research on animals for human benefit

[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

[sanctus]

Welcome back sundog.

You actually made a good point, though ther is one consequence you speak about which is true now, but it can be changed. Augmentation of human population doesn't have to be equivalent to increasing the extintion rate of animals.It's just the way we tend to live and produce today that makes it be like that,, that's why I fight for a "durable developpement" (I'm not sure if it's the right term in english, but you get what I mean: a [for nature] sustainable way of living and producing with not much loss of comfort).

[Tormod]

I think the term you're looking for is "sustainable development".

This is a very interesting thread, sanctus.

[sundog]

Originally posted by: sanctus
Augmentation of human population doesn't have to be equivalent to increasing the extintion rate of animals.It's just the way we tend to live and produce today that makes it be like that

I agree completely. But, considering the extinction that goes on isn't
"noticeable" in our daily lives, change will not come easy. Especially
when the results of any change we may make are equally unnoticeable.
We need incentive to change. The loss of species is enough for some,
but others need something more directly rewarding.

I remember as a child, you could get money for taking back your empty
glass soda bottles to the store. I think this idea stopped some time
in the mid eighties (at least where I live). I guess it became cheaper
to make plastic bottles which are thrown away, rather than washing and
re-using the glass ones.

I would like see this idea reintroduced, perhaps even be applied to
everything we can recycle. If we get a financial reward for recycling
it will surely be more popular.



sundog