4 ms·
Just make it ilegal already. If we want testing, just test with human *volunteers*. It’s only fair.
by rafark 4y ago
Just make it ilegal already. If we want testing, just test with human *volunteers*. It’s only fair.
- carabiner 4y agoI would volunteer to get cancer.
- dbg31415 4y agoI think a lot of the diseases and stuff they studied worked better on animals that aged faster than humans. The way to justify animal testing is to say, "Ok, we can make these animals suffer for 50 years... or we can make humanity continue to suffer or another 250 in order to better understand this and how the disease grows and evolves... what's worse?" But... that's the only way I can think to justify it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Omelas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Om... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giver https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giver
- doublerabbit 4y ago> what's worse? IMM, animals suffering. Capable humans can speak. "Yeah doc, the lump got bigger, feels like my eyes are about to burst". Unlike animals who are mute apart from squealing which is the only sign for bad. Whom are mainly kept in-humane conditions, no consensual agreement. Does a Monkey get kept in paradise during the testing runs? Elon's brainchip-chimps research shows just how poorly treated they were. Lack of lawful-rights, regulations, corrupted-inspections. The odds are stacked against animals; at least us, humans, can reach out if they were being mistreated. I fail to see any justification for animal testing. It is a valid point, that it may only take twenty-five years on animals, and now we have a pseudo-cure for X. Testing still has to be done on humans, if that fails? Well back to the drawing board with more animal suffering for another twenty-five. So why not just skip straight to humans? If it takes 250 years, that's 250 years more research on the species it's trying to cure with an high percentage of a foreseeable cure.