A Controversial Question

[Dervish]

Some of the shit we do to animals in labs makes the Nazis look like amateur hour.

 

[Muna]

There's a fine line between animal cruelty and a necessary evil. FOR SCIENCE or whatever.

Cosmetics have no place to be tested on animals. Some organizations pay you to be the guinea pig, slather your back in various creams, and you get paid when you go back to see if you have any gross rashes. This, in my opinion, is a win-win because one: Bitches love money. Two: You have a conscious enough mind to decide whether or not you want to handle the effects of your fellow human beings' actions.

As for medical testing and the like.. Necessary evil. The goal is to find a treatment or cure for a human being that may die from the trial and error process.

 

[Space Cowboy]

Personally, I love it when we make bunny rabbits way hotter with Fire Engine Red 55 and a good smokey eye.

 

[☆Luna☆]

 

[Mid]

<_<...

I find it interesting to see people say an animal's life does not hold the same value as a human's.

Why?

Because we evolved differently? We have a larger communication system? We figured out elaborate ways to be alphas in our society and control people (through religion, celebrity status, money, government status/power)? While animals have been able to build their own things like houses or traps, we have managed to take a step forward and make our tools better then theirs? There are more of us than less say...rabbits and mice? Probably not roaches...or other kinds and undiscovered bugs tho.

I mean the only difference between us is we evolved differently and adapted to our surroundings however...our first few weeks in the womb (for those who believe in the whole life starts in the womb thought), we're practically the same as...a mouse, dog, chicken, dolphin or pig. So...

How is our lives more important than theirs?

They bleed like us. Mourn loss like us. Feel pain like us. Show emotions like us. React to terror like us. Have their own societies/communities/herds/packs like us. They also have their own kind of language.

I just see...living things as an equal, hell...I can't even kill a bug unless I feel threatened and even then I feel guilty about it. It is not in me to act superior towards another just because we are unable to communicate to each other although there have been gorillas, beluga whale (sp?*), an African grey parrot who have managed to have actually conversations with people either through sign language or talking.

We just shouldn't be...turning our noses up to creatures who were here before our kind and have no true say in this manner. A rat does not ask nor give consent to be injected with cancer cells or AIDs.

...I must have been a Buddhist in my past life o.o.

 

[Brovo]

Jokes on you, Brovo is to poor to afford pizza.

Although it's definitely true right now. Haha. Life will get better though. Or I'll die. One or the other, really. Hoping on not dying though. Because for once, I actually have reasons to live.

I find it interesting to see people say an animal's life does not hold the same value as a human's.

Why?

A'ight, I'll, try to explain this as someone who holds the opposite view. Keep in mind that I completely respect you as a person and don't think you're dumb or anything for your view: If anything, you're quite empathetic, and that's not really a bad thing at all. But, hey, you asked, so, I'll give it my best shot, mate.

Basically, think of life in this manner first. Scientifically speaking, there are two types of life: "Producers", and "Consumers." Producers are defined as life forms which can create energy without the need to end another life. Plants are the easiest and by far most common example of a producer. Consumers, on the other hand, are defined as life forms whose survival is dependent on ending the lives of others and digesting them into more basic components to produce energy. Herbivores, carnivores, and omnivores all fall under this category. (In fact, the words were derived with this in mind. "Herbi-vore", meaning plant eater. "Carni-vore", meaning meat eater. So on and so forth.) The Human Species is an omnivore consumer type: We must kill to survive. Plants, animals, whatever it is we eat, it has to be made of organic compounds. IE: It had to be living first, or composed of materials that include things which once lived.

Ergo, just to exist, we must destroy. A philosophical quandary, truly.

However, we could just eat anything, including each other. So, in order for our species to survive, in order for us to better manage the planet, in order for us to have a civilization, we need a functional manner in which to assign a "value" of sorts. So, we attach that value to sentience, and the various levels of sentience that feasibly exist. These often include, but are not limited to: Intelligence, self-awareness, consciousness, et cetera. Which are often measured by creativity, intelligence, sapience, self-awareness, intentionality, and so on. Basically, to summarize it: "How well can it reason?"

Often at the bottom of the pile go plants. Plants are not particularly intelligent, they're essentially the closest thing we have to "organic machines" aside from insects, which operate solely for the sake of existence without much hint at all of any sort of greater reasoning.

Somewhere in the middle--between plants and people--you have all the animals of the world, lined up like ducks in a row. Some are smarter, some are dumber. In general (though worryingly not always), the greater the degree of sentience an animal expresses, the more likely we are to attribute greater rights to it. For example: Animal abuse, especially against pet-type animals (ex: dogs, cats, et cetera) is considered a horrifyingly terrible thing to do. Versus, say, killing a rabbit infestation, or hunting deer for food. (Again, though, exceptions worryingly exist. Pigs are very smart animals, but we sadly abuse the shit out of them and massacre them without a second thought about it.)

At the top of the sentience ladder is people. Human beings. Specifically because our reasoning ability has granted us a unique ability, that no other creature borne of nature's processes has yet to achieve: We are greater than the total sum of our parts. We can not only understand the machinations of nature, but manipulate them to our own gains and ends. We're the only species that has gained a level of intelligence so significant, that in the bat of an eye in the world's lifespan, we've gone from being terrified of nature, to being masters of nature. We can eliminate diseases, modify the genetic structure of plants to create GMO's, and so on. We are a species that has passed the threshhold necessary to longer be merely part of nature, but sufficiently intelligent to understand what nature sociologically is, and how to control it. Beyond simply building shelter for our own needs, we could completely terraform this planet and, with a few exceptions of especially tough or virulent animals and plants, enslave the entire planet.

We're also capable of understanding why this might not be a good idea. Over the course of ten years, a cow is still just a cow. A dog is, still just a dog. A cat, is still just a cat. They're marvelous and cunning creatures each in their own right, but they'll never be more than what they are. Whereas humans routinely finds ways of becoming or resolving issues to make themselves more than what they are. We can't fly, so we invented planes. We can't spit acid, so we invented machine guns. We can't run as fast or as far as a cheetah, so we made motor vehicles. We can't regenerate limbs like a starfish, so we created medicine and organ transplants. For every limitation we have, we're capable of overcoming it. All the other animals of the Earth (as we are, but animals, ourselves) are entirely incapable so far as we're capable of understanding them.

Just to be clear: This doesn't make them inferior to humans, this makes them different. Different in the sense that, in terms of sentience, humans are at the top of the ladder. When a human life is threatened, that could be the next person to invent something, or do something, that changes the entire planet. Save a dog, and it won't change the planet, but it'll make you feel better, and make you a good person.

So, when we're talking, say, life saving medicine, that could improve the overall quality of life for humans, animal testing becomes a necessary evil. Because we need to find cures for some of these diseases. Certainly, a mouse infected with aids might not have given consent, but it's not mentally capable of understanding the situation at large, and thus cannot be expected to give consent. Where it's wrong to do it to a human being--who is capable, who can understand the greater issue, who can then give consent, a mouse cannot, because it is incapable. A mouse, by all standards of sentience (or at least, most), is, in every respect, "lesser than" to a human. When technology progresses, when science flourishes, and diseases are cured, and resource acquisition becomes more efficient, animal testing can be phased out.

However, we're not technologically advanced enough yet as a species, to phase it out. Not without setting back science several decades, possibly even hundreds of years.

Besides, sometimes when we look for cures for our own species, we incidentally find cures for other species. How do you think we discovered heart worm medication for dogs? It's not all doom and gloom. Sometimes the fruits of this labour benefits more than just our own species.

And, sadly, if we didn't do this? None of those animals would discover cures themselves. Because they can't.

In essence: Sometimes the greater good of pushing humanity forward requires sacrificing life forms that have lesser sentience when compared to our own. Whether that's the simple result of being a consumer species (IE: eating and digesting life), or by manipulating life so as to further our understanding of it, it's a necessary evil in that once we do understand what we need to understand, the need for this evil will disappear. Some animals suffer now, so that human beings and animals under our care, can have a better tomorrow. With less diseases, less suffering, less pain.

It's, essentially, comparable to the Hippocratic Oath. Specifically...

"I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism."

Sometimes, to save someone's life, you have to amputate a limb, or take an organ harvested or donated from someone else. Sometimes to serve the greater good of saving a life, you have to inflict pain and injury.

Sometimes, to cure diseases that kill thousands every year, you have to sacrifice the lives of others in tests so as to see what chemical balances are required to eradicate the disease.

That sometimes means having to sacrifice the lives of entities whose sentience is not on par to our own, because to sacrifice a mouse is to lose one of millions of mice. To sacrifice a person, is to lose an individual mind, whose capacity for reason and logic, and individual ability to affect change upon the world around them, is lost forever.

Anyway, I hope that reasonably helps you understand. It's not that animals are "inherently inferior", it's that the sentience of a person is greater than that of any animal, and until we've discovered all we need to, animal trials have to go on. Not only for our own sake as a species, but for the sake of other species whose diseases we invariably end up curing in the process. We're the caretakers of this world, because we are part of this world, and we happen to be on top of it by natural selection.

Now, we are our own natural selection.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

Edit: I should acknowledge the fact that people have brought up scenarios in which animal testing wouldn't be harmful to the animal in question, like testing which brand of cat food a bunch of felines prefer. I suppose this would in fact be an instance of animal testing "not counting" as animal cruelty, even if you interpret "cruelty" as nothing more than hurting/killing a creature regardless of the reasoning for it, but uh... I don't think that that's the type of animal testing that the OP was talking about, anyway. XD

This is basically what I was getting at.

There are actually forms of testing (although rare) that is not Cruel.

+I wasn't arguing that certain motivation or reasoning makes a Cruel act no matter Cruel.
Just that in some cases like life saving medicine it could be a necessary evil.

 

[Jorick]

<_<...

I find it interesting to see people say an animal's life does not hold the same value as a human's.

Why?

Because we evolved differently? We have a larger communication system? We figured out elaborate ways to be alphas in our society and control people (through religion, celebrity status, money, government status/power)? While animals have been able to build their own things like houses or traps, we have managed to take a step forward and make our tools better then theirs? There are more of us than less say...rabbits and mice? Probably not roaches...or other kinds and undiscovered bugs tho.

I mean the only difference between us is we evolved differently and adapted to our surroundings however...our first few weeks in the womb (for those who believe in the whole life starts in the womb thought), we're practically the same as...a mouse, dog, chicken, dolphin or pig. So...

How is our lives more important than theirs?

They bleed like us. Mourn loss like us. Feel pain like us. Show emotions like us. React to terror like us. Have their own societies/communities/herds/packs like us. They also have their own kind of language.

I just see...living things as an equal, hell...I can't even kill a bug unless I feel threatened and even then I feel guilty about it. It is not in me to act superior towards another just because we are unable to communicate to each other although there have been gorillas, beluga whale (sp?*), an African grey parrot who have managed to have actually conversations with people either through sign language or talking.

We just shouldn't be...turning our noses up to creatures who were here before our kind and have no true say in this manner. A rat does not ask nor give consent to be injected with cancer cells or AIDs.

...I must have been a Buddhist in my past life o.o.

There are a couple ways I've come to the conclusion that the lives of other animals are worth less than any human's life, one path through the cold facts of evolution and the other through the land of pragmatism.

For the evolution thing, communication is not what sets us apart from other animals so it would be silly to argue superiority based on that. However, you can make the argument that we are in fact superior to other animals due to our greater intellectual capabilities. Look at all the things we have made that are beyond the scope of understanding of any other life form on the planet: that is the proof of our superiority. We are effectively the apex predator species of the planet thanks to the things we can create, and therefore all things below us are at our mercy. The fact that we're even having a discussion about being cruel to other animals and the phrasing is "should we do this" rather than "can we do this" is only possible because of our utter dominance of other species. If we choose not to destroy and consume animals it is benevolence to the weak, not respect given to an equal. By this way of thinking, another animal's life does not hold the same value as a human's because they are strictly inferior.

The pragmatic approach is a far less harsh way of looking at it. It just makes sense to prioritize the well being of our own species above all others. We have a vested interest, both from a biological and intellectual standpoint, in seeing our species thrive. More people equals more genetic diversity and breeding stock equals better ability to survive and grow as a species. Other animals are a separate group purely because they are not of our species and therefore are not of our group. Their mere existence does not aid the survival and growth of our species, but they might hold some value in the form of food or test subjects or whatever. Their value is directly correlated with their utility for our species. By this way of thinking, another animal's life is not of the same value as a human because their value is based upon how they can serve our needs, so while some might come close to human value there aren't any animals that are more important to our survival than other humans.

 

[Kagayours]

This is basically what I was getting at.

There are actually forms of testing (although rare) that is not Cruel.

+I wasn't arguing that certain motivation or reasoning makes a Cruel act no matter Cruel.
Just that in some cases like life saving medicine it could be a necessary evil.

Yeah, but you seemed to be bringing up the question of "did the OP ask if animal testing is animal cruelty, or if animal testing is justified?", with my point being that the two questions are practically one and the same -- with the obvious exception being non-harmful testing, but, not only does that not seem to be what the OP was asking about, it's also something that I think we don't even need to debate whether or not it's cruel. XD

 

[Brovo]

@Cosmos In fact, Star Trek probably nailed this point adequately enough, so.

Here, enjoy one of TNG's finest moments.

 

[unanun]

I sense similar arguments to vegetarianism, to which I repeat:

a) Just because we can test on animals, should we test on animals?

b) If you think your superiority to a species lets you (potentially) inflict misery on it, that means you are okay with alien probes, or even powerful humans dominating the poor. Lots of genocides were prefaced with labeling the other group sub human.

 

[Shadon Xarian]

The time of animal testing is (Hopefully) almost over. We currently have lab made cells that are pretty close (If not perfect) copies of animal cells (Even humans I believe) And we are in the early stages of testing those cells for cures/allergy effects on those cells rather than live creatures. It's pretty successful though I don't quite understand why it's not a bigger thing yet. (Greed perhaps -.-)

Also relating to that, the time of factory farms are (Hopefully) almost over too. 2-3 years ago (Maybe longer) we have successfully created lab made meats. These lab made meats are FAR more healthier than what the factory farms give us.


Those answers to Cosmo's questions o.o Let's go to the other side of the answer.

In terms of importance to the world, we like to say humans are. Say a cow in 10 years is still a cow, while a human in 10 years can be quite something. (Even know animals can too, and even trained to do pretty nifty stuff too, in less time than a human in some cases. Communicate with humans through sign language/other means as stated above, But nobody wants to hear about that now do they? It's amazing how that's so ignored, talk about forced ignorance >.<)

But lets take a looksy at something we seem to love to forget, the amount of destruction we cause, Being the only creature that can go instinct and the world will become better and healthier? Does that sound like a more important creature in this world? Some creatures are so important that we quit our genocide of them, and try hard to bring them back. If we were that important and special, we would have just replaced those animals and did those things ourselves. But we can't, or we choose not to.

We COULD be the most important creature on this planet, but we choose not to. In fact, we choose to be quite the opposite. That choice makes us the least important creature on this planet, so little importance that it's super destructive.

If ANY other creature were even a fraction of destructive as we are, then we would decide it it needs to be completely removed from the world to better it. Of course we always like to make our selves an exception.

I can't wait for someone to hop in here and tell me how cows have souls or squirrels have civilization, or something equally silly.

I'm still trying to understand how you can say it's wrong and say we shouldn't treat animals badly, yet still be able to excuse it with reasons that human rights violators love to use to justify their mistreatment of other humans. Your reasons are hardly different than people back then about slaves and native Americans. Only difference is species. That's what confuses me most with you, you say it's wrong, yet still seem to defend it like it's not a big deal. It's strangely contradictory.

I find it interesting to see people say an animal's life does not hold the same value as a human's.

I'm trying to find the turning point of opinions on animals. Before we had dogs, humans understood that animals were more. I mean they had to in order to even consider testing to see if they can be teamed up with/tamed as any true savage/mindless creature would just keep trying to kill and kill with no rhyme or reason. So that little experiment was quite the risk at the time I would imagine.

If you look at the bible, the garden had Adam/Eve hanging out with animals. Probably meaning that during the time genesis was written, we still knew animals were more.
So it was after our hunter gathering days, and after the bible that something changed. That narrows it down to what? The past 4000 years? But some cultures remained seeing animals as more like the native Americans who were cut off from the other side of the world. Given how quite a bit of our current influence was from UK back in the day, I would imagine it may have started relating to the UK area. I would like to say it was some time around the industrial revolution perhaps? I mean everyone's favorite reason to be superior is our technology, and our tech is still fairly new all things considered. So those two add up. But I don't think we truly started getting a big head till the renaissance era where we were REALLY showing our creativity and stuffs. Those are two huge changing points in society, each one giving us quite the ego. So I would imagine that change happened somewhere along one of those time lines. (Parts of me wants to say christian crusades. People killing off other people for not being the superior religion and stuff? Seems like the perfect time to also see animals as godless savages and then de-humanize people to make killing them more justified)

 

[Hellis]

 

[Kagayours]

If you look at the bible, the garden had Adam/Eve hanging out with animals. Probably meaning that during the time genesis was written, we still knew animals were more.
So it was after our hunter gathering days, and after the bible that something changed. That narrows it down to what? The past 4000 years? But some cultures remained seeing animals as more like the native Americans who were cut off from the other side of the world. Given how quite a bit of our current influence was from UK back in the day, I would imagine it may have started relating to the UK area. I would like to say it was some time around the industrial revolution perhaps? I mean everyone's favorite reason to be superior is our technology, and our tech is still fairly new all things considered. So those two add up. But I don't think we truly started getting a big head till the renaissance era where we were REALLY showing our creativity and stuffs.

Mmmmm listen, I don't want to start a religious debate here, but, even if we do assume for sake of argument that humans (and everything else) has only been around for 4,000 years... there's still the fact that the Industrial Revolution happened after the Renaissance, by quite a large margin...

And also, I'm pretty sure that the Industrial Revolution happened at a similar point in time as the age of reason and all that, in which a lot of bright minds thought of nature as an ideal state of things and thought of what a "natural" way of organizing society would be, so, that would've been the opposite of placing humans as superior to animals, at least in a sort of philosophical sense...

And also, Renaissance humanism... was about emphasizing the importance of individuals... as opposed to thinking of humans as being meaningless compared to God and therefore not worth caring about, which was the dominant field of thought in the Middle Ages... and... had nothing to do with saying that humans were better than animals... so...

And also... humans were "showing their creativity" long before the Renaissance... there's a reason why the name means "rebirth" and not just the birth of creative thinking in general. It refers to the re-sparking of a lot of ways of thinking that laid relatively dormant throughout the Middle Ages, so...

Listen, I'm not even going to argue anything about your stance on humans in relation to nature: I just feel the need to point out that you don't seem to understand anything about the history that you're using in your argument.

 

[Brovo]

a) Just because we can test on animals, should we test on animals?

If it services the greater good, yes. If it's just for cosmetic nonsense, no. The suffering has to have a greater, moral purpose, that ultimately enriches lives, or it's simply, flatly wrong. Whether that's to feed people to save them from horrible diseases like AIDS. Because once we get to a certain level of technology, (ex: cloning meat, human test dummies with fully functional bodily bits, et cetera) we can iron out the need for it. Until then, we're simply not technologically advanced enough to achieve a greater morality.

Note, greater morality in the context of the collective. Individually, do what you feel is right. If you feel eating meat is wrong, eat veggies. I'm fine with that.

b) If you think your superiority to a species lets you (potentially) inflict misery on it, that means you are okay with alien probes, or even powerful humans dominating the poor. Lots of genocides were prefaced with labeling the other group sub human.

No, I'm not, for a distinct reason: Once you hit a certain level of sentience, and surpass the sum of your parts, you've hit the plateau required to deserve human rights. Or, hell, call them "civilization type 0" rights, if you wish. Once an individual can summarily explain why it should exist, and prove it can contemplate greater issues beyond the self or immediate vicinity, it deserves every right humans have.

I also have everything against powerful humans dominating the poor, for the specific reason that regardless of one's level of wealth or strength (which is irrelevant when speaking on the level of entire species anyway), they're all human beings first and foremost. They've achieved the potential, and that's all that matters.

You must be this tall to ride: Intelligence edition. All humans share the same capacity (or 99.9999999% same capacity, anyway) for intelligence. Ergo, to dominate over the weak and the poor, is immoral. It's the potential across the species that matters when determining rights, not the individual. To determine by individuals alone only creates the excuse for despots. We're smarter than that now... Usually.

I'm still trying to understand how you can say it's wrong and say we shouldn't treat animals badly, yet still be able to excuse it with reasons that human rights violators love to use to justify their mistreatment of other humans. Your reasons are hardly different than people back then about slaves and native Americans. Only difference is species. That's what confuses me most with you, you say it's wrong, yet still seem to defend it like it's not a big deal. It's strangely contradictory.

Because humans are not the same as other animals. We are animals of the Earth, but we are the only species with the capacity to go beyond the sum of our parts and reach for greater things. If two lions saw you here, and were hungry, they would eat you. They're not capable of seeing beyond base emotions. You and I, hungry, seeing a lion, can determine for ourselves if hunting, killing, and eating it, would be a moral course of action. We're the only species that concerns itself with biodiversity and the state of the environment. If you don't believe me, then look outside your window. Look at all the points in time in which predator species ended up outnumbering and wiping out large sums of prey species, and then starved themselves as a result.

Humans have done that too, of course. The difference is, humans have learned what happens when you wipe out entire species and fuck up biodiversity.

Also, we're obviously not going to see eye to eye when you deny basic scientific facts like evolution, and the age of the Earth. My entire world view is built upon a foundation of science and philosophy, you'll find I won't agree with your sentiments.

Oh, and one more thing: If all of humanity were wiped out tomorrow, ecological disasters would devastate this planet. Thousands of species would die with us. By virtue of predator species overrunning prey species thanks to a lack of human interference, or nearly extinct species dying off because their human caretakers vanished (ex: black-footed ferret), et cetera. A lot of domesticated species would not survive. (Goodbye small dog breeds, y'all are fucked. Every single one of you.) Every single farm species would die off too, they're all farmer-dependent now. That includes but is not limited to sheep, cows, pigs, chickens, and turkeys. The sheer death toll of human civilization suddenly up and vanishing is obscene, and that's assuming we just literally disappear tomorrow. If we're talking war, the only kind of war that could wipe out all of humanity would be the nuclear kind.

Radiation fucks up all life, bro. Some more than others, but we'd take like, 80-90% of biodiversity with us if we decided to end it via nuclear holocaust.

Like it or not, humanity is part of nature, no matter what a two thousand year old book written by incestuous desert peasants edited hundreds of times into several different versions says otherwise. We're part of biodiversity. We are part of the environment, and at this point, a major part of it, that exists in every biome on Earth. Pretending naively that humanity vanishing would solve all problems is a black and white answer that does not even remotely reflect the world in which we live. A world of nature that wiped out 95%+ of species that ever existed on Earth long before mankind was even a twinkle in nature's eyes.

 

[Hellis]

Eh hurm. With some changes to fit the current scenario.

Brovo post. Starved, still no pizza.

Pharao Replies, Brovo contemplates life.

Gwazi bumbles in, does Gwazi Things.

Unanun applies philosophy (Ironicly)

Grumpy considers the implications of committing genocide. Buys a years worth of alcohol. Scotlands unemployment drops.

Diana removes Discussion Tag

Diana bans the heart of the cards

 

[Mid]

Just gonna...leave this here...

Also, ferrets are really tiny demons who steal money from couches and lack emotions. THIS, THIS I DEEM THE TRUTH FOR I HAVE SPOKEN!

 

[Mid]

@Brovo , thought you may like this.

5 Animals With a Moral Compass

14 Stories That Prove Animals Have Souls

Rats Not Only Show Compassion But Arguably More Than Some Humans in Unprecedented New Study

 

[Jorick]

a) Just because we can test on animals, should we test on animals?

Yes. Benefits > costs.

b) If you think your superiority to a species lets you (potentially) inflict misery on it, that means you are okay with alien probes, or even powerful humans dominating the poor. Lots of genocides were prefaced with labeling the other group sub human.

Well, the alien thing kind of depends on how you're approaching the species superiority thing. Coming from the pragmatic angle, I would not be okay with alien probes because this version of "my species is superior to other species" is inherently anthropocentric. Alien probes would be a negative thing against my species, therefore it's not something I'm okay with. However, from the evolutionary argument, well, aliens are more advanced than us so it sucks but that's nature for you. Fight against it, sure, but you're probably screwed.

As for humans dominating other humans based on this, nope, you'd have to engage in taxonomic stupidity to claim other members of the species homo sapiens are not actually part of your species. If you're honestly and truly looking at it from a species perspective then there is zero room for that kind of nonsense. The "but they're actually not human" idea has no basis in evolution or species-based pragmatism.