Modern medicine would not be possible without animal trials. Lab-on-a-chips may reduce the need in the future, but animals will still be required for device testing that needs an entire structure, not just a few cells. Different people may weigh the ethical dilemma differently, but when it's your loved dying due a heart defect I am willing to bet you will still choose a treatment tested on animals.
https://www.purdue.edu/research/regulatory-affairs/animal-re...
The average scientist could be much more moral than the average human, and you could still get the occasional mad man; just need a large enough population of scientists.
800,000.
You used ketamine for all of them?
YES.
Thats a lot of ketamine
YES.
Can you show us the mice?
NO.
Why not
We disposed of their bodies after the experiment.
Then how can we verify the data from the experiment?
Give us ketamine for 800,000 more mice
"The line of argument supports the prevention of the existence of an undefined number of living beings to max. the quality of life of other existing living beings."
The argument doesn't seem to me as simple as you are portraying it and I don't see where you got the extermination part from.
The comment I was responding to said nothing about increasing the quality of life of any living beings. It only asserted that non-existence is a good thing. I made the assumption that they came to that conclusion based on the reasoning that a pig that does not exist cannot suffer. I made the extension that you can also prevent suffering by immediately ending a life. Yes, there is a distinction between failing to breed another generation and immediately killing all members of the current generation but the end result is the same.
this phrasing is really disingenuous. What I said was non-existence in case of farm pigs is a good thing. Try to make less sweeping over-generalized statements, especially when responding to people who aren't doing that
> I made the extension that you can also prevent suffering by immediately ending a life
oh cool thought, did you just bring that up to argue with yourself? Because no one said anything like that prior.
you are conflating birth control with "exterminate", not the same thing. Birth control has its roles, does it not?
> in order to provide the maximal amount of pleasure for those remaining.
I never said that, pleasure is an example, society is optimized for way more variables that suffering and pleasure.
In the context of farm animals, it looks like the only purpose for the pigs to exist is to be food, then when the food is over-produced and wasted, then you have to question why have that many of them born into a miserable life then die pointlessly.
> Not any better
just say it like that, no explanation? What is not good? Optimization?
I love it when people are so argumentative about such a simple thing. We are talking about birth control, there is no individual exists to make any choice.
> Projecting human characteristics onto an amoral natural world.
this is not a bad thing comparing to the alternative which is assuming that animals are too dumb to be sympathize with
Also live stock is much worse than slavery
From the article:
“This is a truly remarkable breakthrough,” [the patient] said in a statement. “As a heart transplant recipient, myself with a genetic heart disorder, I am thrilled by this news and the hope it gives to my family and other patients who will eventually be saved by this breakthrough.”
I feel like OP is being strawmanned. It's not like dexwiz said "fuck pigs test em more".
Ironically, you accuse people of "strawmanning", and then proceed do the same to me.
Perhaps take a leaf out of your own book and stop assuming intent.
Have a splendid day.
> but they were ignoring the original call to express sympathy to these animals.
How is this not asking people to show sympathy?
But dexwiz apparently enquired, or was at least aware that it seemed to have a reasonably good life. I guess that addressed my comment.
But if a human was being experimented without their informed choice we would have a moral obligation to try to inform them, free them, to enquire about their welfare. What's the basis for thinking it be so different for other animals?
And if you're thinking 'but we can't obtain their informed choice' maybe we have our answer.
As for the loved one argument, probably. But that wouldn't necessarily make me right. In fact my proximity to the situation would probably make any objective evaluation of what's right or wrong impossible. That would effectively remove my credibility as a reasonable interlocutor when discussing the ethics at all, like a cop in a ticking time-bomb scenario isn't the best person to call on to craft torture policy.
It wasn't my intention to judge (I don't know your position on anything) it just stood out to me. Animals often aren't treated with much respect or concern, especially ones suffering for our benefit. That's not a comment on you.
You should read ‘ The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas’.
I think these statements justify animal trials and using it to benefit humans definitely. But it doesn't justify or make better that it's still an awful thing to do to an animal and for the animal I think. It's weird right like where they get the blood of some sort of poor little sea creature that's got a blue copper containing blood it's just awful.
I really think we need to revise and reform a lot of how industry interacts with and especially commoditizes animals. I'm not saying we need to be vegans at all but I think there's so much room for improving how we talk think and act about this stuff. To make I guess what is probably an obvious point but I think the reasonableness of that point is not obvious but I think it can be a reasonable and obvious point without really attacking anybody and that non-threatening nature of that reasonable and obvious point I think is what is important about what I'm saying. It's possible. Less this comment be dismissed as some sort of low effort outrage--my heart's beating 50 beats a minute right now I'm not upset. I just think we can improve things there massively but that doesn't make anybody a monster.
Not only we can heat... we stuff our faces into it several times a day and we keep rearranging the forms we eat it.
We even make an effort to make it more enticing to children in the form of small golden nuggets like it's some sort of a treasure of flavor.
Heck yea, it is!
The post was about human consideration of animals as a resource generally.
It's not much of an argument saying that since eating animals is a thing, (the comfortably narrowly selected example of) other things we do with them is no cause for questions.
> ... I really think we need to revise ...
> ... I'm not saying we need to be vegans ...
> ... improving how we talk think and act about ...
Not that someone (as in anyone, as in "no one can understand"), just that particular someone, owing to their criticism saying, "Given you think X, you should also think Y" indicates they don't understand what I think.
> "reduce",
As in take what I say or think, and misinterpret it, reduce it down to something that seems to not make sense.
> or "invalidate" another's morals
Yeah, because someone else's misunderstanding and misinterpretation doesn't touch and certainly doesn't invalidate my actual moral sensitivity. So whatever that is, this person's criticism did not affect that and is not about that. Even tho it presents itself as being so...which is deceptive...
So much on the internet is making a point out of a misinterpretation of what other's are saying. So it's vital to reframe and point that out...otherwise you end up arguing on terms which you didn't set, which are self-serving to the (accidental? sometimes) provocateur/trix and which aren't anything to do with what you're saying. It's easy to get dragged off your point into a logically coherent cul-de-sac which has nothing to do with your stance but somehow, because you didn't point out the deceptive reframing, you are arguing it as if it does have to do with your stance. I think a lot of damage gets done that way. It's important to avoid it.
So..in that spirit...what was your misinterpreted reframing (whether deliberate or accidental)....?
Basically this: You are saying that I am suggesting that we cannot invalidate another's morals, while saying you think that's exactly what I'm doing.
Actually I'm not saying we cannot invalidate/understand other's morals--I'm saying if you don't understand (or if you do misinterpret <=> "reduce") my point of view, whatever you say about it doesn't, and can't, invalidate it. I doubt you'd disagree with that: e.g. An argument that claims to square the circle without grasping the problem, does not succeed, despite the true believer's fervent insistence.
But I'm also not making some general point in that response about "No One Can Invalidate Any One's Morals". That's a reductive/misinterpretation an (evil / deliberate / accidental) reframing. I'm talking about me, specifically. Me personally.
So all I'm is protecting my moral sensitivity, which I like very much, thank you, from random invalid criticism--which if I was to let them get to me, would really hurt. Why would you want to get in the way of that, or try to contradict me? Like...you'd like to see me hurt? That's not very good.
Think about it: So, I'm just supposed to think--oh, I spent my life developing my moral sensitivity, through all my experiences, and reflections upon those, and some random comes along on the internet--and proved that I'm wrong: so I was wrong about everything that happened in my life, I failed to properly grasp my experiences, I came to the wrong conclusions. I've been wrong about everything. Man that would be painful! And really upsetting, and imbalancing. Why would you want someone to go through that? You really think, that's what I deserve? Just imagine everything you thought you understood, was founded on a lie--a lie ensured, basically by your own self-deceptive, self-serving stupidity. And some random on the internet made you realize that! Well, I would think that way--if I thought they actually clearly saw what I think, and understood it, and presented it faithfully. But they didn't.
Can you grasp how incredibly painful it would be to go through that? So all I'm doing is not making that much of what people say on the internet. But being clear about how I'm doing it, and why. Does that make sense?
I mean someone could hit on exactly the thread that unravels my fragile sense of self...if that's what I had. But I think my sense of self is more robust than that, forged by fires of many different difficult and joyous experiences. But it's still possible for me to be deceiving myself, and I'm still open to hearing that and having my mind and heart opened by some random, and seeing their point of view. That empathy is exactly why I need a strong defense as well--if I was to take on everything that people said about what I said, as if they were right...just because I could see and feel how they thought that way...it would be too much. Just because they have a view, doesn't mean it's right...and actually it would be stupid of me to act like other people were always right. And this time, this guy wasn't. Sometimes people are tho...But normally people who are so insightful as to be able to pull on the thread that unravels you...know what they are doing (because it's no mean skill) and they deliver it with compassion. So a good first level filter (which isn't always accurate), is: does this person show any real understanding of me, or compassion? If the answer is no--odds are they have no idea what they are talking about about you.
But sometimes, people do get it right. And show me something I would rather not face about myself. And when that happens I just go to pieces and then try to pick up the pieces...To incorporate that new truth into my being. I rework everything to better face the world and reality the way it is. Luckily, it doesn't happen all that often. Which makes sense because I've always been like this: I spent the time, doing me, and reflecting on many things, and someone else is not just going to come along and see all that and get it, and say, "Oh, you know in this life long personal project of yourself being you, I saw a spot you missed. Here" But sometimes they do. But mostly...they are people who know you very well, and who deliver it with compassion. But most of those evolutions just come from myself, looking at the world and evolving in line with it. Because I know me best, and can take care of me best. As is the case for basically everyone. But we also all have blindspots and so being open to learn from others, to empathize with their view, being able to be wrong...is a requirement for ending up being right. I'm sure you'd agree. It's like the true spirit of the scientific method applied to personal development...
But being right about me, doesn't make me right about others...But being perceptive and insightful makes me more likely to be right...But even so, none of that really matters here, because I'm not trying to tug on a thread that unravels someone...I'm not speaking about anyone in particular in the quotes you give, just about the trope talking points, and zeitgeist discourse "current thinking" about this topic. So when I am talking like I understand it, I'm not contradicting myself because I wasn't saying, "no one can understand anyone else". And I think I'm leaving the barn doors wide open, I don't think I'm reducing or misinterpreting anything there, mainly because I'm being so general. Am I invalidating the moral sensitivity, of hypothetical people who I don't mention as individuals (but rather address as the collective 'we', of which I am a part) by saying 'improving how we talk think and act about'...Invalidating? I'd say more encouraging a correction. Does that mean I'm saying it's wrong? Well, it's not as right as a way we can do it better. But I'm specifically saying, that point can be made, without turning anyone into a monster. And it's important to do that...So my point is very much not about "making wrong" or "invalidating". What's important is we can make it better.
Like, that's a real nuance, a real distinction that's valid. Think about it: If I say you make your relationship with your wife-to-be, better, if I acknowledge how I've seen you do that over the last 6 months to 1 year, and you also agreed that you had made it better, am I saying what you did before was "wrong"? I mean, it might have been, but I'm not saying that...I'm just saying we can make it better. That's really important--to be open to getting better. Because if you're not open to that, and if you're sure you're already "as good as can be", or already "learned everything there is to learn", then that puts you at risk of being a real arrogant, self-righteous person who's convinced they're always right, and then does all sorts of harm to others, because they can always fake justify it as "well I know everything, I'm right". But really maybe they're just afraid to be wrong...which makes sense...because being wrong is hard. But you got to do it sometimes otherwise you won't end up being right.
I guess you took what I said as contradicting your point of view. Maybe it makes you feel better to think that people who advocated for better treatment of animals, are full of contradictions, and therefore stupid, and therefore not what you need to listen to. So when I replied with something pushing back, invalidating the critical dismissal, you weren't satisfied. I hadn't fit the "animal advocates are contradictory" model that you wanted to see. So you tried to prove that by misinterpreting what I said into some contradiction that you invented. Maybe it's more a general theme for you, that about animals specifically, you think everyone is bunk and full of contradictions, so there's no way that anyone can tell off anyone else about anything. Because everyone has to work out their own way. Well, actually, apart from suggesting that you're a teenager or early 20-something (I'm not being derisive, just has that rebellious, forge your own identity streak, but if you're older, that's really cool, you maintained that youthful mindset)--you and me very much agree with that. I guess I'm just further down the road with that than you are. When you do yourself for long enough, and come up with your own perspective, eventually you probably settle into developing a set of morals: like you go from-> everything in the world relative, and nothing has moral authority, really, (beside individual feelings, being a personal compass, if that's your take, as it was mine), to, well these things are good, and these things are bad (but it doesn't have to be b&w, it can be grey). It's really pretty natural as you get more experience, to see those patterns, and realize these things work and these other things don't. You'll probably find that condescending...but how can a claim of more experience, necessary almost by more time, be anything but condescending? So what do you expect...talking with people who put more time into something than you have so far. You can choose to emphasize how you feel it's condescending, or you can get something out of it. Or you can do both...but it might be less efficient. Good luck! :)
Utilitarian vs deontology ethics.
Most people believe that it's better for one pig to suffer than for thousands of people to die.
Even the strictest of vegans I know do not oppose animal testing in medicine if it is done to save human suffering.
He escaped justice through ineptitude, lack of political will and competing priorities, luck, and the assistance of the Nazi underground, not due to any active decision to forgive his monstrous deeds.
Whataboutism. This was about animal treatment.
It reminds me of the old saying: "they overexaggerated the aggressiveness of European wolves, they're only dangerous when hungry". Ok, so did European wolves just go to the shop to buy food when hungry?
EG:
Op -2: Awww but pigs, I like pigs
Op -1: They were happy pigs
The weird thing is how we developed sympathy and concern for such things. Human civilizations' current abundance of resources allows us the luxury to develop moral "philosophies" and become "vegetarians" effectively masking our more savage nature.
Make no mistake, You are biologically designed to kill and eat flesh. And if you can kill it and eat it, of course you can experiment on it.
Humans are "biologically designed" to love other animals and care for them. Not in an Elmyra Duff kind of way, but in the way that has allowed us to tame and domesticate the wild ancestors of the animals we still live with. In the same way that our animals have a docile and calm nature that allows them to be domesticated, we have a caring and loving nature that allows us to domesticate them. We are not lions. A lion could not domesticate a flock of sheep. It would just fall on the sheep and slaughter them, on the first day. Without our love for animals, which is just as ingrained into us as our love of eating their flesh, we wouldn't be who we are today, our civilisation wouldn't be what it is today, our bodies and brains wouldn't be what they are today.
Those animals have given us so much, and they will continue to give us even more. The least we can do is to treat them with respect and ensure they have a dignified life and a dignified death.
What a simplistic view of lions. I agree that lions don't really have the capacity to domesticate a flock of sheep, but to suggest that they're mindless killing machines that would meaninglessly mass slaughter sheep the first chance they got is weird. They're complicated creatures with rich emotional lives, and I've personally seen them plenty of times pass up opportunities to kill because there was no point. Interestingly, there's also lots of youtube footage of lions and other big cats attempting to care for other animals (albeit typically ineptly).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing
A local rancher lost a number of sheep to a mountain lion that apparently enjoyed surplus killing. After the first spree, the cat was captured, collared, and relocated but it came back and took out 11 more sheep plus an alpaca, after which it was culled by the state. Big cats are certainly interesting creatures, but it would be foolish to assume a given cat would care for something, eat it, or kill it for sport. They are all possible outcomes, and depending upon one's perception of cat psychology is a good way to get Roy Horn'ed and end up in a wheelchair.
The Wikipedia page also has weak evidence for lions being involved in surplus killing. It has two footnotes. http://www.aimspress.com/article/10.3934/mbe.2018031 is a simulation, and the abstract (article is paywalled) of https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1... only mentions “foxes, spotted hyenas and other carnivores”, and hints it may only happen when prey is easily available (as with a fox in a hen house, I suppose)
I think neither article claims it happens regularly.
You've got it backwards; Human's current abundance is the creation of human cooperation, which doesn't really work without some sort of ethical framework. Philosophy enables us to achieve more, it is not the result of our achievement.
A very Complex civilization requires what you talk about, but make no mistake; civilization itself came first.
Someone made the decision to care for another, much less functional person at their own significant expense. Was a philosophical principle behind that or just enlightened self interest? Maybe we have an innate capacity for empathy. Other animals appear to as well.
Evolutionary biology is overused as justification for human behavior. We were not "designed" to eat meat because we were not designed. We evolved the capacity to eat meat just as we evolved a capacity for sympathy/empathy. Other animals have also been shown to "befriend"/care for/grieve over animals of different species, so our own capacity to sympathize for animals should be no surprise.
Let me get one thing straight. I am not justifying anything. My angle is, what's the point? Don't justify anything at all. We're evil for killing, so be it. I am looking at it from a completely dispassionate angle. I do not need to somehow merge and mutate my moral framework to make it work with the existing reality.
>We were not "designed" to eat meat because we were not designed.
Ok we were "designed" by natural selection to eat meat. I am not making a theological argument.
> Chasing an animal down, killing it, and eating it is in my opinion a significantly different activity than subjecting it to thirty likely-invasive procedures over the course of its life and then continuing to perform experiments on its dead body. Not saying it's more or less morally questionable, but significantly different.
In the wild, carnivores devour the flesh of their prey while it is alive and awake. Possibly more significant if not equal in being morally questionable.
>Other animals have also been shown to "befriend"/care for/grieve over animals of different species, so our own capacity to sympathize for animals should be no surprise.
No it is not. But what is surprising is that this empathy is the dominant behavior to our own evolutionary detriment (however mild). Empathy evolved to aid in survival of our genome, but when empathy evolves to the point where we are unable experiment on animals to assist in helping our own species... that is something unnatural.
The comment you originally replied to said this:
> Weird how this is said without a shred of sympathy or concern for an intelligent, helpless creature
To which you replied:
> It's not weird at all. Biologically speaking, we are designed to eat meat. > The weird thing is how we developed sympathy and concern for such things.
What I was responding to was the claim that because we evolved the capacity to eat meat, we should naturally be dispassionate to the killing of animals. What I'm saying is that since we evolved both the capacity for carnivory and sympathy, that our capacity for eating animals does not make our sympathy for animals at all unnatural.
It's not unnatural for us to want to kill animals for our survival. But it's also not unnatural for us to care about and feel sympathy towards animals. I feel that you've been using our capacity for meat-eating to deem vegetarianism, sympathy towards animals, etc. as against our nature.
With that, the point of my differentiating between the act of hunting and eating animals versus experimenting with them and their dead bodies is comparable to the difference in severity of humans fighting each other versus torturing each other. Humans clearly have the capacity for both, and yet one typically elicits a higher negative reaction in people than the other. Our ability to empathize with all sorts of pain falls along such an axis.
Edit:
To your last point, if people naturally develop an empathy towards animals so strong that it overrides their own sense of self-preservation, why is that unnatural? Is a human giving their life to save other humans unnatural? That's exactly why I keep repeating that there is no "design" - or if you'd prefer, "intent". There is no rule in nature that says species are supposed to prioritize the survival of their own, and so deviating from that nonexistent rule is not unnatural. If experimenting on animals is absolutely necessary to humanity's survival and humanity one day refuses, it will simply die out like millions of species before it. Going extinct isn't unnatural either.
I am simply saying how else do you describe the hand. The hand is for grasping things the rock is not. How to I ascribe this difference without using the word design or purpose because clearly the hand is much much more efficient at grasping things.
Sure you can use the hand for things it was not "designed" for like hand stands and walking while hand standing and if there was selection pressure your hands can evolve to be less hand like. But in doing such things you are departing from a "design."
Let me put it in a way that won't distract you. Your hand is efficient at grasping things by doing hand stands you are using it in ways that are not efficient. You are departing from the efficiency zone. There is merit in ONLY using the hammer on a nail rather than a screw driver even when the hammer was evolved with Zero actual "design" or "intent" and can one day evolve into something different.
Get it? So the same thing applies to not eating meat. By not doing so, someone is departing from the "efficiency zone." See how awkward it is to use "efficiency zone" in place of "design"?
I'd rather operate in my efficiency zone rather than push the boundaries of it just so that my progeny 1 million years later can walk on their hands. But that's just my personal take. My argument itself has no agenda other than to say that by not eating meat you are willfully departing from the efficiency zone. By being compassionate about the pig you are doing the same. And using the word "design" is just an EASIER way to express this departure from the "efficiency zone".
While I understand what you're saying, I still don't think that ultimately matters when talking about what humans should or shouldn't be doing, what we're supposed to or not supposed to be doing, considering:
1. Human nature is not particularly efficient, and neither is evolution, at least on the surface. Peacocks' feathers are not particularly efficient features for them to develop. Yes, avoiding meat may seem harder than not avoiding meat, but the same could be said for following a religion, or organizing into a governing body, or adhering to some social norm, and yet humans have naturally done those for probably their entire existence. They do so because they at least perceive a benefit for them even if some might disagree on that benefit.
2. The human digestive system is not mono-faceted. It evolved to be multi-use and flexible. You are not using a hammer incorrectly by refraining from using the claw side because you've decided your problem can be solved perfectly fine with the hammer face. You are not using a TV incorrectly if you never visit channel 19 because you don't want to watch whatever is on channel 19.
I stand by my point. The fact that you can efficiently do something doesn't mean you're "supposed to" do that thing. It just gives you the option.
But there is something off with doing these things and I don't want to get into the pedantics of it all. Not eating meat is in the same general area without the social stigma of being a drug abuser.
This part is actually true. Some animals do befriend, cooperate with or grieve over animals of different species. Not all animals are bugs and spiders.
> Empathy evolved to aid in survival of our genome, but when empathy evolves to the point where we are unable experiment on animals to assist in helping our own species... that is something unnatural.
Evolution is not a god. Things evolve because it happens, not for fixed purpose. If we genetically evolve to be "unable experiment on animals to assist in helping our own species", then that evolution is as natural as anything else.
We, as a species, are not "finished" in any way or "more evolved" than other species. There is no destination evolution as such.
We have plenty of traits that are not useful but also not a hindrance and so they remain.
On the subject of cooperation between species I'm always fascinated by inter-tree species communication. You might think that trees in a forest are all individually fighting each other for resources but it's more complex than that.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/exploring_how_and_why_trees_t...
That's me chucking that phrase and I am telling you there's good reasoning for it. Think about it. How do I differentiate between the human hand and a rock? Do I say:
The human hand is a low entropy configuration of atoms that is very efficient at grasping things while the rock is a high entropy configuration of atoms that is not efficient at grasping things.
The human hand is designed to grasp things the rock is not.
Either way, People like to get into linguistic debates on the definition of a word without realizing that it's a trap. Nothing profound is actually being discussed when we're just talking about how to properly use the word "design." Think about it... you're just debating about the proper definition of a vocabulary word.
Granted I'll tell you it's an effective trap. People get into these debates without realizing how pointless it all is. The famous debate is "What is life?" Well if you want to argue about that you have to realize that the word "life" is loaded and ambiguously defined. Attempting this argument is simply trying to demarcate the complex boundaries of the word. It's simply an attempt to add more bullet points and rules to an overly complex vocabulary word.
How about we stop arguing about vocabulary.
>We, as a species, are not "finished" in any way or "more evolved" than other species. There is no destination evolution as such.
Where did this come from? I don't see anyone making that argument. Sure we can as a species can start ingesting gasoline and likely with enough time and natural selection we could involve into a gasoline eating species.
This does not change the fact that there is meaning to the sentence: "Humans are not designed to eat gasoline." Guess the intent of my usage of that sentence without getting pedantic and try to express and convey the same intent without the use of the word "design" or "purpose."
It’s came from the use of the word “design”, which is a loaded term in the context of evolution.
I take it to imply either a designer or a direction to evolution. Two things I personally don’t consider to be true.
I hope that doesn’t sound pedantic for the sake of it, that’s not my intention and I don’t intend any offence by it.
Without actually knowing you though I only have your choice of words to go on as to what you really mean.
In your gasoline example I would personally just swap the word “designed” for “evolved” unless designed is what you actually mean.
Never said such a thing. However we can influence macro features through something called artificial selection. In this sense we design something through the same mechanism used as natural selection. The difference is, the hand that guides is artificial rather then natural but the outcome is the same: a design, a machine with a specific purpose. Man... this is just pedantry. I'm not here to discuss the definition of a unimportant word.
After all we manage successfully to abstain from actual reproduction in much of the developed world to a degree that makes our societies shrink. Not exactly fit, from an evolutionary point of view.
Re. empathy - I very much doubt it's to our detriment when one of the main threats to our survival is lack of empathy leading to extinction-causing wars - something that may have already destroyed previous intelligent civilisations around the universe. Even with medical experiments on animals - if they were much reduced I think this would likely lead to more effort & subsequent innovations in replacement technologies like cell cultures & simulations - which could lead to faster medical breakthroughs than if we continue on the current animal-testing business-as-usual trajectory.
Torturing defenseless animals is not an inescapable facet of human nature. It's something we choose to do and be OK with.
Yes, we've developed quite sophisticated organizations to coordinate the violence, and then developed quite sophisticated weapons to carry it out.
No. There is no evolutionary benefit for raw aggression. Raw aggression appears during times of limited resources where aggression contributes to survival. Humans as all living things, are designed to survive and use any means to achieve it.
Given minimal resources we all will revert to our primal natures.
>Torturing defenseless animals is not an inescapable facet of human nature. It's something we choose to do and be OK with.
Nothing is inescapable. You are designed by nature to live out a certain lifetime yet you can escape your nature by killing yourself. This does not change your fundamental nature. We are more prone to follow our nature then to ignore it.
Those sentences seem to contradict each other very directly.
We are not living in a time of limited resources therefore it is actually evolutionary detrimental for us to be aggressive. It's not a coincidence that our popular culture de-emasculates itself bit by bit every decade. It's because we live in plentiful times and our behavior (which is conditioned through natural selection) reflects this.
I'm no biologist but the empathy / sympathy part also seems to be an evolved trait. It should bring stability to a social group and reduce injuries due to needless in-fighting which effectively ensures better survival as a group.
That's probably how it started, but the definition of social group expanded as we came to realise how arbitrary and culturally determined social group boundaries are. Once we account for those biases, and start to see all animals as just trying to survive in the world, it's a natural progression to extend that empathy to them too.
Thinking about this topic, we could also philosophize the whole "torture" aspect. Presumably it means physical pain to an animal which many feel uneasy about. But if you think about it, pain, as signals to the brain are also evolved mechanisms in order to survive. Pain is a crude signal indicating that the life of that animal is in danger but they are not perfect indicators.
If pain signals were more accurate they would activate the moment an animal approaches a human with a shotgun similar to how you feel pain touching boiling water. But the pain mechanism hasn't become that sophisticated yet. So even the pain is an arbitrary crude mechanism so real "torture" would be loss of habitat for example but animals won't feel that as pain.
Those same moral philosophies stop us from killing each other for sport, even though it is in our “savage nature”.
Meat consumption is ultimately driven by consumer choice, and consumers will choose what they want to eat
You are an omnivore and you are designed to eat meat. Additionally, you are not designed to eat cellulose which is a huge component of what it means to be a herbivore. You are designed to eat meat, and designed to eat certain types of veggies. Who's to say that the veggie part is just the back up mechanism?
Either way you ARE designed to eat veggies and MEAT, you can choose to eat veggies and deny half your nature, yes.. that is your choice.
Whether or not I use the corkscrew on my Swiss army knife doesn't change the fact that someone built the corkscrew for the purpose of opening corked bottles.
The enzymes/features humans possess that enable us to consume meat were selected for because at some point in the history of our species they enabled our ancestors to survive while others without the related genes did not.
This can change at any point, for any species. If we are no longer in an environment where eating meat confers a significant survival advantage then the fact that we evolved to be able to eat meat has absolutely no bearing on whether or not we should.
You could say "design" by natural selection which is MY primary intent.
What is the appropriate word if not design? Your hands have a purpose even if they were not "designed." The purpose in this case is to grasp things. The purpose of the human body is then to eat meat and vegetables.
The word design flows better than purpose. Take the two sentences:
The human body was not designed to consume arsenic.
The purpose of the human body is not to eat arsenic.
This is my exact point: Your hands have no purpose. They evolved in a way that aided in survival. If someone is born mutated with their fingers fused together and then suddenly the entire earth floods and they find their solid hands help them swim better - were their hands evolved for the purpose of swimming? Were they designed? Is that human then "supposed to" swim?
We're finding microorganisms that can consume plastic. Does that mean they evolved for the purpose of eating plastic, a substance not typically found in nature?
In my worldview, no, they weren't. They can consume plastic, but that has no bearing on their purpose, and they aren't leaving part of their purpose unfulfilled if they don't eat plastic and instead eat other substances they evolved to be able to eat.
A purpose doesn’t have to imply concious design, intent, or immutablity.
I am aware of the nature of natural selection and how it builds complexity over time through various selection pressures not all of which are constantly aligned with end result. And although wings were initially little nubs not "designed" for flying you could say that wings are they are now are "designed" for flying.
"Design" and "purpose" as I've said many times throughout this thread is a word that flows better. It is a linguistic choice and you are taking the argument in a direction thinking I don't understand some trivial point about natural selection.
To put it another way, the fact that the inputs (mutations) are random does not mean the outputs have no purpose.
If I said “the purpose of eyes is to see”, would you really disagree with that?
Also, it is entirely possible for body parts to have multiple purposes, that is quite common.
Not true. Natural selection can produce the same results as artificial selection. They are both effectively the same process where in one scenario the guiding hand is human and the other scenario nature is the guiding hand.
If both nature and artificial selection evolved a mechanism that is very specifically and efficiently able to do one thing and one thing only does it mean that the thing evolved has no purpose? No it doesn't.
Either way we're getting into a linguistic and philosophical argument on the meaning of the word "purpose." These are traps. Ultimately we begin arguing about the definition of an ambiguous word thinking that the argument is profound. It's like all those arguments about "What is life." Pointless, "life" is the word that is loaded and ambiguous; any debate of that nature is simply an argument about the intricacies of a vocabulary word.
Energy flows into and out of a system in a way where the configuration of particles begins arranging itself in lower and lower entropy formulations. The net entropy of the universe remains forever increasing but within this system it begins lowering. One of these low entropy formulation begins self replication imperfectly thereby introducing memory and mutation into the system allowing complexity to build on itself thereby producing particle configurations of immense low entropy and complexity.
Is there any "intent" in the description above? No. But you must consider the factor below:
Clearly your hands weren't designed with an intelligent intent. Yet there is something different about your hand then there is a rock. What is the word used to describe this difference? "Design" flows better, that's it, no need to get into "illogical fallacies."
>We're finding microorganisms that can consume plastic. Does that mean they evolved for the purpose of eating plastic, a substance not typically found in nature? >In my worldview, no, they weren't. They can consume plastic, but that has no bearing on their purpose,
I don't know if you can see this, but your argument here is not profound. You are making a linguistic argument. You are arguing for the definition of the word "Purpose" or "Design." We BOTH know EXACTLY what is going on with natural selection and "design" is simply an easier way to express a point that your hand is a lower entropy configuration of atoms that is clearly very efficient at grasping things. But my previous sentence is an inefficient way of saying it. I could just say your hand is designed for the purpose of grasping things and the rock is not.
And I believe that more or less the only thing that sets us apart from animals is that we can reflect on our own actions. We choose. And that also comes with responsibility for our choices.
To argue that something is OK just because it "is in our nature" doesn't cut it for creatures with the ability to discuss this on HN. Is my personal belief.
Many Animals can choose too.
>To argue that something is OK just because it "is in our nature" doesn't cut it for creatures with the ability to discuss this on HN. Is my personal belief.
I'm not arguing for anything to be OK. I'm saying the argument in itself is pointless. You should note that your "morality" is not a choice. It is a behavioral trait evolved through millions of years of evolution and is trait shared to varying degrees among all humans across all cultures.
Thou shall not steal, Thou shall not kill, Thou shall not lie... etc. Your moral framework is a biological module hardwired into your mind to make you think in a certain way that aids with survival. But it was made for a more prehistoric time where humans had little understanding of the physical world and lived in limited tribal bands of hunters and gatherers.
The complexity of the world today exposes the archaic aspects of the moral module in our brain. We were not designed to feel sorry for the pig as it poses no evolutionary benefit yet we do as a side effect because pig experimentation simply didn't exist in ancient times so there was no selection pressure to make our moral module evolve in a way that will logically account for the pig.
This discussion does not exist because you are "above" your base evolutionary nature. It exists for two reasons: Your moral brain is designed for a more harsher simpler environment; and resources in our society are plentiful.
Once resources become stretched and limited, your brain will begin overriding your moral module. Almost starving to death? You will kill a pig without hesitation with your bare hands if that was the case. Survival is the name of the game in the end.
It is no longer thought to be a rudimentary organ but let me use it as an example: our appendix could very well serve no purpose, but it was not too detrimental (we didn’t get appendicitis in great enough numbers) so it remained.
While being able to digest meat is likely beneficial (though actually it is very easy to consume meat, especially cooked one compared to raw vegetables — just look at a cow’s digestive track), it doesn’t mean that we are made for that. A horse will gladly eat a small chicken for extra protein if it wanders to it (look up on YouTube)
Nobody made an argument for being the perfect creature. I made an argument for the fact we were designed to eat meat and veggies.
>While being able to digest meat is likely beneficial (though actually it is very easy to consume meat, especially cooked one compared to raw vegetables — just look at a cow’s digestive track), it doesn’t mean that we are made for that.
You have enzymes in your body or arrangement of atoms that are targeted towards specifically digesting and breaking down meat. Sure you can put ethanol in a car designed for gasoline but my point remains the same, we were designed to eat meat.
If you want to get pedantic here I can reword it into a stuffy/wordy sentence and avoid utilizing the word "design.":
We have evolved for millions of years to have bodies that happen to be extremely efficient at digesting and breaking down meat.Is that similar to you only acknowledging being designed to eat meat and denying half of your nature?
I never said that either. It seems you are artificially injecting extra words into my statements. My phrase "to eat meat" effectively addresses all your technicalities. That is my intent and my meaning.
stupid comment of the year. We kill and eat animals, we sympathize with animals being killed, like where is the contradiction? How about sympathize with animals being killed unnecessarily? (I'm no longer talking about experimenting, just killing in general)
How about we kill other human beings in wars, in capital punishment, does that elude having sympathy for them?
> Human civilizations' current abundance of resources allows us the luxury to...
...kill in excess, bingo
You call me stupid and yet you're stupid enough to think that I care about anything else you have to say after you call me stupid? Why even bother wasting your breath?
That may sound like a contradiction, but it's just the "fellow beings" parts that is culturally or individually changed. There have been soldiers who went to war who couldn't shoot their enemies, even though they might even have "wanted" to. Compassion seems to be a very fundamental building block of the Human mind.
You are also designed to fuck a woman and make her pregnant and many men will fulfill this goal at any cost. Hence why rape exists.
But it's not that easy, because sexual desire in Humans (and many animal species) is way more complicated than ensuring conception.
And more importantly, rape is more complicated than sexual desire. It often isn't about the sex. And I agree that the referring to biological urges when talking about rape is somehow releasing the perpetrator of some of the guilt. It is always also a lack of judgement, empathy, self control and so on. Nothing except very rare brain disorders can make someone a rapist unless he chooses to be.
You are ASSuming I am male and heterosexual. You are assuming homosexuality has somehow not evolved naturally or does not play a part in the natural repertoire of Human social structure (spoiler alert: it does, even in terms of procreation).
You do not understand sexual desire, which is not about reproduction, even though reproduction can be a side effect (and usually isn't, even without contraception). You do not understand rape and sexual assault which often is not about sex or sexual pleasure.
These people won't exist given enough time and selection pressure. It's the only logical outcome. Additionally given the nature of natural selection it can be said many many of these people don't exist at all. The majority of the world will not do this unless it has some evolutionary benefit.
And that benefit only exists among our genetic progeny. Parents will sacrifice themselves for their kids because of the evolutionary benefit.
>You are ASSuming I am male and heterosexual. You are assuming homosexuality has somehow not evolved naturally or does not play a part in the natural repertoire of Human social structure (spoiler alert: it does, even in terms of procreation).
You're the ASS here. You can make an argument without throwing an insult. First off I made no assumption about you personally. I also never stated anything about homosexuality.
You know what I am? I'm black, I'm trans and lesbian. You're assuming that I'm white, male and straight out of nowhere. Oh how the woke world will destroy you for making such baseless assumptions. Man who cares.
>You are assuming homosexuality has somehow not evolved naturally or does not play a part in the natural repertoire of Human social structure
I never said I assumed such a thing. I made no statement about this. You made the statement that it DOES play a natural part. I've heard of these arguments. What evidence do you have to support this? I am not talking about logical arguments that illustrate the possibility that homosexuality is an evolved trait. But empirical statistical evidence that show unmistakably that it is an evolved trait.
The arguments I hear as it stands sounds a bit convoluted and only shows that homosexuality being an evolved trait is only a theoretical possibility.
>You do not understand sexual desire, which is not about reproduction, even though reproduction can be a side effect
Ok this is just BS. When did I say sexual desire is only about reproduction? We're done here.
A cat will die on a no-meat diet, while we can easily live on plants alone.
This has only been true for about the past 50 years, when vitamin B12 was synthesized. There's no plant source for the vitamin. And I'm not even sure the vegans call a vegan diet "easy".
> The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics warns of the risk of vitamin B12 deficiencies in vegetarians and vegans. Vitamin B12 is found naturally only in animal products. A lack of vitamin B12 can lead to anemia and blindness. It can also cause muscle weakness, tingling, and numbness.
We might not die, we will just get severely disabled. It pretty much mimics MS.
So it seems like that despite them containing substantial amounts of vitamin B12, they are not suitable for use as vitamin B12 sources because they predominantly contain pseudovitamin B12 which is inactive in humans. They recommend fortified breakfast cereals for vegans.
What you said about cats inability to digest plants is of no significance here. Vitamin deficiency - especially this particular one - is life-threatening. We need it. We can definitely have plants, and we may need plants as well, but we do need to eat something that contains substantial amounts of non-pseudovitamin B12, which is meat. Of course you can just be a vegan and supplement vitamin B12, but...
It doesn't mean we have to change everything and start dying to save pigs' lives. But we should debate it. And if it's morally wrong can we at least call it what it is.
Ask the beneficiaries of a process if they this it's good, and the usually say it is. Doesn't mean they are right.
Couldn’t we do both?
It may be a simple choice for some, but it won’t be for others.
The day that every statement of unfortunate fact has to be prefaced by an expression of emotional disapproval...
that is the day I officially give up on our already laughable species.
No one should have to explicitly state their disapproval of something unpleasant -- it can go without saying.
And I, for one, prefer to get facts and information without a person's opinion on the matter -- nothing could be less important to me than a given individual's emotional perspective on a matter.
It's of no interest to me how other people feel about something in forming my own judgements, and there's a high probability that their "feelings" will be poorly justified/based on misunderstanding/entirely insincere/etc.
I care about the data, and I'll form my own opinion on it.
The last thing I need to know about the subject of the pig used for many experiments...
is that some random person online who shared the information with me...
...disapproves of the pig's unfortunate journey.
An empty gesture of sympathy while feeling no concern wouldn't make that any less weird. It would just add dishonesty to the existing shitty state of affairs.
Not really in the spirit of HN, of course.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/monument-to-the-laborato...
On the other hand, if a close relative or friend dies, I would mourn them immensely. Similarly, if I had a pet pig I would mourn that individual pig a lot. But a lab pig that’s used for experiments not so much.
I guess you're proving Stalin (paraphrasing Tucholsky?[0]) was right? "The death of one is a tragedy, but the death of millions, a statistic.
[0]https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0603/Political-m...
Perhaps i am a psychopath, but even an event like 9/11 left me just with the feeling of "oh, i think this is not good" instead of the shock or anything like my peers expressed...
or some or douglas adams quote about a comically primitive species of alien
doesn’t it have that sort of ring to it?
is existence not more than sets of problems and solutions?
And had some alien told Arthur he was a barbarian for eating meat, he would have quipped something back like, "look, it's all shandies and licorice until the locusts arrive and then it's a rather short trip to the butchery to find out whose aunt goes best with brown sauce.'
Zaphod though.. he might have seen it your way, "That pig was a cool cat, man." Trillian was pragmatic like Ford.
Marvin would definitely been sympathetic on the surface, but insufferably narcissistic underneath. " You think you've got it bad? A brain the size of a planet but they wouldnt eat me if I cooked and served myself with mint jelly. Life. Don't talk to me about life".
... sorry
As far as the language used is concerned humans get the same "cement brick" treatment in scientific papers. How would it help using a compassionate language? It would be just a distraction from the subject.
Humans can make informed choices when studied by science, and when they aren't society strongly disapproves - registering that disapproval by criticising the lack of compassion given - and expressed.
But how exactly how did JCharante lecture anyone?
it's not like humans are capturing wild pigs and using them. I would say that wild animals deserves the right to exist and not hunted (unless they're threatening human interests), but the same cannot be said for bred animals.
(I'm an omnivore that's relatively OK with animal testing, fwiw)
I hold the same distinction to fishing - i do not like wild fish, but farmed fishes (note: farmed, not fishes caught from the wild, then fattened) are ok (esp. in an enclosed, hydroponic system). Unfortunately, most "farmed" fishes refer to caught fish that is fattened...
Anything that humans create, live or dead, is fair game to be used for any purpose deemed desirable by the creator. The right to live doesn't exist for those organisms. But wild animals that exist without any human intervention should have that right to live.
Does that same distinction apply to human children?
The objection to animal testing or consumption isn't about the source of the animals, it's about the ethical treatment of them. The potential suffering/emotional responses from the animal are the same regardless of the source.
I'm more sympathetic to the exact opposite argument: it's more humane to take wild game than farmed. At least then they've lived a life relatively free of suffering, to the extent nature allows. That seems preferable to me vs. the typical feedlot life.
it would if it weren't for the universal application of human rights today. And it did apply in the past - a slave's children are also slaves. I'm sure one day humans will move past this idea, but it is not today.
Is it okay by extension to eat/do research on/torture on a human baby that was created in a lab and was came to term without a mother, but in vitro?
Animal experiments are legal because enough people voted to legalize it (or not enough people voted to make it illegal)
Whataboutism isn't an argument.
("smarter" being general intelligence, reasoning, working memory, and inference. There might be some specific tasks pigs excel at, but that is different than measuring "smarts")
Good summary of findings there. You can draw your own conclusions - it's probably case-dependent.
Everybody wants to move beyond animals, a lot of research is being done on Organs on a Chip etc, but until then, we have animals. See them like the nuclear powerplants that we use instead of coal, until we can finally move to fully renewable energy.
Sometime I ask myself, how many mice or pigs would I kill to save my child? And my answer is: As many as it takes.
That said, I still think it would be reasonable to want to know that they weren't in any agony. And there would probably be a point where I would think something is deeply wrong if a hundred intelligent creatures all suffered terribly just so that one person can live.
But in the end I'd probably go along with it, think we have way too much power for one species and donate or do everything I could to try make it right, and fail.
There is a multiple orders of magnitude more benefit from using animals for medical research and medical care than from using them as food. I realize our psychology makes us empathize with whatever case we have in front of us right now, but when it comes to orders of magnitude difference and human lives, I'd much prefer we better control our empathy.
It's upsetting in an absolute sense that we experiment on pigs like this, but at least that was only 1 pig and the benefits of that would be much more than if it was just used for food.
Not a reason to stop this research in my opinion but I agree with the comment I’m responding to - wish people could care for the animals we treat as test subjects, seems somewhat cruel to not do so
But hey, eat whatever you like. Let's just not lie to ourselves to avoid ending an unnecessary habit.
On one hand we have the vegans who deny their very biological nature in order to fulfill the precept: "thou shall not kill." Vegans don't eat meat eat even though the human body is clearly a machine designed to eat meat. Why deny nature?
On the other hand we have carnivores who try to justify the fact that they are clearly killing another living creature that has feelings, emotions and intelligence not too far away from humans. How can you justify the mass slaughter and experimentation on pigs but not on humans? Experiments on the Jews during the holocaust could very much save more lives than testing these things on pigs as pigs are but a crude model of the human body.
Personally, I don't try to reconcile my morality. I know there's a moral part of my brain evolved to make sense of the prehistoric world where pigs didn't have feelings and the only people that mattered were those that were in my tribe. It's only in modern times that we now live in a global tribe where science and resources allow us to worry about the emotions of a pig. So what am I? I'm an evil motherfucker who eats the flesh of an innocent pig who didn't have to die...
Either way we're just humans on a ball of dust encircling a tiny spark that's going to go super nova anyway. Who cares. Math is suppose to make sense. Morality is not.
It was not designed, and neither did it evolve into a machine designed to eat meat. Those would be cats who are obligate carnivores. We are omnivores (as is pretty much everything — digesting meat is much much easier than digesting plants).
You can justify just about anything with that perspective.
Being hypocritical is an indictment at the speaker, not of the speech. The most hypocritical person to ever live may well be completely right about their most hypocritical belief. It's just not relevant to the the validity of the idea.
So why do people constantly try to use it as a counterargument?
It seems especially prevalent in these sorts of discussions, and for some reason it's often used as you did here. You have no idea if they are vegan or not, but somehow the mere suggestion that a single person might not be is seen as some kind of refutation of the importance of animal rights in general.
While it's perfectly fine for GP to make this judgement, I'm not fine with them applying this standard to others while excusing themselves. Why is it wrong for me to ensure they are being consistent when making moral judgements on others?
> hypocritical belief. It's just not relevant to the the validity of the idea.
I disagree with your premise. GP is not merely talking about the validity of an idea, but again, is making a moral claim about what is right and wrong. In which case, hypocrisy diminishes one's right to make their moral claim.
> seen as some kind of refutation of the importance of animal rights in general.
Quite a straw man there. So being in favor of medical animal testing means I don't think animals rights in general are important?