4 ms·

> I don't think it's ridiculous to say that human lives are worth more than some momentary discomfort for crabs. Well: says the human.

camelNotation 10y ago
Well, yes. Whose side are you on, anyway?
aeturnum 10y ago
You're right, people would never accept a regime where humans were drained of some of their blood in order to give other humans medical treatment with that blood.
- djrogers 10y ago
  > You're right, people would never accept a regime where humans were drained of some of their blood in order to give other humans medical treatment with that blood. Yes, that'd be due to the fact that we see humans as equals, and the same is not true for humans and horseshoe crabs.
- mirimir 10y ago
  Well, it's OK if it's voluntary. But that gets murky for prisoners, who arguably can't freely decline.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Even setting aside statistics about various communicable diseases, prejudice would make use of prisoner blood a tenuous thing. (I mean beliefs about prisoners being "bad" or "tainted" or whatever and people not wanting to receive their blood)
    - throwanem 10y ago
      Few whole-blood transfusions occur in a setting where the patient can inquire in detail as to provenance.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        Of course. That doesn't mean people wouldn't react to news about blood being collected in prisons.
    - mirimir 10y ago
      Well, it is a bad idea, for both human-rights and health reasons.[0,1] 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tainted_blood_scandal_(United_Kingdom) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tainted_blood_scandal_(United_... 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_8:_The_Arkansas_Prison_Blood_Scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_8:_The_Arkansas_Prison_...
tree_of_item 10y ago
Obviously. Are you really going argue that humans aren't worth more than crabs? Would you genuinely let your own family members suffer a preventable disease because you didn't want to injure a crab?
- Spoygg 10y ago
  It's not "injure a crab" though.
- justinator 10y ago
  It's an interesting philosophical question, I think. You can apply to all sorts of different scenarios - say milking a cow. We seem to be a species that likes to destroy entire environments and extinguish other species. We can always say, "but it was for our well-being". Where do you draw the line, then? Some people live a vegan lifestyle (I don't), some will not wear fur, or like to buy products that are tested on animals - or other products that are mass produced by wiping out entire forests for a mono crop. To further the philosophical debate, what if you apply the same emotional attachment you have on a loved one, to the animal? Would you harvest an organ from your family dog, if it meant your brother had a 50% chance of living? What if the dog had a 50% chance of surviving the operation to remove the organ? What if those chances were greater or less?

camelNotation 10y ago

Well, yes. Whose side are you on, anyway?

aeturnum 10y ago

You're right, people would never accept a regime where humans were drained of some of their blood in order to give other humans medical treatment with that blood.

djrogers 10y ago
> You're right, people would never accept a regime where humans were drained of some of their blood in order to give other humans medical treatment with that blood. Yes, that'd be due to the fact that we see humans as equals, and the same is not true for humans and horseshoe crabs.
mirimir 10y ago
Well, it's OK if it's voluntary. But that gets murky for prisoners, who arguably can't freely decline.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Even setting aside statistics about various communicable diseases, prejudice would make use of prisoner blood a tenuous thing. (I mean beliefs about prisoners being "bad" or "tainted" or whatever and people not wanting to receive their blood)
  - throwanem 10y ago
    Few whole-blood transfusions occur in a setting where the patient can inquire in detail as to provenance.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      Of course. That doesn't mean people wouldn't react to news about blood being collected in prisons.
  - mirimir 10y ago
    Well, it is a bad idea, for both human-rights and health reasons.[0,1] 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tainted_blood_scandal_(United_Kingdom) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tainted_blood_scandal_(United_... 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_8:_The_Arkansas_Prison_Blood_Scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_8:_The_Arkansas_Prison_...

tree_of_item 10y ago

Obviously. Are you really going argue that humans aren't worth more than crabs? Would you genuinely let your own family members suffer a preventable disease because you didn't want to injure a crab?

Spoygg 10y ago
It's not "injure a crab" though.
justinator 10y ago
It's an interesting philosophical question, I think. You can apply to all sorts of different scenarios - say milking a cow. We seem to be a species that likes to destroy entire environments and extinguish other species. We can always say, "but it was for our well-being". Where do you draw the line, then? Some people live a vegan lifestyle (I don't), some will not wear fur, or like to buy products that are tested on animals - or other products that are mass produced by wiping out entire forests for a mono crop. To further the philosophical debate, what if you apply the same emotional attachment you have on a loved one, to the animal? Would you harvest an organ from your family dog, if it meant your brother had a 50% chance of living? What if the dog had a 50% chance of surviving the operation to remove the organ? What if those chances were greater or less?