Does anyone else support animal research?

[skywise]

Anyway, the belief that man is surperior is just the last tattered remnants of the Christian story of creation. Darwin blew a gigantic blow to that system of thought with the evolution theory, but to appease people who couldn't bear to think that man is just a product of contingency he said they should take comfort in the thought that we had been so great as to evolve into what we are now.

When it comes down to it though, our survival through the ages is really a very small achievment (we haven't been around THAT long) and our evolution into the conscious creator/thinkers that we are was just a matter of chance, not choice. It could have been any other species just as well as us. We really aren't so special or superior, just lucky.

Not to mention the fact that we still haven't figured out its a bad idea to poison our water. Not even my dog does that.

 

[Petersko]

We are very poorly equipped creatures. No claws, no jaws of teeth used for attack... Just ask Sigfried and Roy how durable humans are.

Yet we're on every continent on the planet, and the vast majority of us will live our whole lives without encountering a natural predator.

I do not have fur, and yet I live in a country where January temperatures can and do reach -35C. How is that possible? No other animal lacking the physical characteristics does this...

We're the only creature on the planet that has succeeded in getting OFF the planet.

What other creatures build hospitals? Which, incidently, are one of the biggest indicators of the general decency of mankind...

We are the ultimate all-purpose organism on the planet. If we can't do something alone, we'll build something to helps us do it.

You can't see why this means we are superior?

 

[justsomeguy]

hospitals are fantastic, but we also build prisons, torture chambers, and electric chairs.

the only thing that makes us superior to all the other species is our ability to say the word "superior."

 

[vegan]

Actually, we've been conducting animal research for longer than this century and the last.
Check out Descartes' Discourse on Method for a really good description of a horse's cardiovascular system via vivisection

true, my bad
but that's still nothing compared to the millions of years that man spent without experimenting on animals. and it was also very limited until one century ago because of the taboo of dissection (was more limited to "what's this body like" than to "let's try to find a cure to this disease").

i suppose i could choose to shoot my cat if it is close to dying to save it from more pain

and just why are you talking about this (euthanasia) to justify animal experimentation then? there's not much connexion.
if i did agree with a friend killing a pet to avoid its suffering, how would that make animal experimentation more acceptable in any way?

i have been into the labs and seen the procedures

and so have you seen that there are no cages, no syringes, no knives, no animals put to death after the experiences are over?

I'm saying suffering can also be had on a cellular level

and i think that damage/chemical reaction-suffering has nothing to do with my argument which is about pain/consciousness-suffering.
it's pain-suffering that i've been talking about to justify why we should at least spare animals.
(and if you prove that plants feel pain-suffering by another way, i promise i'll talk against experimentation on plants too)

Now, in most cases, suffering is associated with pain

we know it is for humans because we feel this pain-suffering through our central nervous system.
we're not sure about plant because they don't have such a NCS

----------------------
you're trying to level the consciousness of a plant to that of a human
----------------------

Once again, wherever did you get that idea from?

you said "The plant's growing behaviour is proof enough of its interest in survival." (post 1307498 )
to me, if there's no consciousness at some point, there's no interest. reactions just happen, they are not wished. the rock that resists the hit of the hammer doesn't do it on purpose, it does it by nature. it doesn't have an interest in not breaking.
that's why i interpreted "plants have interests" as "plants have some consciousness".

----------------------
please don't play with words. we're talking about pain-suffering
----------------------

Partly yes, yet the part where we're talking about non-pain-dependent suffering seems to be falling on deaf ears

because it's not the one i'm talking about.
i've used the pain-suffering argument to differentiate plants and animals
and you went on by saying "no, suffering is not such a good argument to differentiate them". but you're talking about the damage/no pain kind of suffering, you're twisting my argument.
if you want to answer to this argument, answer to the one i used, not another one.

Who's looking at a molecular level? I said a cellular level

i enlarged to include minerals in the debate.

Either that, or you're saying having a consciousness is special in some way which gives those with consciousness extra merit. To which I stated pages ago, is unjustified in that it turns a blind eye to other life forms much like racism and sexism does.

it takes talent to try to twist my own argument against me.
especially from someone who considers that not having fur or feathers gives us extra merit justifying the exploitation of those who have.
should i remind you that i am the one asking for the respect of other species?

here again i think you're trying to refute an argument that you would have used in another case : if i had said "we shouldn't hurt rocks". wouldn't you have laughed at me and said "but we are conscious whereas rocks are not! so it matters that we don't hurt humans, but not rocks"?

what i was saying is not that consciousness has anything to do with merit (there's no merit in being born this or that way), but that it changes our interest in not suffering.

Right, I'm making an acronym out of it now - WDYGTIF

i can't read thoughts

You missed a vital word in my question - MORE

so let's repeat : "if you care about plants… because you think they suffer or have an interest in living"… although it's not obvious that they do. since it's more obvious that animals suffer, then you should be more preoccupied about the ones who are more obviously suffering.
i didn't mean "you should care more about animals than plants" but that your attention should be more easily drawn to those who more obviously suffer.

you are discriminating against plants

this is ridiculous, you are discriminating against both plants and animals.

the criteria set out (consciousness) automatically exclude plants from any equality with animals

so? if the criteria is good when it comes to the problem (the "right" to experiment)?

If its ok to kill plants, then its ok to humanely kill animals

and you pretend i "miss the meaning of everything 'you' say".
what i've been saying this the beginning :
from what we know, animals have an interest in not being killed because of their consciousness
it's less than obvious than plants do.

i don't exploit animals and i barely exploit plants. what about you?

We ARE superior

no doubt
in selfishness, cruelty and arrogance we are way above everyone else

how does that give us the right to kill and torture others?

 

[Petersko]

no doubt
in selfishness, cruelty and arrogance we are way above everyone else

We actively work to help the disabled survive. When was the last time you saw a hyena build a wheelchair ramp?

We have spiritual outpourings including art and poetry.

We have hospitals.

We have services for the blind, the deaf, and for countless other conditions. In the wild those people would be the first to be eaten.

We also have selfishness, cruelty, and arrogance.

It's a mixed bag, but your narrow little view of humanity is both blind and unhelpful.

Open your eyes and acknowledge the good while you badmouth the bad.

There's a Mother Teresa for every Jack the Ripper.

 

[skywise]

^^^

Yes, our specie's "good" accomplishments are far more amazing than any other animals. However, are species' "bad" actions are far wosrst (inferior?) than any other animals. I suppose it depends on how you define "surperior" as to whether or not we're better. However, its only going to make sense for us to find the traits that we have as "surperior" so any opinion that we are is going to be bias.

Sorry for run-on sentences. NOt evenough sleep.

 

[Petersko]

However, are species' "bad" actions are far wosrst (inferior?) than any other animals.

If you mean normal bad things, well, lions are mass murderers, hyenas are thieves, gorillas are often rapists... the reason people don't look at it that way is because there IS something so fundamentally different about our intelligence that we can apply "morality" to our actions. Is a preying mantis really "better" than we are? Ask the mate, who is often headless at the end of the mating.

If you mean the big stuff like pollution, well... remember that on the evolutionary time scale, we have had a ludicrously short period in which to deal with the growing pains of that intelligence. Pollution has been an issue for what... a couple hundred years, max? Less than the blink of an eye.

Also, at some point we're going to want to get off this rock and explore the galaxy. Pretty hard to do if we abandon the technology track we're on, lest we upset the ecosystem.

 

[zorn]

Originally posted by justsomeguy

The reason those pictures are *everywhere* is that the great majority of lab setups look nothing like that. I'd go take some pictures and bring them in, but seeing a hundred rats in nice clean little cages just doesn't do the same thing to the emotions I suppose.

i encourage you to do this



honestly, i've never been to a real live animal research facility, and am only making my arguments on a "conceptual" level

lol

 

[vegan]

When was the last time you saw a hyena build a wheelchair ramp?

a hyena doesn't build a wheelchair because it doesn't have the capacity to do so. i don't know about hyena behaviour, but maybe they show mutual aid another way.
i read an article about birds in a big city who dragged an harmed bird out of the traffic so it wouldn't get hurt.
i doubt you know every type of animal's behaviour.
for instance, with the complex (and communal) society ants have, i wouldn't surprised if we could find some genuine signs of mutual aid.
have you not seen a animal mother care for its young?
have you not seen a couple of dogs care for each other?
and apart from dogs and cats, most of us don't know anything about animal behaviour.

but your narrow little view of humanity is both blind and unhelpful

we're not blind, we see both the good and bad of humans
whereas if we hadn't pointed it out, you would only have gone on about the splendour and superiority of humans.

you think humans are superior.
they are more intelligent, i agree.
but that doesn’t mean superior
an human in front of a tiger. who eats the other? who's superior?
an human and a shrimp in the sea. who survives? who's superior?
an human and a fly on top of a mountain. who can go down easily? who's superior?
an human and a scorpion undergoing nuclear radiation. who is not affected? who's superior?
an human and a bat in the dark. who finds its way? who's superior?
an human and an eagle. who sees better? who's superior?
an human and a flea. who can hide better from predators? who's superior?
an human and a spider. who can make better webs? who's superior?
…

humans, with intelligence, a lot of work and a lot of manpower overwhelm these weaknesses, but one human alone still is the weaker in all these cases. where's the superiority?
10 000 years ago human already had the mental capacities it has today.
one human 10 000 years ago = one human today
but it didn't have 10 000 of evolution that brought us tools, experience, etc to fend for ourselves.
as far as capacity goes, one human 10 000 years ago = one human today isolated from society = a very very weak animal.

If you mean normal bad things…
…Is a preying mantis really "better" than we are?

mantis don't lock up their preys in a cage during all their life. hyenas don't make up corrupted systems so they can steal more from the poor. gorillas don't drug up their victims. lions don't drop nuclear bombs on a city.

i think that's the bad things he was talking about.
things in which we are definitely superior

we have had a ludicrously short period in which to deal with the growing pains of that intelligence

and we chose to act now and take care of the consequences tomorrow
wow, i really want to piss. so i'll piss right now on your mattress, and i'll let you clean when you find it.

humans! "we'll make great pets"

 

[skywise]

Petersko

A good example of the vague "bad things" i was talking about is dropping an atomic bomb. Our atrocities are just as great as our accomplishments. So you can't point to our accomplishments and say "look, we're great and better than everything!" because someone can just as easily point to the atrocities and say "look, you're the worst thing thats ever plagued the earth!"

 

[Petersko]

you think humans are superior.
they are more intelligent, i agree.
but that doesn’t mean superior

an human in front of a tiger. who eats the other? who's superior?

The human with a rifle.

an human and a shrimp in the sea. who survives? who's superior?

A human in a submersible.

an human and a fly on top of a mountain. who can go down easily? who's superior?

A human with skis, glider, helicopter, etc..

an human and a scorpion undergoing nuclear radiation. who is not affected? who's superior?

A human in radioation protective gear or a bomb shelter.

an human and a bat in the dark. who finds its way? who's superior?

The human with a flashlight.

an human and an eagle. who sees better? who's superior?

The human with a telescope.

an human and a flea. who can hide better from predators? who's superior?

I guarantee that more fleas get eaten by predators than do humans.

an human and a spider. who can make better webs? who's superior?

Ever visit a textile mill?

You missed the fundamental point that I made. If we can't do something unaided, we build something to allow us to do it. We are the all-purpose animal, unrestricted.

We are SUPERIOR.

 

[skywise]

Petersko

Hmm...that sounds like a very self-serving definition of superior.

We make technology. No other animal does. Let's call "ability to make technology" superiority! :D

If we were the only animmal that could jump through a flaming hoop we might just as well call that "superior."

Anyway, like I've been doing, I'd argue that making technology isn't a good guage for a species' value. How is making a bomb that can do the damage seen at Hiroshima, and then dropping it on your own species (and planet), or polluting our own water source, superior to my dog who does none of these things?

And whats the real worth of technology anyway? What does it really accomplish, ultimately? At best it can make things a bit more convenient, or make a life last a few more years. Is that really something to base the claim that "humans are superior to every living thing on earth"?

And even if you do think that that is enough to base your claim on, its important to keep in mind that very few people can create all this technology. The average person's ingineutity and ability to create the things you were boasting as evidence of man's superiority is little to none. Does this mean only scientists are superior?

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

Superior is an illusion of the human mind. All life is equel.
Some people might think being higher on the food chain makes you superior, and I guess you can look at it that way if you want, but
in reality all life comes from and goes back to the same place (nothingness) and in that way, we are all equel. I choose to see things this way because it feels right to me. I could never live with myself if I felt "superior" to other forms of life.

 

[vegan]

Petersko, you could at least read my post.
it's because i knew you would have said exactly this that i added :
"humans, with intelligence, a lot of work and a lot of manpower overwhelm these weaknesses, but one human alone still is the weaker in all these cases. where's the superiority?"

tell me, superior Petersko. can you on your own make a rifle, a submersible, skis, gliders, helicopters, bomb shelter, flashlight, telescope and textile mill?

or do you need the last 10 000 (000) years of evolution and what they've brought to you?
on your own. can you make a rifle, or do you need hundreds of humans to work in mines to get the iron and in a factory to make the rifle for you to use?

oh yes, as a group we have the best technology.
that's not superiority.
as a gorilla's strength doesn't make it superior to us, it just makes it stronger.

a human on its own is a very very weak animal

do you remember where what i wrote at the end of my last post comes from?
"we'll make great pets"
a song about more evolved aliens taking over.

that's not a theory i fancy, but imagine if aliens were to come here and consider themselves superior to us (in your mind, they are if they are more intelligent than us).
would their opinion of superiority justify their exploitation of us?
would human experimentation be a totally acceptable thing to do in order to benefit the superior species?

by the way. you think the criteria for superiority is intelligence but you're mistaking.
you should know that the criteria is blond hair with blue eyes. millions of people agreed at some point. so many people couldn't be wrong, right?

 

[Petersko]

"humans, with intelligence, a lot of work and a lot of manpower overwhelm these weaknesses, but one human alone still is the weaker in all these cases. where's the superiority?"

Oh, I SEE. What you really want to do is strip the brain right out of man and ask me who is superior. As well, you want to isolate him from his natural state - part of a SOCIETY.

Sure, a mindless husk of a man alone in the woods isn't much on the grand scheme of things. But really, what's your point? What makes a man different is the brain, and the incredible complexity of our society. Ditchdiggers to physicists, we have individuals who contribute at all needed levels.

tell me, superior Petersko. can you on your own make a rifle, a submersible, skis, gliders, helicopters, bomb shelter, flashlight, telescope and textile mill?

Nope! But the key is that, should I choose to, I could learn how to. Man as a species does so much in such a vast array of areas that no one man can ever learn everything.

But I CAN construct decent bows and arrows, hunt, navigate using natural signs, build an igloo, butcher an animal (not well, but well enough), build a very simple house, fix an older car (pre-injection engine), play 5 different instruments, write music, fashion a rope, make a spear, identify edible plants, and plant and tend a garden.

We make technology. No other animal does. Let's call "ability to make technology" superiority!

Isn't it? It allows us to do just about anything, whether our physical forms can do it or not. That seems a pretty grand thing to me.

How is making a bomb that can do the damage seen at Hiroshima, and then dropping it on your own species (and planet), or polluting our own water source, superior to my dog who does none of these things?

As I said before, you have to take the good with the bad. The price of geniuses is lunatics. The nuclear technology that has on EXTREMELY FEW occasions been used as a weapon will likely someday help lead us to the stars. I'd call that a pretty big benefit to reap, although it came at a price.

If you choose to believe that the definition of what is good is when a species knows their place, deviates not a whit from a very specific path that fits with the ecosystem, and aspires to nothing beyond eating, sleeping, mating and surviving, then we are rampant failures.

The growth of intelligence is a long one, and we are not going to make perfect decisions along the way.

 

[Petersko]

that's not a theory i fancy, but imagine if aliens were to come here and consider themselves superior to us (in your mind, they are if they are more intelligent than us).
would their opinion of superiority justify their exploitation of us?
would human experimentation be a totally acceptable thing to do in order to benefit the superior species?

Well, certainly not from OUR point of view. But from theirs, I could see it being justified.

Although I suspect if this type of situation came to pass, we'd probably lose a few people to experimentation and then there would be acknowledged contact. Even with a gulf between two advanced races, one would recognize the other as being, well, "intelligent" in the way I've implied.

 

[dyscotopia]

when i'm out i eat eggs and cheese and don't ask where it came from.. when i'm home i eat rennet-free cheese and free-range eggs.. and even those "responsible" industries do things to animals that are worse than what many humane labs do.. plus, my shoes are leather.. so i'd be a hypocrite to suggest animal testing is morally wrong..

however, why do we need all this new medical knowledge? rhetorical question.. because our lifestyles are increasingly more toxic.. we need new research and medicines because otherwise we'd be dying faster than our ancestors.. instead we get to prolong our lives through technology..

of course we've all lost someone to something that we wished could be cured.. however, strictly from a mathematical, logical point of view, there are enough humans alive as it is.. far more than enough humans actually if you consider the amount of resources each individual consumes and how much crap even the most responsible person pumps into the environment..

so screw animal research.. not because its cruel, but because we should all start appreciating our lives more and living healthier.. and if you can't do that than just accept that you're going to die faster.. and be happy about it.. you're making room for all those other clever, beautiful, despicable, destructive other members of your species..

 

[JerryBlunted]

however, why do we need all this new medical knowledge? rhetorical question.. because our lifestyles are increasingly more toxic.. we need new research and medicines because otherwise we'd be dying faster than our ancestors.. instead we get to prolong our lives through technology..

With sanitary conditions you could probably live a lot longer now than in the past even without medicine.

It's easy to dismiss medicine if you yourself don't need it or don't know anyone that does.... but I can tell you I'd gladly see a rabbit get offed to make a cure for cancer, or better diabetes medicine, or an AIDS vaccination....

 

[justsomeguy]

technological superiority as superiority sui generas is a terribley androcentric perspective, and in my opinion, a perspective suffering from an extreme masculine bias.

 

[dyscotopia]

like i said, i don't have an ethical problem with otherwise humanely treated animals used for research that can be done no other way...

of course i've had close friends and loved relatives die of incurable (or difficult to cure) medical problems.. it's terrible. in a lot of cases the medicine made them even sicker. i suppose reducing painful side effects of current treatments is a noble goal.

however, that said, i don't think its necessary or wise to extend human life to 150+ years when in any large city, six people will be born while you read this.. really if you can't do everything you want to with your life in an avg. lifespan of 70 years, you really weren't making that much of an effort...