this post was submitted on 19 May 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)
Vegan
2970 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
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.
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.
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. Animals can have rights and human lives can still be saved. Is it worth one human life to save a million rats? All the rats? Humans are not infinitely valuable. Not compared to another sentient, sapient creature like a rat.
What is it about humans that makes them more valuable? And valuable in what way?
Even you're valuable because scientists can study just how small a human brain needs to be to operate solely on self-righteous anger.
Ad hominems are a surefire way to show you have nothing of value to add. Good bye.
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.
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.
What a coward
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'.
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.