5 ms·

Being concerned about animal testing seems pretty silly coming from people who likely eat pigs, sheep and other intelligent animals every day, who likely lived

Being concerned about animal testing seems pretty silly coming from people who likely eat pigs, sheep and other intelligent animals every day, who likely lived in just as bad conditions if not worse their whole lives leading up to them becoming food. I also eat meat, it just seems a bit ironic to me.

Veserv 2y ago
You are ignoring the benefit side of a benefit-harm morality analysis. Eating an animal at least ostensibly has positive value for the people doing so. However, there are plenty of forms of "animal testing" that confer zero positive value. For instance, testing the wrong compound or inserting the wrong implant confers zero benefit. Having improper controls, "testing" nonsensical theories, repeating stale results poorly, inadequate data collection, etc. are just a few ways a test procedure can be totally useless or even actively harmful. This also ignores one of the other aspects of animal testing which is as a dry run or rehearsal for actual application. You do it right in animals so you are practiced at doing it right for when you need to do it right in humans. "Oh yeah, we royally screwed up in every rehearsal, but we will nail it in production." is not an acceptable approach. You look at the care taken during their practiced procedures on less critical subjects to determine if their practiced procedure is adequate for more critical subjects. A process that kills far more test subjects than others or achieves middling results relative to resource expenditure or that treats subjects as disposable for "advancing science" is not a process fit for human subjects. Assuming ingrained cultural process deficiencies will magically disappear when using changing subjects is foolish. These are just some of the reasons why people eating a ridiculous number of animals does not and should not waive our invalidate concerns about animal testing procedure.
- andsoitis 2y ago
  > Eating an animal at least ostensibly has positive value for the people doing so It is what comes before the eating that we should think about. We are breeding conscious beings (cattle, pigs, chickens) in harrowing conditions, with second order effects on the environment and plant and animal diversity (by clearing space for feed). Should we stop eating animals? I don't know. Should we stop testing on animals? If it meant that we cannot develop certain classes of therapies, then probably not. Should we level up our compassion and care for animals and the environment even if it means humans have less luxury as long as it doesn't hold back increased life and health span? Probably.
  - Veserv 2y ago
    That is almost entirely irrelevant to the point I was making. I was responding to the argument being made that any animal testing process on a small number of animals is fine since much larger numbers of animals are raised to be eaten. That is emphatically not true for multiple reasons of which I highlighted two distinct, practical reasons why careful animal testing is not merely ethical, but can and does increase the rate of the scientific development of safe procedures fit for usage on humans. Demanding good animal testing process is important even if people still raise and eat animals; it is not trumped either ethically or practically.
- concordDance 2y ago
  > However, there are plenty of forms of "animal testing" that confer zero positive value. I find it difficult to believe that companies do expensive surgery on expensive animals for no reason (other than sadism?). These companies think this testing does in fact have value (and if we don't trust companies to make that determination we probably should restrict animal testing to governments). But regardless, there's no real way to justify eating meat (given the marginal benefit of taste over vegan food) other than saying the lives and suffering of animals is essentially worthless. There isn't a threshhold you can put which will allow eating but prevent animal testing.
- hoseja 2y ago
  > testing the wrong compound or inserting the wrong implant confers zero benefit It's called learning. That's why they are doing it in the first place.
  - Veserv 2y ago
    You wanted to test implant A, but you unintentionally used implant B in half of your experiments is not "learning". Unless you needed to learn Surgery 101 like maintaining and going through checklists, but then you are grossly ill-equipped to be doing neurosurgery.
    - hoseja 2y ago
      Hey, how was penicilin discovered again?
fulafel 2y ago
Taken seriously, this is a fallacy and a way of thinking that easily halts progress in making the world a better place. You can always use whataboutism to argue against any improvement on grounds that a consistent ethic would require you to improve several other things at once. Being this kind of silly on the way is fine. (Also of course a lot of the critics don't eat meat, and it's also true that the rest of us should stop, starting from factory farmed meat)
- yreg 2y ago
  I believe that killing a pig for neuroscience research is more worth it than killing it to eat it. It also scales much better. (I currently eat meat.)
  - diggan 2y ago
    Do you sometimes feel like the end justify the means?
    - bennettnate5 2y ago
      Not the OP, but your question got me thinking. I think ends frequently justify means, though I’m guessing that the real question in that adage should be “does the end justify any means?” Our entire decision system relies on endings justifying meanings. I want a steady job that pays well, so I concede to going to a 4-year institution and paying a decent amount in order for that end to be so. The end justifies the sacrifice in time and finances, so the decision is justified in my mind. If the end were that I had only obtained unemployable skills or knowledge, then that particular end would not have justified the means for me. So I suppose that when people say the ends don’t justify the means, they’re not really saying it categorically—just that the particular ends being argued don’t justify the particular means. With the case of animal testing to improve human quality of life, it’s hard to say. Dogs were routinely experimented on and killed to first link diabetes to the pancreas, and later to discover insulin was a substance that could be transferred to preserve life. These medical results have saved hundreds of thousands of lives in the past hundred years. Whether the neuralink experimentation is justified in its potential for quality-of-life improvements in paralysis victims years into the future really depends on where you weigh animal well-being and life in relation to future improvements to human life, as well as whether you believe their experiments are too gratuitous and could be carried out more safely/ effectively on fewer animals.
Philpax 2y ago
I'm pulling out my vegetarian pass to say, without hypocrisy, that Neuralink's animal testing record appears to be pretty horrific.
- ralfd 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - chabes 2y ago
    Long term vegan here. Neuralink's animal testing record appears to be pretty horrific.
    - steve_adams_86 2y ago
      A few years into being vegan and I wholeheartedly agree, too.
  - steve_adams_86 2y ago
    I don’t agree with you at all. I’m not sure if you’re serious. In any case, a hypocrite can tell the truth. Someone eating a drumstick from KFC will still be correct if they claim that the system which got their chicken to them is an engine of murder and suffering, and it should stop.
    - oefnak 2y ago
      It is also a matter of scale. Billions of animals are killed after living terrible lives, for single use (consumption). Thousands of animals are (horribly) killed for the long term (science). Which should we focus on first?
- misja111 2y ago
  If you're using non-vegan products such as soap, shampoo or certain medicines you are complicit to animal testing as well.
Timwi 2y ago
Right, but neither irony nor hypocrisy means that it's wrong. Murder is wrong and if a murderer on death row says that murder is wrong they are still correct.
- hcurtiss 2y ago
  I suppose, but most people do not believe killing animals to benefit humans is wrong.
  - katzenversteher 2y ago
    Until someone with more power than them (other Humans, Aliens or Robots) decide to apply the same "reasoning" to them. I mean I totally understand it but it's pretty much caprice.
foobiekr 2y ago
You should perhaps consider that most people would rather die than be tortured to death and perhaps we feel the same way about animals even if we eat meat - especially primates.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
sangnoir 2y ago
> Being concerned about animal testing seems pretty silly coming from people who likely eat pigs This is reductive and lacking any form of nuance. If I eat chicken, should I automatically be okay with heavily industrialized chicken farms, or even setting chickens alight for entertainment? Just because one evolved to be an omnivore doesn't mean one is okay with all forms of killing animals.
- aaarrm 2y ago
  Considering you have options, one could argue that you must be okay with them, otherwise you could just choose to not support them. I personally believe there's more nuance than that, but Ive heard that line of argument before.
- Der_Einzige 2y ago
  Yes, actually you DO endorse the creation of things when you purchase or use their services.
  - sangnoir 2y ago
    I'm not going to be harangued for being an omnivore who's against factory-farmed chickens. You can lump me with the rest of the meat-eaters if it makes your feel better, but I'll have you know I don't purchase or use their services from those I find objectionable. I make no apologies for having a different moral scale, or liking chicken as a protein source.
- oefnak 2y ago
  Yes. You are absolutely responsible for killing animals if you eat meat.
  - sangnoir 2y ago
    Decision-making must be easy when you see the world in black and white. From where I stand, not all killings are equal.

Veserv 2y ago

You are ignoring the benefit side of a benefit-harm morality analysis. Eating an animal at least ostensibly has positive value for the people doing so. However, there are plenty of forms of "animal testing" that confer zero positive value. For instance, testing the wrong compound or inserting the wrong implant confers zero benefit. Having improper controls, "testing" nonsensical theories, repeating stale results poorly, inadequate data collection, etc. are just a few ways a test procedure can be totally useless or even actively harmful. This also ignores one of the other aspects of animal testing which is as a dry run or rehearsal for actual application. You do it right in animals so you are practiced at doing it right for when you need to do it right in humans. "Oh yeah, we royally screwed up in every rehearsal, but we will nail it in production." is not an acceptable approach. You look at the care taken during their practiced procedures on less critical subjects to determine if their practiced procedure is adequate for more critical subjects. A process that kills far more test subjects than others or achieves middling results relative to resource expenditure or that treats subjects as disposable for "advancing science" is not a process fit for human subjects. Assuming ingrained cultural process deficiencies will magically disappear when using changing subjects is foolish. These are just some of the reasons why people eating a ridiculous number of animals does not and should not waive our invalidate concerns about animal testing procedure.

andsoitis 2y ago
> Eating an animal at least ostensibly has positive value for the people doing so It is what comes before the eating that we should think about. We are breeding conscious beings (cattle, pigs, chickens) in harrowing conditions, with second order effects on the environment and plant and animal diversity (by clearing space for feed). Should we stop eating animals? I don't know. Should we stop testing on animals? If it meant that we cannot develop certain classes of therapies, then probably not. Should we level up our compassion and care for animals and the environment even if it means humans have less luxury as long as it doesn't hold back increased life and health span? Probably.
- Veserv 2y ago
  That is almost entirely irrelevant to the point I was making. I was responding to the argument being made that any animal testing process on a small number of animals is fine since much larger numbers of animals are raised to be eaten. That is emphatically not true for multiple reasons of which I highlighted two distinct, practical reasons why careful animal testing is not merely ethical, but can and does increase the rate of the scientific development of safe procedures fit for usage on humans. Demanding good animal testing process is important even if people still raise and eat animals; it is not trumped either ethically or practically.
concordDance 2y ago
> However, there are plenty of forms of "animal testing" that confer zero positive value. I find it difficult to believe that companies do expensive surgery on expensive animals for no reason (other than sadism?). These companies think this testing does in fact have value (and if we don't trust companies to make that determination we probably should restrict animal testing to governments). But regardless, there's no real way to justify eating meat (given the marginal benefit of taste over vegan food) other than saying the lives and suffering of animals is essentially worthless. There isn't a threshhold you can put which will allow eating but prevent animal testing.
hoseja 2y ago
> testing the wrong compound or inserting the wrong implant confers zero benefit It's called learning. That's why they are doing it in the first place.
- Veserv 2y ago
  You wanted to test implant A, but you unintentionally used implant B in half of your experiments is not "learning". Unless you needed to learn Surgery 101 like maintaining and going through checklists, but then you are grossly ill-equipped to be doing neurosurgery.
  - hoseja 2y ago
    Hey, how was penicilin discovered again?

fulafel 2y ago

Taken seriously, this is a fallacy and a way of thinking that easily halts progress in making the world a better place. You can always use whataboutism to argue against any improvement on grounds that a consistent ethic would require you to improve several other things at once. Being this kind of silly on the way is fine. (Also of course a lot of the critics don't eat meat, and it's also true that the rest of us should stop, starting from factory farmed meat)

yreg 2y ago
I believe that killing a pig for neuroscience research is more worth it than killing it to eat it. It also scales much better. (I currently eat meat.)
- diggan 2y ago
  Do you sometimes feel like the end justify the means?
  - bennettnate5 2y ago
    Not the OP, but your question got me thinking. I think ends frequently justify means, though I’m guessing that the real question in that adage should be “does the end justify any means?” Our entire decision system relies on endings justifying meanings. I want a steady job that pays well, so I concede to going to a 4-year institution and paying a decent amount in order for that end to be so. The end justifies the sacrifice in time and finances, so the decision is justified in my mind. If the end were that I had only obtained unemployable skills or knowledge, then that particular end would not have justified the means for me. So I suppose that when people say the ends don’t justify the means, they’re not really saying it categorically—just that the particular ends being argued don’t justify the particular means. With the case of animal testing to improve human quality of life, it’s hard to say. Dogs were routinely experimented on and killed to first link diabetes to the pancreas, and later to discover insulin was a substance that could be transferred to preserve life. These medical results have saved hundreds of thousands of lives in the past hundred years. Whether the neuralink experimentation is justified in its potential for quality-of-life improvements in paralysis victims years into the future really depends on where you weigh animal well-being and life in relation to future improvements to human life, as well as whether you believe their experiments are too gratuitous and could be carried out more safely/ effectively on fewer animals.

Philpax 2y ago

I'm pulling out my vegetarian pass to say, without hypocrisy, that Neuralink's animal testing record appears to be pretty horrific.

ralfd 2y ago
[flagged]
- chabes 2y ago
  Long term vegan here. Neuralink's animal testing record appears to be pretty horrific.
  - steve_adams_86 2y ago
    A few years into being vegan and I wholeheartedly agree, too.
- steve_adams_86 2y ago
  I don’t agree with you at all. I’m not sure if you’re serious. In any case, a hypocrite can tell the truth. Someone eating a drumstick from KFC will still be correct if they claim that the system which got their chicken to them is an engine of murder and suffering, and it should stop.
  - oefnak 2y ago
    It is also a matter of scale. Billions of animals are killed after living terrible lives, for single use (consumption). Thousands of animals are (horribly) killed for the long term (science). Which should we focus on first?
misja111 2y ago
If you're using non-vegan products such as soap, shampoo or certain medicines you are complicit to animal testing as well.

Timwi 2y ago

Right, but neither irony nor hypocrisy means that it's wrong. Murder is wrong and if a murderer on death row says that murder is wrong they are still correct.

hcurtiss 2y ago
I suppose, but most people do not believe killing animals to benefit humans is wrong.
- katzenversteher 2y ago
  Until someone with more power than them (other Humans, Aliens or Robots) decide to apply the same "reasoning" to them. I mean I totally understand it but it's pretty much caprice.

foobiekr 2y ago

You should perhaps consider that most people would rather die than be tortured to death and perhaps we feel the same way about animals even if we eat meat - especially primates.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

sangnoir 2y ago

> Being concerned about animal testing seems pretty silly coming from people who likely eat pigs This is reductive and lacking any form of nuance. If I eat chicken, should I automatically be okay with heavily industrialized chicken farms, or even setting chickens alight for entertainment? Just because one evolved to be an omnivore doesn't mean one is okay with all forms of killing animals.

aaarrm 2y ago
Considering you have options, one could argue that you must be okay with them, otherwise you could just choose to not support them. I personally believe there's more nuance than that, but Ive heard that line of argument before.
Der_Einzige 2y ago
Yes, actually you DO endorse the creation of things when you purchase or use their services.
- sangnoir 2y ago
  I'm not going to be harangued for being an omnivore who's against factory-farmed chickens. You can lump me with the rest of the meat-eaters if it makes your feel better, but I'll have you know I don't purchase or use their services from those I find objectionable. I make no apologies for having a different moral scale, or liking chicken as a protein source.
oefnak 2y ago
Yes. You are absolutely responsible for killing animals if you eat meat.
- sangnoir 2y ago
  Decision-making must be easy when you see the world in black and white. From where I stand, not all killings are equal.