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

91–100 of 319 posts

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#91

Post by ezconnect »

metta2uall wrote: post #68

Lets also consider how much more money and brainpower would be redirected to the development of significantly more advanced technologies if experimentation on animals was to be even partially banned. Things like more advanced simulations, tissue/organ engineering and better non-invasive testing of humans. "Necessity is the mother of invention" and currently animal testing is often the "easy" and "obvious" way to do s…

How would you prove the simulation and organ engineering works? Test it on humans?

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#92

Post by ezconnect »

endisneigh wrote: post #29

TLDR: instead of testing on animals we should use computer simulations and tissue cultures instead. The authors comparison of kernel bugs to lab testing mice is ridiculous to be honest. The author cherry picks examples like cosmetics to justify their view, failing to acknowledge a long history of successful testing on animals that led to drugs that help reduce human suffering. All in all I think the post is bad

How would you know the simulator is accurate?

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#93

Post by omega3 »

eurg wrote: post #81
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.

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.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#95

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

#96

Post by rootusrootus »

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.

That seems like a perfectly legitimate question. Is it a good idea to anthropomorphize other animals? Is it beneficial to society overall to make macro-level policy decisions based on moral beliefs that are more of a personal thing?

FWIW, HN on the weekend is a different beast entirely than it is on weekdays. Even dang needs some time off, and the reduction in moderation can be glaringly obvious. Makes me really appreciate how much of the 'HN we all love' is a result of his efforts as much as it is a general consensus by participants on this site.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#97

Post by rootusrootus »

eurg wrote: post #81
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.

> 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.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#98

Post by indymike »

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.

Finding high protein / low carbohydrate plants to eat is hard. Many meatless meat products are hyper-processed. Last I looked a huge part of the population is diabetic. They can't eat grains, can eat small servings of nuts, fruits are mostly out, and greens alone aren't sustainable nutrition.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#99

Post by fennecfoxen »

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…

It appears that universities are held to different standards of reputation than are poultry farms and slaughterhouses.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#100

Post by rootusrootus »

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…

> That is insane, and psychopathic. But it is shared by many (most?) humans.

Is that not a contradiction? When you find yourself thinking that the majority of humans are the abnormal ones...

Post reply on HN