Animal Experimentation? Rights?

[Corporal Hicks]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[heretic888]

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.

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.