Experiment?

I honestly don't know, but I think animals should be used in experiments only when necessary, and with as little suffering as possible.

0 Replies

Thank you!
I agree with you that animals should be used in experiments only when it's very necessary. But once they are experimented, they will enevitably suffer a lot in most of them because if not, there shall be no need to take them for tests. So it seems so hard for us to male a choice.

0 Replies

Yes, animals have rights, well defined and included in the law. (At least here in norway)

Of course, those rights are not near as encompassing as the rights of humans.

And I think that is a shame. Humans and other animals have a lot more in common that we have that put us apart. To my mind animals should have every right but the right to vote. Smile

0 Replies

I feel animals have rights, and it has nothing to do with what the law says.

They are alive, and have the right to live.

I do feel like a hypocrite in saying that, since I do eat meat, and wear/carry leather. The best I can say about that is I'm always aware of how the food/shoes came into my possession.

If I know animals were used in experimentation for a product, I steer clear of it.

As far as medical research....that's a toughie. It seems a lot of that experiementation is unnecessary.

0 Replies

Cyracuz & CT, what about lab animals like rats that are given drugs to test their safety? do you propose testing on people instead? of course, in a sense people are also lab animals, because no amount of animal testing will guarantee that a drug is safe for humans. we should also consider that lab animals are a bit different from animals in the wild, in that a lab animal owes its existence to its usefulness as a test subject. a similar consideration applies to livestock. if nobody ate pork, there would be a lot fewer domesticated swine.

0 Replies

Depends on the manner of testing.
I see the sense in testing products on lab rats, and I accept it, but not without some "gurgling in my moral belly".

I don't think that animals have a right not to be killed or used by humans. Humans are but another predatory species.

I am thinking more about animals in the wild when I'm stating that they should have more rights. We shouldn't recklessly destroy land and destroy habitats, for instance, since the oportunity for each species to evolve should be given. Not as an idealistic goal, but simply because I believe it would be the most beneficial to all species.

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

Cyracuz & CT, what about lab animals like rats that are given drugs to test their safety? do you propose testing on people instead? of course, in a sense people are also lab animals, because no amount of animal testing will guarantee that a drug is safe for humans. we should also consider that lab animals are a bit different from animals in the wild, in that a lab animal owes its existence to its usefulness as a test subject. a similar consideration applies to livestock. if nobody ate pork, there would be a lot fewer domesticated swine.

Like I said, that's really a tough one. Some experimentation is just busy work/job security for sure. Also, being confined in a change does produce some type of suffering.

As for drug testing? Well, if it's for a drug that is for some superfluous purpose, like making your teeth whiter or enhancing the size of your breasts, it would be cruel to cause another living being to lose its life.

Isn't it true that new technology has made much of this experimentation unnecessary? As in computer generated experimentation?

Now, if we're talking a cure for cancer, something life saving, that could be different.

I'll admit, I have no clear cut answer on this.

For me, it's doing the least harm possible.

0 Replies

least harm possible is a good principle, but difficult to weigh harm to humans versus harm to animals, wouldn't you say? as to new technology diminishing the need for animal testing, that's great, but probably will not eliminate the practice anytime soon. i don't have an easy answer either, or else i would have given it.

Cyracuz, agree that destruction of habitat's deplorable, but a toughie to address. if industrialized countries that have already destroyed habitats within their territories merely propose that developing countries preserve theirs, resistance is to be expected. i like what Nature Conservancy does, buying up land in order to preserve it, but there's only so much non-government orgs can accomplish.

0 Replies

Rights are arbitrarily decided by law. Are animals 'less alive' than we? Of course not. Do they have the 'right to life'? That depends on who happens to be doling out the 'rights' at any given moment.
In that spirit, I think medical testing on animals is equivalent to medical testing on humans, from a moral standpoint.
But far less effective. As I see these to be morally equal, but pragmatically divided (testing on humans would yield much better and more acurate results for cures meant to be used on humans) I think it would be better all around to test on humans.

0 Replies

would you like to volunteer, Doktor S, or are you non-human?

0 Replies

No, of course not.
No more than any of the cats, dogs, or hamsters, given the choice, would.
Your objection is simplistic.
What makes human life inherantly more valuable?

0 Replies

for the sake of an argument, even looking at this strictly economically, it's much cheaper to raise rats than humans, unless there's a surplus of humanity. supposing there is, you'd either have to pick test subjects randomly, or have criteria to decide which human lives are the most dispensable. but if particular human lives are inherently more valuable than others, then some human lives might be inherently more valuable than animal lives.

0 Replies

doktor S wrote:

Quote:

What makes human life inherantly more valuable?

The same line of thought that made white people inherently more valuable than the rest many years ago.

Profit.

0 Replies

Yes, the line of thought that assumed one type of person was inherently more valuable than another, based on completely arbitrary criteria.
The same sort of criteria that makes it ok to test on animals but not humans.

0 Replies

DS, i take it then that your suggestion that humans make better experimental subjects was in jest. still, i suppose you have no objections to using human volunteers as lab animals, correct? although even if the entire membership of PETA did this, for example, i doubt it would have much lasting impact. just for the record, do you have a position on stem-cell research? does your ethos accomodate experimentation on embryos?

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

DS, i take it then that your suggestion that humans make better experimental subjects was in jest.

Somewhat. I was making a point about the ultimately arbitrary assigning of value to life on one hand, but on the other hand if the goal is to treat humans, you must admit things would probably come along much faster if they were working with human physiologies as opposed to rodents or k9s.

Quote:

still, i suppose you have no objections to using human volunteers as lab animals, correct?

I believe in stratification, and take a big dump on egalitarianism. I would use drug addicts, child molesters, serial rapists, murders et al..at least then their worthless lives would serve a purpose.

Quote:

, do you have a position on stem-cell research? does your ethos accomodate experimentation on embryos?

I think the objection to stem cell research is counterproductive self righteous moral positioning. Much like the objection to sound science being taught in our classrooms, mostly by the same people.
Embryos are not people, but that distinction doesn't mean anything to me. If benefits could be had for the race as a whole through such experimentation, I would be all for it.
I am also a strong supporter of eugenics.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

I am also a strong supporter of eugenics.

are you an admirer of Raymond B. Cattell perhaps? here's wikipedia on his concept of genthanasia

Quote:

he showed a lifelong devotion to the idea of a more 'humane' version of genocide which he called genthanasia, where intellectually 'inferior' classes and races were to be exterminated, within the scope of few generation, indirectly by refusing aid to the needy, or with a mass-scale reproduction policy and segregational strategies. Although he rarely spoke of literally killing people for the sake of speeding up the survival of the 'fittest', he held to the believe all his life that the majority of humankind was obsolote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Cattell

kindler, gentler genocide if you will. i personally hope eugenics ends up in the dustbin of history.

0 Replies

I have a problem with the motivation behind eugenics.

The stance taken in supporting this view is full of insinuations of a presumptuous ego.

That is my problem.

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

Doktor S wrote:
I am also a strong supporter of eugenics.

are you an admirer of Raymond B. Cattell perhaps? here's wikipedia on his concept of genthanasia

Quote:
he showed a lifelong devotion to the idea of a more 'humane' version of genocide which he called genthanasia, where intellectually 'inferior' classes and races were to be exterminated, within the scope of few generation, indirectly by refusing aid to the needy, or with a mass-scale reproduction policy and segregational strategies. Although he rarely spoke of literally killing people for the sake of speeding up the survival of the 'fittest', he held to the believe all his life that the majority of humankind was obsolote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Cattell

kindler, gentler genocide if you will. i personally hope eugenics ends up in the dustbin of history.

Never heard of this fellow, but I agree with the things stated in the quotation.
I think coddling along those that would normally just die off is bringing human evolution to a standstill, and that leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
Water should be allowed to seek it's own level, even if that level is to be sucked down the drain.

0 Replies

Experiment?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know