Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    I don't think that by itself is an argument against the merits of organic food. If that's true, it's possibly just a silly regulation (I don't know anything about that treatment so I can't really comment on it) - it doesn't mean the basic concept behind organic food is bad.



    ...you're proposing we clone people? Whole people? What?
    Organic can prove worse for the environment as it requires more land to be used for farming therefore less land left for wildlife and as carbon sinks.

    Generally it is just best to give up meat from both an environmental and ethical perspective.

    To be anti vivisection but eat meat and dairy makes no sense
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Clones of people.

    I didn't and I don't like sheep meat and quick research suggests that tea tree is an organic cure
    You aren't a scientist are you?

    Also sureley clones would suffer just as much as none clones :/
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by redferry)
    Organic can prove worse for the environment as it requires more land to be used for farming therefore less land left for wildlife and as carbon sinks.

    Generally it is just best to give up meat from both an environmental and ethical perspective.

    To be anti vivisection but eat meat and dairy makes no sense
    Possibly, I think there needs to exist a balance. Organic definitely uses up more land area but then again, the land area it does use is probably a more effective carbon sink than completely industrialised land that would be taken up by something like a chicken battery farm. On top of that, you've probably got fewer potentially harmful chemicals washing into the wider environment. In terms of reducing biodiversity, I read an article a while ago about some organic farmers who interspersed their crops and grazing ground with wild areas which if I remember correctly, they claimed actually boosted their productivity. I think what is generally needed is simply much stronger regulations that apply for everything rather than allowing people to choose a side, either Organic or non-Organic.

    But yes, giving up meat definitely is better. Unfortunately, given how utterly appalled people are at making even the tiniest lifestyle changes, I'm not sure even the most optimistic and ideological person in the world could genuinely envisage a totally vegetarian future. The aggression some people have when people suggest they should change their eating habits is really disturbing.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by redferry)
    You aren't a scientist are you?

    Also sureley clones would suffer just as much as none clones :/
    I am. Well I'm a science person why?

    yes but if it is simply cleaned tissue then no pain
    (Original post by joey11223)
    One could argue the difference between a mouse and a human is the fact a mouse does not have the capacity to object, in that they are not self aware nor nearly as emotionally complex as a human being.

    Also mice are prey animals, it is fine for us to farm and slaughter animals to consume, at levels beyond necessary, so why is it so immoral for us to farm mice to test cures for diseases on?
    or one could argue that human arrogance says we are better when we don't know. And we simply don't know how to communicate with them.

    Just because they are pray animals doesn't make it right.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    I am. Well I'm a science person why?

    yes but if it is simply cleaned tissue then no pain
    [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]or one could argue that human arrogance says we are better when we don't know. And we simply don't know how to communicate with them.
    ...are you seriously trying to say mice could theoretically be as intelligent and self aware as humans, we just can't talk to them is all and they just happen to fail in tests to investigate intelligence/self awareness (which other species pass no problem)...and our knowledge of neurology in other species is just...wrong?..

    and you're "a science person"....you trolling right?


    Also you argue the biology of mice means tests on them aren't representative to how the drugs would react in us, now despite in a tiny amount of cases this being true (and hence clinic trials!), neither is a slab of muscle tissue with a cancer stuck in it, as it\s not a operating body.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Cloning conscious people definitely is not a better alternative. If you can clone human tissue then sure.... But that's not a complete solution. First of all, cloning tissue is expensive. Inventing new drugs is hard enough as it is without having to impose lots of new regulations which are genuinely not completely necessary. For drugs that are genuinely there for the good of humans (i.e. not the latest version of Calpol or Neurofen) then I think it is worth sacrificing the lives of mice if it helps speed up the production cycle. As much as I like animals, I do believe that human lives are still more important than the lives of mice - I'm not 100% comfortable with that either, I totally understand why you're objecting, but I'm not convinced that point of view is completely rational. On top of that, the body is more than the product of its parts. Just because tissue responds positively to a drug doesn't mean the body as a system will. Yes, the mice are defenceless and can't consent and humans can... on the other hand, would you rather have a human die or a mouse die? It's not that easy to say "Well the human's an idiot for taking it". Most of the people on these clinical trials are poor university students trying to navigate themselves through debt, you can't really blame them for it.
    You are completely right, it's just hard fit me to come to terms with having to sacrifice what most people call a 'lesser being'
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by joey11223)
    ...are you seriously trying to say mice could theoretically be as intelligent and self aware as humans, we just can't talk to them is all and they just happen to fail in tests to investigate intelligence/self awareness (which other species pass no problem)...and our knowledge of neurology in other species is just...wrong?..

    and you're "a science person"....you trolling right?


    Also you argue the biology of mice means tests on them aren't representative to how the drugs would react in us, now despite in a tiny amount of cases this being true (and hence clinic trials!), neither is a slab of muscle tissue with a cancer stuck in it, as it\s not a operating body.
    Ok imagine an alien race lands on earth they take up humans test them and say 'well they don't understand temporal mechanics' or 'they can't communicate with us when other species can' so they aren't intelligent and we can do what we want. Would you accept it?
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Aph)
    Ok imagine an alien race lands on earth they take up humans test them and say 'well they don't understand temporal mechanics' or 'they can't communicate with us when other species can' so they aren't intelligent and we can do what we want. Would you accept it?
    We base our actions on the best available evidence. There is no evidence to suggest that mice are sentient. You might as well argue that we shouldn't grow plants for food using that same methodology. As I said, I wouldn't support using mice as test subjects unless there's a very, very good reason to do so but to use the argument that they might be intelligent is really not very sensible...
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    We base our actions on the best available evidence. There is no evidence to suggest that mice are sentient. You might as well argue that we shouldn't grow plants for food using that same methodology. As I said, I wouldn't support using mice as test subjects unless there's a very, very good reason to do so but to use the argument that they might be intelligent is really not very sensible...
    However when there is a big barrier (like communication) there I'd no evidence either way all we know is that they are really different. It would be like rich people accusing the poor of being expendable and seb-human
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Aph)
    However when there is a big barrier (like communication) there I'd no evidence either way all we know is that they are really different. It would be like rich people accusing the poor of being expendable and seb-human
    I'm not a neuroscientist but I'm pretty sure the size of their brain makes it biologically impossible for them to have any kind of sentience. It's not at all like the rich accusing the poor of being sub-human because there is no scientific basis on which to support that assertion.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    I'm not a neuroscientist but I'm pretty sure the size of their brain makes it biologically impossible for them to have any kind of sentience. It's not at all like the rich accusing the poor of being sub-human because there is no scientific basis on which to support that assertion.
    I belive it is the ratio between the brain size and body size.
    and there is no evidence (that I'm aware of) to suggest mice are not sentient.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Are you trying to play devil's advocate or do you actually believe that there's a realistic chance mice could be sentient? Lots of intelligence tests have been done on animals and I don't recall ever seeing mice appear as having done well in any of them.
    Maybe a bit of both. Although when it comes to animals that might be sentient I'd put more money on the great apes, corvids, elephants, dolphins, whales and octopi.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Aph)
    Maybe a bit of both. Although when it comes to animals that might be sentient I'd put more money on the great apes, corvids, elephants, dolphins, whales and octopi.
    Well exactly... but not mice!
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Well exactly... but not mice!
    Yes, although rats are definately reasonably intelegent.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by raineandfyre)
    But we have to save the planet one way or another, or we have to move away from the planet and go somewhere else. Not within our lifetimes, granted, but if we carry on as we are now then it's either leave or die. Even if we are the first country to embrace this idea, then that is a step forward and it will lead to others doing the same.

    Besides, there are a lot of poor countries that have already been adversely affected by climate change. Many island nations are facing the threat of disappearing due to rising sea levels. Like it or not this sort of thing will become more and more of an 'immediate concern' if we don't act to slow it down.

    I'm aware that the Green party's policies are idealistic and 'philosophical' as you put it, but it's undeniable that more and more people want that. Just look at how many people have joined them over the past few months. We can always start out as idealists and moderate ourselves with practicalities as and when sticking to ideals becomes unfeasible.

    And one of their policies is to increase the amount of international aid, so that ought to help the 'starving people' out a little.

    Investing more in renewable energy, which the Greens would undoubtedly do, will also lead to developments in that field which should benefit people everywhere as the technology will become cheaper over time.
    If you are impoverished, you cannot act to do anything, and that's a fact.

    If the Greens were to govern as they claim they would - Britain would be finished just as quickly as they could legislate. The Greens are deeply unpopular in their only parliamentary constituency (Brighton) where they can't even organise a small town effectively.

    All the things they claim to want tend toward the realms of extreme wishful thinking. "Investing in renewables" is a very long game and requires the co-operation of industry. There are no guarantees of success - the Greens act as though there are incipient miracle technological breakthroughs just waiting to be made.

    As for leading other nations - that doesn't work. We would impoverish ourselves (making Britain completely irrelevant and a global laughing stock) whilst other nations do whatever they have to to be economically viable. It would be for absolutely nothing.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Johann von Gauss)
    I think there is some misunderstanding here...

    Psychology is not what most would class as a proper science.
    Look I don't care who you are though my guess is mills. Just stop this.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    As for zero growth, infinite economic growth on a finite planet is not sustainable or possible long term in its current form.

    What do you think causes economic growth, and what do you think it results in?

    I'm just curious as to the level of your understanding of basic economics.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    What do you think causes economic growth, and what do you think it results in?

    I'm just curious as to the level of your understanding of basic economics.
    I have no problem in admitting I don't have that much of an understanding of economics. But I do understand that infinite economic growth on a finite planet is just not possible with the way we are doing things now, that is my area of concern. I don't have to be an expert car mechanic to see when a car has a flat tyre.

    There are economists who support zero growth economic models though, so it's not just something dreamt up by idealistic hippies. It's something we need to be having a proper debate about.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Economic growth = investment = increased funding for new technology = development of widespread renewable energy.

    What's the point of arguing about our finite resources as of now when we're not exactly on the brink of disaster? Technological development is happening now, thanks to economic growth and consequential government investment. Radical hard-left actions will have no benefit to this cause.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by midnightice)
    Economic growth = investment = increased funding for new technology = development of widespread renewable energy.

    What's the point of arguing about our finite resources as of now when we're not exactly on the brink of disaster? Technological development is happening now, thanks to economic growth and consequential government investment. Radical hard-left actions will have no benefit to this cause.
    So only worry about things that are just about to happen and never prepare for the future?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.