or maybe the researchers legitimately believe that the benefits outweigh the risks. If so, I’d like to sit down with them to discuss their risk assessment processes.I’m profoundly disturbed by the publication of this paper. We have a... more
-
-
I’ve been thinking about this a lot, and the headline above probably tells you that I think American physicians are facing an ugly medical ethics problem – likely one that they haven’t even considered. My GP was required to diagnose my illness. In order to prescribe treatment, he was required to enter the diagnosis into the practice’s medical records system. He was, by legal and common sense reckoning, doing the right thing. But he was also, to employ the language of the Hippocratic Oath, doing harm to his patient.I’ve been thinking about this a lot, and the headline above probably tells you... more
-
-
By Ted Glick
“Part of the challenge over these past three years has been that people's number-one priority is finding a job and paying the mortgage and dealing with high gas prices. In that environment, it's been easy for the other side to pour millions of dollars into a campaign to debunk climate-change science. I suspect that over the next six months, this is going to be a debate that will become part of the campaign, and I will be very clear in voicing my belief that we're going to have to take further steps to deal with climate change in a serious way.”
-Barack Obama, in “Ready for the Fight: Rolling Stone Interview with Barack Obama,” April 25, 2012
From April 22-26 there were a series of activities on the climate crisis in Washington, D.C. organized primarily by religiously-based groups. One took place on April 23rd in an auditorium of the Old Executive Office Building, right next to the White House. Several Obama administration officials, including Heather Zichal, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, spoke to and answered questions from about 100 people from a variety of groups and parts of the country.
One question, asked several times, was if President Obama was going to be speaking out on the climate crisis in coming months. He has not been doing so, by and large, ever since the December, 2009 international climate conference in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Zichal’s response to this question was unclear. Either she did not know about the Rolling Stone interview, about to come out two days later, or what Obama said in that interview is somewhat provisional, not to be relied on. Hopefully, recent polls that have shown broad support for action on global warming—in the mid- to high-60’s percent range--will help to move Obama and others running for office to reflect that broad support in what they say between now and November 6.
It is clear, however, that if the climate emergency is going to be a major campaign issue, and if, after the election, we are going to get the kind of federal action urgently needed on it, we can’t depend upon Democrat/Republican interactions and messaging. We need to take action so that this and other important issues are visible, out there, difficult to sweep under the rug.
It is good news that a growing number of religious denominations and leaders are doing just that. Among the activities over the past week in D.C. were these:
an event at the National Cathedral on Earth Day, April 22, honoring Wendell Berry organized by the National Religious Coalition on Creation Care (NRCCC);
the meeting next to the White House on April 23rd organized by two Christian evangelical student-based groups, Renewal and Restoring Eden. and supported by many other organizations;
a day-long conference also on April 23 organized by NRCCC on the Scientific, Religious and Cultural Implications of Global Warming, which included presentations by 24 religious, government, scientific, military, medical and cultural leaders;
a day-long series of activities on April 24th organized by Interfaith Moral Action on Climate (IMAC), a newly-formed collaborative initiative endorsed by 45 groups and scores of religious and other leaders. Highlights were:
an inspiring program at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial early in the morning featuring Bill McKibben, Ibrahim Ramey, Luci Murphy and Sarah James;
a very diverse multi-faith service at the NY Avenue Presbyterian Church with leaders from Christian (Evangelical, Protestant, Catholic), Islamic, Jewish, Baha’I, Hindu and Native American faith traditions;
a religious procession/march down Pennsylvania Avenue to Capitol Hill led by Native American women from the Onondaga and Mohawk Nations; and,
the public announcement and distribution to every Senator and House member of an “ethical report card” grading the response of Congress to the climate emergency. The overall grade given by IMAC to Congress was an “F.”;
a Global Day of Prayer for Creation Care event organized by the Evangelical Environmental Network on April 26, the highlight of which was a 3 ½-hour program of music, videos, presentations and prayers by a range of evangelical leaders from the US, Latin America and Africa.
I can’t remember ever participating in so many actions on an issue organized by religiously-based groups over such an extended period of time. It is a very hopeful sign that among people of faith, many different faiths, there is a clear stirring into action on this huge moral issue, this threat to human civilization and the ecological systems that have allowed for its development over the last 10,000 years.
The climate crisis is a deeply moral and ethical issue. To quote from the Call to Action issued by Interfaith Moral Action on Climate: “It is morally wrong to unjustifiably cause human suffering and death. Human-induced climate change is correlated with storms, floods, droughts, crop failures, diseases, and water and food shortages, as well as associated breakdowns in political, economic, social and ecological systems. . . The greatest impacts are falling on low-income people, communities of color, Indigenous peoples and others who have contributed little to climate change. . . To disrupt the climate that is the cornerstone of all life and to squander the extraordinary abundance of life, diversity and beauty of the planet is a moral failure of the first order.”
More at the linkBy Ted Glick
“Part of the challenge over these past three years has been that... more
-
-
Technological advances have benefitted humanity; we can all see how fitting prosthetic limbs to amputees can raise no moral objections. But how might we respond if designers invite us to upgrade to Arm 2.0 or Brain 4.0? Is there a point where technology transforms what it means to be human and should we be wary or embrace it? Speakers include Daisy Ginsberg, design fellow, Synthetic Aesthetics, Stanford University/University of Edinburgh; Professor Andy Miah, director, Creative Futures Research Centre, University of West Scotland; Marilyn Mond, emeritus professor of molecular embryology, University College London; Susana Soares, designer; senior lecturer, London Southbank University.Technological advances have benefitted humanity; we can all see how fitting prosthetic... more
-
-
Dow Chemical is engaged in constant misinformation and misdirection on the issue of Bhopal – they are desperate to whitewash their image and refuse any responsibility for the ongoing suffering of the people of Bhopal. Here is an excerpt from a recent interview with Dow’s CEO – we will interrupt that broadcast to fill in the gaps that Andrew Liveris is trying to gloss over.
The interview text is from here: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3464938.htm
MARK COLVIN: Now before you go I have to ask you; it’s an Olympic year, the Olympics are only a few months away. The Indians are threatening to boycott because Dow is a major sponsor. What are you saying to them?
ANDREW LIVERIS: Well I mean the issue that they’re all inflamed about is not the Dow issue, it’s an Indian government issue and that’s basically what we’re saying to them.
MARK COLVIN: Why? I mean you bought Union Carbide, which caused the Bhopal disaster.
ANDREW LIVERIS: The Indian government settled with Union Carbide in 1989. Settled and reaffirmed by their Supreme Court three times. So it’s got nothing to do with Dow and that’s in the legal agreements and all the bright lines. They’re trying to drag us in because we have deep pockets and that’s clearly what they want to do.
I would also note by the way the IOC supports us fully. There are lots of other corporate brands that support the Olympics that have had issues over time and boycotts don’t tend to work; they hurt a nation, they don’t hurt the Olympics.
ANDREW LIVERIS: But do you think that the settlement with Union Carbide was fair; there are an awful lot of people still suffering aren’t there?
ANDREW LIVERIS: Well you don’t have to ask me what I think; I think you have to go to the Indian Supreme Court and ask them what they think; they ratified it three times.
MYTHBUSTING #1 – UNION CARBIDE
Union Carbide (UCC) is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Dow Chemical. As UCC explains, their business activities “comprise components of Dow’s global operations rather than standalone operations” (UCC’s 2010 Securities and Exchange Commission filing).
‘Successor liability’ means that when one company merges into another, it gains BOTH its assets AND its liabilities. So, in gaining UCC’s wealth, Dow also gained UCC’s responsibility for the ongoing tragedy in Bhopal.
MYTHBUSTING #2 – THE SETTLEMENT
The settlement reached in 1989 – $470m –was 15% of the original claim for $3bn. $470m is roughly equal to £600 per survivor, none of whom were consulted. This money is not even enough to pay for the ongoing treatment that many survivors need.
The Indian government has recognised the settlement deal as an “irremediable injustice” and is now challenging its legitimacy in the Supreme Court.
The case for compensation is far from closed.
MARK COLVIN: So you bought it on a purely legalistic basis, knowing that you would have nothing more to pay?
ANDREW LIVERIS: There are companies being bought and sold all over the world all the time. Legacy issues and liabilities are a rule of law; rule of law speaks to bright lines and so that’s the topic here.
MYTHBUSTING #3 – LIABILITIES
The ‘polluter pays’ is a rule of law – it is a legal principle adopted by India and the US: if a company creates pollution, they must pay for it. Any damage the pollution causes is the company’s responsibility. Cases in both Indian and US courts are trying to make the polluter – UCC – pay to clean up and decontaminate the site of the disaster, and deal with the water contamination.
When UCC merged into Dow in 2001, Dow became responsible for UCC’s ‘polluter pays’ liabilities. Dow even recognised this by accepting UCC’s asbestos-related liabilities in the US which date back to before the Bhopal gas disaster. Dow set aside $2.2 billion to resolve these claims in the US, yet they refuse to accept liability in Bhopal.
The message from Dow and LOCOG is that ‘it is now the Indian government’s responsibility to clean up the site’ in Bhopal. But the government did not pollute the site, UCC polluted the site. Moreover, if the Indian government was to clean up the site, the money would come from Indian taxpayers, some of whom live in Bhopal.
Dow is asking the victims of the gas disaster and water contamination to pay up.
The polluter should pay, not the victims.
MARK COLVIN: Do you think the Indian team will boycott?
ANDREW LIVERIS: I don’t know what the Indian team will do. I think it’ll be a tragedy for India but that’s their decision.
MARK COLVIN: Is it damaging your company?
ANDREW LIVERIS: Absolutely not.
MARK COLVIN: How come?
ANDREW LIVERIS: Our company is a company that wins awards on sustainability. We’re named one of America’s most sustainably enriched company in terms of ethics….
(see Dow’s ‘sustainable’ and ‘ethical’ record here: www.athletesagainstdowchemical.wordpress.com)
MARK COLVIN: But in India I mean. There is clearly a depth of feeling about it.
ANDREW LIVERIS: It doesn’t hurt us in India. We have a great reputation in India. Look activist groups exist not just in India, they exist all around the world and people will have their views. It’s a free economy in India and they’ll have their views.
MYTHBUSTING #4 – DOW’S REPUTATION
There is widespread, international outrage at Dow’s involvement in the London Olympics.
Expressing that they are “dismayed” at Dow’s sponsorship of the Olympics, Indian officials refuse to endorse Dow Chemical and will boycott the opening and closing ceremonies in protest:
Meredith Alexander resigned from her position in the ethics committee for the London Olympics in protest.
Hindu groups from all over the UK met to rally their opposition to Dow’s involvement.....
More at the linkDow Chemical is engaged in constant misinformation and misdirection on the issue of... more
-
-
Because if there’s a genuine ethics out there that applies because it actually is so, maybe just maybe I’m actually obligated to do something about whatever it is I see wrong in the world, and I see plenty. I don’t just mean living a green lifestyle with as little footprint as is practical, donating to charities, voting one ticket or another, writing letters, or protesting. That’s all well and good. But might I not be obliged to take up something more direct like clearing minefields? Or contributing to the general welfare by a more judicious use of my time and talents? Is free time a luxury? Is luxury a guilty pleasure? Because if so, I should rather be off my ass somewhere agitating for change for the better in some way. I should be placing myself in harm’s way commensurate with my ability to make a positive difference. Depending on which way a person believes, I may even need to join the military (a thought which has actually crossed my mind with varying degrees of seriousness in the past).Because if there’s a genuine ethics out there that applies because it actually... more
-
-
In July 2011, the Brisbane Times reported that Australia’s carbon price was dead in the water. Polling revealed that support for the legislation was low and that Prime Minister Julia Gillard had done a poor job explaining the bill. Down in the trenches, mud was flying: a politician compared a progressive activist organization supporting the carbon price, GetUp!, to the Hitler Youth League (GetUp!, by the way, is also the organization that produced this moving and wildly viral video in support of marriage equality last fall).
Despite ferocious opposition, the carbon price squeaked through the Australian parliament months later, sending a jolt of optimism through the global community. Like other climate bills, it ended up being pockmarked with holes gaping enough to drive an SUV through, but one of the largest per-capita carbon emitters in the world was clearly willing to throw its hat in the ring on climate action. The skeptics had been proven wrong.
Here in the U.S., activists perked up at news of Australia’s carbon price but overall seem hardened to federal policy after the American Clean Energy and Security Act failed to pass in 2010 (many environmentalists were opposed to the hulking and imperfect bill anyway, adding another layer of ambivalence). And don’t even mention the attitude in Congress. “We’re busy enough fighting off attacks on the EPA” is the mantra Democratic Congressmembers and environmentalists alike are fond of repeating these days.
But like crocus bulbs shifting under the frozen ground, a movement has been building for federal climate policy. And the time is right: belief in climate change among the general public has just taken an upward turn, according to Brookings.
Partly due to the pressure applied by groups like Citizens Climate Lobby, politicians and other leaders are beginning to warm up the public on carbon pricing.
NASA Climate Scientist James Hansen has been promoting fee-and-dividend legislation for years, recently appearing on MSNBC with Treehugger’s Brian Merchant. Soon after, the Washington Post editorial page released a small flurry of pieces on carbon taxation. First, that famous tag-team, Reps. Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, along with former Republican House members Sherwood Boehlert and Wayne Gilchrest , endorsed a carbon price in an op-ed:
We could slash our debt by making power plants and oil refineries pay for the carbon emissions that endanger our health and environment. This policy would strengthen our economy, lessen our dependence on foreign oil, keep our skies clean — and raise a lot of revenue.
Then the paper’s fickle editorial board endorsed Pete Stark’s existing carbon tax bill (H.R. 3242 – the Save Our Climate Act) currently languishing in committee. Leadership on the issue from politicians, even from well-known liberals like Stark, is sorely needed. Especially when the public, for better or worse, forms opinions based on their statements.
The LA Times editorial page, too, has been drumming up support for a carbon tax. Their neighbor to the north, British Columbia, passed a carbon tax three years ago and the evidence of its success is a hopeful sign.
Just do it. Put a price on carbon, one way or another. How much is levied, and where and exactly how it’s levied, aren’t as important as the principle that we all pay something for emissions.
In Canada — and in California — it will take time, and trial and error, to get climate change regulations off the ground and working. It’s difficult, yes. Complicated too. But it’s not economic or political suicide.
One can’t deny some heavy lifting is in order, but with luck we can learn from our past missteps. The environmental community will need to better communicate its goals, think outside the insular lobbying strategies of yore, and truly work with groups across the political and interest spectrum from unions and environmental justice groups to business and religious leaders, and especially Republicans.
That last point may seem like a joke in the current political climate but behind the scenes, many Republicans do support a carbon tax. David Roberts of Grist has even gone as far as calling carbon pricing a fundamentally conservative policy. Case in point: Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney’s economic advisor Gregory Mankiw is a strong proponent of a carbon tax, and his observations about the resistance to the policy reflect Roberts’ own:
In the debate over global climate change, there is a yawning gap that needs to be bridged. The gap is not between environmentalists and industrialists, or between Democrats and Republicans. It is between policy wonks and political consultants.
Among policy wonks like me, there is a broad consensus. The scientists tell us that world temperatures are rising because humans are emitting carbon into the atmosphere. Basic economics tells us that when you tax something, you normally get less of it. So if we want to reduce global emissions of carbon, we need a global carbon tax. Q.E.D.
We’re encouraged by statements from conservatives like Mankiw, Boehlert and Gilchrest, but what’s really moving us these days is the growing army of committed citizen lobbyists around the country we’ve seen jump into the lion’s den. They’re inspiring us to rethink our rote pessimism, and the idea that the general public can’t be rallied around this issue.
More at the linkIn July 2011, the Brisbane Times reported that Australia’s carbon price was dead... more
-
-
New enlistees are exposed to an imposing new culture as they enter the military. For decades, the Gideons have been treating them to a good Christian introduction. Good for the Gideons for taking care of their people. For the first time, enlistees will see that it’s ok if you’re not Christian. Humanist enlistees now have access to “Living Well Through Secular Humanism,” a publication of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers introducing humanism as a positive, science-based, and ethical life stance for nontheists.
Read more here:
http://blog.militaryatheists.org/2012/02/humanist-literature-now-available-for-new-enlistees-2/New enlistees are exposed to an imposing new culture as they enter the military. For... more
-
-
If this were simply a philosophy issue we could kick back, mix up a pitcher of Margaritas and indulge our joy in debating ideas. But it isn’t just philosophy. O’Keefe’s hateful shenanigans materially damaged countless numbers of people so poor they’re looking up at Mitt Romney’s “safety net.” Neocon sleight-of-hand killed well over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians (and counting). Christian terrorists gunned down Dr. George Tiller in church (he’s hardly the only victim of social conservative thuggery – consider the attack on the Unitarian service in Knoxville, for instance) and the enforcers of the right receive ample validation for their actions in the movement’s propaganda wing: O’Reilly, Hannity, Savage and Limbaugh all seem popular with this crowd. And if you’re part of the “99%” you probably don’t need to be told about the impact American families feel as a result of the machinations of our new feudalist overlords.If this were simply a philosophy issue we could kick back, mix up a pitcher of... more
-
-
-
If you assume that Bill Gates is so well informed about all his philanthropic targets that you take his word at face value, you would be in good company, but you might be terribly wrong. Organizations well versed in the agricultural issues facing developing nations are saying his annual letter, released last week, is completely mistaken when it asserts that a lack of support for GMO crop development is responsible, in part, for allowing world hunger to endure. We interviewed Heather Pilatic, Ph.D., co-director of the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), to show us the other, important side of the story.
TakePart: In the introduction to his letter, Bill Gates cites the Green Revolution of the 1960s and '70s, saying scientists created new seed varieties for rice, wheat, and maize, and that this resulted in increased crop yield and a decrease in extreme poverty around the world. Do you agree that this is a model to use moving forward?
Heather Pilatic: The Green Revolution is a story that some people like to tell, but it has little basis in historical fact. Take the Green Revolution’s origins in 1940s Mexico, for instance. It was not really about feeding the world; Mexico was a food exporter at the time. Rather, the aims included stabilizing restive rural populations in our neighbor to the south, and making friends with a government that at the time was selling supplies to the World War II Axis powers and confiscating oil fields held by Standard Oil (a funding source for the Rockefeller Foundation, one of the key architects of the Green Revolution).
We can also learn from India, the Green Revolution’s next stop after Mexico. India embraced the Green Revolution model of chemical-intensive agriculture. Now it is the world’s second biggest rice grower with surplus grain in government warehouses. Yet India has more starving people than sub-Saharan Africa—at more than 200 million, that’s nearly a quarter of its population. History shows that a narrow focus on increasing crop yield through chemical-seed packages reduces neither hunger nor poverty.
So no, we do not agree that the Green Revolution offers a promising model for addressing poverty.
TakePart: Bill Gates is urging that more money be donated to agricultural innovation, including crop GMOs, because "one in seven people will continue living needlessly on the edge of starvation." Of course, this argument worries all of us. Will you explain PANNA's perspective?
Heather Pilatic: We could not agree with Gates more on the first point. Investment in agriculture in the developing world is enormously efficient and more impactful on the ground than investment in just about any other sector. It is also true that more people than ever before are going hungry, needlessly. We have enough food to go around now. We disagree with Gates on two points—one scientific and one political.
First, the science. Most of the rest of the world's experts agree that GMOs are not what the world's poor need to feed themselves. The science simply doesn't bear this claim out. Our staff scientist was a lead author in the most comprehensive analysis of global agriculture ever undertaken, the UN & World Bank's International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (the IAASTD). After four years and with the input of over 400 experts, and reams of evidence, the IAASTD concluded that the developing world's best bet for feeding itself in the 21st century was explicitly not the kind of chemically intensive farming that accompanies GMO seeds. Rather, these experts found that smaller scale, farmer-driven, knowledge-intensive, ecological agriculture is one of the most promising ways forward for the developing world in particular. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food has reported that ecological farming can double food production within 10 years. This is the kind of agriculture we should be investing in.
Second, the political—and this cuts two ways. We must finally recognize that hunger is a problem of poverty and access to resources, especially land, not agricultural yield. The solution to world hunger is a political one: stop kicking farmers off their land and dumping product on the world market that puts them out of business; protect farmers’ rights to save and exchange seed; kick the bankers out of food-crop commodities speculation, they're playing roulette with our food system; write fair trade policies; listen to the world's poor, they know what they need...in short, democratize food and farming if you want to address hunger.
Finally, here in the U.S., kick the farm lobby out of Congress and the pesticide industry out of our federal regulatory agencies (EPA & USDA). Together, these two special interests have a chokehold on U.S. farm, aid and trade policy, and dominate our agricultural research agenda in ways that make it possible for a smart man like Bill Gates to believe and prosyletize on behalf of an approach to agriculture that A, the rest of the world knows is defunct; and B, has failed—after 14 years of commercialization and billions of dollars in public research funding—to deliver on a single one of its promises to the public.
More at the linkIf you assume that Bill Gates is so well informed about all his philanthropic targets... more
-
-
-
Last week, the London Olympics were wrapped in fresh embarassment and controversy as Mayor Boris Johnson’s ‘ethics Tzar’ resigned live on BBC Newsnight over fears that her ethics and sustainability concerns with regards to sponsors simply weren’t being listened to. In an interview with Jeremy Paxman she announced that her position at the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012 (CSL) was no longer tenable in light of the LOCOG’s continued relationship with and defence of the Dow Chemical Company.
The moment: Meredith Alexander appears live on the BBC's Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman to announce her resignation from the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012
“By coming on air tonight, I’m taking the decision to resign my position and stand up for my principles… I feel that I was part of a body that has been used to legitimize Dow’s involvement in the games.” Dow took over Union Carbide Corporation in 2001, but neither company have addressed the ongoing issue of water and soil contamination in Bhopal that continues to kill thousands and afflict even more with chronic illnesses.
Coverage of the ongoing Bhopal tragedy, and the controversy over Dow and London 2012, went through the roof and Meredith acquired overnight celebrity status in India. Her resignation live on British television resulted in an outpouring of hope, gratitude and optimism from those still living in Union Carbide and Dow’s toxic shadow.
This week, the Bhopal Medical Appeal caught up with Ms. Alexander for a chat…
BMA: What were the main reasons for your resignation from the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012 (CSL) ?
MA: All the evidence I have read has convinced me that Dow Chemicals is responsible for the deaths of more than 20,000 people in the aftermath of the Bhopal gas leak. The assets and liabilities of the company involved at the time – Union Carbide – are in Dow’s hands. Londoners, and other people, who are rightly excited about the London games, should not have this toxic legacy on their conscience.
BMA: At what point did your position became “untenable” and why?
MA: The tipping point for me, was the correspondence between Amnesty International and Lord Coe [Chair of LOCOG]. The latest response from Amnesty, just last week, pointed out how LOCOG have become apologists for Dow, falsely legitimising Dow’s stance that it bears no responsibility to the victims of the disaster and their families. I feel that the Olympic bodies are supporting Dow’s line and have failed to take the victim’s views into consideration.
BMA: Last week, Sebastian Shakespeare published a controversial column in the London Evening Standard with the bold headline “The Olympics should be no place for ethics.” Have you read it, and if so, what did you think?
MA: I have read it. And I actually submitted a letter to the editor yesterday about it. I think most Londoners share my view that ethics and sport can and must go hand in hand. Yet as things stand, the enjoyment of the Games risks being hampered by the toxic legacy of one of the sponsors: Dow Chemicals. When London bid to host the 2012 Games, we made a promise to the world that it would be most sustainable Games ever. [Read Meredith's whole letter to the ES newspaper here.]
BMA: Based on your resignation, can you further tell us why you think that ethics, morality, and sustainability are an important part of the Olympics? Why shouldn’t we just accept that commercial sponsorship is inevitable and ‘get over it.’
MA: I think it’s important to remember that there was absolutely no need for the London 2012 organisers to award anyone the contract for this wrap. It’s a completely optional item that is not essential to the design of the stadium. It will not help a single athlete run faster nor will it help spectators have a better view. Dow’s connection to the Olympics is a slap in the face to the victims of Bhopal, but the fact that this wrap is unnecessary makes this particular deal even more galling for those who have spent decades fighting for justice.
More of the interview at the linkLast week, the London Olympics were wrapped in fresh embarassment and controversy as... more
-
-
(This is my piece.) And as noted in this KOS piece from yesterday, KOMEN supporters jump ship, even before this decision "people have been uncomfortable with SGK's marketing, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (my cap), and pushing small groups around over copyright and trademark. This Planned Parenthood thing has just finally pushed them over the edge."
As a physician, I am very concerned. They made a medically unethical decision without hesitating. Just how many others have they made over the years? If they allowed one big funder to tell them to do this, what pressure have they bowed too previously from Big for-profit Health? You know the Right Wing/Big Health mantra is 'die quick, die cheap'...and that most especially goes for women.
I am about to propose to those who ask, that any woman getting treated for breast cancer discuss with her doctor if he uses any KOMEN funded research, asks why...and then asks to be treated by another standard!http://tinyurl.com/7gz7buj(This is my piece.) And as noted in this KOS piece from yesterday, KOMEN supporters... more
-
-
LOrion
-
added this
-
4 months ago
- |
-
The London 2012 Olympic Games were embroiled in further controversy last night as Meredith Alexander, a Sustainability Commissioner and Ethics Adviser for the games, resigned live on the BBC’s flagship news program Newsnight. In an interview with Jeremy Paxman she announced that her position at the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012 (CSL) was no longer tenable in light of the LOCOG’s continued relationship with and defence of the Dow Chemical Company.
She stated, into TV cameras; “By coming on air tonight, I’m taking the decision to resign my position and stand up for my principles… I feel that I was part of a body that has been used to legitimize Dow’s involvement in the games.” She went on to state that while Dow Chemicals have an ‘army of PR people’ she hoped that her resignation could bring some attention to the continuing plight of victims in Bhopal.
The Dow Chemical Company took over Union Carbide corporation in 2001, but neither company have addressed the ongoing issue of water and soil contamination in Bhopal that continues to kill thousands and inflict even more with chronic illnesses. Lord Coe and LOCOG have been criticised for allowing Dow Chemical’s the opportunity to sponsor the London 2012 stadium.
Dow Chemical is currently a named respondent in two court cases pertaining to the Bhopal disaster and Dow’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Union Carbide, is involved in a US court case relating to the ongoing contamination. Union Carbide is also still wanted on criminal charges in India and the Indian courts have stated that Dow is ‘harbouring fugitives from justice’.
Further into the Newsnight interview, Ms. Alexander hinted at a developing crisis within the CSL regarding the Dow issue and stated that some of her fellow commissioners were also “very concerned” but she would not comment on the prospect of further resignations.
More at the linkThe London 2012 Olympic Games were embroiled in further controversy last night as... more
-
-
Researchers from Newcastle University have been funded more than $9.3 million by the Wellcome Trust to begin experimenting with a method that could lead to children having DNA from three people to eliminate some genetic disorders.
According to the Telegraph, the technique involves removing the nucleus from a donor cell and inserting a fertilized nucleus from the hopeful couple or the unfertilized nucleus of the mother for fertilization later. This effort, researchers believe, could help couples where the mother has known genetic disorders carried on her mitochondrial DNA — DNA found in the mitochondria of a cell.
Mitochondrial DNA, which composes 0.2 percent of a human‘s DNA and doesn’t influence traits like physical appearance, is passed down from mother to offspring. But, there are several genetic disorders, such as muscular dystrophy and ataxia, which are associated with this type DNA.Researchers from Newcastle University have been funded more than $9.3 million by the... more
-
-
The American College of Physicians has new ethics guidelines to help doctors in handling sensitive issues related to patient care including end-of-life care, complementary and alternative medicine, taking care of VIPs and using social media.The American College of Physicians has new ethics guidelines to help doctors in... more
-
-
.
The Atlantic
.
Dead Cow Walking: The Case Against Born-Again Carnivorism
By Marc Bekoff
Dec 27 2011, 8:53 AM ET 614
Pigs, chickens, and other animals raised for food are sentient beings with rich emotional lives. They feel everything from joy to grief.
.
"Eating Animals," by Nicolette Hahn Niman, a livestock rancher, with help from deer hunter Tovar Cerulli and butcher Joshua Applestone, caught my eye because, at first, I thought this essay was authored by Jonathan Safran Foer, who wrote a best-selling book with the same title. While Niman and her friends do rightly argue against consuming factory-farmed animals -- who live utterly horrible lives from the time that they're born to the time that they're transported to slaughterhouses and barbarically killed -- these three born-again carnivores, all former vegetarians or vegans, now proudly eat animals and think that it's just fine to do so. They gloss over the fact that even if the animals they eat are "humanely" raised and slaughtered, an arguable claim, they're still taking a life. These animals are merely a means to an end: a tasty meal.
The defensive and apologetic tone of this essay also caught my eye, as did the conveniently utilitarian framework of the argument. The animals they eat were raised simply to become meals because Niman and others choose to eat meat. I like to say that whom we choose to eat is a moral question, and just because these three now choose to eat animals doesn't mean that other people should make the same choice. Note that I wrote "whom" we eat, not "what." Cows, pigs, chickens, and other animals raised for food are sentient beings who have rich emotional lives. They can feel everything from sheer joy to deep grief. They can also suffer enduring pain and misery, and they don't deserve to have the good and happy lives provided by Niman and others ended early just so that their flesh can wind up on what really is a platter of death.
Wolves, lions, and cougars are not moral agents and can't be held accountable for their actions. But most humans know what they're doing and are responsible for their choices.
Cows, for example, are very intelligent. They worry over what they don't understand and have been shown to experience "eureka" moments when they solve a puzzle, such as when they figure out how to open a particularly difficult gate. Cows communicate by staring, and it's likely that we don't fully understand their very subtle forms of communication. They also form close and enduring relationships with family members and friends and don't like to have their families and social networks disrupted. Chickens are also emotional beings, and detailed scientific research has shown that they empathize with the pain of other chickens.
Raising happy animals just so that they can be killed is really an egregious double cross. The "raise them, love them, and then kill them" line of reasoning doesn't have a meaningful ring of compassion. And this isn't mercy killing (euthanasia) performed because these animals need to be put out of their pain. No, these healthy and happy animals are slaughtered, and if you dare to look into their eyes, you know that they're suffering. If you wouldn't treat a dog like this, then you shouldn't treat a cow, a pig, or any other animal in this way.
As a field biologist who studies animal behavior, I feel that the authors' appeal to what happens in the natural world -- "life feeds on life" -- is an illogical justification for their food choices. I've seen thousands of predatory encounters. I cringe when I see them, but I would never interfere. Wild predators, unlike us, have no choice about whom or what they eat. They couldn't survive if they didn't eat other animals. And indeed, many animals are vegetarians, including non-human primates, who eat other animals only on very rare occasions.
Jessica Pierce and I wrote about how appeals to nature are misleading and illogical in our book Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals. We argued that wolves, lions, and cougars, for example, are not moral agents and can't be held accountable for their actions. They don't know right from wrong. On the other hand, most humans do know what they're doing and are responsible for their choices. When it comes down to whose flesh winds up in our mouths, we can make choices, and in my view, eating animals is wrong and unnecessary, even when they are "humanely" raised and slaughtered. Let me add a caveat here because, as a world traveler, I do know that many people do not have the luxury of making a choice about their meals and must eat whatever is available to them. However, those who do have that luxury can easily eat an animal-free diet. And we can work to show others that a vegetarian or vegan diet can be very economical and healthy.
Niman and her friends also note that vegetarian and vegan diets have "never really taken hold." So what? This hardly means that we shouldn't try to do the right thing. They write, "The vast majority of Americans who do try vegetarianism or veganism -- about three-quarters of them -- return to eating meat. Rather than urging people to consume only plants, doesn't it make more sense to encourage them to eat an omnivorous diet that is healthy, ethical, and ecologically sound?" No, it doesn't. What it means is that these people should try harder and not give up just because it might seem difficult to change their meal plans. Perhaps they just need more time and encouragement from other vegetarians who can show them how easy it is to stop eating animals.
It's easy to add more compassion to the world and to expand our compassion footprint. Excuses such as "Oh, I know they suffer, but don't tell me because I love my burger" add cruelty to the world, even if the animals people are eating weren't raised on factory farms and killed in slaughterhouses. You're eating a dead animal who really did care about what happened to him or her. When I ask people how they can dismiss the fact that an animal was killed for their pleasure, they usually fumble here and there and offer no meaningful answer. When I ask them if they'd eat a dog, they look at me with incredulity and emphatically say, "No!" When I ask them why they wouldn't eat a dog, they can't really tell me, offering statements laden with dismissive phrases, such as "Oh, you know...." Because I often travel to China to help in the rehabilitation of Asiatic moon bears who have been rescued from the bear-bile industry, people sometimes ask me, "How can you go there? Isn't that where they eat dogs and cats?" I simply say, "Yes, it is, and I'm from America, where they eat cows and pigs, who are no less sentient and emotional beings." Animals really are very much like us.
No matter how humanely raised they are, the lives of animals raised for food can be cashed out simply as "dead cow/pig/chicken walking." Whom we choose to eat is a matter of life and death. I think of the animals' manifesto as "Leave us alone. Don't bring us into the world if you're just going to kill us to satisfy your tastes."
.
Image: Kurt De Bruyn
..
The Atlantic
.
Dead Cow Walking: The Case Against Born-Again Carnivorism... more
-
-
ButterballAbuse.com...
Mercy For Animals....
.
Butterball has become synonymous with turkey. But how do the millions of turkeys who end up in the grocery store, or served at restaurants, under the Butterball brand, really live and die?
A new Mercy For Animals undercover investigation reveals the truth: extreme cruelty and violence is the harsh reality for birds on Butterball's factory farms.
Between November and December of 2011, an MFA undercover investigator documented a pattern of shocking abuse and neglect at a Butterball turkey semen collection facility in Shannon, North Carolina.
Hidden-camera footage taken at Butterball reveals:
Workers violently kicking and stomping on birds, dragging them by their fragile wings and necks, and maliciously throwing turkeys onto the ground or into transport trucks in full view of company management;
Employees bashing in the heads of live birds with metal bars, leaving many to slowly suffer and die from their injuries;
Turkeys covered in flies, living in their own waste, with some unable to access food or water and suffering from severe feather loss
Birds suffering from serious untreated illnesses and injuries, including open sores, infections, rotting eyes, and broken bones; and
Severely injured turkeys, unable to stand up or walk, left to die without any veterinary care, because treating sick or injured birds was too costly and time consuming, as the farm manager explained to MFA's investigator.
After viewing the undercover footage, Dr. Sara Shields, research scientist, poultry specialist and consultant in animal welfare, said, "Turkeys are fully capable of feeling pain, fear, stress and of suffering, and the way they are treated in the video is clearly abusive."
Dr. Debra Teachout, a practicing veterinarian with experience in farmed-animal welfare, agrees, stating, "The birds are not living a life remotely worth living. Their world is full of fear, distress, pain, injury and illness as witnessed by this video. A culture of blatant and severe animal mistreatment has been allowed to flourish unchecked, and for that reason, this facility should be shut down immediately."
Following the investigation, MFA immediately went to law enforcement with extensive video footage and a detailed legal complaint outlining the routine violence and cruelty documented by the investigator at this Butterball facility. On Thursday, December 29, state law enforcement officials obtained a warrant and raided the facility on grounds of cruelty to animals.
Unfortunately, the lives of turkeys in Butterball's factory farms are short, brutal and filled with fear, violence and prolonged suffering. While wild turkeys are sleek, agile and able to fly, Butterball's turkeys have been selectively bred to grow so large, so quickly, that many of them suffer from painful bone defects, hip joint lesions, crippling foot and leg deformities, and fatal heart attacks.
This genetic manipulation creates birds that are so large they cannot even reproduce naturally, meaning that artificial semen collection and insemination have become the sole means of turkey reproduction at Butterball facilities.
Even though domestic turkeys have been genetically manipulated for enormous growth, these birds still retain their gentle, inquisitive and social natures. Oregon State University poultry scientist Dr. Tom Savage says that turkeys are "smart animals with personality and character, and keen awareness of their surroundings." In fact, animal behaviorists, veterinarians, and scientists now agree that turkeys are sensitive and intelligent animals with their own unique personalities, much like the dogs and cats we all know and love.
While MFA works to expose and end animal abuse at Butterball and other giants of the meat, dairy and egg industry, consumers can help prevent the needless suffering of turkeys and other animals by adopting a compassionate vegan diet.
.
.
http://a.abcnews.com/images/Blotter/ht_butterball_abuse_tk_111228_wg.jpg
.
.
Click here to view undercover video:
http://www.butterballabuse.com
.ButterballAbuse.com...
Mercy For Animals....
.
Butterball has become... more
-
-
NATO may have ended its operations in Libya, but the Western presence is far from over - with big companies replacing the warplanes. The countries that bombed the oil-rich country are now getting lucrative contracts to rebuild it. RT's Laura Smith adds up the profits of war.NATO may have ended its operations in Libya, but the Western presence is far from over... more
-
