Suffering slaughterhouses…

 

I've always dreamt of becoming a vet, so that’s why it is important for me to talk about what the vet’s responsibilities are as regards how animals are treated in slaughterhouses…

In slaughterhouses, the vet has to check if the animals have any diseases and are treated well. In order to protect public health, the vet also monitors the quality of the meat and the establishment’s general hygiene conditions. The time spent controlling the animals' well-being is often insufficient; it's not the vet's fault if animals suffer. Animals are sometimes badly treated and this is mainly the slaughterhouses’ fault.

In order to maintain profitability, the number of workers is often inadequate and many are under-qualified. They are recruited on their physical strength and not because of their know-how with animals. Most of the suffering of the animals comes at the stunning stage (when the animal is meant to be rendered unconscious using a captive bolt device); the pace of work is often so fast that the workers do not have time to do this properly and sometimes the animals are cut up whilst still alive...

I think there should be more workers and they should all be well-qualified. Also, surveillance cameras should be installed in all slaughterhouses in order to check that the correct methods of slaughter are respected at all times. This is especially necessary as there are too few vets.

Espérance de FELIGONDE

Are casinos responsible for gambling addiction?

Some casino games, like slot machines and roulette, are more addictive than others. This is because they allow players to experience strong feelings, boosting their adrenaline levels and holding them spellbound because these games are based on chance. It is the more irrational players that are the most likely to become gambling addicts.

Everything in a casino is designed to make the player spend his money without counting. The atmosphere is welcoming, with relaxing background music. The game rooms are spacious, elegantly decorated and comfortable and well lit. There are no views on the outside to distract players’ attention. Players are confined in the room and don’t see time going by. Therefore, they spend more money than they had maybe planned to. Delivering a loyalty card to the “home players” is also a means to attract customers and let them stay as long as possible. The presence of a bar-restaurant also promotes relaxation and the well-being of the players, although the casino managers insist on the fact that the bars and restaurants are imposed by the Government as a way of boosting job creation...

Above the bars, a display shows continuously all the gains achieved since the beginning of the previous day, the current day and the month. It gives an impression of an increasing speed of the customers’ gains. In reality, the display doesn’t take into account losses: only the gross profits are recorded. This system can give the illusion to the player that gains are easy and sizeable.

Slot machines account for nearly 85% of the turnover of casinos. Managers therefore have made the seats ergonomic so that the players spend most of their time feeding coins into the machines. Some slot machines even accept banknotes, allowing the player to accumulate "Player Plus" benefits (sic) points. It is an example of the application of neuromarketing.

As for the roulette tables, they are now electronic, allowing the player to play fast and alone. On a screen, information such as "hot numbers" is put up and the player can compare his results to the results of other players. The aim of course is to push the player to try his luck one more time.

In the United States, oxygen is sprayed into the gambling halls in order to help the players keep awake or to get their breath back after a win or a loss. In France, this system is not allowed (yet), but the casinos do use various means to incite the players to keep playing.

Gaming establishments try to make gambling socially acceptable (“normal”) so that players will come back often and thus generate greater profits. The risk is making more people become gambling addicts…

Timothée BERTHAUD wants to become a neuroscientist

Scientific research: a threat to humanity?

 

First, I think that it is important to point out the difference between science and technology. Indeed, technology isn’t science. Reliable scientific knowledge is value-free and has no moral or ethical value. Science tells us how the world is. Scientific discoveries are neither good nor bad. Dangers and ethical issues only arise when science is applied as a technology. Science generates ideas about how the world works, whereas the ideas in technology result in usable objects. However, scientists are obviously involved in the application of their discoveries. That’s why in an article in Science magazine, Sir Joseph Rotblat (1908-2005) proposed a “Hippocratic Oath” for scientists. The Nobel Peace Prize winner was strongly opposed to the idea that science is neutral and that scientists are not to be blamed for its misapplication; he proposed the oath: “I promise to work for a better world, where science and technology are used in socially responsible ways (…)”. Rotblat did not want to seperate scientific knowledge and its applications. But, surely, the very purpose of science is that it is not possible to predict what is going to be discovered or how these discoveries could be applied? Indeed, scientists cannot easily predict the technological and social implications of their research; it can lead to a cure for a disease as much as to the creation of a deadly weapon. Therefore the question is: who is best placed to say if a discovery and its possible technological application are ethical or not?

Let us consider the example of gene therapy, an experimental technique that uses genes to treat or prevent disease. In the future, this technique may allow doctors to treat a disorder by inserting a gene into a patient’s cells instead of using drugs or surgery. On what moral ground prenatal diagnosis and gene therapy should be refused to parents who want to avoid having a severely disabled baby? So far, embryology and genetics have not harmed anyone, so what dangers does genetics and embryo research raise? In fact, gene therapy is frightening because of eugenics. Indeed, people think that if we pursue this research, in a few years we might be able to select a baby’s physical and psychological features, leading to a “brave new world” of clone-like beings. However, according to Axel Khan, a geneticist and philosopher, it is pure fantasy to think that people will prefer to see doctors and undergo a myriad of tests and exams to have a child when they can be spared the medical expense and have offspring the natural way.

So, scientific research can lead to dilemmas. That’s why qualified people have to make the right decisions and make sure that the applications of scientific discovery are not dangerous. Today, such decisions are up to politicians. As John Carey, an English Professor at Oxford, has said: science is a sphere of knowledge and understanding, politics is a sphere of opinion. He goes on to point out that politics depends on rhetoric, opinion, and conflict. It also aims to coerce people. Ultimately, science is all about consensus as to how the world works. However, political decisions are inevitably influenced by money, economic interests, companies, lobbies and other factors. To my mind, scientific research per se is not the issue here, but rather more the fact that nobody is really in a position to judge, in a neutral way, if a discovery should be applied. I think that we should not give up the possibility of doing something for the greater good thanks to science just because we could also do something bad with it. Technology can be misused and manipulated for evil purposes. Moreover, humanity needs science in order to progress and the proof of this is that societies that do not want to encourage research tend to disappear…

To conclude, I believe that we have to put competent people in charge of deciding what is best for humanity and of making the right laws to control scientific research, but in no way should we prevent scientists from making the discoveries that could improve our world, especially in the medical field.

Juliette MAGNIER will be a famous scientist some day...

Words vs ;)

It started with a smiley face here 😁 and there 😍, a red heart pictograph 💗 to say “I love you”, or the toothy face 😀 which means “Eek I’m sorry, I’m late!” or “Damn, it’s 3p.m. and I just woke up!” 😑 Emojis are even invading the dictionary. But are they a new form of language? Will they totally replace words some day?

I would argue that some people are indeed using them as a legitimate means of communicating. Famous novels such as Moby Dick 🐳 have been “translated” into emoji signs. Many linguists say that it is a real problem, making communication simplistic and our language skills deteriorate 😶. But, paradoxically, the emoji versions of novels have actually revived interest in literature 📚… and the Bible!

The first emoticon was created in 1982 by Scott E. Fahlman, a computer scientist at Carnegie Mellon University. He wanted a way to mark posts that were not meant to be taken seriously. Emojis are the next generation of emoticons. A Japanese word that means “picture” plus “letter” (moji), emojis first appeared in Japan in the last decade of the start of the century. Now, emojis are everywhere and they are used to show not only various emotions, but to illustrate almost everything, from Santa Claus 🎅 to a screaming cat 🐱 ! I think the stuff we type today looks the same regardless of who we are or what mood we’re in; it’s a bit ridiculous...

Most teenagers use emojis to communicate, and sometimes they converse only in pictographs. They don’t necessarily know the other person’s language! Teens love smiley 😏 emoticons; but many adults become enraged 😡 at the sight of the yellow faces. Maria McErlane, the British journalist, actress and radio personality, told the New York Times in 2011: “I’m deeply offended by them; are words not good enough?”

Language is fundamental to a people’s identity. Emoticons and emojis undermine that identity because words are replaced by pictures. Pictographs are used to overcome the languages barrier, but in the process they risk making the words of a particular language redundant…

If the popularity of emojis continues to grow, and if more books are translated into pictographs, where does that leave the future of language and the subtleties, skills and eloquence of writers, poets and journalists? Can you imagine Shakespeare having written Romeo and Juliet 😍 using emojis, or Victor Hugo Demain dès l’aube 💀, using little yellow faces 😝 ?

Alice EMBERGER wants to become a speech therapist 👍!