Sayonara Posted June 6, 2004 Posted June 6, 2004 I think the biggest mistake of science is NOT anthropomorphizing animals. That doesn't justify making unevidenced claims such as "rats know when they are going to die and that makes them suffer", "searching for food is entertainment value for rats", "killing a rat that has 'bonded' with another causes suffering", and so on. Humans exploit other species to preserve or better our own. That's not exactly a world removed from any other 'natural' interaction between species. Why don't you go and complain to the rats about the suffering they cause?
BrainMan Posted June 6, 2004 Posted June 6, 2004 But you're also depriving the rats of the wild and their freedom. So it isn't enough to lower suffering and provide comfort to a rat, but we have to allow them to pursue happiness as well? Should we allow them to vote?
Lance Posted June 6, 2004 Posted June 6, 2004 So it isn't enough to lower suffering and provide comfort to a rat, but we have to allow them to pursue happiness as well? Should we allow them to vote? Hey! He’s got a point. My dog has some valid opinions; I think she should be able to vote. I also think we should elect a chimp for president. Hey it’s not like the chimp being stupid is going to hold it back, being less intelligent makes you better then humans anyways...
EvolvEarth Posted June 6, 2004 Posted June 6, 2004 That doesn't justify making unevidenced claims such as "rats know when they are going to die and that makes them suffer", "searching for food is entertainment value for rats", "killing a rat that has 'bonded' with another causes suffering", and so on. Most of what I've said has already been observed, but they don't take into consideration that the rats feel emotion or experience pleasure when going through this. They used to scorn Jane Goodall for using "human" characteristics when describing chimpanzees. We now accept those descriptions with open arms, but we didn't then. Humans exploit other species to preserve or better our own. That's not exactly a world removed from any other 'natural' interaction between species. Why don't you go and complain to the rats about the suffering they cause? The question is, what good are we actually doing? By making cures for diseases and such, we're not exactly helping our species. Overpopulation is a problem we must consider--especially because of the severe lack of drinkable water in this world. Perhaps humans should get together and try to figure out how to conduct these experiments without harming other creatures. We some great minds in this world, even though it may take an extremely long time, we should come up with some worthy substitutes. For dissection purposes, studies have shown that computer programs are a worthy substitute for animal dissections when learning about animal anatomy and physiology. People have a problem with respecting other species other than their own. Caring for humans is great, but so is caring for other animals.
EvolvEarth Posted June 6, 2004 Posted June 6, 2004 So it isn't enough to lower suffering and provide comfort to a rat, but we have to allow them to pursue happiness as well? Should we allow them to vote? Is there something wrong with an animal pursuing happiness? How does this relate to allowing them to vote? Emotions != Intellect
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted June 6, 2004 Posted June 6, 2004 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.
EvolvEarth Posted June 6, 2004 Posted June 6, 2004 Hey! He’s got a point. My dog has some valid opinions; I think she should be able to vote. I also think we should elect a chimp for president. Hey it’s not like the chimp being stupid is going to hold it back, being less intelligent makes you better then humans anyways... So instead of having a mature debate, you resort to mocking my opinion on how animals should also be allowed to pursue happiness by illogically comparing that to letting animals vote to make my argument seem ridiculous?
EvolvEarth Posted June 6, 2004 Posted June 6, 2004 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. I can't disagree with you there. I wish I knew of a solution to this problem, but I was mainly arguing how the program is good for biology majors without having to dissect an animal in labs. For going into the actual field where research needs to be conducted, well, that's a different story altogether.
Lance Posted June 6, 2004 Posted June 6, 2004 Ok why should animals not get to vote? It would seem that you think animals are equal if not superior in every way to humans, so why not give them as many rights as we give ourselves? I’m sorry for the sarcastic comment, but there’s really not much else to be said. There are no real facts to debate about because the question in post #1 has only been answered by opinions, and debating about your feelings and morals is unproductive to say the least. It would seem experimenting on inmates is the only other option and nobody, including me, is going to agree on that.
blike Posted June 6, 2004 Posted June 6, 2004 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.
Sayonara Posted June 6, 2004 Posted June 6, 2004 Most of what I've said has already been observed, but they don't take into consideration that the rats feel emotion or experience pleasure when going through this. They used to scorn Jane Goodall for using "human" characteristics when describing chimpanzees. We now accept those descriptions with open arms, but we didn't then. Show me empirical evidence that rats have an emotional response to anything. The question is, what good are we actually doing? By making cures for diseases and such, we're not exactly helping our species. Overpopulation is a problem we must consider--especially because of the severe lack of drinkable water in this world... etc... People have a problem with respecting other species other than their own. Caring for humans is great, but so is caring for other animals. I agree with you - humans are very short-sighted. But you haven't answered my question, and how humans choose to arrange their society has nothing to do with the debate on animal testing.
EvolvEarth Posted June 6, 2004 Posted June 6, 2004 Ok why should animals not get to vote? It would seem that you think animals are equal if not superior [/b']in every way to humans, so why not give them as many rights as we give ourselves? What did people say about assuming? While I do think animals are superior to humans, because that is ridiculous, I do think we're equal in worth. There's a difference in thinking that animals are equal in worth as humans than thinking animals are equal in every way to humans. Having equal worth means that we should be aware of their capabilities of pain and suffering and treat them equal to humans who also can feel pain and suffer. It has NOTHING to do with intelligence level. Since when did intelligence mean anything when it came to the value of a life? Would you perform experiments on the mentally handicapped because they aren't as intelligent as the rest of us? Why not? There are many mentally handicapped people out there who aren't half as smart as the animals we perform experiments on. Should we perform experiments on them, then? Of course not, that's barbaric. I’m sorry for the sarcastic comment, but there’s really not much else to be said. There are no real facts to debate about because the question in post #1 has only been answered by opinions, and debating about your feelings and morals is unproductive to say the least. Well, this is an emotional debate, you cannot debate facts when it comes to morality. There is no logical reason to test on animals as there is no logical reason to not test on them. Perhaps there might be one logical reason to test on animals, and it's for selfish reasons like protecting you or your family. To me, that's not a good enough reason simply because it's making one life suffer for another. Should I condone that? The little Buddha in me tells me to follow the five precepts, and one of the five precepts is do not kill or harm, and that doesn't just mean humans for The Buddha himself was an advocate for protecting animals. You and I have a difference of opinion, but I have to follow my ethical guidelines. It would seem experimenting on inmates is the only other option and nobody, including me, is going to agree on that. I wouldn't agree to it, but at least they might deserve the suffering brought on to them. Do these animals really deserve it?
Sayonara Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 Most of what I've said has already been observed, but they don't take into consideration that the rats feel emotion or experience pleasure when going through this. They used to scorn Jane Goodall for using "human" characteristics when describing chimpanzees. We now accept those descriptions with open arms, but we didn't then. Also, we now accept that chimpanzees share certain characteristics with humans because of the mounds of research that have been done since then, not because we just suddenly decided en masse to change our minds. 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.
LucidDreamer Posted October 16, 2004 Posted October 16, 2004 Blike has mentioned a key paradox with the anti-animal research argument. If animals are equal to human beings then we have no responsibility to protect them because they do not protect us or each other (one species to another that is). If we have a responsibility to protect them because we know better then we are different. So in that case our lives are worth more. How can we be equal yet at the same time be held to higher standards of conduct? BTW, I am fairly certain that rats, like all mammals, have emotional responses. They cannot, however, ever understand the meaning of their suffering, nor is their suffering as complex as a human's suffering. Also I am assuming that you are a vegan and that you wear all non-animal clothing. Otherwise you are just as guilty as any researcher. And another thing if we are going to consider all living things equal and consider it cruel to research on animals or eat them then why is it ok to eat vegetables? Certainly a broccoli would be much happier in the ground then in someone’s stomach. If its not ok to devalue a rat because it has a much smaller nervous system then why is it ok to devalue a plant because it has no nervous system at all?
Mokele Posted October 16, 2004 Posted October 16, 2004 then why is it ok to eat vegetables? Not only that, but if you think about it, when you eat fresh veggies you're eating them *alive*! A vegetarian is someone who eats just vegeatbles. I want to be a humanitarian. Mokele, your trusted source for Soylent Green
philbo1965uk Posted October 16, 2004 Posted October 16, 2004 yes i feel its right to experiment,after all they are not suffering in vain.They give their lives so we can have lipstick that wont melt our face off,shampoo that wont burn our eyes out.Also how would we know you got lung cancer or which is the best brand of ciggies to smoke if those little puppies were not on 60 a day. We all love a chicken curry so dont lie...and if the chicken didnt want to be eaten,it had the choice to be skinny and fly away .But oh no it clucks around all day stuffing its face. I especially love eating them little mokeys you get when on holiday in thailand,"you should hear them little critters scream when you take it in turns bashing its skull in with a tiny toffee hammer" aparently it gets there adrenaline flowin so there brains are nice and juicey.I remember me first bite of raw brain mmm.
Pangloss Posted October 16, 2004 Posted October 16, 2004 A vegetarian is someone who eats just vegeatbles. I want to be a humanitarian. ROFL! Interesting thread; you all seem to have really covered it pretty thoroughly. I think it's easy to write off the issue of opposing animal testing as being supported only by a few crackpots in the extreme, but there are legitimate questions that come up that never really get very well answered, even by the smartest people on the planet. To me it's a great example of how we sometimes improve ourselves merely by *asking* the questions, even if the answers we get aren't very satisfying. One thing I wonder about is what might change in the human-animal-Earth dynamic if and when we ever manage to elevate another species to sentience. If you've read David Brin's books you'll know what I'm talking about here (he envisioned a galactic society in which species acquire freedom when they have elevated ANOTHER species to sentience, and the society has rules against taking advantage of "pre-sentient" species). If chimps and dolphins ever do become intelligent, what will they think of the way we treated them before they were smart enough to understand it?
philbo1965uk Posted October 17, 2004 Posted October 17, 2004 well chimps will probably think we have been great...some of them have been in the movies since the thirties,others on tv doing PG tips adverts.... As for Dolphins who can forget Flipper.....man they were the days
Sayonara Posted October 17, 2004 Posted October 17, 2004 Also I am assuming that you are a vegan and that you wear all non-animal clothing. Otherwise you are just as guilty as any researcher. And another thing if we are going to consider all living things equal and consider it cruel to research on animals or eat them then why is it ok to eat vegetables? Certainly a broccoli would be much happier in the ground then in someone’s stomach. If its not ok to devalue a rat because it has a much smaller nervous system then why is it ok to devalue a plant because it has no nervous system at all? Who are you talking to?
philbo1965uk Posted October 17, 2004 Posted October 17, 2004 go on tell him sayanora..cheeky git...who is he to assume your a vegan when you love a burger...and as his insinuating a similarity to broccoli and animal life,well thats just pissed me off...its sunday so im off to boil alive some cabbage after ive ripped its limbs off one by one......so if you hear some screams from my kitchen....you will know..mmmmwwaahahahahaha!!!
Sayonara Posted October 17, 2004 Posted October 17, 2004 Don't read emotional content into straightforward queries; you've already seen where that leads to.
philbo1965uk Posted October 17, 2004 Posted October 17, 2004 sorry many apologies....just a bit of light hearted fun
Sayonara Posted October 17, 2004 Posted October 17, 2004 Ah that makes more sense. I wondered because you posted straight after me.
Lance Posted October 17, 2004 Posted October 17, 2004 Evolvearth I think after my arugment with him he left the board. bummer. I doubt you guys will get much of a response.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now