Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Vivisection

  • 05-10-2004 5:57pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,482 ✭✭✭


    A little background:- I'm a PhD student, studying diabetes. Part of this work involves mice. However, I am at a lost to justify using mice. Arguements like, "greater good" or "humans are more important" fall apart fairly readily without much effort. The only reason stopping me from actually not doing this work, is its convenient for my PhD (ie a selfish reason). Can any here suggest a reason to me why it is morally acceptable?

    Note :- gonna post this in Philosophy and Personal Issues - apologies for the overlap, but I'm at a loss as to which might be more suitable...


«13

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 612 ✭✭✭Phil_321


    Can you explain why those arguments you listed "fall apart readily without much effort". They seem pretty valid to me.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    This is a humanities thread.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,482 ✭✭✭RE*AC*TOR


    Ok [cracks kniuckles in preparation for a lot of typing].
    We find it morally unacceptable to perform such experiments on humans. Yet, its acceptable on animals? Why? Because they are less intellgient than us? Why don't we experiment on mentally retarded people then? We assume its ok because they are lesser organisms than us. We use this way of thinking to justify it to ourselves. A simple anaolgy is the use of black people as slaves, or the use of jews/gypsies/blacks etc for experiments in prison camps in world war 2. However, they suffer, that's a fact. The greater good arguement is also invalid for a number of reasons. First off (and most obvious) is I beleive the end does not justify the means. If I have to do something morally wrong to achieve good - its still wrong. Not only does the animal suffer, but i suffer because I allow myself to do something I find objectionable. Second, the greater good is an abstract term. Pain is not a collective experience, we experience pain as individuals, not collectively - as do animals.

    At the end of the day, I feel we use animals because we can. Its a case of the strong taking advantage of the weak. It puts me in an awkward situation.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭ArthurDent


    good thread. I don't disagree with the points you've made about using animals for experimentation, but wonder if you have any suggestion on what alternatives there are out there.

    Loathed as I am to see animals suffering, I'm still gonna take medicines that were tested on them and there is no way I'm going to try a treatment that hasn't had some preclinical studies carried out to look at toxicity and side effects.


    Do you believe that people are willing to take drugs that have not been tested? AFAIK work carried out to use non animal testing is still at a pretty early stage and cell lines etc can only go so far in identifiying probable issues ( and those cells are from animals/humans).

    I think we are probably stuck with animal testing at the moment.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,482 ✭✭✭RE*AC*TOR


    There are few alternatives. The reason being that to do work on animals is easy, very little money is put into exploring alternatives. With regard to the medicines, preclinical trials etc. you make a good point. However, my problem isn't a one of practicality, its a moral one, and it still stands with that taken into consideration.
    Cells lines (with the exception of stem cells) as you correctly state only tell you so much - but offer no moral problem (cells taken with consent from a human). The issue with them is they are isolated cells in an artificial environment - the results don't necessarily translate. But the same can be said of animal work. Something that is safe in rats or has an effect in rats does not mean it will work in humans.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,334 ✭✭✭OfflerCrocGod


    RE*AC*TOR wrote:
    First off (and most obvious) is I beleive the end does not justify the means. If I have to do something morally wrong to achieve good - its still wrong. Not only does the animal suffer, but i suffer because I allow myself to do something I find objectionable.
    Quit. It's your personal decision and your personal opinion not ours. It's what divides us from the rest of the Animal Kingdom
    RE*AC*TOR wrote:
    At the end of the day, I feel we use animals because we can. Its a case of the strong taking advantage of the weak. It puts me in an awkward situation.
    We do, that's true, we can cogitate on a higher level then these other animals so we use them for our purposes. The fact that you can feel as if you are in an awkward situation is something that is unique to you as a human, mice don't feel awkward. Your choice; there are plenty of others who will take your place and make the medicine and other by-products of animal testing that Mankind wants.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,482 ✭✭✭RE*AC*TOR


    You're absolutely right, it is my decsion. For my personal benefit I'm choosing to carry on with this even though I think its wrong.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 612 ✭✭✭Phil_321


    Good to see your conscience didn't get the better of your intelligence there.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,482 ✭✭✭RE*AC*TOR


    I wouldn't say intellignece has anything to do with it. Its more of a case of being spineless, or lacking any serious moral fibre.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 354 ✭✭Commissar


    Or then again it could just be a case of realism?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,482 ✭✭✭RE*AC*TOR


    yeah, just like the realism of people involved in the slave industry... or those who worked in prison camps experimenting on jews/gypsies etc during WW2....


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    I think you're missing an important distinction: slaves, jews et al were all humans (despite the warped mentalities that thought differently). Mice are not.

    This is not an arbitrary distinction. Let me put it this way: would you feel bad about experimenting on plants? On microbes? If not, why not?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,482 ✭✭✭RE*AC*TOR


    Can these animals suffer.... yes. Can plants suffer, can they feel pain? Not to our knowledge. Yeah Jews, Slaves are humans... so what? Humans are animals as well. We just happen to be top of the heap, so we can exert out power to use/abuse weaker species for our benefit.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,717 ✭✭✭Praetorian


    Dear RE*AC*TOR,

    I presume what you are working on could potentially provide a cure or a preventative treatment for diabetes?

    I believe that stupid little animals like mice don’t truly experience pain like humans do. They aren’t sentient and they don’t have a soul if you will. I don’t think they suffer like humans do. No amount of mice is worth a single human dying or suffering a cruel disease like diabetes.

    Can you imagine the amount of people you could help? Living, breathing, thinking people. Have you got any friends or relations with the disease; would this change your position on the mice if you had? The mice probably wouldn’t even be alive if it weren’t for us breeding them in the first place.

    We had to, and have to use the animals on our planet to ensure we survive.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,482 ✭✭✭RE*AC*TOR


    interesting point. Its something like - if you could kill one rat to save your wife/husband/son/daughter/mother/father would you do it. Of course I would, but I'd also gladly kill people for that too. That's an emotional question, not a moral one.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    RE*AC*TOR wrote:
    Can these animals suffer.... yes. Can plants suffer, can they feel pain? Not to our knowledge. Yeah Jews, Slaves are humans... so what? Humans are animals as well. We just happen to be top of the heap, so we can exert out power to use/abuse weaker species for our benefit.
    I agree that our position of power carries with it responsibilities - all rights have corresponding duties. That's why we mandate humane treatment of animals, even the ones we are breeding for the sole purpose of killing them for their meat.

    That doesn't change the fact that there is an important distinction between people and animals. You can argue semantically about why that distinction should be, on the grounds of sentience or intelligence or ability to experience pain, but morality is based on the idea that humans are intrinsically more important (to humans) than animals are. To reject that distinction is to reject morality as we know it.

    I wouldn't ever be deliberately cruel to an animal for the sake of it. At the same time, I have a can of fly spray in the kitchen cupboard, mousetraps set in strategic places, and I'm not uncomfortable with the death of a laboratory animal if it will help cure my sister's diabetes (or my brother's MS, or...)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    Praetorian wrote:
    Dear RE*AC*TOR,

    I presume what you are working on could potentially provide a cure or a preventative treatment for diabetes?

    I believe that stupid little animals like mice don’t truly experience pain like humans do. They aren’t sentient and they don’t have a soul if you will. I don’t think they suffer like humans do. No amount of mice is worth a single human dying or suffering a cruel disease like diabetes.

    Can you imagine the amount of people you could help? Living, breathing, thinking people. Have you got any friends or relations with the disease; would this change your position on the mice if you had? The mice probably wouldn’t even be alive if it weren’t for us breeding them in the first place.

    We had to, and have to use the animals on our planet to ensure we survive.

    While I think animal testing is an important area, it is not a standalone tool for exploring human disease or medicines and as such you are overstating the case.

    The correlation between rat/mice and human studies israther crude in most cases and even in those cases that mimic human conditions the animals physiology is too different to produce results that can give any real data on how a drug will work in humans.

    For most of the basic drug absorption studies and disease markers human cell culture models (both primary and carncer cell lines) are more than adequate for the aquisition of bulk data. True, the next step for a therapeutic strategy is to take the model to animals, but the work here should be rather limited in the overall scheme of things. In the end, no drug gets on the market without substantial human testing.

    There is also a trend now in predictive computer studies for how drugs may work in humans and surprisingly its been quite sucessful.

    All in all, your life expectency would be dramatically lowered now if it wasn't for animal medical studies and although I don't believe they should ever be a major component in scientific experimentation they are a required evil.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,219 ✭✭✭Falkorre


    RE*AC*TOR wrote:
    Ok [cracks kniuckles in preparation for a lot of typing].
    We find it morally unacceptable to perform such experiments on humans. Yet, its acceptable on animals? Why? Because they are less intellgient than us? Why don't we experiment on mentally retarded people then? We assume its ok because they are lesser organisms than us. We use this way of thinking to justify it to ourselves. A simple anaolgy is the use of black people as slaves, or the use of jews/gypsies/blacks etc for experiments in prison camps in world war 2. However, they suffer, that's a fact. The greater good arguement is also invalid for a number of reasons. First off (and most obvious) is I beleive the end does not justify the means. If I have to do something morally wrong to achieve good - its still wrong. Not only does the animal suffer, but i suffer because I allow myself to do something I find objectionable. Second, the greater good is an abstract term. Pain is not a collective experience, we experience pain as individuals, not collectively - as do animals.

    At the end of the day, I feel we use animals because we can. Its a case of the strong taking advantage of the weak. It puts me in an awkward situation.

    I agree 100%

    I am one of the people who may be the recipient of whatever "miracle drugs" they may come up with by means of this research.

    I am here to say, personally, I would rather not have a drug than see one animal suffer in my name.

    You may ask then "why do you take the drugs you are allready on",... well, the reason is twofold, firstly the majority of drugs I take I have been on since childhood, before I had any say in what I took, to come off them would require a withdrawl that I probably wouldnt live through.

    The second reason is somtimes, no matter what your intentions, the pain can make you push these things to the back of your mind, because without them you know you would suffer even more than you are currently, and you know you couldnt live that way, and no matter how strong your beliefs, survival instinct kicks in.

    But, when I sit and think about it. I would rather die than see any of my pets die in such horrific ways, I have to feel the same about *all* animals.

    B


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Falkorre wrote:
    But, when I sit and think about it. I would rather die than see any of my pets die in such horrific ways, I have to feel the same about *all* animals.
    Have you ever swatted an insect? Do you eat meat? Or fish?

    I honestly think it's noble of you to feel this way, but it's also not terribly pragmatic. Animals die in horrible ways in the wild, that's the nature of nature. What makes us different from animals is our unwillingness to be dictated to by nature. That difference is, in my opinion, what gives us the right to use animals - where necessary - to further our aims as a species.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,219 ✭✭✭Falkorre


    oscarBravo wrote:
    Have you ever swatted an insect? Do you eat meat? Or fish?

    To my mind, the difference is nature Vs. Torture.
    I would hope the animals killed for consumption are killed in a humane way.
    I know there is some that arent but the hope is they are.
    With vivisection, animals are *hurt*, caused pain, cut, stung, poisened, blinded, suffocated, drugged and basically most suffer prolonged painfull deaths.

    It is natural for humans to be omnivores, it is *cruel* for humans to be torturers.

    Just my own opinions,

    B


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    Falkorre wrote:
    I agree 100%

    I am one of the people who may be the recipient of whatever "miracle drugs" they may come up with by means of this research.

    I am here to say, personally, I would rather not have a drug than see one animal suffer in my name.

    You may ask then "why do you take the drugs you are allready on",... well, the reason is twofold, firstly the majority of drugs I take I have been on since childhood, before I had any say in what I took, to come off them would require a withdrawl that I probably wouldnt live through.

    Ode for the self-righteous.

    Every preservative in every food or drink you consume has been tested on animals.
    Every colouring in every food or drink you consume has been tested on animals.
    Every drug you have ever taken, from paracetamol to antibiotics has been tested on animals.
    Every medical balm or over the counter drug you have had, cough syrup to eye drops, has been tested on animals.

    Your condition aside, you would probably be dead by now anyway if it wasn't for animal research.

    So you're either a total hypocrite, incredibly naive, a liar or all or any combination of the above.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,219 ✭✭✭Falkorre


    syke wrote:
    Ode for the self-righteous.
    Every preservative in every food or drink you consume has been tested on animals.
    Every colouring in every food or drink you consume has been tested on animals.
    Every drug you have ever taken, from paracetamol to antibiotics has been tested on animals.
    Every medical balm or over the counter drug you have had, cough syrup to eye drops, has been teste don animals.
    Your condition aside, you would probably be dead by now anyway if it wasn't for animal research.
    So you're either a total hypocrite, incredibly naive, al liar or all or any combination of the above.

    :rolleyes:
    Yet again, old sykee takes what is said, brings it to a ridiculous extreme, tries his/her (sorry dunno) best to make somone look silly. :rolleyes:

    I prolly *am* a bit naive when it comes to this, as is probaboly 90% of the population syke. Not all of us know everything there is to know about everything.(must be nice). In a way, I hope I am.

    As I said syke, I take drugs I need, an yeah I use stuff that probably has been tested on animals initially (altho I seriously make an effort not to).
    But I do not LIKE this, which was my point! I never once said I dont, at least *read* a post before you make silly attempts to make the poster look silly. :rolleyes:

    B


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    Falkorre wrote:
    I prolly *am* a bit naive when it comes to this, as is probaboly 90% of the population syke. Not all of us know everything there is to know about everything.(must be nice). In a way, I hope I am.
    Rest easy, if you are actually anything like your postings on boards, you are.
    Falkorre wrote:
    As I said syke, I take drugs I need, an yeah I use stuff that probably has been tested on animals initially (altho I seriously make an effort not to).But I do not LIKE this, which was my point! I never once said I dont, at least *read* a post

    So when you said:
    I am here to say, personally, I would rather not have a drug than see one animal suffer in my name.

    Do you drink soft drinks? Do you eat sweets? Do you use artificial sweeteners? Toothpaste? Mouthwash? can I go on? How much of an effort is a serious one? Do you ensure that you buy non-animal tested cosmetic care items like shaving foam and such?

    If you sprout on saying you don't agree with something and would rather die than have an animal tested product, but don't even bother to look and see what is animal tested (which by your own implication is the case)..

    What you actually meant to say is,
    "I tell people I don't like using animal products but to be honest, I never make any effort to find out what products I've used have been tested on animals and even still I wouldn't let this influence my judgement. For now I'm happy to look and sound PC, cos its the sort of image I like to portray, but I hope noone sees through this and pegs me as the hypocritical preacher that I am"

    Falkorre wrote:
    before you make silly attempts to make the poster look silly. :rolleyes:
    You don't need me to make you or your posts look silly.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,482 ✭✭✭RE*AC*TOR


    oscarBravo wrote:
    ...You can argue semantically about why that distinction should be, on the grounds of sentience or intelligence or ability to experience pain, but morality is based on the idea that humans are intrinsically more important (to humans) than animals are.

    We cannot really know if animals are sentient, its an abstract term to define consciousness. Intelligence doesn't hold water, as by that criteria we could with no qualms experiment on the mentally disabled. I have no doubt that animals can experience pain. Need proof?... kick a dog!


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    RE*AC*TOR wrote:
    We cannot really know if animals are sentient, its an abstract term to define consciousness. Intelligence doesn't hold water, as by that criteria we could with no qualms experiment on the mentally disabled. I have no doubt that animals can experience pain. Need proof?... kick a dog!
    You miss my point: it doesn't matter what semantic terms you use to define the difference. The point is that most forms of morality are based on the understanding that humans are superior to other forms of life. There are moralities that don't hold with this belief - the Jains are, I believe, an example - but I personally don't subscribe to them. I believe humans to be intrinsically superior to animals and, as I've said earlier, that that conveys both rights and duties.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,219 ✭✭✭Falkorre


    :rolleyes:
    Can't be arsed even beginning to point out all the BS in this post, needless to say syke, I am so glad you know ME and can translate for me..............oh wait, YOU DONT, and YOU CANT! Now sod off an stop needling me.

    Ah well, yet again I am made realise that me posting on these boards is a waste of time, guess there will always be the boards Nazis (elitists) here who hate to see somone else daring to post their opinion.
    And unfortunately they have bigger mouths than the decent ppl here.

    Bye-Bye Bordsie! Falkorre is taking his leave of this entire place. (For good this time).

    B


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,482 ✭✭✭RE*AC*TOR


    oscarBravo wrote:
    You miss my point: it doesn't matter what semantic terms you use to define the difference. The point is that most forms of morality are based on the understanding that humans are superior to other forms of life. There are moralities that don't hold with this belief - the Jains are, I believe, an example - but I personally don't subscribe to them. I believe humans to be intrinsically superior to animals and, as I've said earlier, that that conveys both rights and duties.
    Can you give me a rational explanation of why humans are superior? Given this superiority, is it then justified to use inferior species to our aims?
    I understand what you mean, but I fail to see the logic in it.

    *edit* SKYE i appreciate your input, but this is the humanities forum charter here

    particularily note:-
    amp wrote:
    Trolling.
    Saying something which is designed not to provoke debate but anger or annoyance for the purpose of laughing at people. Something we know a bit about.

    and:-
    syke wrote:
    Rest easy, if you are actually anything like your postings on boards, you are....hypocritical preacher that I am....don't need me to make you or your posts look silly.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    RE*AC*TOR wrote:
    *edit* SKYE i appreciate your input, but this is the humanities forum charter

    Why thank you, however, you have edited my post so that it not actually what I said.

    I was merely reassuring the poster that he was, as he said he hoped "naive".

    The hypocritical preacher was another reference, based on the double standards put forward by the poster. There is no such term in the quote you put in by me.


    So infact you are perhaps posting to start a flame?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,446 ✭✭✭✭amp


    The charter is not a book of law. It is there to give guidelines to users about what will get them into trouble. The charter is also open to interpretation based on the moderator in question.

    In this instance, you are incorrectly calling Sykes post a troll. If anything it's mild flaming.

    I would ask Syke to tone down his language and be less abrasive with his posts.

    To quote the charter again, back on topic.

    P.s. Cheerio Falkorre, miss you already man!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    RE*AC*TOR wrote:
    Can you give me a rational explanation of why humans are superior? Given this superiority, is it then justified to use inferior species to our aims?
    I understand what you mean, but I fail to see the logic in it.

    Every multi-celled species on the planet uses other species for its own aims, either purposely or inadvertantly.

    Mankind was using othercreatures for food, tools and weapons before we had evolved into "sentient" modern man.

    One could argue that it is in our nature to use our surroundings and it what we evolved into "the ultimate survivalist species".

    Natural imperitave has no logic or purpose, unless you wish to bring the divine into the matter.

    Now, if you wish to discuss illogical aims, why would a species that has become what it is today (and I mean evolved into modern man, this is before we talk about technology) by making use of resources in ways other animals can't, stop doing so on the grounds of a moral issue regarding creatures with two year lifespans that would not have been born if it wasn't for the experimental grant money to begin with and who have no emotional ties with the individual in question?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,482 ✭✭✭RE*AC*TOR


    As you say natural imperative has no logic or purpose. However, we are far from the point of the survivalist species we once were. If you're arguement is that we need to use the mice/animals etc to gain this knowledge about ourselves to save others - then why not experiment on humans - it would be more effective? The food/tools arguement is valid, but modern society can easily prevail without causing the sufferring of animals.

    Regarding your concluding paragraph - you suggest the end justifies the means. This is a fundamental difference of opinion I have with you. I think it devalues the person doing the morally wrong deed as well as the victim. Yeah, we are highly evolved and have great medicine - animals have suffered for it (as have people - science wasn't always as tightly regulated). We have achieved much. Was it right? Was it ethical. I don't beleive so.
    The question of the mice not being born except for the grant money is infantile (to be frank) - have they a lesser right to life free from sufferring than other mice? Did they sign for this life. Sure I have no emotional ties with these animals... but I respect them. All of them.

    Oh and PS
    amp wrote:
    To quote the charter again, back on topic.

    P.s. Cheerio Falkorre, miss you already man!

    Way to get back on topic! What was the topic again? Falkorre? Vivifalkorre? Falkorresection?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    RE*AC*TOR wrote:
    Regarding your concluding paragraph - you suggest the end justifies the means. This is a fundamental difference of opinion I have with you. I think it devalues the person doing the morally wrong deed as well as the victim. Yeah, we are highly evolved and have great medicine - animals have suffered for it (as have people - science wasn't always as tightly regulated). We have achieved much. Was it right? Was it ethical. I don't beleive so.

    But we are the exception of nature. Nature is not the nice cosey little tree-hugging scenario that common conceptions of hippy love would have you believe. Nature is vicious, nasty, ruthless and doesn't care about you, me, the mice or what we're up to. The only common language all species have is the drive for survival and we either do it at theirs or our own expense.
    RE*AC*TOR wrote:
    The question of the mice not being born except for the grant money is infantile (to be frank) - have they a lesser right to life free from sufferring than other mice? Did they sign for this life. Sure I have no emotional ties with these animals... but I respect them. All of them.

    How is it infantile? You are applying human moral judgement which is not only specific to humans, but not really applicable to nature as a whole, to animals. From natures point of view, nothing has a "right" to life. The only thing that thinks anything has a right to life is the human. Everything else knows far better.

    The mice are bred specifically for experimentation. They didn't sign for this life but nor did anything else. All types of creatures die needlessly in their millions every second, often at the hands (or teeth or claws) of other creatures that die a few seconds after. Did any of them ask for it?

    What you are suggesting is admirable in notion but its just not a valid concept for the world we live in and its against the principles of how this world works. If anything, yours suggestion is the "unatural"one.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,482 ✭✭✭RE*AC*TOR


    syke wrote:
    Nature is vicious, nasty, ruthless and doesn't care about you, me, the mice or what we're up to. The only common language all species have is the drive for survival and we either do it at theirs or our own expense.

    Yes I can see it know, down at the supermarket, struggling for your survival.

    What you are saying is other animals kill other animals for survival, therefore its ok for us to use animals as we wish? Do we need to be set a better example by the animal kingdom??
    Would you not accept that mankind (modern for clarity) CAN survive without causing sufferring to animals?
    Secondly, would you agree that animals can experience pain, sufferring etc.?
    If you accept those two facts then surely, animal research is needless sufferring!

    syke wrote:
    How is it infantile?

    A mouse is a mouse, it suffers the same as every other mouse, it doesn't suffer less because we bred specifically for the process.
    syke wrote:
    From natures point of view, nothing has a "right" to life. The only thing that thinks anything has a right to life is the human. Everything else knows far better.

    The difference is, animals kill other animals to survive. Humans can survive comfortably without experimenting on animals.
    syke wrote:
    All types of creatures die needlessly in their millions every second, often at the hands (or teeth or claws) of other creatures that die a few seconds after.

    ... not needlessly... ACTUAL survival.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    RE*AC*TOR wrote:
    Yes I can see it know, down at the supermarket, struggling for your survival.

    <snip>

    ... not needlessly... ACTUAL survival.

    Humans are unlike any other animal thatis true, however all species need to proliferate and survive. Humans, by their nature proliferate rapidly and diversely and as a result are at risk to a larger range of diseases than most other species.
    What you seem to be missing is that the mortality rate for our species was huge before the advent of modern medicine. Even pre 1930 and the advent of antibiotics conditions that are now trivial could be fatal. Modern medicine is and more importantly in its infancy was driven by animal experimentation. Thus animal experimentation has led to the the survival of our species.

    So yes, ACTUAL survival.

    Because you now live in a happy little first world environment where you have running water, sanitation and national health schemes and can afford to was lyrical about the rights of lab mice to a better life, doesn't mean that the couple of million children in developing countries that die every year from malaria can do without. Nor does it mean that that the millions of african HIV sufferers are all morally more worried about the poor mice.

    The fact of the matter is, in order to prevent millions of these deaths in the future, like the disease that troubled our countries have been prevented, we need animal experimentation. No, humans won't do, because of the vast range of treatments being examined and mainly because we need to perform post-mortem examination on therapeutic effects. The reason we don't do this on humans is something you have answered in your own posts, humans have the ability to choose, mice don't have that ability, even if we granted them it.

    So the question you need to ask is if you're given the power to effect the lives of a few hundred mice or a few million suffering children, which do you condemn to death?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,482 ✭✭✭RE*AC*TOR


    syke wrote:
    Humans <snip> death?


    You failed to answer my two point proposition. You also fail to see my point, the end does not justify the means. Its all well and good weighing up human sufferring thorugh disease and mice sufferring through humans - you make it sound like there's a kind of global collective sufferring taking place. Humans and other animals suffer as individuals. We experience our own pain - I cannot feel your pain and vice versa. I firmly beleive modern man can survive without using animals for experimentation, therefore as I described previously, it can only be deemed morally wrong. There are few alternatives to animal experimentation because no effort has been made to find those. Animal experimentation is easy, so why bother looking for alternatives. There are plenty or brilliant minds out there, I have no doubt modern science/medicine would only get stronger given the impetous to find alternatives and abandon what is essentially a flawed model for a human being.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    RE*AC*TOR wrote:
    You failed to answer my two point proposition. You also fail to see my point, the end does not justify the means. Its all well and good weighing up human sufferring thorugh disease and mice sufferring through humans - you make it sound like there's a kind of global collective sufferring taking place. Humans and other animals suffer as individuals. We experience our own pain - I cannot feel your pain and vice versa. I firmly beleive modern man can survive without using animals for experimentation, therefore as I described previously, it can only be deemed morally wrong. There are few alternatives to animal experimentation because no effort has been made to find those. Animal experimentation is easy, so why bother looking for alternatives. There are plenty or brilliant minds out there, I have no doubt modern science/medicine would only get stronger given the impetous to find alternatives and abandon what is essentially a flawed model for a human being.

    Mice can feel pain. Whether we would have survived without animal research is debatable. I would personally say that we would not have evolved into the technologically advanced society of today had we not first conquered our major diseases.

    However, its not just humans that benefit from animal research, other animals do too. So what about the dogs and cats who have suffering and disease eleviated through medicines borne of animal research.

    Unfortunately, your argument is based on emotion and an irrational viewpoint that we all live in a cuddly world where everything would, could and should live in harmony and respect. If you read outside the textbooks you will learn that the world is not like that. The fact that we have this amazing brain that can display a sense of being and rationalise is precisely because we use our surrounding creatures and environment to suit our needs.

    As for equating the suffering of the world, I'm not, I'm equating the suffering of one child. Would you let one 5 year old child die rather than experiment on one hundred mice? Can you explain the reasoning behind your answer?

    I don't expect an answer but I'm interested to know what research group you work in? Clynes and Newsholme weren't going down the mouse model road last time I talked to them, I know O'Brien in UCG did and the Collins and UCC group got an SFI grant.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,482 ✭✭✭RE*AC*TOR


    syke wrote:
    As for equating the suffering of the world, I'm not, I'm equating the suffering of one child. Would you let one 5 year old child die rather than experiment on one hundred mice? Can you explain the reasoning behind your answer?

    Of course I would In that circumstance, i'd kill all the mice in Dublin to save this hypothetical child of mine. I'd also kill you though, and most of the people in Dublin to that aim. You are the one bringing emotion into this, with a blatantly emotive hypothetical question. What I'd do under such a circumstance, does not justify it.
    syke wrote:
    Mice can feel pain. Whether we would have survived without animal research is debatable. I would personally say that we would not have evolved into the technologically advanced society of today had we not first conquered our major diseases.

    Like smallpox? That was tested on humans if you remember the story. Its still a flawed model and testing is always done on humans anyway.
    syke wrote:
    However, its not just humans that benefit from animal research, other animals do too. So what about the dogs and cats who have suffering and disease eleviated through medicines borne of animal research.

    Again, you're using the end justifies the means arguement. I'm saying - the individual counts. As I said several times, sufferring is a personal experience, experienced by the individual. Its not shared among the collective of animals who may gain the benefit.
    syke wrote:
    Unfortunately, your argument is based on emotion
    I would suggest my arguement is based on logic, and morality. Your is based on emotion (see above).
    syke wrote:
    The fact that we have this amazing brain that can display a sense of being and rationalise is precisely because we use our surrounding creatures and environment to suit our needs.

    Does that justify it? Does it sound something like, "We are stronger, therefore we can take advantage of the weak and use them to suit our needs".


    syke wrote:
    I don't expect an answer but I'm interested to know what research group you work in? Clynes and Newsholme weren't going down the mouse model road last time I talked to them, I know O'Brien in UCG did and the Collins and UCC group got an SFI grant.

    I'd prefer not post personal information about myself on the internet regarding such an inflamatory issue, given the political attidue to it currently. Actually I think the college might have objections too. If you'd like I can PM you. To be more specific its actually diabetic nephropathy I'm working on, not diabetes itself.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭keu


    As for equating the suffering of the world, I'm not, I'm equating the suffering of one child. Would you let one 5 year old child die rather than experiment on one hundred mice? Can you explain the reasoning behind your answer?
    perhaps. Not being cruel..being reasonable.
    like you said before 1930's the mortality rate was significanlty less than it is now, people were accustomed to death in the centuries before this one. It is mans fear of death (desire to survive) which has brought the global population to the highest it has ever been in the history of the planet. Mans illusion that he can cheat the forces of nature is exactly that..an illusion. It is man who is responsible for the blatant desctruction of this planet, so pollluted with crap that if the air doesn't kill you, the sh!t in the food will. (science tells us its for our own good, when really its literally poisoning us)
    Sooner or later nature is going to find a way to minimise the damage. (in the same way as forest fires are natures way of controlling the species)
    The fact of the matter is, in order to prevent millions of these deaths in the future, like the disease that troubled our countries have been prevented, we need animal experimentation.
    did you ever think disease was natures way of controlling the species?
    rtunately, your argument is based on emotion and an irrational viewpoint that we all live in a cuddly world where everything would, could and should live in harmony and respect.
    I'm sure the treehuggers who live in the south american rainforests would disagree, they Do live in harmony with their surroundings and their respect for it results in their survival.
    The reason we don't do this on humans is something you have answered in your own posts, humans have the ability to choose,
    while I believe that science has the best of intentions..mankind has lost its ability to judge what is best for us. We choose to live in an overpopulated, poisoned polluted planet, which as science would have us believe, is in order to aid our survival. If you look at the bigger picture its more likely thats its aiding our extinction.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭keu


    apologies reactor..I know it wasnt the answer you were looking for and was off topic.. but I'm sure you'll come up with a resolve.. I understand you do have the best of intentions and it is a difficult decision to make.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    RE*AC*TOR wrote:
    Of course I would In that circumstance, i'd kill all the mice in Dublin to save this hypothetical child of mine. I'd also kill you though, and most of the people in Dublin to that aim. You are the one bringing emotion into this, with a blatantly emotive hypothetical question. What I'd do under such a circumstance, does not justify it.

    I never said a child of yours. I said a 5 year old child. I ask because this is the age group (3-7) most likely to die from malaria at present. I would estimate roughly 100 mice die in malaria research every year per child in this age group. At present malaria work is progressing slowly (because noone will invest) but thats not to say that they aren't making progress. So its a simple question of worth not emotion. I'll rephrase the question, would you, given the choice, stop the malaria research on mice in favour of re-starting all the research projects on a different trial system, even though it would most likely set the current research back several years. And again I ask why.

    Like smallpox? That was tested on humans if you remember the story. Its still a flawed model and testing is always done on humans anyway.
    The original variola vaccine was tested on milk boys, however the vaccine that led to teh successful irradication of smallpox was a more advanced vaccine, which was, surprise surprise, developed progressively in a number of species, starting down at mice and working up to monkeys, before eventually being used on humans.


    Again, you're using the end justifies the means arguement. I'm saying - the individual counts. As I said several times, sufferring is a personal experience, experienced by the individual. Its not shared among the collective of animals who may gain the benefit.

    Yes and the suffering of one individual is much greater than the suffering of one individual mouse or even a hundred mice, because the human realises whats happening to him, the human understands he is probably about to die, the human can imagine a time without the suffering and wish it to stop.

    A mouse in incapable of this awareness. Suffering is as much about perception as it is about pain.
    I would suggest my arguement is based on logic, and morality. Your is based on emotion (see above).

    Nope, its quite simply logical. If we stopped animal research eventually a disease would take hold that eliminates a large and important area of our population. Cities are most likely to fall the hardest. At present, our species is living outside its means, mainly due to everything I've outlined about us before. Without the ability to quickly adapt, we would eventually be reduced to a much smaller population and as we, for the most part, no longer possess the ability to survive as a species without our technology, we would no longer control our environment.

    As your were using an emotive argument regarding the mouse, I asked you an emotive question, I'm not basing an argument on it, I'm merely highlighting the flaw in yours.

    Does that justify it? Does it sound something like, "We are stronger, therefore we can take advantage of the weak and use them to suit our needs".

    This is how nature, through millions of years of evolution, works. It works quite well.
    I'd prefer not post personal information about myself on the internet regarding such an inflamatory issue, given the political attidue to it currently. Actually I think the college might have objections too. If you'd like I can PM you. To be more specific its actually diabetic nephropathy I'm working on, not diabetes itself.
    I was just curious as to who was using a mouse model, it wasn't a sinister question.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,482 ✭✭✭RE*AC*TOR


    syke wrote:
    I never said a child of yours. I said a 5 year old child. I ask because this is the age group (3-7) most likely to die from malaria at present. I would estimate roughly 100 mice die in malaria research every year per child in this age group. At present malaria work is progressing slowly (because noone will invest) but thats not to say that they aren't making progress. So its a simple question of worth not emotion. I'll rephrase the question, would you, given the choice, stop the malaria research on mice in favour of re-starting all the research projects on a different trial system, even though it would most likely set the current research back several years. And again I ask why.

    Yeah malaria research is going slowly - why? Because it affects mostly third world countries. Research is primarily funded by who? Pharmaceutical companies. Their responsibility is to the shareholders not to mankind. This also happens to be the reason why little money is being invested in looking for alternatives to research on animals.

    To answer your question - yes I would stop the research on mice. For a number of reasons - primarily... Its wrong. Also it is a flawed model, there are many agruements for this, the animals are sufficiently different so the results don't carry over is the major one.
    syke wrote:
    Yes and the suffering of one individual is much greater than the suffering of one individual mouse or even a hundred mice, because the human realises whats happening to him, the human understands he is probably about to die, the human can imagine a time without the suffering and wish it to stop.

    A mouse in incapable of this awareness. Suffering is as much about perception as it is about pain.

    And how exactly do you know this? This is impossible to tell and merely seems to be a convenient way of distancing ourselves from the animals, much in the same way that blacks were deemed to be savages, almost a sub-species, ...if you will.......... animals...


    syke wrote:
    Nope, its quite simply logical. If we stopped animal research eventually a disease would take hold that eliminates a large and important area of our population. Cities are most likely to fall the hardest. At present, our species is living outside its means, mainly due to everything I've outlined about us before. Without the ability to quickly adapt, we would eventually be reduced to a much smaller population and as we, for the most part, no longer possess the ability to survive as a species without our technology, we would no longer control our environment.

    please, don't insult both out intellects. You obviously have a reasonable amount of interest in science, therefore you know if the funding were there we would find alternatives. It is in our nature if you will, we are an adaptive and intelligent species. With that brings power. We should consider our responsibility, and how we use that power.
    syke wrote:
    I was just curious as to who was using a mouse model, it wasn't a sinister question.

    I realise that, however, turn on the news, its not exactly a good idea to jump up and down saying you experiment on animals.


    One final thought. Is it a diminishment of the "being" of a person perpetrating harm? The term being is a bit vague, you could say "soul", but I don't want to get into a theological discussion (and I am by no means religious).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    keu wrote:
    perhaps. Not being cruel..being reasonable.
    like you said before 1930's the mortality rate was significanlty less than it is now, people were accustomed to death in the centuries before this one. It is mans fear of death (desire to survive) which has brought the global population to the highest it has ever been in the history of the planet. Mans illusion that he can cheat the forces of nature is exactly that..an illusion. It is man who is responsible for the blatant desctruction of this planet, so pollluted with crap that if the air doesn't kill you, the sh!t in the food will. (science tells us its for our own good, when really its literally poisoning us)
    Sooner or later nature is going to find a way to minimise the damage. (in the same way as forest fires are natures way of controlling the species)

    Nope, you're missing the jist of what I am saying. Man can and has for the past 10 thousand years cheated nature. That has been the trait that has made him what he has today. We have plundered to achieve this, often to our own detriment and I do hope much of this can be worked around. Nature will eventually level man, probably through a mass extinction event, but the general everyday issues which dictate the population rates and mortality rates of other species no longer concern us. I'll give in example in a later point.
    did you ever think disease was natures way of controlling the species?
    I have considered this and although its not a concious effort by nature from an evolutionary point of view it is quite probably, yes. If you believe in the Gaian philosophy then thats exactly what it does, however mankind has long past this point and what makes us differ from any other species is an understanding of what is happening to us and the consequences of illness and pain. Animals do not have this.
    I'm sure the treehuggers who live in the south american rainforests would disagree, they Do live in harmony with their surroundings and their respect for it results in their survival.
    Yes these treehuggers who have a life span of about 40 years a huge mortality rate in childbirth and live in small isolated communities because the things they live in harmony with have a nasty habit of keeping their population in check by killing them off. They live that way because for the most part, they know nothing different. If you were to offer them an extra 30 years of life and quadruple the survival rate of their infants, do you think they would take it in return for the "loss of harmony"?
    while I believe that science has the best of intentions..mankind has lost its ability to judge what is best for us. We choose to live in an overpopulated, poisoned polluted planet, which as science would have us believe, is in order to aid our survival. If you look at the bigger picture its more likely thats its aiding our extinction.
    Again, it is quite simple in this day and age to shun science if you feel that strongly about it. Many vegans refuse medication and animal tested foods. Many religions do the same. You, as a human have choice and rationale, it has made you what you are today. Do you consume animal tested products? Do you use animal tested cosmetics? Do you avail of animal tested medicines?

    Science has provided you with the right to choose, if you feel its out of place, then choose to forgo science's developments but don't preach one thing and practice another.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,482 ✭✭✭RE*AC*TOR


    syke wrote:
    Again, it is quite simple in this day and age to shun science if you feel that strongly about it. Many vegans refuse medication and animal tested foods. Many religions do the same. You, as a human have choice and rationale, it has made you what you are today. Do you consume animal tested products? Do you use animal tested cosmetics? Do you avail of animal tested medicines?

    Science has provided you with the right to choose, if you feel its out of place, then choose to forgo science's developments but don't preach one thing and practice another.

    This is quite important. What you say is true. The vast majority of people given the choice between longer lives and the sufferring of a few animals (or a few hundred / thousand animals) will choose their own life. This does not make it "right" (i keep using this word and the word "moral" but I guess they are quite subjective depending on your beliefs). By our nature we struggle to survive, we are the ultimate survivalist species, due to our adaptive nature and high intelligence. But putting that to one side for now, we are also an intelligent species who can consider out role in a greater sense, we can question ethics and morals. If its wrong to perpetrate harm on a human, then why not on an animal? This is because we have a scoiety-based moral stance that this is wrong. It wasn't always considered wrong by various societies (Dr. Josef Mengele for example). In those circumstances the same arguements were given. The victims were portrayed as being an inferior race - just as other animals are portrayed in an inferior light now. But now we look back at Mengele with disgust, we look back at Herophilos with similar amazement at the acts he carried out. I beleive in 100 years time (maybe sooner) people will look back and say, "I can't beleive what they did to those creatures!".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    RE*AC*TOR wrote:
    Yeah malaria research is going slowly - why? Because it affects mostly third world countries. Research is primarily funded by who? Pharmaceutical companies. Their responsibility is to the shareholders not to mankind. This also happens to be the reason why little money is being invested in looking for alternatives to research on animals.
    I agree 100% but its hardly the issue.
    To answer your question - yes I would stop the research on mice. For a number of reasons - primarily... Its wrong. Also it is a flawed model, there are many agruements for this, the animals are sufficiently different so the results don't carry over is the major one.
    But you miss the point of the mouse model then. If you develop a drug or therapy, you ideally do your initial studies in cell and rat/mouse models. The main reason for this is economy, physiology and ethics. If the therapy is reasonably marketable or beneficial (this is the less likely reason to develop) then you will see a movement to so called "higher animals" where applicable before humans. This is the FDA's modus operandi and they are quite rigid with it. The mouse paves the way for less and less reductionist models because, the attitude is, the closer you get to humans the more cost and less ethics there are involved.
    And how exactly do you know this? This is impossible to tell and merely seems to be a convenient way of distancing ourselves from the animals, much in the same way that blacks were deemed to be savages, almost a sub-species, ...if you will.......... animals...
    Its quite easy to tell using comparative physiology. There is no comparison between animals and people of different races. Such an analogy is racist and quite frankly offensive. I'd choose your analogies carefully here.

    Racism overlooks the fact that all men are physiologically the same with the same capabilities. The difference between animals and humans is deemed on what they are physiologically capable of and if you kept abreast of the literature outside your own area you would see that the proteins and genes that have most recently been associated with sentience and awareness are not present in mice. There was quite a big fuss made of it when this data was presented to PETA too. Intelligence studies designed to test memory and intellect while differentiating instinct have also shown this while brain mass to body weight ratios also say an awful lot. As a potential PhD its worthy to remember to know the area you are trying to make an argument for.
    please, don't insult both out intellects. You obviously have a reasonable amount of interest in science, therefore you know if the funding were there we would find alternatives. It is in our nature if you will, we are an adaptive and intelligent species. With that brings power. We should consider our responsibility, and how we use that power.

    Funding is an issue for the reason I outlined. Any switch now would set all current projects back anywhere up to a decade (as was seen with the stem cell debacle in the US). While this sets the development back, money has to be found to fund the extra years all the while people continue to suffer the disease. I thought that was obvious from my staement.0
    I realise that, however, turn on the news, its not exactly a good idea to jump up and down saying you experiment on animals.
    The british news, there are no radical animal rights groups in Ireland at present. Its only a matter of time I'm sure but you're quite safe here.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    RE*AC*TOR wrote:
    This is quite important. What you say is true. The vast majority of people given the choice between longer lives and the sufferring of a few animals (or a few hundred / thousand animals) will choose their own life.
    One could argue that this is just the survival instinct manifested at a higher level of conciousness. Animals must kill others to survive, our curse is that we must first rationalise it. However, at then end of the day we as a species simply would not survive without living off other animals.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭keu


    Man can and has for the past 10 thousand years cheated nature. That has been the trait that has made him what he has today.
    i disagree, man has lived at the mercy of nature for the last ten thousand years..I don't thinkits any differnt now. (we just think it is)
    however mankind has long past this point
    again I disagree, man is by no means past this point. I'll give in example in a later point.
    If you were to offer them an extra 30 years of life and quadruple the survival rate of their infants, do you think they would take it in return for the "loss of harmony"?
    they choose to live the way they do now, many have chosen to join civilisation.
    Science has provided you with the right to choose, if you feel its out of place, then choose to forgo science's developments but don't preach one thing and practice another.
    I don't feel like I'm preaching, just stating the obvious. I'm not vegan or part of any religion which prohibits eating particular foods, but as chemical preservatives and additives are common additions to pretty much all comercial food, I don't really have much choice about consuming it, this is just the thing. Science has dictated what is right in these instances, I just question at what cost.
    The increase in global population is not a good thing, and is not sustainable, to preach about our quantity or quality of life in western civilisation is hypocritical when there are millions suffering from starvation and illness all over the world. I doubt that was a choice they made either.
    For the most part modern science is supported in a capitalist society, where the economy is nire important than most lives, mass food production requires modern conveniences such as additives and preservatives..its not put there for the good of our health, as for modern medicine, I'm sure if you have enough money you can buy longevity.
    Cancer and aids are still rife (and for the most part non curable) heart disease is still the biggest killer in this country, I suppose it is arguable that all of these diseases are lifestyle related and not found amongst "rainforest" tribes.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,482 ✭✭✭RE*AC*TOR


    syke wrote:
    There is no comparison between animals and people of different races. Such an analogy is racist and quite frankly offensive. I'd choose your analogies carefully here.

    Oh please, cop on. There was nothing remotely racist about my analogy. The analogy merely stressed that at different times we viewed members of our own race the same way we now view animals. The pyramids wouldn't have been built if it were not for slaves. They are an outstading testament to architecture. That does not make it right to have used slavery.
    syke wrote:
    The difference between animals and humans is deemed on what they are physiologically capable of and if you kept abreast of the literature outside your own area you would see that the proteins and genes that have most recently been associated with sentience and awareness are not present in mice. There was quite a big fuss made of it when this data was presented to PETA too.

    I'm unfamiliar with the work, and therefore cannot comment directly on it (although I'd be interested in reading it - if you can tell me where it was published/ quthors etc.). However, as you know papers come out all the time, suggesting various things - they are often wrong.
    syke wrote:
    Intelligence studies designed to test memory and intellect while differentiating instinct have also shown this while brain mass to body weight ratios also say an awful lot.

    The above could also be written about various types of mentally disabled people too. That's where that arguement falls apart.
    syke wrote:
    Funding is an issue for the reason I outlined. Any switch now would set all current projects back anywhere up to a decade (as was seen with the stem cell debacle in the US). While this sets the development back, money has to be found to fund the extra years all the while people continue to suffer the disease.

    That is a negative aspect of such a switch - true. There are many negative and positive aspects to all of this, but the one that concerns me most is that I will cause sufferring to animals. I cannot escape that fact. I essentially will give these mice diabetes and then I will kill them. As they are trangenice mice (gremlin knockout), homozygous mutants will develop no kidneys and will die at birth.

    I am not naive, I know animal research won't just stop with a flick of a switch, like many animal rights activists desire. We will continue to perpetrate harm until (a) society deems it immoral or (b) the model is proved to be of little use / better alternatives are developed.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭keu


    I'm not arguing the morality of killing animals for our survival,(in prehistroy mankind has always given thanks for the food it consumed, all animals were considered sacrifices and honnored at meals) I'm making a point about the neccesity of it in order to support an industry which is driven by survival on a mainly commercial level.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    keu wrote:
    i disagree, man has lived at the mercy of nature for the last ten thousand years..I don't thinkits any differnt now. (we just think it is)
    Back this up with examples if you can.

    The recent hurricanes are a prime example of how we are no longer at the mercy of nature. a mere thousand years ago such an act of nature would have destroyed the community, those who survived would have been stranded in the area and would eventually have died from disease or starvation. Now the relative casualties are few (although still tragic) and most were evacuated to safety. Aide, food and water was taken to the rally points.
    they choose to live the way they do now, many have chosen to join civilisation.
    Is this your opinion or do you know that they have all made an educated decision between the two lifestyles. If so, please back up your claim with a reference.
    I don't feel like I'm preaching, just stating the obvious. I'm not vegan or part of any religion which prohibits eating particular foods, but as chemical preservatives and additives are common additions to pretty much all comercial food, I don't really have much choice about consuming it, this is just the thing. Science has dictated what is right in these instances, I just question at what cost.

    Really? Well now thats strange because I don't eat processed foods. I'm not a vegan or vegitarian but because of a medical condition I must restrict me eating habits to only certain food types. I survive quite well and am by nomeans under-nourished. When I have foods with chemicals or additives, its as a treat to myself but I can do quite happily without. I only eat meat if someone else cooks it for me or if I eat out, I don't drink very often and again have gone over a year without. This is all by choice. I refuse to believe that people don't have a choice in that matter. It may be an inconvenience initially, but its certainly a choice.
    The increase in global population is not a good thing, and is not sustainable, to preach about our quantity or quality of life in western civilisation is hypocritical when there are millions suffering from starvation and illness all over the world. I doubt that was a choice they made either.
    For the most part modern science is supported in a capitalist society, where the economy is nire important than most lives, mass food production requires modern conveniences such as additives and preservatives..its not put there for the good of our health, as for modern medicine, I'm sure if you have enough money you can buy longevity.
    Cancer and aids are still rife (and for the most part non curable) heart disease is still the biggest killer in this country, I suppose it is arguable that all of these diseases are lifestyle related and not found amongst "rainforest" tribes.

    Firstly, although drug development is restricted due to commercial issues (basicaly the leaching heartless pharma companies) it doesn't mean that there isn't alot of research done on developing world issues. And these all use animal models. There are experts in malaria, parasites and intestinal illnesses (the area in which I research) in this country and we are not, as the government would have you believe, a science rich nation.

    You are arguing a different and invalid point. The pharma companies invest in research. They don't invest in 3rd world therapies much, because they are not profitable. However the research still gets done (although slower) and animals are killed in its name. What is your point?

    As for the cancer issue. Yes, its a big killer but eventually it will, like many other before it, be cracked. It still doesn't restrict the life of the majority population. Most of your forest-dwellers die by 40, making it to 50 is unheard of.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,482 ✭✭✭RE*AC*TOR


    syke wrote:
    One could argue that this is just the survival instinct manifested at a higher level of conciousness. Animals must kill others to survive, our curse is that we must first rationalise it. However, at then end of the day we as a species simply would not survive without living off other animals.

    I beleive modern man CAN and WOULD survive without living off other animals. In the past, I would have argued that the environment dictated we live off whatever we can get, but now an option exists. Da Vinci for example was a vegetarian thorughout his life and lived to nearly 70, which in the 1400s / 1500s was a long life.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement