It seems counterintuitive to make distinctions between animals that are essentially identical, aside from a few differences in DNA.
Cryptic species is a newer specification of animal genealogy for creatures that appear identical but have genetic distinctions. While previously thought that cryptic species only occurred in insects and reptiles, it has since been discovered that they occur throughout all branches of the animal kingdom.
Scientists are “flabbergasted” at the results of their studies, which have concluded that species that were previously thought to be widespread and profuse could actually be threatened by endangerment.
It seems counterintuitive to claim your mean products are humane under guidelines that allow violence to animals.
In recent years, more and more meat farmers have started advertising their products as being produced humanely. One would assume that humane treatment of animals entails nonviolent care and access to the outdoors. Under the guidelines of the American Meat Associations, this doesn’t seem to be the case. Not a single guideline requires that the animals go outside, and two encourage castration of the animals without any kind of anesthetics.
While new organizations advocating for better treatment pop up every day, (Global Animal Partnership, Animal Welfare Approved, Certified Humane, etc.) these groups account for “less than .001 percent of all U.S. animals raised for slaughter.”
It seems counterintuitive that the media which is supposed to inform us is now profiting off of other people’s suffering.
Fabienne Cherisma became the unwilling symbol of the Haitian earthquake after a photo of her dead body was run in an article by The Guardian. Fabienne was killed not by the earthquake, but by a police officer. The media turned their heads at the sound of a martyr for their cause, and pictures of Fabienne’s body were plastered on multiple major newspapers.
Is it ethical for photojournalists to be profiting off of such heinous trauma? Photos of young Fabienne’s father carrying her corpse through the destroyed city streets went viral. These things rarely benefit the victims and always benefit the photographers. Where do we draw the line?