#14: Animal Testing

I'm not saying we are different, but our mechanical development let us 'escape' the food chain as it were. We are a part of nature, we always were, there is no denying that, we just differentiate ourselves through our inventions and stuff, giving most people the person idea that we are better and superior.

Wow, just 4 teeth specially there for cutting through tough substances. Like meat is the only thing that can be cut with it. I do get your point however.

Long live the discussion!
 
Most of our close relatives in the animal kingdom are omnivores (be it to a lesser extent) as well.

I'm going to have to point out that we have taken control of nature, and added new forms of evolutionary selection to nature, be it through selective breeding or genetic manipulation. Claiming we're superior is alright because of this, because we've put ourselves above nature, but acting like we're superior because of this is probably not the nicest way to go...

What we need is one of those animals who wants to get eaten/tested upon, like in the Hitch-hiker's series...
 
afstandopleren said:
I'm not saying we are different, but our mechanical development let us 'escape' the food chain as it were. We are a part of nature, we always were, there is no denying that, we just differentiate ourselves through our inventions and stuff, giving most people the person idea that we are better and superior.

Wow, just 4 teeth specially there for cutting through tough substances. Like meat is the only thing that can be cut with it. I do get your point however.

Long live the discussion!
Click to expand...

Well, yes 4 teeth, and if you didn't know, 4 teeth are enough to cut meat, most of all carnivorous mammals including cats do have only 4 canines. Their incisors and molars are very small compared to herbivorous mammals, while herbivorous mammals have smaller canines or even don't have them. Anyway, humans do have both features of a herbivore and a carnivore jaw so we can conclude it is necessary for cutting meat and eating plants, and the part of getting sick without meat etc. Monkeys are all also omnivores, some less and eat sometimes only bugs, but still omnivores.
 
afstandopleren,
Since I can't quote your post properly for some reason, I'll just reply without it. Yes, I don't think scientists are heartless monsters who can recognize when an animal is suffering. And yes, if we can avoid widescale human suffering by experimenting on animals, I'm all for it. And if we find a cure for a disease, then the animals don't suffer anymore, either. Although it is important to care about the well being of animals, putting their needs before ours is stupid, and will doom the human race. Then who is around to protect the animals from harm?
 
DogMaster40 said:
afstandopleren,
Since I can't quote your post properly for some reason, I'll just reply without it. Yes, I don't think scientists are heartless monsters who can recognize when an animal is suffering. And yes, if we can avoid widescale human suffering by experimenting on animals, I'm all for it. And if we find a cure for a disease, then the animals don't suffer anymore, either. Although it is important to care about the well being of animals, putting their needs before ours is stupid, and will doom the human race. Then who is around to protect the animals from harm?
Click to expand...
I agree, but not with your last sentence. We are not here on this planet to protect the animals. They can care for themselves. They'll die sometimes from diseases but nature is like that, and you must accept that. Nature can care for itself, we don't need to mess with that. It can almost revive any disaster and always come back with even more better or beautifull life, with or without us, and so nature did for millions of years, also before humans (and trust me, those times were better for nature).
 
Pokequaza said:
I agree, but not with your last sentence. We are not here on this planet to protect the animals. They can care for themselves. They'll die sometimes from diseases but nature is like that, and you must accept that. Nature can care for itself, we don't need to mess with that. It can almost revive any disaster and always come back with even more better or beautifull life, with or without us, and so nature did for millions of years, also before humans (and trust me, those times were better for nature).
Click to expand...

XD You do realize that we are part of nature, right? But thanks for your defense. You said everything I wanted to say back to a great extend.
 
afstandopleren said:
XD You do realize that we are part of nature, right? But thanks for your defense.
Click to expand...
Uhm... yes you're right. But I meant it isn't our role to play the big boss on this planet. The human and its selfishness, thinking they can take over the role of nature, and still how good we try, nature always can do it better. You're right, we're part of it, but we don't control it.
 
Pokequaza said:
@d master342,

Maybe they aren't dead, but they still suffer. And I bet you would chose to die too if you had a choice between that and suffering in pain. They have only one life, please don't ruin their lives then.
Click to expand...

Umm, I'm not ruining their lives. I'm not testing on the animals and I already stated that I'm against testing. I'm just saying, maybe some animals would choose death over suffering if they could make that choice a reality. The harsh truth is they can't. That's all. ;f

dmaster out.
 
afstandopleren said:
I'm not saying we are different, but our mechanical development let us 'escape' the food chain as it were. We are a part of nature, we always were, there is no denying that, we just differentiate ourselves through our inventions and stuff, giving most people the person idea that we are better and superior.
Click to expand...

Ok... are you serious about this, or are you just being stupid now? The very fact that we are sitting here arguing about weather we are superior or not PROVES in every way possible that we are.

Ever hear the famous quote, "I think, and therefore I am"? Because we are actually thinking about weather or not we are superior to other animals proves we are. You don't see other animals arguing over who is superior. Are we better than the rest of nature? If you look at it from strictly a scientific view, we are, in just about every way. I don't see Dogs building rockets to go to the moon, or birds doing advanced mathmatical equations.

Please, give me some actual reasons why we aren't superior to the rest of nature. And by reasons, I mean cold hard facts. Don't give me some philosophical crap. I dare you to prove me wrong, because any of your attempts will ultimately result in failure.
 
Pokequaza said:
I agree, but not with your last sentence. We are not here on this planet to protect the animals. They can care for themselves. They'll die sometimes from diseases but nature is like that, and you must accept that. Nature can care for itself, we don't need to mess with that. It can almost revive any disaster and always come back with even more better or beautifull life, with or without us, and so nature did for millions of years, also before humans (and trust me, those times were better for nature).
Click to expand...
Sorry, I wasn't very clear. What I meant is that without us, even more animals would easily become sick and die. There are a bunch of shows on channels like Animal Planet and Discovery that show people helping pets and wild animals out. Of course death is inevitable, and those people don't help every animal, but we still have an impact, albeit a small one.
 
*rolls eyes at DarthPika*
Here we go again...

Anyways, I think animal testing is wrong. We test not just medical products which is inhumane, but cosmetic products, which is even more immoral. I see not why we must take innocent, harmless animals, and force them to try medication or inject them with it, record the results, then either brutally kill it or let it suffer. We beat animals to death after we use them, and the entire thing is just sickening. We need to treat every part of nature as equal, cause thats the only way things will get solved. That, or we wait for the super animal god to arise from the depths of the sea somewhere under Madagascar, transform into a massive, unkillable beast, and it destroys us all. Note, this was not an argument towards DarthPika.

THIS is:
We are superior to nature, no one is arguing there. No one smart anyways. But we are superior to nature for the wrong reasons that most think, including some you state. The laws of physics were around before we were, and "nature" obviously knew about them. Just because we are able to do more complex things, again, does make us superior. It is what we do with our gift of knowledge that makes us superior. You stated that we are superior as we build rockets. True, and false at the same time. We built the rocket, so what. Animals, like dolphins persay, have an incredible amount of intelligence to boast about, yet they show it in their unique way. We built the rocket, but we used it to go to the moon, further our knowledge of science and the forces around us, taught it to the next generation, thereby adding to the book of knowledge. Animals learn intelligent things, but they do not pass it down(usually), as it is not an essential skill needed to survive, such as hunting, eating, mating, and so on. So that is my argument, counter if you will, I DARE YOU.
 
I personally am for AT, but not the way that it is done in some places (straight-out animal cruelty). I think medications and the like are acceptable, but not cosmetics. I know that it can potentially save lives, with no real risk to humans. Just my opinion though.
 
In bold.

Seth1789110 said:
THIS is:
We are superior to nature, no one is arguing there.
Afs was. I was directing my argument at him, no one else.

No one smart anyways. But we are superior to nature for the wrong reasons that most think, including some you state.

Oh really? I think science would tell you otherwise.

The laws of physics were around before we were, and "nature" obviously knew about them.

Really? I don't think so. Yes, an animal will be aware of the laws of physics acting on its body, but it won't actually know about them. It will just feel them, not even think or care about what they are. Nature does not know about, or care about the laws of physics. It simply obeys them. However, we DO know about them. We made an entire system devoted to studying them. I have yet to see nature do this.

Just because we are able to do more complex things, again, does make us superior.

Actually, yes, it does. I would say that a dog is superior to a bug because the dog can do more/has a bigger brain/is smarter/etc. I don't think many people would argue with this.

It is what we do with our gift of knowledge that makes us superior.

How about you stop beating around the bush and just say that it is our gift of knowledge that makes us superior, instead of saying its what we do with it? The very fact that I'm smarter than my dog makes me superior to him. It doesn't matter if I actually go out and prove it to the world. All that matters is that I'm smarter. Therefore, I'm superior to him.

You stated that we are superior as we build rockets. True, and false at the same time. We built the rocket, so what.

Have you ever seen an animal actually care about trying or even caring about getting to the moon? I think not.

Animals, like dolphins persay, have an incredible amount of intelligence to boast about, yet they show it in their unique way.

They obviously aren't as smart as we are, or else we would be being trained by dolphins to do tricks, not the other way around.

We built the rocket, but we used it to go to the moon, further our knowledge of science and the forces around us, taught it to the next generation, thereby adding to the book of knowledge.

Even if we didn't we would still be far superior to everything else. The fact that we CAN find out about these things, or even care about them to begin with proves my point.

Animals learn intelligent things, but they do not pass it down(usually), as it is not an essential skill needed to survive, such as hunting, eating, mating, and so on.

Exactly! They don't care about such things as we do. They aren't smart enough. Doesn't that make us superior to them?

So that is my argument, counter if you will, I DARE YOU.

No, I did better than counter it. I crushed it into a pulp. Good luck getting around facts.
Click to expand...

For the record, I don't think being superior means that we should abuse nature. Being superior to it means we should use it to help make our lives better, but at the same time, care for it.

For example, and ideal situation:

Logger needs trees for wood,

Trees come in a limited supply and are good for the environment,

Logger cuts down trees but also plants new trees to replace the ones he cut,

Trees regrow, and not only does it keep the environment healthy, but it provides the Logger with more trees to cut in future years.

Everyone is happy.
 
Meet THE SUPER ANIMAL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade
Read the "Physiology" part and be horrified. If one animal is superior, it's this little thing.

I think there's something fundamentally wrong with ranking animals according to superiority, though. Your dog may have bigger brains, but the bug is probably more likely to survive, say, a giant volcano eruption blocking out the sun. There's no higher-up on the evolutionary tree, all animals alive today are alive because they adapted to the current environment, those most adaptive to change are more likely to survive even longer. If any animals are superior, it's the ones which are able to adapt to as many possible environments, for they will survive the longest.

I wouldn't say "the gift of knowledge" is what makes us "superior" in this case, but the fact that we have an advanced language and are able to understand ideas. Education, science, whatever are what makes us superior in your example.

However, on the subject of suffering, making animals which can't feel pain (like lobsters) "suffer" IMO seems perfectly alright. If an animal has absolutely no concept of future, then it won't care if it's killed or not. Same goes for if the animal mourns or not. Superiority has nothing to do with this, it's how the animal feels.
Not too long ago, those with less melanin in their skin thought of themselves as "superior", and this made it perfectly alright to abuse and enslave those who have more melanin in their skin. Those with less had built ships, and roads, and castles, whilst those with more still lived in huts anyway, so they were obviously far less "superior"...

We are however natural predators, and if we don't test on animals, we'll have to test on humans. So I'm rather evenly divided on what roll we should play in nature. One of the things I'm for is for those with severe brain damage (think "human plants", it has to be brain damage, though) to be used for scientific research (testing medicine and whatnot), because this does seem a lot more morale and efficient.

BTW, one of the reasons dolphins don't build rockets is the fact that it's kind of hard to do with flippers, underwater...
 
^ You know the animals who can't feel pain or suffer are they close to us on the evolutionary chain? Im sure a mammal will have a more reliable reaction to a medicine than a lobster. I may however be wrong on this matter. I believe we are not superior beings. We need to rely on our mother longer than most animals, we are not very strong compared to a lion/bear/gorilla. We haven't got fur to keep us warm in winter. But the reason is we don't need those things because of us adapting to our environment. Those things would be beneficial but we can survive without it. So darthpika I think you are wrong to say we are the most superior beings. We live in communities like animals, without animals we would not exist.
 
Kash, that's exactly one of the problems with animal testing, the ones on which it is more morale to test on are those who wield less usable results.

Which is exactly why testing on those who are (near-)braindead is the most beneficial and morale...
 
kashmaster said:
^ You know the animals who can't feel pain or suffer are they close to us on the evolutionary chain? Im sure a mammal will have a more reliable reaction to a medicine than a lobster. I may however be wrong on this matter. I believe we are not superior beings. We need to rely on our mother longer than most animals, we are not very strong compared to a lion/bear/gorilla. We haven't got fur to keep us warm in winter. But the reason is we don't need those things because of us adapting to our environment. Those things would be beneficial but we can survive without it. So darthpika I think you are wrong to say we are the most superior beings. We live in communities like animals, without animals we would not exist.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree here with you, but as usual there's a small thing left unnoticed, the fact you said we didn't have fur anymore, well our fur didn't dissappear because we started to make clothes or it was ''too hot'' for us. No, because we spend a lot of our lifetime in water in the past, something many people don't know...
 
kashmaster said:
^ You know the animals who can't feel pain or suffer are they close to us on the evolutionary chain? Im sure a mammal will have a more reliable reaction to a medicine than a lobster. I may however be wrong on this matter. I believe we are not superior beings. We need to rely on our mother longer than most animals, we are not very strong compared to a lion/bear/gorilla. We haven't got fur to keep us warm in winter. But the reason is we don't need those things because of us adapting to our environment. Those things would be beneficial but we can survive without it. So darthpika I think you are wrong to say we are the most superior beings. We live in communities like animals, without animals we would not exist.
Click to expand...

With out animals we wouldn't exist? What? If we were the only animal on this earth, (assuming the environment was made to support 1 and only 1 animal) we would simply live off the pants. :/
 
Pokequaza said:
Yes, I agree here with you, but as usual there's a small thing left unnoticed, the fact you said we didn't have fur anymore, well our fur didn't dissappear because we started to make clothes or it was ''too hot'' for us. No, because we spend a lot of our lifetime in water in the past, something many people don't know...
Click to expand...
There's very little evidence for the aquatic ape theory. Whilst it seems very convincing, and explains quite a lot (losing fur, standing up, ...), it is by no means factual (yet).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top