61–70 of 146 posts
I understand the need to test pain response for medical purposes, but I can't shake the feeling that in a few hundred years we're going to look back on the use of animals in pain studies and think it's barbarism.
I doubt that the current trend of indulging empathy instinct to no end can last that long.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nothing makes a human being's life more important than the life of a lab mouse. Is this hyperbole, or do you seriously believe this?
Of course I seriously believe it. It really should be necessary for people who don't believe it to explain themselves. That is rejecting the null hypothesis, so to speak.
I understand the need to test pain response for medical purposes, but I can't shake the feeling that in a few hundred years we're going to look back on the use of animals in pain studies and think it's barbarism.
If we reach a point where computer models are close enough, I don't think people will look back and see it as barbarism more than now. People will simply look back and see it as the strange and alien time before computer models, and mostly be fascinated how different life must have been.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nothing makes a human being's life more important than the life of a lab mouse. Is this hyperbole, or do you seriously believe this?
Of course I seriously believe it. It really should be necessary for people who don't believe it to explain themselves. That is rejecting the null hypothesis, so to speak.
So let's take it all the way. What makes the life of a lab mouse more valuable than the life of a single cell of yeast?
I think answers about awareness and capability just rationalize the fact that intuitively some life forms are more sympathetic to us than others. We will draw the line at some level of sympathy, but only as far as practicality allows us.
A human life is more valuable than the life of a lab mouse because a human is more sympathetic than a mouse and it is impractical to value lab mice highly. That's the only answer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course I seriously believe it. It really should be necessary for people who don't believe it to explain themselves. That is rejecting the null hypothesis, so to speak.
It all comes down to the level of self awarenes and emotional development demonstrated by species. Some primates come close enough to young human children in that regard to cast at least some doubt, but mice? Yes, we probably shouldn't kill them for fun, but saying that their lives are worth as much as human lives is ridiculous and insulting to all humans.
Why does it come down to self awareness and emotional development? Because of suffering? Nothing about this is obvious, but I believe (given lack of evidence to the contrary and given that mice and human brains are similar enough) that mice suffer as much as humans. This is my belief -- not an argument intended to convince others.
> saying that their lives are worth as much as human lives is ridiculous and insulting to all humans.
Anything unconventional is ridiculous. But how is it insulting to humans? Are we supposed to be at the top somehow? This is a religious argument you seem to be making.
This is a touchy topic, and I don't think productive discussion will obtain here, so I will not make any further comments in this thread.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we reach a point where computer models are close enough, I don't think people will look back and see it as barbarism more than now. People will simply look back and see it as the strange and alien time before computer models, and mostly be fascinated how different life must have been.
I kind of doubt that emergent properties can be modeled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It all comes down to the level of self awarenes and emotional development demonstrated by species. Some primates come close enough to young human children in that regard to cast at least some doubt, but mice? Yes, we probably shouldn't kill them for fun, but saying that their lives are worth as much as human lives is ridiculous and insulting to all humans.
> It all comes down to the level of self awarenes and emotional development demonstrated by species. Why does it come down to self awareness and emotional development? Because of suffering? Nothing about this is obvious, but I believe (given lack of evidence to the contrary and given that mice and human brains are similar enough) that mice suffer as much as humans. This is my belief -- not an argument intended to con…
It might not convince you completely of this point, but it will force you to seriously consider your arguments, and is therefore in my opinion a great intellectual exercise.
The article writes that in 2016 the “National Institutes of Health (NIH) made it a requirement for grant applicants to justify their choice of the sex of animals used in experiments.” I can only imagine that some people took this as yet another example of political correctness creeping in to the public sphere. Hopefully the results from this study helps to bolster more scientific studies using diverse populations (in…
The first thing I thought to myself when I read this headline is that certain people are probably going to get offended by someone pointing out physiological differences between sexes.
I can understand why you might find that a silly reaction. It is indeed obvious that there are many physiological differences between men and women. However, one reason I think people get worried about this kind of research is that it can be cited as justification for treating men and women differently in situations where it is certainly not warranted. I'm not saying there's no value to research like this, but I also…
I understand the need to test pain response for medical purposes, but I can't shake the feeling that in a few hundred years we're going to look back on the use of animals in pain studies and think it's barbarism.
I doubt it, but only because from a utilitarian standpoint, using animals for research purposes is not even a drop in the bucket. Humanity slaughters billions of animals each year just because they're tasty. At least the research animals have some benefit beyond a single person's satiation. I do wonder how long it will be before people start vandalizing statues of historical figures because they ate meat.
It's very likely that people find meat tasty because it's nutritious, just as we find sugar and plant fats tasty. Your comment makes it sound as if eating meat is some kind of indulgence, like eating sweets.
Meat is a rich source of protein and energy. We don't need any more justification than that to want to eat other animals. There are practical matters of efficiency and of the ethics of kiling animals at scale, in industrial farming, that are far more important and interesting to discuss than the nebulous idea of the morality of eating any meat at all.
At the end of the day- many animals eat other animals' meat. Why is it any different for humans to do the same?
>> At least the research animals have some benefit beyond a single person's satiation.
I don't understand this. Even a chicken is large enough to feed two people. Larger animals can feed a family for several days.