Animal Testing - Right or Wrong?

[Phi for All]

Animal testing is done because humans see themselves as more important than other species. Everything we use non-human animal species for we only do because we see ourselves as more important than them. It's nothing but egotistical garbage. And yes, I'm a hypocrite, I realize that all too well

 

A broad, emotional response lacking all nuance, that points out why so many people don't bother with the science. It's much easier to convert the world into good and evil, and paint it black and white.

 

If you don't acknowledge that we raise many animals in sheltered lives for the purpose of knowledge or food or fibers, if you don't insist that these necessary means be performed as humanely as possible, then you're not honoring the sacrifices they make to advance human knowledge. By seeing yourself as only more important, you miss the fact that all life on this planet is interconnected, and that when we know more about one part, it can help with many other parts.

 

I think you're demeaning the necessary sacrifice by making it all about our importance. The bond between humans and the animals we domesticate to make life better is an old one. From dogs to guard us, to canaries in coal mines, to lab rabbits being dosed with chemicals people will eventually use, these animals either wouldn't exist at all or would be living reduced and more dangerous lives in the wild. I know this seems more "natural" to many, but again, I think this is purely an emotional response. Where do you draw the necessary line in that argument? Should we stop raising pets because they should be out in the wild? Should we stop forcing dogs to lead blind people around?

 

Better knowledge is the key to reducing animal testing, not emotional knee-jerks. We don't use canaries in coal mines anymore, because we figured out better ways. If we stay reasonable, we can probably figure out how to reduce harmful testing as well.

[CharonY]

 

 

Cosmetics - I kinda agree but I know people will wear them and thus they need to be tested properly. But your assertion that organs on chips are better than in vivo testing is just plain wrong. And medical researchers don't just give the local bunnies a prescription and tell them to pop into the pharmacist on the way home - they test in very specific models that are known to reproduce (to a known extent) effects in animals that are desirable in humans.

 

The argument against animal testing would advance at a much greater rate if those proposing it actually knew the science. But if they know the science then they tend to realise that animal testing is essential and don't make the argument in the first place

 

Precisely, in vitro models (including chip-based ones) are currently only useful for a limited number of applications and are nowhere near being able to supplant animal tests. There is funding to improve the systems, but it is still in its infancy stages.

 

Cosmetic testing has been reduced massively over the last decade and has been effectively been banned in the EU and at least is considered for banning in the US. It is certainly not seen as a requirement anymore. One of the reasons behind that is that there are not many new formulations of cosmetics so that no new tox information is required. In addition cosmetic testing does not actually rely on toxicity information, rather specific endpoints such as skin irritation on contact. These can actually tested quite well in tissue cultures.

[iNow]

In terms of ROI and achieving true measurable positive impact, I propose that it would be better to focus these energies instead on intensive animal farming and industrial livestock production. Instead of attacking true science that does real human good under supremely thoughtful and ethical guidelines and under clear oversight, maybe spend this energy working to minimize the needless suffering that occurs everyday at the profit seeking agribusinesses that provide us with most of our protein.

[Thorham]

 

A broad, emotional response lacking all nuance, that points out why so many people don't bother with the science. It's much easier to convert the world into good and evil, and paint it black and white.

 

If you don't acknowledge that we raise many animals in sheltered lives for the purpose of knowledge or food or fibers, if you don't insist that these necessary means be performed as humanely as possible, then you're not honoring the sacrifices they make to advance human knowledge. By seeing yourself as only more important, you miss the fact that all life on this planet is interconnected, and that when we know more about one part, it can help with many other parts.

 

I think you're demeaning the necessary sacrifice by making it all about our importance. The bond between humans and the animals we domesticate to make life better is an old one. From dogs to guard us, to canaries in coal mines, to lab rabbits being dosed with chemicals people will eventually use, these animals either wouldn't exist at all or would be living reduced and more dangerous lives in the wild. I know this seems more "natural" to many, but again, I think this is purely an emotional response. Where do you draw the necessary line in that argument? Should we stop raising pets because they should be out in the wild? Should we stop forcing dogs to lead blind people around?

 

Better knowledge is the key to reducing animal testing, not emotional knee-jerks. We don't use canaries in coal mines anymore, because we figured out better ways. If we stay reasonable, we can probably figure out how to reduce harmful testing as well.

 

Bull. It's exclusively about our importance. We could just be surviving in the wild, and do just fine. No medicine, no science, no technology. In the greater scheme of things it matters nothing. It matters to us, though. Perfectly understandable. I don't want to live like that. You don't want to live like that. Most people don't. Don't pretend that it's about anything else. Anything beyond survival is just luxury, and we don't need most things to survive. My response isn't emotional (emotional beings reacting emotionally, imagine that!), I'm simply stating the way things are.

[Phi for All]

 

Bull. It's exclusively about our importance. We could just be surviving in the wild, and do just fine. No medicine, no science, no technology. In the greater scheme of things it matters nothing. It matters to us, though. Perfectly understandable. I don't want to live like that. You don't want to live like that. Most people don't. Don't pretend that it's about anything else. Anything beyond survival is just luxury, and we don't need most things to survive. My response isn't emotional (emotional beings reacting emotionally, imagine that!), I'm simply stating the way things are.

 

More misplaced emotion, and since you're basing your beliefs on it, it's highly unlikely any reasonableness on my part will change your mind. You're purposely painting an unrealistic picture of humans living like other animals, completely against the evolutionary pressures that helped us get to our present stage of development. You would have us WASTE everything that evolutionary intelligence has allowed us to create because you think medicine is unnatural. It seems you've bought into the whole concept of humans as unnatural animals. Unbelievably depressing and selfish, imo.

 

While you're content to live in either hypocrisy, guilt, or primitive conditions, a lot of us realize the gift of high intelligence represents huge potential as well as huge dangers and massive responsibilities. If we embrace your thinking, we'll never get off this planet, and everything about Earth will die when the sun goes red giant. If there is any pattern or plan for human existence, I think it's safe to say we're the only creatures capable of leaving Earth and taking as many of our fellow creatures with us as possible.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Bull. It's exclusively about our importance. We could just be surviving in the wild, and do just fine. No medicine, no science, no technology. In the greater scheme of things it matters nothing. It matters to us, though. Perfectly understandable. I don't want to live like that. You don't want to live like that. Most people don't. Don't pretend that it's about anything else. Anything beyond survival is just luxury, and we don't need most things to survive. My response isn't emotional (emotional beings reacting emotionally, imagine that!), I'm simply stating the way things are.

Incidentally, many of us do need medicine in order to survive.

[Thorham]

More misplaced emotion, and since you're basing your beliefs on it, it's highly

unlikely any reasonableness on my part will change your mind.

My viewpoint has absolutely nothing to do with emotion at all (even if it did,

would that be a bad thing?). We use all of this world and everything that lives

on it for our own purposes and don't give a damn about the creatures we abuse.

This is a simple fact. How is this not obvious?

 

You're purposely painting an unrealistic picture of humans living like other

animals, completely against the evolutionary pressures that helped us get to our

present stage of development.

No. I said that we could live like that, not that we should. Personally

I'd sooner hang myself than live like that.

 

You would have us WASTE everything that evolutionary intelligence has allowed

us to create because you think medicine is unnatural.

I never said anything of the sort. I also have absolutely no problem with

unnatural things at all. Where did I even say I did?

 

It seems you've bought into the whole concept of humans as unnatural animals.

Unbelievably depressing and selfish, imo.

And it seems like you have absolutely no clue of what I was talking about.

 

If we embrace your thinking, we'll never get off this planet, and everything

about Earth will die when the sun goes red giant.

Which is a fine justification to do what ever the hell we want, isn't it? At

least I admit that I do it and have no intention to stop doing it.

 

Incidentally, many of us do need medicine in order to survive.

Yes, and we'll brutally torture and kill countless beings to create these

medicines which I too would gladly use if I had to.

 

Come on people, just admit the damned truth. And no, it's not meant to make

anyone feel guilty or bad. It's just the way things are.

[CharonY]

 

Bull. It's exclusively about our importance. We could just be surviving in the wild, and do just fine. No medicine, no science, no technology. In the greater scheme of things it matters nothing. It matters to us, though. Perfectly understandable. I don't want to live like that. You don't want to live like that. Most people don't. Don't pretend that it's about anything else. Anything beyond survival is just luxury, and we don't need most things to survive. My response isn't emotional (emotional beings reacting emotionally, imagine that!), I'm simply stating the way things are.

 

Most of us would not be here as either we or, more likely our direct ancestors would not have survived to produce us.

[Phi for All]

Come on people, just admit the damned truth. And no, it's not meant to make anyone feel guilty or bad. It's just the way things are.

 

Wow, I could never justify this type of thinking. You've condemned us all as hypocrites and monsters, and nothing will change your mind. You claim nobody gives a damn, which is more emotional, generalized, hand-wavy guesswork, and it makes you ignore or discount everything that's being done to lessen the cruelty in many necessary processes involving animals.

 

In short, your viewpoint is so black and white as to be worthless. You will never have a world where humans exist but don't use the resources available, and you will never have a world where humans evolve backwards to live primitively (at least not voluntarily). So you sit in guilt, waiting for some cataclysm to force us back into the caves. I know you say you wouldn't like that, but I don't see why else you would adopt such a bleak outlook about humans.

 

I never said anything of the sort. I also have absolutely no problem with

unnatural things at all. Where did I even say I did?

 

The first sentence is false. The second sentence is proof of that, since medicine isn't unnatural (neither is science and technology, the other two things you mention in post #516). The third sentence shows you don't understand that nothing on the planet is unnatural, unless you define what humans do as outside nature.

 

Yours is the real monstrous position, you know. You're saying that nobody cares, and that's just the way it is, so we should just admit it. Nothing would EVER get better if we all thought this way. Thank goodness we don't, because laws on the treatment of animals have continually gotten stronger over the last 100 years. Like many things, still not perfect, but better than the nothing your stance would leave us with.

 

I couldn't deal with people if I truly felt the way you do about them.

[Thorham]

Most of us would not be here as either we or, more likely our direct ancestors

would not have survived to produce us.

In which case we wouldn't be able to worry about it.

 

Wow, I could never justify this type of thinking. You've condemned us all as

hypocrites and monsters, and nothing will change your mind.

I originally said that we do what we do because we see ourselves as more

important than other species.

 

You claim nobody gives a damn, which is more emotional, generalized, hand-wavy

guesswork, and it makes you ignore or discount everything that's being done to

lessen the cruelty in many necessary processes involving animals.

Not nearly enough. Instead of being cruel, we try to be a little bit less cruel.

 

In short, your viewpoint is so black and white as to be worthless.

You will never have a world where humans exist but don't use the resources

available, and you will never have a world where humans evolve backwards to

live primitively (at least not voluntarily). So you sit in guilt, waiting for

some cataclysm to force us back into the caves. I know you say you wouldn't

like that, but I don't see why else you would adopt such a bleak outlook about

humans.

I say that because I mean it, and I really don't sit in guilt waiting for some

cataclysm to occur. That's one of the very last things I want. Really.

 

The second sentence is proof of that, since medicine isn't unnatural (neither

is science and technology, the other two things you mention in post #516). The

third sentence shows you don't understand that nothing on the planet is

unnatural, unless you define what humans do as outside nature.

If everything is natural, then the word looses it's meaning. In my opinion,

everything that's created through some sort of cognitive process is unnatural.

A beaver's dam, a bird's nest or a human's computer, all unnatural. Does it

matter? No. I don't care about what's natural and unnatural. It's

entirely irrelevant to me.

 

Like many things, still not perfect, but better than the nothing your stance

would leave us with.

It's quite the opposite. Admitting to wrongdoing is an important step. Open

your eyes. A non-human life is worth Jack S, and I'm eternally grateful that I'm

a human seeing how I was born on this planet. This is the world we live in and

denying it is simply wrong. It's about brutal honesty here.

 

I couldn't deal with people if I truly felt the way you do about them.

I don't feel humans in general are horrible, I just see that we do bad things.

When you look at this world, can you not see this?

[Phi for All]

If everything is natural, then the word looses it's meaning. In my opinion,

everything that's created through some sort of cognitive process is unnatural.

A beaver's dam, a bird's nest or a human's computer, all unnatural. Does it

matter? No. I don't care about what's natural and unnatural. It's

entirely irrelevant to me.

 

OK. Thanks for this.

[MigL]

Personally, I have a lot of respect for people who advocate for the ethical treatment of animals.

They've been able to convince a lot of super-models to get naked.

 

I've never been able to convince a single one !

[Prometheus]

Animal testing is done because humans see themselves as more important than other species. Everything we use non-human animal species for we only do because we see ourselves as more important than them. It's nothing but egotistical garbage. And yes, I'm a hypocrite, I realize that all too well

 

 

 

A broad, emotional response lacking all nuance, that points out why so many people don't bother with the science. It's much easier to convert the world into good and evil, and paint it black and white.

 

If you don't acknowledge that we raise many animals in sheltered lives for the purpose of knowledge or food or fibers, if you don't insist that these necessary means be performed as humanely as possible, then you're not honoring the sacrifices they make to advance human knowledge. By seeing yourself as only more important, you miss the fact that all life on this planet is interconnected, and that when we know more about one part, it can help with many other parts.

 

I think you're demeaning the necessary sacrifice by making it all about our importance. The bond between humans and the animals we domesticate to make life better is an old one. From dogs to guard us, to canaries in coal mines, to lab rabbits being dosed with chemicals people will eventually use, these animals either wouldn't exist at all or would be living reduced and more dangerous lives in the wild. I know this seems more "natural" to many, but again, I think this is purely an emotional response. Where do you draw the necessary line in that argument? Should we stop raising pets because they should be out in the wild? Should we stop forcing dogs to lead blind people around?

 

Better knowledge is the key to reducing animal testing, not emotional knee-jerks. We don't use canaries in coal mines anymore, because we figured out better ways. If we stay reasonable, we can probably figure out how to reduce harmful testing as well.

 

I don't see why these two views are incompatible. Surely one reflects the past and one a possible future. I agree with Thorham that we must have placed the suffering of animals below that of the suffering of our own species, and sometimes below that even of our curiosity. I don't think it's controversial to acknowledge that we put our comfort before the comfort of other species, is it?

 

Of course, that doesn't mean it always has to be that way and attitudes are shifting.

 

The difficulty is in quantifying suffering, especially across species. Does an animal suffer more in the wild that in a lab? I don't know - but the difference is we choose to inflict suffering in the lab, in the hope it will benefit us and lessen our suffering.

 

I would see it as a huge step forward if we regarded suffering as suffering, regardless of species, and tried to lessen it globally. Yes, there are many technical difficulties with this, but the change in mindset is more important at this point.

[alexavantage]

Globally, there is a growing controversy surrounding animals used in testing. After researching both sides of the issue, I found animal research is necessary for medical breakthroughs and the health of humans. With that, I also believe animal testing should be mostly reduced to studies that are important in retaining or improving the health of humans. There should be a critical focus on using alternative solutions to cosmetic product testing that avoids the use of animals.

Animal testing is portrayed as much worse than it actually is. When most people think of animal testing, they think of monkeys and dogs, but in reality, 95% of all animals used are lab-bred mice, fish, and birds. Scientists follow guidelines that do the least amount of harm possible. They look to other forms of testing, like cell culturing, when the use of animals is not absolutely necessary. In addition, scientists use the minimum amount of animals needed and keep them in conditions as humane as possible. All experiments are supervised by organizations to ensure the adequate treatment of the animals.

Ultimately, the debate boils down to how much you value human lives in comparison to animal lives. In the future would you rather see a cure for cancer, a disease that destroys millions of lives, for the cost of some animals' lives, or the continuous rising death toll, possibly including those you love. Using animals for disease studies, treatment development, and protection against possibly harmful products, can help and save countless people on the planet today and in the future ahead.

[dimreepr]

12 minutes ago, alexavantage said:

Globally, there is a growing controversy surrounding animals used in testing. After researching both sides of the issue, I found animal research is necessary for medical breakthroughs and the health of humans. With that, I also believe animal testing should be mostly reduced to studies that are important in retaining or improving the health of humans. There should be a critical focus on using alternative solutions to cosmetic product testing that avoids the use of animals.

Animal testing is portrayed as much worse than it actually is. When most people think of animal testing, they think of monkeys and dogs, but in reality, 95% of all animals used are lab-bred mice, fish, and birds. Scientists follow guidelines that do the least amount of harm possible. They look to other forms of testing, like cell culturing, when the use of animals is not absolutely necessary. In addition, scientists use the minimum amount of animals needed and keep them in conditions as humane as possible. All experiments are supervised by organizations to ensure the adequate treatment of the animals.

Ultimately, the debate boils down to how much you value human lives in comparison to animal lives. In the future would you rather see a cure for cancer, a disease that destroys millions of lives, for the cost of some animals' lives, or the continuous rising death toll, possibly including those you love. Using animals for disease studies, treatment development, and protection against possibly harmful products, can help and save countless people on the planet today and in the future ahead.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee. 

[Itoero]

On ‎23‎-‎5‎-‎2015 at 12:40 PM, Prometheus said:

would see it as a huge step forward if we regarded suffering as suffering, regardless of species, and tried to lessen it globally. Yes, there are many technical difficulties with this, but the change in mindset is more important at this point.

Only species that can feel pain? A reason why many people don't care for the suffering is imo because animals are bred in huge quanties, they don't treat them as separate animals.

[Prometheus]

On 05/02/2018 at 4:43 PM, Itoero said:

Only species that can feel pain? A reason why many people don't care for the suffering is imo because animals are bred in huge quanties, they don't treat them as separate animals.

Any species that can suffer. It would be a mess to quantify though. With regards to masses of animals maybe it's easier to dehumanise the process. I've only killed my own food once; it did change the experience.

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

Any species that can suffer. It would be a mess to quantify though. With regards to masses of animals maybe it's easier to dehumanise the process. I've only killed my own food once; it did change the experience.

1

Indeed, if we treat the animal/entity with respect it is part of the whole "No man is an island, Entire of itself. Each is a piece of the continent, A part of the main"  A supermarket divides us from the main and dislocates us from the necessary respect. 

[Prometheus]

But we can't be expected to kill our own animal every meal, can we? Maybe something like taking older children to an abattoir would be a compromise. At least they know what goes on then.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

But we can't be expected to kill our own animal every meal, can we? Maybe something like taking older children to an abattoir would be a compromise. At least they know what goes on then.

But we can respect the animal, not always through our own hand but through our consideration of their potential suffering. 

Give them the best life we can and limit any potential suffering in their death.

[Prometheus]

I completely agree.

[Itoero]

50 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

Any species that can suffer. It would be a mess to quantify though. With regards to masses of animals maybe it's easier to dehumanise the process. I've only killed my own food once; it did change the experience.

I've killed  several animals to eat...frogs and a forest chicken. But most hunters  hunt because they like it....it's their sport. I find that hard to understand.

How many sharks are killed daily for their fins? They often cut of the fin to make soup and throw the shark back in the ocean so it can slowly die.

"According to some estimates, 100 million sharks may be killed annually, mostly to feed China’s demand for shark fin soup."https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/07/shark-fin-soup-campaign-illegal/

[rkisby]

On ‎2‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 11:46 AM, Itoero said:

I've killed  several animals to eat...frogs and a forest chicken. But most hunters  hunt because they like it....it's their sport. I find that hard to understand.

How many sharks are killed daily for their fins? They often cut of the fin to make soup and throw the shark back in the ocean so it can slowly die.

"According to some estimates, 100 million sharks may be killed annually, mostly to feed China’s demand for shark fin soup."https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/07/shark-fin-soup-campaign-illegal/

You seem to be right about how the more animals are killed, the less humans seem to value each individual life. Seems to be true for animal testing, too. That's a problem, for sure. Humans are in fact animals, but we seem to value the life of an individual human much more than an individual animal, don't you think?

[YaDinghus]

On 5/15/2015 at 6:57 PM, Thorham said:

don't give a damn about the creatures we abuse.

Circular logic. Why would I care about anything or anyone I abuse, or abuse anything or anyone I care about?

On 5/15/2015 at 6:57 PM, Thorham said:

Which is a fine justification to do what ever the hell we want, isn't it? At

least I admit that I do it and have no intention to stop doing it.

You're quite the cynic, aren't you?

On 5/15/2015 at 9:52 PM, Thorham said:

everything that's created through some sort of cognitive process is unnatural

I think you want to say 'Engineered' in contrast to 'Grown'. Also, other animals than humans have cognition, so that's not particularly useful, either.

Generally, I do agree that we humans perceive the suffering of beings that are more similar to ourselves as greater than of beings less similar to ourselves. Therefore, Human suffering is considered to be the most unbearable sight of all sufferings, which you interpret as Humans being the most important to Humans - actually, you even go so far as to say that only humans matter to humans.

What I observe is that those humans that do abuse animals also abuse humans, because they lack empathy altogether. Humans with empathy are receptive to the plight of animals other than humans, but they have other problems in their lives to solve, as well, and protecting and nourishing your own is a valid priority over the life of a being not considered your family (direct reciprocity group,  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(cultural_anthropology))