Research on animals for human benefit

[sanctus]

As I said in the thread about the stem-cells, here I start this thread.

 

 

I'm against any research on animals to find cures to human illnesses and this for a simple reason, who are we to decide if other living beings have to suffer? I do not believe that humans are in any way more important than other animals, just because they've got a brain to think logic. Therefore I can't justify killing tousands of animals for human life (as well as I never could justify the other way around, i.e.:killing humans for saving animals).

I've to say that a research on animals that treats them well, I would not condamn as much, but it never seems to be the case (maybe because it's impossible??)

 

 

P.S.: in case i wasn't clear,this discussion is not about using medicaments which were found that way, but about looking for new ones that way!

[Freethinker]

We have made significant gains in fighting cancer. Almost all has come intitially thru experimentation on lab animals.

 

Would you rather that we never made this advancement? That cancer was still ravaging the human race at the pace it did before?

 

Or should we intentionally develop cancer in humans instead of other animals for research purpose?

[TINNY]

how about killing animals for their meat. That's also for the benefit and survival of humans right?

so if you think there is no justification in making animals suffer for the good of humans, then we should all be vegetarians.

hmmm. i don't think you're vvegetarian.

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by: sanctus

As I said in the thread about the stem-cells, here I start this thread.

 

 

I'm against any research on animals to find cures to human illnesses and this for a simple reason, who are we to decide if other living beings have to suffer? I do not believe that humans are in any way more important than other animals, just because they've got a brain to think logic. Therefore I can't justify killing tousands of animals for human life (as well as I never could justify the other way around, i.e.:killing humans for saving animals).

I've to say that a research on animals that treats them well, I would not condamn as much, but it never seems to be the case (maybe because it's impossible??)

I'm in favour of research on animals. We can't think it's more right to try out new drugs and treatments on humans - if we thought that would be a better alternative, then I wonder how much we really wish to improve people's lives.

 

P.S.: in case i wasn't clear,this discussion is not about using medicaments which were found that way, but about looking for new ones that way!

But of course not. Apparently these drugs and treatments are useful.

[Freethinker]

However I have to wonder about the continued usage of animals for medical research. We are or should be reaching a point at which computer modelling will provide faster more accurate results.

[sanctus]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

We have made significant gains in fighting cancer. Almost all has come intitially thru experimentation on lab animals.

 

Would you rather that we never made this advancement? That cancer was still ravaging the human race at the pace it did before?

 

Or should we intentionally develop cancer in humans instead of other animals for research purpose?

 

 

 

You forgot to read my P.S.

 

 

 

Originally posted by: Stargazer

But of course not. Apparently these drugs and treatments are useful.

 

 

And you didn't understand what I meant.

 

 

As the animals suffered so that we got the medicaments, it would be much worse not to use them, they would have suffered for nothing.

[sanctus]

As I was a bit tired when I opened this thread I didn't explain myself very well. A crucial point that I said just quickly as

I've to say that a research on animals that treats them well, I would not condamn as much, but it never seems to be the case (maybe because it's impossible??)

 

So I agree, that we can use animals to research new drugs at the condition that we do not create suffering of the animals.

 

I have to say I don't see myself as one of those animalists somwhere floating in the air, that puts animals in front of all, I just have a bad conscience knowing that my cancer has been cured because 100'000 animals died suffering for it.

I try to be clearer: for me it is cruel to think that we've got the right to make animals suffer with whatever the purpose is, because we can think and therefore know what pain is.

[sanctus]

Originally posted by: TINNY

how about killing animals for their meat. That's also for the benefit and survival of humans right?

so if you think there is no justification in making animals suffer for the good of humans, then we should all be vegetarians.

hmmm. i don't think you're vvegetarian.

 

 

 

I don't know why you think I'm not vegetarian, I actually used to be. You are right now I'm not anymore and the reason I can be that without being inconsistent is:

a) I only eat meat that I know where it comes from and that the animals lived there what I call a good life, without suffering (on that very alike to the one they would have in nature), and a good death (nothing like those industries where 300 cows a day are slaughtered-by the way very well explained in the book "Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser)

 

b)killing is not making suffer the animal in question (I agree maybe the rest of the group....)

 

c)even if you say that killing is making suffer, there is one fondamental difference in the case of animals for research they often die for nothing (they become just start of a statistic...), in case of animals for food there is a direct use almost every part of the animal is used (their death never becomes worthless).

 

d) in australian standards (and from what I hear also in US standards) I'm vegetarian: I eat meat about once a month (if not less).

[sanctus]

The point in which I don't understand all of you is, what makes you think that we are better than animals? What are the criteria?

 

I think there are no criteria and therefore no sense saying one is better than the other, what puts us on the same level.

[Freethinker]

Sanctus, I think the problem is reflected even in the basic question as you originally stated it.

research on animals for human benefit

As humans we ARE animals. It is the religious community that attempts to put humans on a level seperate from/ above the "animal kingdom". If we dropped the arbitrarly division, the question would not even make sense. If we truly assigned humans to be on the same level as other animals, it would be:

research on animals for animal benefit

or

research on humans for human benefit

 

We often assign based on perceived intellect/ awarness/ perception. Starting with "dumb animals" that can't "feel"/ aren't "aware" of the pain, even though they obviously react to it. But we don't carry that to the next "logical" level. If the determining factor is level of intellect/ ability to reason/ ... then we'd use "inferior" humans with low IQ's or comotose as subjects of experimentation. Which we did not long ago. And that included races that were considered "inferior".

[Tim_Lou]

humans are able to dominate, thus we do tests on animals.

yes, we are no better than those animals, but the way animals act, is to dominate over others. its if you dont, the others will do.

it is very selfish to say that, but who isnt selfish?

 

humans and animals are differnet species, we compete with them in a way.

would you be happy to give up your house for ...lets say a dog?

or how about a lion broke into your house and kill you for his meal?

 

be happy to be the dominating one, be happy that we have the advantage... and use this advantage.

 

its just the way evolution works, the strong survives, the weak ones die out.

[sanctus]

I agree with you saying that everybody is selfish,

 

 

Originally posted by: Tim_Lou

 

be happy to be the dominating one, be happy that we have the advantage... and use this advantage.

 

its just the way evolution works, the strong survives, the weak ones die out.

 

I agree that we have the advantage (and I'm also happy about it, if it has any sense to say that, because I don' know what it would be like otherwise), that's why we should break out of stronger/weaker scheme and eventually find a more respectful way.

If a lion comes in my house for having lunch with me , then it's because he has not another way to survive, but we have one without having to create unneccessary suffering.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: sanctus

we should break out of stronger/weaker scheme and eventually find a more respectful way.... another way to survive, but we have one without having to create unneccessary suffering.

OK, perhaps time fr a philosophy thought experiment. Setting up conditions to test how we would think regarding species and biases.

 

Imagine we are on a spaceship travelling thru the universe. We are running out of food and will die in the forseeable future if we do not find a usable source. So we start looking for planets to see if we can find any life that would surve as a food source (we have already decided that our suvival was primary over other life forms if needed). We find a planet that has two species which test to be acceptable to our dietary requirements. One looks like earth's chicken and the other is a humaniod similar to us.

 

We land on the planet figuring we will get the humaniods to allow us to take some of the chickens. But upon landing, we find the chickens share our level of intellect while the humaniods are barely able to form even basic pecking order of a society. The intellects are reversed from ours.

 

So if our end goal is getting a food source to stop us from dying and these are the only two choices...

 

Do we eat the chickens because we are used to eating that physical form, even though it is obvious they are our intellectual equal?

 

Or do we eat the humaniods because we have always found it acceptable to consume the lower intellect species?

[Tim_Lou]

hehe, i dont think the "chickens" will let you eat them........ well, war begins!

[IrishEyes]

Eat the humanoids. They'll taste like chicken anyhow.

[sanctus]

Your thought experiment is so that we aren't anymore in a position of advantage on other animals, so my starting point doesn't hold any more. In your thought experiment it's only about surviving, like the lion we would eat what we get, because we have no other choice, that means the humanoids (like the tiger if you are in the malaysian jungle in one tent and in a second tent you've got your food reserves, then the tiger will eat your food reserves because it's easier).

[sundog]

Hi all,

I've been away a while. I'd just like to throw in my view on this while I catch up

on the other threads.

 

Originally posted by: sanctus

I agree that we have the advantage (and I'm also happy about it, if it has any sense to say that, because I don' know what it would be like otherwise), that's why we should break out of stronger/weaker scheme and eventually find a more respectful way.

 

Finding a respectful way of research may only stop the "direct" suffering of animals.

With our lifestyle and population size, "any" medical research still harms animals.

Even if it's carried out using computer modelling as Freethinker pointed out in an

earlier post. Medicines, and all other benefits that increase our population, furthers

the strain on the rest of life on Earth.

 

It has been estimated that since 1970 we have lost approximately 1/3 of biodiversity.

According to a United Nations report, in the next 30 years almost 1/4 of the worlds

mammals could face extinction, along with 1 in 8 birds and around 5,000 different

plant species.

 

Hundreds of species of flora and fauna become extinct every day. This is estimated

to be between 1000 and 10,000 times greater than the natural 'background' extinction.

A mass extinction is underway. Some biologists say it is an unprecedented rate and

it's increasing. We're losing species faster than ever seen before in the past. Even the

extinction's related to a meteor collision, like the one that wiped out the dinosaurs.

It's believed mankind is the primary cause, and not a natural phenomena.

 

 

In nature there's balance. There's room on Earth for more people only if there's less

of everything else. In the future we may continue to grow in numbers, we may find

cures for every ailment, we may all be fit and healthy. But Earth will be a poorer place.

The price of our benefits (including medicine) is extinction of species.

 

I'm not saying what we do is right or wrong because nature may balance things out

in the end. But perhaps if we evaluate the true cost of what we already have, we may

not be so quick to substitute so many more species for the sole benefit of our already

overindulgent existence. Then again... maybe we will.

 

 

For those unaware of this situation, have a read through these links on Earths current

Mass Extinction.

 

http://www.well.com/user/davidu/extinction.html

 

It's a real eye-opener.

 

 

 

sundog