For Art Basel 2008 coverage, visit Buildings and Food.
Tuesday December 26, 2006
In Miami-Dade it’s illegal to sell a dog or cat without a microchip implanted in it. Not to get all “our children are next” on you, but doesn’t this seem a little fucked up? I understand the motivation, but . . . ok, what if you have, say, religious objections (mark of the beast and all)? Or what if you think it’s just weird to have a microchip implanted in your pet?
Tags: animals, law, pets, technology · Comment feed: RSS, atom



First they came for the wild beasts of the jungle, and I said nothing; then they came for the cats and dogs, and I said nothing; then they came for the infirmed and handicapped, and I said nothing; then they came for the children, and I did say something:
Will the microchip be able to tell whether the kids are having sex or smoking pot?
Because if it can, then the end of civilization is in sight.
If you have ever had a pet lost and then euthanized because no one could figure out who the owner was, you would be all for microchipping.
However, I am against microchipping children, euthanizing them may be an option.
Manuel~
I’m ready for the laughing gas.
Skip~
No. That’s an argument for getting your pet or my pet microchipped, not for making chipping mandatory for everyone. I can make arguments from here until next week why it would be a great idea to chip all the kids along the same lines.
But you do point me in this direction: any successful argument for mandatory chipping of all pets is going to come from an animal-rights perspective. Looking at it that way, it actually begins to make sense.
I don’t like the weird big-brother implications of this, but it sounds like it would take a great deal of pressure of the shelters, the animals and their owners.
What about micro-chipping reptiles? Should owners who dump their lizards and snakes be responsible?
I don’t get it. What’s your problem with Youth In Asia?
There are too many of them…..
Micularchips are make nucular energy.