Here's Cowgirl's crash course on Behavioral Science (taken from Campbell's Biology Sixth Edition)
Behavior: What an animal does and how it does it, in a broad technical sense.
It results from both genes and environmental factors. They build onto each other.
Innate behavior is devolopmentaly fixed, meaning all individuals exhibit the same behavior despite environment differences. An example would be how male stickleback's attack anything red (the sign of another male).
Behavioral Ecology studies how behavior affects organisms from a biological standpoint. To sum it up, all behaviors animals display help the species continue. Female birds are attracted to males with a bigger repertoire of songs. Why? This is a sign that the male is older and is more experienced and has genetic factors favoring him.
The Optimial Foraging Theory states that there is a compromise between food-gathering and food-consuming. An animal won't eat something if it takes more energy to gather than do consume.
Learning is the modification of behavior resulting from specific experiences. Young monkeys learn predator cries (one cry for a land predator, one for an airborne one). This should not be confused with maturation, improvements in neuromuscular systems. Birds, for example, to not learn to fly. It is simply a matter of the proper muscle coordination. Habituation is the loss of a response to a stimuli (the 'boy who cried wolf' effect). Imprinting is learning during a certain time period (usually a young age) called the sensitive age.
Play involves movements closely associated with goal-directed behaviors. Lions play with each other tolearn valueable mating and hunting skills.
Cognition in the broadest sense, is the ability to percieve, store, process, and use information gathered by sensory receptors. Kinesis is the change in activity or turning rate in response to a stimulus (wood lice are more active in dry areas). Taxis is an automatic movement towards or away from a stimuli (fly larve move away from light). Landmarks are used as well as other mental maps.
I had to pay over two hundred dollars to learn this. You get it for free.
Again, these are all things designed by thousands and millions of years of evolution to perpetuate the survival of the species. Any sign of consciousness -- awareness -- there? No. Can you argue that the highest order of birds and mammals (I would argue a few species of dinosaurs and some extinct apes would be included in this, but being extinct, it doesn't really matter) might be in possesion of high intelligence? Certainly. Chimps and some birds are able to use tools. But again, these all built for basic survival. Humans are capable of producing socities. We don't think because we must we think because we can and most behavioral biologist argue that most animals are not 'aware'. And those that might have the capabilties have nothing compared to the human. It is like an ant looking at a mountain.
Now, you do mention animal suffering. Well, we are in agreement there. Most animals have some sort of a nervous system, and therefore can sense stimuli. So it is not unreasonable to say that an animal can suffer (to a lesser degree it is also being speculation that's plants suffer, but I'm waiting on more information before I have a stance on that).
Lets put suffering into two camps. 'Mental' and 'physical'. And let's look at mental first. The more intelliegent an animal, the more mental stimulation it needs. The lack of mental stimulation causes mental suffering (for an example, check out Plague Dogs by Richard Addams where the monkey is placed in solitary confinement). So, all that is needed for birds and mammals (and possibly some reptiles but anything lower on the evolutionary ladder doesn't really need any of this -- that might be an overload for them) is some form of a 'toy' in the cage. One plus to owning a rabbit is that I can kill two birds with one stone -- the hay is shaped as a little toy so it is a challenge to get the hay to eat it. Birds need something they can move about like a rattle (a bonus since it makes noise). Mirrors, rattles, pulls, and even mineral blocks can provided hours of entertainment for animals in need of mental stimulation.
Now on to physical suffering. This is an eaiser concept to comprehend. It is easier to see physical abuse than mental abuse. An animal requires a certain amount of food, water, and space. Its simply a matter of giving it to them. On days Dakota is keep in his cage, he has enough room to stand, stretch, jump, lie down, and all without touching or bumping into his toys, hayrack, waterbottle, or litterbox. And that...giving an eyeball measurement about 2 x 2 x 3? Maybe bigger (now granted he is a mini Rex so something a little bigger for average breeds but they actually are more space-conservative). Slap a self-cleaning system (which I've seen in action and its not too bad) and you have there a nice little assemble. The actual killing method can always be improved (again, nothing that prolongs suffering -- it is possible to kill quickly and painlessly).
What I suppose I'm asking for is the modernization of the meat industry. Make it less mechanical. Which, ironically, requires it goes back to the days of small-time farmers that woke up at four in the morning to check to see if there was a fox in the henhouse. Will it cost more? Yes. But the trade off is better for man and beast.
Matt, either by me not providing a good description of myself or you misinterpreting, you have been given the impression that I sit here in some leather boots with my fur-lined silk gloves eating a pound of steak with a side of bacon. If this is my fault, I need to apologize. That being done, I need to correct you.
I do not find leather boots 'bitchin'' to wear. I think the synthetic stuff (more so now that they have that fake leather stuff you can spray on it to fool people) tends to last longer (assuming the rabbit does not get to them). It is also cheaper, a winning factor for a broke college student like myself. And, speaking strictly as a Floridian, I cannot comprehend the fasination with fur. Like, how do you keep from melting? I eat twenty-one meals a day, and out of those six include meat (and that's placing fish with meat). All the meat comes from a cow my roommate oversaw so its not even a factory animal. And yes, it taste better than anything from a store and its a lot healthier. You can argue that the vegan diet is healthier, but like an obnivourous diet (which I know people can abuse) it can be disaterous. My dive into veganism led to three weeks of near malnutrition and two weeks of one wrecked GI track from not making it a slow change (which was entirely my fault, still, my ex-roommate could have done a better job of informing me). You can be responsible with a omnivorous diet, just as you can with a vegan one.
However, while I prefer not to wear leather or fur, I would not object if someone else (who lives where it actually gets cold), I can't tell someone else not to. I've always liked the Native American approach -- use as much of the animal as possible, let there be no waste, and be grateful for the meal, the clothes, and the shelter produced. Heck, if more people had that additude towards more things, the world would be a better place.
As far as feeding the world, hey when the dictators of third-world contries actually give what we sent to their people, then I'll be a little more concerned about that. Let's just try to get what we send into the right hands for now. Baby steps, baby steps.
And no, I do not have trouble seeing myself in the mirror. I have no regrets. Yes I consume animal meat, and I do so responsibly. That's the key word. You argue there is no middle ground, and I say there can be. I mean, I'm an example of middle ground. I'll BBQ some ribs on a warm afternoon -- but then again I just spent the morning playing with my rabbit (and getting weird looks from my roommates -- like haven't they seen Bugs Bunny?). It is possible for a meat-consuming human to live harmoniously with nature. And I'll still see PETA as 'looney' because that's what they are. Even when I am in a agreement with them, I disagree with the means. And I am comfortable enough with my stance on an issue that I don't need some big group like PETA to defend me. The same goes to that guy the blew up the abortion clinics. Do we share the same stance on abortion? Yes, and that's where the simularity ends. I object to his means and again, I feel like my arguement is so sound I don't need this looney's help. So he can get the death penalty for all care. Heck, what he did was terrorism, so I'm glad he wont be a problem anymore.
However, I'm glad we agree on drug testing. I'm not to fond of cosmetics being testing on animals (I think human skin cell test might becoming more popular). Let's take the information we have and more on. Drug testing, unlike cosmetics, has some benefit for animals at least (the big pharacutical companies like Breyer also make products we use at the vet's office).
