An online space for the vegans of Lemmy.
Rules and miscellaneous:
I understand the motivation behind this opinion and would like to see testing of beauty products on animals outlawed. But pigs with lipstick is not really what you take the most issues with, is it? It's about giving rabbits cancer so we can test new cancer drugs on them. Assuming we make that illegal, how do you propose new cancer treatments should be tested?
Halt all animal testing and put 100% of those freed up resources towards developing lab grown organs and tissues. If we want to study heart disease we should be growing human hearts and testing them, not using a "good enough" animal model. It could be the next big leap, like the Human Genome Project was.
It’s about giving rabbits cancer so we can test new cancer drugs on them. Assuming we make that illegal, how do you propose new cancer treatments should be tested?
I've read an interview with a doctor who was outraged that at medical school he learned nothing about food and nutrition. Therefore he decided to go live for more than a year with indigenous people in Africa, and study them, taking blood samples. Conclusion : These people in Africa have no cancer at all but yet they do die (unlike in the West) because of other diseases because of no antibiotics. These people do hunt and with that getting physical exercise so to say. These people also fast sometimes because sometimes they simply have no food. This doctor, back in the West, now talks to his patients and asks them about their bad life style habits and he said that "we" in the West we do too little physical exercise, we eat too much and too often. We have an unhealthy life style. Fasten from time to time is good, it gives the body time to relax. So I would say : How about putting the insane millions spend on the massive medical industry in for example "sugar tax" and informing all people about a more healthy life style. Abolish McDonuts and B*rgerKing and KFC, and learn to not over eat. I've read that in the blue zones in Japan people have learned to eat for 80% instead of eating more than that.
Yeah, I've noticed that cancer rates seem particularly low in infants. Maybe that means breast milk and baby food fights cancer? This needs funding, fast.
Must have nothing to do with the fact that people have a life expectancy under 60 years old... Nah, it's because they fast and do exercise..
Cancer isn't a new thing, cancer in human has existed for as long as humans have because it existed before human were a thing.
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.
Consensually harvested Lab-grown human body parts.
Good idea. We just need to wait for the technology to catch up. Thanks.
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.
That isn't an answer to the question:
Why would it be ok to test on non-human animals but not on humans?
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.
What is it about humans that makes them more valuable? And valuable in what way?
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?
Meat eaters will never challenge the status quo.
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.
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 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.
i'm going to ignore your posting history and assume for a moment you aren't a contrarian debate pervert.
Thank you for your consideration.
why do you feel the need to agree with people but then say 'but that's not how it works today'?
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 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.
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.
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 or orther deranged humans and leave those poor animals alone. But no, testing on non volunteer human is not ethical correct??
Oh yeah that's were we draw the line.
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 or orther deranged humans and leave those poor animals alone. But no, testing on non volunteer human is not ethical correct??
Oh yeah that's were we draw the line.
Deranged much?
If humans would treat nature and themself better we wouldn't need any "beauty" products or even any medication in the first place.
How?
Just to artificially look "better" or live longer?
Vanity is a flaw, I agree. Age is not something to be ashamed of.
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.
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.
You wan't to test some product? Go test it on criminals or orther deranged humans and leave those poor animals alone. But no, testing on non volunteer human is not ethical correct??
Why criminals? Why not simply use any individual. If consent is the crux of the matter, let's go that way full force.
Oh yeah that's were we draw the line.
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.
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.
So, do you imply that as long as testing on animals is not cruel, it is ok?
The joke flew over your head. No animal testing is okay.
So you don’t want any new medicine development to happen?
Yeah that seems to be their opinion.
Vegans don't need anyone else to make them look ridiculous. They do a fine job on their own.
"So you don't want any work being done?"
"Yeah that seems to be their opinion. Abolitionists don't need anyone else to make them look ridiculous. They do a fine job on their own"
Keep riding that high horse, Don Quixote.
You compare yourself to abolitionists? Talk aboutlt hubris.
No, I am comparing non-vegans with people that see nothing wrong with exploiting and killing sentient beings. Which is apt.