Animal Testing - Right or Wrong?

[mark01970]

Well... I tend to flip-flop on this matter personally. (being a lunatic, that just happens naturally of course)

 

First, I think that animal testing is okay, so long as the animals are not being tortured needlessly, AND that the testing serves a definite intention of bettering the world as a whole. (and No, I don't think human testing is a good idea heheheh)

 

However, I do believe that some animals posess advanced intelligence, at least as far as posessing some meager amount of emotions. I know, that will generate some heated responses from the many people who believe animals are nothing more than biological machines with instincts, but I just disagree because of personal beliefs. For example Elephants, dogs and cats seem, to me anyways, to exhibit beyond instinctual behavior. I apologize for not being able to offer any specific source for this, but I do recall hearing somewhere about a mother Elephant whose calf was struck by a train, and the next day the mother Elephant was at the site of the accident and derailed the train. Now some might say that was instinctual act of self defense. I say it was plain and simple revenge. Why else would she return. PLUS, I am always playing games with my dog and he just seems happy to be playing, and sad when I don't bring him outside or anything like that. So it is with this belief that some animals might be of a higher intelligence than most believe, that I often think it is wrong to test on animals in a way that harms them.

 

BUT.. I am a realist and say hey, screw you beasts, if the shoe was on the other foot, you'd bathe us in perfume to make your crap smell better too!

 

I told you I was a lunatic

 

Mark

[YT2095]

Here`s an interesting factiod I heard about on BBC Radio 4 the other day.

 

did you know that 100Micro grams of LSD is considered a LARGE dose for humans. and yet has no effect on animals even at many more times this dose!

 

I knew about Aspirin killing Cats, and Morphine having the opposite effect on horses and penecilin killing rats. but I`de have though LSD wouldn`t have made a difference?

[Aardvark]

Does LSD have no effect on any animals?

[badchad]

Of course YT2095, you'd have to ask yourself: "How would you determine whether or not LSD has an effect on an animal?". LSD is extremely potent, I regularly give my rats 25 micrograms of LSD per day (approximately the human "threshold" dose) and they tell the difference (versus an injection of saline) with about 99% accuracy (I'd say 100% but nobody's perfect). From their response, I can tell they also respond to 10 micrograms of LSD. I can't recall the dose for pidgeon discrimination training off the top of head.....

 

Aardvark, that should answer your question. I would assume LSD effects most animals. I've even seen a few publication observing the effects of LSD in insects!!!

[SubJunk]

I was going to post, but post #64 took the words right out of my mouth. Good job.

[crazybean]

I think animal testing where necessary and where it is in aid of great medicinal advances is OK, but there's a company called HLS who basically does contracted killings of animals. In 2001(I think) they tried to snap the backbones of 70 beagle puppies just to test if this machine was strong enough for usage. Surely there could have been another way? Luckily, this plan was abolished due to mass protests.

For further information:

http://www.huntingdon.com/

http://www.shac.net

[Sayonara]

In 2001(I think) they tried to snap the backbones of 70 beagle puppies just to test if this machine was strong enough for usage.

I think there's a good chance this is propoganda, seeing as the machine would have been tolerance-tested in factory conditions when it was manufactured.

 

And it's not like Beagles are cheap.

[Lance]

Sounds like the 'bonsai kitties'. And those people with the website protesting a single company REALLY need to get a life.

[Sayonara]

Sounds like the 'bonsai kitties'. And those people with the website protesting a single company REALLY need to get a life.

They have lives:

 

06.00 Get up

07.29 Arrive outside HLS staffs' houses

07.32 Begin a long day of stalking

12.00 Throw bricks at staff on their lunchbreak

14.32 Make threatening phone calls to families of staff

15.52 Get bored and vandalise cars. Paint, crow bars etc.

17.04 Stalk staff home again, terrorising and physically abusing them

 

Thursday is "assault a lab worker" day.

[Mokele]

An animal rights group apparently broke into a lab at my university and completely trashed it.

 

It was a botany lab.

 

I think that about covers it for their IQs.

[Guest becca333]

i don't agree at all with that last post. i hate that fact that humans always believe that they're superior to animlas, such a lack of respect, and what people forget is that humans are animals. someone wrote that they wouldn't care if 1000 animals died to save 1 human, i think thats a load of bull. animals don't have a say, and you can't say "kill or be killed" because this isn't a case of lion and zebra, we corner animals, farm them, kill them, and they have no chance of escape, at least in the wild the zebra has a chance to survive. i hate they way humans are happy with inflicting pain on a creature to benifit vanity and perfection, at least with medical research the animal equivalent (ie F.I.V) can benifit from the research.

[atinymonkey]

That's super.

 

Thanks.

[Lance]

i don't agree at all with that last post. i hate that fact that humans always believe that they're superior to animlas, such a lack of respect, and what people forget is that humans are[/i'] animals. someone wrote that they wouldn't care if 1000 animals died to save 1 human, i think thats a load of bull. animals don't have a say, and you can't say "kill or be killed" because this isn't a case of lion and zebra, we corner animals, farm them, kill them, and they have no chance of escape, at least in the wild the zebra has a chance to survive. i hate they way humans are happy with inflicting pain on a creature to benifit vanity and perfection, at least with medical research the animal equivalent (ie F.I.V) can benifit from the research.

 

If cows had superior intelligence or survival skills I hardly think they would be in the position they are in today. You say our relationship is unlike that of lions and zebras, and you're right. We beat the system. Out species was intelligent enough to eliminate the need to hunt. I fail to see how humans are not superior to cows (or any other animal).

 

You act as if you would rather be the zebra having his throat torn out rather than a human. perhaps you should be thankful that the rest of the human race spared you from that fate. Please stop lobbing all humans into one group and acting as if you're not in it. I think it goes without saying that not all humans are "happy with inflicting pain on a creature to benifit vanity and perfection"

[Mart]

If cows had superior intelligence or survival skills I hardly think they would be in the position they are in today.

They're here. They survived.

We beat the system.

What system is that?

Our species was intelligent enough to eliminate the need to hunt.

Eliminate? Eliminate! Think about shopping

[Lance]

They're here. They survived.

 

When was the last time you saw a wild cow? They only survive because we allow them to survive.

 

What system is that?

The system.

[mmalluck]

This is a big muddy moralistic middle ground. It really stems from the question, is man above nature and if so should he be held to higher standards and if so should his life be given greater value.

 

Most will argue that a human life has greater value than animal life; the question is where do we draw the line. What sacrifice is too great? How do we assign value to an animal's life and not make this decision arbitrary? Are the cute ones more voluble? What about the smart ones? Or how about the ones that act the most human? What about the ones we domesticated? Muddy muddy MUDDY.

 

To the people who feel that the explotation of animals is wrong, I ask you, how can you account for nature? It is a part of the natural world that one species subsist and explotes those below it. Does this make nature immoral or is man above nature held to higher rules?

 

If man is to be held to higher rules, then how can you say his life is just as valuble as another animal with out making the decidion arbitray? If all animals and man are given the same value, then how is it that animals are allowed to kill each other, but not man?

[Guest becca333]

If cows had superior intelligence or survival skills I hardly think they would be in the position they are in today. You say our relationship is unlike that of lions and zebras' date=' and you're right. We beat the system. Out species was intelligent enough to eliminate the need to hunt. I fail to see how humans are not superior to cows (or any other animal).

 

You act as if you would rather be the zebra having his throat torn out rather than a human. perhaps you should be thankful that the rest of the human race spared you from that fate. Please stop lobbing all humans into one group and acting as if you're not in it. I think it goes without saying that not all humans are "happy with inflicting pain on a creature to benifit vanity and perfection"[/quote']

 

i didn't mean that we are on the same intellectual level as cows, clearly we are not, what i meant was that humans, as a whole, tend to treat animals as though they are worthless in comparison, and if you think thats due to intelligence then i don't agree with that., and why should it be because of that? i wouldn't rather be a zebra, you misinterpreted what i meant, i meant that any other prey has the chance to escape, but the way humans kill, the prey has no chance.

[Sayonara]

Fairness means nothing in ecological interactions.

 

Nothing.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You could say that it's unfair for intestinal parasites to get into us, not caring who they attack, but the parasites don't care.

 

Fairness doesn't matter.

 

Although we could be considered the only animals who can have civilized ethics, and that brings up an interesting question...

[Sayonara]

A question so interesting you can't mention it, even though it's the only part of your post that differentiates its point from the point of the post immediately preceding it?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If we are the only species that has the ability to have conscious thoughts and to think about ethics, then shouldn't we be more ethical than other animals that do not have that ability?

 

We can think about it first, but they do what they have to do naturally.

[Sayonara]

Where does the fairness come in?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If we can think about it, shouldn't we be more fair then those who can't think about it?

[Mart]

If we can think about it, shouldn't we be more fair then those who can't think about it?

If you mean by fair that we ought to treat others who don't have our skills with respect I'm with you 100%. But IMO this is not a matter that science can decide. It doesn't deal with oughts.

[MagicMoose]

It depends what you are testing on the animal. I am for practicing genetics on animals, but i won't let them practice make-up on them, know what i mean? I think that (the cows) who "only survived because we let them," would be great for genetic testing because they owe it to us as we keep them alive (which doesn't make sense if we are going to kill them for genetic engineering anyway). But we can always console the cows into thinking that there deaths are for better productivity (of the human race), and to "beef" up the cows for better meat (for the human race). The cows will understand, right?

I really don't like genetic engineering on animals that "feel" and "think". It is just not right.