Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

erichgrunewald.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 319 posts

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#81

Post by eurg »

omega3 wrote: post #76

Unpopular opinion but I'm yet to hear a convincing argument that the reduction of suffering is something that we should strive for. Edit, looking at the replies I'm disappointed in hn, expected better.

If the reduction of suffering is not something that you internally see as valuable, you might want to check with a psychologist (I mean that plain matter-of-fact-ly). While I can construct philosophical arguments and know what nihilism is, outside of thought experiments this is highly unusual for any individual capable of any empathy at all.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#82

Post by thaumasiotes »

tffgg wrote: post #16
thaumasiotes wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's safe to say that, in all countries, people are more comfortable with animal testing than with human testing. The quality of results from human testing is many orders of magnitude better; if you're willing to do it, there's no point in doing any animal testing.

1. He refered to countries using humans for testing being a leap 2. Using humans for testing makes no sense bc. animals are exactly used to avoid early testing on humans

What do you believe is the conflict between these two statements?

>> if you're willing to do [human testing], there's no point in doing any animal testing.

> animals are exactly used to avoid early testing on humans

These are two statements of the same idea.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#83

Post by tsbischof »

eigenket wrote: post #35

As an academic who isn't directly involved in anything close to animal testing (I'm a physicist) I always find it strange that people working in biology have to jump through incredible hoops relating to how the animals they work with are treated, but then the lunch place in the biology department sells sandwiches with chicken, ham etc in with incredibly minimal oversight for how the animals are treated. The differenc…

In practice it generally comes down to demonstratable utility more than direct concerns about animal well-being. At the most basic level, if you can learn a useful lesson from subjecting an animal to whatever conditions, then the work is generally approvable. But if the researcher has not done their due diligence in experimental design then the whole operation is pointless, or worse than pointless if they then go and p-hack their way through a publication.

For a physics analogue, think of animal experiments like a beamline proposal. In order to get time on the beamline you need to explain what you are doing, what your experiment is intended to accomplish, and why the experiment achieves those goals. With these basic checks you can hopefully ensure that the allocated time is not obviously going to be wasted. Animal experiments can easily be about as expensive in terms of money and time as a beamline-based project, including the cost for the beamline operation itself.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#84

Post by [deleted] »

runawaybottle wrote: post #80
eigenket wrote: post #35

As an academic who isn't directly involved in anything close to animal testing (I'm a physicist) I always find it strange that people working in biology have to jump through incredible hoops relating to how the animals they work with are treated, but then the lunch place in the biology department sells sandwiches with chicken, ham etc in with incredibly minimal oversight for how the animals are treated. The differenc…

Death is not the same as torture. Kill me before you ever torture me.

[deleted]

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#85

Post by forgotmypw17 »

omega3 wrote: post #76

Unpopular opinion but I'm yet to hear a convincing argument that the reduction of suffering is something that we should strive for. Edit, looking at the replies I'm disappointed in hn, expected better.

You seem like a self-interest oriented individual, so perhaps you will find this idea worth considering:

The animals are in some ways like our collective ancestors, who have continued living the way we changed from.

The machines are in some ways like our collective offspring, finding new ways to function while we stay where we currently can't move from (carbon-DNA mechanics).

It has been observed that machines learn the same way animals do -- mostly by watching and repeating, not by "listening" to what they're told to do.

So in how we treat the animals is going to translate into how we are treated once we are no longer in power.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#86

Post by chr1 »

technocratius wrote: post #43
endisneigh wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand, you’re willing to kill tens of thousands of animals to save a single person, but are against meat consumption- an activity that inherently provides nutrients to sustain a human life?

It does so, but via an inefficient route ( plant -> animal -> human instead of plant -> human ), which causes huge sustainability and animal ethical issues.

You can't eat the plants that are eaten by the animals. Not all pastures can be converted to fields, and converting the rest will actually reduce biodiversity and cause more sustainability issues.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#87

Post by xwolfi »

eigenket wrote: post #35

As an academic who isn't directly involved in anything close to animal testing (I'm a physicist) I always find it strange that people working in biology have to jump through incredible hoops relating to how the animals they work with are treated, but then the lunch place in the biology department sells sandwiches with chicken, ham etc in with incredibly minimal oversight for how the animals are treated. The differenc…

Yet I think both these concerns come from very wealthy people who have time thinking those thoughts.

Most people, when they have enough money to buy a bit of meat, are relieved to have such a good intake of protein. And most life, in the broader context, doesn't even have the ability to compute this question.

I wonder if we're not overthinking it a bit. Sadistic pleasure in torturing animal should be prevented but also because it can derive to human treatment, and we should accept that animals that would never have been born if not for food or experimental purpose are just necessary for our greater good until we find something that really works better.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#88

Post by bronzeage »

Morality and compassion are traits humans evolved in order to build society and have lasting social relationships. There's nothing natural about them, nature is full of animals exploiting, killing, hunting other animals. Nature limits compassion to family and sometimes tribe / pack. Imagine a lion with compassion for zebras.

It's easy for those feelings to spill over to other animals over their intended purpose (building a human society), but people need to realize those feelings have overreached their purpose.

I argue that the only reason this guy had written this article in the first place is the introduction of mice into his family, which triggered the natural response of compassion to family members.

Humans only recently managed to convince themselves to extend compassion beyond their tribe, which is what they were programmed to.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#89

Post by bronzeage »

spodek wrote: post #33
trainsplanes wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a viewpoint that's up there with "babies can't feel pain", which was also common until the end of the last century[1], but has completely vanished since then. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_babies

Do they circumcise boys without anesthetic under similar pretense?

The pretense isn't not feeling pain, it's not wanting to remember it.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#90

Post by cogman10 »

bambax wrote: post #73
faebi wrote: post #21

Still a better usage of an animal life than eating them. I prefer to advance humanity, even minimally. If you put these numbers in comparison to animal farming, their suffering and their murdering, then it's absolutely worth it. For me it boils down to a simple set of questions. Would you murder 10'000 chickens to save your grandma's life? How about 10'000 cows? How about 10'000 rats? How about 10'000 rabbits? How ab…

> I am willing to sacrifice an insane amount of animal lives in order to save anyone human. That is insane, and psychopathic. But it is shared by many (most?) humans. The result will be that there will be no animals left, and soon afterwards, no humans left either. Another question is, how many humans are you willing to sacrifice to save your wife? Your child? Is your child worth a specific number of human lives, in…

> The result will be that there will be no animals left, and soon afterwards, no humans left either.

This is illogical.

Humans have been eating animals since the dawn of civilization. We've been using animals in experiments for centuries.

There are still animals to eat and use in experiments. Why? because animals reproduce. There aren't a fixed number of animals.

We only lose species when we kill faster then they reproduce. For experiments and food, that's an impossibility. We bread to accommodate demand.

Post reply on HN