5 ms·

> In 2017, together with research fellow Cécile Moro, they injected 20 macaques with a neurotoxin known to cause Parkinson’s symptoms. This just saddens me. Ye

> In 2017, together with research fellow Cécile Moro, they injected 20 macaques with a neurotoxin known to cause Parkinson’s symptoms. This just saddens me. Yes, the end result is helping humanity and saving human lives; but we should really be spending some effort in eliminating the need to torture other animals.

radu_floricica 6y ago
While most people still eat meat (me included) I think this is scope insensitivity. We routinely kill several orders of magnitude more animals for food than for research, and for arguably much less marginal benefit.
- krageon 6y ago
  There is a big and I hope obvious difference between the amount of suffering something has when you shoot it in the head versus when you inject it with poison and leave it crippled for weeks to see if the suffering is the way you expect.
29athrowaway 6y ago
There is also animal testing. To test a shampoo, for example, they apply a concentrated version of it to animal eyes and see how irritated they get. And there is regular farming. To extract milk from cows, we steal their calves, making cows cry for days. Male calves are killed and disposed or turned into meat and female calves are kept to repeat the cycle. In the case of female chicken, we make them live in tiny cages their entire life where they cannot even move. The "cage-free" chicken are just chicken that spent their entire lives in crowded warehouses where they also do not have space. "free-range" chicken have a non-zero outdoor access but there is no guarantee of how much that is, they still spend most of their life in a crowded warehouse. Male chickens are killed by being ground alive right after birth. The process of killing animals during slaughter sometimes just stuns the animal, leaving the animal alive to experience being cut open and dissected. Slaughterhouse workers kill 250 cows per day each. Some foods are especially inhumane, like foie gras, which is made by force feeding ducks or geese so that their liver gets enlarged. The repeated force feeding process causes lesions that cause the animals to develop necrotic tissue in their sternum. Many animals from pet shops come from puppy mills where their mothers are repeateadly forced to give birth until they develop cancer. And there's much more. We are horrible to animals but very good at marketing. We are even horrible to other humans too: child labor, sweatshops, etc. Morally, paying for these things is equivalent as doing it yourself.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  > There is also animal testing. To test a shampoo, for example, they apply a concentrated version of it to animal eyes and see how irritated they get. I believe this kind of unnecessary testing has been illegal in the EU for years. The rest of your post... business as usual here.
- krageon 6y ago
  A lot of your arguments about animal farming and testing seem to be founded on common practices of 50 years ago (or presumably in countries with bad ethical standards and absolutely zero animal welfare laws). Suffice to say that a lot of this suffering has been minimised exactly because people said "this one thing is not acceptable and we should change it" and were not stopped when other people said "but these other things might be worse!".
MaxBarraclough 6y ago
> we should really be spending some effort in eliminating the need to torture other animals Meaning what? The alternatives are to experiment on humans, to use simulations, or to not do research at all. Experimenting on humans is out for obvious reasons. Work is presumably already being done on simulation. Until they're a practical alternative, I don't see an ethical problem using animal testing when it's a disease as serious as Parkinson's.
- srean 6y ago
  > I don't see an ethical problem That "I" is the key. Different people have different standards. Mengele had no qualms about using experiments on humans as long as they were Jewish. Many find that troubling, some not at all and find it quite justified when there are under-studied diseases that threaten a superior race. The crux of your argument is that humans are a superior species and entitled to such luxuries because it can appropriate them. https://www.history.com/news/nazi-twin-experiments-mengele-eugenics https://www.history.com/news/nazi-twin-experiments-mengele-e... Would some choose to die/suffer rather than benefit from such experiments -- yes absolutely. Would some choose to resign than layoff reports for cost cutting -- yes absolutely. Would some grab tax funded benefits even when they have protested boisterously against such schemes all their life -- yes absolutely.
  - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
    > The crux of your argument is that humans are a superior species Correct. It would be absurd to treat all species as having equivalent moral standing. Under that belief, it would be morally troublesome to take steps to stop mice eating your winter rations, or to rescue a person from a burning building in preference over two pets. > Would some choose to die/suffer rather than benefit from such experiments -- yes absolutely. Some might even prefer that their child die rather than receive treatment developed with animal testing. Reasonable people, however, find this abhorrent. It's right that in the UK, a parent does not have an absolute right to make this sort of mistake. [0] Nothing is gained by bringing Nazi ideology into the discussion, and I don't appreciate the attempt to compare my position (the mainstream one) to theirs. That's no way to have a discussion. You've not really expressed a position of your own here, I take it you disagree with mine? [0] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/children/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/children/
throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
Alternative being...? "I don't like this" doesn't mean the universe has gifted us a way of avoiding it. It's not a helpful post.

radu_floricica 6y ago

While most people still eat meat (me included) I think this is scope insensitivity. We routinely kill several orders of magnitude more animals for food than for research, and for arguably much less marginal benefit.

krageon 6y ago
There is a big and I hope obvious difference between the amount of suffering something has when you shoot it in the head versus when you inject it with poison and leave it crippled for weeks to see if the suffering is the way you expect.

29athrowaway 6y ago

There is also animal testing. To test a shampoo, for example, they apply a concentrated version of it to animal eyes and see how irritated they get. And there is regular farming. To extract milk from cows, we steal their calves, making cows cry for days. Male calves are killed and disposed or turned into meat and female calves are kept to repeat the cycle. In the case of female chicken, we make them live in tiny cages their entire life where they cannot even move. The "cage-free" chicken are just chicken that spent their entire lives in crowded warehouses where they also do not have space. "free-range" chicken have a non-zero outdoor access but there is no guarantee of how much that is, they still spend most of their life in a crowded warehouse. Male chickens are killed by being ground alive right after birth. The process of killing animals during slaughter sometimes just stuns the animal, leaving the animal alive to experience being cut open and dissected. Slaughterhouse workers kill 250 cows per day each. Some foods are especially inhumane, like foie gras, which is made by force feeding ducks or geese so that their liver gets enlarged. The repeated force feeding process causes lesions that cause the animals to develop necrotic tissue in their sternum. Many animals from pet shops come from puppy mills where their mothers are repeateadly forced to give birth until they develop cancer. And there's much more. We are horrible to animals but very good at marketing. We are even horrible to other humans too: child labor, sweatshops, etc. Morally, paying for these things is equivalent as doing it yourself.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
> There is also animal testing. To test a shampoo, for example, they apply a concentrated version of it to animal eyes and see how irritated they get. I believe this kind of unnecessary testing has been illegal in the EU for years. The rest of your post... business as usual here.
krageon 6y ago
A lot of your arguments about animal farming and testing seem to be founded on common practices of 50 years ago (or presumably in countries with bad ethical standards and absolutely zero animal welfare laws). Suffice to say that a lot of this suffering has been minimised exactly because people said "this one thing is not acceptable and we should change it" and were not stopped when other people said "but these other things might be worse!".

MaxBarraclough 6y ago

> we should really be spending some effort in eliminating the need to torture other animals Meaning what? The alternatives are to experiment on humans, to use simulations, or to not do research at all. Experimenting on humans is out for obvious reasons. Work is presumably already being done on simulation. Until they're a practical alternative, I don't see an ethical problem using animal testing when it's a disease as serious as Parkinson's.

srean 6y ago
> I don't see an ethical problem That "I" is the key. Different people have different standards. Mengele had no qualms about using experiments on humans as long as they were Jewish. Many find that troubling, some not at all and find it quite justified when there are under-studied diseases that threaten a superior race. The crux of your argument is that humans are a superior species and entitled to such luxuries because it can appropriate them. https://www.history.com/news/nazi-twin-experiments-mengele-eugenics https://www.history.com/news/nazi-twin-experiments-mengele-e... Would some choose to die/suffer rather than benefit from such experiments -- yes absolutely. Would some choose to resign than layoff reports for cost cutting -- yes absolutely. Would some grab tax funded benefits even when they have protested boisterously against such schemes all their life -- yes absolutely.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  > The crux of your argument is that humans are a superior species Correct. It would be absurd to treat all species as having equivalent moral standing. Under that belief, it would be morally troublesome to take steps to stop mice eating your winter rations, or to rescue a person from a burning building in preference over two pets. > Would some choose to die/suffer rather than benefit from such experiments -- yes absolutely. Some might even prefer that their child die rather than receive treatment developed with animal testing. Reasonable people, however, find this abhorrent. It's right that in the UK, a parent does not have an absolute right to make this sort of mistake. [0] Nothing is gained by bringing Nazi ideology into the discussion, and I don't appreciate the attempt to compare my position (the mainstream one) to theirs. That's no way to have a discussion. You've not really expressed a position of your own here, I take it you disagree with mine? [0] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/children/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/children/

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago

Alternative being...? "I don't like this" doesn't mean the universe has gifted us a way of avoiding it. It's not a helpful post.