Latest news for caduet amplodipine 5mg atorvastatin 10mg $63.00
Here we go again. Last week it was . Caduet amplodipine 5mg atorvastatin 10mg $63.00 this week it's . Each issue of Science seems to bring news of some fresh cruelty that cleverly demonstrates the caduet amplodipine 5mg atorvastatin 10mg $63.00 cognitive or emotional capacities of non-human animals. What's a steadfast animal advocate to do? Cheer the findings? Condemn the methods? Question the researchers' sanity? Each newly-found fact—Birds are smart! Rats have feelings!—theoretically represents one more piece of evidence for animal rights. Or not. Here in the real world, the news that did not result in a rush to shun McNuggets. Because, I say with a sigh, none of this is truly new. People have been living with or near chickens for thousands—literally thousands—of years. We've had plenty of the care they extend to each other and, not infrequently, members of other species. Similarly, like pigeons and rats [caduet amplodipine 5mg atorvastatin 10mg $63.00] have been living among us for as long as we've been living in established settlements. We've had ample opportunity to observe their prodigious problem-solving capabilities. Many people have published such observations over the centuries. And yet. And so: As with so many other vexations, our problem is not insufficient data but rather refusal to connect the dots, to do the math, to draw the reasonable conclusions and act accordingly. This is not to say, by the way, that I believe "rights" () ought to be dependent on cognitive capacities. I'm simply noting that people who do use alleged human singularity as their justification for claims of legitimate supremacy have not so far been swayed by data demonstrating that non-human animals have language, use tools, are conscious, do math, can be altruistic, and etc. This may be because, whatever they may say, the real justification for their exploitative relationship to animals is simple: Might makes right. My mind drifts back to last semester, when my students in the community college course I teach on varieties of violence were responding with outrage, as they always do caduet amplodipine 5mg atorvastatin 10mg $63.00, to the news that there is. Together we brainstormed ways to spread the word and encourage others to join us in boycotting slave-produced consumer goods. Then one young man spoke up from the back of the room. "You're all being unrealistic, " he said, "because, if it's me and I see candy bars on special at three for a dollar, I'm not going to be thinking about those kids in Africa. " He was right. Some subset of people will quit buying cheap chocolate when they learn that child slavery is the reason it's so inexpensive. Some subset of people will quit eating eggs when they learn about battery cages. Some subset of people will "go green" once they get the facts about climate change. And one in a thousand (if that many) scientists will quit experimenting on animals once their own findings teach them that their subjects have feelings. But most won't. And so, those of us who hope to spark social change—whether our specific focus is on vivisection, climate change, modern-day slavery, or any of the other evils that menace us—need to spend less time amassing facts and more time addressing the disconnect between what people know and what they do. One of my own resolutions for 2012 is to focus my own attention on how we might do that. Stay tuned for developments.