Experiments on Animals for medical research

[harshgoel1975]

we are discussion the tip of iceberg here....only small fraction of human cruelty in term of using animals for testing... what about big picture... animal Harvesting .wating precious resources in cultivating them... and cleaning them ....then . killing them using machines and eating them for pleasure...

[hypervalent_iodine]

Animals for food is not the issue being discussed, so your bigger picture is rather irrelevant.

[EdEarl]

Hopefully this the significance of this discussion will be reduced by human organ chips used for testing instead of animals. http://wyss.harvard.edu/viewpage/484/

 

Buddhist philosophy considers it better to kill a person who will cause more harm than their death. However, when faced with having to decide whether to kill a person to save other lives, one can never know for sure whether unintended consequences will, in the future, indicate one made a mistake. It may be that using an animal for testing that damages or destroys the animal will result in greater good, or it may not. If greater good is achieved, then it is OK; otherwise, it is not.

Edited September 9, 2014 by EdEarl

[harshgoel1975]

Animals for food is not the issue being discussed, so your bigger picture is rather irrelevant.

 

agree.. 2 cent thought.. if we can kill them for food.. why can't use them for testing...

[MonDie]

Buddhist philosophy considers it better to kill a person who will cause more harm than their death.

 

In that case, a true Buddhist will kill himself first.

Edited September 12, 2014 by MonDie

[EdEarl]

 

EdEarl, on 09 Sept 2014 - 06:34 AM, said:

Buddhist philosophy considers it better to kill a person who will cause more harm than their death.

In that case, a true Buddhist will kill himself first.

 

Your logic escapes me, unless you are saying all Buddhists cause harm, which is nonsense.

[MonDie]

If a true Buddhist kills people who cause harm, then a true Buddhist causes harm.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Animal Experiments please guys!

[Vexen]

Zoologists kill animals all the time during experiments. It's no big deal.

[imatfaal]

Zoologists kill animals all the time during experiments. It's no big deal.

 

In fact it is a huge deal - regardless of the underlying morality and ethical questions - the researchers involved will spend a large percentage of their time and budget on obtaining and maintaining permissions from research ethics committees etc.

[Vexen]

In fact it is a huge deal - regardless of the underlying morality and ethical questions - the researchers involved will spend a large percentage of their time and budget on obtaining and maintaining permissions from research ethics committees etc.

Exactly, it is ethical to kill animals for experiments. At the university I attend, undergraduates kill dozens of animals for dissection purposes.

 

 

Btw,

Why are you people ruining my reputation? I don't do that. If you can't argue a statement, don't resort to those types of tactics.

In fact it is a huge deal - regardless of the underlying morality and ethical questions - the researchers involved will spend a large percentage of their time and budget on obtaining and maintaining permissions from research ethics committees etc.

Exactly, it is ethical to kill animals for experiments. At the university I attend, undergraduates kill dozens of animals for dissection purposes.

 

 

Btw,

Why are you people ruining my reputation? I don't do that. If you can't argue a statement, don't resort to those types of tactics.

[imatfaal]

Exactly, it is ethical to kill animals for experiments. At the university I attend, undergraduates kill dozens of animals for dissection purposes.

 

 

Btw,

Why are you people ruining my reputation? I don't do that. If you can't argue a statement, don't resort to those types of tactics.

 

 

"Exactly, it is ethical to kill animals for experiments" Not really no - I would replace "it is" with "in limited circumstances it is". It is a matter of debate and discussion; sometimes it is found to be acceptable and other times it is not.

 

You are probably getting neg rep for making sweeping and unsupported/unsupportable statements - think twice before hitting "post" and it will ease off and you will see the green light soon. But let's not talk about rep in a substantive topic. There is a thread on neg rep in the Support Forum

[Dekan]

I can't see any objection to us killing animals. Animals kill each other all the time. Like lions killing wildebeests, and sperm whales killing giant squids.

These examples show that Nature is based on killing, So why should humans try to be aloof.

 

Killing is clearly natural. Shouldn't we just accept the fact. And stop pretentiously moralising about it.

 

We enjoy the thought of killing. It gives us a thrill. Isn't that why millions of us buy, and play, video war-games?

Edited December 15, 2014 by Dekan

[davidivad]

Dekan,

you make an excellent point.

i think your statement shows the real major difference between us and the animals.

perhaps this shows the capacity at which ethics and the likes occur.

 

why not establish the fact that these animals cannot make a choice in the matter as they do not have the capacity.

then, create a group that supports thier unprotected interests just as the handicapped must have a lawyer.

we can choose for them, but this should come with a price.

shoot a man in the face and he will never know the reason.

but what if he is to be the next big thing when you are gone.

we are less important than nature itself and can we not look beyond the mirror?

if it is a matter of nature then we will succomb to those very devices by our own hand.

this is why ethics is important.

the scientists dont get to choose what the people want.

they must represent and they dang well better.

"you are getting paid for that, you dont get to make those decisions yourself, we run this system."

[Prometheus]

I can't see any objection to us killing animals. Animals kill each other all the time. Like lions killing wildebeests, and sperm whales killing giant squids.

These examples show that Nature is based on killing, So why should humans try to be aloof.

 

Killing is clearly natural. Shouldn't we just accept the fact. And stop pretentiously moralising about it.

 

The reasoning being that what is natural is right? Isn't there a similar argument against homosexuality? If we accept the latter is fallacious why not the former?

We enjoy the thought of killing. It gives us a thrill. Isn't that why millions of us buy, and play, video war-games?

 

Not everyone enjoys the thought of killing, but i agree that it is a part of our evolutionary past. That does not mean we have to accept it as part of our future - we have the choice, and in this we are unlike our cousins in the animal kingdom.

[physica]

I can't see any objection to us killing animals. Animals kill each other all the time. Like lions killing wildebeests, and sperm whales killing giant squids.

These examples show that Nature is based on killing, So why should humans try to be aloof.

 

Killing is clearly natural. Shouldn't we just accept the fact. And stop pretentiously moralising about it.

 

We enjoy the thought of killing. It gives us a thrill. Isn't that why millions of us buy, and play, video war-games?

 

This argument lacks vision. If we take this reasoning and apply it to other situations we can say that animals rape each other in nature so why shouldn't we do it? Animals don't have a legal system so why should we bother with ours? I find the natural argument to be very weak when used to show affection or dislike for a particular position. usually the person using it never defines what natural is and instantly assumes that because something is natural it is better. In future Dekan stay clear from this argument, it doesn't make any headway and is easily refuted.

[Dekan]

But, Physica, why is it acceptable to show war films of humans killing each other, like in World War 2. But it's not acceptable to show films of humans killing animals.

 

I mean, suppose a film director made a movie, which showed humans shooting large numbers of animals, such as lions, or elephants.

Obviously, it would be banned. Whereas, if the movie showed humans shooting each other, it could get good reviews, and be quite OK.

 

I can't quite see the rationale of the distinction. Is it a Green issue?

Edited December 22, 2014 by Dekan

[swansont]

 

I mean, suppose a film director made a movie, which showed humans shooting large numbers of animals, such as lions, or elephants.

Obviously, it would be banned.

 

Not obvious to me. Documentaries exist in which animals are killed.

[Prometheus]

Wasn't there a recent film called War Horse in which many horses were killed, alongside many humans (inevitable i guess, trying to re-enact WW1)?

 

Was it banned?

[physica]

But, Physica, why is it acceptable to show war films of humans killing each other, like in World War 2. But it's not acceptable to show films of humans killing animals.

 

I mean, suppose a film director made a movie, which showed humans shooting large numbers of animals, such as lions, or elephants.

Obviously, it would be banned. Whereas, if the movie showed humans shooting each other, it could get good reviews, and be quite OK.

 

I can't quite see the rationale of the distinction. Is it a Green issue?

 

What has this got to do with what I said?????????

 

 

This argument lacks vision. If we take this reasoning and apply it to other situations we can say that animals rape each other in nature so why shouldn't we do it? Animals don't have a legal system so why should we bother with ours? I find the natural argument to be very weak when used to show affection or dislike for a particular position. usually the person using it never defines what natural is and instantly assumes that because something is natural it is better. In future Dekan stay clear from this argument, it doesn't make any headway and is easily refuted.

[Ten oz]

@ Dekan, The argument that animals kill each other there for it is ethical for humans to kill animals is a weak one. For starters predators in the wild are rather discriminating. Nothing in nature kills the range of life humans do. Animals also almost exclusively kill out of necessity. Not for fun or experiment. And as Physica has already pointed out there are any number of things that happen in nature that would be unethical for humans to do like rape.

 

As for the OP's question about experimenting on animals; I am on the fence. We (humans) are able to engineer the design large and complicated vehicles, structures, and equipment virtually as it would be too expensive and impracticable to just build 10 different Golden Gate Bridges to figure out which one works. Of course over time we experience failures and learn from them. It we can do that with engineering why can't we do that with animal testing? It would seem it comes down to money. If the cost to experiment on animals was equal to the cost of building a full scale prototype jet fighter I think people would be more careful and organized about how it was done. Perhaps even finding alternative tests to run so to not need animals at all. So while I am not against animal testing out right I would like to see many more restrictions put in place that force those seeking to test on animals to do so in the most efficient way possible.

[Dekan]

 

Not obvious to me. Documentaries exist in which animals are killed.

Yes, but they're "documentaries". They're just recording factual events. Surely, nowadays, no director could make a fictional movie, which celebrated the killing of animals.

 

This might seem to be contradicted by Prometheus's post #69, which cites the example of the movie "War Horse". I haven't seen it. But it seems to involve talking horses. So it clearly belongs to the realm of fantasy, and can be safely dismissed.

 

What I'm getting at, is this. Back in the 1930's, a film director could make a fictional movie, which had as its hero, a Big Game Hunter. Who goes to to Africa and shoots lots of elephants and rhinos. And after he's shot them, he has their heads stuffed, and mounted on his wall, above the mantelpiece, as trophies. To show how he got the better of them, with his rifle.

 

This all seems highly satisfactory, from an evolutionary viewpoint. It rightly celebrates the power of modern scientific man, to kill antiquated lumbering animals like elephants.

 

However, such a movie couldn't be made today. Wouldn't a 2015 version have a Greenly-motivated hero, battling to preserve the elephants' tusks from ivory-poachers?

Edited December 24, 2014 by Dekan

[swansont]

Yes, but they're "documentaries". They're just recording factual events. Surely, nowadays, no director could make a fictional movie, which celebrated the killing of animals.

 

Heave, ho! Move those goalposts! Now it's a movie celebrating the killing of the animals.

 

Still no, though. Such a movie might not get made or make money if it did, owing to public sentiment, but it would not be banned.

 

 

This might seem to be contradicted by Prometheus's post #69, which cites the example of the movie "War Horse". I haven't seen it. But it seems to involve talking horses. So it clearly belongs to the realm of fantasy, and can be safely dismissed.

 

What I'm getting at, is this. Back in the 1930's, a film director could make a fictional movie, which had as its hero, a Big Game Hunter. Who goes to to Africa and shoots lots of elephants and rhinos. And after he's shot them, he has their heads stuffed, and mounted on his wall, above the mantelpiece, as trophies. To show how he got the better of them, with his rifle.

 

One could still make that movie, as long as it used CGI and no animals were actually killed. But then, we make movie where people are depicted as being killed all the time. They have the option of CGI or just plain acting for that.

 

 

This all seems highly satisfactory, from an evolutionary viewpoint. It rightly celebrates the power of modern scientific man, to kill antiquated lumbering animals like elephants.

 

That seems more like a misappropriation of the theory, much like social Darwinism was.

 

 

However, such a movie couldn't be made today. Wouldn't a 2015 version have a Greenly-motivated hero, battling to preserve the elephants' tusks from ivory-poachers?

Couldn't ≠ wouldn't, and probably yes. The poachers would be the bad guys.

 

What's your point, and how does this tie in with animal research?

 

[Ten oz]

@ Dekan, here in the united states there are several sporting, travel, and food channels on TV that show people hunting, fishing, farming, and preparing animals. If you want to see animals being killed by humans you'll have no problem finding several shows 24/7. Move over in U.S. politics it is normal for candidates to do photo ops of themselves hunting animals to appeal to voters. Killing animals for sport is that popular. Bizarre Foods for example is a very popular food show where the host regularly drinks the blood of freshly killed animals, eats live fish/reptiles, and the death of animals is repeated shown episode after episode.

As for movies the media has changed over the years. To make movies more entertaining animals have become more interactive. Modern special effects now allow humans to do combat vs animals. So rather than seeing a hunter just go out and shoot a slow lumbering animal we see duels where men do battle vs Bears, lions, sharks, crocodiles, and etc. the Humans still prevail and the animals still die. Jaws, The Edge, Anaconda, The Ghost and the Darkness, and Lake Placid are but a popular few movie title where humans duel and ultimately defeat animals.

Edited December 24, 2014 by Ten oz

[Dekan]

Thanks Ten oz, for your extremely interesting post. It's restored my faith in human nature, that US citizens feel no shame, in viewing on TV, the glorious sight of humanity's triumph over the animals.

 

For hundreds of thousands of years, we had to fear animals such as lions, wolves, crocodiles and bears. Now we can just shoot them. That's true progress, and I hope we all appreciate it.