71–80 of 84 posts
The train of thought that has me leaning towards becoming vegetarian is along the lines of: If an advanced alien species came to Earth, how would I want them to treat humans? How about in the case that they are advanced to a level that comparing their abilities and technology to humans would be the same as comparing human technology and abilities to that of birds or dogs or cows? Would I want them to dismiss our prim…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, people kept on doing animal test after the deformities were confirmed on rabbits. That just makes it more fucked up, not less.
You are not understanding the situation. Let suposse that a mass murder kills 5000 babies, and mutilates other 5000. There will be a trial, right?, this is serious stuff. A complex trial with thousands of victims waiting for justice. Will the lawyer of the victims, jump in this legal battlefield like going for a picnic, and show triumphant their one and only proof?("rabbits, didn't feel the need to investigate furthe…
I can say with confidence that this sort of thing would never occur in a modern research laboratory. Note that standards for ethical experimentation on animals (including humans) hadn't really appeared until the 70s and 80s. A couple of points here: Any type of animal experimentation must be accompanied by an IACUC protocol that is approved by a committee, typically at least 3 people, and usually including a veterina…
Animals suffer horrible lives naturally too, and on a much more massive scale. If you're really against animal suffering and dying then a far bigger problem is the existence of wild animals with peak populations, unreliable food supplies, predators, fights and disease. Stopping animal research is like trying to stop global warming by driving slower. Feels like you're making a difference but you're not .
I think this is a weak argument, because you could just as well use it to argue for conducting these experiments on humans: Humans suffer horrible lives naturally too, and on a much more massive scale. If you're really against human suffering and dying then a far bigger problem is the existence of humans with peak populations, unreliable food supplies, murderers, fights and disease. Stopping research on humans is lik…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, but starting from reasonable-sounding principles of ethics and following their logical consequences is how I became an anarcho-capitalist in my early 20's. Ethics can't be reduced to math.
I don't think caring for the well being of animals is that far out of the mainstream of ethical thinking. Besides, it's my own take on the book, and perhaps Mark Rowlands wouldn't even recognise it from my description. Perhaps I didn't do it justice.
You can care for the well being of animals without completely ruling out animal experimentation. For instance, you could say, "the well being of animals is important, but less important than saving human lives".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think caring for the well being of animals is that far out of the mainstream of ethical thinking. Besides, it's my own take on the book, and perhaps Mark Rowlands wouldn't even recognise it from my description. Perhaps I didn't do it justice.
> I don't think caring for the well being of animals is that far out of the mainstream of ethical thinking. You can care for the well being of animals without completely ruling out animal experimentation. For instance, you could say, "the well being of animals is important, but less important than saving human lives".
But the lowest hanging fruit is killing animals for meat. Mainly for the joy of having a nice taste in their mouth people who don't really need it eat vast quantities of clever, sentient animals who lead miserable, short lives. The trade off seems easy to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I recently attended a parents' meeting for the elementary school science fair. If the 5th-grade students were doing an experiment that involved animals, they had to fill out a stack of forms and collect the signature of a vet. If the experiment involved humans-- even if that involvement was as simple as answering a question -- each human participant had to sign a form. My kid, who also attended, said, "I'm doing my e…
Annoying? Likely, but once you have seen the abuses that have taken place over the last 50 years you will see why that is necessary.
We don't need more gatekeepers dictating morality to us.
The abuses demand oversight, it is true. But that oversight does not require professional qualifications. Something that shocks the conscience of a Nobel laureate will likely also shock the conscience of high-school dropouts. The very same peer jury system that is capable of condemning a criminal human to state execution or awarding millions of dollars in civil restitution can certainly determine whether a method of sacrificing research animals to science is acceptable or not.
The same public concerns that led to the retrofit of commercial slaughterhouses with more humane Grandin animal handling systems can be applied to research animals. My suggestion is this: for any given experiment that involves potential harm or injury to animals, assemble a randomized, unbiased, volunteer jury of at least 12 people. Explain to them the goals of the experiment and the protocols, and the proposed animal involvement. If no more than 25% of the jury objects, the experiment may begin immediately. Otherwise, rewrite the protocols and try again. Ethics approval could take days instead of months.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Her lab job was to kill rats in the lab(adults, and babies). She would slam their heads into a piece of granite. Some times multiple times. (btw--she had horrid dexterity) NO IACUC at any university or any veterinarian would approve this. > Years ago some Researcher put a plywood cover on his truck. He then filled the truck with live piglets. He then went four wheel driving. He claimed to be studying orthopedic inj…
>If anything there is TOO MUCH regulation. If you entertain the possibility that an animal can suffer as much as a human being, then all the regulation in the world is not enough. Consider even the most humane animal experiment, replace the animal with a human being, and see how you feel about it. Animals are living beings that we share the planet with; let them live their lives out in their natural environment. Anim…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If anything there is TOO MUCH regulation. If you entertain the possibility that an animal can suffer as much as a human being, then all the regulation in the world is not enough. Consider even the most humane animal experiment, replace the animal with a human being, and see how you feel about it. Animals are living beings that we share the planet with; let them live their lives out in their natural environment. Anim…
The fact of the matter is that translational life science, medical device development, and pharmaceutical development are not safely possible without animal experimentation at this time. Our in vitro and computer models are simply not good enough to accurately mimic the human body. It's completely legitimate to take the stance that animals should never suffer, but then you must also be willing to accept that our abil…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think caring for the well being of animals is that far out of the mainstream of ethical thinking. You can care for the well being of animals without completely ruling out animal experimentation. For instance, you could say, "the well being of animals is important, but less important than saving human lives".
If only we took that as a measure ('is this so important that it can save human lives'), we'd stop the vast majority of testing on animals. So that would be an easy win. But the lowest hanging fruit is killing animals for meat. Mainly for the joy of having a nice taste in their mouth people who don't really need it eat vast quantities of clever, sentient animals who lead miserable, short lives. The trade off seems ea…
I wasn't really looking for an argument about animal rights, though if you really want to get into it, my foundational moral principles are that morality is fundamentally reciprocal in nature, and since animals are incapable of reciprocation, morality doesn't apply to them; a dog isn't immoral for biting a toddler to death (though it may very well be poorly trained), nor am I immoral for eating a delicious double bacon cheeseburger; regardless of the "cleverness" or "sentience" of the cattle and pigs I'm eating, they are fundamentally incapable of morality and so there is no moral significance to anything they experience.