Sentences with phrase «much as animals»

As much as these animals are lovely, they could make -LSB-...]

Though this sounds like it studies the behavior of veterinarians as much as animals, the focus of the Academy is «creating, maintaining, and strengthening the human - animal bond.»

She knows that people need animals as much as animals need humans.

You will surely enjoy this as much as the animals.

I love people (thought not as much as animals);)

Dictyostelium folds proteins much as animal cells do.

The general manifestation of the laws of the animal level of Reality within the human level of Reality is an example of inverted order; the animal laws must manifest in the human level only specifically, as much as the animal part of man is involved and they must be also subjected accordingly to the higher laws.

Not exact matches

Yes, meat will cost more and won't as widely available, but farm animals should all have real lives and humane deaths (and stop emitting so much methane into the atmosphere).

As much as I mentioned my concern about animals and the environment, people can't see those thingAs much as I mentioned my concern about animals and the environment, people can't see those thingas I mentioned my concern about animals and the environment, people can't see those things.

How much a collector is willing to pay for such a medal is a different animal altogether, as is how much the medal's metal would be worth if it were melted down.

If they don't have many guests, animals or venture out much, they probably don't need as much liability protection.

GFI reports that as their scientists investigate further, they have become more optimistic — because clean meat is so much more efficient than animal - based meat.102 One of their senior scientists, Dr. Liz Specht, has met with venture capital firms and other venture investors to present technology plans of specific clean meat companies and their pathways to commercialization.103 GFI further reports that, based partly on her analysis, many leading venture capital investors and firms have become much more interested in clean meat companies.

Much of the effect can likely be explained by researchers unconsciously giving hints or suggestions to their human or animal subjects, perhaps in something as subtle as body language or tone of voice.

Your position is that we cause as much pain whether we kill plants or kill animals and since we need to eat, it makes no difference whether we kill plants or animals from a moral perspective.

The fact is the same as last time we exchanged post here, your statements are so extremist that they much be challenged and put down like a rabid animal.

One group has become convinced that other animals suffer much as we do, and they are certain that our cruelty to them is immoral.

Humans are animals... we are as much a part of nature as any other earth bound life form.

Although there is much cruelty in the treatment of animals in the Indian subcontinent, as elsewhere in the world, all the Indian religions teach a sense of oneness with nature and a reverence for life.

It has long been recognized that man has so much in common with the animals that he must be regarded as an animal, even if of a very special kind.

As the tramp per se, he was very close to the level of sheer animal survival much of the time, where elegance is irrelevant, and where one easily disposes of most of the niceties and artifices of «polite society.»

And much larger prey animals, such as pigs, which are also unclean animals, so there could only have been one pair, would be needed for the larger predators.

But the description of man as a rational or intellectual animal, familiar in the Middle Ages, is dangerous unless full recognition is also given to the feeling - tones which are as much a part of human existence as is human rationality.

He is able to appreciate; indeed it has been suggested that man might be described not so much as the rational animal as the appreciating animal.

In some societies the line of division was not drawn so clearly between men and the animals, as between the nobility and the peasantry, the latter being treated with much the same attitude as the animals.

Fossil discoveries in China, «hailed as among the most spectacular in this century,» turned up seventy species from the Cambrian period with «the appearance of increasingly complex marine animals in a riot of shapes and anatomical designs anticipating much of life as it is today.»

As for the free range analogy, it is a known fact that animals under the care of a kind master live much longer and are much healthier than those in the wild.

And don't claim aything about this «humans as the higher standard, rule over the animal kingdom» B.S. People kill much more indescriminently than any animal ever did.

Others believe that the killing of other animals should be viewed in much the same light as the killing of human beings.

The «pro-life» ideology might also include being a vegetarian, not so much to spare the lives of animals as for other health - and conservation - related reasons.

Just as we saw that in healthy - mindedness there are shallower and profounder levels, happiness like that of the mere animal, and more regenerate of happiness, so also are there different levels of the morbid mind, and the one is much more formidable than the other.

The problem is that organized religion is as much political animal as any other human convention involving more than 2 people, and spiritual, thinking individuals are intelligent enough to know that churches / mosques / community reprogramming centers actually have very little to do with what one actually believes...

Human psychology differs greatly, to be sure, not only because we have much less access to the psyches of other animals, but also because their mentality is so much less developed, so that they — at least most of them — seem incapable of entertaining norms as such, The difference is, nevertheless, one of degree, not of kind.

CH: It's not necessary to be a philosopher to be practical, in certain basic animal and human ways — and that is why the world got on for a long time without much of what we now think of as philosophy.

This suggests that the criticism of animal rights advocates may not be as much a matter of shared principle among deep ecologists as I have supposed.

The process of synthesis by which azoic elements have reached their present multiplicity and complexity is an evolution, the same process entirely as the biologist traces in the order of living things, and the synthetic chemical compound embodies in itself a complex relativity capable of being expressed in most exact laws, which reflect the evolutionary emergence of its substance as much as do the organs of an animal explained in terms of evolutionary development.

We have learned so much about the intelligence, cognitive and social, of so many animals — humpback whales, orcas, bottlenose dolphins, elephants, gray parrots, dogs, and so on — all of it quite fascinating, thought - provoking, and in many cases delightful, and it seems a cruel impoverishment of our speculative and moral imaginations to dismiss it all as a process of biomechanical stimulus and response, only accidentally resembling the workings of human consciousness.

Humans are still not evolved much beyond animals — we believe a book that was, literally, cobbled together from several questionable sources all in the name of bringing as many religions together as possible over 2000 years ago.

Noah saving the animals and his family and repopulating the earth with his descendants is viewed as a story much like a fable and is hard to believe as something that could be true.

He also began arguing to his congregation that keeping kosher is as much about workers as about animals.

If, for instance, you were to condemn a religion of human or animal sacrifices by virtue of your subjective sentiments, and if all the while a deity were really there demanding such sacrifices, you would be making a theoretical mistake by tacitly assuming that the deity must be non-existent; you would be setting up a theology of your own as much as if you were a scholastic philosopher.

One of its leading exponents, Sir Julian Huxley, defines a humanist as «someone who believes that Man is just as much a natural phenomenon as an animal or a plant; that his body, mind and soul were not supernaturally created, but are all products of evolution, and that he is not under the control or guidance of any supernatural being or beings, but has to rely on himself and his own powers.»

The public consensus veers between sympathy for animal rights — although it is only some animals that are included, you do no hear much about the «rights» of insects and spiders, for example — and uncertainty about the moral boundaries surrounding human life and death — although, of course, outright murder is still regarded as a crime.

There is not much in the Gospels about this, but he assumed that the owner of an animal would lead it to water on the Sabbath as on every other day; and if an animal should fall into a pit on the Sabbath, the owner would pull it out without regard to any rule of Sabbath observance.

As invertebrates, crickets also have a much less developed nervous system than other animals.

So if the production of this ingredient (that is in pretty much in everything) has an impact on a species of animal and taking their home away from them, wouldn't you consider that a problem as an ethical vegan?

An avocado orchard uses twice as much water as a regular forest, and much of that water is diverted from the natural habitat where other plants and animals can use it.

I've been a vegetarian all my life but as I adapt a more plant - based lifestyle and slowly cut out dairy, it's been much harder for me to watch my loved ones indulge on animal products.

Whether one chooses an all natural or a processed vegan diet, either choice will offer a vegan as much variety and flavor in their diet as any non-vegan has, the only difference is that the variety and flavor will come only from plant - based sources, with no harm to animals.

Exactly, I feel like the moral motivation that vegan have makes them ignore the fact that animal food has also healing properties and is in many cases much more suitable to people with gastro intestinal issues as leaky gut.

It makes me so sad when people claim that vegans / vegetarians care more about animals than people, because making good food choices affects humanity just as much as it does the animals... by the way, that bowl looks divine!