What Makes Humans so Special to Experiment on Animals?

Post Reply New Topic

Some one brought this up in an unrelated topic, thought it deserved an answer, and a thread of it's own.

I don't see humans by nature any more special than animals. It is an illusion I think many carry, we are in fact animals. The fact that we are no more special by nature, than other animals, means we compete to survive as they do using every available resource available.

I would like it if no creature had to suffer; however it doesn't reflect the reality of how nature works. Cats kill when they are not hungry and unwittingly torture their prey. Even though for a human onlooker, it may seem cruel for the target of their hunt, it serves to make the cat a more efficient killer, more likely to survive given the fact that it's ancestors were often a solitary hunter, relying only on their own hunting skills for survival.

Humans are social animals and omnivores. We work together to raise and slaughter domesticated animals, for our survival purposes. There is nothing kind about it to the animal, but we do it for survival just as the cat and most other creatures in nature, do to survive, using the methods that work the best for them.

Culture is an evolutionary adaptation provided by our collective intelligence that provides cultural devices that enhance survival. We cut down entire forests eliminating ecosystems of nature, to provide housing and other products that enhance our ability to survive.

Experimentation on animals, is another method that humans use, for survival purposes. It is no illusion that experimentation on animals have allowed many people to live that would not have had the opportunity, otherwise.

Whether we eat ham or the heart valve of a pig is used as a substitute for a valve in a human heart, both the experimentation on the pig and the slaughter of the pig serves the same purpose: for us to survive.

Even if one were to refuse medical treatment, refuse to eat any meat, refuse to uses any products with animal ingredients, which would be almost impossible living in a modern culture, one would still be required to eat.

The plants on the planet earth are no less important than any other creature, including human beings on the planet, an integral part of the survival of every living creature. Yet, if one were to refuse to eat animals, as part of their omnivore diet, they would have to eat plants to survive.

Given the slaughter of domesticated animals, deforestation, experimentation on lab animals, and agriculture, which one has been the most devastating to all the plants and creatures on the planet earth?

Agriculture. If we had remained the hunters and gathers we once were, thousands of species of creatures and plants would not have gone extinct, on the planet earth. We would still be killing animals with rudimentary tools, eating some vegetation, but mostly eating a diet provided by the hunting of warm blooded mammals.

Agriculture, a byproduct of the collective intelligence of prehistoric hunters and gathers allowed us to stay in one place, expand our collective intelligence and has led to our modern culture, that has created an imbalance in the ecosystem of the entire planet.

The fact that we no longer had to hunt animals to survive, is what eventually led to our ability to experiment on them, to enhance our survival.

As human beings we have the ability to decide what we feel is acceptable and not acceptable in our experience. However, in reality the cat that unwittingly tortures other creatures for no other reason but survival purposes and the human being that experiments on the cat, or eats the cat in some cultures, for no other reason but survival are all participating in the same activity: using all available resources to survive.

While one has the ability to determine their own ethics, regardless of the law, the human being that experiments on animals for the good of their species survival and the cat that unwittingly tortures other creatures for the good of their own survival, both serve the grandest purpose of all that we are aware of as creatures, survival.

I guess one could ask the question what makes the human being so special that one would consider retribution against them because they experiment on animals, to enhance human survival.

As far as I am concerned the cat and the human have the same value, neither the solitary hunter nor the social animal deserves retribution for fulfilling it's actions for survival.

Finally, regarding bullies, bullying is part of human nature as well, seen throughout the animal kingdom, a pecking order, competition for reproduction, and resources.

Humans aren't supposed to do this because they are considered special. It's just more evidence that they aren't. Instead they are primates with clothes on that have some ability to learn ethics. Some people overcome the inclination to bully, through learned ethics and the law, others don't.

It's the same with retribution, for whatever offense one may see as taken, ethics and the law stops most from doing this, but not all.

Learned ethics are what makes us special; our ethics can determine what it is that we do that may hurt or help others. That part can be almost entirely subjective, and potentially go for or against, our natural inclination to support the survival of the species, as a social animal.

If humans as a species had the highest standards of ethics, from the perspective of nature as a whole, we might have refused agriculture, and kept the hard life of hunting and gathering for the good of the balance of nature.

Culture has become a unique evolutionary adaptation, that resembles a virus in nature. It appears culture will run it's course until the host, both human and ecosystem, are exhausted.

If we rise above our animal natures with collective intelligence, and superior ethics the resources will last much longer.

We all live with these animal natures, meant for survival; some of what we see that doesn't seem fair reflects the same nature, that causes the bully to torment, the slaugher of domesticated animals, the experiments on animals, and the unwitting torture of the mouse by the cat.

When we think about retribution to others because we don't agree with their methods for survival, part of the natural cycle of life that does not always seem fair, we become the bully instead of the victim or an advocate for the victim.

If we change what we can, that we don't agree with, through higher ethical means, we rise above our nature as animals, with potential to do greater good than what other animals are capable of. That sets some humans apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Well humans are Apex Predators so yeah we can pretty much do what we want to with Animals

correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you're suggesting we go back to being hunter-gatherers? that's completely unrealistic.

We differ from the other primates in only too ways: We blush (and we have plenty to blush about) and we have language so we can make excuses for our bad behavior.

ruveyn

This is about eating animals, but I think it is relevant (and hilarious):

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4jZ_BV4MQ4[/youtube]

What in makes you think they are not doing experiments on humans too? Most new drugs are tested in market

We can suffer a similar fate

Eat the battery chicken
Become the battery chicken

Chicken is delicious

Might makes right. The belief of ever amoral monster.

Do you people know Temple Grandin? Her knowledge on this matter is far more reasonable than most of the things I have seen on this page. We can eat animals but we got to give the animal a decent life and a painless death. We got to do it right.

If one has power to do something and no one is strong enough to stop them how can you say might doesn't make right when they have the ability and power to do what they want?

Because might doesn't make right. Just because somebody can do something doesn't mean it is right. This is disgusting what you are saying, somehow giving creatures of unlimited power moral sanction to do whatever they want. It doesn't surprise me that you're a to the tee Christian.

I agree. My own view is that, animals, having complex nervous systems and brains that are similar in most ways to our own, do experience many of the same physiological sensations we perceive. Animals certainly experience fear and feel pain, thus I don't personally want to cause them any harm. That being said animals are useful in a number of practical ways that are necessary for the well being of many people. In addition to being delicious.

One day I expect we will be using stem cells to grow meat industrially thus removing the entire aspect of animal consciousness from the industry

It doesn't madder if it is right the strong will always rule the weak that is just a fact of life I love animals but if experimenting on them is the only way to help advance human life's then so be it.

Also I am a Malcolm X version of a Christian I admire Malcolm X I have his books I find him interesting.

These are all relevant points and indeed I feel somewhat happy that you made them. They have helped to evolve the discussion. My feelings are somewhat ambivalent on growing meat industrially in such a manner. I would just prefer replicators.

Stem Cell resseach will cost us way to much also they do make sure the animal feels no pay I learned that in FFA which stands for future farmers of america.

Not a belief. Rather a fact. Look at the history of the human race and that is what you see.

ruveyn