• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

A Darker Side of High Academia

Tks

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
3,221
Likes
5,494
A few PhD's speak about their experience with the disturbing practice of animal testing in the modern day. Even with a staggeringly poor track record: drugs that passed animal test trials, ~95% of which then went on to fail to make it to market anyway. Coincidentally enough, I ran across this yesterday on the internet after getting into a discussion with fellow forum member about the topic of confidence ratings.

Got a notification on Bandcamp the musical score was released today, and is from one of my favorite current artists I discovered a little while back. Thought I might share with folks here and get their take if anyone would like to offer their thoughts on such a matter, or perhaps even the music if not the video :]

 

Joachim Herbert

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 20, 2019
Messages
452
Likes
670
Location
Munich, Germany
Yes. Skip animal testing and go directly to tests with humans.
 

digicidal

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 6, 2019
Messages
1,981
Likes
4,838
Location
Sin City, NV
It made sense (in some cases at least) before we developed technologies capable of replacing all of it. Now it almost never makes sense... although it makes even less sense when it's the cosmetics industry as opposed to pharmaceuticals.

I'd say the bigger question is how often animal testing is simply chosen as being far more cost-effective for academic "advancement" rather than actually using those endowments for the latest computers, lab equipment, etc. Maybe if a portion of the money spent on those athletic "temples" could be redirected towards the science departments... :mad:

I'm totally biased however... since I've never given a rat's ass about sports (or any other institutional-collective rituals for that matter). ;)
 
OP
Tks

Tks

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
3,221
Likes
5,494
It made sense (in some cases at least) before we developed technologies capable of replacing all of it. Now it almost never makes sense... although it makes even less sense when it's the cosmetics industry as opposed to pharmaceuticals.

Oh the cosmetic industry.. Where they spray animals in the eyes to test for safety. That's just pure cancer that I wouldn't even let another person even start their attempts at a defense for such a ridiculous stance.

Yes. Skip animal testing and go directly to tests with humans.

There are concerns with that, but at least you remain logically consistent with a stance like that if that is a policy to be adopted based on philosophical grounds. But you begin to run into pragmatic issues on the mental health metrics that would need to be codified and widely accepted enough to truly be sure such people actually know what they're consenting to. Other pragmatic issues with this would also begin once money incentives are offered for the riskiest testing of something like research chemicals for example. Like what are you going to do when a society is willing to barter and race to the lowest bid when pharma dangles it's vast wealth toward any willing participants for example that would be asked to subject themselves to ionizing radiation so we can learn more about such radiation levels on the human body? Or people asked to participate in pain threshold tests, and things of that nature..


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a retort for almost any sort of thing we undertake in life, the only difference is, who you ask, and what their worldview value placements are. There are folks like psychopaths who will not care about others in order to further the pleasure they get from being the best (even if society benefits from their efforts on some level). Then you have utilitarians, and their various denominations. Some people would be willing to burn the world today if it meant having a better life tomorrow. While some will not infringe upon anyone or anything today, even if it means we all suffer in the future for example.

Who's right, is just an aggregate opinion based on the values a group holds.
 

digicidal

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 6, 2019
Messages
1,981
Likes
4,838
Location
Sin City, NV
Well as a (small 'L') libertarian, I would actually support some of those "immoral" testing trade-offs. Of course, I also understand that very few others feel as I do. To me as long as the parties involved feel there was an equivalent exchange (and as long as no forceful coercion occurred) trading your life for your family to get $5M from a pharma is a decision I feel you should be able to make. People commit suicide (and often murder) for financial reasons which benefit no one, in any way, all the time. I'm not saying I agree with that - but I also don't believe I should necessarily have a say in that matter either.

While that may seem dystopian and nihilistic to most (and it is in a way) it's not because I don't see life having value... I just see it as all having equivalent value. Our current societies are based on a very different value system where some life is viewed as having much more intrinsic value than others - especially within our own species. We basically already have the same system in place today... except those dying at the hands of pharmaceutical companies weren't even aware they were making that exchange - and their families have to win in court against the corporations in order to collect the other side.

Regardless, it's all mostly just an interesting thought exercise - as those with nearly all of the wealth and power will continue to dictate the terms for everyone (or in this case every thing) else... and definitely not in ways that are mutually beneficial. Or at least not deliberately so.
 
OP
Tks

Tks

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
3,221
Likes
5,494
I can side with your value placements and views on freedom of choice people should be able to make on their own. The problem is always the reality.. It sounds good, but as I alluded to a bit prior.. It simply ends up being yet another exploitation vector.

For example. You know how people in police custody at times have been coerced into admitting guilt for something that was later proved in court as impossible for that person to have done. Now imagine if those sorts of techniques spawned an industry to hone and craft new methods of convincing people. You going and then dying for $5M isn't then perceived as "your choice" in current legal frameworks if you were coerced. Also the idea anyone would pay you $5M for a pharma trial is simply too much wishful thinking. People in third world nations give up their organs for a less than $3,000. A simple pharma test trial, you can bet they'd do for less. And you can then imagine the global implications of having the poorest folk exploited even more, but now legally in the current hypothetical we're discussing.

It's a fine idea in principle (for freedom's sake and such), but an absolute nightmare when attempting to implement it in reality.

You then mention how you value all life equally. I find that a bit peculiar, as I've never met someone of that stance before. I for one would not hesitate to save my family member over another stranger if I was forced. True equivalence would either mean subjecting yourself to a blind dice roll as to who lives, or letting both die. As a vegan, I get accusations hurled at me: "YOU THINK ANIMALS AND HUMANS ARE EQUAL?!" totally just assuming my position due to cliche meme-levels of media coverage and stereotyping of an ignorant variety.

I didn't quite understand the part about the system you allude to that we have in place now, and how some group of people who are dying are making some exchange (totally lost there).

The conclusion you make is something I agree with, as do many other folks I would say.
 

digicidal

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 6, 2019
Messages
1,981
Likes
4,838
Location
Sin City, NV
That's the real crux of the matter entirely isn't it. I would ideally agree to the rolling of the dice (idealistically speaking at least) - when confronted with the reality... it's much harder to say for sure. I would like to believe that I would be willing to sacrifice a loved one for a stranger, just as I would like to believe I would be willing to take a bullet for one. Similarly in regards to lethal force - although I am prepared (in the sense of being armed and competently trained) to use lethal force to protect my life and those around me - I'm not sure, given the actual circumstance (and even if I knew there was no other alternative) that I could do so. Which is why my guns stay locked in the safe and unloaded - until I am 100% sure, they're more of a risk in that situation than an asset - 99% isn't enough for me. :confused:

It's actually because I see all life as inherently equal, to a large extent at least, that I don't see quite as much exceptional value in it as some do. Either that or I've been clinically depressed my whole life. :p Chaos and entropy are simply a fundamental part of our reality... is it really any less wrong to end one life so another can survive - than for any other reason? Thankfully, I've only rarely been in a situation where I had to take a life (other than food) - and never a human one. In those cases, whether poisonous spider or reptile - or a terminally wounded "gift" from my cats... I always felt a great amount of sadness in the killing... but not regret. So in reality, I guess I'm just another hypocrite - the situation simply determines the degree.

I was a vegan for awhile (well I raised chickens so 'veggan' I guess) but my flock actually changed my perspective. One hatch I had two roosters (obviously I oppose sexing as detestable) who became a problem due to dominance aggression. In addition to being attacked myself, they killed one hen and seriously wounded two others... so two of the three had to die. I did initially try to find a home for them... but no one wants a rooster. I did it myself (with my Dad's help) and tried to eat them - but they were too tough so they became dog food instead. I do despise the state of industrial husbandry - but I am, both by nature and choice, ultimately an omnivore. :(

I wouldn't dream of hurling such accusations at you for your choices however. Regardless of reason behind the decision - everyone should have the right to live in whichever way they deem proper - at least until it has significant negative impact on another living being. I think that's a ridiculous accusation in the first place... because even if were true - unless you're killing humans to save animals (which would be more an inverse than equality anyway)... where exactly is the offense? Sucks, but these days it seems that condemning other people's behavior is infinitely more important than simply controlling your own! :facepalm:

I agree with you on the reality that big pharmaceutical companies would likely begin viewing the 3rd world as their own personal test-subject incubators. The manufacturing side of things has been doing that for ages - especially in the modern era. My point about the people already dying was simply in regards to the power base (of every type) regularly killing people and animals under the auspices of the "greater good", while hiding behind legal constructs or imperial powers to avoid paying anything in return. Whether known harmful chemicals, drugs, vehicles, etc. or though wars, sanctions, caste designation, religious & ethnic persecution, etc. - there are many, many cases where the masses are already used as lab rats or cannon-fodder. Basically I just believe we'd be no worse off having everything out in the open... either we'd die with our eyes wide open to the reasons... or we'd more readily risk those lives to end the cycle entirely.

So the questions always come back to - at which point does killing or cruelty in pursuit of an expected benefit stop being immoral? Is it when the benefit isn't adequate? (Convenient protein sources) Or is it when the expectation isn't supported enough? (Medical science may be improved some time in the future) If it's never moral... then where does our own culpability end? We are all - to a large extent - beneficiaries of cruel animal experimentation (and also the human versions from the last paragraph as well). Do we eschew those benefits in hopes of absolution from the deaths? Or is that in itself making those sacrifices even more meaningless (wasting the carcass so to speak)?

Great discussion, regardless! Cheers!

Edit: On a similar vein... why do we, generally speaking, consider it inhumane to keep a pet alive until they succumb to disease or age related organ failure - but oppose assisted suicide for terminally ill patients? Why do we seek to solve the problem of drug addiction by making it more difficult for chronic pain sufferers to receive opioids.. while seemingly doing nothing (or at least very little) to prevent abuse for profit in recreational users?
 
Last edited:

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,148
Location
Singapore
I don't like animal testing, and think it should only be allowed where it is demonstrated that there is no alternative, but neither would I ban it outright as there may be some cases where it remains necessary.

In life I think it is dangerous to view the world in terms of absolute values, which seems to be a growing trend, perhaps linked to a political and information culture which has turned compromise into a pejorative term. I am also a libertarian, but even as a libertarian I think there are certain boundaries necessary for a functioning society where we all have to coexist. To use a very silly and ridiculous example, freedom doesn't include freedom to murder, the issue is that whereas it is very simple to agree on the ridiculous examples (well, I'm assuming nobody here wants to advocate the right to murder) it becomes much more difficult as you drop down the scale. Even in the case of killing people, although murder is universally wrong, killing in self defence is generally seen as an acceptable resort in extremis, I think most accept the concept of diminished responsibility as a result of mental health issues (although that is not the same as arguing that such cases are not also subject to legal consequence and punishment) and of course most governments claim a right to kill others when politicians want to do so based on whatever justifications are deemed politically popular or acceptable (which raises the interesting question of how many people need to agree to make the unacceptable acceptable?).

Some degree of compromise (call it hypocrisy if you like) is an essential lubricant in a society where we have to coexist with each other. I also worry that libertarian ideals could easily open the door to deeply sinister stuff. For example, as a libertarian type of person I support the concept of allowing people to choose to end their lives, I am also worried that if we legalise euthanasia it opens the door to governments and others (greedy offspring) to start applying putative pressure on people with illnesses and potentially for governments to assign to themselves the power to decide when life is no longer life and to terminate life and start killing the handicapped etc (it has happened before).
 

digicidal

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 6, 2019
Messages
1,981
Likes
4,838
Location
Sin City, NV
Some degree of compromise (call it hypocrisy if you like) is an essential lubricant in a society where we have to coexist with each other. I also worry that libertarian ideals could easily open the door to deeply sinister stuff. For example, as a libertarian type of person I support the concept of allowing people to choose to end their lives, I am also worried that if we legalise euthanasia it opens the door to governments and others (greedy offspring) to start applying putative pressure on people with illnesses and potentially for governments to assign to themselves the power to decide when life is no longer life and to terminate life and start killing the handicapped etc (it has happened before).

Yeah, I struggle with that a lot... and on both sides actually. At which point in genetic engineering (we're basically already there now in fact) does preventing life from occurring for various reasons, remain intrinsically different from ending life for those same reasons? If there's one thing that's been consistent from the time we crawled out of the caves (OK before that too, but humor me) power and freedom have rarely benefited the species as a whole. Individuals and groups - definitely - humanity itself, only in the most general sense (i.e. collective knowledge, infrastructure, etc.). Even many of those benefits have been at the expense of the environment, other species, future survival, etc.

In the context of the first woman in the video... would it have made any difference if she was researching lifesaving treatments for animals? She indicated feeling some sense of absolution from saving other animals later on - or at least theoretically preventing their deaths. What if the species was similar (or identical)? At least then the applicability question could be answered in the affirmative - the ethical ones, not as much I'm afraid. :confused:
 
Last edited:

JohnYang1997

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Audio Company
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
7,175
Likes
18,292
Location
China
There's no simulation of human body organ or anything in biological scale. Otherwise we would reach the state of what semiconductor field is right now in decades in medical field. Using animal is already extremely slow and inefficient. There is no way not using extensive animal testing. Remember we are human, we are selfish, greedy, curious and progressive.
 

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
4,685
Likes
10,700
Location
Hampshire
There's no simulation of human body organ or anything in biological scale. Otherwise we would reach the state of what semiconductor field is right now in decades in medical field. Using animal is already extremely slow and inefficient. There is no way not using extensive animal testing. Remember we are human, we are selfish, greedy, curious and progressive.
We always have the option of not doing animal testing and accepting that drug developments may take a little (or a lot) longer, or perhaps in some cases not happen at all. Nothing says we have the right to cure all ills, and we all die eventually anyway.
 

Davelemi

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Messages
104
Likes
235
Location
Western Massachusetts
Testing directly on humans has a longstanding and fine tradition in various countries. It typically entails either coercion , deception or bribery of destitute test subjects, or prisoners. Live cadavers.

I'm in the middle of "Poisoner in Chief" and although I had some understanding of MK-ULTRA, etc, the things the CIA did to people during the Cold War is absolutely mind blowing. I can only imagine what we'll learn about the "research" going on in the present.
 

pozz

Слава Україні
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
4,036
Likes
6,827
I can only imagine what we'll learn about the "research" going on in the present.
This thought, whenever I have it, stops me dead for a while.
 
OP
Tks

Tks

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
3,221
Likes
5,494
I ran an orthopedic surgery research lab for about four years. We had a secretary down the hall who was clearly mentally unstable and was an early PETA member (1979!) complain about our lab. The university vet investigated us and found no wrongdoing.

Would you rather have techniques worked out on your children or your grandmother or on some dogs? And don't answer yes unless you are a complete vegan.

An orthopedic company I later worked for decided to do an unauthorized clinical trial on humans. They had killed the only pig they tried their procedure out on and the guy who ran that animal lab told them they needed to go back to the drawing board. They went straight to humans and killed three and injured other people. Four company executives went to prison but only for a short time.

https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/static/dab/decisions/alj-decisions/2014/cr3477.pdf

Few problems here. A university vet isn't someone debating ethics, they're simply adhering to standards already established. Likewise the PhD's in this video, they aren't saying what they're doing doesn't/didn't comply with protocol. Legality doesn't equal morality generally speaking, but most of legality is based off of our understandings of morality (unfortunately religion based in many countries). What animals rights activists are trying to bring attention to, is the morals we hold, may not conform with the modern reality of what ought be moral imperative. They're not concerned with breaking laws to irk people, they want them to change, but mostly for people to understand why such change should be enacted in the first place.

Also what do you mean "techniques worked out"? Why would techniques on a live dog translate to people? I'm not sure if you watched the video or know of the issue, animal testing is highly unsuccessful. What folks are talking about in the present day, is if something like a 95% failure rate is worth denying right-to-life for sentient beings, and many cases, horror-movie-like conditions of suffering. We're not exactly conducting tests on muscles or jellyfish here. Nor are these tests actually undertaken as if the world is going to be ravaged by some zombie virus that must be cured within a few years or we're all dead. Oh and to your question my answer is yes because I am a vegan. There's no such thing as a "complete" or "incomplete vegan". The definition of veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose. It's a binary thing, the only way you're not vegan is if you're dishonest with yourself and make up an excuse for something you know you could have done (and others do), but you yourself didn't. Interpretations of "practical, or possible" is what allows all honest attempts to be commendable, and positive.

If you make threshold requirements that are to exist to eternity, then the whole point of veganism can be thrown away at some point due to such non-pragmatic application conflicts. Imagine someone telling you, you're not a slave abolitionist(or against slavery), and because you buy products from countries that employ slave labor, you are then a slavery apologist and sympathizer. Most people would call that person a lunatic. Because those sorts of people have established principle guidelines independent of conditions in actual real-life. Where you are for-slavery if you don't adhere to a completely slave-free society, or it's byproducts, regardless if you have choice or not. In veganism, such a stance would be insane - no one will spare the life of a dog if it means everyone on the planet will get HIV, likewise no rational person would spare the life of a dog, if it means saving the life of a human. But these revisionists like to leave out the actual definition of veganism. This is why "as much as practical" is in the definition. Same thing for most people today, even if some of the things they buy are products of some slave labor in some countries, they either don't know, and when we do know, we are also aware that there are no practical alternatives for some people. But that doesn't mean those same people are now calling for the re-institution of slavery everywhere. That's only an idiotic straw-man and complete misuse of diction.

As for the example of the other company you worked for, you yourself just said they undertook unauthorized clinical trials on humans. Naturally people should be sent to jail for that, because it's against the law. I don't particularly understand how this is an argument against the moral stance against animal testing - so much as it is in actuality, a stance or advice of how to stay out of prison.
 
OP
Tks

Tks

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
3,221
Likes
5,494
Well its like fake news. I have personally been involved in enough surgical research to know that animal research DOES work regardless of what the loonies at PETA say.

Wait a second, fake news? Why not simply say that in the initial post. My reply was under the assumption that the figures presented were the case. Also, what does PETA have to do with this? The video has nothing to do with PETA? Also, the figure of the failure rates was put out by the National Institutes of Health.. How is that "fake news"? And why would your anecdotal and unspecified experiences make it fake news? But mostly, who said animal research doesn't work? It's just the majority of it is in vain >_>


Perhaps you should exclude yourself from all the benefits ,medicines , surgical and other medical procedures that have been developed using animal models.

And why would I do that? Are you willing to exclude yourself from living in America due to it's foundations that were built upon the backs of slaves? Since I assume you're not a slavery sympathizer? What kind of logic leap is that? Or better yet, would you care to not potentially be treated in your life if you ever came down with a case of hypothermia since the Nazi's pioneered most of our understanding of it when they conducted tests on humans?

Why would anyone forsake modern day amenities for the sake of respecting the suffering of those in the past? It would actually be more of an insult on some levels if those people's suffering went to complete waste and everyone somehow was forced to forget all the knowledge learned from their horrid situation..

The whole topic of contention is doing better, please don't be like some of the folks in the recent Schiit Heresy review thread that want to dangle past transgressions over the company regardless of a superior product they put out in the future, and improve their operations and interactions with consumers.

Become a Christian Scientist and pray that you get better.

Why would I do that? Or better yet, why would I need to become a scientist of ANY kind in order to "get better"? Btw I'm an atheist.. I don't see how consideration of animal rights = go be a Christian. Heck if anything, Abrahamic religions have blood based sacrificial aspects, most of which now are symbolic emulations of Abrahams attempt at sacrificing his son to God, but instead of sacrificing people, people sacrafice anmals instead like some sort of blood cult. SO EVEN IF your advice had some merit as an antithesis, it makes actually no sense, considering religious people are ones who would be least likely to be considerate of animal suffering. As a matter of fact, religious factions go one step futher and consider their own people above other people, animals don't even come on the spectrum of consideration for the other.

This was an awful statement you've made.

Humans evolved to eat meat and everywhere in the third world the first thing people do when they get more prosperous is to eat more meat.

Evolved to eat meat? First off, who cares what we evolved on.. that is what is called an appeal to nature fallacy. On what basis do you claim such a statement anyway, considering vegan/vegetarian populations have on average longer lifespans with better biomarker indications in terms of quality of life? The modern day diet in prosperous nations is the number one killer by way of heart disease.

So not only is a diet high in whole plant food the healthiest, specifically talking about meat: The WHO research of red meat, and processed meat is now in the same class of carcinogen as cigarettes (Class 1) and red meat (Class 2A). So unless you want to drive Harvard's interpretation, and science conducted by the World Health Organization under the bus. I'd like to hear your thoughts on why (EVEN IF) the idea that more prosperous nations eat meat.. Why on Earth that would be considered a good thing with respect to levels of high cholesterol, saturated and trans fats? It's the highest contributory factor to that number one killer I mentioned: Heart disease.

What that statement you made is as if I were to say: "We evolved raping and murdering people throughout our history, most powerful people can get away with it considering their influence and power". So what? We should aspire to do those things because we "evolved" with it?

Lastly, we actually haven't evolved to eat meat, as carnivores and omnivores don't develop atherosclerosis (clogging of the arteries), nor do we eat like omnivores and carnivores (we get repulsed at the idea of eating a dead carcass or ravaging it to pieces with our jaws). So while you can say we can survive somewhat on an omnivore diet, I doubt we've done much prosperous "evolving" when our ancestors were dying before ~their early 30's.

We ate lots of insects in our early evolution, would you care to emulate some of that as well? The only thing missing in a vegan diet is B12 (cheap as dirt supplement), and perhaps Vitamin D if you don't get enough sunlight. Oh and about B12.. the meat you're eating doesn't produce it either, nor do plants, it's produced by soil bacteria. The meat you eat today is fortified with B12, so don't think you're getting it "naturally" like our "evolving ancestors" did.

Eating meat is what enabled us to evolve and grow the large brains that we have which enable us to cook up hare brained philosophies. Is this Audio Science?? Also I don't base my scientific opinions on propaganda movies from film festivals.

I'm not sure this topic we're talking about now is Audio Science, no. At any rate...

Actually there is debate on that. No one really knows what allowed for our evolutionary leap in neural processing prowess. I don't understand why meat from large animals would necessarily be the case, as our main source of "fuel" is carbohydrates, of which during the Neolithic revolution there was a massive boon of, and before that, we subsisted mainly on foraging and if lucky, some animals we managed to hunt. All essential amino acids are found in plants, so I don't understand why it would necessarily be the case that "our brains formed by eating meat" by that metric, carnivores should be super intelligent beings right now.

Look I understand your aversion to possible new theories in this field and such. But for you to say there is "no science" here is simply a declaratory statement. In the same fashion your post also is all over the place addressing points no one ever even brought up. I get veganism is the newest incarnation of a highly disruptive social paradigm, in the same way abolition of slavery instilled such hostility among the majority of people.

Personally, I am not concerned with what our cavemen rock clapping ancestors did. I am more concerned with the moral side of this ordeal. If I can live without needing to cause harm to others, then it is a moral imperative I don't go and cause detriment to others simply to satisfy my tastebuds for 5-10 minutes, or in the case of this original topic, kill 95% of my test subjects for no use.

So if you want to make a scientific case (which I will be very glad to hear and read papers about) on how alternatives outside of animal testing don't exist or something. Then I don't know what much else we can talk about, unless you want to call fake news to "film festival propaganda" yet do nothing to address the claims in any valid shape or form.

If you would actually like scientific material that stand in affirmation of my claims, I would be glad to sift through some I've had over the years and provide them to you for inspection. Since you seem to doubt even the most foundational claims. Though more worrying to me is your epistemic method of divining moral validity, or how you determine "fake news" in the first place.
 
Last edited:
OP
Tks

Tks

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
3,221
Likes
5,494
PM me anytime if you'd like to converse perhaps in private about any of this stuff. I can keep all contents in confidence for any on-lookers that also may want to take the discussion outside this this thread.
 

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,148
Location
Singapore
Or better yet, would you care to not potentially be treated in your life if you ever came down with a case of hypothermia since the Nazi's pioneered most of our understanding of it when they conducted tests on humans?

Why would anyone forsake modern day amenities for the sake of respecting the suffering of those in the past? It would actually be more of an insult on some levels if those people's suffering went to complete waste and everyone somehow was forced to forget all the knowledge learned from their horrid situation..

This particular point is quite a hot potato in ethics and does raise profound questions. There are numerous areas of human knowledge that still rely to some extent on experiments that were completely beyond the bounds of ethical conduct and murderous (and not just based on applying modern sensibilities to the past, they were completely outside what would have been considered allowable by most of the world in their own time). Some of that knowledge has been used to save many lives or to enable us to make real medical and technological advances.
My own view is that it would not honour the memory of those murdered to make an ethical point by demanding that we throw the knowledge away and start again (putting aside the unfortunate fact that it is rather difficult to uninvent what has been invented) but I know there is a body of opinion that say's we should discard such knowledge.
 

pozz

Слава Україні
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
4,036
Likes
6,827
Looking at all of this, it doesn't seem like the issue is animal testing, but efficiency and efficacy of the experimental procedures. That grad student, from the research she did, didn't see the use. Take it for what it is.

Taking a slightly different perspective, one industry that always uses humans as the main test subjects is the food industry. Chemical makeup, flavour, appearance, and so on. And metabolic disease in all its variants is far more easily linked to processed food.
 
OP
Tks

Tks

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
3,221
Likes
5,494
This particular point is quite a hot potato in ethics and does raise profound questions. There are numerous areas of human knowledge that still rely to some extent on experiments that were completely beyond the bounds of ethical conduct and murderous (and not just based on applying modern sensibilities to the past, they were completely outside what would have been considered allowable by most of the world in their own time). Some of that knowledge has been used to save many lives or to enable us to make real medical and technological advances.
My own view is that it would not honor the memory of those murdered to make an ethical point by demanding that we throw the knowledge away and start again (putting aside the unfortunate fact that it is rather difficult to uninvent what has been invented) but I know there is a body of opinion that say's we should discard such knowledge.

See the problem with those that say that knowledge should be thrown out, ask for an impossibility. Especially in this junction in history after it's been applied nearly for decades. It would be okay to hold this stance when Nazi scientists were bartering for evading the firing squad, and making the stance there to not grant them leniency or do the trade (as similar trades were done with folks involved in the Unit 731 ordeal as well). But after the trade is made, and decades have elapsed. It's a literal impossibility to discard such knowledge.

But lets say we have a Men In Black flash device(neuralyzers) that can wipe memories (and goes beyond that science fiction device to where we can dial-in further specificity to what knowledge, and not simply events of the past), would it even make logical sense from an ethics point of few, to forget something that has now been demonstrated to have had very much positive effect?

gene_stl I presume seems to think I am advocating for such a nonsensical stance, even if I told him, okay, we are where we are today. Is that excuse to keep at it, after it's demonstrably proven a certain way of doing things simply isn't working anymore, and is causing serious violations of values we hold dear for the most part? Translating his stance into any other historic parallel like slavery demonstrates my point better than any words: Imagine just hearing someone say "Slavery worked, it has worked, we've used it for thousands of years, I don't need anyone telling me otherwise, and if you feel like that, then stop living because everything you enjoy in life today has some byproduct of slavery in the past, so if you're against slavery, kill yourself to remain consistent in your belief". There is no application of timeline in his stance. I openly say, that's fine, but there comes a point where we either move on with our misdeeds, or we all just paralyze ourselves with inaction. And I can rest my case at any point and feel confident most people won't be killing themselves for the foundations laid out before they were ever even born. His appeals to nature, and tradition fallacies are staggering, and if ever adhered to, we'd still be clacking rocks in some cave because there will always be someone adamant their way of living is comprised of a total understanding of reality.

So when you say there is a body of opinion that says such knowledge should be discarded. It makes about as much sense as legal mistrials that occur showing someone committing the crime, but because the evidence was legally obtained, the whole case is dismissed. Acting like that with respect to knowledge that's been the basis of foundation for decades or centuries simply isn't possible, and my main point is to demonstrate that even if it was possible with some sci-fi devices - it perhaps isn't practical nor a good choice.

Just to conclude, I would not want to have the fruits of unethical expiramentation in our knowledge repositories. But if I had no say on the matter when others made the decision before I was even alive or at location being asked, then I'm not going to go around telling people to forget all this horrible knowledge we gained at a massive cost to well-being of others. It's simply impractical and in most cases simply impossible. So in cases where animal testing has yielded great advances, that was a period where someone can justify the practice. I cannot fathom how folks who understand probability, would accept a 95% failure rate, when we're talking about basic rights, like a right to life for a sentient being. But of course this all assumes we hold similar moral values, someone can simply stroll along and tell me he's a psychopath, and I would completely understand why this whole ordeal doesn't interest him at all.
 
Top Bottom