29 ms·

I think it's really important to put their torture in proper context. https://animalcharityevaluators.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/donation-allocation-chart.

I think it's really important to put their torture in proper context. https://animalcharityevaluators.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/donation-allocation-chart.jpg https://animalcharityevaluators.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/... This statistic from animal charity evaluators, show just how small a percentage lab testing makes up for in the total amount of animals we use and kill. If your goal is to effectively reduce animal suffering, the only place that makes sense to start is factory farming. The conditions animals endure are much worse than most testing, and the scale is difficult to comprehend. I don't mean to trivialize the suffering these mice went through, I just think it's important to make clear that we cause the same amount of suffering every time we eat meat, something that brings us much less value than this research.

tomc1985 7y ago
With the growing amount of consciousness towards ethically-sourced meat, I'm not sure your statement is 100% true
- MperorM 7y ago
  When surveyed, most people respond that the meat they buy is ethically sourced but it is rarely the case. Most meat that is claimed to be ethically sourced is far from it. Worse yet, the places where demand is growing the fastest, are places with minimal concern for how the animals are treated.
- chc 7y ago
  "Ethically sourced meat" is essentially a marketing gimmick. It generally doesn't denote conditions that are meaningfully different from "normal" meat.
  - tomc1985 7y ago
    So, you're saying that farm-raised, open-pasture, free-range, or other titles are meaningless? I don't think that is true when the labels are used honestly
    - vlan0 7y ago
      >So, you're saying that farm-raised, open-pasture, free-range, or other titles are meaningless? Yes. 1)A knife is still shoved into their throats so they bleed out. 2)You can get all the nutrients you need in a plant-based diet.
    - chc 7y ago
      Legally speaking, yes. AFAIK the only one of those terms that carries any legal requirements is "free-range," which is defined only for poultry, and the requirement there is literally just "has had access to the outside," without any stipulations on how much of its life that access applied to or what "outside" means (so, for example, a small patch of pavement behind the factory is totally free-range).
- MiroF 7y ago
  there's no "ethically sourced" meat that doesn't involve that sort of pain/suffering
  - tomc1985 7y ago
    Nature isn't exactly painless with how it sources its meat either. Hell it can be (and often is) downright cruel. Just because we should strive not to subject animals to the same level of suffering as nature can, doesn't mean that all animal slaughter is bad
    - vlan0 7y ago
      This is a straw man, and not an argument against the comment you replied to.
      - tomc1985 7y ago
        And how exactly is that a strawman? How is a quick death not better than the slow, agonizingly prolonged deaths that predators often give to their prey? I question your knowledge of nature if you don't seem to be willing to recognize its sheer gruesome capriciousness?
tehjoker 7y ago
I agree with that. I don't know how that's a defense of this specific instance though. I'm sure there are valuable things to learn here... but I'm not sure how you can justify these methods, even though they are the way to get the answer most surely and quickly.
- MperorM 7y ago
  Viewed in isolation I don't think it is either. In a society that in practice completely disregards the moral status of non-human animals, I don't think the scientists are acting out of line. They are doing negligibly more harm than the average meat-eater.
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  It is pretty easy to justify the methods most of the time. Animal testing is often the best, if not only way to get data. The data may lead to the betterment of human lives, so you weigh the potential human benefit against the lives of the mice. Most animal researchers believe it would be unethical to not conduct the testing. The studies should still be run in a way to minimize the number of animals while collecting the best possible data. Source: experience in animal testing.
  - nikofeyn 7y ago
    > The data may lead to the betterment of human lives, so you weigh the potential human benefit against the lives of the mice. > Most animal researchers believe it would be unethical to not conduct the testing. but this is what's so bothersome. why is human experience put above that of the mouse? in this specific example, it's even worse. stress in modern day society is almost entirely self-induced from a civilization/societal point of view. humans are very good at building overly complex meta structures in our lives, all of which contribute heavily to stress because it's unbelievably hard to navigate these unnatural systems. so now, mice have to suffer because of our own inability to control ourselves? i think the ethical argument you mentioned is quite a stretch when view in this real light.
    - 7y ago
badcede 7y ago
The argument isn't primarily a quantitative one. It's asking what it says about the so-called life sciences that they are based on torturing living beings.
- markdown 7y ago
  Mice aren't "beings".
  - badcede 7y ago
    Then who is?
    - pochamago 7y ago
      Humans. I confess, I have no ability to understand the powerful empathy people feel for rodents. I really feel nothing for them.
  - warent 7y ago
    The point is mice are life forms. Who are we as humans to decide what that means for them?
    - markdown 7y ago
      > Who are we as humans to decide what that means for them? Is that a joke? Rats, cockroaches, and mosquitoes are all life forms. Poison ivy is a life form. Guinea worms are life forms. We as intelligent beings get to decide what it all means. We can crush them, we can use them to our advancement, or we can set them up as gods and worship them. But none of those things are beings. It's our language, and we , not mice, get to decide what the word "being" means.
      - warent 7y ago
        It's not a joke. It's a frank question. We might decide what the word "being" means to us, but that doesn't change the reality of what the word is pointing to.
nikanj 7y ago
Mice in particular are treated as vermin in many places, and killed en masse for the sake of getting rid of them.
- ses1984 7y ago
  Doesn't justify torture. I accept the utilitarian argument to justify it, just saying.

tomc1985 7y ago

With the growing amount of consciousness towards ethically-sourced meat, I'm not sure your statement is 100% true

MperorM 7y ago
When surveyed, most people respond that the meat they buy is ethically sourced but it is rarely the case. Most meat that is claimed to be ethically sourced is far from it. Worse yet, the places where demand is growing the fastest, are places with minimal concern for how the animals are treated.
chc 7y ago
"Ethically sourced meat" is essentially a marketing gimmick. It generally doesn't denote conditions that are meaningfully different from "normal" meat.
- tomc1985 7y ago
  So, you're saying that farm-raised, open-pasture, free-range, or other titles are meaningless? I don't think that is true when the labels are used honestly
  - vlan0 7y ago
    >So, you're saying that farm-raised, open-pasture, free-range, or other titles are meaningless? Yes. 1)A knife is still shoved into their throats so they bleed out. 2)You can get all the nutrients you need in a plant-based diet.
  - chc 7y ago
    Legally speaking, yes. AFAIK the only one of those terms that carries any legal requirements is "free-range," which is defined only for poultry, and the requirement there is literally just "has had access to the outside," without any stipulations on how much of its life that access applied to or what "outside" means (so, for example, a small patch of pavement behind the factory is totally free-range).
MiroF 7y ago
there's no "ethically sourced" meat that doesn't involve that sort of pain/suffering
- tomc1985 7y ago
  Nature isn't exactly painless with how it sources its meat either. Hell it can be (and often is) downright cruel. Just because we should strive not to subject animals to the same level of suffering as nature can, doesn't mean that all animal slaughter is bad
  - vlan0 7y ago
    This is a straw man, and not an argument against the comment you replied to.
    - tomc1985 7y ago
      And how exactly is that a strawman? How is a quick death not better than the slow, agonizingly prolonged deaths that predators often give to their prey? I question your knowledge of nature if you don't seem to be willing to recognize its sheer gruesome capriciousness?

tehjoker 7y ago

I agree with that. I don't know how that's a defense of this specific instance though. I'm sure there are valuable things to learn here... but I'm not sure how you can justify these methods, even though they are the way to get the answer most surely and quickly.

MperorM 7y ago
Viewed in isolation I don't think it is either. In a society that in practice completely disregards the moral status of non-human animals, I don't think the scientists are acting out of line. They are doing negligibly more harm than the average meat-eater.
s1artibartfast 7y ago
It is pretty easy to justify the methods most of the time. Animal testing is often the best, if not only way to get data. The data may lead to the betterment of human lives, so you weigh the potential human benefit against the lives of the mice. Most animal researchers believe it would be unethical to not conduct the testing. The studies should still be run in a way to minimize the number of animals while collecting the best possible data. Source: experience in animal testing.
- nikofeyn 7y ago
  > The data may lead to the betterment of human lives, so you weigh the potential human benefit against the lives of the mice. > Most animal researchers believe it would be unethical to not conduct the testing. but this is what's so bothersome. why is human experience put above that of the mouse? in this specific example, it's even worse. stress in modern day society is almost entirely self-induced from a civilization/societal point of view. humans are very good at building overly complex meta structures in our lives, all of which contribute heavily to stress because it's unbelievably hard to navigate these unnatural systems. so now, mice have to suffer because of our own inability to control ourselves? i think the ethical argument you mentioned is quite a stretch when view in this real light.
  - 7y ago

badcede 7y ago

The argument isn't primarily a quantitative one. It's asking what it says about the so-called life sciences that they are based on torturing living beings.

markdown 7y ago
Mice aren't "beings".
- badcede 7y ago
  Then who is?
  - pochamago 7y ago
    Humans. I confess, I have no ability to understand the powerful empathy people feel for rodents. I really feel nothing for them.
- warent 7y ago
  The point is mice are life forms. Who are we as humans to decide what that means for them?
  - markdown 7y ago
    > Who are we as humans to decide what that means for them? Is that a joke? Rats, cockroaches, and mosquitoes are all life forms. Poison ivy is a life form. Guinea worms are life forms. We as intelligent beings get to decide what it all means. We can crush them, we can use them to our advancement, or we can set them up as gods and worship them. But none of those things are beings. It's our language, and we , not mice, get to decide what the word "being" means.
    - warent 7y ago
      It's not a joke. It's a frank question. We might decide what the word "being" means to us, but that doesn't change the reality of what the word is pointing to.

nikanj 7y ago

Mice in particular are treated as vermin in many places, and killed en masse for the sake of getting rid of them.

ses1984 7y ago
Doesn't justify torture. I accept the utilitarian argument to justify it, just saying.