Has an increase in knowledge without an arguably similar increase in wisdom created a less accepting global community? In our thirst for more an more knowledge do we have less time/inclination to consider the implications of that knowledge? I feel that we are becoming less tolerant as the world community becomes smaller. Reduced tolerance can and usually does lead to increased ignorance and potential conflict.
Our society professes to be concerned about animal welfare but sanctions very different treatment of animals according to their perceived utility and the vested interests that benefit from their use. The law as it stands reflects this contradiction. As a result millions of animals suffer routinely, whether it be for live export, domestic agricultural use, feral animal control, research or entertainment purposes. Not even companion animals are immune from suffering; treated as disposable property and with little or no restriction on their breeding and sale, hundreds of thousands are euthanased every year in Australia. All of this is both inhumane and dishonest. Either we believe in the humane treatment of animals or we don’t. If the latter, let’s be honest about it; if the former, we need significant legal change. A good start would be the creation of independent statutory bodies to administer and enforce animal welfare laws instead of the current primary industries departments with their conflicts of interest.
While most of us claim to be rational beings, so many disputes in our society are about self-interest. In that context, it seems evidence is only acepted where it serves those interests. Can we change that way of thinking, or is it just a necessary part of being human?
I’m a journalism student, and I’m sick of being asked to respond to the notion of a ‘brand’. I even had Fairfax present a curriculum as part of my course which spent a week on “brand building”. I find this insufferable, and I’d like to see how other current practitioners and other students feel about this notion. Obviously, change is inevitable, but to what extent are journalists performers, too?
When humanity becomes humane, starts listening to people, rather than propaganda, regimes that torture and control will be exposed and stopped. The psychiatric regime has been going on for over 200 in various countries, enabling genital mutilation on women who opposed their husbands, LSD testing in the 1960s, and various torturous procedures.
The people forcefully tested with insulin shock and LSD, haven’t received compensation, because our government declares the medical profession were allowed to torture people that way in the 1960s & 70s.
The people who are being currently subjected to torture by the psychiatric regime, are also unlikely to receive compensation, unless there is wide-spread condemnation for the psychiatric procedures forcefully done in our government’s name on innocent people as young as two and as old as people can be. Electroshock used on 4 year olds, pills fed daily to tranquilise two year olds. Not to mention what they do to people in their prime.
It is physically obvious what psychiatric torture does to people. It must be stopped.
How dare anyone think our country is a democracy when this is going on. How dare the organisations of festivals censor psychiatric survivors who speak out because of sponsorship deals. How dare the Australian people be so unaware of what is happening to their citizens.
The question is when? The answer should be now.
It seems weird that both black and white are not actual colours, but black people are referred to as people of colour, which means that white people are assumed to be people without colour.
Asked by:
Asked by:
Asked by:
Asked by:
Asked by:
Asked by:
Asked by:
Asked by: