3 ms·
yep, the same logic of vivisection, concentration camp hypothermia experiments, Tuskegee syphilis experiment, etc... - "it advances science" >Also, a lot of re
by VladRussian2 13y ago
yep, the same logic of vivisection, concentration camp hypothermia experiments, Tuskegee syphilis experiment, etc... - "it advances science"
>Also, a lot of research is basically infinite trial-and-error until you find something that works; doing this on a scale large enough for humans would kill lots of people, versus lots of mice.
Doing research on humans vs. mice would [these days, though not even 40-60 years ago] force to do the research differently, mindfully and efficiently, instead of meat chopping factory it is now.
- bluntly_said 13y agoWe use the resources we have available. The sad thing about most of the experiments you list is that we gained a lot of useful knowledge from them. Sure it's easy to now look back and be horrified by them because we have the luxury of being able to do so, a luxury that is (in part) derived from the knowledge those experiments give us. And yes, I think 100 years from now people WILL look back at us and be horrified about how do experiment on animals. But they'll be able to do so because they can afford that luxury. A luxury that's being built now, using those horrible methods. Morals are never free of context.
- peterwwillis 13y agoOf course it would force them to do the research differently. Like, not at all, for example. Some research involves seeing processes which can only come after death. I can't even begin to explain all the other research that wouldn't happen, because I am not a bioresearcher. It's really easy to judge an entire range of research with zero insight on what actually goes on or why. I would suggest you go ask a bioresearcher to explain what they do to you, and why it is necessary to do it that way on animals, before you call it "a meat chopping factory".