 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned.
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 15 Dec 11 - 10:25 PM Looks like a cause for Chongo? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Stilly River Sage Date: 15 Dec 11 - 11:03 PM I find it disingenuous to put chimps above other animals. The idea that since chimps are closer to humans makes them better, more thoughtful animals somehow more impacted by testing, establishes an artificial hierarchy. Sentient animals with feelings exist across the spectrum. A report earlier this week described rats rescuing their comrades when they detected suffering, and they also shared their food. I'm not opposed to animal testing, when well-conducted and when all other possible tests have been exhausted FIRST. Animal testing should be (with any animals) be rare and last resort. The division between testing on chimps and other animals is artificial. Though we hear scientists regularly express astonishment as they learn that yet another "lower" animal seems to express emotions, most people with reasonable powers of observation can see it all around them. It isn't anthropomorphism to see "play" in kittens, puppies, chicks, young of many species. To see true emotions. Pleasure and distress seem to be easy to recognize across many species. If we can connect in that way, what makes it more acceptable to test lower mammals than higher ones? Here's an example that came my way today. This lizard is playing a game. It isn't eating, yet it is willingly participating in this exercise. It looks like this lizard is playing. If we can detect the sentient being, can we dismiss it as being less important, as being more acceptable for testing? Let's drop this artificial discrimination between species and examine the entire issue of animal testing. And be damned sure that when we do it that it's really necessary. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Little Hawk Date: 15 Dec 11 - 11:52 PM Well put, Stilly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 16 Dec 11 - 12:13 AM I find it disingenuous to put chimps above other animals. Well put, Stilly. Why draw the line at chimps? People are animals too. In many cases it would be cheaper to pay poor people than to buy chimps. For a few dollars extra, people will clean their own cages. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Dec 11 - 01:32 AM Poor people have been paid in some countries like India to donate some of their own organs to some wealthy person while they were still alive...the removal of a kidney, for example. This is a way that the rich can profit from endemic poverty! ***** Now...to argue about whether or not people are animals is a bit pointless, I think. "Animal" is simply a mental concept that WE human beings invented. So is "human being". Another mental concept. A label. But people and animals are all living beings. They share that in common, and that's what counts. If one living being has a soul (which is a debatable concept for some), then all living beings must have a soul as far as I'm concerned. Living beings all feel pain when they are hurt. Like death, pain is a great equalizer. We should not inflict on other living beings what we would not wish inflicted upon ourselves. **** Given that, we should all stop eating meat. But that's a whole other debate, and it's an ideal I do sympathize with, but I have not yet managed to live up to (although I've gone through fairly lengthy periods of being vegetarian from time to time). The main thing that keeps most people happily eating meat is simply this: It's convenient. They're accustomed to it. They've grown to like it. They do not have to face the bloody slaughter that goes on in our meat-producing industries. Someone else does that for them. If they did have to face it, most would be too sickened to bear it. I knew 2 Native American guys, avid meateaters, who got jobs in one of the Toronto meatpacking companies. It only took a couple of weeks on that job...what they saw at work sickened them so much that they were never able to stomach meat again, and they both became vegetarians as a result. I haven't had their experience, so I still eat meat quite frequently and without hesitation, but I know I could manage just fine without it...and I have done so, from time to time. You either decide to stop doing it or you don't. Kind of the same as drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes or indulging in any mood-altering drug. It's entirely up to you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: GUEST,Bluesman Date: 16 Dec 11 - 02:15 AM Yes it is fine to use them. Saving human life is what is important. When I read the title of this thread, I thought it was about the UK Labour party. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Brian May Date: 16 Dec 11 - 07:35 AM Well . . . we've got about 10,000 'humans' in Doncaster, UK that could be available for testing. I'm not sure however, if the results from tests on zombies would be allowed considering the results are generally read-across to the human race. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 16 Dec 11 - 09:46 AM LH, hate to burst your bubble but "living beings" is ALSO simply a mental concept that WE human beings invented. As are every other word or phrase in every language. Which begs the question... What the heck have you been smoking? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: GUEST,John Bullshite Date: 16 Dec 11 - 10:42 AM But a total ban on all testing ? It's not fair on a Chimp who's saved up long and hard to pay for a Driving or Pilot Proficiency Program Test. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Dec 11 - 11:44 AM I really do not think that "living beings" is simply a mental concept, Jack, I think it's an observable phenomenon as well as a mental concept. But if you wish to believe it's simply a mental concept, go right ahead. In answer to your question, "what have you been smoking?" ...nothing at all. Like usual. (I'm in favour of legalizing marijuana for personal use only...but I don't smoke it.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 16 Dec 11 - 12:02 PM Any words or phrases are simply mental constructs to symbolize what humans perceive. That is the nature of language. Animal, in the context of this discussion, is a word to describe life forms which are not plants. A human is a particular species of animal. So is a fruit fly. So is a slug. So is an Amoeba. Is it immoral to experiment on fruit flies? If your answer is "no" then the moral line is somewhere between fruit flies and people. Tomato plants are alive. Are they not living beings? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Dec 11 - 12:30 PM Ah. I see. Yes, you're getting into some interesting stuff now, Jack. As far as I'm concerned, plants are living beings too...although they're certainly a different type of living being than an animal. Do they feel pain? Yes, according to fairly recent scientific research on the matter. That research has been done with an instrument somewhat similar to a lie detector, and it can detect a plant's energetic (but not physical) response to a threat. It appears that plants can even "feel" hostile or loving thoughts being directed toward them...as well as feel physical pain when damaged...but most plants have no way of visibly or audibly showing us their reactions. (An exception to that would be certain small tropical plants I've seen which will recoil, for instance, when you touch them, but those are a very rare instance among plants.) I'm not trouble by your assertion that human beings are a species of animal. Fine with me. We get into various mental habits that animals don't seem to burden themselves with (as far as we can determine), but that may be because we've developed a more complex brain and consciousness while still being a species of animal. Note that I said "may be". I'm not saying that I know. I'm theorizing. Words or phrases are most definitely mental constructs, as you say. Humans made up all those words at some point, and we periodically make up new words as we go along, all of which serve as labels and mental concepts. I know what an apple is by direct experience (or at least I think I do...). My choice to call it "an apple", though, is an arbitrary choice that was made a long time ago by other people, and I'm repeating that arbitrary choice whenever I use the word "apple". The apple itself is real. It's observable. It can be experienced. The word "apple" is arbitrary...but we (in the English speaking population) have agreed to use it as a label for the real thing. "Is it immoral to experiment on fruit flies?" I don't know. I could arbitrarily decide that I did know...and then say "yes" or "no", but the real fact is that I don't know if it's immoral to experiment on fruit flies, and I don't particularly mind admitting that I don't know. There are a great many things that all of us don't know....they considerably outnumber the things we do know...and we shouldn't be afraid to admit that, in my opinion. In the end...not knowing...we are faced with making the best decisions or compromises that we can in the face of our partial knowledge...we have to go on our gut feelings and our sense of "right and wrong" (which is greatly affected by the culture we grew up in). We have to make compromises between various extremes and various outcomes, based on our feelings and our beliefs of "right and wrong". My gut feeling is that we shouldn't do hurtful experiments on chimps or other animals (incuding humans) if we can possibly avoid doing so. I'm not too worried about doing experiments on fruit flies. But that's just my own personal feeling. Everyone has to decide for themselves about these things. No one has the final answer for everyone else, but only for themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Rapparee Date: 16 Dec 11 - 01:20 PM We have a living planet -- are rocks living beings? How would you know? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: gnu Date: 16 Dec 11 - 01:57 PM "...an instrument somewhat similar to a lie detector, and it can detect a plant's energetic (but not physical) response to a threat. It appears that plants can even "feel" hostile or loving thoughts being directed toward them... Extra Sensory Plants? You mean Bobert's patch gets frightened and angry every time he waters it? Oh... the horror! Is that Reefer Madness? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Dec 11 - 03:10 PM I agree that we have a living planet, Rap...and I am quite open to the idea that rocks and other apparently static objects in Nature have a form of life force present inside them...it may exist in everything right down to the atomic level. But I figured that was just too esoteric for most of the people here, so I didn't bother bringing it up. I think Bobert's patch would be quite happy and pleased when he watered them, gnu...if it's H2O that you're talking about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 17 Dec 11 - 02:39 PM Shauld chimps be banned from mudcat intercourse? This thread would lead one to think so (to so think). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: gnu Date: 17 Dec 11 - 02:49 PM LH... that does not compute. Sure he is watering and nurturing them in a manner of love of them but, if they can read Bobert's thoughts, surely they must be terrified? If you knew that the thoughts were about cutting you down, hanging you upside downy, drying you out, chopping you up, rolling you in papers and lighting you on fire, wouldn't you be frightened? The poor dears. Perhaps we should start a foundation for frightened plants? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 17 Dec 11 - 03:26 PM Plants should not complain. We are improving their gene complement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Dec 11 - 05:45 PM gnu - Oh, I see what you mean now. I get your drift. I grok that. Someone should call up the SPCP and save those poor pot plants! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Bill D Date: 17 Dec 11 - 06:44 PM **IF** you think that we humans should not do stuff that harms or discomfits 'lower' forms of life... whether eating them or performing tests on them or hunting them - or whatever - I would ask: When did this rule or admonition arise? After all, we are descended from omnivores who have been hunting and eating other species... and sometimes our own... for several million years. Chimps are known to attack and kill and eat members of other chimp clans. It is a serious issue to assert that we should NEVER do certain things, although we should have learned that, apart from the moral issue, it is simply not ultimately advantageous to hunt & kill wantonly and with no restraint. The Indians(Native Americans) of the plains saw so many bison that driving a herd over a cliff 'seemed' like a less dangerous way to hunt... but that plus white hunters almost wiped out the bison. Too many moralistic ideas seem more like simplistic slogans rather than reasonable, completely thought out concepts. I, however, DO see a value in mitigating as much as possible any pain or fear in ANY other being that we feel the need to use for our purposes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Dec 11 - 08:57 PM And here I thought I was starting another mindless Chongo thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Dec 11 - 08:58 PM I didn't say what I think you or some other person should do, Bill. Others must decide for themselves what they should do, and I trust that they will. I'm not stating a rule or an admonition for others to follow. I merely stated how I personally feel about the matter, giving it fair consideration. I much prefer not to kill or harm other sentient creatures if I can possibly help it, because I empathize with their suffering. I consider what that would feel like if someone did it to me. Like everyone else, I must think for myself upon this matter...not for you or the man next to me. As I said in my final sentence in the post which I think you're probably referring to: Everyone has to decide for themselves about these things. No one has the final answer for everyone else, but only for themselves. **** I'll add one thing to that. A lot of people in this world don't want the heavy responsibility of deciding weighty moral issues for themselves. They prefer to have a government decide. Or a court decide. Or a church decide. Or a bureaucrat. Or a president. Or an Ayatollah. Or a gang leader. Or a military commander. Or their mother. Anyone else will do! That way the pressure's off them, they don't have to think about it, and they can just follow orders obediently and tell themselves "It's okay". Such people make good followers, good executioners, good guards, good torturers, good soldiers, good killers, and good slaughterhouse managers. I do not admire them for so doing. They are NOT free men, because they've given their freedom away for the meagre reward of an illusory form of "safety". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Bill D Date: 17 Dec 11 - 10:54 PM (just as a matter of interest, I was not referring to any particular individual post or opinion, but merely to the general notion-- often heard-- that we 'should' behave in certain ways regarding chimps and other animals.... if I decide to pick on anyone in particular, LH... *grin*.. I'll try to quote them. You may be forgiven for suspecting I was after you, given our debate history.) (I use a similar argument about 'souls' when I ask: "When did humans acquire them?" If one accepts evolution at all, it becomes relevant to ask where in our history various 'moral principles' began to apply. This not a common question, and it really bothers many fundamentalists when I ask it.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 18 Dec 11 - 01:48 AM All animals have souls, only smaller. That's what the rugs are made from in Heaven, animal souls. Except for the Chimp souls, they run experiments on those. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 18 Dec 11 - 04:12 AM >>A lot of people in this world don't want the heavy responsibility of deciding weighty moral issues for themselves. They prefer to have a government decide. Or a court decide. Or a church decide. Or a bureaucrat. Or a president. Or an Ayatollah. Or a gang leader. Or a military commander. Or their mother. Anyone else will do!<< Sigh.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Dec 11 - 09:28 AM Yeah. I sigh too when I think of it, Jack. I've been watching obedient, conformist fools let a host of others do their thinking for them for my entire life. **** Bill - I'm not sure why you would ask the question: "When did humans acquire souls?". It's a pretty odd question! ;-D Could you elaborate on that some and explain your reasons for asking it? I do accept the notion of evolution, by the way. Never had any problem with that...I was already a believer in evolution by the age of 6 or 7. And I also think it's likely that every living thing has a soul...but I don't insist that it MUST be so, because I have no way of knowing for sure. Nor do I insist that evolution MUST be so...but I think it's very, very likely so. Seems like a pretty convincing theory to me, and it's backed up by some pretty convincing evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Bill D Date: 18 Dec 11 - 11:36 AM I think Jack's answer about who & what have souls is funny... but it is also just as likely as any other, and gives me a way to answer YOU, LH. "And I also think it's likely that every living thing has a soul...but I don't insist that it MUST be so, because I have no way of knowing for sure. " And that IS why I ask the question. No one has any way of knowing for sure, but many believe that 'souls' are something a 'god' has provided especially for humans. Perhaps they are right...perhaps YOUR suspicion is right. Perhaps neither is right, and 'soul' is merely a metaphysical concept invented to justify the idea of living forever in a 'heaven'. Whatever the truth of the matter, once we posit such things as souls and eternity, many thorny theological questions arise: where do souls come from? How many are there? (7 billion people alive today, and many more billions gone..are souls reused? Does 'god' just manufacture them out of...ummm.. quarks?) Many of these questions are hardly ever asked, but because many humans have locked themselves into a theology, they will usually answer such questions by just stating some glib answer that they assume 'fits' what they already accept about other metaphysical concepts- but which usually brings up more new questions than they answer. This is why, as YOU rightly remark: "A lot of people in this world don't want the heavy responsibility of deciding weighty moral issues for themselves. They prefer to have a government decide.....etc" I have spent over 50 years now puzzling over how people CAN be so grimly certain of such basic ideas when they see how easy it is for others to be grimly certain of other basic ideas. For leisure reading sometime, take a look at An 'explanation' of Shi'a/Sunni differences in Islam.... and in Christianity and various other belief systems, it is different, but with many of the same results... dissension and strife. So...why DO I bother with asking this stuff? Easy... in hopes that it will provide some tiny push toward more people saying: "Gee...too many options, maybe there are no real answers to some questions, and we should spend our time trying to figure out just what CAN be known and learn to live together without all the bickering. Silly quest? *grin*... maybe... but it's more fun than being a part of the silliness of pretending that there ARE answers to questions about souls and the like.... and it keeps my |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Greg F. Date: 18 Dec 11 - 11:51 AM Yeah, lets save the Chimps & the lizards & all the rest and go back to testing directly on humans. Who cares if they kill a bunch? Josef der Todesengel had the right idea, yes? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Bill D Date: 18 Dec 11 - 03:37 PM No.... but do you know WHY the answer is "no", Greg? Or do just enjoy making sarcastic remarks? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: JohnInKansas Date: 18 Dec 11 - 04:26 PM Government adopts strict limits on chimp research By Lauran Neergard Associated Press 12/15/2011 WASHINGTON — Days in the laboratory are numbered for chimpanzees, humans' closest relative. Although the article is vague about what the new limits are, it implies that an action has been taken (in the US). One might be concerned that, since Chongo was counting on his income from volunteering at the N.Y. Foundation sex-surrogacy clinic to pay off his student loan (for his dual advanced degrees in weaponry and criminal injustice) his contracts may require significant rework before he's able to feel confident of his economic viability and ability to support planned ongoing and future projects. As it was, he frequently complained about competition from "that horde of so-called business majors who only went back to school because they couldn't make it in a real job" and their unfair competition to be included in "human volunteer" testing. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Little Hawk Date: 19 Dec 11 - 11:59 AM LOL!!!!!!!!!! Wonderful post, John. Bill - Well said. I would concur with you on virtually every point. "maybe there are no real answers to some questions, and we should spend our time trying to figure out just what CAN be known and learn to live together without all the bickering." Amen! I think that it's people's own emotoinal insecurity and their fear of uncertainty that causes so many to cling to what they feel are CERTAIN answers, despite lacking any clear supportive evidence OR any direct personal experience of their own to back up their beliefs. They're afraid of not knowing. So they take someone else's word for it instead of finding out for themselves....or just accepting the fact that they don't know. They choose to believe their leader, their priest, their commander, the Bible or some other worldly authority....and they let that authority do their thinking for them. The more insecure they are, the more fiercely they will defend their arbitrary beliefs. This can get dangerous. They may even kill other people to defend a belief that they acquired merely on someone else's word...or from one book such as the Bible or the Q'ran. I work mostly on probabilities rather than certainties. Evolution strikes me as a very probable thing, based on various evidence we have in its support, for example. The existence of the soul strikes me as probable, but I don't think of it as something "given by God" exactly....I think of it as consciousness, and consciousness is something every living thing has to a greater or lesser extent. The only question is: does that consciousness continue following death of the physical body? I think it probably does, but I don't know for sure. I might be mistaken. If I am, then I won't have to concern myself with it (or anything else) any longer after I die! ;-D And if I'm right, then the fun of being conscious will go on and on. The way I see it, I win either way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 19 Dec 11 - 03:01 PM Chongo's relatives on way to island home in Florida. From Alamogordo Daily News (New Mexico), Dec. 18, 2011. "The great Chimp Migration has come to an end." Almost 300 chimpanzees have been moved from their cages at the former Coulton Research Facility to Florida islands built especially for them. Save the Chimps founder Carole Noon took over their care when the facility closed in 2002 (Jen Feuerstein took over in 2009). Most were first moved to Texas starting in 2002. The chimps range in age from two years to forty. Some monkeys are included in the group. http://www.santafenewmexican.com/localnews/Last-N-M--chimps-en-route-to-Florida |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Little Hawk Date: 19 Dec 11 - 04:47 PM That is very good news. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: gnu Date: 19 Dec 11 - 04:56 PM But, what happens when they breed and then build sailing craft and invade the US? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Bill D Date: 19 Dec 11 - 05:05 PM " The only question is: does that consciousness continue following death of the physical body? I think it probably does, but I don't know for sure" *smile*..."probably does?" Do you quantify that probability? Or do you just 'like' the idea? When I use the word 'probable' I usually tie it to specific evidence. Where we differ is usually where I don't speculate and you tend to speculate. But... you are correct that you win either way, while if, as I'd guess, there is 'nothing' after death, I don't even get to say, "See! I told you so!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Little Hawk Date: 19 Dec 11 - 05:15 PM No, I don't quantify that probability, Bill. I'm giving my personal opinion about it, that's all. My opinion is based partially on some experiences I've had, as well as on what I "like", but those experiences did not occur in a science laboratory or with science people standing by to take notes, so they're only useful evidence for me personally...certainly not for anyone else. "Where we differ is usually where I don't speculate and you tend to speculate." Yeah, that's exactly the difference between us. I tend to speculate about various things that you don't tend to speculate about. I think it's just a question of having differing areas of interest. When it comes to the factual and empirical stuff that can be confirmed by recorded evidence, we are most likely to be on the same page. I am hopefully awaiting my hypothetical opportunity to meet you in the afterlife and say, "I told you so!" *smile* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Bill D Date: 19 Dec 11 - 05:39 PM Should that happen, I will be too flustered to even say "Oh, crap!" I will expect a guided tour of... whatever it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Little Hawk Date: 19 Dec 11 - 06:40 PM Sounds like a sensible reaction to me, given your general expectations. *smile* A guided tour is what I'll want too if it happens. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: GUEST Date: 19 Dec 11 - 06:46 PM "The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men." ~ Leonardo Da Vinci In the grand scheme of things, the eco-system, no animal is more important or less important than any other animal, including the human animal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: GUEST,Dorothy Parshall Date: 19 Dec 11 - 06:48 PM Guess I have been dis-enfranchised. The above is me. Now to see what happened to ME. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Dec 11 - 12:45 AM Well said, Mr Da Vinci. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: GUEST,Patsy Date: 20 Dec 11 - 05:31 AM It's going to be the rise again of the Planet of the Apes, you mark my words! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Dec 11 - 10:51 AM That's exactly what Chongo keeps saying. He plans to shake things up "real good" after he gets elected president. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: JohnInKansas Date: 20 Dec 11 - 01:21 PM It's going to be the rise again of the Planet of the Apes ... You've seen the TV ads for the pending release of the latest Armagedon movie, we presume? I've been waiting for the complaint from Chongo that all the apes that "rise up and attack" appear to be giant gorillas, with not a chimp in the bunch. But maybe he's just thinking chimps would have been smart enough to just go down and flip the switch off at the power station and sit back and laugh while all the people died off, instead of storming the cities and tossing buses and trucks around. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should tests on Chimps be banned. From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Dec 11 - 03:02 PM Now you're talkin', John. Chimps are clever. I believe they would do just as you suggest and strike at the brain center of the human structure...electricity and computer networks. |
