I'll take my first point back, it was overly harsh and I was trying to exaggerate a point, it was not an attack on your character.(Original post by viddy9)
I don't know what that phrase means. Humans aren't the centre of the universe.
They're disasters for the animals.
It would, overall, save many more human lives, though.
To your 2nd point, yes that is absolutely true.
To your 3rd point, the difference between testing on humans and testing on animals is that more human lives would be saved at the cost of animal lives.
Also, you can't completely eliminate animal testing. A lot of discoveries of new hormones like (GLP-1, GLP-2) or testing the effects of different hormones on the body are done in animals. Sure they test in vitro, but they need to try in vivo to see if there are any differences. Lab testing is controlled, compound A reacts with B. In vivo, compound A reacts with B and also potentially is affected by a million other unknowns. Rats and other animals are very similar to humans in many ways, which makes testing on them possible. If you wanted to stop testing on animals you would need an entire underclass of humans to essentially be testing dummies. Poked and prodded whenever they need results. What happened with all the GLP-1 and GLP-2 testing in the 80s? We know now that GLP-1 increases insulin sensitivity and production. Now there is a new generation of DPP-4 blockers which block GLP-1 breakdown and the drug is called sitagliptin, now used in diabetics with metformin. GLP-2 promotes growth of the gut, in people with short bowel syndrome, GLP-2 analogs are now being given to increase gut proliferation and improve intestinal absorption.
So there are direct positives that come out of testing. If you wanted to do testing on humans it would be possible for sure but you would essentially being poking and prodding humans and potentially with lethal consequences.
Essentially your options are not good either way. I don't think anyone in this world except sadists enjoy seeing animals die for "science".
x
Turn on thread page Beta
Would a uni's animal testing record affect your decision to apply? watch
-
View Poll Results: Would you avoid applying to a uni that carries out a lot of lab tests on animals?I would not apply there26030.20%I would still apply there60169.80%Voters: 861. You may not vote on this poll
-
- Follow
- 41
- 05-02-2016 16:03
Last edited by Okorange; 05-02-2016 at 16:06. -
- Follow
- 42
- 05-02-2016 16:11
I will be bothered if their testing affects the quantity of meat in their campus restaurants.
-
That Bearded Man
- Follow
- 40 followers
- 22 badges
- Send a private message to That Bearded Man
Offline22ReputationRep:- Follow
- 43
- 12-02-2016 21:30
If we remove animal testing it just puts humans more at risk from drugs, a necessary evil.
Posted from TSR Mobile -
FriendlyPenguin
- Follow
- 85 followers
- 20 badges
- Send a private message to FriendlyPenguin
Offline20ReputationRep:- Follow
- 44
- 13-02-2016 18:53
(Original post by viddy9)
I don't know what that phrase means. Humans aren't the centre of the universe. -
- Follow
- 45
- 13-02-2016 18:58
that would be about #197 on my list of criteria for yoony selection
-
earthworm
- Follow
- 9 followers
- 14 badges
- Send a private message to earthworm
Offline14ReputationRep:- Follow
- 46
- 13-02-2016 19:04
Why isnt there a poll option for 'it would make me more likely to apply?' push poll.
-
- Follow
- 47
- 13-02-2016 19:16
(Original post by Mathemagicien)
They certainly should be, at least to other humans.
I see no reason why membership of the species Homo sapiens magically makes your suffering more important than any other sentient being's. -
FriendlyPenguin
- Follow
- 85 followers
- 20 badges
- Send a private message to FriendlyPenguin
Offline20ReputationRep:- Follow
- 48
- 13-02-2016 19:19
(Original post by viddy9)
They shouldn't be. There is no justification for discounting the comparable interests of members of one species.
I see no reason why membership of the species Homo sapiens magically makes your suffering more important than any other sentient being's.
Would you argue to give human rights to the Ebola virus, bacteria, or worms? -
- Follow
- 49
- 13-02-2016 19:26
(Original post by Mathemagicien)
Because, in this Universe, where all species are competing against each other in the evolutionary sense, all humans should strive to ensure humanity survives.
(Original post by Mathemagicien)
Would you argue to give human rights to the Ebola virus, bacteria, or worms?
The key word is comparable, however. I'm not arguing that we should give mice the right to vote, because they have no interest in voting. Similarly, I would not argue in favour of giving a human infant or toddler the right to vote, because they have no interest in voting. However, when it comes to pain and suffering, for one, we ought to equally consider the suffering of all sentient beings. -
FriendlyPenguin
- Follow
- 85 followers
- 20 badges
- Send a private message to FriendlyPenguin
Offline20ReputationRep:- Follow
- 50
- 13-02-2016 19:35
(Original post by viddy9)
Appealing to evolution, or nature, is logically fallacious.
Also, individuals compete against each other, not species.
Red and grey squirrels in the UK, introduction of species by European explorers to Pacific islands, etc. say otherwise
(Original post by viddy9)
Bacteria and worms are not sentient, ergo they have no interests to take into consideration. Non-human vertebrates are sentient, and thus do have interests to take into consideration.
However, when it comes to pain and suffering, for one, we ought to equally consider the suffering of all sentient beings.
That suggests getting a cat would be morally wrong...Last edited by FriendlyPenguin; 13-02-2016 at 19:42. -
- Follow
- 51
- 13-02-2016 20:00
(Original post by Mathemagicien)
How so?
You describe species all competing against each other, yet you can't derive an ought-statement from that is-statement.
(Original post by Mathemagicien)
Are you sure? How would you even define sentience, let alone detect it? We don't even understand human consciousness, let alone whether or not to detect conscious thought in non-humans.
I'm sure you wouldn't advocate randomly torturing kittens.
As for being sure, I'm not 100% certain about anything, aside from the fact that I'm not 100% certain about anything. It's about probability and the weight of the evidence, and it's overwhelmingly in favour of other humans and non-human animals being able to feel pain and suffer. There's also no reason to believe that the intensity of such suffering differs between species.
(Original post by Mathemagicien)
So torturing a mouse is as bad as torturing a human?
(Original post by Mathemagicien)
That suggests getting a cat would be morally wrong...Last edited by viddy9; 13-02-2016 at 20:07. -
FriendlyPenguin
- Follow
- 85 followers
- 20 badges
- Send a private message to FriendlyPenguin
Offline20ReputationRep:- Follow
- 52
- 13-02-2016 21:27
(Original post by viddy9)
Just because something is natural, doesn't mean it's right. There are plenty of ways to ensure that your genes are passed onto the next generation (thereby ensuring the survival of your genes, as well as increasing the chances of survival of Homo sapiens), but I'm sure you wouldn't advocate using some of those methods, because they would be immoral.
You describe species all competing against each other, yet you can't derive an ought-statement from that is-statement.
We don't need to understand consciousness to know that it exists. Sentience is the ability to have conscious experiences. Almost all of the evidence we have in favour of the notion that humans can feel pain and suffer also exists for animal suffering. Non-human animals have the same responses to sources of pain; they have the same long-term behavioural responses; injured non-human animals will eat food containing analgesics instead of their normal food; and they have the same neurophysiological structures responsible for pain that humans do.
I'm sure you wouldn't advocate randomly torturing kittens.
All things being equal, yes. -
- Follow
- 53
- 14-02-2016 09:52
(Original post by Mathemagicien)
What methods are you talking about? You might be interested to note (but I'm not trying to make any points here) that actually, limiting the number of children you have is sometimes the best method to ensure their survival - and sometimes the best way to spread your genes is not to have children at all (but rather, to increase the odds of survival of the children of people related to you - e.g. you might have a crippling genetic condition, so having children would ultimately harm humanity, and therefore reduces the odds of genes of people sharing your genes surviving). Also, the best way of ensuring the survival of our genes may well be to evolve beyond Homo Sapiens. That is, we reduce the number of genes we pass on, to maximise the statistically expected number of genes that survive.
(Original post by Mathemagicien)
So you define pain/suffering as a neurological reaction to some stimulus?
(Original post by Mathemagicien)
Not if it doesn't serve a purpose, of course.
(Original post by Mathemagicien)
That assumes that the value of all sentient beings' neurological health are equal
It was Darwin's birthday a couple of days ago, and what he demonstrated is that there's no dividing line between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom.
As he wrote: "There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher animals in their mental faculties.… The lower animals, like man, manifestly feel pleasure and pain, happiness, and misery."Last edited by viddy9; 14-02-2016 at 09:54. -
earthworm
- Follow
- 9 followers
- 14 badges
- Send a private message to earthworm
Offline14ReputationRep:- Follow
- 54
- 14-02-2016 11:10
I wouldnt want to study neuroscience at a uni that didnt do active, current high impact research in the area...
-
FriendlyPenguin
- Follow
- 85 followers
- 20 badges
- Send a private message to FriendlyPenguin
Offline20ReputationRep:- Follow
- 55
- 14-02-2016 11:14
(Original post by viddy9)
My point is simply that you can't derive a moral statement from "all species are competing with each other". The conclusion that "we ought to ensure that long term survival of the species" does not follow from the premise "all species compete with each other".
"All species compete with one another" implies "the most competitive species will come to dominate" (the 'end goal' of evolution)
If each species does its best to survive long term, then we will reach this 'end goal' sooner
(Original post by viddy9)
So, the sentience of non-human vertebrates is not actually in question.
There's no reason to believe that they aren't
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Related discussions:
- *MEGATHREAD* - The "Which Medical School Should I Apply ...
- The big and shiny work experience bible
- *MEGATHREAD* - Hyper Awesome mega thread for simple ...
- The big and shiny work experience bible
- Medicine Resit Applicants' Success Stories?
- *MEGATHREAD* - Hyper Awesome mega thread for simple ...
- Getting into Oxbridge for Postgraduate Study
- The Big 'Can I Get Into Durham With These Grades' Thread
- Medicine 2015 Entry Thread!
- Graduate Entry Medicine 2017
TSR Support Team
We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.
This forum is supported by:
Updated: February 14, 2016
Share this discussion:
Tweet