Animal Testing - Right or Wrong?

[ed84c]

If you are going to argue that animals are in some way inately superior to humans and thus deserve greater consideration and rights there are probably better ways to express yourself than simply calling humans a*******s.

 

If you seriously want to argue that point of view i would be most interested in how you arrive at and support it.

 

yes sorry for that truncated post there.

 

Well what i mean is that im talking from my own personal experience, mabye im too sensative, unlucky or whatever, but as far as my own selfish feelings lead me I find that generally humans more often than not, do something or say something with the purpouse of upsetting me. Animals however on the other hand do not. This is the first reason against animal testing.

 

The second reason may sound a little bit hippyish. If we look at it from an unbiased perspective, say that of from the earth's. Which have done less harm to the universe as a whole, humans or animals?

[YT2095]

then by extension of the same argument, Stone and Rocks must be your best friends!?

 

certainly Plants and trees.

 

cats can claw, dogs can bite etc...

[ed84c]

whats more painful, a comment or a bite?

[YT2095]

a Bite, without a doubt!

 

I can choose to ignore a comment

[Guest thrush]

I guess there are pros and cons to everything, Though I disagree on some forms of animal testing there are times when it might be necessary. I disagree with using animals for cosmetic testing simply because there is no overwhelming need to make animals suffer simpley for our vainity. Sometimes there are physilogical differenences in animals that can cause various drugs to react differently. At the same time unless, someone wants to volenteer (Just kidding) there is no choice but to use animals for tests on new theories. I do belive that if animals are to be used then they should be treated humainly and suffering should be prevented at all costs, and they should be used as little as possible.

[jdurg]

I guess there are pros and cons to everything, Though I disagree on some forms of animal testing there are times when it might be necessary. I disagree with using animals for cosmetic testing simply because there is no overwhelming need to make animals suffer simpley for our vainity. Sometimes there are physilogical differenences in animals that can cause various drugs to react differently. At the same time unless, someone wants to volenteer (Just kidding) there is no choice but to use animals for tests on new theories. I do belive that if animals are to be used then they should be treated humainly and suffering should be prevented at all costs, and they should be used as little as possible.

 

I could not agree more. (In fact, a post a made a while ago in this topic said the exact same thing. Bravo. )

[Mokele]

whats more painful, a comment or a bite?

 

You've never owned monitor lizards, have you?

 

Mokele, who's never come close to losing fingers from a comment

[Aardvark]

Well what i mean is that im talking from my own personal experience, mabye im too sensative, unlucky or whatever, but as far as my own selfish feelings lead me I find that generally humans more often than not, do something or say something with the purpouse of upsetting me. Animals however on the other hand do not. This is the first reason against animal testing.

 

That maybe because you tend to associate with humans more than animals. If you were a gibbon you would probably be in a position to complain about being pushed around by the older, bigger gibbons. I don't think it is possible to argue that animals have superior virtue or morality to humans.

 

 

The second reason may sound a little bit hippyish. If we look at it from an unbiased perspective, say that of from the earth's. Which have done less harm to the universe as a whole, humans or animals?

 

Yes, humans are destructive but they are also creative. They are the first species to develop technology and consciousness. Without humans life on this planet will simply exist and then end. With humans there is the possibility of life being spread in the universe, of there being some kind of purpose.

 

Isn't that worth something?

[Guest skids69]

I personally don't see what's so wrong with animal testing.

how can u say that it is not wrong with the pain that it inflicts upon animals

[Guest skids69]

I could not agree more. (In fact, a post a made a while ago in this topic said the exact same thing. Bravo. )

i agree with what u r saying also. But you said that it is ok in some cases to use animals for testing, in what way do u think that this is ok?

[Lance]

i agree with what u r saying also. But you said that it is ok in some cases to use animals for testing, in what way do u think that this is ok?

 

Perhaps you should explain your position a bit better. If you read the thread we all stated why we have the positions we have.

[ed84c]

That maybe because you tend to associate with humans more than animals. If you were a gibbon you would probably be in a position to complain about being pushed around by the older' date=' bigger gibbons. I don't think it is possible to argue that animals have superior virtue or morality to humans.

 

 

 

 

Yes, humans are destructive but they are also creative. They are the first species to develop technology and consciousness. Without humans life on this planet will simply exist and then end. With humans there is the possibility of life being spread in the universe, of there being some kind of purpose.

 

Isn't that worth something?[/quote']

 

It is my personal belief that niceness is inversly proportional to intelligence, that counts for humans and also all animals.

[Aardvark]

It is my personal belief that niceness is inversly proportional to intelligence, that counts for humans and also all animals.

 

The dimmer you are the nicer you are?

 

I've met some absolutely lovely people who are highly intelligent academics. And i've met some awful, brutish thugs of low intelligence.

 

Looking at the wider picture of nature, i can't see slugs being nicer than dolphins or wasps being nicer than bears.

 

How do you come to your point of view?

[Newtonian]

Misread post

[Glider]

Newtonian, in what way is Aardvark contradicting himself, and where is the attempt to ridicule?

[Sayonara]

Misread post

You seem to be doing a lot of "misreading" recently.

[Newtonian]

Late nights tired eyes,sorry i made two or three which i have corrected.

Apologies

[kotake]

I personally don't see what's so wrong with animal testing.

I do.

 

 

What I will say is this....those of you out there who say "there's all sorts of other models we can use other than animals" please tell us what they are??? .

http://caat.jhsph.edu

http://altweb.jhsph.edu

http://www.frame.org.uk

http://www.stifud.se/om_djurforsok/lankar.php

 

To mention some.

 

What exactly is special about the human species when compared to' date=' let's say, chimpanzees, rabbits, or even mice?[/quote'']You have got to be joking... I would say just about anything.

I cannot make much sense out of your statement, as we share 98,8 % of our DNA with chimpanzees.

 

...Eating an animal so you don’t starve would ease your own suffering and cause suffering towards the animal.

Eating a plant instead of an animal would ease your own suffering (health, environment a.o.), not to mention the suffering of the animal raised for food.

 

...that folk on death row should have their torment added to by being guinea pigs?

You mean that guinea pigs are made for being tested on? You mean that "being guinea pigs" is the same as being experimented on? That's a sad viewpoint.

 

I would exterminate a paedophile/murderer or thoroughly evil person as willingly as you but I would not want to extend the punishment of death by forcing them to take part in experiments....that would make us as bad as them. Don't you see that? Shades of Hitler here.

Your words are somewhat contradictory. Shades of Hitler you say? That means you would exterminate the vivisectors as well? Personally I don't view anything as being "thoroughly evil", but from what you say, it seems to include vivisectors.

 

I worked with rats for a few semesters in a behavioral neuroscience lab doing drug testing' date=' and I want to point out what I noticed.

I am willing to bet that those animals suffered less than the luckiest of rats living in the wild. We worked very closely with the animal welfare people, and the total comfort of the animals was ensured every step of the way. They were put down peacefully with gas so we could get to thier brains afterwards (and you just can't do that with humans). They generally had access to food, drink, and sex at a level unprecedented for wild rats. [What else do rats want, anyway?'] We even managed to argue with each other a bit over which type of bedding was most comfortable for transport and such. There was some level of necessary suffering (like recieving injections), but I've seen humans put through far worse in experiments and walk away content.

 

Just my own personal experience... I wonder where all this "terrible suffering" supposedly is in animal testing.

Hmm, your working place must have been a true exception.

 

To program the computer, you need to know a heck of a lot about the animals that we don't know, and that means, yes: DISSECTING THEM!!!!!! Really, we don't know about every compound an cell in animals and humans, it would take an insane amount of research before we did.

Animals that are already dead may be "donated" for research. What is problematic with using the same methods as for human anatomy research?

 

Listen, if you're going to equate humans with animals, then there is no good reason why we should pay any attention to another species' well-being. Any and all advantages that can be taken to improve our quality of life or lengtehn our survival should be taken. That's how things work with the animals. Dogs torture squirrels just for the heck of it. A little entertainment at the expense of another animal's life is not an issue. If animals are our "equals", then we have no responsibility not to act like one.

Since humans have such a dignified high intellect, they should be able to use it to widen their circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures. To equate humans with non-human animals means to equate their values of life.

 

How can we be equal yet at the same time be held to higher standards of conduct?

Because our intellect allows us to do more, and this we should use to help those who lack this capacity.

 

That doesn't mean that you can take any random feature of any random animal and assume that there are similar processes behind it just because it looks a bit like a human response.

It is better to be careful rather than risky when we are unsure about whether someone can feel pain.

 

As for pain versus suffering, you might want to read http://www.vkm.no/dav/0b5264a744.pdf

 

A vegetarian is someone who eats just vegeatbles. I want to be a humanitarian.

Hehe, but actually, the word "vegetarian" does not come from "vegetables", but from the Latin word "vegetus" which means "whole, sound, fresh, or lively". The original meaning of the word implies a balanced philosophical and moral sense of life, a lot more than just a diet of vegetables and fruits.

 

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!

You make it sound like some kind of war between humans and other animals.

It is a matter of existence. We cannot help who we are born to be. It could well be that one of us would have been born as a rat, and, unless you believe in karma, no one could help it. An individual born into a stressful preset cannot do much to get out of there. Therefore, needs the help of others (read: intelligent ones).

 

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).

What you give an example of here is the fact that many humans use their intelligence to take advantage of others. Again, why shouldn't we use our intelligence to ease everyone from harm? You say cows survive because humans let them survive, but these lives are not worthy lives.

 

Why, in your opinion, do we have to harm others by all means, beat the system to put ourselves on the top? How does this serve us and the Earth altogether?

 

To the people who feel that the explotation of animals is wrong' date=' 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?[/quote']It is a part of the natural world that there are numerous possibilites. Both the atcs we call moral and the acts we call immoral are possibilites. Creatures are built in a way which allows them to experience both comfort and discomfort. Our structure is such that we prefer to avoid discomfort. Therefore, we, humans - as the most intelligent on the planet - should not use our intelligence to harm others, but to avoid harming others. There is no natural point in harming others needlessly. Sooner or later it will disserve us anyway. We should focus on living in peace with our co-habitants of Earth.

 

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?

Animals kill each other because they need to eat. Predators are built to solely feed on meat, whereas humans, like bears, have the great advantage of being able to eat both meat and plants. One thing is that a mostly plant-based diet is healthier for humans. Yet, many people continue to eat loads of meat - not because they need it - but because it is tasty. They eat more than they need. It is luxury. The problem is the quantity of animals slaughtered for food, and the way they are treated.

 

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

So the cows owe humans for this?

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

Hehe, now that isn't very consistent with your previous statement. Given, of course, that cows most definitely can feel, and think, at least to a certain degree, as In My Memory has debated.

 

How is it unethical to kill a cow?

It might not be unethical in itself to kill. The problem lies in the treatment of the cow. But, of course, it might be unethical to kill a cow, if its death serves no one. For instance, if someone is very rich, has loads of food, and in addition kills a cow, just to sell the cow and to get even richer. That would be unethical, because that someone doesn't need the extra money. We assume here that the person who bought the dead cow already had more than enough food, and that he bought the cow just for the luxurious taste of meat. Both sides imply luxury. Luxury is unethical.

 

Animals are not tested on for some sick pleasure

A lot of them are.

 

Interestingly some hair dyes are no longer tested on animals, especially here in the UK.Which has led to some horrific injuries to women.

Otherwise, the injuries would be inflicted to the lab animals.

 

From what I read, the products in the articles you submitted had all been animal tested.

The cosmetics developers should utilise to a greater extension what they know about chemistry and biology when they create new products, instead of mixing all kinds of ingredients and testing them on rabbits' eyes. When cosmetics have fatal outcomes when used by consumers, it only shows the reliability of animal testing. "Procter & Gamble puts out the most thoroughly tested products on the market today," as the article you posted writes, and yet people suffer when they use the products. Different animals react differently to the same ingredients.

 

The pigs don't know one of them is going to die; what they are reacting to is the pre-stimulus that indicates someone is going to make a cracking great boom next to their head, which most animals can do without during meals.

It might be. But we cannot know for sure without absolute facts. The same could be observed among humans, if the observer didn't know how to communicate with humans.

 

the fact is that we don't know[/u'], and to base an argument on speculation is to build a house of cards.

Exactly. And since we don't know, we should take some precautions, and not assume that animals cannot suffer. Thus, due to this lack of knowledge, we should not perform animal testing, because we don't know if it doesn't cause suffering.

 

Who wants to eat tofu when yo could eat a medium-rare steak?

I do. And I have good reasons.

 

Makeup isn't necessary. You can be healthy and survive without makeup. Its ridiculous that we think it is such a necessity that we must test it out first. I really have no asnwer to this. i wouldn't like to see my mother's face burnt off' date=' but I never said she needs makeup in the first place. It is a "want" not a "need".

 

If a person wants to wear makeup, then I dare say they should be prepared to take the chances.[/quote']Applause!

 

The fact that a cow, or any other animal shows a powerful survival instinct doesn't seem to provide any proof of consciousness. That same instinct can be observed in the lower animals who we can all agree are not conscious, such as snails or worms.

And in humans.

Yet we say that humans have consciousness because we ourselves are subjective humans. We know we have caonsciousness because we ourselves can feel it and communicate over it; whereas we are not able to directly "feel" consciousness in other species, because we cannot communicate with them at a satisfactory level.

 

cows [...'] tend to end up dead or with four broken legs. They don't do so well at reproduction after that. The genetic basis for the population's behaviour is therefore selectively moved towards the non-suicidal.

I can't see how this differentiates cows from humans. Surely the same must apply to us? (non-suicidal behaviour because of reproduction)

 

If people can accept those risks with the proper compensation, why not allow human testing at a professional and regulated level?

This, I agree, is a good idea.

 

According to New Scientist (or one magazine like that) to replace all of the animal testing in Britain for a year would require a million human volunteers.

There are many alternatives. Voluntary human testing is just one of them. Not all animal testing would be replaced by this alternative.

 

I work for Kendle International and we pretty much do the same thing. Before the drugs even come close to the human testing, they must pass through animal testing and be deemed 'safe' for human trials through a VERY strict set of guidelines. The pharmaceutical companies don't just come up with a random mix of chemicals and then start injecting them into humans. That would be illegal. Instead their chemistry is first investigated to see if it it similar to any other chemicals already known. Then it is moved onto animal testing to see the lethality, if any, of it. Only after it has successfully passed animal testing is it even allowed to be tested on humans.

That doesn't make much sense to me. Non-human animals still go through the same hazardous process as in "regular" animal testing, and it doesn't seem to be reduced much despite the human testing. And the animal tests are not accurate. Many drugs get rejected even after passing animal testing. And sometimes, the drugs will not pass animal testing, yet they might not have been harmful to humans. I don't see much point in animal testing. http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/abs05.html

 

If there are no animal trials beforehand, far fewer people would probably want to take the risk of trying an untested chemical, and we wouldn't see as much exposure anymore. Less exposure means a lower chance of finding an unintended benefit.

There is no benefit in torturing individuals under animal trial phase. Well, there is some, but there is more netto harm than benefit from it.

 

If you went into an organic chemistry lab and threw some things together, would you be willing to put whatever you created right into your mouth? In a sense, by removing animal testing that is exactly what you'd be doing with any new 'drug'.

If that is indeed what the drug developers do, then they have a serious lack of knowledge and things to do. Would it be right to put "whatever you created" right into the mouth of a different animal?

 

What about terminal animal experiments that aren't of medical use? Ones where the goal is simply to find out how the animal itself works; knowledge for the sake of knowledge. What would various people consider justifed?

 

[...] How much sacrifce is pure knowledge worth?

As I have mentioned before' date=' animal corpses can be used for such research. Animals that died a natural death.

 

I would say that pure knowledge isn't worth so much. As long as it hurts no one, knowledge-seeking research can be performed. But if it becomes a question of pain, we should restrain ourselves from seeking the knowledge.

 

Perhaps our ability to survive tough conditions and know how to make use of our surroundings to not only lengthen our lives, but make the quality of our lives better? Using animals to test things out on before applying them to ourselves is just another example of using our surroundings to our advantage. In this case, those 'surroundings' are the other animal species.

This is a problem. Some people identify themselves with all other humans so strongly that they make all non-human animals their rivals, or even enemies. Are we at war with all the non-human animals? And what is "we"? Why do we feel more compassion towards humans rather than other animals?

 

For things like medicines and drugs which allow people to live normal, happy lives, I'm all for the testing.

Yes, but it does the opposite to the anonymous animals that the medicines are being tested on.

 

unless, someone wants to volenteer (Just kidding) there is no choice but to use animals for tests on new theories.

That is just because the non-human animals cannot make a communicable decision of volunteering or abstaining from the tests.

 

humans [...] are the first species to develop technology and consciousness[/b'].

We cannot know that.

[Lance]

I cannot make much sense out of your statement' date=' as we share 98,8 % of our DNA with chimpanzees.[/quote']

 

That doesnt have anything to do with being special.

 

Eating a plant instead of an animal would ease your own suffering (health, environment a.o.), not to mention the suffering of the animal raised for food.

 

Wrong. Who told you PETA was a credible source?

 

Hmm, your working place must have been a true exception.

 

How many places have you worked at that treated animals badly?

 

What you give an example of here is the fact that many humans use their intelligence to take advantage of others. Again, why shouldn't we use our intelligence to ease everyone from harm? You say cows survive because humans let them survive, but these lives are not worthy lives.

 

Why should we ease every animal from harm. Why shouldnt we take advantage of animals?

 

Why, in your opinion, do we have to harm others by all means, beat the system to put ourselves on the top? How does this serve us and the Earth altogether?

 

I didnt say we had to harm others by all means...

 

Animals kill each other because they need to eat. Predators are built to solely feed on meat, whereas humans, like bears, have the great advantage of being able to eat both meat and plants. One thing is that a mostly plant-based diet is healthier for humans. Yet, many people continue to eat loads of meat - not because they need it - but because it is tasty. They eat more than they need. It is luxury. The problem is the quantity of animals slaughtered for food, and the way they are treated.

 

I absolutely agree that we eat more meat than we need. And yes, eating only meat would be unhealthy. But I'm sorry to say that veganism is most certainly NOT more healthy than a balanced diet. Perhaps you should stop taking your multivitamins for a few years and see what happens.

 

So the cows owe humans for this[/url']?

 

You do realize that that video was made with the sole purpose of manipulating you? Its nothing but propaganda. I think you should look to other people other than PETA for credible sources.

 

It might not be unethical in itself to kill. The problem lies in the treatment of the cow. But, of course, it might be unethical to kill a cow, if its death serves no one. For instance, if someone is very rich, has loads of food, and in addition kills a cow, just to sell the cow and to get even richer. That would be unethical, because that someone doesn't need[/i'] the extra money. We assume here that the person who bought the dead cow already had more than enough food, and that he bought the cow just for the luxurious taste of meat. Both sides imply luxury. Luxury is unethical.

 

That doesnt answer the question. Why is luxury unethical?

 

We cannot know that.

Are you suggesting that monkeys are developing a space program?

[Sayonara]

Eating a plant instead of an animal would ease your own suffering (health, environment a.o.), not to mention the suffering of the animal raised for food.

Until your liver depletes its store of B12.

 

 

It is better to be careful rather than risky when we are unsure about whether someone can feel pain.

As for pain versus suffering' date=' you might want to read http://www.vkm.no/dav/0b5264a744.pdf[/quote']

I find it ironic you would point me towards a document on "pain versus suffering" immediately after swapping suffering with pain in the same reply.

 

I have no doubt that macroscopic animals such as cows can feel pain. I don't recall that being disputed in this thread. In case you are in any doubt, I shall reiterate my earlier statement: I am against all unnecessary suffering caused to animals (not that that personal position should dictate my ability to rationally argue either side, of course.)

 

 

It might not be unethical in itself to kill. The problem lies in the treatment of the cow. But, of course, it might be unethical to kill a cow, if its death serves no one. For instance, if someone is very rich, has loads of food, and in addition kills a cow, just to sell the cow and to get even richer. That would be unethical, because that someone doesn't need[/i'] the extra money. We assume here that the person who bought the dead cow already had more than enough food, and that he bought the cow just for the luxurious taste of meat. Both sides imply luxury. Luxury is unethical.

I'm not really looking for "mights, maybes and perhaps". I'm looking for an inherent lack of ethics in the act itself. I was actually going somewhere with that when I originally asked the question, and it now escapes me altogether

 

There are of course plenty of situations in which I would consider the killing of a cow to be unethical. But that would be due to the specifics of the situation (i.e. factors that are not a product of the act itself), and is therefore not admissable.

 

I really don't see how you can judge someone to be acting unethically just because you consider them to have "enough" money, "enough" food, or "too much luxury". You could not make those judgements objectively without a lot more information even if you had not made up the conditions.

 

 

It might be. But we cannot know for sure without absolute facts.

No, it is. We do know for sure. We do have absolute facts. 'Pavlovian' (I enclose the word with inverted commas because - as with most things behavioural - it's not quite that simple) responses are very well tried and tested.

 

The same could be observed among humans, if the observer didn't know how to communicate with humans.

True, but then it doesn't really mean much if we're talking about pigs. The fact that one species reacts to stimulus Y in fashion X does not mean that another given species will, which is the basis of this discussion.

 

 

Exactly. And since we don't know, we should take some precautions, and not assume that animals cannot suffer. Thus, due to this lack of knowledge, we should not perform animal testing, because we don't know if it doesn't cause suffering.

The default position then is "we don't really know, so do what you think is best".

 

Some people think that civilisation having access to lip stick, toilet cleaner and ibuprofen is more important than a few hundred thousand animals. Others don't. Personally I think 6 billion stinking, ugly and sick humans is a more repugnant thought than bunny rabits wearing blusher, but I'm all for any reasonable efforts to reduce animal suffering in a non-preachy fashion.

 

 

I can't see how this differentiates cows from humans. Surely the same must apply to us? (non-suicidal behaviour because of reproduction)

It wasn't required to. It simply shows the basic route to that behaviour in cows.

 

We know that our behaviour is modified by numerous other factors because we have the ability to think about processes going on in our own brains. We don't have a window into the brains of cows, and empiricism requires that we don't make shit up about what goes on in there just because we like the idea of it.

 

 

This, I agree, is a good idea.

Apparently it would be illegal. I'd love to know precisely why.

[Mokele]

You mean that guinea pigs are made for being tested on?

 

Actually, they were 'made' to be skinned and eaten. They're a domesticated species that was produced by the South American indians as a food source.

 

Hmm, your working place must have been a true exception.

 

Wrong.

 

EVERY university that does *any* vertebrate research *must* have an IACUC committee, which oversees all animal welfare and makes sure humane procedures are used.

 

http://caat.jhsph.edu

http://altweb.jhsph.edu

http://www.frame.org.uk

http://www.stifud.se/om_djurforsok/lankar.php

 

To mention some.

 

And what if you don't give a crap about humans, and are just studying the animals themselves?

 

What you give an example of here is the fact that many humans use their intelligence to take advantage of others.

 

Which is precisely what it evolved for.

 

A lot of them are.

 

Bullshit. I do animal testing myself, and it's most certainly not because I don't have anything to do on Friday nights.

 

As I have mentioned before, animal corpses can be used for such research. Animals that died a natural death.

 

Corpses don't locomote, and that's what I'm studying. Termination and dissection is necessary to ascertain the location of the electrodes that measure muscle activation.

 

I would say that pure knowledge isn't worth so much. As long as it hurts no one, knowledge-seeking research can be performed. But if it becomes a question of pain, we should restrain ourselves from seeking the knowledge.

 

Except that it's the search for pure knowledge, with associated sacrifices, that has lead to *every* major advance in science.

 

Or did you not want penecillin and pacemakers?

 

-------------

 

Here's a tip: Do you know where rights come from? They don't come from any mythical god or any such thing. They come from *force*, from *power*. The only people that truly have any rights are those able and willing to rise up and fight for those rights. Those that cannot and or will not are merely living on the graces of the strong.

 

Sorry, but that's how nature works, including humans. "Morals" are something we talk about to make ourselves feel good about and justify our instinctive reactions.

 

Humans are animals, and we're doing what animals do. Compared to most animals, we're angels. Or did you not know that over 50% of species are parasites?

 

Mokele

[kotake]

That doesnt have anything to do with being special.

No, but you said that "about anything" is special about the human race. I was claiming it wrong because I understood "about anything" as "any detail you can think of". And that isn't special when we are so similar. I might have misunderstood your post though.

 

Wrong. Who told you PETA was a credible source?

Prove it to be wrong. What has PETA to do with this paragraph? Anyway, PETA has a poor reputation with most people because of their sometimes exteme ways of action. That doesn't mean they are totally unreliable.

 

Why should we ease every animal from harm. Why shouldnt we take advantage of animals?

Because we don't need it to survive.

 

I didnt say we had to harm others by all means...

It might have been a slight overstatement regarding your post, yes, but it serves the same. By "all means" I meant that, decuing from your statement, you held it of high importance to harm others if it served us however little.

 

I absolutely agree that we eat more meat than we need. And yes, eating only meat would be unhealthy. But I'm sorry to say that veganism is most certainly NOT more healthy than a balanced diet. Perhaps you should stop taking your multivitamins for a few years and see what happens.

Well, it depends. A vegan diet can be balaced too. Yet I am not saying that everyone should be vegan, or even vegetarian. I urge people to eat less meat. The reason I am vegetarian myself, is basically because of overpopulation. Today's world population is high, and in addition many of these people eat large quantities of meat (i.e. much more than they need). This leads to the development of intensive factory farming. I am vegetarian because I want to reverse this outcome.

 

The idea with multivitamins is that one should take them, not stop taking them, and they are a part of vegan diet. If a vegan should stop taking multivitamins he would be no vegan. It's just not possible. If taking multivitamins instead of eating meat causes some individuals to avoid suffering, then so be it.

 

You do realize that that video was made with the sole purpose of manipulating you? Its nothing but propaganda. I think you should look to other people other than PETA for credible sources.

Sometimes propaganda is necessary to make people open their eyes.

Are you insinuating that I took all the material I posted from PETA?

 

That doesnt answer the question. Why is luxury unethical?

Because it isn't necessary, and it harms others, in the manner that luxury removes resources from those who own little and transfers it to those who already own much.

 

Are you suggesting that monkeys are developing a space program?

Not at all. That is why I put counsciousness in bold.

[albertlee]

Personally, I feel testing on humans is more expensive than animals, because a failure in an experiment means a human is used up....

 

Some testing such as xenotransplantation and cloning is done on animals because they are less expensive, and complex

 

 

Albert

[kotake]

Until your liver depletes its store of B12.

That would imply an awful long period of time for eating that plant. My example was metaphoric. It was meant to illustrate the action of eating less meat.

 

I find it ironic you would point me towards a document on "pain versus suffering" immediately after swapping suffering with pain in the same reply.

 

I have no doubt that macroscopic animals such as cows can feel pain. I don't recall that being disputed in this thread. In case you are in any doubt' date=' I shall reiterate my earlier statement: I am against all unnecessary suffering caused to animals (not that that personal position should dictate my ability to rationally argue either side, of course.)[/quote']Hehe, true. It would look better with "unsure about whether someone can suffer", obviously. I was, of course, referring to mental pain, but I see that it was wrong put in the actual paragraph. Sorry about that.

 

I'm not really looking for "mights' date=' maybes and perhaps". I'm looking for an inherent lack of ethics in the act itself. I was actually going somewhere with that when I originally asked the question, and it now escapes me altogether

 

 

There are of course plenty of situations in which I would consider the killing of a cow to be unethical. But that would be due to the specifics [i']of[/i] the situation (i.e. factors that are not a product of the act itself), and is therefore not admissable.

I see. In that case I neither have any feasible answer.

 

I really don't see how you can judge someone to be acting unethically just because you consider them to have "enough" money, "enough" food, or "too much luxury". You could not make those judgements objectively without a lot more information even if you had not made up the conditions.

I don't find it unethical to have "enough", but to have "too much", in the sense of "more than needed", as this would harm others because it would deprive them of certain vital resources, leading to assymetric distribution.

 

No, it is. We do know for sure. We do have absolute facts. 'Pavlovian' (I enclose the word with inverted commas because - as with most things behavioural - it's not quite that simple) responses are very well tried and tested.

My point is that we cannot know whether pigs have consciousness. The behavioural observances might indicate different things. We say that humans have consciousness, but what in our behaviour indicates consciousness? We say we have consciousness because we can feel it subjectively. I don't think behaviour can measure consciousness, but then again I am not qualified to say so, so maytbe I shouldn't.

 

True, but then it doesn't really mean much if we're talking about pigs. The fact that one species reacts to stimulus Y in fashion X does not mean that another given species will, which is the basis of this discussion.

Again, the point was to show that even though humans are said to have consciousness, it might not be achievable to directly observe it for an outsider.

 

The default position then is "we don't really know' date=' so do what you think is best".

 

Some people think that civilisation having access to lip stick, toilet cleaner and ibuprofen is more important than a few hundred thousand animals. Others don't. Personally I think 6 billion stinking, ugly and sick humans is a more repugnant thought than bunny rabits wearing blusher, but I'm all for any reasonable efforts to reduce animal suffering in a non-preachy fashion.[/quote']Morally, we shouldn't value one life over another, which implies that animal testing is wrong. Besides, not one rabbit is put through agony for saving one human. Being as inaccurate as they are, animal test require the pain of a greater number of individuals than the number of individuals that they save.

 

 

It wasn't required to. It simply shows the basic route to that behaviour in cows[/u'].

I see. I though it was to illustrate how cows have behaviour rather than consciousness.

 

We know that our behaviour is modified by numerous other factors because we have the ability to think about processes going on in our own brains. We don't have a window into the brains of cows, and empiricism requires that we don't make shit up about what goes on in there just because we like the idea of it.

Okay, but we know there is a possibility for non-human animals to have consciousness, ergo feel mental distress. Therefore, we should base our actions on operating in accordance with this - i.e. where there is a possibility for discomfort, we should not carry out the operation - until proven wrong.

 

Apparently it would be illegal. I'd love to know precisely why.

What makes you think it would be illegal?

[kotake]

Actually, they were 'made' to be skinned and eaten. They're a domesticated species that was produced by the South American indians as a food source.

I don't believe it's a worthy life for anyone with a somewhat evolved nervous systems to function as a machine, genetically produced or not.

 

Wrong.

 

EVERY university that does *any* vertebrate research *must* have an IACUC committee' date=' which oversees all animal welfare and makes sure humane procedures are used.[/quote']Yes, but I am quite sure negligence often occurs.

 

And what if you don't give a crap about humans, and are just studying the animals themselves?

Dead animals can be used for that, unless locomotion is desired.

 

Bullshit. I do animal testing myself, and it's most certainly not because I don't have anything to do on Friday nights.

I didn't say that you do. I said "a lot of them" do.

 

Corpses don't locomote, and that's what I'm studying. Termination and dissection is necessary to ascertain the location of the electrodes that measure muscle activation.

Alright, but for what purpose do you perform these studies? And how do they differ from examining humans?

 

Except that it's the search for pure knowledge, with associated sacrifices, that has lead to *every* major advance in science.

Not *every* major advance in science involved animal testing.

 

Here's a tip: Do you know where rights come from? They don't come from any mythical god or any such thing. They come from *force*' date=' from *power*. The only people that truly have any rights are those able and willing to rise up and fight for those rights. Those that cannot and or will not are merely living on the graces of the strong.

 

Sorry, but that's how nature works, including humans. "Morals" are something we talk about to make ourselves feel good about and justify our instinctive reactions.[/quote']I know that is how nature (in your definition) works, and that it would seem logically and evolutionary correct to take advantage of the other species so that our species were spread everywhere. But say we manage to spread everywhere and "take over the world (universe)". Then what? I simply don't see much point in doing certain things only because they are by most people labelled "natural". I believe we have obtained intelligence enough to reach for other goals.

But, I don't want this thread to evlove into a debate on personal beliefs and philosophy.

 

Humans are animals, and we're doing what animals do. Compared to most animals, we're angels. Or did you not know that over 50% of species are parasites?

Can you define "angels", please?

Whether species are parasites, predators or intellectuals, it is their way of living and surviving.