Nanotechnology and the nerve cell or Who said animal testing was useless again? - by SubJeff
scumble on 14/3/2006 at 14:39
It has to be said that there are a lot of humans treated quite a lot worse than animal test subjects...
Which is the priority?
Uncia on 14/3/2006 at 14:57
Unless you can point out how caring for animals directly affects said people all you're really saying is "we're not as bad as them". Which isn't a worthwhile argument for anything.
Rogue Keeper on 14/3/2006 at 14:58
Yes, I was being partially sarcastic.
But this would be also a "dry" attitude of a scientist who's prepared to bring the highest sacrifices in order to achieve success in his research.
Most of us like to have a scientific progress to -supposedly- improve our lives, but only few of us are able to bring high sacrifices for it.
That's why science is de facto cynical. That's why it so often contradicts our moral or ethical principes. It's either that, or we can go live back to caves like savages, said a bit exaggeratedly. Which is not so bad idea, if we look around and realize what horrible impact has our progress on the enviroment. According to various estimates by scientists, every day 35 - 150 species of life become extinct (
http://forests.org/archive/general/coolfact.htm) (source) and it is predicted that by the end of this century perhaps 25% of species will be lost (
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~dallan/nre220/outline5.htm“) (source).
I suspect that one day the humanity will be sacrificed as a mere disposable test subject of the Supreme Multiversal Experiment #35478. I'm already proud of myself for being a part of such grandiose thing. My life has some sense afterall.
Mortal Monkey on 14/3/2006 at 15:08
Quote Posted by Ajare
But you have to think more practically - the only two alternatives are using humans, or no/hugely-limited scientific progress in the relevant areas. Unless you're prepared to seriously advocate one of these, there's simply no practical point in going on about how unkind it is.
Wait, how is no/hugely-limited scientific progress in the relevant areas a bad thing? In my opinion we've fucked up natural selection bad enough already.
And even if you don't give two shits about evolution, what's wrong with using humans? Is it the lovely medical system that has to keep humans alive for as long as possible even though it is halfways a vegetable and obviously in excruciating pain?
Great will be that day, when I am killed not because I am unwilling, but because I am unable.
Ajare on 14/3/2006 at 15:18
Quote Posted by Mortal Monkey
Wait, how is no/hugely-limited scientific progress in the relevant areas a bad thing?
It isn't necessarily a bad thing. If you're prepared to live without it for the sake of the animals, then good for you - you're approaching the problem in a useful way, unlike the Animal Liberation Front (who this was originally aimed at).
Quote:
And even if you don't give two shits about evolution, what's wrong with using humans?
I'm actually trying to be completely non-judgemental about the moral arguments. All I'm saying is: currently we experiment on animals. If you think this is wrong, then do something constructive about it. If you can't do anything constructive about it, then don't complain about how it's wrong. I think that's a fair thing to say.
Naartjie on 14/3/2006 at 15:20
Quote:
Originally posted by Mortal Monkey:Wait, how is no/hugely-limited scientific progress in the relevant areas a bad thing? In my opinion we've fucked up natural selection bad enough already.
Natural selection is at work in the fact that human beings have advanced enough to cure diseases by means such as these. :rolleyes:
scumble on 14/3/2006 at 15:22
Quote Posted by Uncia
Unless you can point out how caring for animals directly affects said people all you're really saying is "we're not as bad as
them". Which isn't a worthwhile argument for anything.
Well, I wasn't saying caring for animals was at the expense of anyone. Not literally, but I find it difficult to get worked up about laboratory mice (or hamsters) when humans are being slaughtered elsewhere. It's possible to anthropomorphise a bit too much with rodents.
Well, where do you draw the line? Cruelty to ants and slugs?
A philosophical footnote, if you like.
Quote Posted by BR796164
That's why science is de facto cynical. That's why it so often contradicts our moral or ethical principes. It's either that, or we can go live back to caves like savages, said a bit exaggeratedly. Which is not so bad idea, if we look around and realize what horrible impact has our progress on the enviroment. According to various estimates by scientists, every day 35 - 150 species of life become extinct (
http://forests.org/archive/general/coolfact.htm) (source) and it is predicted that by the end of this century perhaps 25% of species will be lost (
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~dallan/nre220/outline5.htm“) (source).
Species are always going extinct as part of the whole process of evolution. It's possible that far more species were "lost" before humans actually existed. Is extinction just bad when humans are often the cause?
In any case, without modern civilisation we wouldn't actually be able to talk about it in the first place. There's a middle way between "fuck the environment" and "humanity is a disease".
Rogue Keeper on 14/3/2006 at 15:27
Err, perhaps key thing is that both humans and animals are being mistreated and slaughtered... again only by other humans. And other humans say these humans are worse than animals. :rolleyes: Oh don't mind me I'm going too far again.
If you take industrial development as a part of natural evolution... then yes. But I have a problem with that.
Unfortunately we are apparently the only race which can disbalance its environment to the point when our actions hurt ourselves, that includes unnatural and accelerated extinction of other species which are important part of the ecosystem. Every lifeform has some purpose in the nature. If it dies out as a result of natural process, often it takes hundreds, thousands years or more, while the nature can find a replacement for it. If some species die out prematurely as a result of human activity, then there you have a problem and the ecosystem is disrupted.
For millions of years the nature has been balancing itself. Then intelligent humans came and had an idea they can balance the nature better. You can see consequences of this collective decision everywhere you look.
And I think speech has developed far before what you call "modern civilization". Development can take many paths, but often we are unable to imagine that the society could go a different way.
Uncia on 14/3/2006 at 16:09
Quote Posted by scumble
Well, where do you draw the line? Cruelty to ants and slugs?
A philosophical footnote, if you like.
Some of us just put the line in a different place I suppose.
BR796164- we're the only race that can disbalance its environment? You're forgetting that Earth didn't start off with an oxygen atmosphere.
