The Vegan VEDDAS attended the Bazaar with its line of institutional products: T, Sweatshirts, HAT, CANECAS, EcoBags, Bottons, STICKERS, ETC.
No Bazar, people could indulge in the best of vegan cuisine made with care and humane by many cooks São Paulo!
An opportunity to acquire cosmetics, garment, accessories, books, general gifts free testing and animal ingredients!

Event page on Facebook.

Peter Hammarstedt (captain of the Sea Shepherd ships) Conference on Animal Rights 2012 U.S.! The VEDDAS will be present again at the end of this month for the eighth consecutive year to lecture about our work, aprender com ativistas lendários e ampliar as pontes com o movimento animalista internacional.

To learn more, visit: www.arconference.org

Firstly, Who poses the question fails to understand that the animal rights movement is a movement for social justice, sharing all the similarities of struggle, paths and challenges that are peculiar to social movements. Consequently, who questions our active participation in other social movements is also far from understanding that, if a portion of the social movements dodges participate in the protests against the current Brazilian environmental setback and allow to understand and fight against the criminalization of the movement against the increase in bus fares, when it's time to put this plot into focus your topic, this will be dealt with strength gains allowed by default in the treatment of current issues, enfraquecidos pela ausência de algumas participações ativas.

The media and (other) repressive forces already do a good job to highlight the hype and just take the focus off of what motivates claims. It is up to us, environmental activists socioanimalista-, enaltecermos focus on the rights and recognize those who have left their comfort zone to be on the streets, whether they agree or not with the depredations, whether they participate or not this movement in your day-to-day. If the fight is for rights, she must have our support and participation, que é exatamente o que desejaríamos deles em relação às reivindicações específicas do nosso movimento.

A movement that is silent before other injustices is not a movement. A movement that does not compassion with other struggles, is a movement that does not know what it is to fight. With regard particularly to VEDDAS (Ethical Vegetarianism, Defense of Animals and Society), it is no coincidence that the acronym was coined to include this last letter.” (George Guimaraes)

On 15 June, VEDDAS|Sorocaba display the short “The Gear”.

Local: Rua Olavo Bilaspur,68 – Trot. the R.Aparecida. Union
This was an invitation from members of the NGO ” Same frequency ”

Do not miss!

Scientists and researchers investigating diseases that afflict humans are trained in research centers in the criminal practice of vivisection, prohibited by law 9.605, of 12 February 1998, when there are substitute methods. In many cases, a vivissecção é o único método no qual a inteligência científica recebe treinamento.

Over the last forty years, biomedical research efforts focused on experiments with "models" obtained at the expense of the suffering and death of non-human animals, used to mirror the diseases produced in a physical environment and human mental. Among these are cancer, the vascular accidents, Hypertension, to hipercolesterolemia, o diabetes, multiple sclerosis, neurological degenerations known as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, the "depression" and other forms of psychological distress. Ratos, mice, dogs, apes, horses, porcos e aves são comercializados no mercado vivisseccionista.

Just to give an example: It has been estimated to be 2, 6 millions of humans suffering from multiple sclerosis around the planet. Medicines obtained from the vivisection of rodents failed. Scientists recognized that the cause of the disease is "environmental", ela contribuindo for different genes, not just a. The medications available today, of microbial origin, not the result of vivisection, but the codification of physico-chemical structure of these (Greek & Greek, Specious Science).

There are those diseases of genetic origin or hereditary, what would be the scientific purpose in insisting on the architecture of the animal model to seek their healing?

Perhaps one can know the answer, looking at the financial interests (real "human benefits"?), in the base game, around and behind the activity vivisector academic and business that it covers. Referring to the price list of companies that provide genetically modified mice for research vivisectors, eg, begin to have an idea of ​​what lies behind the argument of "human benefit", que os vivisseccionistas defensores da legalização desta prática anti-ética usam como escudo para protegerem-se das críticas abolicionistas.

The research on live animals "benefits human interests": the price of a genetically modified mouse, to name just a kind used in vivisection, can range from U $ 100,00 a U$ 15.000,00 unidade dollars. The fixtures for the proper handling of such an animal are not offered for prices comrades. An apparatus for killing, in a "humanitarian", Animals used in the study, disabling them the brain enzymes, cost somewhere around $ U 70.000,00 unit. Devices to contain rats, dogs, cats and monkeys, can cost between $ 4.500,00 a U$ 8.500,00 unit. The "producers" of animals are also part of this chain that forms the "dependence of science in relation to vivisseccção", without which it can not survive today, e à qual a vida e a saúde humana estão algemadas.

In 1999, relatam Greek & Greek, the sale of mice in the United States alcançou 200 million. The other animals reached 140 million. But, the "human benefits" to which vivisectors refer in their public defense of the regulation of vivisection in Brazil, not restricted to what entrepreneurs livestock producers and device manufacturers to contain them in animal facilities and laboratories bill. Also publishers of magazines, newspapers and books are part of the human community "benefited" by vivisection. And, finally, human benefit most spectacular is the turnover of chemical and pharmaceutical industry, a chain of business to which they are linked all pharmacies around the planet and all the people who buy allopathic medicines in the hope of cure or relief from their ailments, and processed foods, cujos componentes levaram os animais a sofrerem o Draize Test e o LD 50.

But, when vivisectors publish articles advocating the legalization of their practice unethical, the killing of animals for inventing models that can mirror human diseases, knowing that each agency has its own environmental reality and there is a medium that can cure the same disease in all subjects, because each develops a peculiarly, the "financial benefits" and "academic benefits" accumulated in all links of this chain are hidden vivisector reader. Nobody publishes, Brazil, one detailed account of the amount allocated by the funding agencies for research vivisector. Therefore, we are not aware of the costs of failure vivisector (AIDS, cancer, Parkinson, Alzheimer, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, cholesterol, environmental diseases, more than genetic).

Animal research led the pharmaceutical industry to peak in the last twenty years. Not casually, these last twenty years, multiplied deaths from circulatory failure, hypertension, diabetes, cancer, degenerative neurological syndromes, hepatic cirrhosis and infections. The environmental component of human ills can not be mirrored in the body of rats and mice. At the same time, vivisectors insist on defending the law to legalize their practice, implying the lay public that vivisection is "out" for the healing of human ills. His articles "scientific" are not effective, nor about their peers vivisectors. How could produce effects on human health? 80% Articles published in the journal are cited at most once in other vehicles, and 50% Articles vivisectors are never cited, either in the same, is in other journals (Greek &Greek). The millions of animals killed for such articles are published and their authors in the account for their academic productivity, had their lives destroyed for no other "human benefit", unless the authors give the title of Master and Doctor, ou a concessão de bolsas de produtividade.
These are the real "human benefits" practice vivisector, of which no one can give?

Sonia T. Felipe, Dr. em moral philosophy and political theory pela University of Konstanz, Germany, member of the Bioethics Institute of the Luso-American Development, FLAT; postdoctoral fellow in bioethics with cutout animal ethics, Professor and Researcher, UFSC, Eastern Monographs, dissertations and theses in bioethics, ética animal, environmental ethics, human rights and theories of justice. Author of, Ethics and animal experimentation: abolitionists basics (Edufsc, 2007) and As a matter of principle (Cripple, 2003). Collaborator of Animal Magazine Pensata, www.sentiens.net.

The reductionism as the basis of animal models of fallibility

Besides indefensible under ethically, Once you submit beings sencientes1 the physical and psychological suffering (Singer, 1998; Regan, 2001), the vivissecção2 is a practice that fails in at least one fundamental criterion to be considered truly scientific: predictabilidade.

Before some considerations about the epistemological reasons underlying the poor results from animal models, gostaria de remeter o leitor a alguns contextos e dados que ilustram a afirmação feita anteriormente.

With respect to drugs, eg, despite the huge amount of dead guinea pigs supposed to ensure the effectiveness and test the side effects of new drugs, Greek & Greek (2000, p.117) out that "according to the organization Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, only 1% of new drugs tested in laboratories go to the clinical stage (when tested on human volunteers). Chegam of which the market, many have serious side effects and unforeseen risks. "A review by the American government on drugs launched between 1976 and 1985 revealed that 51,5% them offered unforeseen risks in testing " (Barnard & Kaufman, 1997, p.81). Greek & Greek (2000, p.58) emphasize that, "Every year, tens of thousands of people become ill due to the use of drugs sold legally. Archibald (2005), who argues in the same direction, further states that the side effects of prescription drugs are among the leading causes of deaths in Ocidente3. She cites the recent case of Vioxx – a drug to combat arthritis – that was withdrawn globally in September 2004, after causing 140.000 cases of heart attacks and strokes in the U.S. only. The drug, when tested in nonhuman animals, proved to be safe and even beneficial to their hearts. Another example worth mentioning is that of hormone replacement therapies. Prescribed for millions of women, because it decreased the risk of heart disease and stroke in monkeys, such therapy significantly increased the risk of these diseases in women and also caused 20.000 cases of breast cancer. Archibald cites several other drugs that matam4 and Greek & Greek (2003, p.112-115) also have a long list of drugs withdrawn from the market, in Britain and the USA, on account of its very serious side effects (including death). They point out that the drugs listed represent a small part of total calamity. The complete list is almost innumerable, they say, uma vez que muitos problemas sequer foram relatados.

And why such drugs are ineffective and even dangerous? Because the data from tests with nonhuman animals are chaotic and unreliable. Here is a prime example: "Researchers chose 6 drugs with known side effects in humans. Animal testing correctly predicted 22 collateral effects, but incorrectly presented 48 effects did not occur in humans. And more, animal tests did not predict 20 Side effects that occur in humans. Therefore, animal models have erred 68 times 90. So, in 76% the time, results from animal experiments were wrong " (Lumley and Walker apud Greek & Greek, 2003, p.111)

The animal model is flawed because there are differences, between us and them, the anatomy, physiology, environmental interactions, We types of food ingested, etc., that result in the absorption mismatch, distribution and metabolism of. In addition, Laboratory conditions are more controlled than in life veddasistradas doses and the animals can be much larger than those required to humans, in terms of body weight. Therefore, Apart from the fact that the routes of inoculation of different substances - whether oral, anal, peritoneal, vaginal, etc. – can exert a great influence on the test results, a dosagem pode ser também um fator crucial.

Fano (2000), eg, highlights that many animal tests occur in conditions (dosages, methods, etc.) that have no similarity to real life. In an experiment involving the sweetener cyclamate, the animals received human equivalent 552 soda bottles per day. In two experiments with trichlorethylene (used as an agent in coffee descafeinizante) rats received an equivalent dose 50 million cups of coffee per day. This can distort the results of two ways: can poison the cells and tissues, so severely, enough to prevent carcinogenic response that could occur in other conditions; or you can overload, or change, metabolic processes and cause a carcinogenic response that could not occur, conclui ela.

Furthermore, the metabolic rate of the animals is variable. Laboratory animals are generally smaller than the human and, it, have a much more intense metabolism. Thus, eliminating toxins quickly than humans, which can prevent the toxic effects appear, como observa Fano.

Although vivisectors claim that rats and mice constitute good models for studying diseases and other conditions or ailments that affect humans, there are significant differences between them and us. According to Greek & Greek (2003, p.121), "Rats must breathe through the nose, which can change the shape of the entrance of a substance into the bloodstream; the placenta is considerably more porous than the mice in humans; distribution due to differences in the intestinal microflora, they are much more likely to metabolize a compound veddasistrado orally in an active metabolite, or toxic; acid secretion in the stomach them is continuous, as it occurs in humans only in response to the presence of food, or other stimuli. Rats are also nocturnal animals, susceptible to different diseases of our, also have different nutritional requirements and are unable to vomit. All these peculiarities (anatomical, physiological, etc.) affect absorption, the pharmacokinetics and metabolism of compounds, ou causam reações inesperadas com relação a um composto”5.

Many other issues that affect the data from tests with nonhuman animals could be added here as, eg, the influence of environmental enrichment (see New Scientist article, (173[2333], 09 of mar.2002:11, intitulado “Home comfort for lab animals create problems for researchers”). But, after all, issues that were at the heart of such chaotic results?

Animal models are inaccurate because they are immersed in a practical and mechanistic paradigm, therefore, reductionist, that became hegemonic in our culture. This paradigm is also inextricably linked to a man-centered ethical and Speciesist. The subject-object opposition, basis of the alleged objective description of nature, is another dichotomy that lies at the heart of the formal corpus of knowledge in our society and also in animal experiments. It, becomes an animal model to study, which is analyzed according to its supposed ability to predict or reproduce a phenomenon. Within the mechanistic paradigm that would make sense, treat as it would analyze, understand, or identify, after a certain mechanism to verify how that mechanism (genetic, physiological, metabolic, etc.) could be used to predict other, the body being modeled. It happens that the social and natural phenomena are much more complex than posit the assumptions of mechanistic, which makes this paradigm or inappropriate, at least not, too limited to describe this range of complexity (see Maturana, 2002; Capra, 1996; Bruges, 2004, p.63-120).

Capra (1996), eg, argues that there are three criteria for a comprehensive description of the nature of life: the pattern of organization (configuration of relationships that determine the essential characteristics of the process); structure (the physical embodiment of the pattern of organization); and the method (activity involved in incorporating continuous pattern of organization). In this view, all living systems are cognitive systems and cognition always implies the existence of an autopoietic network, in other words, the basic characteristic of a living network is that it continually produces itself, she autocria (see also Maturana, 2002). Esse processo de autocriação também influi na capacidade de formar novas estruturas e novos padrões de comportamento.

So, although there are many common features between us and other animals, microscopic differences between our cells and these may lead to gross errors. All species – plants and animals – follow the same design: are formed by the same units DNA (A,T,C,G) which are joined in the same process. But, while the genetic material is the same, the composition, Different arrangements are. Isso faz toda a diferença.

The next context – involving the resemblance between us and chimpanzees – clearly shows the reason rechaçarmos the reductionist argument that such animals are excellent models. According to Greek & Greek (2003, p.49-50), "If we examine the genes that encode proteins that act as enzymes, or provide the basis for structure, or cell movement, the similarity between us and chimpanzees is greater than 99%. The difference is, therefore, the building blocks not, but in how they are arranged and controlled by regulatory genes that control the pattern and growth. So, eg, a single amino acid difference in, between non-human primates and humans, faz com que o HIV não se acople ao mesmo receptor celular em primatas não-humanos”.

This is the "dialectical" nature. And that's exactly what Capra argues, in the previous paragraph (see also Brügger, 2004, p.125-128).

So, the high degree of genetic correspondence that exists between us and such models (as primates and rodents) MAKE sense only, in reliability, within a reductionist view of science. The non-human animals can not be considered as good "causal analog models" (CAMs). According to the philosophers Hugh La-brochure and Niall Shanks (1996) Analog causal model works as follows: X (model) Y is similar to (the object to be modeled) with respect to the properties {a….and}. X has the additional property f. Although not observed in Y, Y is assumed that also has the property f. Then, Z if the drug causes the death of the animal model (eg, penicillin kills guinea pigs), by analogia, kill humans (branch of the Greek & Greek, 2003, p.45). La-Follete e Shanks (1996) claim that "the causal analogical models that would also present common characteristics; connected between the causal features; and no significant disanalogias. And they say that the possibility of disanalogias relevant causal destroys the argument that animal research has direct relevance to the study of human biological phenomena. This is because, until they are done testing on humans, there is no way of knowing whether or not there between us and disanalogias relevant animal model. And there are strong theoretical reasons to expect that there disanalogias relevant causal. Human animals and non-human were subjected to very different evolutionary pressures. The fact that two species have similar biological functional properties gives us no reason to think that they have similar underlying causal mechanisms. Although humans are not "substantially" different from mice, either life forms or 'higher', are different in terms of complexity. Differences between species, even small, often result in wildly divergent responses with respect to stimulus qualitatively identical. Evolutionary differences in the biological systems of humans and rodents, eg, desencadeiam um efeito cascata que resulta em marcadas diferenças em importantes propriedades biomédicas entre as duas espécies”.

Therefore, The presence of small differences at the cellular level, crease as the Theory of Evolution, invalida as extrapolações entre as espécies.

We understand very limited strength autopoietic nature, but we want to exercise dominion over it. I think the issues raised here should, therefore, be part of the debate on the effectiveness of animal models as tools for teaching and research. That's because the professionals who make use of them are, in theory, and scientists are producing knowledge, além de estarem formando uma legião de seguidores de seus preceitos cientificamente questionáveis.

Although today it is no longer possible to deny the influence of the factors highlighted here – concerted with each other which can produce a completely new and unexpected fact, with which the scientist has to deal – the epistemological foundations underlying such processes, still represent a question considered too abstract. However, accepting that there is an interdependence between variables that can not be isolated and studied separately, or quantified in terms of influence, part of the essence of the scientific method – the same mechanistic – to a lesser extent. This is a much deeper issue and crucial than it may seem, it implies truly understand that knowledge is always an abstraction built in the strict sense of the term. And some abstractions, or metaphors, são mais adequadas do que outras para descrever determinadas realidades.

Thus, except in cases in which animal models have been rigorously validated (but this implies the death of millions of them!), the correct data, apparently obtained from animal models, are, actually the result of coincidence and chance, or clues provided by other research fields. Not reflect the result of a truly scientific endeavor, since it does not require a detailed knowledge of the complex mechanisms involved in the processes studied6. Such arrangements seem to reflect nothing more than a small percentage of successful attempts and mere, it, not differ significantly from other situations such as hit rates in basketball hoops, eg, por parte de pessoas que não dominam tal esporte.

Urge, therefore, us to make a careful reflection on the maintenance of this paradigm anchored on values ​​anthropocentric and speciesist. It is not reasonable to say that it is impossible to do without animal models when there is not a systematic investment (not in education, or in research) no use of alternatives, whether substitute or alternative techniques in the broad sense (as clinical databases, epidemiological and other information sources).

Finally, is to say that the criticism of animal models are part of a greater critical respect the views of health and disease present in medicine that has become hegemonic, based intervention or prevention. Such a view is part of a paradigm that privileges solutions "pharmacological" and "techno"-logical, as indeed is the dominant perspective in our culture (emblematic example is the treatment / cure proposed for "climate change" now underway). And, again, a falta de visão sistêmica jaz na base de todas essas questões.

Notes:

1. Sentient beings are those capable of experiencing pleasure, pain, alegria e outras sensações e emoções.

2. The term vivisection has the meaning of "live cut". É empregado para designar a realização de operações ou estudos em animais vivos para observação de determinados fenômenos.

3. The former are: cancer, Heart Disease and Stroke (cerebrovascular accidents).

4. Some drugs are cited by Archibald Baycol, a Rezulin, Propulsid, Opren, Eraldin.

5. There are important differences between males and females, e entre linhagens e resultados de diferentes instituições.

6. Como os chamados “laços de realimentação” e outros mecanismos que podem atuar de forma auto-referencial nos modelos propostos.

Bibliography:

ARCHIBALD, Kathy. Animal testing: science or fiction? The Ecologist, May. 2005: 14-17.

BARNARD, Neal & KAUFMAN, Stephen. Animal research is wasteful and misleading. Scientific American, February. 1997. 80-82.

BRÜGGER, Paula. Animal models. In: Animal Friend - Reflections on interdisciplinary education and environment: animals, ethics, diet, health, paradigms. Florianópolis: Contemporary Letters, 2004: 63-120; 125-128).

CAPRA, Fritjof. The warp of life: a new scientific understanding of living systems. Trad. Newton Roberval Eichemberg. Sao Paulo, Cultrix, c1996.

Fano, Alix. Beastly practice. The Ecologist, flight 30 (3), May, 2000: 24-28

GREEK, Ray C.& GREEK, Jean S. Sacred cows and golden geese – the human cost of experiments on animals. Foreword by Jane Goodall. New York/London: Continuum, 2000.

GREEK, Ray & GREEK, Jean. Specious Science: How Genetics and Evolution Reveal Why Medical Research on Animals Harms Humans. London, New York: Continuum, 2003.

LaFOLLETTE, Hugh & SHANKS, Niall. Brute Science: Dilemmas of Animal Experimentation. London: Routledge, 1996.

MATURANA, Humberto R.& VARELA, Francisco J.. The tree of knowledge - the biological basis of human understanding. 2Ed. Trad. Humberto Mariotti and Lia Diskin.São Paulo: Palas Athena, 2002.

REGAN, Tom. Defending animal rights. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2001.

SINGER, Peter. Ethical Practice. 2Ed. Trad. Jefferson L. Camargo. Sao Paulo, Martins Fontes, 1998.

Paula Brügger é bióloga, Professor of the Department. of Ecology and Zoology of the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), former member of the Ethics Committee on Animal Use – (CEUA), Master in Education and PhD in Human Sciences – Society and Environment. She is author of the books “Education or training environment?”, which is the 3rd edition, and “Animal Friend - Reflections on interdisciplinary education and environment”. Currently coordinates the educational project “Amigo Animal”.
E-mail: brugger@ccb.ufsc.br

As science progresses? The great theorist of the philosophy of science, Thomas Kuhn, the classic The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, contends that it advances by leaps, this is, does not progress by cumulative. He recognizes two kinds of science: a ciência normal e a extraordinária.

Kuhn investigates the concept of paradigm, a worldview that guides and structures the scientific investigations. The paradigm includes all: of the, the dominant theory, philosophical principles that she nearly, as concepções metodológicas e procedimentos padronizados.

Normal science is science day-to-day, scientist do that, plunged in its paradigm, discards all that its concepts can not solve. So, anomalies and novelties that come on your way up are eliminated in order not to undermine the foundations of the science model in which the scientist is inserted. Ultimately, the scientific community “search” under the dictates of their paradigm. It aims to frame him all phenomena facing. Those she can not fit, ela desconsidera e segue no seu modus operandi cotidiano e repetitivo.

However, the accumulation of defects, this is, problematic cases that the paradigm does not solve, eventually give rise to periods of crisis. As “anomalies”, by threatening the paradigm in its own grounds, are critical moments because the agreement gives rise to division, the formation of groups seeking other theories and other essentials. In this critical period, Kuhn dá o nome de ciência extraordinária.

The change of a paradigm is a revolution, and science progresses only by paradigmatic revolutions, this is, synthetically: science progresses only when anomalies are remarkable, when they shake the normal scientist of his monotonous task and procedures within the closed paradigm. So, crisis, emerge an idea, a theory that will revolutionize science, Finally we will introduce, um novo.

The relationship with the case of Conscientious Objection intended by Róber Bachinski is evident. Rober fez express yourself anomaly, this is, it represents the legion of students who become disenchanted with the courses they dreamed and thought with which to value life. Róber and it is a lot. Just see the amount of people that come leaving their testimonials on the websites that published the news of his victory in the injunction which guaranteed the right not to kill to study. Students who say they have given up because they sought to attend Veterinary save lives and learned how to make sausage. Queriam salvar animais e aprendiam a transformar animais em comida humana com controle sanitário.

Of course we are here in the field of education and not the science itself. However the teaching takes place within the dominant paradigm, e os professores são os cientistas normais por excelência.

Everyone has had the experience of a teacher dared, creative, answering. But most of us know many teachers accommodated, repeaters semester half of the same class, same methodologies, even the same jokes when we are lucky to meet a humorous. As we also know colleagues who want to repeat, we want the world to follow and as always was, porque é mais cômodo e porque acham ótimo estudar na mesma cartilha dos pais e dos avós.

For parents and grandparents are teaching today too bothered. And his disciples, some, also. You can see the same sites listed before the level of these colleagues to express their discontent with the ruling. Focus away from the action to the plaintiff, trying to discredit him, offend. The amazing thing is that this decision does not affect, ela tão somente garante o direito do aluno postulante de não participar de experiências que ferem seus princípios de reconhecimento dos direitos animais.

Róber is the anomaly of normal science. But look here, anomalia no sentido kuhniano, this is, it shows that the current paradigm is not realizing an ethical dilemma that is becoming more important. And this ethical dilemma begins to be representative of many. The Court recognizes. The Court finds articles on codes that support conscientious objection, this is, the right of a student to postulate replacing deaths of animals in practical classes. The society, through hundreds of NGO, mobilizes to defend this right. Ultimately, the crisis is established. For those who fail to understand the crisis as a driver of progress of science, the moment is serious, é luto. For those who conceive the crisis and the emergence of growing challenges that will lead to the heel of science, é momento de celebração.

As normal science tries to fit into the paradigm phenomena facing, Also University (where they both studied Thomas Kuhn and which theorizes about aspects of moral life and diversity, otherness, diversity) Róber tries to frame the model of desensitization, que é como se chama a faculdade de não ligar para o sofrimento alheio em nome da ciência.

It's time the old paradigm to the new place, a new model of science that takes into account the ethical objections that, Fortunately with regard to animal rights, present at the entrance of the XXI century. At least until the next crisis…

E-mail: naza@portoweb.com.br

Text already published on the website of the Group for the Abolition of Speciesism in Porto Alegre – GAE – http://www.gaepoa.org/