One thing is to prioritize human lives in a fire or an accident and another one is to torture an animal, a fully conscious being, with the same ability for sense perception as you or me, for the small chance that it might produce some kind of insight. More often than not it doesn’t produce anything useful, even if there are a few instances where it does. I’m not entirely against animal experimentation but it needs to be justified at such a level that there must be almost no doubt that it will produce the required data. If there’s any doubt, you need more research to prove that an animal model will reproduce appropriately in human physiology.
I don’t need you to explain to me that human lives are prioritized, I’m not a retard. I need you to answer why John Everyman who clearly doesn’t value his life enough to stop eating slop, is worth torturing thousands of animals so that we may win him a few more years of life?
I mean, I literally linked you the incredible medical advancements that have been made possible from animal testing and research.
It’s not just about giving John Everyman a few more years of life. I don’t think you even looked at the page I linked, it’s about organ transplants, antibiotics, insulin, anaesthetics, blood transfusions, and so many other things that have nothing to do with people who “don’t value their life” and instead can affect anyone and everyone and can literally extend lives of millions of people world-wide by decades.
You’re arguing for something that is already in place, it already does have to be justified where there is almost no doubt it will produce the required data.
But are you aware of all the literally useless experiments that have been conducted that have given us 0 knowledge about anything? Were talking easily billions of animals tortured for nothing, and often it is pretty common sense that we were gonna learn nothing. Often it is more about using those research funds for something, to collect data for the heck of having the data because it might be useful to someone sometime. I’m not entirely against animal experiments but you need to have, I’ll repeat, absolute certainty that whatever process or Illness you are trying to understand is replicable in humans perfectly. This more often than not is not the case.
For example I can see very clearly how organ transplant techniques may be learned from testing in nonhuman animals, it’s almost self evident that it will because even if anatomy is different the mechanics that allow it to be possible are clearly the same across mammal species. But things like metabolic diseases or toxins are entirely different because chemical processes are different across species. My argument would also be that the only animal that should be used are chimps, which many people will oppose because they think them “rational” as if we have conclusive evidence of the non-rationality of other species.
I’m not entirely sure that it is the case but if it is the case that that is how it is done then good. But I have my serious doubts seeing how beauty products are still tested on animals.
It works the other way too though, it doesn’t mean that we won’t learn anything that will help humans.
Generally, human lives are prioritized over animal lives.
Firemen rescue humans from burning buildings first, animals secondary. There’s a hierarchy, it works the same in medicine too.
Unfortunately, animal testing and research has given us some of the greatest medical advancements in history: https://hms.harvard.edu/research/animal-research/what-animal-research-has-given-us
One thing is to prioritize human lives in a fire or an accident and another one is to torture an animal, a fully conscious being, with the same ability for sense perception as you or me, for the small chance that it might produce some kind of insight. More often than not it doesn’t produce anything useful, even if there are a few instances where it does. I’m not entirely against animal experimentation but it needs to be justified at such a level that there must be almost no doubt that it will produce the required data. If there’s any doubt, you need more research to prove that an animal model will reproduce appropriately in human physiology.
I don’t need you to explain to me that human lives are prioritized, I’m not a retard. I need you to answer why John Everyman who clearly doesn’t value his life enough to stop eating slop, is worth torturing thousands of animals so that we may win him a few more years of life?
I mean, I literally linked you the incredible medical advancements that have been made possible from animal testing and research.
It’s not just about giving John Everyman a few more years of life. I don’t think you even looked at the page I linked, it’s about organ transplants, antibiotics, insulin, anaesthetics, blood transfusions, and so many other things that have nothing to do with people who “don’t value their life” and instead can affect anyone and everyone and can literally extend lives of millions of people world-wide by decades.
You’re arguing for something that is already in place, it already does have to be justified where there is almost no doubt it will produce the required data.
But are you aware of all the literally useless experiments that have been conducted that have given us 0 knowledge about anything? Were talking easily billions of animals tortured for nothing, and often it is pretty common sense that we were gonna learn nothing. Often it is more about using those research funds for something, to collect data for the heck of having the data because it might be useful to someone sometime. I’m not entirely against animal experiments but you need to have, I’ll repeat, absolute certainty that whatever process or Illness you are trying to understand is replicable in humans perfectly. This more often than not is not the case.
For example I can see very clearly how organ transplant techniques may be learned from testing in nonhuman animals, it’s almost self evident that it will because even if anatomy is different the mechanics that allow it to be possible are clearly the same across mammal species. But things like metabolic diseases or toxins are entirely different because chemical processes are different across species. My argument would also be that the only animal that should be used are chimps, which many people will oppose because they think them “rational” as if we have conclusive evidence of the non-rationality of other species.
I’m not entirely sure that it is the case but if it is the case that that is how it is done then good. But I have my serious doubts seeing how beauty products are still tested on animals.