Posts Tagged animal cruelty
I’m Sick of Sick Posts on Facebook
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Just some nonsense on February 20, 2012
It seems to me that the tirade of sanctimonious – and sometimes sickening – posts on facebook is getting heavier of late. Not only do these really irritate me, but I also fail to see the point of them.
To give you some examples of what has annoyed me recently, try these:
The first one was a picture of what was obviously a very late aborted baby laying in the hands of a surgeon. Yes a very sad picture, but did I want to come across that while looking through my facebook timeline? No. I bloody well didn’t. The oddest thing about this was that the person who shared it was commenting “this is horrible picture and shouldn’t be on facebook”. Well don’t hit the flippin’ share button then!
The second picture was (yet another) one of these animal cruelty pictures. This time it looked as if a dog had a really nasty injury to its mouth and there was blood everywhere. Thanks for that – just what I wanted to see, especially as my 7-year old was looking over my shoulder.
Apart from the fact that these pictures really annoy me, I also have to ask; do the people posting them, sharing them and making some self-righteous comment about then actually know the provenance of these photos? Do they know where they come from? Was the baby aborted to save the mother, who subsequently then had to suffer the virtual loss of a child? Was the baby aborted because it was already dead? Was this photo picked up from a medical journal or a memo circulated to paediatric surgeons? Is the picture a fake?
In the photo of the dog I noticed that the background didn’t seem to be that of a domestic home, due to the clinical-looking wall and ceiling tiles. Also the dog had a nice big full bowl of food – not a usual practice for animal abusers. Maybe this was an animal hospital and the dog had a wound that had reopened? Maybe the dog had fallen? Who knows? Again, I wonder if the picture is either fake or taken out of context.
What I do know is that people should perhaps engage their brains before they jump on the social bandwagon and start condemning something they actually know diddly squat about.
If you are a person who loves to share these types of picture, think about this: Perhaps these animal abuse photos are actually designed to be circulated around the Internet by the abusers themselves and by re-posting them you may be actually supporting what you think you are condemning. Perhaps the animals are abused for the very reason these photos can be taken. There are sick people out there who do thrive on the instant “fame” such actions can result in: “I put this picture out on facebook and it got shared 100,000 times…” Think about it.
Do these re-posters live by morals that are above the rest of us?
I admit that I will re-post environmental articles that I feel may be of interest to others or that I feel strongly about. But at least I can say that I make every effort that is feasible to live a sustainable life (apart from the amount of travelling I do, but that’s for work and also something I’m trying to change). My point is: these people who are so shocked at pictures of animal cruelty, are they vegetarians? Do they eat organic meat? Do they know where their meat comes from and that the livestock is kept in conditions that do not invoke any suffering? Do they worry about palm oil and the effect that has on wildlife around the world? Maybe some do – but not many.
When I post something up on facebook, I keep it clean and I would definitely not want to shock someone with anything I post. Besides, shock tactics have rarely been proven to work.
Additionally, these pictures are not informing me of something I’m ignorant to. I know late abortions are happening, I know animals are mistreated. I don’t need nasty pictures on facebook to remind me of this.
If all of these photos came with a link to donate to a relevant charity, a petition to lobby the government or some other means of making them relevant and useful, then fair enough. But the majority of them don’t. They are just sad people wallowing in a sad world they feel they must impose on the rest of us.
I could pull a million sick photos off the Internet and circulate them around my social media networks, but why would I want to. Why do others want to?
It reminds me of a video I watched when I was younger that showed people dying in a multitude of different ways. The intro to this video said something like “we have brought you this film because we want you to see the futility of killing”, or some other crap along those lines. What they should have said was, “we bring you this video because you’re sick bastards who enjoy watching others die, but we can’t actually say that, so we have to pretend this is for pious reasons instead”. What a load of nonsense.
If there was no harm in circulating these photos, then fair enough, but many people look at facebook with their kids in the room, or are just looking to connect with friends or find a funny little youtube clip to watch.
I will admit that I am as fascinated by the macabre as the next man and that when a BBC News reporter says, “some of the scenes you about to witness may be disturbing”, I feel even more compelled to watch. But that’s my choice and I get warned beforehand. Having nasty photos sprung on me when I’m just looking for some facebook funnies isn’t… well… funny.
Re-post this is you agree… Blagh!
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better… (and no dodgy photos please)
Badger Culling Won’t Help Fight Bovine TB: It May Even Make Things Worse
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Agriculture on July 18, 2011
This morning the government is due to announce its decision on the badger cull intended to reduce bovine tuberculosis (bTB). However, new research which has only just been published, shows that culling could not only be a waste of time, money and life, but it could actually make the problem worse.
After I posted links to related stories on Twitter yesterday and saw the response it garnered, I decided to stop the presses at the Review and write this post instead of the one I had originally planned, which was a look at the macrobiotic behaviour of the flu virus cell when exposed to various forms of Nestle chocolate and how that may be employed against the expansion of Tesco.
So, joking aside (yes that was a joke), the issue of badgers causing bTB in herds of cattle is actually very serious, and has been around for many years now. Over the last 10 years, it’s estimated to have cost the British taxpayer around £500 million and caused no end of heartache to the affected farmers.
The problem is that roaming wild badgers can spread bTB to herds of cattle, and farmers organisations claim that killing the badgers will vastly reduce the spread and impact of the disease. Consequently, the UK government is having to make a decision as to whether to let farmers in western England embark on a shooting spree to cull the said badgers.
In 2009, 1 in 10 herds were infected with bTB, resulting in the premature slaughter of 35,000 animals. According to Defra’s chief scientific advisor, shooting badgers that may infect a herd is the most cost effective way of stopping the spread of the disease.
Recent research, however, which has been undertaken over the last 10 years, has found that culling around 11,000 badgers only reduced the number of bTB cases by 12-16%. It also found that badgers who survive the cull are likely to wander over further areas as their social structure is upset. This then has the effect of spreading the disease over an even greater area, a consequence known as the ‘perturbation’ effect.
These new findings are based on the analysis of data from a study by the Department of Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra): The 10-year Randomised Badger Culling Trial. The man behind the trials, Lord Krebs, said “You leave 85% of the problem still there, having gone to a huge amount of trouble to kill a huge number of badgers. It doesn’t seem to be an effective way of controlling the disease”.
While the farming community is understandably desperate to find a solution to this problem, they really should take note of this new research and – at worst – delay the forth-coming cull. If the government does grant them permission, they will be given practically free reign to exterminate as many badgers as they can find.
The National Trust is running an experiment over the next four years to see how effective trapping and vaccinating badgers may prove to be. There is also hope an oral vaccine will soon be developed, thus reducing the cost and effort considerably. Unfortunately this method can cost up to 10 times as much as shooting, which also raises the question of the farmers’ motivation for the badger cull; if it’s solely a cost issue, then that’s really sad. Hopefully the government will hold fire (pardon the pun) and see that a solution is on the way and mass extermination of the (often perfectly healthy) badgers is a draconian answer and will prove very unpopular.
The badger trust claims that cattle to cattle transmission is still the main cause of disease spreading to new areas and that the phenomenon of badgers spreading the disease is still not fully understood. They also say, “foxes, squirrels, rats and deer are among wildlife known to suffer from TB. But in 2008 Defra said two research projects had concluded that except for two species of deer the likelihood of other mammals (excluding badgers) being a significant source of infection to cattle was extremely low. It’s worth noting that all six species of deer in the UK suffer from TB”. It’s also worth mentioning that with the pasteurisation process, bTB will not pass to humans through milk.
Many scientists and conservationists, including the esteemed naturalist David Attenborough, argue that finding a vaccination against the disease is the only truly sustainable way to control bTB.
I hate to see animals killed for no good reason and a cull never sat well with me, but I was told by the powers-that-be that it was best for the long-term. This looks like it isn’t the case anymore, so I can’t sit idly by and watch thousands of innocent creatures slaughtered for no good reason. Hence this post.
If the decision does go against the poor old badgers today there is likely to be a legal challenge. If that happens, please spread the word about this new research and help get the decision reversed. Thanks.
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better…
Photo courtesy of The Badger Trust
