pElAgUS' 

Dec 15 - CHILDREN with high IQs are more likely to be vegetarians when they grow up, according to new research.

A British study of more them 8000 men and women aged 30 whose IQs had been measured when they were 10, showed that the higher the IQ, the
greater the odds of being a vegetarian.

"People who are more intelligent as children, who will obviously keep that intelligence when they are 30, were more likely to say they are vegetarians at that age than those that were less intelligent, " said Dr Catherine Gale, an epidemiologist at the University of Southampton in England.

She said the findings, which are published online by the British Medical Journal, were consistent with other studies showing people who are more intelligent tend to eat a healthier diet and exercise more.

"There is quite a lot of evidence linking vegetarianism to a lower risk of heart disease. People who are vegetarians tend to have lower blood pressure, lower cholesterol levels and they do have a lower risk of dying from coronary heart disease," Dr Gale said.

For each 15-point rise in IQ scores in the study, the likelihood of being a vegetarian rose by 38 per cent. Even after adjusting to factors such as social class and education, the link was still consistent.

More than 33 per cent of the men and women in the study described themselves as vegetarians but said they ate white meat and fish. Just over 4 per cent were strict vegetarians and 2.5 per cent were vegans, who eat no animal products at all, including eggs and dairy.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20931861-5001028,00.html

10 Reasons for Animal Rights and Their Explanation

1. The philosophy of animal rights is rational
Explanation: It is not rational to discriminate arbitrarily. And discrimination against nonhuman animals is arbitrary. It is wrong to treat weaker human beings, especially those who are lacking in normal human intelligence, as "tools" or "renewable resources" or "models" or "commodities." It cannot be right, therefore, to treat other animals as if they were "tools," "models and the like, if their psychology is as rich as (or richer than) these humans. To think otherwise is irrational.

"To describe an animal as a physico-chemical system of extreme complexity is no doubt perfectly correct, except that it misses out on the 'animalness' of the animal."

-- E.F. Schumacher

2. The philosophy of animal rights is scientific
Explanation: The philosophy of animal rights is respectful of our best science in general and evolutionary biology in particular. The latter teaches that, in Darwin's words, humans differ from many other animals "in degree," not in kind." Questions of line drawing to one side, it is obvious that the animals used in laboratories, raised for food, and hunted for pleasure or trapped for profit, for example, are our psychological kin. This is no fantasy, this is fact, proven by our best science.

"There is no fundamental difference between humans and the higher mammals in their mental faculties"

-- Charles Darwin

3. The philosophy of animal rights is unprejudiced
Explanation: Racists are people who think that the members of their race are superior to the members of other races simply because the former belong to their (the "superior") race. Sexists believe that the members of their sex are superior to the members of the opposite sex simply because the former belong to their (the "superior") sex. Both racism and sexism are paradigms of unsupportable bigotry. There is no "superior" or "inferior" sex or race. Racial and sexual differences are biological, not moral, differences.
The same is true of speciesism -- the view that members of the species Homo sapiens are superior to members of every other species simply because human beings belong to one's own (the "superior") species. For there is no "superior" species. To think otherwise is to be no less predjudiced than racists or sexists.

"If you can justify killing to eat meat, you can justify the conditions of the ghetto. I cannot justify either one."

-- Dick Gregory

4. The philosophy of animal rights is just
Explanation: Justice is the highest principle of ethics. We are not to commit or permit injustice so that good may come, not to violate the rights of the few so that the many might benefit. Slavery allowed this. Child labor allowed this. Most examples of social injustice allow this. But not the philosophy of animal rights, whose highest principle is that of justice: No one has a right to benefit as a result of violating another's rights, whether that "other" is a human being or some other animal.

"The reasons for legal intervention in favor of children apply not less strongly to the case of those unfortunate slaves -- the (other) animals"

- John Stuart Mill

5. The philosophy of animal rights is compassionate
Explanation: A full human life demands feelings of empathy and sympathy -- in a word, compassion -- for the victims of injustice -- whether the victims are humans or other animals. The philosophy of animal rights calls for, and its acceptance fosters the growth of, the virtue of compassion. This philosophy is, in Lincoln's workds, "the way of a whole human being."

"Compassion in action may be the glorious possibility that could protect our crowded, polluted planet ..."

-- Victoria Moran

6. The philosophy of animal rights is unselfish
Explanation: The philosophy of animal rights demands a commitment to serve those who are weak and vulnerable -- those who, whether they are humans or other animals, lack the ability to speak for or defend themselves, and who are in need of protection against human greed and callousness. This philosophy requires this commitment, not because it is in our self-interest to give it, but because it is right to do so. This philosophy therefore calls for, and its acceptance fosters the growth of, unselfish service.

"We need a moral philosophy in which the concept of love, so rarely mentioned now by philosophers, can once again be made central."

-- Iris Murdoch

7. The philosophy of animal rights is individually fulfilling
Explanation: All the great traditions in ethics, both secular and religious, emphasize the importance of four things: knowledge, justice, compassion, and autonomy. The philosophy of animal rights is no exception. This philosophy teaches that our choices should be based on knowledge, should be expressive of compassion and justice, and should be freely made. It is not easy to achieve these virtues, or to control the human inclinations toward greed and indifference. But a whole human life is imposssible without them. The philosophy of animal rights both calls for, and its acceptance fosters the growth of, individual self-fulfillment.

"Humaneness is not a dead external precept, but a living impulse from within; not self-sacrifice, but self-fulfillment."

-- Henry Salt

8. The philosophy of animal rights is socially progressive.
Explanation: The greatest impediment to the flourishing of human society is the exploitation of other animals at human hands. This is true in the case of unhealthy diets, of the habitual reliance on the "whole animal model" in science, and of the many other forms animal exploitation takes. And it is no less true of education and advertising, for example, which help deaden the human psyche to the demands of reason, impartiality, compassion, and justice. In all these ways (and more), nations remain profoundly backward because they fail to serve the true interests of their citizens.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be measured by the way its animals are treated."

-- Mahatma Gandhi

9. The philosophy of animal rights is environmentally wise.
Explanation: The major cause of environmental degradation, including the greenhouse effect, water pollution, and the loss both of arable land and top soil, for example, can be traced to the exploitation of animals. This same pattern exists throughout the broad range of environmental problems, from acid rain and ocean dumping of toxic wastes, to air pollution and the destruction of natural habitat. In all these cases, to act to protect the affected animals (who are, after all, the first to suffer and die from these environmental ills), is to act to protect the earth.

"Until we establish a felt sense of kinship between our own species and those fellow mortals who share with us the sun and shadow of life on this agonized planet, there is no hope for other species, there is no hope for the environment, and there is no hope for ourselves."

-- Jon Wynne-Tyson

10. The philosophy of animal rights is peace-loving.
Explanation: The fundamental demand of the philosophy of animal rights is to treat humans and other animals with respect. To do this requires that we not harm anyone just so that we ourselves or others might benefit. This philosophy therefore is totally opposed to military aggression. It is a philosophy of peace. But it is a philosophy that extends the demand for peace beyond the boundaries of our species. For there is a war being waged, every day, against countless millions of nonhuman animals. To stand truly for peace is to stand firmly against speciesism. It is wishful thinking to believe that there can be "peace in the world" if we fail to bring peace to our dealings with other animals.

"If by some miracle in all our struggle the earth is spared from nuclear holocaust, only justice to every living thing will save humankind."

-- Alice Walker

via: http://www.cultureandanimals.org

URL: '+url+'

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13050427/

Chicken and Fish: No Reason to Dismiss Their Plight

A reason for the public not considering this is, among many other factors, that we aren’t talking about mammals, but chicken and other birds. In fact, when talking about vegetarianism the public sometimes understand “red meat”. Disregarding other animals such as chicken or fish is something common. Perhaps animal rights campaigners are partially responsible for this, since we sometimes ignore or forget the fishes and birds when fighting for other animals.

This would be problematic in whatever circumstance, but it seems particularly shocking since they are precisely the ones that are killed by humans in higher numbers. We can see it by taking a look at the figures below. The table indicates the relative proportion between the number of lives that we take if we choose to eat the same weight of one animal product or another.

There is a difference in the number of animals that are killed for animal products. But, in any case, the most important thing to remember is that we can choose a vegetarian diet and choose food that doesn’t require us to kill anyone. Those who maintain that it’s important to save as many animals as we can will certainly agree with us at this point. This is in fact a common viewpoint. In the case of humans it is usually believed that is better to save the lives of many than to save the lives of just a few. Those who defend this view must hold a similar stance in the case of other animals. On the other hand, there are others who think that it doesn’t matter whether the animals who are killed are more or less: they will claim that the problem is that if something is wrong -because it harms someone- it shouldn’t be carried out, regardless of how many lives are affected. Those who defend this view will also agree with the conclusion we have reached: since a vegetarian diet avoids killing anyone as well. Our intention here is not to defend that eating certain animals is not as bad as eating others, but rather that many animals who are often dismissed should be taken into account as any others may be. Please note that by vegetarian we mean an animal-free diet (vegan diet) in the widest sense of the term, which means taking into account that eggs and milk also entail killing animals and causing suffering to animals.

How the calculations were made:

First of all, it is important to bear in mind that this calculus comes out of a generalisation which has simplified extremely what in fact is a very complex phenomenon. We are offering here just a general exposition of what the proportions may be under certain circumstances, regardless of the blurriness of the numbers we have drawn. Please mind that this is hardly avoidable in an exposition such as this.

We have then used milk as the index, so all numbers are in comparison to milk.

We have selected Sweden as the source for this study, but we believe that this can indicate more or less what the situation may be in other Western countries. We found the numbers above by dividing the total number of animals from a certain species that are killed in Sweden every year with the approximate amount of flesh they got from the animals. The information about the eggs is based on information from the egg producers on the average number of eggs that one Swedish hen normally produces during her life. We have also included all the young male chickens that are killed because they don’t produce eggs. The number of fishes is calculated from an approximate average weight of the two species of animals that were selected (although there are obviously variations between individuals).

Under the label “cows” we have also included calves, bullocks and bulls as well as adult cows who are killed when their milk production decreases. We have included in this calculus all these animals and not only cows since in order to obtain milk it is necessary to bring calves to life, which may be killed when they are very young or when they are older. At this point the proportion between milk and cow flesh is based upon the information that two thirds of the incomes of the cattle industry come from selling the milk and only one third from sending the animals to slaughter. We have then considered two thirds of the cattle to be killed because of the milk, and one third because of the flesh (we have not considered the production of leather in this calculation since we have focused on food production). Of course these numbers are very relative, since they depend on the particular prices of cow flesh and milk in Sweden in 2004. According to this, those two numbers (“milk” and “cows&rdquo appear to be the more unstable ones of the table, although they can nevertheless be informative to a certain extent.

It is important to take into account that the statistics only include the number of animals that are killed directly in the production, we have not included the number of animals that are killed because of the food the animals are fed or because of the environmental aspects of production. (If this was the case, many other animals should be counted: apart from the fishes, lots of other animals are trapped in nets, and countless are killed to to fed those that are grown in barns).

Sources:
www.sjv.se
www.sjv.se
www.efa.sk/sve

From: http://speciesism.org/