In the cases where animal testing is justifiable, I would love to see us start funding care for the remainder of the animal's natural life as part of the grant that funds the original research (at least in the cases where the research itself doesn't cause irreparable suffering or risk exposure of some novel pathogen).

At the height of covid, there were a few pigs that were test subjects for ventilators who, after the experiments ended, were sent to an animal sanctuary. I wish we could cut down on animal research by, say, 90% and the remaining 10% could have similar outcomes as those pigs.

I am also all for protecting animals... until grandma is sick and could be cured only if we experiment a little more on rats. When that happens the life of a rat or a million looks disposable.

The thing is, the overwhelming majority of animal testing is not for saving grandma. It's for testing a new brand of makeup.

I'd rather a thousand cute bunnies go blind (or worse) than one woman's eyesight be harmed by dangerous makeup.

Is it okay to not get everything we want? We have limited resources, especially if your care about humanity (or life in general) continuing on for awhile. I for one enjoy thinking about life thousands, millions of years hence, understanding and accepting that this book will probably close.

On that I can easily disagree. I'd rather we all say: "this makeup cannot be guaranteed to be safe- either outlaw it, skip it, or take your chances" and keep the bunnies alive and unharmed.

It's the medical breakthroughs where I get uncertain. Cosmetics be damned.

> keep the bunnies alive

Sounds nice, but in the real life those lab bunnies wouldn't even have been breed so they aren't alive in fact

> Animal testing is bad and must be stopped

>> Here is some animal testing that is good. Could save lives.

> This is not true animal testing. Most animal testing is for lipsticks. I read it in a pamphlet.

If this sounds familiar to you is because is a classic Not true scotsman's fallacy.