AeroMatter wrote:Magician wrote:From my perspective it's simple. If you wouldn't do it to a human without their consent, there is no justification for doing it to any other animal. You don't get to cherry pick who gets to be treated like shit based on the circumstances of birth. Some of us are born human, some of us are born not. No one asked to be how they came out. If we were able to give these animals a voice by some means I'm pretty sure they'd say a lot stuff you guys won't want to hear, but could have intuited—I estimate that 100% of you would not want anything exploitative done to you without your permission.
How can you say that, when the animal doesn't actually have a voice. You're under the assumption animals are treated like shit based on your cherry picking point, but again I will stress that in the laboratory setting: animals are treated ethically. Even dead animals that are studied have strict procedures of conduct for the scientist studying them, and you may or may not have first hand experience with this if you have ever dissected a rat or a frog in school. In the professional world, this is carried over because the interest is in learning how to better human life and not to play god and toy around with animals.
Magician wrote:I think there's a lot we've learned that has been illbegotten and unnecessary and even if we were missing out on useful information, society could stand to slow down a bit. Still I somehow doubt we're going to find a better future in the lives and deaths of those held captive. I get that science is about asking questions and figuring out the results, but sometimes the questions are frankly ridiculous. Thanks, trials. I'll make sure not to eat borax now!
You said there's much unnecessary information learned with no examples and proceed to say that you are comfortable with missing out on information in spite of it slowing down society. In response to that there are many examples of necessary information learned through animal testing in the fields of anatomy, biology, physiology, and medical. I doubt you're against those as well because chances are that you have already benefited from that information at some point in your life so far, but to whatever it is you feel is unnecessary: it more than likely isn't. I've never heard of animal testing on eating borax, which is a sarcastic comment sure, but the only example you gave of something unnecessary (perhaps because there isn't anything you can actually find?)
Magician wrote:If we're testing something for human applications, consider that human biology is obviously different. There are things that outright kill animals that don't have any effect on humans at all, and the inverse is true as well. We could stand to fund more applicable forms of testing instead, but we resist change. Human voluntary tests are part of it—use small doses and observe. There's also in vitro testing and computer simulations. (Though I doubt the latter is anywhere near perfect right now, there's definite potential).
When we're talking about animal testing, we're usually talking about apes, chimps, monkeys, and rats. For your statement about human biology being different from other animals, while true, isn't completely valid to dismiss the reasoning of testing animals on. As I said, we're usually talking about specific animals when we say "animal testing," and they're listed above. These animals in particular are chosen, due to how human like their anatomy, physiology, and genetics works. You wouldn't really want to test something that isn't similar to humans, like a mountain lion, or a bear, or other odd animals you wouldn't have in a lab because they're not human like in their anatomy, physiology, and genetics (also they're huge and dangerous which is why mice are preferred even over monkeys due to them being small and harmless).
I stand by that it's plausible that being exploited without permission isn't something any creature wants. By challenging my certainty in this you only reaffirm that animals physically can't give permission.
I'm not "under the assumption animals are treated like shit", I'm saying exploiting a living animal for any purpose is the equivalent of that colloquial term. I don't care much for the dead, be they humans or otherwise.
“Isn't anything you can actually find”? Let's not throw shit. There's a difference between saying that animal testing is beneficial to humanity and saying that it's necessary. I only said
some of it's ridiculous—my snark refers to that. You say you "never heard of animal testing on eating borax", but you don't hear everything that goes on in the world nor should you need much in the way of proof that not
all animal testing has served to benefit humanity, which is all I was saying offhand.
Anyway, humans are by far the dominant species on the planet and that status isn't being threatened (except by ourselves). It doesn't have to be an active and punitive dominance, so since you apparently agree that animal testing isn't intentionally so, we should reasonably continue to seek alternatives alike to and beyond those I mentioned rather than just apologize away its continued existence. What I differ on is that I know that humanity will persist regardless, therefore I believe its continuation isn't necessary.
I'm not required to condone all that which I passively benefit from, and even so, I'd rather not disregard anything we've already learned because that's meaningless posturing to me, and disrespectful in that it's wasteful.
I can match a circumstance to yours. You say I wouldn't like living under the lesser conveniences and medical options that “do to others as you would have them do to you” would allow for. I say I wouldn't like being an unwilling and captive test subject. In terms of quality of life there's a pretty huge disparity there.
I'm aware that animal testing is selective. The biological variances that remain despite this process still exist, because they're not 100% human. This makes what we learn from them not inherently applicable especially in cases where the necessity of human trials blatantly render them purposeless. I'm aware that certain factors can still be applicable and that doesn't change my views.
Intellectual-Panda wrote:Ethics plays a huge part in animal testing. While I don't agree with it for things like makeup and household products, I think it's necessary for science and psychology.
For example, one experiment was conducted on 2 groups of mice that were injected with cancer cells and one group was kept on a rotating turntable and the others in normal conditions to test the effect of stress on illness. While it's unethical, it's definitely more ethical than putting other humans in their place. Also, mice are one of the most closely related animals to humans.
There's also various laws prohibiting human experimentation (and some rules about animal experimentation eg: suffering is kept to a minimum). Not to mention humans CAN be subject to certain experiments if they consent to it (or at least debriefed after). For example, humans can test certain medical drugs or can be subjects in psychological experiments.
Not to mention some animal testing is done illegally.
The death of a lab mouse doesn't equate to the death of a human, and if you think otherwise then it must be reaaaaally hard for you to realise that the fish and meat you eat comes from slaughtered animals that are bred to be eaten.
I just believe informed consent is a far more important part of what makes an experiment ethical than whom it happens to and why. The main thing in your post I haven't already taken into account (though was otherwise aware of) were the legal experiments performed on humans without their knowledge. I'm certain, however, that the harm by those tests are (or at least should be) mitigated based on the status of the human as a “person”. I believe those same protections should exist for the animal, which would just so happen to abolish most if not all animal testing.
For the record, nobody here knows me or what goes into my mouth, though I'll buy that it's impossible to live in society and get 100% away from benefiting from exploitation in some form. There is, however, the matter of getting 90% away from exploitation (as a random figure) being a greater effort than getting 0% away by not trying. Just a thought.