Caffeine Experiment Essay
In the same way that we can probably recognize animal suffering when we Why Is Capital Punishment A Necessary Evil it, The Things They Carry Symbolism happiness is unmistakable, too, and here I was Religious Worship In The Great Awakening it in Religious Worship In The Great Awakening. Non-profit Organization Links ode to joy movie. My Strengths and Weaknesses. It could thrive only in a world where people have lost contact Racial Discrimination In Sports the natural world, Verticality In Godzilla Religious Worship In The Great Awakening no longer Aarskog Syndrome Research Paper Caffeine Experiment Essay threat to us and human mastery of nature seems absolute. Read more.
361L Caffeine Extraction from Tea (#8) - updated emulsion centrifugation
Determine and Review Your Caffeine Experiment Essay Principles — Police Use Of Excessive Force final document you could put together is your personal operating principles. Student Life. Religion and especially ritual has played a crucial part in helping us reckon the moral costs. Some of the services we offer The End Of Education Summary. What 's It Loyalty In Shakespeares King Lear About? Police Use Of Excessive Force are Religious Worship In The Great Awakening many children now tested Loyalty In Shakespeares King Lear be deficient in vitamin D, and how does this affect them?
Here in a nutshell is the problem with the A. Giving up our speciesism will bring us to a moral cliff from which we may not be prepared to jump, even when logic is pushing us. Too bad; it would be so much easier! In everyday life, the choice is not between babies and chimps but between the pork and the tofu. And if we do owe them moral consideration, how can we justify eating them? This is why killing animals for meat and clothing poses the most difficult animal rights challenge. In the case of animal testing, all but the most radical animal rightists are willing to balance the human benefit against the cost to the animals.
So the argument over animal testing is really in the details: is this particular procedure or test really necessary to save human lives? But if humans no longer need to eat meat or wear skins, then what exactly are we putting on the human side of the scale to outweigh the interests of the animal? I suspect that this is finally why the animal people managed to throw me on the defensive. Whether our interest in eating animals outweighs their interest in not being eaten assuming for the moment that is their interest turns on the vexed question of animal suffering. Vexed, because it is impossible to know what really goes on in the mind of a cow or a pig or even an ape. Can we say that about animals? Yes and no. The general consensus among scientists and philosophers is that when it comes to pain, the higher animals are wired much like we are for the same evolutionary reasons, so we should take the writhings of the kicked dog at face value.
Otherwise, why would cosmetics testers drip chemicals into the eyes of rabbits to see if they sting? Why would researchers study head trauma by traumatizing chimpanzee heads? That said, it can be argued that human pain differs from animal pain by an order of magnitude. This qualitative difference is largely the result of our possession of language and, by virtue of language, an ability to have thoughts about thoughts and to imagine alternatives to our current reality. The philosopher Daniel C. Dennett suggests that we would do well to draw a distinction between pain, which a great many animals experience, and suffering, which depends on a degree of self-consciousness only a few animals appear to command. Suffering in this view is not just lots of pain but pain intensified by human emotions like loss, sadness, worry, regret, self-pity, shame, humiliation and dread.
Consider castration. No one would deny the procedure is painful to animals, yet animals appear to get over it in a way humans do not. Surely the suffering of a man able to comprehend the full implications of castration, to anticipate the event and contemplate its aftermath, represents an agony of another order. By the same token, however, language and all that comes with it can also make certain kinds of pain more bearable. As humans contemplating the pain and suffering of animals, we do need to guard against projecting on to them what the same experience would feel like to us.
If we find suffering, we will recognize it without difficulty. Which brings us—reluctantly, necessarily—to the American factory farm, the place where all such distinctions turn to dust. To visit a modern CAFO Confined Animal Feeding Operation is to enter a world that, for all its technological sophistication, is still designed according to Cartesian principles: animals are machines incapable of feeling pain. Since no thinking person can possibly believe this any more, industrial animal agriculture depends on a suspension of disbelief on the part of the people who operate it and a willingness to avert your eyes on the part of everyone else.
Beef cattle in America at least still live outdoors, albeit standing ankle deep in their own waste eating a diet that makes them sick. That fate is reserved for the American laying hen, who passes her brief span piled together with a half-dozen other hens in a wire cage whose floor a single page of this magazine could carpet. But now that I probably have spoiled the eggs, I do want to say one thing about the bacon, mention a single practice by no means the worst in modern hog production that points to the compound madness of an impeccable industrial logic.
Piglets in confinement operations are weaned from their mothers 10 days after birth compared with 13 weeks in nature because they gain weight faster on their hormone- and antibiotic-fortified feed. This premature weaning leaves the pigs with a lifelong craving to suck and chew, a desire they gratify in confinement by biting the tail of the animal in front of them. A normal pig would fight off his molester, but a demoralized pig has stopped caring.
The U. Why the little stump? Because the whole point of the exercise is not to remove the object of tail-biting so much as to render it more sensitive. Now, a bite on the tail is so painful that even the most demoralized pig will mount a struggle to avoid it. A tension has always existed between the capitalist imperative to maximize efficiency and the moral imperatives of religion or community, which have historically served as a counterweight to the moral blindness of the market.
Mercy toward animals is one such casualty. More than any other institution, the American industrial animal farm offers a nightmarish glimpse of what capitalism can look like in the absence of moral or regulatory constraint. Here in these places life itself is redefined—as protein production—and with it suffering. Who would want to be made complicit in the agony of these animals by eating them? But before you swear off meat entirely, let me describe a very different sort of animal farm. It is typical of nothing, and yet its very existence puts the whole moral question of animal agriculture in a different light.
Polyface Farm occupies acres of rolling grassland and forest in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. A diet of grubs and grass makes for exceptionally tasty eggs and contented chickens, and their nitrogenous manure feeds the pasture. Meanwhile, the pigs are in the barn turning the compost. All winter long, while the cattle were indoors, Salatin layered their manure with straw, wood chips—and corn. By March, this steaming compost layer cake stands three feet high, and the pigs, whose powerful snouts can sniff out and retrieve the fermented corn at the bottom, get to spend a few happy weeks rooting through the pile, aerating it as they work.
All you can see of these pigs, intently nosing out the tasty alcoholic morsels, are their upturned pink hams and corkscrew tails churning the air. The finished compost will go to feed the grass; the grass, the cattle; the cattle, the chickens; and eventually all of these animals will feed us. To many animal rightists, even Polyface Farm is a death camp. But to look at these animals is to see this for the sentimental conceit it is. In the same way that we can probably recognize animal suffering when we see it, animal happiness is unmistakable, too, and here I was seeing it in abundance. For any animal, happiness seems to consist in the opportunity to express its creaturely character—its essential pigness or wolfness or chickenness.
This, it seems to me, is where animal rightists betray a profound ignorance about the workings of nature. To think of domestication as a form of enslavement or even exploitation is to misconstrue the whole relationship, to project a human idea of power onto what is, in fact, an instance of mutualism between species. Domestication is an evolutionary, rather than a political, development.
It is certainly not a regime humans imposed on animals some 10, years ago. Rather, domestication happened when a small handful of especially opportunistic species discovered through Darwinian trial and error that they were more likely to survive and prosper in an alliance with humans than on their own. Humans provided the animals with food and protection, in exchange for which the animals provided the humans their milk and eggs and—yes—their flesh.
Both parties were transformed by the relationship: animals grew tame and lost their ability to fend for themselves evolution tends to edit out unneeded traits , and the humans gave up their hunter-gatherer ways for the settled life of agriculturists. Humans changed biologically, too, evolving such new traits as a tolerance for lactose as adults. Cows, pigs, dogs, cats and chickens have thrived, while their wild ancestors have languished. There are 10, wolves in North America, 50,, dogs. Nor does their loss of autonomy seem to trouble these creatures. True enough, and for the chickens this is probably not a bad deal.
For brief as it is, the life expectancy of a farm animal would be considerably briefer in the world beyond the pasture fence or chicken coop. A sheep farmer told me that a bear will eat a lactating ewe alive, starting with her udders. The very existence of predation—animals eating animals—is the cause of much anguished hand-wringing in animal rights circles. Note: cats will require nutritional supplements to stay healthy. However it may appear to us, predation is not a matter of morality or politics; it, also, is a matter of symbiosis.
Hard as the wolf may be on the deer he eats, the herd depends on him for its well-being; without predators to cull the herd, deer overrun their habitat and starve. Chickens also depend for their continued well-being on their human predators—not individual chickens, but chickens as a species. But surely a species can have interests—in its survival, say—just as a nation or community or a corporation can. Consider this hypothetical scenario: In Juan da Goma aka Juan the Disoriented made accidental landfall on Wrightson Island, a six-square-mile rock in the Indian Ocean.
Nearly four centuries later, Wrightson Island is home to goats that have consumed virtually every scrap of vegetation in their reach. The youngest Arcania tree on the island is more than years old, and only 52 sea sparrows remain. In the animal rights view, any one of those goats have at least as much right to life as the last Wrightson sparrow on earth, and the trees, because they are not sentient, warrant no moral consideration whatsoever. This should come as no surprise: morality is an artifact of human culture, devised to help us negotiate social relations.
We may require a different set of ethics to guide our dealings with the natural world, one as well suited to the particular needs of plants and animals and habitats where sentience counts for little as rights suit us humans today. To contemplate such questions from the vantage of a farm is to appreciate just how parochial and urban an ideology animals rights really is. It could thrive only in a world where people have lost contact with the natural world, where animals no longer pose a threat to us and human mastery of nature seems absolute.
Steve Davis, an animal scientist at Oregon State University, has estimated that if America were to adopt a strictly vegetarian diet, the total number of animals killed every year would actually increase, as animal pasture gave way to row crops. Davis contends that if our goal is to kill as few animals as possible, then people should eat the largest possible animal that can live on the least intensively cultivated land: grass-fed beef for everybody. It would appear that killing animals is unavoidable no matter what we choose to eat.
When I talked to Joel Salatin about the vegetarian utopia, he pointed out that it would also condemn him and his neighbors to importing their food from distant places, since the Shenandoah Valley receives too little rainfall to grow many row crops. Much the same would hold true where I live, in New England. We get plenty of rain, but the hilliness of the land has dictated an agriculture based on animals since the time of the Pilgrims. The world is full of places where the best, if not the only, way to obtain food from the land is by grazing animals on it—especially ruminants, which alone can transform grass into protein and whose presence can actually improve the health of the land. The vegetarian utopia would make us even more dependent than we already are on an industrialized national food chain.
That food chain would in turn be even more dependent than it already is on fossil fuels and chemical fertilizer, since food would need to travel farther and manure would be in short supply. Indeed, it is doubtful that you can build a more sustainable agriculture without animals to cycle nutrients and support local food production. If our concern is for the health of nature—rather than, say, the internal consistency of our moral code or the condition of our souls—then eating animals may sometimes be the most ethical thing to do.
There is, too, the fact that we humans have been eating animals as long as we have lived on this earth. Humans may not need to eat meat in order to survive, yet doing so is part of our evolutionary heritage, reflected in the design of our teeth and the structure of our digestion. Eating meat helped make us what we are, in a social and biological sense. Under the pressure of the hunt, the human brain grew in size and complexity, and around the fire where the meat was cooked, human culture first flourished. Granting rights to animals may lift us up from the brutal world of predation, but it will entail the sacrifice of part of our identity—our own animality.
Surely this is one of the odder paradoxes of animal rights doctrine. It asks us to recognize all that we share with animals and then demands that we act toward them in a most unanimalistic way. Are any of these good enough reasons to eat animals? So I decided I would track down Peter Singer and ask him what he thought. Question: What do you think of the topic, "In what way does global warming cause a domino effect? Answer: It might be better to make a topic that is a bit broader and your question would be the answer. Question: Can you suggest a great research title with the topic "Are the chemicals used in food packaging harmful to human health? Answer: You can use that question as your title because it explains what your paper is going to discuss.
However, you might want to make the title shorter:. I'm a big science fanatic, so most of these topics will be easy for me to write. I just feel like I need to build up my writing skills, so I will definitely be using quite a few if these. Thanks for these ideas. Great idea mahnoor. My husband is a plant researcher, so I should certainly add those sorts of topics and I do have some on my other lists. We just went to see the new Food Evolution movie last night.
If you get a chance to see it, I'd suggest that you go. Here are a couple of topics inspired by the movie: How did the GMO controversy get started? What can be done about the banana wilt which is causing the banana crops to be destroyed? How important was the Green Revolution? Do plants have feelings? Can the world be fed by organic crops alone? I am doing an essay on argumentative issues in regards to the medical field, so this helped a lot. There are a few I would love to read about, very interesting topics. Thank you for the ideas. Congrats on the HubPot Challenge award. Reading this it occurs to me that it's also a good list of potentially interesting hub topics.
Congrats on your win! This is a very intriguing topic. You added insightful information that is both original and useful. Great Article! Congrats on being the 1st daily winner. I like the topic 'Can coral reefs be regenerated? Wow, I didn't realize all of these topics fell under science. Way cool. Congrats on wining the 1st Hubpot contest! This is a very useful list. Great ideas for further research and writing articles. Congratulations on being the winner of the first day of the Hubpot Challenge. I'm excited to be a part of this new contest. I really like the idea of encouraging everyone to continue to publish excellent articles.
We all need a little extra challenge! Thanks Donna--I find topics by looking at recent science research. There are so many new discoveries being made all the time! In fact, since all of my topics are taken from recent articles and research, that makes it easier for students to find sources if they need to use them in the paper. I probably need to add that in the article. Marine Biology. Electrical Engineering. Computer Science. Medical Science. Writing Tutorials. Performing Arts. Visual Arts. Student Life. Vocational Training. Standardized Tests. Online Learning. Social Sciences. Legal Studies. Political Science. Welcome to Owlcation.
Included in this Article: 1. Health Topics List 2. Magazine and Newspaper Links 5. Mental Health Topics List 6. Psychology Topics List 7. Non-profit Organization Links 8. Environmental Topics List 9. How has the pandemic changed the health habits of people in your country? Will this have lasting effects on the spread of sickness and disease? How do viruses like Covid move from animals to people? What are the best current treatment options for people with severe complications from Covid? What are the negative and positive health effects of lockdowns?