this post was submitted on 19 May 2024
137 points (72.3% liked)
Vegan
2962 readers
1 users here now
An online space for the vegans of Lemmy.
Rules and miscellaneous:
- We take for granted that if you engage in this community, you understand that veganism is about the animals. You either are vegan for the animals, or you are not (this is not to say that discussions about climate/environment/health are not allowed, of course)
- No omni/carnist apologists. This is not a place where to ask to be hand-holded into veganims. Omnis coddling/backpatting is not tolerated, nor are /r/DebateAVegan-like threads
- Use content warnings and NSFW tags for triggering content
- Circlejerking belongs to /c/vegancirclejerk
- All posts should abide by Lemmy's Code of Conduct
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why would it be ok to test on non-human animals but not on humans?
Do you participate in modern medicine? Do you have any vaccinations or taken any antibiotics? Animal testing makes it possible. What alternative do you propose?
Notice how you didn't answer the question.
I did, but let me be more explicit for you. Animal testing is necessary because it makes modern medicine possible.
Now, if we outlaw animal testing, what alternative should we take? That's three timese now. You haven't been able to give an answer yet.
They're a troll, suggesting direct testing on humans, never even occurred to them how messed up that would be.
Maybe there currently aren't alternatives specifically because they aren't needed as in why develop alternatives when the status quo isn't challenged and testing on animals is the norm?
No one likes animal trials, most of all the researchers themselves who work with the animals. For example researchers cannot take any vacation during the trial. In fact someone needs to be in the lab at least once a day, including Sundays and public holidays.
Also animal trials are expensive.
Research on alternatives is progressing. It's not like there is a big conspiracy of sociopaths that get off on animal suffering and want to keep the status quo because of that. It's simply really really really hard to simulate a body to the necessary level.
Meat eaters will never challenge the status quo.
Edit: As usual, those friendly and loving fellas have nothing but downvotes. Keep on killing them!
That isn't an answer to the question:
Because humans are more valuable. If you had to choose between saving one human, and one hundred rats, which would you choose? We test on rats until we deem it safe and ethical enough to progress to testing on humans.
That doesn't make the lives of animals worthless. And they are treated as less than worthless.
What is it about humans that makes them more valuable? And valuable in what way?
Can you answer the question, "If you had to choose between saving one human and one hundred rats,which would you choose?" The answer to your questions is related to this one.
It's not related because that choice is not what is happening. You don't have one button that kills/saves rats and one that kills/saves a human.
What is happening is that we have deemed it morall ok to medically experiment on non-human animals but not on humans.
It's absolutely related. Animal testing has indirectly saved countless lives. I think you're refusing to answer because it doesn't help your argument.
What argument? I haven't made an argument, I want to know your position and what it is about humans that makes them more valuable than non-human animals.
You absolutely have made an argument and you continue to. You're saying animal testing is morally indefensible despite any outcome it's ever produced
It's like he went to the Carlson school of 'just asking questions'.
What a coward
This is like asking why is some random stranger any more valuable to you than your closest loved one.
I am not going to medically experiment on either, so no, it's not like that.
You value one over the other and you know it.
You are all over this comment section attempting to slip out of good points but we see you. The good points stand.
Ad hominems are a surefire way to show you have nothing of value to add. Good bye.
Consensually harvested Lab-grown human body parts.
Good idea. We just need to wait for the technology to catch up. Thanks.
But that technology will never exist without us trying that with animals first.
Catch, meet 22.
We're already trying to scale existing methods, which means we already have the technology, it's just not cheaper than the subsidized meat industry.
Meat‽
Are you suggesting that we test vaccines on artificial hamburger meat?
Making something that tastes like meat is WAY different from actually making a complete immune system, fully working organs and everything else you need to test vaccines. We basically need full clones.
Also how can you harvest lab grown organs consensually? It's not like they can talk...
You could theoretically make lab grown organs in a millennium or something but doing it consensually doesn't make any sense because you can't do it with or without consent, because they would presumably not be sentient.
Both occurr.
There are experimental medication trials with volunteer human subjects, often people in a situation where they have nothing to lose and whatever small contribute they may give to advance knowledge on a given field may very well be their last (or only) act of compassion towards others.
Make-up and so called beauty products can and should be tested on humans alone. But medications and other alike present too much of an unknown outcome to test outright on humans. Too many could die before any good data could be gathered to improve whatever is being developed, which would render most research undoable.
Animal testing is, as we stand, a necessary evil we must all carry with us. Let us hope we find a way to end this in a very near future.
The animals didn't consent either and will also die.
Death is an integral part of life.
You can argue, because the concept and notion of consent is exists and is understanble by us, humans, we are burdened with the task of safeguarding those who can not understand it.
Many die, unwillingly, unknown, unnamed, for others to live. It's an unchanging law of nature.
We can and should, are morally obligated to, curtail the cruelty that still holds our reality together. It is wrong but exists and, to a degree, is necessary as reality exists today.
This is either intelectually dishonest or very creepy that you don't understand "volunteer" or the concept of consent.
Do you mean that human volunteers actually have no other choice?
I mean that animals don't volunteer and don't consent, so saying "both occur" is just wrong in the context of the rest of the comment.
I can't find the article but a man that was fatally dosed with radiation in a nuclear plant accident was subjected to treatments, without prior consent, to study radiation poisoning, that prolongued his life to a point his existence was only pain and suffering.
It was an incredible act of cruelty to a human being but the knowledge gathered from it has improved the collective knowledge on how to address something that can meaninglessly kill others.
I can't even imagine the mental state of those that took part in the study and witnessed the living decay of a human being while knowingly prolonging his suffering.
Animal testing is fundamentally wrong, I don't want it to exist and I agree with you, but the world is not all sunshine and flowers.
i'm going to ignore your posting history and assume for a moment you aren't a contrarian debate pervert. what exactly is the point you are trying to get across?
you agree we should move past animal cruelty, but because we have animal cruelty today, we still need to have animal cruelty today?
you agree that animal testing is fundamentally wrong, but because someone was unconsensually subjected to unethical experimentation, we need to keep the animal testing?
why do you feel the need to agree with people but then say 'but that's not how it works today'?
i see these types of comments in every comment section about societal problems. 'i agree X needs to change to Y, but we don't have Y today, sweaty. 💅' like- what? are you all really just trolls, or do you really think you're being insightful and helpful? because this isn't what a discussion looks like. it's dis-miss-ion.
Thank you for your consideration.
Because those people are correct. But at the same time, right now, there is no viable option (to my knowledge) to completely erase the things we agree on.
I'm not dismissing anything; I'm admiting it is wrong while at the same time admiting there are no alternatives to end it today, tomorrow or in the foreseeable future.
The simple admission of something being wrong, opens the doors to debate. Debate generates change of thought. Change of thought enacts action.
We do not need to fully agree on anything and none of us is required to understand the other perspective but at best we may be cordial enough to respect that we are in our right to hold different opinions, without the need to consider the other is mocking us.
Way to enter a discussion. I'd prefer if you could keep it civil.
This might sound off topic, but bare with me here: Do you agree that CO2 emissions are fundamentally wrong (leading to a mass extinction event, etc)?
(I will continue this argument under the assumption that we can all agree on that) And do you concede that these emissions are, for the foreseeable decade(s) inseparable from modern human life? Not that they are a basic necessity to survive, but that you and I are indirectly causing such emissions in one way or another for every day that we are alive and continue with our day to day actions (heating, cooking, buying stuff, transportation, etc). This may change in the future, but let's focus on today.
(Again I assume that you are not the 0.1% of the population that lives without any modern amenities (you have some way of writing comments on the Internet for example), and will continue my argument) Given these two basic building blocks of our mutual understanding of the world I would like to rephrase the question you find so inconceivable:
"you agree that emitting carbon is fundamentally wrong, but we need to keep emitting carbon?"
Neither you nor me have committed suicide, so there must be some reasoning that is acceptable to you, which justifies keeping a human alive even though it requires continuing something that is fundamentally wrong. Of course, different people draw the line at different points. But I hope I was able to show you that, even if you draw the line differently for this issue, the reasoning is not completely foreign to you.
If humans would treat nature and themself better we wouldn't need any "beauty" products or even any medication in the first place. Just to artificially look "better" or live longer?
Everything that happens to us, is because our own selfishness ego to think we are the "alpha" product who owns everything, while we are just dumpshit animals with no respect for nothing.
You wan't to test some product? Go test it on criminals and leave those poor animals alone. But no, testing on non volunteer human is not ethical correct??
Oh yeah that's where we draw the line.
How?
Vanity is a flaw, I agree. Age is not something to be ashamed of.
Hubris is to blame for many mistakes people do but no animal or living being has respect for anything else besides the immediate survival. Animals will destroy others habitats, food, brood, etc, because the others impede their way.
Why criminals? Why not simply use any individual. If consent is the crux of the matter, let's go that way full force.
Yes. It's called self preservation. All life is to be protected until there is no other option than to end it and carry the burden for such choice. We don't live in Dante's Inferno.
Deranged much?
Assuming a young adult develops, idk breast cancer or something. Your sister or your daughter or you maybe. Should we treat it?
If we don't they'll die.
But careful, it will cost a hundred rats and a few rabbits their lives.
I will just answer that question even though it doesn't make sense because we are in this shit together...
We wouldn't have to treat cancer if we haven't been so stupid in the past... Back to the roots with less plutonium, uranium, 4G, 5G, wifi 4,5,6, processed food, poluted water... You name it !
Maybe it's time to find a solution for the root cause and not a solution for the symptoms...
That's the difference !
Reducing carcinogens would reduce the cancer rate a bit. Banning smoking completely would probably be the best first step. But most of the items on your list are either already heavily regulated (radioactive elements, food and water) or don't actually have any impact on cancer rates (the list of radio spectrum parts)
Also you're lying to yourself if you truly think that getting rid of modern advances all together would eliminate cancer. Cells sometimes mutate when dividing and in a fraction of those cases it leads to cancer. That's life. There will always be a chance of that.
If you want to look at it from such a fundamentalist angle, sure, animal testing is immortal. You'd only be able to test new drugs on terminally ill patients then.
If you're willing to humor me, let me take you on a tanget. I promise it'll make sense: Do you agree that CO2 emissions are fundamentally wrong (leading to a mass extinction event, etc)?
(I will continue this argument under the assumption that we can all agree on that) And do you concede that these emissions are, for the foreseeable decade(s) inseparable from modern human life? Not that they are a basic necessity to survive, but that you and I are indirectly causing such emissions in one way or another for every day that we are alive and continue with our day to day actions (heating, cooking, buying stuff, transportation, etc). This may change in the future, but let's focus on today.
(Again I assume that you are not the 0.1% of the population that lives without any modern amenities (you have some way of writing comments on the Internet for example), and will continue my argument) Given these two basic building blocks of our mutual understanding of the world:
Neither you nor me have committed suicide. So there is a reason that we continue on living, despite our continued existence being linked to habitat destruction and animal deaths. We are working towards a better future and try to change that, but for some reason we consider our current lives more important than the lives of animals that are threatened as a consequence of our existence. I don't know why, and you probably neither. I guess it's just some deeply rooted desire for survival.
Oh, btw, I am actually curious what your answer is to the 100 rats question someone else posted in the comments. Or maybe rephrased a bit: is there any number of rats (or rabbits or fish or dogs) whose deaths you're unwilling to accept and that makes you say "no, take my sibling/partner/parents instead"?