>Michael Lorrey wrote:
>> PETA is for the genocide of domesticated animals of all kinds
>> (individual members may not take it that far, but that is the party line).
Although it is amusing to rephrase their agenda in this manner, it is
misleading. Although this seems very similar to their position, its
motivation is totally misrepresented. As such, you will fail to be
able to predict the movement's strategy, future actions, or possible
reactions to your own position.
At 8:33pm -0800 2/15/01, Spike Jones wrote:
>If humans create a species, there would
>presumably be only a few individuals, so does that species
>automatically get statused as endangered? If not, how long does
>a species need to exist before it can be considered equal status
>with a natural species? Anyone know if the party line covers
Never will happen. PETA would want animals to live "naturally"
without human interference. They would never condone, promote or
protect a man-made species. The certainly would never want a
man-made species released into the wild to infect the "natural"
environment. Their motivation is to restore nature, not create or
protect new species. Witness the GM foods debate, where none of the
Greens want to protect the new/rare plants. Instead, they want to
destroy them to protect natural plants from competing with the new
-- Harvey Newstrom <http://HarveyNewstrom.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:40 MDT