That's not a bad idea. Using homeless people for scientific testing will not only prolong the longevity of productive people, but will also lower the unemployment rate.
So cool, imagine being in a cage for most of your life and never seeing the light of day, or even being able to touch another human being.
Wow you nearly have to cry seeing how they hug each other, smile and can't believe they're (almost) free. Really touching. Always has me tearing up seeing what horrible things we do to animals and nature.
Longer, German version: <iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yR6EAKH6bvw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Even if most of you don't understand, the pictures are speaking for itself.
PS At the end of the German video they say they will open 10 more areas in the next days for even more chimps.
If we shared a planet with another species of even higher intelligence which became the dominant species, does that make it ok for them to experiment on us? "Dominance" shouldn't have anything to do with it.
A bit of opposite to the thread video Description: America's foremost primate zoologist feels "research" is such a restrictive term and he prefers, "Monkey Torture." <div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:uma:video:mtv.com:401525/cp~id%3D1613662%26vid%3D401525%26uri%3Dmgid%3Auma%3Avideo%3Amtv.com%3A401525" width="512" height="288" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="." flashVars=""></embed><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;">Get More: <a href="http://www.mtv.com/shows/mtv2_legit/series.jhtml" style="color:#439CD8;" target="_blank">MTV2 Legit</a>, <a href="http://www.mtv.com/ontv/" style="color:#439CD8;" target="_blank">MTV Shows</a></p></div></div>
I think it pretty much does have a lot to do with it, across all species if the goal is survival. If lions KNEW how to conduct experiments on warthogs for their own survival, they probably WOULD. (I think we crossed the notion of "naturally evolving" a long long time ago. Its a matter of how UN-natural, how synthetic or the degree of inhumanity we want to be from here on out.)
i'm totally in favor of animal testing, but even excluding the double negative, that's nonsense. of course its cruel ... though expedient.
You could say they've been experimenting on us since taking our rib... <iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/d7JqmtgJqW8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
But that's not the case is it? Hypothetical what-ifs are a fallacy. In most cases, humans are more likely to acknowledge a species if they are shown to have a solid foundation of civilization. Let's make a check-list shall we? Advanced cities? No. The concept of a city would make no sense to these animals as a higher population density will result in less food for them (they are hunter-gatherers). Specialized workers? Again, they are all hunter-gatherers. No need to specialized workers in that sense. Complex Institutions? No. Record Keeping? They are not literate. Improved Technology? No. I would not categorize any animal species on this planet as being intelligent. The ability to speak, or learn speech does not make you intelligent. That's just false correlation.
Before you wrote, "Because at the end of the day [insert any animal species you want here; doesn't make a difference] are not the dominant species on the planet". Now you're talking about civilization, which is different. I still don't consider it a very good criteria. If an advanced alien species settled on earth 40,000 years ago and came across uncivilized homo sapiens, they can go ahead and treat those homo sapiens as "animals", doing with them as they wish for their own benefit?
Yeah, pretty much. Slavery is proof of that. EDIT: I'm not advocating slavery; I'm just saying that's what happens when people think they meet inferior races/species/anything.
First off: the double negative was there on purpose. They aren't always mistakes. Sometimes, they are grammatically correct. Second: we define "cruel" differently. According to Webster's: Sounds to me like you're focused on the second definition. Check out the first one. Are animal testers disposed to inflict pain? Of course not! Take them out of the lab and they don't torture animals for fun. Are they devoid of human feelings? Of course not! They are working to save human lives: the act is an attempt to benefit mankind in general.
Here, again, is what you wrote: "I'm 100% advocating animal research. Whatever it takes. Because at the end of the day [insert any animal species you want here; doesn't make a difference] are not the dominant species on the planet" You started off talking about why you advocate animal research, not why you think it happens. I'm just saying if you are an advocate of animal research (we have essentially a blank check to do what we like to "lesser" animal if it benefits humans) by virtue of us being a far more civilized and intelligent species, then it follows that you would be an advocate of human slavery in the scenario I gave.
Your definition of slavery is cruelty to any living thing. My definition of slavery only extends itself to human beings. I don't advocate human slavery, but yes if you want me to say it: I 100% advocate the use of animals to extend or benefit our lives, if that is the only possible method. I'm all for the animals that we "torture" to stage a resistance war to save their race; or a civil rights movement... hahaha. If you hold the importance of the lives animals anywhere near the life of a human being than you are misguided, as I do not. And also please note I said species. Race is not a category of species. Whether you are black or white you are still human. I'm sure you are against the killing of cattle, chicken, livestock to supply us with food. I'm sure you are against the killing of trees to supply us with materials. I'm sure you are against pollution, etc. I'm against all of that too, but guess what: the benefits that we receive far outweigh the negative impact it has. I despise environmentalists that try to obstruct human progress and advancement.
