Animal Rights?

[TomOfSweden]

Another things is that capitalism will sort all this out anyway. When we reach 60 billion people on earth, (should be around 2050 or so) eating meat will be so expensive that nobody can afford it. Meat takes 10 times the resources than a vegetarian diet. An other alternative is growing muscle in in vitro, without any connection to any conscious brain. I'm certain this will not only be doable, will happen soon, but also be so much more cheaper and tastier, living animals won't be able to "compete". They'll all be zoo and wildlife park attractions.

That's at least my vision of the future.

BTW I have several relatives who are not only scientists but have worked with animal experimentation. It's cruel, it's horrible for them. But they go to extreme lengths to minimize the suffering. And rather them than me having to suffer through some horrible medicine experimentation. One of the research projects was researching a type of muscle in the mouth of the mouse lung, which corresponding muscle is responsible for infant cot death. I'd like a animal rights activist look a parent in the eye who's lost their children to this, and say that research should seize. The same research on humans would of course be illegal, and without animal experimentation, it wouldn't be possible.

[Moonraker]

One of the research projects was researching a type of muscle in the mouth of the mouse lung, which corresponding muscle is responsible for infant cot death. I'd like a animal rights activist look a parent in the eye who's lost their children to this, and say that research should seize.

There are many who have no qualms about looking people straight in the eye as their bombs kill hundreds of thousands and they send people of to possible death. Perhaps an activist will come up with a come up with a slick term like collateral damage or friendly fire. The key difference being the cot death is nature at work and the other case is man at work.

Yes death is sad and it's hard to look any grieving parent in the eye but the world is full of tough choices. My problem with your example is it justifies cruelty if for a good cause. Parallel arguments are used for torture of prisoners. Perhaps "No" should mean No and not "No unless".

[TomOfSweden]

There are many who have no qualms about looking people straight in the eye as their bombs kill hundreds of thousands and they send people of to possible death. Perhaps an activist will come up with a come up with a slick term like collateral damage or friendly fire. The key difference being the cot death is nature at work and the other case is man at work.

Yes death is sad and it's hard to look any grieving parent in the eye but the world is full of tough choices. My problem with your example is it justifies cruelty if for a good cause. Parallel arguments are used for torture of prisoners. Perhaps "No" should mean No and not "No unless".

It's not justifying cruelty. It's acknowledging that it is a cruel activity, but chose to look away when it suits us. As I do. There is no way to justify torture, but we can accept it. We can accept that we just don't care enough about the animals. That we don't empathize enough with them.

People who try to justify animal experimentation on some moral grounds are the worst hypocrites of all in this issue. Those to who try to devalue animals worth, at the same time elevating ours. It's like a bully on a playground. Nobody can stop the bully from taking the sweets from the smaller kid. From that reaching the conclusion that it is right for the bully to take the sweets is just offensive.

Even so, I'm still all for animal experimentation. I'm a greedy crud who'd rather not suffer later in my life from debilitating diseases I'm genetically inclined for. Better them than me.

[Ozme52]

Another things is that capitalism will sort all this out anyway. When we reach 60 billion people on earth, (should be around 2050 or so) eating meat will be so expensive that nobody can afford it. Meat takes 10 times the resources than a vegetarian diet. An other alternative is growing muscle in in vitro, without any connection to any conscious brain. I'm certain this will not only be doable, will happen soon, but also be so much more cheaper and tastier, living animals won't be able to "compete". They'll all be zoo and wildlife park attractions.

That's at least my vision of the future.

BTW I have several relatives who are not only scientists but have worked with animal experimentation. It's cruel, it's horrible for them. But they go to extreme lengths to minimize the suffering. And rather them than me having to suffer through some horrible medicine experimentation. One of the research projects was researching a type of muscle in the mouth of the mouse lung, which corresponding muscle is responsible for infant cot death. I'd like a animal rights activist look a parent in the eye who's lost their children to this, and say that research should seize. The same research on humans would of course be illegal, and without animal experimentation, it wouldn't be possible.

60 billion by 2050? Is that a typo or... where did you see that statistic?

Regardless, I'll only quibble a bit about the part I highlighted. That's correct, but it's not like every bit of land where we grow grass, hay, alfalfa, and other pasture products is suited for growing human consumable crops.

And even those that are so suited, are far more productive if you rotate the types of crops you grow. So pasture products will be grown regardless and we'll graze and/of feed animals regardless.

Lastly, we're born of omnivores and are at our healthiest with a mixed diet. So I think meat will always be with us... or at least for a very long time... maybe until, as you suggest, we can vat-grow it.

The rest, I'm on board with you and have no issues with medical experimentation... and as you say, most experimenters are as humane as possible in the execution of their tasks.