Animal Tests

[StrongHeartsWin]

Reading your post above, CC (particularly the mid and latter parts), I suspect we are not too far from each other on some points regarding animals.

Quote by: Captain Chaos Little kids also demonstrate the same affection[empathy] towards human babies - they like things that are cute and fuzzy. Little kids are not so inclined to be protective of roaches and lizards.

True about the latter two -- it is a much larger leap inter-species wise.

From an instinctive/natural perspective, this makes sense. Things that we perceive as loving and kind are things that we are likely to be loving and kind towards - human or animal.

Isn`t the purpose of nature or instinct within us meant to serve as a driving force to increase our survival ability? How would nurturing an animal, or a weaker and smaller child, out of a sense of empathy serve to increase survival chances? Why wouldn`t they instinctually gravitate towards empathising with older adults who may be homeless, but who could repay the nurturing with a form of physical protection?

However... We mustn't underestimate the power of conditioning. Regardless of whether or not we have certain instincts, they can almost always be overcome with sufficient conditioning. It seems to me that this makes it very difficult to establish whether or not a given behavior is more a product of instinct, or more a product of conditioning, in any given individual.

Exactly my point. That is why I have taken issue with your declaring instinct and nature as the point for testing on animals, using that to make it acceptable. Later it came down to you just saying it was your "feeling" and that things were "complicated." Those latter two may be so, but they don`t stand up as an impartial test that leads us to consistency -- or allows us to err on the side that would more likely keep us from abusing the power to subject weaker ones to the will of the stronger.

Eating animals does not prevent empathy, compassion, a sense of justice, and cooperation towards other humans.

I think you are ignoring the deeper issue. The issue is not per se` eating animals or testing on them, it is exploiting the weaker for the benefit of the stronger or another group at the expense of one`s own group. There lies cheuvinism (sp?), prejudice, and might makes right. Those DO prevent empathy, compassion, a sense of justice and cooperation.

We should work with it[tendency toward territoriality] and direct it, because our natural inclination for wanting to protect what is ours is exceedingly powerful, and at the same time can be quite useful.

Why wouldn`t you want to condition that out? and how would you direct it, and what form would that direction take or be translated into? You have to keep in mind, the tendency toward territoriality in humans, has not just been to keep the boundaries (i.e. keeping what is our own), but of adding territory to ours (i.e. taking what others have) and expanding our range within our identifying sub-groups of races or tribes -- not within our species. It is a packaged deal, and that has never been brought to heel.

This seems a good point to break the post up and address your remainder in a seperate post later. Sorry for the delay in getting to the rest.

[Pockets]

I am going to try and not a) be repetative and b) pick a fight. Animal rights are an issue because enough people feel animals have rights that are inherent because they arre here. It makes sense if for nothing else, from a ecological standpoint that we insure their survival. I think the case can be made for that being it. I don't believe that but it can be made. People seem to think they know the plan. For all life. Let all life live. No, place other animals on the plane of homosapien. Well what if that is not the way it is suppose to go? There were several extinctions before man came on the scene. Maybe our beingeampathetic will throw off the balance more than our existence ad bad habits.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: SHW How would nurturing an animal, or a weaker and smaller child, out of a sense of empathy serve to increase survival chances?

Tribes in which the members cooperate with each other, and protect each other, are more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Finding babies cute means we are more likely to take care of them, and thus their genes get passed on.

One thing about evolution is that a trait that increases survivability may have more effects than just the effect that increases survivability. Our capacity for empathy gives obvious survival advantages to those tribes whose members are driven by empathy to help each other survive. A side effect of empathy would be caring about the feelings of animals - who may well be part of the tribe as pets and such.

I bet there are some really detailed and complex explanations out there, that explore far more nuances that what I am postulating here.

Why wouldn`t they instinctually gravitate towards empathising with older adults who may be homeless, but who could repay the nurturing with a form of physical protection?

Fear. Unknown adults, especially if they look sickly or mean, may scare them.

Those DO prevent empathy, compassion, a sense of justice and cooperation.

Yes... At least, the weaken those traits.

However, humans are quite capable of living with apparent internal contradictions.

That is why I have taken issue with your declaring instinct and nature as the point for testing on animals, using that to make it acceptable.

Hmmm.... Describing what is might not be the same as describing what should be. Humans also have murderous instincts, or at least instincts that can manifest as murder. I am not a big fan of murder.

Those latter two may be so, but they don`t stand up as an impartial test that leads us to consistency -- or allows us to err on the side that would more likely keep us from abusing the power to subject weaker ones to the will of the stronger.

What is inherently wrong about the strong dominating the weak? I am not supporting that, I am just asking you why you feel it is wrong?

Why wouldn`t you want to condition that out? and how would you direct it, and what form would that direction take or be translated into?

It drives us to create new and interesting things. It also drives us to prevent crime. I take the issue of property rights very seriously. In fact, I do not believe you could really drive it out of people, although you could suppress to some extent.

It is in schooling and parenting that territoriality is directed. We teach our children not to steal from others. We also teach them to have the courage to protect themselves and others.

[StrongHeartsWin]

StrongHeartsWin:But those who fall below a certain level of complex emotions or which do not experience sadness you would? How would you judge?

Quote by: Captain Chaos Observations and knowledge of neural anatomy.

Observations tell us that when animals are prevented from satisfying their urges they become quite stressed and frustrated. It is quite easy to see suffering manifested from that in lab and farm animals. Suffering sure is not a state of happiness.

Brain dead humans should be allowed to die, and their organs should be used to save the lives of others.

Why are the parts ok to use seperately for the benefit of one, and not the whole being tested to gain data that could benefit many? Are you just more comfortable with an unpackaged assemblage of live parts to use rather than a whole -- even when both are not sentient? I think you are stuck on emotions and sentiments for the recognizable human form.

Firstly, I have no final argument. I am saying that I believe people do instinctively care for the human form. There are obvious reasons why we would have evolved to be like that. Regardless of how we got that way - humans do care for the human form.

Then, one, or a part of your argument is an appeal to emotions, right?

What are the instinctive reasons why we would have evolved to care about a non-sentient human form? What advantages do that confer upon our species that could not, or is not met in some other more efficient form?

If an animal is well-cared for, leads an obviously happy life, then is killed and eaten in a fast and painless fashion - I would be OK with that, depending on a few other variables as well.

What variables?

That is most certainly NOT what happens with corporate farming.

Is the poultry and fish you eat factory farmed? (More for the vegetarian thread, so no need to answer here if you choose not to).

As for animal testing - I believe the animal rights claim that we could accomplish nearly as much without animal testing to be simply false.

That does not address the fact that the human model is the most efficient model, and that the whole argument to deny the use of humans in lieu of animals rests on an appeal to emotion and speciesism -- the same reasoning that supports racism, sexism, and cheuvinism.

Rooted in instinct. All morals are, ultimately, rooted in instinct. This is unavoidable. If you ask what caused you to feel a certain way, the cause of that feeling will precede the effect in time. If you trace the chain of cause and effect backwards far enough, you will wind up at a time before you were old enough to have been conditioned. Instincts precede conditioning on a person's timeline.

Then how can you say our values are based on our instincts? You have not offered anyway to strip away conditioning to let us see what our instincts are before our conditioning impacted on our values

StrongHeartsWin:Surely you see that you are letting sentimental feelings for the mere material form of the human body get in the way of your reasoning, don`t you?

.

No. If we trace back the chain of cause and effect that causes you to adhere to your set of principles, we will find plenty of sentimentality and instinctive emotions.

What!? Then how does that NOT get in the way of your reasoning? You are stating something, but you have not given an example to support your statement. In addition you say our conditioning comes after our instincts, which we agree can mask our instincts, but then say at the root of things you state are plenty of emotions.

Don't know what you mean about two hats. I am simply expressing my feelings and beliefs, which are in some conflict on some areas of this issue.

Fair enough. I agree that when one looks deeply at the issue of animal testing that they will undoubtedly be confronted with conflicts. I think a person who honours intellectual honesty will seek to resolve those conflicts with reason so that they become consistent, not only in and of themselves, but also consistent with one`s actions.

[Pockets]

Observations tell us that when animals are prevented from satisfying their urges they become quite stressed and frustrated. It is quite easy to see suffering manifested from that in lab and farm animals. Suffering sure is not a state of happiness

No it's not. However advocating the use of human subjects in lieu of lab rats or simian is, in my estimation, a step backwards on the evolutionary scale. I am not saying that was you. It is somewhere in this thread.

That does not address the fact that the human model is the most efficient model, and that the whole argument to deny the use of humans in lieu of animals rests on an appeal to emotion and speciesism -- the same reasoning that supports racism, sexism, and cheuvinism.

Good. No disrespect intended but when I read your posts you seem almost apologetic of being human. Competetiveness, not just intelligence, is what drives our technological advancement. Competetiveness is what motivates us to be the dominant species on this planet. I personally do not know enough about the science side to definitively say we do or do not need to test on animals. However, if the logic is no more than 'the human form is most efficient' I erron the sideof homosapien. Equally offensive to my sensibilities is the notion that my desire to not see a human being used as a lab rat is speciesism -- the same reasoning that supports racism, sexism, and chauvinism' then yes I am partial to my species over others. Sue me. I don't want to see any animals hurt. I do not believe we are the only animals with knowledge of self. However, if you want any organization that tests on animals to stop come up with a cohesive, workable plan that doesn't invvolve replacing a lab rat with a human being. It goes against the very thing that got us here; the instinct to survive.

[Derach]

such choice is beyond animals.

that is the smartest thing you've said .... Choice, morality, mortality ,,, all foreign concepts to animals. You don't know what an animal 'feels' ... heck, there are some liberals who probably think we should cut animals who have PMS some slack. There are clearly instances when animal testing serves no function (makeup, shampoo, cologne, etc), but there are plenty of examples that justify lab tests on animals. And exactly which animals are cute enough to justify protection? .... Rabbits ... very cute ........ rats ... not so cute, but still furry ... what about insects, parasites?? .... Is ALL life sacred? .... How about a virus or a fig? .... Should we not tread on grass because it might have feelings?? ... Human beings overall RAISE the lifestyle of most animals (pets, livestock, work bred beasts of burden) who would otherwise suffer in the wild. There is certainly a place for testing of lab animals .... and there are certainly abuses of that privledge.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: SHW Observations tell us that when animals are prevented from satisfying their urges they become quite stressed and frustrated. It is quite easy to see suffering manifested from that in lab and farm animals. Suffering sure is not a state of happiness.

Yes, and these same observations allow us to determine which animals feel more stress than others.

Any way you cut it, I support killing them in as non-stressful a way as possible.

Why are the parts ok to use seperately for the benefit of one, and not the whole being tested to gain data that could benefit many?

Because brain dead people are more useful as organ donors than as live recipients of experiments. Their organs can be directly used to save lives.

On the other hand, dead bodies are frequently used for experiments.

Then, one, or a part of your argument is an appeal to emotions, right?

Yes. Empathy - I have made this clear from the beginning. I also believe that if we trace your argument back far enough, we will find emotions involved. Without emotions or motivating instincts, humans would do nothing.

What are the instinctive reasons why we would have evolved to care about a non-sentient human form? What advantages do that confer upon our species that could not, or is not met in some other more efficient form?

I answered this previously. Empathy for animals could simply be a side effect of general empathy, which evolved to keep humans alive long enough to pass on their genes.

Regardless of its origin, such empathy is very important.

What variables?

Our ability to determine the happiness of the animals. The level of intellectual complexity of the animal. The degree to which the absence of the animal impacts other animals. I am sure there are others, as well.

That does not address the fact that the human model is the most efficient model, and that the whole argument to deny the use of humans in lieu of animals rests on an appeal to emotion and speciesism -- the same reasoning that supports racism, sexism, and cheuvinism.

And you have not provided sufficient argument to establish that speciesism is morally wrong.

Then how can you say our values are based on our instincts? You have not offered anyway to strip away conditioning to let us see what our instincts are before our conditioning impacted on our values

Our values are a product of nature and nurture. There are methods of study to determine genetic influence on behavior - studies of identical twins who were separated at birth are the most notable method.

It is never simple, though. Our future is not predestined by our genes. Conditioning can greatly influence values.

In addition you say our conditioning comes after our instincts, which we agree can mask our instincts, but then say at the root of things you state are plenty of emotions.

Conditioning has to play on some emotion or other in order to be effective. We may have within us a natural capacity for both empathy and violence. Depending on your conditioning, you may be more prone towards acting with love, or more prone towards violence.

The picture I am painting is not inconsistent. Humans are self contradictory, but the picture I am painting of human nature is consistent with our self-contradictory nature.

I think a person who honours intellectual honesty will seek to resolve those conflicts with reason so that they become consistent, not only in and of themselves, but also consistent with one`s actions.

I am internally conflicted on many many issues. The reason they seem never to be resolved is because there is no universal standard of morality.

Patrick Henry accused me of being a nihilist, mainly just to insult me. However, he is right, at least under one particular definition of nihilism. I intensely doubt all things, because the bases for belief, including moral belief, are largely subjective.



If you wish for me to prove to you that your support of animal rights is rooted in emotion and/or instinct, then we must play the 20 questions game - only it will be more like 200 questions. If I keep asking you why you feel a certain way, and we chase the causal chain for that feeling backwards far enough, you will either wind up with emotion and instinct, or you will go circular, or you will say "I don't know", or refuse to answer. I have done this many many times with myself, and a few times with others, and those option are the only ones that arise.

So, again...

Q1) Why do you feel animals deserve equal consideration of interest?

[StrongHeartsWin]

SHW: Why are the parts ok to use seperately for the benefit of one, and not the whole being tested to gain data that could benefit many?

Quote by: Captain Chaos Because brain dead people are more useful as organ donors than as live recipients of experiments.

Perhaps in the short run and urgent cases, but not the long run. If you think otherwise, then please go into more detail. Data can be used across a wide spectrum of diseases and applied to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people for their benefit -- where as organs from one person could save fewer than 20.

Their organs can be directly used to save lives.

Yes, a few could be saved in the short run with direct use. More could conceivably benefit indirectly in the long run with a wider view of the importance of data.

On the other hand, dead bodies are frequently used for experiments.

Dead bodies don`t tell us anything about the interactions of drugs with live cells.

I also believe that if we trace your argument back far enough, we will find emotions involved. Without emotions or motivating instincts, humans would do nothing.

I don`t think I have ever denied emotions exerting influence on our decisions and actions, have I?

Empathy for animals could simply be a side effect of general empathy, which evolved to keep humans alive long enough to pass on their genes.

Could be. Could also be a part of social evolution, where in which society gradually widens the arc of protections.

Regardless of its origin, such empathy is very important.

Agreed.

And you have not provided sufficient argument to establish that speciesism is morally wrong.

Inherently morally wrong? You and I both know that is going to lead to the philosopher`s question of absolutism or reletivism. A reletivist will tell you slavery was ok in the past, but not now. An absolutist will tell you it was always wrong. Has either been absolutely proven, or does it rest on each individuals' and society`s collective thought on the issue at a particular time?

All I can offer, CC, is that racism, cheuvinism, and sexism rests on the exculsion of others from a group, and that these all have come to (some still ongoing) be viewed as wrong (not proved to be inherently morally wrong) via a social evolution in thought on these issues. Yes, I admit, the view of speciesism has not evolved in society well enough to be seen as wrong by most people; hell, a lot of people have probably never heard of the word "speciesism", just as 50 or 100 years, or 500 years ago, many had not heard the word racism. But, it does not have to be proven to be wrong in order for it to be identified and then targeted for eradication. In order for final proof to be demanded before it can be targeted, would be imposing proof for the absolutist argument -- of which there will still be people saying racism has not been proven to be wrong. However, society has evolved to view it as wrong.

CC, I have to cut this here. I know I am behind. Just busy. Sorry about that. No, I haven`t been avoiding your Q1 which you restated. I will get to it. Also, no, you don`t need to turn the thread into a numbered question format. I would prefer it not take that form, or I, too, will number or letter mine and after a while it will lose its conversational flavor. I hope you can cede that point and just keep the questions as we have been doing so.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: SHW Perhaps in the short run and urgent cases, but not the long run. If you think otherwise, then please go into more detail. Data can be used across a wide spectrum of diseases and applied to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people for their benefit -- where as organs from one person could save fewer than 20.

Testing requires statistical sampling. That means you need a number of test subjects, not just one. There is not, to my knowledge, an especially large number brain-dead people with no family lying around.

I don`t think I have ever denied emotions exerting influence on our decisions and actions, have I?

Well, it seems like you are saying that emotion and instinct are not at the root of your desire to give equal consideration of interest to animals.

Could be. Could also be a part of social evolution, where in which society gradually widens the arc of protections.

For it to be successful, in social evolutionary terms, we have to already have a capacity for empathy. I would guess the best answer is saying it is both - we have a natural capacity for empathy, and social evolution has driven us to apply that empathy towards animals. Given how little kids seem to be naturally drawn to fuzzy kittens - perhaps there is something innate about it as well?

Has either been absolutely proven, or does it rest on each individuals' and society`s collective thought on the issue at a particular time?

Precisely.

But, it does not have to be proven to be wrong in order for it to be identified and then targeted for eradication.

So then, if you wish to convince others of the rightness of your opinion, appeals to reason will only go so far. This is because there is no universally accepted absolute standard of morality we can use as a basis. Thus, we cannot use reason to bridge from that absolute standard to equal consideration of interest for animals.

That is why I think you will make more progress by appealing to empathy. Not to say that reason is not part of it - but reason should serve as the bridge from their capacity for empathy to increasing their regard for animals.

I hope you can cede that point and just keep the questions as we have been doing so.

I only want to do that for my effort in establishing that moral views are rooted in instinct.

[Eclipse]

I don't know if anyone linked some of the alternatives available. Just watching the discussion atm.Altweb: Alternatives to Animal Testing

PETA Media Center > Factsheets

Comparative studies of human populations allow doctors and scientists to discover the root causes of human diseases and disorders so that preventive action can be taken. Epidemiological studies led to the discoveries of the relationship between smoking and cancer and to the identification of heart disease risk factors.(2) Population studies also demonstrated the mechanism of the transmission of AIDS and other infectious diseases and also showed how these diseases can be prevented.(3) In the course of treating patients, much has been learned about the causes of diseases and disorders. Studies of human patients using sophisticated scanning technology (e.g., MRI, PET, and CT) have isolated abnormalities in the brains of patients with schizophrenia and other disorders.(4) Cell and tissue culture (in vitro) studies are used to screen for anti-cancer, anti-AIDS, and other types of drugs, and they are also a means of producing and testing a number of other pharmaceutical products, including vaccines, antibiotics, and therapeutic proteins. The U.S. National Disease Research Interchange provides more than 120 types of human tissue to scientists investigating diabetes, cancer, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, glaucoma, and other human diseases.(5) In vitro genetic research has isolated specific markers, genes, and proteins associated with Alzheimer’s disease, muscular dystrophy, schizophrenia, and other inherited diseases. Those who experiment on animals artificially induce disease; clinical investigators study people who are already ill or who have died. Animal experimenters want a disposable “research subject” who can be manipulated as desired and killed when convenient; clinicians must do no harm to their patients or study participants. Animal experimenters face the unavoidable fact that their artificially created “animal model” can never fully reflect the human condition, whereas clinical investigators know that the results of their work are directly relevant to people.

The majority of medical schools in the United States, including Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, have replaced their use of live animals in physiology, pharmacology, and/or surgical-training exercises with humane and effective non-animal teaching methods, including observation of actual human cardiac bypass surgery, patient simulators, cadavers, sophisticated computer programs, and more.

• A study of first-year biology undergraduates found that examination results of those students who used model rats were equivalent to those who had performed rat dissections.(10) • A similar study examined a class of first-year biology students, half of whom used traditional “hands-on” laboratories while the remainder used computer software. Biology knowledge of the computer-taught students increased significantly more than did that of the traditional group.(11)

I can't argue with necessary life saving research but I know that once science progresses, my arguments on animal rights or welfare will have been put to good use because those alternatives were found and life is no longer being subjected to tests. Not that I blame the scientists who don't have alternatives and who realize this welfare.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Eclipse I don't know if anyone linked some of the alternatives available. Just watching the discussion atm.Altweb: Alternatives to Animal Testing PETA Media Center > FactsheetsI can't argue with necessary life saving research but I know that once science progresses, my arguments on animal rights or welfare will have been put to good use because those alternatives were found and life is no longer being subjected to tests. Not that I blame the scientists who don't have alternatives and who realize this welfare.

But...

Drug testing depends heavily upon massive animal testing. It also depends on human testing - but they weed out most of the dangerous chemical on animals before moving to humans.

How Monkeys are worth a human's life? Because there are many many drugs that save lives, that were tested on animals first. Without animal testing, how would we determine which chemicals, or versions of a chemical, are safe enough to move to human testing?

[Eclipse]

Quote by: Eclipse Drug testing depends heavily upon massive animal testing. It also depends on human testing - but they weed out most of the dangerous chemical on animals before moving to humans. How Monkeys are worth a human's life? Because there are many many drugs that save lives, that were tested on animals first. Without animal testing, how would we determine which chemicals, or versions of a chemical, are safe enough to move to human testing?

I understand that C.C.

The point I was making is that technology and methods are improving and we should focus on eliminating the animal factor. It is a possibilty. As long as a scientist who is testing on animals because he has no other choice realizes that he is taking life equal to a humans (the only reason being to save more human lives) and is doing wrong to do good then I am okay. They have no other means to accomplish the task and it is a balancing act to try and prove either way.

This is much like my vegan position. As long as alternatives to taking life are possible, that ought to be the action.

A lot of the current tests have alternatives available and don't utilize them because they see no value in animal life. Those are my enemies in this fight.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Eclipse The point I was making is that technology and methods are improving and we should focus on eliminating the animal factor.

I agree...

But how would we eliminate animal testing for medication development? Cellular testing, I can see - but testing for systemic effects, that sounds iffy.

As long as a scientist who is testing on animals because he has no other choice realizes that he is taking life equal to a humans

How do you determine that an animal's life is equal in value to a human's? Is a rat's life equal to a human's? A baboon? A roach?

[Eclipse]

Quote by: Captain Chaos But how would we eliminate animal testing for medication development? Cellular testing, I can see - but testing for systemic effects, that sounds iffy.

May I have an example to work with? Some things I may be able to define where technology and knowledge could help and others I won't be able to define. I'm not an involved expert so I would only be able to speculate or give an educated guess.

Science can always produce great wonders just like the cellular wonder they came up with in the example I posted. Who knows where we will progress. Again, as long as the effort is put in to eliminate the animal factor, we are dealing with life, then I will be satisfied.

How do you determine that an animal's life is equal in value to a human's? Is a rat's life equal to a human's? A baboon? A roach?

The nature of their life is the same as ours. Our natural self-evident rights are due to our nature. Some of those applies to animal nature. I will give an example I've used previously.

Quote by: Eclipse To one species, their value upon themselves is obviously higher in simple views. Nothing more nothing less. This does not equate to animals having no right or value. To each animal, including humans, that value is equal upon themselves and therefore equal from a bird's eye view. Take a human and an equally intelligible alien (for ease of arguments sake). They give themselves the same "natural" rights that we give ourselves. Who has more right? They are equal. Although we would give ourselves a slight of extra right so would they. That slight of extra right is the value we place upon our own existence. If they pose us no direct threat to our rights then why should we pose a threat unto them if there is no need? The moment you realize right to one life, the moment you realize right to all life.

Quote by: Eclipse My point was that you never have control of nature in its entirety and that your rules are secondary to nature. If you wish to call on natural self-evident rights, they are true because of our nature in life. That nature in life is evident in other life as well. Especially those we eat. The majority of life that we eat is a secondary source. Plants being the primary. Plants do not seem to have this evident nature.

I see this nature in the life that I argue for and I wish to extend the idea of natural self-evident rights to them to the extent that their nature allows. Of course sometimes there is the "need" factor but it is not always there.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Eclipse May I have an example to work with?

All modern medication are required by law to be tested on animals before being tested on humans. They look for many things, including systemic side effects such as liver damage or elevated blood pressure.

Science can always produce great wonders

I was thinking maybe if we could clone humans without a brain. That would work.

The moment you realize right to one life, the moment you realize right to all life.

If you had to choose between the life of three monkeys, or one really adorable human girl, which would you choose?

natural self-evident rights

But the rights that you believe are self evident are not necessarily self evident to others. I tend to think that when people claim something is self evident, it is because they do not have an understanding of the chain of cause and effect that precedes the thing they believe to be self evident.

[Eclipse]

All modern medication are required by law to be tested on animals before being tested on humans. They look for many things, including systemic side effects such as liver damage or elevated blood pressure.

That law is in place because there is no other alternative, I suppose. I'll try this. Looking for liver or blood pressure problems can be done without inflicting disease on animals and firstly done in virtual simulations to test that possibility. They might already do this.

I was thinking maybe if we could clone humans without a brain. That would work.

YouTube - Brain control-Monkey. Here a man hooks a recorder up to his brain and a monkey's to compare thoughts. A difficult task but we are beginning to understand what signals are sent through a brain. Attach a recorder to a human volunteer and simply record, compare and decipher. The technology to do this is difficult to achieve but I have seen it pop up recently. We can clone organs and cells no problem. I would guess it is only a matter of time. A thought for discussion, is this testing on animals acceptable?

If you had to choose between the life of three monkeys, or one really adorable human girl, which would you choose?

I'd pull a spiderman. Save the train filled with people then the girl. Lol. With the information given, I would save the girl. As I mentioned in my analogy to get the bird's eye view of what nature life emits:

That slight of extra right is the value we place upon our own existence.

A monkey would save the adorable monkey. But I would feel quite bad. I like monkeys.

But the rights that you believe are self evident are not necessarily self evident to others. I tend to think that when people claim something is self evident, it is because they do not have an understanding of the chain of cause and effect that precedes the thing they believe to be self evident.

True. The reasoning behind rights and why they are there is because of our nature. I see the same nature with animals and I see alternatives that can be founded or currently used. Anamolies and deformities to the mind and body aside, I have yet to see a human who does not see this nature. That is, what we see as bad, they see as bad when it concerns their life. What inflicts pain to us, inflicts pain to others for the same or similar reasons. A dog is an example. We understand that its nature is similar to our own and refrain from harming it for the same reasons we do not harm people and for the same reasons I don't believe in unnecessary harm against other life forms. Hence my stance on animal welfare. Whether they adopt my reasoning/application or not is a different story.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Eclipse Looking for liver or blood pressure problems can be done without inflicting disease on animals and firstly done in virtual simulations to test that possibility. They might already do this.

There is soooooooo much that is not know about cellular and bodily function. No way we are even close to being able to rely on virtual simulation.

We can clone organs and cells no problem.

What organs, besides skin, can we clone?