3 ms·

I don't see any distinction at all. Can you elaborate? (I'm an omnivore that's relatively OK with animal testing, fwiw)

chii 5y ago
The distinction between wild animals and reared ones is that they existed independently of humans, where as animals reared by humans would not have existed otherwise. I hold the same distinction to fishing - i do not like wild fish, but farmed fishes (note: farmed, not fishes caught from the wild, then fattened) are ok (esp. in an enclosed, hydroponic system). Unfortunately, most "farmed" fishes refer to caught fish that is fattened... Anything that humans create, live or dead, is fair game to be used for any purpose deemed desirable by the creator. The right to live doesn't exist for those organisms. But wild animals that exist without any human intervention should have that right to live.
- alex_sf 5y ago
  > Anything that humans create, live or dead, is fair game to be used for any purpose deemed desirable by the creator. Does that same distinction apply to human children? The objection to animal testing or consumption isn't about the source of the animals, it's about the ethical treatment of them. The potential suffering/emotional responses from the animal are the same regardless of the source. I'm more sympathetic to the exact opposite argument: it's more humane to take wild game than farmed. At least then they've lived a life relatively free of suffering, to the extent nature allows. That seems preferable to me vs. the typical feedlot life.
  - chii 5y ago
    > Does that same distinction apply to human children? it would if it weren't for the universal application of human rights today. And it did apply in the past - a slave's children are also slaves. I'm sure one day humans will move past this idea, but it is not today.
    - mensetmanusman 5y ago
      There are an absolute higher number of slaves today than in the past, is that what you are referencing?

chii 5y ago

The distinction between wild animals and reared ones is that they existed independently of humans, where as animals reared by humans would not have existed otherwise. I hold the same distinction to fishing - i do not like wild fish, but farmed fishes (note: farmed, not fishes caught from the wild, then fattened) are ok (esp. in an enclosed, hydroponic system). Unfortunately, most "farmed" fishes refer to caught fish that is fattened... Anything that humans create, live or dead, is fair game to be used for any purpose deemed desirable by the creator. The right to live doesn't exist for those organisms. But wild animals that exist without any human intervention should have that right to live.

alex_sf 5y ago
> Anything that humans create, live or dead, is fair game to be used for any purpose deemed desirable by the creator. Does that same distinction apply to human children? The objection to animal testing or consumption isn't about the source of the animals, it's about the ethical treatment of them. The potential suffering/emotional responses from the animal are the same regardless of the source. I'm more sympathetic to the exact opposite argument: it's more humane to take wild game than farmed. At least then they've lived a life relatively free of suffering, to the extent nature allows. That seems preferable to me vs. the typical feedlot life.
- chii 5y ago
  > Does that same distinction apply to human children? it would if it weren't for the universal application of human rights today. And it did apply in the past - a slave's children are also slaves. I'm sure one day humans will move past this idea, but it is not today.
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    There are an absolute higher number of slaves today than in the past, is that what you are referencing?