# Animal Experimentation? Rights?



## Corporal Hicks (Apr 30, 2005)

Hi,
I dont know if this has been a thread before, I apologise if it has.
I'm only 17 but I understand that in Britain in the 60's and 70's there was a huge boom of animal rights activists, started by a woman who went undercover in a lab and bought out pictures of beagles (dogs) smoking. I understand a guy called Peter Singer may have contributed to this with his book on Species-ism. I'm currently studying this for my exams as this guy is apparently a philsopher and I need to know about animal rights in different religions etc etc.

One thing I have noticed that during this boom is the sheer amount of crime commited under the banner of animal rights, were this people really doing it for the animals or did they simply like the idea of doing it because it gave them an excuse and a cause to actually cause trouble. Some of it seems a bit extreme!

I've heard both sides of the arguements, people quoting the bible stating the God gave humans rule over animals but how in fact he told us to care for them. I've heard the other side of the arguements when people have stated about their children being saved for the sake of two dogs.

One thing that annoyed me and I dont know why is that Peter Singer I believe quoted that two dogs equal the lives of one child.

 I know that maybe we should not consider ourselves a superior species but surely somewhere that just hits me as not right. Is that my cultural conditioning or what? 

Surely if you compared the pain of the children's parents do that of the dogs, the amount of pain is justified by the suffering of the parents compared to thte suffering of the dogs parents who lets face it, probably dont know or care of have a conscious. Now thats not to say that they dont I'm just giving one view. Therefore the dogs should be sacrificed?

When it comes to experimentation is it wrong to do it for medical research or for it all togther. When It comes to cosmetic's I'm totally against it but when it comes to the medical research I'm not so sure. I dont mean to offend anybody by the way,  if you have an arguement I would like to hear it, open my mind a little :whip: 

Its just my view, I'll like to know other opinions, what do you guys think of animal rights. Is animal experimentation wrong?

Kind Regards


----------



## arnisador (Apr 30, 2005)

Peter Singer is at Princeton, right? A web search on his name turns up lots of links. I know that his views have been very controversial.

To me, superior species is not necessarily a useful concept, but predator-prey is. We're at the top of the food chain because of our ability to use tools and think. To my mind, experimenting on animals to prolong our lives and eating animals to prolong our lives are ethically comparable. That's just nature.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 30, 2005)

You might keep it in mind that this "superior species," crap is precisely what's behind our trashing the planet, and that while we are sacrificing animals for essential research, we are also sacrificing animals to test things like eye makeup and food coloring.


----------



## Adept (Apr 30, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> You might keep it in mind that this "superior species," crap is precisely what's behind our trashing the planet, and that while we are sacrificing animals for essential research, we are also sacrificing animals to test things like eye makeup and food coloring.


 Lets not forget we are sacrificing them for sausages, hamburgers and pizza as well.

 Personally, I'm all for animal testing. If I were doing it myself, I'd take every measure to be as humane as possible, and I certainly feel that minimum standards of well-being should be enforced. But I'm not going to tell people we shouldn't be testing on animals.

 As for 'superior species' and 'trashing the planet': There's no need to get so evocative with out language. It's natural selection, and nothing more. Certain organisms change the environment in ways that are often detrimental to biodiversity. Algal blooms are a notable example. All we are doing is changing the environment, and the level to which we are affecting it is still undecided. We are certainly not doing anything as major as the damage inflicted by meteor strikes, or whatever wiped out the dinosaurs. If we change the environment sufficiently, we will no longer be able to survive in it, and we as a species will fall by the wayside. Natural selection at work.

 But really, thats a topic for another thread.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 30, 2005)

Again, I feel it's necessary to point out that as human beings, we don't have to be limited by our biology. Unless, of course, we continue to demonstrate the kind of contempt for everything else that all too much of animal testing displays. 

I'd think it wouldn't be that difficult to construct a moral measure for such tests--one on which, say, heart surgery would rate fairly high, and testing lipstick and hair gel would rate fairly low. 

I didn't happen to be the one who used the term, 'superior species," or, 'speciesism," and that doesn't happen to be the way I talk or write. However, I'm not sure how else to describe claims that well, we're just on top of the food chain, or well, it's just biology....no, it's a choice we make, and often one we do not have to. 

I'd suggest too that a lot of our sloppy treatment of our air, water and food supply isn't real smart--if we want to really talk about being bound to biolody.


----------



## arnisador (May 1, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I didn't happen to be the one who used the term, 'superior species," or, 'speciesism," and that doesn't happen to be the way I talk or write. However, I'm not sure how else to describe claims that well, we're just on top of the food chain, or well, it's just biology....no, it's a choice we make, and often one we do not have to.


 We have to eat. After that, it's shades of grey.

 We're at the absolute top of the food chain. What eats humans (as a rule, not as an exception)? What do humans not eat? Yes, we can choose to exercise that prerogative or not.

 Lipstick testing is hard to justify...medical testing, in my opinion, is not. I can't help the fact that some things have obvious survival value and others are questionable.


----------



## TonyM. (May 1, 2005)

Considering that all drugs and products for humans have to be tested on humans, animal experimentation sounds like a big waste of time, money and animals. We have the science to know if a substance is safe or not. Repeating the same experiments over and over when we already understand the chemistry and biology seems extemely wastefull to me.
As it stands, I live in ground zero for pet thefts for amimal experimentation. Bike gangs have provided stolen animals from the rural parts of Vermont and New Hampshire for labs in the greater Boston area for decades.


----------



## Ender (May 1, 2005)

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> Hi,
> I dont know if this has been a thread before, I apologise if it has.
> I'm only 17 but I understand that in Britain in the 60's and 70's there was a huge boom of animal rights activists, started by a woman who went undercover in a lab and bought out pictures of beagles (dogs) smoking. I understand a guy called Peter Singer may have contributed to this with his book on Species-ism. I'm currently studying this for my exams as this guy is apparently a philsopher and I need to know about animal rights in different religions etc etc.
> 
> ...




Well I ,for one, commend you on posting your own views and ideas instead of resposting some editorial column and trying to pass it off as fact. You have shown much wisdom and maturity than alot of others have not.

I have worked for a medical testing device manufacturer and I can tell you that alot of the testing on animals is GOVERNMENT/FDA required. We could do away with alot of these tests through the use of computer modeling, but the government relies on "tried and true" methods of testing. An example of this would be the prescription drug industry. It costs approximately $250 million to bring a new drug to market and about $100 million is for outdated and obsolete testing on animals required by the FDA. Tests on mice, pigs, and monkeys that, many times, we already know what the results would be even before the tests are started. We could do away with these tests and dramatically bring down the price of prescription drugs. On the flip side however, if the tests are not done, then "every option" of developing these new drugs was not investigated and then the drug company or the FDA will be held accountable. Lawsuits will follow, and costs will continue to rise. The truth is, every drug will have some adverse reaction on some patients. We still have people who are violently affected by penicillin.

So back your comments, I think we should only conduct tests and research on animals only as absolutely necessary.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (May 1, 2005)

Ender said:
			
		

> Well I ,for one, commend you on posting your own views and ideas instead of resposting some editorial column and trying to pass it off as fact. You have shown much wisdom and maturity than alot of others have not.
> 
> I have worked for a medical testing device manufacturer and I can tell you that alot of the testing on animals is GOVERNMENT/FDA required. We could do away with alot of these tests through the use of computer modeling, but the government relies on "tried and true" methods of testing. An example of this would be the prescription drug industry. It costs approximately $250 million to bring a new drug to market and about $100 million is for outdated and obsolete testing on animals required by the FDA. Tests on mice, pigs, and monkeys that, many times, we already know what the results would be even before the tests are started. We could do away with these tests and dramatically bring down the price of prescription drugs. On the flip side however, if the tests are not done, then "every option" of developing these new drugs was not investigated and then the drug company or the FDA will be held accountable. Lawsuits will follow, and costs will continue to rise. The truth is, every drug will have some adverse reaction on some patients. We still have people who are violently affected by penicillin.
> 
> So back your comments, I think we should only conduct tests and research on animals only as absolutely necessary.


I tend to agree - a large amount of animal testing is completely unneccessary.  Some of it, I would argue, is inhumane as well.

Having said that, I also think animal research is necessary for some basic and applied research.  

As to the animal rights movement - I have had differing views on it for a number of years.  Where it is right now - I am not impressed.  Some of their tactics for arguing for no experimentation on animals is simply vandalism, terrorizing professors, and slander.  

Recently I think the ALF struck a university in Iowa, and I know several of the profs there.  We talked about the damage that was done - and how it was possible for the ALF to steal 400 white lab rats, and claim to find them all loving homes.

I think I align more closely with the animal welfare folks.

And Peter Singer - he sometimes writes very evokatively, he's passionate, but I do not agree with many things he says.  I'm glad some people are saying things like it though - I think some animal experimentation needs to end.


----------



## Tgace (May 1, 2005)

Bears eat flesh and plants too..perhaps they are making a wrong choice? Oh they're animals, they cant make a choice...oh but wait we are "no different" than animals...:idunno:  ahhh screw it hand me that slice of pizza w/pepperoni.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 1, 2005)

Bears have to eat, and they don't really have other options. Nor do bears kill things just for the hell of it, eat and eat and eat for no good reason, or--just to mention the actual topic of this thread--test their eye-shadow on bunnies.


----------



## Adept (May 1, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Bears have to eat, and they don't really have other options. Nor do bears kill things just for the hell of it, eat and eat and eat for no good reason, or--just to mention the actual topic of this thread--test their eye-shadow on bunnies.


 Guess you haven't heard the one about the bear and the rabbit then...


----------



## elder999 (May 2, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Again, I feel it's necessary to point out that as human beings, we don't have to be limited by our biology. Unless, of course, we continue to demonstrate the kind of contempt for everything else that all too much of animal testing displays.
> 
> I'd think it wouldn't be that difficult to construct a moral measure for such tests--one on which, say, heart surgery would rate fairly high, and testing lipstick and hair gel would rate fairly low.
> 
> ...


I'd say it's a bit altruistic to say that we "don't have to be limited by our biology," when we so clearly have been. I'm not saying that I disagree with you-to the contrary;I believe that if humankind is going to evolve any further as a species it will be because we consciously decide to take that step. 

Of course, I also believe that we're in iminent danger of completely destroying ourselves, in part because of our continued biological limitations, so......

We *are* _mostly_ at the top of the food chain, though, for a variety of reasons.

What do I mean by "mostly?" Well, have you seen _Open Water,_ about the two divers left behind by the boat? As someone who grew up on boats, scuba diving, and pretty much anything else involved in the ocean, and coming from a family with a rather long and storied nautical history, I've had the following words impressed upon my consciousness for some time:

"When you enter the ocean, you place yourself at the bottom of the food chain."

The rest of the time, though, we're very much at the top, and have been for a long time. Some anthropologists and paleontologists speculate that humankind is responsible for the extinction of the sabre-toothed tiger, as well as a variety of other species. That may or may not be so, but it's a certainty that we hunted wooly-mammoth, bears, lions, buffalo and other large animals with little more than sharpened sticks and superior jogging ability.The first of these, those sharpened sticks, and the strategy behind their use, is a "choice we made," though one that took place over a period of time, and in such a way that it creates all sorts of academic hand-waving and harummphing to simply discuss which came first, speech which made hunting easier, or hunting which made speech necessary. The second, our totally superior jogging ability, is purely a product of biology and adaptation, and something most of us don't possess today, mostly by choice.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> _Bears have to eat, and they don't really have other options. Nor do bears kill things just for the hell of it, eat and eat and eat for no good reason, or--just to mention the actual topic of this thread--test their eye-shadow on bunnies._





_I should inject here that bears are of particular interest to me, for a variety of reasons I won't go into in any detail now. Suffiice to say that while not an expert, I do have some knowledge of ursine behavior, much of it first-hand. _

_Bears are not true carnivores; they are opportunistic omnivores. Left to their own devices (choice?), and with adequate amounts of vegetable matter, bears are content to not kill anything. Though they have been known-especially polar bears-to kill things, appparently, "just for the hell of it, " just as chimpanzees and gorillas have been documented hunting and eating smaller monkeys, apparently "just for the hell of it."_


_As for testing eye shadow on bunnies,no matter how gratuitous and cruel it may be, I would suggest that those it truly bothers should adopt as many suffering *human* orphans as they can, say from Ethiopia or the tsunami-struck parts of southeast Asia, before they bore me to tears with their insipid whining about "animal rights" and "suffering."_


_The entire universe is one tremendous meat-grinder, people, and to shed tears over injustices-if that's what you believe they are- like these, rather than get used to it and choose truly important battles- is tremendous a waste of energy. Especially, as Mr. McRobertson points out, given the state of our environment._


_It's not as though little white, pink-eyed bunnies are present in the wild or in danger of extinction, is it? _

_On the other hand, if it's not necessary-that is to say,if results can be obtained with computer modeling-then this would certainly be cheaper and less inflammatory than torturing the little bunnies....._


----------



## Dronak (May 3, 2005)

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> what do you guys think of animal rights. Is animal experimentation wrong?



This isn't a major issue for me, but my basic view is this -- would you rather have them test and experiment on humans?

I don't think people should be abusing animals in tests and such just because they can.  But I also think that it is better to test things such as medical treatments on animals before humans.  How many people could die before you got it right if you went straight from developing the drugs to testing them on humans?  So I don't think there's any reason to be cruel to the animals who are serving as test subjects, but I would prefer to see animals undergo the tests first before humans are put in possible danger.


----------



## Corporal Hicks (May 3, 2005)

Ah, what about Peter Singer though! I know I stated about him before. Does he really have a point that we should not think we are the superior species, simply because of intelligence. Surely our intelligence has given us morality and the ability to make choices. Those choices of course depend on alot of things, some would argue I guess that from their views that animal experimentation in all forms is wrong, since thats their moral code whereas another culture wouldnt not. 

As some of you say, we are controlled by biology, surely thats a form of determinism? It doesnt determine our choice though surely?

I think I worded that right, apologies if I have not.

Kind Regards


----------



## Tgace (May 3, 2005)

I would kill every rat and mouse on Earth if it meant the cure for cancer. If folks truly think they are on par with animals, perhaps they should go throw themselves in front of hunters bullets and free us all of their silly selves.


----------



## Satt (May 3, 2005)

Hey, don't aliens come and take humans every once in a while to experiment on them??? Any idea what they may be testing for??? (So, are we really the top of the food chain???) LOL

:anic: :deadhorse :anic: :anic:


----------



## Corporal Hicks (May 3, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I would kill every rat and mouse on Earth if it meant the cure for cancer. If folks truly think they are on par with animals, perhaps they should go throw themselves in front of hunters bullets and free us all of their silly selves.


Lol! Thats one way to put it. I can see and appreciate their view, but it doesnt appeal to me. Why consider yourself on par, when you can clearly have Control over them??? 

Regards


----------



## Tgace (May 3, 2005)

You're dog and your child are sitting in the street with a truck barreling down on them...which one do you save?


----------



## heretic888 (May 3, 2005)

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> Ah, what about Peter Singer though! I know I stated about him before. Does he really have a point that we should not think we are the superior species, simply because of intelligence. Surely our intelligence has given us morality and the ability to make choices.



Not to be rude to Mr. Singer here, but it is *not* our "intelligence" that gives human lives moral precedence over animal lives.

Rather, it is a matter of consciousness, sentience, self-awareness. A human being, even an infant, experiences "pain" and "hurt" in ways that, say, a dog cannot even begin to fathom. Likewise, a dog experiences "harm" to a level far beyond anything a tree could hope to feel.

Of course, we have to give credit its due when certain individuals bring up the very valid concerns over us being the "owners" or "rulers" of the planet. Very much akin to the Old Testamental injunction to "rule over the earth and all its kind". 

Just because we have more moral sentience than the animals does *not* give us the right to do whatever the hell we want to them.



			
				Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> As some of you say, we are controlled by biology, surely thats a form of determinism? It doesnt determine our choice though surely?



No, it doesn't. Most of the claims concerning biological or genetic determinism --- which almost universally trace back to Freud's "biology is destiny" --- have not been supported by research. If anything, it appears that the social circumstances and situational context seem to have a more cogent effect on our behavior than anything else.

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 4, 2005)

1. What kind of dog?

2. Freud was not a determinist in any fashion, least of all in terms of biological determinism. Nor is it with Freud that such ideas originate.

3. The necessary taking of life isn't the moral issue.


----------



## Corporal Hicks (May 4, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. What kind of dog?
> 
> 2. Freud was not a determinist in any fashion, least of all in terms of biological determinism. Nor is it with Freud that such ideas originate.
> 
> 3. The necessary taking of life isn't the moral issue.


Actually, I think your find that Freud was almost a complete determinst. He believed that free will, was an illusion. At least according to my pyschology lesson today on reductionism. 

Regards


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 4, 2005)

If that's really what they taught you, your lesson was inaccurate.

It's common, these days, for psych classes to grossly misrepresent Freud, getting both his ideas and his wacky mistakes wrong.

But to go back to the theme here, Freud would probably say something to the effect that we might want to really think about the role that sadism, and the fantasy of perfect control of the natural world, play in our institutionalization of animal testing.


----------



## raedyn (May 4, 2005)

Ender said:
			
		

> I have worked for a medical testing device manufacturer and I can tell you that alot of the testing on animals is GOVERNMENT/FDA required. We could do away with alot of these tests through the use of computer modeling, but the government relies on "tried and true" methods of testing. ... <b>We could do away with these tests and dramatically bring down the price of prescription drugs.</b>[Ed. - emphasis added]


Ha! Don't kid yourself. It'd just be bigger profit margins in the pharmaceutical companies' pockets. 

/off-topic


----------



## OUMoose (May 4, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I would kill every rat and mouse on Earth if it meant the cure for cancer. If folks truly think they are on par with animals, perhaps they should go throw themselves in front of hunters bullets and free us all of their silly selves.


I prefer to use the moral dilemma that you could cure cancer, but for whatever reason, you'd have to eviscerate your newbord son/daughter to do it... Could you?

To answer Corporal Hicks, I don't believe we're on par with animals, which also entails that we're above the wholesale slaughter/torture of them.  Personally, I say we use another group of animals.  Convicts.  No-chance-of-parole lifers, or death-row inmates.  They've proven they're less than human by some sort of depraved act, and they're kept in cages for their life (just like the lab animals).  Solve two problems with one solution!  But wait, that would be "cruel and unusual punishment", right?  Hmmm... dilemmas...


----------



## Corporal Hicks (May 4, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> If that's really what they taught you, your lesson was inaccurate.
> 
> It's common, these days, for psych classes to grossly misrepresent Freud, getting both his ideas and his wacky mistakes wrong.
> 
> But to go back to the theme here, Freud would probably say something to the effect that we might want to really think about the role that sadism, and the fantasy of perfect control of the natural world, play in our institutionalization of animal testing.


Ok I'm not having a go, this is what I got taught today lol!

"Freud, 'physic determinism' = events do not occur by chance and are related to unconscious processes (example of biological determinism) and that free will is an illusion. Supported by Skinner (1971)  "What we do is dicated by force or punishment!"

Ah, I agree with you on the fantasy part of the idea that he may adopt. The idea that humans think, or at least like to show that they have control over the natural world in which they live in. 

How should we judge this? Can we judge it at all? Do we really have control over animals? Is there a reason to be moral?

Kind Regards, please dont take offence rmcrobertson!  

CH


----------



## Ray (May 4, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> You're dog and your child are sitting in the street with a truck barreling down on them...which one do you save?


With the way my 16 yr old has been behaving lately, I'd have to think about that one.  Lucky for me, he's the last of 5.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 4, 2005)

Not offended in the least--however, Freud is not a biological determinist, nor is he much like Skinner. Skinner's pretty much a straight-line development from Pavlov's stuff on classical conditioning; with Freud, different people won't even agree on exactly what the stimulus was, let alone what the response would be. 

What Freud is, is pessimistic. I quite agree that he'd be all over the fantasy of being Lords of The Earth that's behind a lot of the ways we swagger around the joint. 

Do you know the Mark Twain story about the judgment of the animals? the one where Man goes on trial--and the only two animals who will speak up for him are the dog--and the mosquito?


----------



## Tgace (May 4, 2005)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> I prefer to use the moral dilemma that you could cure cancer, but for whatever reason, you'd have to eviscerate your newbord son/daughter to do it... Could you?


No..but why are we comparing humans to animals.....again? The point being that I value human live above animal life. Which reminds me of that issue of a few years back where cancer researchers were finding that the bark of a specific tree had cancer curing properties, but to cut them down risked the spotted owl population. If the scientists could say with certainty that those trees could "cure" cancer Id say "bye bye" to the Owls. Countless people (and their families) being spared the anguish of cancer far outweighs the Owl in my book. So my comparison has some realistic merit....


----------



## Corporal Hicks (May 4, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Not offended in the least--however, Freud is not a biological determinist, nor is he much like Skinner. Skinner's pretty much a straight-line development from Pavlov's stuff on classical conditioning; with Freud, different people won't even agree on exactly what the stimulus was, let alone what the response would be.


LOL :uhyeah: Nice! See what you did there. I think I pretty much agree now with your view on Freud, but I'm going off topic so...

No I dont know the story, think I might look it up!

Cheers!

Regards


----------



## Corporal Hicks (May 4, 2005)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> I prefer to use the moral dilemma that you could cure cancer, but for whatever reason, you'd have to eviscerate your newbord son/daughter to do it... Could you?
> 
> To answer Corporal Hicks, I don't believe we're on par with animals, which also entails that we're above the wholesale slaughter/torture of them. Personally, I say we use another group of animals. Convicts. No-chance-of-parole lifers, or death-row inmates. They've proven they're less than human by some sort of depraved act, and they're kept in cages for their life (just like the lab animals). Solve two problems with one solution! But wait, that would be "cruel and unusual punishment", right? Hmmm... dilemmas...


As for the first part, weighing it all up, I could not do it, I freely admit that I could not. I have never had a son or daughter, being 17 thats not for a while yet (I hope). 
But that is simply a imagined moral dilemma thats been put there for a basis of this kind of arguement, it trys to compare the current situation with this falsified one and some people find it irritating when its done so. The point is, I don't neither does anybody else here (I hope also) have to eviscerate their newborn son or daughter so they can find a cure of cancer. So why use that moral dilemma? 
Ok, say for the sake of arguement I did have to. Now tell me, who would suffer pyschologically more....

Myself having to eviscerate my children.
Or a dog having to eviscerate its (which is not possible so lets say somebody else did it and the dog was watching).

Who is going to feel the after effects more? Me or the dog?

This I suppose bringing it back to what somebody else stated earlier about there being a higher state of consiousness within humans. The dog may know at that present moment it has lost something, it doesnt understand why or how, it maybe feels it, but within a couple of days/weeks its forgotten, unless somebody can show a study which disproves it either way?

The moral dilemmas that I was referring to were situations such as:

Your a train operator, the bridge is up and the trains hurtling towards the bridge. You can lower the bridge and definately save the passengers but in doing so you will kill your son who is trapped in the machinery of the bridge. Or you can save your son, and risk killing those on the train when it rides off the bridge. You have five seconds, what do you decide?

I point I'm trying to make is, deal with the situation at hand. Thats the most important factor!

As for the second part. I have to say I totally agree with you!!! But what if I said to you, your son's one of those convicts? Still want to test on him?

No offence meant at all, just trying to debate!
Kind Regards

CH


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 4, 2005)

And when you've sacrificed all of Nature to short-term human desires and needs, when you've chopped down all the trees and whacked out all the owls, what exactly are you planning on doing for an air supply, for water, for food, and for a place to go for a walk that isn't a mall?

It's a false dichotomy. We aren't separate from the natural world, and we don't have to trash the joint and kill everything in it just to stay alive. Nor do we have to pretend to be holier-than-thou, and ignore the fact that we live off nature at every level.


----------



## Corporal Hicks (May 4, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And when you've sacrificed all of Nature to short-term human desires and needs, when you've chopped down all the trees and whacked out all the owls, what exactly are you planning on doing for an air supply, for water, for food, and for a place to go for a walk that isn't a mall?
> 
> It's a false dichotomy. We aren't separate from the natural world, and we don't have to trash the joint and kill everything in it just to stay alive. Nor do we have to pretend to be holier-than-thou, and ignore the fact that we live off nature at every level.


Yeah I'll second that! :lookie: :drinkbeer


----------



## Tgace (May 4, 2005)

I dont consider the possibility of things like curing cancer "short term human needs"...killing animals to test the latest eye make-up, thats a whole different story. Wantonly killing for trivial needs is wrong, however not exploring a possible cure to cancer because it may put a localized species of Owl at risk is wrong IMO. One thing that sets us apart from animals is that we can weigh reward vs. risk...


----------



## Adept (May 4, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And when you've sacrificed all of Nature to short-term human desires and needs, when you've chopped down all the trees and whacked out all the owls, what exactly are you planning on doing for an air supply, for water, for food, and for a place to go for a walk that isn't a mall?
> 
> It's a false dichotomy. We aren't separate from the natural world, and we don't have to trash the joint and kill everything in it just to stay alive. Nor do we have to pretend to be holier-than-thou, and ignore the fact that we live off nature at every level.


 Like I said earlier, it's natural selection at work. If though our greed, we make the planet uninhabitable for us, then we die. And it's our own fault. And maybe in a few hundred million years we'll have a new 'top-dog' race which isn't so self centered.

 Or maybe our ingenuity will win through, and we'll develop oxygen manufacturing processes, etc, and survive anyway.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 5, 2005)

Considering that the way we've polluted is the direct cause of a great deal of cancer, perhaps it doesn't altogether make sense to argue that because we've caused cancer rates to go up and up by trashing the planet this somehow justifies more trashing of the planet.


----------



## Adept (May 5, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Considering that the way we've polluted is the direct cause of a great deal of cancer, perhaps it doesn't altogether make sense to argue that because we've caused cancer rates to go up and up by trashing the planet this somehow justifies more trashing of the planet.


 Justification will always be relative.


----------



## Tgace (May 5, 2005)

Yeah! Let all those people die of cancer! They had it coming anyway. You reap what ya sow! **** em! :shrug:


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 5, 2005)

Or, we could try a rational point--like dealing with the fact that there's a circular logic involved in saying that we have to sacrifice animals to cure diseases that are, in part, caused by our cheerful willingness to sacrifice animals and the rest of the natural world we inhabit.

Or, we could try looking at reality, and noting that here, on this planet, the waste and stupidity upon which we have built a lot of our lives and our economy is precisely what's making us sick. 

Or, we could try at least taking an clear look at what we're doing with medical research, and having a serious discussion of the ethics, economics and needs involved. 

As opposed to reciting shibboleths and slogans, and refusing to look at reality or consider the implications and effects of our actions in a meaningful fashion.


----------



## arnisador (May 5, 2005)

Animal sacrifice causes cancer?

Sorry, cancer is caused by having DNA. Environmental triggers make it come sooner, but everyone would die of cancer if they lived long enough. Errors happen.

Look, a serious discussion of health care economics isn't on the horizon, but medical advances are. It's survival. You seem to think we're a "guilty species" but it isn't species that struggle to survive--just individuals. And curing cancer helps individuals.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (May 5, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Animal sacrifice causes cancer?
> 
> Sorry, cancer is caused by having DNA. Environmental triggers make it come sooner, but everyone would die of cancer if they lived long enough. Errors happen.
> 
> Look, a serious discussion of health care economics isn't on the horizon, but medical advances are. It's survival. You seem to think we're a "guilty species" but it isn't species that struggle to survive--just individuals. And curing cancer helps individuals.


Groups struggle to survive, not just individuals.

I think we would be able to help reduce things like cancer rates by dutting back the huge amount of toxins that are dumped into our air and water every year.  It's really astounding.

As to what was said earlier on in the thread - eating meat (or keeping animals for dairy, or pets) is not the same as some animal experimentation.  Some sectors of business conduct tests that are simply not necessary, and cause really nasty pain and suffering in these critters.

Shooting a deer for its meat, fishing in the river, slaughtering a cow for dinner - are very different than making an animal suffer with a certain massive amount of a particular chemical until 50% of the test subjects die.


----------



## arnisador (May 5, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Groups struggle to survive, not just individuals.


 Do you mean in the sense of a herd, or a hive--a collective? My point was that a species doesn't struggle--its members do. A single snake battles a single mongoose. A single bird collects food for itself and perhaps those few in its nest. If one species dies out, it's the result of many _individual_ and uncoordinated battles.


----------



## Corporal Hicks (May 6, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Do you mean in the sense of a herd, or a hive--a collective? My point was that a species doesn't struggle--its members do. A single snake battles a single mongoose. A single bird collects food for itself and perhaps those few in its nest. If one species dies out, it's the result of many _individual_ and uncoordinated battles.


Humans are a hive society, ruled by one chaos factor called _*Indiviuality*._

_quote: Aliens_


----------



## Raewyn (May 6, 2005)

I agree that we need to test to be able to acertain whether or not certain treatments will work or not.  Unfortunately because we cant communicate with animals on the same level as we communciate with each other (humans that is) then the animals are the ones that get sacrificed so to speak.  But when is enough, enough???   We are always going to prey on the weaker species that is the way life is.  I am an animal activist to a certain degree.  There are times when you do need to test in an humane way.  You cannot compare children with dogs or such.  In some ways you are damned if you do and damed if you dont.  Where do we draw the line between testing on animals and mistreating them!! I agree with testing animals with cures that could cure the human race.  But testing animals for make up to make us look better!!!  that is something completely different.


----------



## Shaolinwind (May 6, 2005)

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> Hi,
> I dont know if this has been a thread before, I apologise if it has.
> I'm only 17 but I understand that in Britain in the 60's and 70's there was a huge boom of animal rights activists, started by a woman who went undercover in a lab and bought out pictures of beagles (dogs) smoking. I understand a guy called Peter Singer may have contributed to this with his book on Species-ism. I'm currently studying this for my exams as this guy is apparently a philsopher and I need to know about animal rights in different religions etc etc.
> 
> ...


Animal tests were made manditory sometime in the 30s I believe after someone died using mascara.   The end result, mascara that won't kill you.  Worth it? That's up to individuals to decide. I'll keep my opinion out of it as it is unimportant here.

Even though cosmetic X states "never tested on animals"  I am guessing there's a good chance that one of the chemical compounds in that cosmetic was tested on animals at some point.  We probably all benefit from animal testing every day, possibly several times a day.  

Perhaps that equates to, by default, a lot less cosmetic testing then there used to be?

  In your research, have you found any info on the amount of cosmetic testing being done in recent years vs. decades past? I imagine it will be hard getting an accurate report on that considering all the biased parties with an agenda.


----------



## Corporal Hicks (May 6, 2005)

Chobaja said:
			
		

> Animal tests were made manditory sometime in the 30s I believe after someone died using mascara. The end result, mascara that won't kill you. Worth it? That's up to individuals to decide. I'll keep my opinion out of it as it is unimportant here.
> 
> Even though cosmetic X states "never tested on animals" I am guessing there's a good chance that one of the chemical compounds in that cosmetic was tested on animals at some point. We probably all benefit from animal testing every day, possibly several times a day.
> 
> ...


Thats a good point, during our studies we never did look at what was done  before the media hit out and 'discovered it'. 
Unless I'm misunderstanding you it is actually quite hard to find reports, as as you have stated there are too many biased parties out there. So far all I've come up with, Anti-vivesection and Pro-Animal Rights pages with reports and studies on why or why not animals should be used. 

I agree with you on the labels too, just because it says it hasnt doesnt mean it hasnt. Seems that people simply look at the label and it secures their feelings that they are buying a protect thats not tested on animals and therefore their conscious no longer worries. Maybe if they thought it through they might think "well hang on, what do they actually test it on?"

Am I getting you wrong? Sorry if I am!

Kind Regards


----------



## Shaolinwind (May 6, 2005)

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> Thats a good point, during our studies we never did look at what was done before the media hit out and 'discovered it'.
> Unless I'm misunderstanding you it is actually quite hard to find reports, as as you have stated there are too many biased parties out there. So far all I've come up with, Anti-vivesection and Pro-Animal Rights pages with reports and studies on why or why not animals should be used.
> 
> I agree with you on the labels too, just because it says it hasnt doesnt mean it hasnt. Seems that people simply look at the label and it secures their feelings that they are buying a protect thats not tested on animals and therefore their conscious no longer worries. Maybe if they thought it through they might think "well hang on, what do they actually test it on?"
> ...


You got my meaning 100%.  

I think that you won't be able to find any good information...  Cosmetic companies aren't going to advertise how much live animal testing they need to do, and animal rights groups are going to make up lies like they always do.  Good luck getting some real facts!


----------



## Shaolinwind (May 6, 2005)

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> Hi,
> I dont know if this has been a thread before, I apologise if it has.
> I'm only 17 but I understand that in Britain in the 60's and 70's there was a huge boom of animal rights activists, started by a woman who went undercover in a lab and bought out pictures of beagles (dogs) smoking. I understand a guy called Peter Singer may have contributed to this with his book on Species-ism. I'm currently studying this for my exams as this guy is apparently a philsopher and I need to know about animal rights in different religions etc etc.
> 
> ...


So, this is for exams.  Is your teacher allowing you to form your own opinions?


----------



## Corporal Hicks (May 8, 2005)

Chobaja said:
			
		

> So, this is for exams. Is your teacher allowing you to form your own opinions?


Yes we are, but we also have to argue them from different points of view. I.e. in the exam you can say your own view at the end of the essay but you must also say "however, somebody may disagree with this view because". You can have your own opinion, the classes are technically classes where you debate certain points and ethical issues!

 Basically we have to know:

a) General Knowledge on Animal Rights: What it is, why there is so much hype about it, who said what about it i.e. Philosphers. Does it relate to moral virtues such as Arisotle and McEnytre (however you spell his name)? 

b) View on animal rights from at least one religion, usually decided by pupil

c) Include both sides of the story, why it is or is not ethical and give a balanced conclusion.

Kind Regards


----------



## Kane (May 18, 2005)

I am against animal experimentation on great apes such as gorillas, chimps, or orangs because I think great apes are to high enough animal to use for experiments. They are after all a naked ape and the great apes are our closest ancestors.

 I don't see the problem with rats or mice though. They are afterall a species with more of a population than our own and besides they are not as high up as great apes.


----------



## Corporal Hicks (May 18, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> I am against animal experimentation on great apes such as gorillas, chimps, or orangs because I think great apes are to high enough animal to use for experiments. They are after all a naked ape and the great apes are our closest ancestors.
> 
> I don't see the problem with rats or mice though. They are afterall a species with more of a population than our own and besides they are not as high up as great apes.


The only problem I could see with that arguement, is somebody might say: Says who? Who says great apes or humans are more higher on a scale than rats and mice? Since the human population completely outbalances other species shouldnt we be getting rid of our own?

 Taken as red......I totally agree with you


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 18, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Again, I feel it's necessary to point out that as human beings, we don't have to be limited by our biology. Unless, of course, we continue to demonstrate the kind of contempt for everything else that all too much of animal testing displays.
> 
> I'd think it wouldn't be that difficult to construct a moral measure for such tests--one on which, say, heart surgery would rate fairly high, and testing lipstick and hair gel would rate fairly low.
> 
> ...


You keep mixing your causes. Protecting my water supply so I won't get sick, and my children will have a healthy planet is good, because it benefits me. Conducting experimentation on animals to make my life better ALSO benefits me. Again, the two are not even closely related. Being bound by biology isn't the issue, either. Making logical decisions that benefit the human race, however, is. If you want to talk about bound by biology, lets talk about being biologically bound to a misplaced empathetic response toward animals that is built on nothing more than an evolutionary response to protect OUR young. That's truly being bound by biology.



			
				Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> The only problem I could see with that arguement, is somebody might say: Says who? Who says great apes or humans are more higher on a scale than rats and mice? Since the human population completely outbalances other species shouldnt we be getting rid of our own?
> 
> Taken as red......I totally agree with you


Any animal that decides that it's own species is worth LESS than other species is maladaptive. Any animal that believes it's own species is not worth MORE than other species is maladaptive. As a survival trait, believing that the lives of other species is as valuable as the life of your own is a genetic dead end. I am a human, and as such, I believe humans are more valuable than other species. To say otherwise would be to be to follow an absurd logic that has no basis in reality. If I were a kangaroo, I would be expected to help ensure the survival of my species. To do other than what is in our nature as a species is silliness in the extreme. Any philosophical frame work that spreads this notion is parasitical in my view.

I think what needs to be examined is the source of this bizarre notion that has brought us to the point where some in our species believe that humans are some sort of blight. There had to be a jumping off point, philosophically, that has lead to this. That would be an interesting topic. Perhaps it's nothing but Nietzsche's slave morality taken to an ultimate extreme, or it's simply empathy and anthropomorphism gone astray. Perhaps it's the effect of too many Walt Disney movies. 

I had a theory that it is simply misplaced parental emotion. Put simply, human beings, along with all mammals, have live young. There is, naturally, an attachment to young that protects them from our impulses and makes them valuable and bonded TOO us. Otherwise, we would kill them when they start screaming in the middle of the night. 

So, some trait of a baby triggers an emotional, empathetic, protective response in us that protects the baby and causes us to invest time protecting and nurturing it. We can call this trait of babies "Cuteness". Females, being those mammals who have offspring and are the primary earlier care givers, would be expected to be the sex most likely to be responsive to "cuteness". Males, somewhat less so. 

This view of "cuteness" also gets projected on to animals that have traits similar to babies. The fact that we respond to the offspring of most mammals with a similar adortation that we do small children is very telling. At any rate, this displaced "cuteness" response has lead to the displaced empathy toward all animals that has lead many to embrace a philosophical mother protectiveness to any "cute" animals, and finally, all animals. 

This is probably why women, by and large, were the first to begin the animal rights movement. Though, more sensitive men also are subject to this "Cuteness" response. That is why it was the cute animals (remember baby seals) that were the first to get protected. However, as the philosophy began to develop, it spread to protecting MOST animals.  This, because cognitive dissonance compels us to be consistent in our thinking.  If we decide to protect SOME animals (because they are cute), why are not all animals deserving of protection.  So, those who protected the cute animals, finally had protect ALL animals to alleviate this cognitive dissonance.

As such, misplaced maternal instinct is not a logical argument against medical research.


----------

