Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective • Hacker News Board

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#111

Post by emptysongglass » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 2:09 PM UTC

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.

Because you wouldn't want to be subjected to suffering yourself. It's not complicated.

All humans everywhere desire the end of their own suffering. We're awful at minimizing it but you can see our hamfisted attempts in our seeking out of pleasures and avoidance of activities which are unpleasant, stressful, and painful.

When we observe other humans/animals hurting most of us feel with what is suffering.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#112

Post by logifail » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 2:10 PM UTC

omega3 wrote: post #93

eurg wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thanks for the diagnosis, I think it's not as highly unusual as you might think. I bet outside of their relatively small social circles humans aren't preoccupied with reduction of suffering or altruism in any meaningful way. Of course, it's not a fashionable thing to say (see the downwotes) and I'd love to be proven wrong but I just don't see it.

> I bet outside of their relatively small social circles humans aren't preoccupied with reduction of suffering or altruism in any meaningful way

Could it be that reduction of _observable_ suffering is what many people are actually concerned about, not the underlying suffering as such?

It's OK to buy a burger - just as long as you don't have to watch how it's made.

It's OK to buy a $5 imported shirt - as long as you don't have to observe the conditions under which it was produced.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#113

Post by amusedcyclist » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 2:11 PM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #108

amusedcyclist wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its true though, not being able feel empathy for anyone or thing that is not normal. So any individual who can't would be well served going to a psychologist or being expelled from society entirely. Reduction of suffering being good is generally viewed as axiomatic. I don't want any part of any moral code that doesn't assume that. And I frankly don't care about the feelings of those who are indifferent to suffering.

I think it is a pretty big leap from 'maybe this is not automatically good' to 'you must be a pscyhopath.' If there were no trade-offs, then it would be a short discussion and we could definitely fall back on axioms.

Theres a huge difference between the statements "Lots of humans eatanimals for sustenance and there is a tradeoff between the value we derive vs the suffering of the animals" vs "Prove that I should care about suffering".

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#114

Post by darksaints » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 2:11 PM UTC

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.

That's a facile understanding of efficiency. For example, many animals that we eat are dramatically more efficient at absorbing or consuming certain nutrients from plants than we are: Iron, Calcium, Zinc, B12, EPA, DHA.

If adding a step in a supply chain always introduced more net inefficiency, we would never own things like cars or televisions. The complexity you introduce by shortening the supply chain makes a whole host of things completely infeasible.

There are plenty of food sources that could work well for humans without an animal in the intermediate supply chain. But humans aren't about to start consuming their bodyweight in switchgrass or zooplankton just to get a handful of nutrients that only animal sources can easily provide us.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#115

Post by _Microft » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 2:19 PM UTC

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 dropped a controversial opinion with absolutely nothing to back it up and are now disappointed of the replies. What else did you expect instead? (Well, beside something "better")

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#116

Post by ptr2voidStar » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 2:22 PM UTC

elliekelly wrote: post #53

amelius wrote: post #44

Would you rather have your drugs tested on potatoes?

Adult humans who have given informed consent would probably be preferable to potatoes. In most cases, at least.

What if those people are people who can be exploited and coerced into "giving consent" because they are poor, and need the money?

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#117

Post by only_as_i_fall » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 2:23 PM UTC

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.

Do you honestly not understand what an outrageous comment this is?

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#118

Post by ptr2voidStar » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 2:23 PM UTC

valgor wrote: post #28

jschveibinz wrote: post #17

Ethical treatment of animals is a high priority in sponsored research: https://olaw.nih.gov/resources/tutorial/iacuc.htm

A lot of that stuff is known as humane washing in the animal rights world. Exploiting and inflicting suffering onto animals is almost always unethical. The only way to treat animals ethically is to not test on them at all.

Would you still hold that opinion if you contracted an illness that can be cured as a result of animal testing?

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#119

Post by JoeAltmaier » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 2:25 PM UTC

valgor wrote: post #28

jschveibinz wrote: post #17

Ethical treatment of animals is a high priority in sponsored research: https://olaw.nih.gov/resources/tutorial/iacuc.htm

A lot of that stuff is known as humane washing in the animal rights world. Exploiting and inflicting suffering onto animals is almost always unethical. The only way to treat animals ethically is to not test on them at all.

Well, fuzzy cute ones anyway. Surely we can test on E-Coli? How about slime molds? Maybe the occasional insect? What about shrews - they are nasty and mean.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#120

Post by matz1 » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 2:27 PM UTC

amusedcyclist wrote: post #104

rootusrootus wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mean that plain matter-of-fact-ly When you find yourself having to qualify such a statement, that could be a useful indicator that what you said isn't constructive.

Its true though, not being able feel empathy for anyone or thing that is not normal. So any individual who can't would be well served going to a psychologist or being expelled from society entirely. Reduction of suffering being good is generally viewed as axiomatic. I don't want any part of any moral code that doesn't assume that. And I frankly don't care about the feelings of those who are indifferent to suffering.

>or being expelled from society entirely

So the main reason to exploit animal is because the other human hate it and that other human could harm you. I see so it has nothing to do with the animal suffering itself.