Vivisection

RE*AC*TOR

amp wrote:

Back on topic

amp wrote:

To quote the charter again, back on topic.

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

...

amp

Yes well this is my last warning. Further off-topic posts in this thread will cause that user to be banned and their post deleted.

Capt'n Midnight

suppose it's time to paraphrase Machevelli
the end can justify the least un-ethical means

If it can be shown that the probablity of good multiplied by the number of people who might benefit, is greater than the harm caused (factoring in your weghting of human to mice) AND/OR if you can show that the experiment would be done anyway and you would ensure less suffering than the average experimenter then you should have a clear conscience.

syke wrote:

Any mammal could be used for most experiments, mice are deemed most ethical (or least un-ethical).

List of rodenticides and the effects on humans. The numbers of well fed and well housed mice used in expirements is only a fraction of those used killed off as vermin.

As an aside I seem to remember that you could kill vermin in any maner you wanted with being able to be prosecuted - not sure if true. [off tipic] Also reminds me of the fuss over the Ozzie who used to wear a cat skin hat and he was wishing the native fauna would get the same attention. [/on topic]

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Da Vinci for example was a vegetarian thorughout his life and lived to nearly 70, which in the 1400s / 1500s was a long life.

Three score and ten.
The lower average age in times past was due to higher infant mortality and other causes of permature death, people who die of old age don't on average die a lot older than then.

[edit]Rats and Mice Destruction Act (as amended 1947 and 1970) 1919[/edit]
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/front.html

Other way of removing rodents...
STICKY BOARD TRAPS
These can also be used with a rodent glue spread on a sheet of cardboard 300 mm x 300 mm leaving about 1 inch all round the sides free from glue. The board should be placed so that a rat or mouse cannot leave or enter without getting caught in the glue. These boards should be inspected regularly (once or twice a day) and trapped rodents disposed of humanely. These boards should be placed so as not to present a risk to other wild life.

RampagingBadger

I'm sure this point has been made already but if you love animals that much shouldn't you be complaining about the way we eat them (which isn't really that morally justifiable) before you start on the one form of animal use/abuse that brings about some good. Also drugs are tested on humans. They're just tested on animals first.

People here have said they'd rather go without than use the lifesaving drugs that could cure them but were tested on animals. Well that's fine by me but I know what I'd choose to do and stopping the testing on animals removes that choice from me. There are alternative forms of testing. But if they were as reliable and cheap then the pharmacy companies would use them. They're capitalist companies they'll do whatevers gives the best results for the least outlay.

keu

syke wrote:

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,

keu wrote:

i'm not sure thats appropriate, the hurricanes did succeed in destroying many communities on haiti and cuba, the loss of life in relative terms is proportionate to the population.

syke wrote:

Its very appropriate. The issues that a group of animals and humans would normally suffer at the hands of such an act of nature (such as those I mentioned) do not apply to us anymore as a species.

keu wrote:

I'm glad you think mankind is no longer at the mercy of nature, unfortunately I doubt it will be long before you see evidence which suggests it is.

that didn't take long.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/01/03/asia.quake/index.html

GuanYin

keu wrote:

that didn't take long.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/01/03/asia.quake/index.html

While totally off topic, perhaps 300-500 years ago something of this magnitude would have wiped the region out. Disease and starvation would have cut through the survivors and the communities would have been wiped out.

Although the loss and suffering is at a grand scale and should be in no way trivialised, the danger of the local populations becoming extinct (the communities in the region, not humans) is minimal thanks to aid and relief services borne of our technology.

As an on-topic note to the thread, the disease preventing medicines now being used, were all tested on animals.

keu

my chair is all bendy and it hurts my back.

Moriarty

I want the twenty minutes of my life that I spent reading the past half-page back.

Sand

I want the twenty minutes of my life that I spent reading the past half-page back

That was your mistake Dont bother reading threads past 3-4 pages. Theye invariably gone off topic so posting on-topic based off only the first post is a bit different.

Animals can feel pain, so hurting them needlessly is cruel. However there is a need for testing products and unfortunately animals have a proven track record in that field. I can understand why the original poster would be squemish about it - Testing on animals is something I can see the logic of, but I wouldnt be able to do myself.

As to why our morals, which prevent us from testing on people who are weaker than us...thats what morals are for. An artificial construct to restrain the strong, to allow all humans to exist in a community - such as the promotion of chivalry to encourage medeival warlords to become "gentlemen". Promotion of morals and adherence to them protects our own rights against humans stronger from us. We might be on top today, but we might be on the losing side tommorrow and promoting morals gives us a safety net.

Unfortunately for animals, theyre unlikely to ever get one over on us outside of Planet of the Apes scenarios, so our morals dont apply to them.

RampagingBadger

Sand wrote:

As to why our morals, which prevent us from testing on people who are weaker than us...thats what morals are for. An artificial construct to restrain the strong, to allow all humans to exist in a community - such as the promotion of chivalry to encourage medeival warlords to become "gentlemen". Promotion of morals and adherence to them protects our own rights against humans stronger from us. We might be on top today, but we might be on the losing side tommorrow and promoting morals gives us a safety net.

.

Never thought of it that way before. Interesting.......

Ms Beanbag

Sand wrote:

As to why our morals, which prevent us from testing on people who are weaker than us...thats what morals are for. An artificial construct to restrain the strong, to allow all humans to exist in a community - such as the promotion of chivalry to encourage medeival warlords to become "gentlemen". Promotion of morals and adherence to them protects our own rights against humans stronger from us. We might be on top today, but we might be on the losing side tommorrow and promoting morals gives us a safety net.

I recently studied the miligram experiment in college. Kinda disproves what your saying...
http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm

Sand

No it doesnt, though it is an interesting test. There also the other one where they had two teams, "guards" and "prisoners", and the test had to be called off as the guards were becoming alarmingly sadistic.

All either proves is when you place people in a situation where day to day morals dont seem to apply - i.e. the shocking is part of some experiment, the suffering of the "learner" cannot be witnessed - then the strong will exploit the weak. Thats what morals are designed to reduce. Either of the above doesnt disprove that, it only shows what can happen when theyre removed.

Ms Beanbag

Sand wrote:

All either proves is when you place people in a situation where day to day morals dont seem to apply - i.e. the shocking is part of some experiment, the suffering of the "learner" cannot be witnessed - then the strong will exploit the weak.

Actually the 'teacher' was well aware of the 'pain' he was inflicting on the 'learner', through poundings through the wall yet he still applied increasing levels of shock, THE MAJORITY of the other 'teachers' did this aswell... seems the morals flew out the window..

Sand

Was there any possibility the "learner" could shock the "teacher" back?

solas

Sand wrote:

Was there any possibility the "learner" could shock the "teacher" back?

the thought makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

Nevyn

In an idea world we would notneed to do needfull testing on animals.
Needfull as in NOT make up or food addatives but for medicene.

I am sure every diabetic out there and thier family really upset at the plight if the 100s of dogs used to develope insulin for with out which they would waste away and die.

Or every person with epilepsy asks about how eplium and the rest of the drugs were devloped and how they removed section of monkeys skulls to insert permant electric probes to induce fits.

Nor will in the future will children treated and cured of leukemia be thinking about the basset hounds that suffered and died so they might live.

Ideally none of those animals would have been used but we do not live in an ideal world.

Memnoch

orinal poster you actually hit the nail on the head... weather anyone here is WILLING to admit it or not, the simple fact is that humanity doesn't really have any morals.

There is only one rule/law we follow. Might makes right. Everything else is based of that and our own instinct for survival (i use the term loosely). Saying that we rise above this and the rest is actually just rubbish.

Humans are completely hypocritical creatures. We create morality but then add in distinctions so that the moralily doesn't hamper us. Weather it be man harming man or man harming animal. We do what we want to do.

The only difference between people is how far we are willing to go, and where we draw that distinction. Some draw it at all living things, some draw it at animals, others draw it at humans, and others still draw it at only those humans who its convenient for them to draw it at. The rest is just self-appeasment really. People need to think they are "good" and all that jazz, and will create the most hypocritical and irrational arguements to justify their actions.

The above IDEAL world post is a good example of what i'm talking about. Am I personally any better? No i am not. But at least, I don't pretend to be

RE*AC*TOR

Memnoch wrote:

orinal poster you actually hit the nail on the head... weather anyone here is WILLING to admit it or not, the simple fact is that humanity doesn't really have any morals.

Societies moral boundaries change from decade to decade. Slavery, Homosexuality etc at one time or another have fallen in or out of acceptance. And much in the same way as we look back on the slave-masters as "evil men", I imagine we will one day look back on vivisection in a similar manner. Back then they needed slaves to build empires, now we need animals to make medicines.