You are on page 1of 3

Global Studies Animal Welfare Assignment (Coursework)

Part A
I agree with the arguments that were presented.
These animals have already been taken out of our ecosystem and are mostly
placed in factory farms, where the animals are treated cruelly. Thus, the
decerebration or genetic modification of such animals is justifiable as not only
will it alleviate their suffering, but also not have any impact on the animals still
in the ecosystem.
While we are at the topic of the dignity of these animals, whom we feel should
have a right to choose to have self-awareness, we should ask ourselves how
dignified it is for animals to have to suffer pain of such a high degree.
Decerebrating an animal has nothing to do with dignity. With no awareness at
all, they would be better off, free of suffering. Honestly, there is no dignity in
letting an animal suffer, just because they are not decerebrated, as it is their
right not to be.
The Chinese, who believe that bear bile is of medicinal value, extract the bile
from bears live. They even fit the bear with a protective suit, so the bears
cannot claw themselves to death, maintaining a constant supply of bile. In
such situations where the pain is so excruciating and the animal is driven to
commit suicide, would it not be better if animals are decerebrated? Other
cases include the mutilating of farm animals such as the debeaking of
chickens and the amputation of the cows tails.
Also, there is nothing wrong with an animal which is genetically modified to
want to be eaten. it is way better than an animal which does not want to be
eaten, but is forced against its will to be. The animal would suffer throughout
its entire life, before being sent to the slaughterhouse.
We will naturally be repulsed by this idea and our human instincts will tell us
that it is wrong and should not be done. However, if we use reason to think
about it, what is really so wrong about decerebrating or genetically modifying
an animal, even though they might not have given their consent to it, so as to
alleviate, and better yet, remove their suffering altogether.
I feel that 'rearing and killing certain animals is wrong'. Endangered animals
such as pandas and rhinoceros should not be killed, which would further
weaken their numbers and eventually, wipe these animals out altogether.
Bears have also seen their numbers diminish due to the demand for bear bile.
However, eating animals is not wrong. It helps to control their populations and

maintains the ecosystem's balance.

Part B
We cannot be sure if animals do indeed feel pain. However, there is proof that
animals, which are living beings too, may indeed feel pain. Like us, they react
to pain by recoiling, flinching, showing emotional distress, etcetera. When
provoked and sensing danger, most animals would defend, which also proves
that they would rather avoid pain.
These examples show that they fit into the same category as us, sentient
beings. So, how different are they from us?
Perhaps they do "not feel any pain" and "there is no need for me to treat an
animal humanely". However, just because they might not be as 'intelligent' as
us and are "merely animals", why do we have to treat them inhumanely?
Moreover, animals do contribute to many aspects of our society such as
medical science, cosmetology, research, etcetera. They are used as guinea
pigs to ensure that the makeup we use is free of harmful side effects and to
develop vaccines and treatments for diseases and illnesses. Without animal
testing, these advancements would not have been possible. "Nearly every
major medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has been achieved by
research with animals", like "vaccinations against smallpox, measles, mumps,
diphtheria, and tetanus; development of anesthesia, antibiotics, and insulin".
(http://www.cvma.net/doc.asp?ID=2403)
Research has shown that there is a link between cruelty towards animals and
human abuse. A 1997 study done by the Massachusetts Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) and Northeastern University showed
that "animal abusers are five times more likely to commit violent crimes
against people and four times more likely to commit property crimes than are
individuals without a history of animal abuse". There are many high-profile
examples that back up this claim, such as Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the
culprits of the Columbine High School massacre in 1999. They had "bragged
about mutilating animals to their friends." Also, Caroll Edward Cole, "executed
for five of the 35 murders of which he was accused, said his first act of
violence as a child was to strangle a puppy."
(http://www.peta.org/issues/companion-animals/human-animal-abuse.aspx)
Evidently, a streak of cruelty towards animals, possibly due to the fact that
these creatures are defenseless, shows deep psychological issues. It also
brings to our attention the problem with the mindset of today's society. No

matter what the reason for this abuse, be it because animals do "not feel any
pain" and there is "no need for me to treat an animal humanely" or as an
outlet for stress and frustration.

Part C
Position B is more convincing. Realistically, there is no way that factory
farming will come to an end. Rather, the market for it is expected to grow, to
cater to greater demands for meat. If it were to be banned, as suggested in
position A, wouldnt manufacturers resort to under-the-table means to sell
their products? This would result in a black market of some sort for meat,
especially since meat that is produced through factory farming is cheaper.
The economic repercussions also have to be considered. Demand is
"expected to triple or even quadruple in the next 30 years" and since intensive
farming has such a large share of the meat production market, prices of meat
will be forced to skyrocket if the shortfall of meat cannot be handled once
factory farming is banned.
Factory farming also provides job opportunities for people. If this practice is
banned, how will the workers be accounted for? It occurs not only in
developed countries, but also in developing countries. Without it, these
countries would further sink into poverty.
In conclusion, factory farming does not, as quoted from position A, only do
harm to us and the world around us. In actuality, there are benefits to it too,
such as job opportunities and more affordable meat.
However, undeniably, it is cruel and does cause environmental pollution.
However, abolishing factory farming will only exacerbate the situation,
possibly even triggering a global crisis. Instead, perhaps a better alternative is
to pass laws to make the living conditions of the animals better and reduce
the pollution and waste created, perhaps by inventing ways to reuse the
materials released.