Animal Testing

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 20 May 2002, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Kiama	20 May 2002
I am wondering what everybody's views on animal testing are? I imagine most of us are against testing on animals for cosmetic purposes, but what I wanna know is... What about for finding cures? For medical purposes? Psychological purposes? Much of what we know in Psychology today comes from animal studies. The scientific, religious, and pilosophical world owes a hell of alot to Pavlov and his dogs! And we wouldn't know as much about attachment and the bond between Mother and Baby if it wasn't for Harlow's Monkeys. (Or was it Brady's monkeys? Forgotten...) What do you think about animal testing if its to find cures for diseases? Kiama PS- I am not sure yet what my views are on this. I think some discussion about it would help me see other viewpoints.

wavebreaker	20 May 2002
I'm definitely against animal testing for cosmetics, but I guess it's sometimes necessary to find cures for diseases. I do think they should be careful with it and that they should avoid doing unnecessary tests. Also, I think there should be more cooperation between research teams, so that the same tests aren't repeated without any real need for it.

Cat	20 May 2002
I'm careful about cosmetics - I'm opposed to animal testing, but I think that quite a few of the people i care about would not be here today, were it not for medical research on animals. While medical testing is unpleasant, it's necessary, and unlike the 'researchers' in places like Huntington life sciences, in university based reseach all experiments are carefully screened. The researcher has to provide detailed accounts of the procedures, expected results, and animal welfare provisions. It's harder in the UK to get permission to do an experiment on a monkey than it is to on a human. In the case of psychological research, things are a lot more difficult - there are a lot of unanswered questions about the validity of using other species as models for the human brain, and the large amount of scientific rivalry can lead to unnecessary replication of experiments. As a Psych undergrad, I opted out of all animal experimentation practicals for this reason, but the study of some of the experiments was quite distressing. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn - experimentation that aims to understand mental illness and work towards a cure, should IMO, be allowed to go ahead. However, I think that some of the study, while fascinating, has no impact on quality of human life. Such research can seem at times to be merely an attempt to sate our curiousity about our world - and while curiousity is an admirable trait, I'm not sure that its satiation warrants the deaths or discomfort of so many animals. It's a toughie.....

Sam	20 May 2002
ugh! this is horrible and the UN should ban it world-wide!

jade	20 May 2002
i don't know about this topic to have a true and honest view. but i do believe that animals should not be tested for cosmetics etc. ??? jade

Butterfly	20 May 2002
It is a tough one. Definitely not for cosmetic testing- of that I am sure!! Cat is right about the validity of animals for psychological testing. While genetically we are about 98% similar to a rat, we aren't just our genes. There is absolutely no guarentee that psychological reactions will be able to be generalised to people, that is usually the next level of testing involved. But let's face it- you can't generalise finding gender to gender, culture to culture, let alone species to species! I'm completely unsure when it comes to medical testing and psychological testing. The ethical considerations that researchers must adhere to are increasingly strict, but I don't know......

slinky_jo	20 May 2002
Here is a perfect example of why animal testing is a useless, cruel and vile practise: Recently, you may have heard on the news that the possiblilty of finding a cure for cancer is near. Scientists have discovered that the people infected, or that came into contact with, the anthrax virus (especially after Sept 11) had a limited supply of anitbodies in their blood that fought cancer. This is an amazing discovery, don't you think! AND NO ANIMALS WERE INVOLVED IN THIS DISCOVERY. I think that vivisection is disgusting. Animal genes are not like human genes - there have been many drugs released and given the "go ahead" that were proven to work on animals that had disastrous effects on humans - EG thilidomide, etc. Why we think it's ok to test on animals is beyond me - why not test on humans - death row inmates, etc? Not an innocent animal. As humans we have to protect animals, for they have no voice. Rabbit # 4364GHS can't say "no" to having mascara rubbed into his eyes. Nor can the rabbit blink away the mascara with tears, for his eyelids are pulled back if not cut off. And he can't rub it off because his paws are tied down, or his head is poked through a hole. By the way, these are the latest methods of testing by COVER GIRL. STOP THE ABUSE!!! DON'T give you money to charities like Cancer Care - unless you know that the money will be spend on non-testing things like housing for cancer patients' families. READ ALL YOU CAN about vivisection - what it does, who does it and who doesn't. Buy products from Body Shop, Red Earth, and companies that can prove that they don't test on animals. My mother died of cancer two years ago, and none of the million of animal lives wasted saved her life. It is a sham and a shame on humans that we kid ourselves into thinking that animal testing is correct and vital. That is my rant. NO OFFENSE is meant to anyone - this is simply something that I feel very strongly, and the opportunity for a rant was too good to be true. Blessed Be...

Butterfly	20 May 2002
Slinky Jo *big smile* not, disagreeing with your values in any way! But, progress and advances have undeniably been made. Childhood leukemia is a small proportion of the problem that it once was. The mortality rate has declined dramatically. HIV has is no longer a fatal disease it is now considered a chronic one. The mortality rate of most cancers have been dramatically declined. Yes, unfortunately there are still many fatalities, but I just want to point out that advances are being made all of the time. As I said, not arguing with your values at all. They are yours. With respect to medical testing, I am unclear of my values. But I just wanted people with a different opinion to still feel comfortable to post! LOL

Diana	21 May 2002
slinky_jo: I couldn't have said it better. Vivisection stinks. I don't even want to develop my point of view 'cos it'll spoil my day. My blood is at boiling-point just thinking about it.

Kiama	21 May 2002
Thankyou for all our replies. I'm gonna throw a hypothetical one at you: WHAT IF (Big what if tehre! ;)) testing on animals would CERTAINLY bring about a cure for some disease. Would it be right to test on them, and cause those animals pain and death, then? For those of you who are against it all, Peter Singer is the man to read! He is an Australian Ethicist and Philosopher, who srongly opposes any type of animal testing, accusing those who agree with it of being Speciest: A term used with the same disgust as Racist, Ageist, Elitist, etc... Peter Singer debunks many claims made by testers, such as that animals can be used by us in such ways because they are less intelligent than us. Peter Singer immeditaely debunks this by asking these testers where they would draw the line with intelligence.. To say that we can test on animals cuz they are less intelligent is the same as possibly saying: Any person with an IQ of less than 130 cannot reproduce, have a job, or earn money. Where do we draw that very fine line? he asks. Another example of how different animals can be to humans, is DhC. DhC is the main component of cannabis. In dogs, even tiny amounts prove to be fatal, but in humans it causes a rather pleasant 'high'. Slinky: Thanks for your excellent points. But, (I agree with you mostly, I'm just trying to get my head around all these different viewponts) you say that altho you know somebody who died from Cancer, and not one animals life was worth it, cuz nothing was found, wouldn't it be best to carry on researching, because with every test we come closer to the cure? Are there any other ways of testing? I mean, in the future, it may be possible to test ALL things on human cells, but at the moment, what other ways do we have? Unfortunately, testing on Death Row inmates, whilst many may see it as a good idea, is not allowed by legal guidelines. Any thoughts, anybody? Kiama

catlin	21 May 2002
I am AGAINST animal testing. Most of the tests are useless as they were done again and again, eg the rubbing of mascara or spraying of hairspray in the rabbit's eyes. There are enough alternative methods such as the testing on egg white etc. Even for medical reasons I am against testing as there is a difference in the metabolics of animals and human beings. Take for example Aspirin: Aspirin is poisinous for cats but normally not for men. Besides, ppl tend to become more and more allergetic to stuff so you can never exclude that someone might not tolerate pills X or vaccin Y. We are able to grow human skin and organs in petry bowls so why is it not possible to do the tests on them?!

wavebreaker	21 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Kiama Unfortunately, testing on Death Row inmates, whilst many may see it as a good idea, is not allowed by legal guidelines. What about ethical guidelines? I'd say that if you think testing on animals is unethical, testing on human beings is equally unethical. Unless of course they volunteer.

slinky_jo	21 May 2002
Hey guys, =/ Sorry that I got a bit mental back there with my big ole rant - I don't mean to offend or p*** anybody off. It's just that animals have a bigger place in my heart then most humans, and they need a voice. Peace

sugar4paws	21 May 2002
I've encountered another post from you, slinky_jo. I totally agree with you. Are you all aware that research labs much prefer animals who have been raised as pets? These animals are easy to handle because they are already tame and trusting of humans. If you truly believe that animal testing is justified to gain enlightened medical truths--some of which may eventually enhance the quality and span of the individual's life then let me take this out of the theoretical and into the realm of practical reality. Many of you probably have pets you love very much. The perfect research animals. If you believe what you say you do I'm wondering why you have not contacted the nearest university or medical research facility to see if research on your pet could save lives. Then you will be living consistanly with your expressed beliefs. The ends never justify the means--in fact the means and ends are inseparable. I feel that animal research shows the ultimate disrespect for life. Why do you think a human life is more important than other life. sugar4paws

Geenius at Wrok	21 May 2002
See below

Geenius at Wrok	21 May 2002
Sugar4paws, by that reasoning, humans can't even eat. Animals are alive. Plants are alive. If we value all life equal to or above our own, we're reduced to eating dirt and Twinkies. We have animals serve us in different ways. We choose some as companions, others as food, others as laborers, others as experimental subjects. With regard to the last category, I agree that many experiments done on animals are needlessly cruel and scientifically redundant, but I do not agree that no test should ever be performed on an animal. Whenever they can, medical researchers perform their tests on human volunteers, because those tests give the most reliable results. But often a test is too risky, and no one will volunteer for it, and if you think it's awful to perform such tests on unwitting animals, I think it's horrifying even to contemplate performing them on unwilling human beings—and even more horrifying to propose growing "subhumans" out of human cellular tissue for the purposes of experimentation and organ harvesting. How far do you carry the "animals = people" logic? Is the corner butcher a murderer? Is a paisan who uses an ox or a horse to plow his field a slaveowner? Is a dowager who keeps a flock of parakeets in a cage guilty of unlawful restraint? As the author of a Web site on Confucianism, I have to field a lot of questions, and one was on the topic of animal rights. Here's a copy of the question and my answer: Quote: I am writing a paper & giving a presentation in my ethics class on Confucianism. Specifically, the application of Confucian philosophy regarding the ethical treatment of animals. Though I have done plenty of research, my trouble is that all of his teachings & all the interpretations of his teachings seem to apply only to Man & humankind. So far what I've been able to use for application are some of his fundamental teachings & philosophies, but none are specific to animals. Some points I need to hit: • assuming that animals feel pain & pleasure, how would Confucianism guide us toward our treatment of nonhuman animals? • does it lend any guidance to what might be said about testing for product safety, medical research, or even staging animal fights for sport? If you have any info or good sources I could check out for stuff that might be somewhat specific to this, I would very much appreciate it. --T.B. Actually, there is a reference in the Analects to the way Confucius hunted and fished: "The Master fished with a rod but not with a net; he hunted, but he didn't aim at roosting birds" [7:28] . There are several inferences one can draw from that. One is that he enjoyed having his skills challenged. Another is that he valued fairness in sport. It's fairly clear that hunting is condoned, at least for food if not also for sport. Keep in mind that Confucianism itself has little to say about the morality or immorality of causing others pain. The ideal Confucian society, while benevolent, was nonetheless autocratic; Confucius himself was a justice minister at one time and could hardly be expected to object to executing people. (It is worth noting, though, that he held the fairly enlightened attitude of placing prevention over punishment.) Also, Confucianism is built around relationships, often with one party dominant and one subservient. Might Confucius have viewed human-animal as a parallel to lord-subject or parent-child? It's possible, certainly. In such relationships the dominant figure is expected to treat the subservient one with kindness and generosity. However, the subservient figure is expected to show absolute devotion to the dominant one. One could thus imagine a Confucian human-animal relationship in which the human should treat the animal humanely and responsibly while it's alive, but the animal shouldn't expect never to wind up on a plate. "Comparative utility" isn't really dealt with much in the Confucian canon. The focus is on self-improvement in general and fulfillment of one's social responsibilities in particular: "Ask not what your country/parents/spouse/friends can do for you . . . " The guidelines for this are drawn up in four superior-inferior relationships (lord-subject, husband-wife, parent-child, older sibling-younger sibling) and one of equals (friend-friend). (More modern interpretations, at least in the West, would probably redraw husband-wife as a relationship of equals. I would, anyway.) The constant thread is that equals treat each other with courtesy and faithfulness, superiors treat inferiors magnanimously, and inferiors show loyalty and obedience to their superiors. In Confucian times, feudal lords often diverted their subjects from day-to-day tasks to work on special projects, some useful (such as digging a canal), some frivolous (such as building a new palace). One could easily look at drafting an animal for a medical experiment in the same way. Product safety is a slightly different area, because it wasn't until this century that manufacturers were expected to take preemptive action to prevent injury from their products. Instead, if something went wrong, products' makers were called to account on a case-by-case basis. As for animal fighting, pretty much every culture in history that has had a noble class and a common class has looked down on it as a "low" form of entertainment, not suitable for refined people. I don't believe ancient China was an exception to that rule.

sugar4paws	21 May 2002
Confucianism is not my philosophy. However that was a well-done presentation. Am I supposed to base my beliefs on what Confucious believed or taught? I think not. You seem to believe, in chosen (by whom?) cases at least that the ends do justify the means. The Palistinians believe that, the Israelis believe that, the Irish Catholics believe that and the Irish Protestants believe that. And so on. With all my heart I disagree. sugar4paws

Geenius at Wrok	21 May 2002
Whether you subscribe to Confucianism or not, when interests conflict, you can't simply write off one side's interests entirely; you have to find a balance. You're writing off the interests of one group (humankind) in favor of those of another (animals). Much as the uncompromising Israelis and Palestinians and Northern Irish do. If you're not going to test medical procedures on animals, on whom or what are you going to test them? The patients themselves? You'll kill more than you'll save. That's barbaric, and it's contrary to the Hippocratic Oath. Of course the ends justify the means when the ends in question are necessities; the burden is to find the worthiest means possible to meet them. Sometimes "worthiest" means "least objectionable." People have to eat. That is a necessity. How shall they attain that end? Plants and animals, or dirt and Twinkies? If you believe testing should be done on humans rather than animals, then why don't you march over to the pharmaceutical lab and volunteer yourself? That makes just as much sense as suggesting that because of my own opinions I should give away my cats in the interest of science. One final thought: What about all the experiments that have led to advances in the field of veterinary science? In those cases, it's not humans who have benefited at the expense of animals—it's animals that have benefited. Would we have bothered to conduct such research if we didn't care at all about nonhuman life?

sugar4paws	21 May 2002
To me discussing this with you is like an atheist trying to discuss beliefs with a Born-again Christian. You're arguing from the intellect and I'm arguing from the heart. I am irritated that you keep implying that I would rather experiment on non-volunteer humans than on animals. I never said or implied such a thing. The floor is entirely yours. I'm too sad to go on with this. sugar4paws

Umbrae	21 May 2002
Personal opinion: There is testing and there is testing. From personal experience I can tell you than if a loved one, or your own child is suffering or dying from a dread disease, your opinion would be different. “Golly Mr. Smith, we’d love to save your child, but… This is different than testing makeup on animals (not good). Medical research? Absolutely. On a lighter note, have you ever tried to make you cat study for a test?

Geenius at Wrok	21 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by sugar4paws To me discussing this with you is like an atheist trying to discuss beliefs with a Born-again Christian. You're arguing from the intellect and I'm arguing from the heart. I'm arguing from the intellect and the heart. I care about quality of life; I don't want to see other people suffer needlessly, which is (or, at any rate, should be) the point of modern medicine. I merely happen to care about other people a little more than I do about animals. That doesn't mean I approve of sticking mascara brushes in the eyes of rabbits or scooping up a few dolphins in the tuna trawl. Quote: I am irritated that you keep implying that I would rather experiment on non-volunteer humans than on animals. I never said or implied such a thing. You said, "I feel that animal research shows the ultimate disrespect for life." Well, the research has to be done, or else people will suffer. Remove the animal subjects from the equation, and who's left? Humans. Sometimes those humans will not volunteer. Then what? Do no research at all? That would be negligent. If you know of another scenario that I've missed, I'm open to it. Quote: The floor is entirely yours. I'm too sad to go on with this. You'll forgive me, I hope, if I don't suddenly recant in a fit of guilt and sorrow. This is obviously an issue that you feel strongly about, but it's just as obviously an issue that you haven't thought deeply about. Reason is not your enemy unless you treat it as such, and if debating issues makes you sad, it's not because those who are disagreeing with you have no heart.

Cat	21 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by sugar4paws You seem to believe, in chosen (by whom?) cases at least that the ends do justify the means...... the Irish Catholics believe that and the Irish Protestants believe that. And so on. sugar4paws I do? I don't wish to argue with sugar4paws, but this saddens me. My family, though not involved in The Troubles, suffered greatly during them. This is a hurtful generalisation applied to whole communities, when in reality the vast majority of Irish people want nothing more than an end to the problems. It's a very small number of extremists who are responsible for the violence. Such generalisations only serve to further alienate people already marginalised by the social and economic consequences of a Civil War. In Peace, C

slinky_jo	21 May 2002
Ah man... To ME, IMHO, it is arrogant for humans to think they have the power and control to kill animals needlessly. Kiama mentioned an anuthor, Peter Singer, who called this concept "specist". I wish the fist person who killed an animal in prehistoric times was struck by lightning and the habbit never continued... I guess it depends where your heart lies - are you for animals, or are you for humans, or both? Me, YES, I would rather see a stupid human die than an animal, that is why I am a Veterinary nurse, and not a human nurse, that is why I choose not to eat meat. This battle of emotions could go on forever, and, personally, I wish this topic would be deleted and blown away (pleeeeeease!), because in matters of politics, right, religion etc, there are no winners, and no right answers.

Geenius at Wrok	21 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by slinky_jo I wish the fist person who killed an animal in prehistoric times was struck by lightning and the habbit never continued... Well, before that it was animals killing animals, so it's not like it was unprecedented.

Diana	22 May 2002
Some topics can be debated till kingdom comes. Is it worth it? **************** PEACE **************** (please!) :) :) :) :) :)

Kiama	22 May 2002
Oh dear... Here's little old me trying to get my head around such a tricky subject, and it's on its way to being deleted. :( Why have a go at each other if you know its gonna be deleted? All I wanted was lots of different views... I got that, but also lots of bashing. I'm very sorry for causing all this, altho I do have one more opint: Sugar4Paws: Hello! Excellent points made. Except that most research is carried out on animals which have been born and bred in the lab. Its quick, easy, cheap. They have control of all the variables. They cannot afford to wait for people to bring in their pets, or to raise the pets first: They want the animals now, and they get them through breeding them in. It is also more difficult to get permission to test on dogs and cats than it is rats and mice, which is why mice and rats are usually tested on. (Although how the results gained from what happens to them can be the same as what happens to us goes beyond me! ;)) Again, I am sorry for causing you all to conflict. Kiama

Kiama	22 May 2002
Hi Diana! I was referring to when Slinky Jo asked this topic to be deleted. I agree with you tho: Some topics will never end! But, in the case here, I am looking for many diferent views on it, not for a winner... I think topics such as this need to be discussed, in order for others to form their on views on the subject... Kiama

Diana	22 May 2002
Kiama: I don't think this thread is in any way going to be deleted. Why should it? It's a legitimate discussion, a bit heated, but that was to be expected. Some topics, like vivisection, death penalty, gun control, abortion, nuclear power, normally end up this way.

Geenius at Wrok	23 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Kiama Again, I am sorry for causing you all to conflict. I'm almost finished with "Odd Girl Out" (got it for my sister, then ended up reading it myself!), and toward the end, author Rachel Simmons, discussing how to educate girls not to engage in indirect aggression, makes an important point: "Instead of believing [that] conflict terminates relationship," she writes, girls need to be taught that "no relationship can survive without conflict" (italics hers). There will always be conflict. It can be released constructively, released destructively . . . or bottled up, which is also destructive.

Diana	23 May 2002
Geenius: that's odd. 'Cos in my personal experience, it's normally men who try and avoid conflict by drawing into their shells. I'm talking about personal relationships here, not war. Isn't it women who have that reputation of bickering and arguing with each other? Now, this is getting off-topic. How can I get this back on-topic? How about "how many days does it take, if you put women and men in a cage together, before they start up a conflict? And who starts it, the man or the woman?". (Hey, I'm just joking here!) :)

Geenius at Wrok	23 May 2002
Guys are afraid of conflict with women because they're convinced that the women will freak. You infect us with your conflict-averse ways! You sap us of our natural in-your-face-ity! ;)

Yarnie	23 May 2002
Go to a mirror and look at your teeth. See those inscissors (sharp, knife-like teeth across the front)? See those cupids and bi-cuspids (sharp, pointed teeth just aft of the inscissors)? See the molars in the back? Those teeth, especially the cuspids and bi-cuspids (sometimes called 'canines'), are proof that humans are not naturally herbivores. The molars are pretty much multipurpose, but the cuspids and bi-cuspids are designed specifically for processing meat. That means animals. Should we do unnecessary testing of any kind on animals? No. Should we suspend any testing and forego any of the potential benefits to the human SPECIES? Absolutely NOT. Call me a 'specist' all you want--I'll wear the label proudly! Yes, I'm a homo sapiens sapiens and I will forever be superior to any mouse, rat, cat, dog, porpoise, bird, whale, fish, worm, scallop, flea, and mite. It doesn't matter which other form of life from this planet that you care to name, humans--homo sapiens sapiens--will always rank as a higher lifeform. This does not give us the right to be cruel or to wasteful--it makes us the stewards of this world. Before you all fall out in the floor thinking "What has happened? Yarnie's converted and become an environmentalist activist!", let me assure you that I have not and state for the record that "stewardship" does not necessarily mean pulling back from nature and leaving everything "pristine". Stewardship means that we are responsible to manage our world...we are to make full use of it and our resources, but in such a way that we do not destroy our home...the world is ours to use for whatever purpose that we choose. As is usual, the truth lies not with either of the extremes but somewhere in the middle. The "the life of a rabbit is just as valuable as the life of a human" crowd that thinks humans are inherently evil and their very presence is unnatural is wrong in their fanaticism that wishes to eradicate humans from the face of Terra. By contrast, the businesses and consortia that pollute and destroy the environment without heed of the damages they cause to the rest of us and to the other life on this world are equally wrong because their unfettered practices will also result in our extinction. The truth lies in the path that leads us forward without causing irreparable harm to our environment. Last time I voiced my opinions on such an explosive topic, the results were (shall we say) less than positive. We'll see how THIS goes.....

Diana	24 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Geenius at Wrok Guys are afraid of conflict with women because they're convinced that the women will freak. You infect us with your conflict-averse ways! You sap us of our natural in-your-face-ity! ;) Geenius: I apologise profusely for this underhanded sapping! How cruel! Is there anything I can do to make up to the male world?? (No, perhaps you shouldn't answer this - it may not be quite suitable for a Tarot forum......) :D :D

Kiama	24 May 2002
Yarnie: Thanks for your input. And no, none of us, (I hope not) are gonna bite your head off. We learned fom last time... You brought up the subject of Stewardship... Now, this is tricky, cuz there are so many different meanings for this word, ad it is still used today by humans to justify the belief that we are superior to animals, and that we can do what we like with the Earth. It is also used to tell people not to test on animals,. It all depends on who's saying it... Also, there are many who will argue that despite the teeth we have, other things in our body suggest we were natuarally herbivores... I'll have to ask my vegan friend about this one... He's told me so many times in a bid to 'convert' me, but I've always forgotten it! Something about digestion rates and lactose intolerance... I dunno. Anthropolgy also suggests the same thing... Something about when we came down from the trees... Malachite, help me! (Malchite went to exactly the same lecture about this in Oxford Uni last year... He'll probably remember it better than me though...) Kiama

Yarnie	24 May 2002
Kiama, First of all, thanks for the encouragement! It means a lot. Next, I'm very leery of many (actually, MOST) medical research because many times it is based up on false premises. For instance, about 30 years ago the medical community launched an assault on eggs by stating that they were horrible for your health and their consumption always ended up leading to dangerously high cholesterol. Many people said, "Prove it!" and the medical community said, "See, we've done all these studies." Fifteen years ago, that same medical community started a fad concerning oatmeal and how it was a "wonder food" that would solve most of your medical problems (from preventing heart attacks to clearing up acne). Some people (but not as many as with eggs, because the medical community had all those studies) said, "Prove it!" and the medical community said (everyone join in), "See, we've done all these studies." Well, it wasn't too many years before the medical community started hemming and hawing about their stance on oatmeal. Then a few of the "Prove it" people did their own research and the medical community started backpedalling even more because you know what they found out in the new research? They discovered incontrovertible proof that oatmeal didn't do very many of the claims that the medical community had made. Did people's cholesterol go down? Yes, but not because of the oatmeal itself--it went down because the people in the medical community's study quit eating high-cholesterol food because they were full from eating the oatmeal (and that is just one example of the whole oatmeal fiasco). Now, here we are about 30 years after the first salvos were launched against eggs and the medical community is now telling us, "Ooops! We goofed...eggs aren't bad for you and you should eat them because they are healthy for you." What am I saying? I'm just saying that its never a good idea to take studies and research at face value until its been absolutely proven. Research done by any group (whether its yours or your ideological opponents') with an agenda of their own (and sometimes you have to dig deep to discover their agenda) can never be trusted until and unless it has been duplicated many times by many different scientists. It is so very easy to skew the results of an experiment to suit your own needs, and the medical profession is not above doing so to keep their patients. So, where does that leave me for looking for evidence to support my own opinions? Well, it leaves me with having to rely on what has been proven to be true through decades of experience, my own mind and reasoning power, and my own observations. I can take the newer studies and reports to see how well they fit into the puzzle, but they can never be trusted not to flip-flop ("Ooops! We were wrong, this puzzle piece should actually be flipped over! Now try to solve it!"). I'll start off by stating that I am overweight by about 40 pounds (230# at present). In many people that I know (and this includes myself), high-protein/high-fat food products (read that as "meat") are more easily digested than vegetables. On top of that, when my vegetable intake increase, my weight will shoot up all too easily. But I can eat all the things that the medical community says that I shouldn't (marbled beef, toro sushi, eggs, bacon, pork rinds, salami, mayonaise, butter, fried chicken, etc) and my weight will go down. Additionally, I've had my doctor run tests for me that prove that my cholesterol and triglycerides actually go down when I limit my vegetable (read that as carbohydrate) intake and have no limit on the proteins and fats. This proves to me that my own physiology and metabolism is geared toward being more carnivore than herbivore. The bottom line is that when I eat too many vegetables, I don't feel as well and sometimes I actually feel sick. Now, that's just me. My wife is just the opposite--she can't eat much in the way of meats without it disrupting her system, but she can eat vegetables and pasta all day long with no problems. But I think that illustrates a very valid point: Everyone is different and the no one (including and especially the medical community) should be so irresponsible as to make blanket statements like "such-and-so is bad for you--don't eat it!" or "this-and-that is a curative--eat lots of it!". The scientific community and the individuals that make it up are, by and large, the personality types that like things to be A or B without even considering C, D, E, F, or even Q. I know that I've rambled on quite a bit here, but I hope that it makes some kind of sense to you.

Kiama	24 May 2002
Yarnie, I must say that was an immensely interesting ramble! Yes, most of us nowadays have evolved to eat meat. We have grown up in a Meat-n-two-veg society, and meat is seen as one of those things needed to grow properly. (Indeed, I'm not denying the wonderful properties of protein for the body). But does being carnivourous/omnivorous mean we are justified in doing tests on animals? We see other meat-eating species such as certain species of monkey, lions, dogs, etc, but do we see them testing on other animals? Does anyone have any information on this? I would be very interested to know if we are the only species that test on other species... Kiama

Geenius at Wrok	24 May 2002
Protein is necessary for us to grow properly. Meat is not the only good source of protein—other animal products and legumes work too—but it adds variety to one's diet. I'm with Yarnie in holding that humans do have a privileged place over animals in general, although unlike him, I'd make exceptions for certain creatures with demonstrably exceptional intelligence, such as porpoises, whales and maybe elephants. It is worth noting that, in their own wild habitats, certain animals—bears, tigers and crocodiles, for example—do not scruple to use their own advantages over us.

Kiama	24 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Geenius at Wrok It is worth noting that, in their own wild habitats, certain animals—bears, tigers and crocodiles, for example—do not scruple to use their own advantages over us. When we have wiped out all the diseases which kill humans, what is left to control our populaton? What is left to stop us overpopulating the Earth? The animals you talk of, some would say (I need to point out that what I am arguing may not necessarily be my viewpoint on this matter) are 'exercising thei advanages' over us from a survival viewpoint: We are a threat to them, or we taste yummy to them. Incidentally, some animals do not attack us or take advantage of us if we are not a threat... Such as lions you can approach after they have fed, or animals in a zoo. Mostly, the only times animals attack are mistaking us for other animals (Sharks do this when they think humans are seal), or when we seem to threaten them. Notice how animals will always attack or in some way try to scare us off if we get too close to their young, or the nest... Even if we do it unknowingly.. But, when we test on animlas to find new cures and to test out new mediciens, is this really absolutely necessary for the survival of the species? No. We can survive without these cures, and without testing the on animals. That is where the differnce lies between us using our advantages over animals, and animals using their advantges over us. The superiority argument... I have a vegan friend who is very much against testing on animals for all reasons, and when faced with this 'humans are priveledged over animals agrment' he always replies with something alonmg the lines of... Right, here we have what is comonly known as the Playground Bully argument: I'm bigger. I can do it, cuz I have the capabilities to. (Again, remember that I may not agree with any of the views I am here purporting. I am just trying to make for a really good, thorough investigation of this topic.) Also, it is only from our viewpoint that we are superior. And of course, we are biased What do we base our judgement of superiority on? If a swallow was to judge us for superiority, they may come to the conclusion that we have rather rubbish inner navigational skills, and thus are inferior to them,. And, to tell you the truth, if we compare ourselves to other species, we really are useless! Do we have an inner navigational system that can help us locate home from thousands of miles away, even without landmarks? Do we have sharp sense of hearing, and sharp sense of smell? Can we fly? Can we catch our food like the predators do, with no weapons? And where on earth is our fur?! :P :eek: Gosh, we really are looking a bit inferior when we think of it in this light... Of course, religious theories do help to shape our view of humans in relation to animals.. In Genesis, for Christians, the Bible clearly states that mankind is superior to animals, for we are 'made in God's image'. We are, tehnically, closer to God than other animals are... For the Hindus, it is only humas that can take spiritual responsibility, and attempt to become closer to God... Muslims are pretty much the same as Christians on this one.. Anyway, I have rambled on far too much. Of course, we are still ignoring the big fact that animals are fairly unlike us, and thus, as we have seen so many times in the past, we cannot gain reliable results from the tests we do on them. Kiama PS Maybe there should be some sort of disclaimer to this post? How about: Any arguments purported herein are not the sole responsibility or belief of the purporter? P ;) That way, I cannot be blamed for any rubbish arguments and nobody can personally attack me! (Not that I am suggesting anyone would, but it is certainly a useful disclaimer,... Just in case!)

Yarnie	24 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Kiama But does being carnivourous/omnivorous mean we are justified in doing tests on animals? We see other meat-eating species such as certain species of monkey, lions, dogs, etc, but do we see them testing on other animals? Based strictly on your question, the answer is "No, being carnivorous/omnivorous does not justify doing testing on animals." Carni/Omni has nothing to do with the question, and I apologize for taking the discussion down that rabbit trail (if you've ever seen wild rabbit trails, you'll know why I use that euphemism--what twisted trails they do make!)--my rambling post this morning (admitedly, under the influence of cold medicine) incorrectly focused on the pro-vegetarian argument that humans are naturally herbivorous and their supporting studies. Again, my apologies. As for the real question concerning animal testing, that is something that falls under the stewardship role of homo sapiens sapiens (HSS). Before answering that question, it is necessary to determine what makes us special in the animal kingdom (for while we are the stewards of Terra, we are also participants and members of the animal kingdom. So, what makes us special? What gives us the right? It has to be something that enables HSS to overcome all of the deficiencies that have been partially listed when comparing HSS survivability to the rest of the animal kingdom. It has to be something that we have exclusively. Personally, I think that it is one thing: Soul. (I would have included intelligence, but that is something that is common throughout the animal kingdom to one extent or another--we just happen to have higher intelligence than the rest of the kingdom, but I feel that is also a function of soul.) Soul is what makes us different. Soul is the godstuff that makes up our essence--who we really are. Soul is what distinguishes us from just the mere shell we inhabit during our time here on Terra. Soul is the part of HSS that makes each individual a person, a HUMAN, rather than just another animal. Soul is what we have that the rest of the animal kingdom does not have. God (or Goddess, or Allah, or whomever you believe to be your creator) has imprinted the yearn to survive on each and every organism on Terra. This includes us. But Soul goes one step further in Humans and takes that survivor's instinct at the individual level and extends it out to the entire species. No other species has this species-level sense of survival. Pair the sense for the species well-being with the Soul that sets us apart and combine it with the highest intelligence on the planet and you have us: Humans. As the pinnacle of creation--at least on this planet--we have the Stewardship of this planet. That Stewardship also extends to our own survival and improving our own lives and well-being. The Creator has bestowed the gift of Soul on HSS and made us Human, which has put us in charge of our planet and made its resources our tools. As I stated before in a previous post, unnecessary and cruel testing is abhorrent for many reasons, the least of all that it is wasteful. But is testing animal testing "right"? Is it "justified"? I think it is as long as it truly furthers Human survival and results in some improvement of our lives, provided that it does not stray into the unnecessary and cruel category. I know that I took a long time to get to my point, but I hope that my long-windedness has helped better explain my position.

Kiama	26 May 2002
Hi Yarnie! Thanks for responding... But with all due respect (That's alot of respect to you, cuz its due!), it is a very tenuous argument to say that only humans have the highest intelligence, and a soul... It really is a subjective, personal belief which we are discussing here... Although many many religions and theories do agree that animals have souls: All reincarnationist religions believe the soul can transgress species, and we can end up as animals, and our soul can have room to evolve upwards, to humans, or we can be humans, and have the ability to go upwards, towards Godhead, or downwards, towards being an animal. Even though the animal here is still seen as 'leser' than humans reincarnationally, it is still viewed as having a soul. Of course, we also have the astounding claims made by spiritists and mediums, who do caim to see animals such as family pets in the afterlife, standing by their deceased owners happily. These peope won't accept the claim that animals don't have souls! Of course, we need to define soul aswell... What is a soul? What you are saying is a soul I may not think is a soul, and so I could be arguing against you, without fully knowing what your view of the soul is... Highest intelligence? Again, a pretty tenuous claim... Firstly, because we need to question whether or not highest intelligence really makes us superior. Like I said in my last post somewhere, we hardly have any capabilties that other animals do: Dolphins have echo location, and a remarkable communication way... They also have a brain which lets them be awake 24 hours a day, because one half of the brain sleeps whilst the other works... (Meanwhile, us humans use only about 5%of our brains!) And then they swap. Dogs have extra sesitive sense of smell and hearing, and swallows and other migrational birds have amazing inner navigational systems, and can charter their way over 1000's of miles, whilst we would need a tour guide, map, and possibly a plane to do so... Compared to other species, we are pretty much on the bottom rung of the ladder when it comes to capabilities. Secondly, we can also argue that humas cannot lay claim to the highest intelligence... But this is not proven yet, even though it is under scrutiny and doubt... (I like Douglas Adams' take on this, in 'So Long and Thanks For All The Fish'... In this book, he states that dolphins are clearly the most inteligent species in the planet, because whilst we humans were busy stressing ourselves out and ruining the planet with our civilisations and technologies, dolphins were... Playing!) Quote: No other species has this species-level sense of survival. Again, very tenuous... In fact, I would say that we humans have much less of a species-level of survival insitinct than most animals! Altuistic behaviour, and other kinds of pro-social behaviour, is seen much more in the animal kingdom than in the human one, and it is used a a technique to help the animals' species survive. Take ants for instace: When in trouble, or trapped, one group of ants will sacrifice itself for the rest of the ants eg- Making a bridge out of themselves over a river for the others to cross. These ants will fall into the water, but their species, or what they know of their species (How often do ant tribes get together to meet up? :P) will survive. The same with rabbits. The rabbit that thumps its foot on the ground in warning of danger will attract the attention of the predator to itself whilst the others escape: Leaving it at the mercy of this hungry predator... Male rogue lions will look out for each other in their attempts to impregnate females of other prides, and take it in turns... Thus ensuring the suvival of their gene pool. What do we see in humans? Humans it seems are very much less likey to help each other out in such a way, despite the woldwide contact we can achivieve. How many of us have gone out of our way to help out people in other coutries? We'd help out our friends and family, yes, and people in our own country, but this can be argued as selfish: Because the events that happen are close to us, and thus cause us pain too... So, that's my little lo-down on species-level of survival in humans and animals! :D These things we are discussing here are definitely the root questions and problems at the centre of the big debate of animal testing. Our views on whether or not we are superior, and who possessses the highest intelligence etc, definitely have an effect on what we think of testing on animals for medical reasons... This is why I am thankful that you have responded to this, and helped dig deeper into this subject. Kiama

purplelady	26 May 2002
I haven't yet read all 4 pages of this post, and I see that it seems to have evolved into a discussion of eating habits, however I'd like to respond to the original question of what I think of animal testing. Basically, I agree with slinky-jo. I simply believe it is wrong to use animals for medical testing, or cosmetics. The creature has no say in it, they are totally innocent , and we are using them as objects against their will , and also hurting them. I don't think it is our right to hurt or kill innocent animals for this purpose, no matter how justified we think our reasons are, or how many human lives we think we're going to save. I just don't believe it is right in the larger scheme of our world. I guess I'm not positive exactly what "vivasection" is ?

Diana	26 May 2002
I received some mail yesterday from an anti vivisection group in Switzerland. With photos. I wanted to vomit.

Yarnie	26 May 2002
Hi, Kiama, I think we're probably going to have to agree to disagree on much of this discussion (chuckles), else our discussion will venture off on all sorts of tangents of religious philosophy and, unfortunately, that is something that I haven't time to do the proper research. The original question regarding our views on animal testing draws heavily on each person's religious, philosophical, ethical, and value systems and thus, my mini-disseratation (rambling, though it may be) to support my views on animal testing. I will attempt to answer (briefly and concisely) some of the questions you raise in your response, as well as address a couple of your rebuttals. Quote: Of course, we need to define soul aswell... What is a soul? What you are saying is a soul I may not think is a soul, and so I could be arguing against you, without fully knowing what your view of the soul is... Soul, in my opinion, is that within our makeup which comes from God--it is what links us to God. Our bodies and our minds are the tools of soul and they make up the dwelling place of the soul during its time here on this plane. As you and others may recall, I am a Christian (albeit, a much more open-minded and tolerant one than many of you have apparently encountered). While in my teens and twenties, I spent quite a bit of time reading about the various religions around the world (including Wicca, believe it or not) and found that for myself, Christianity holds what I believe to be Truth (note, I didn't not say that Christianity has a corner on that market). From what I have read and understand Christian belief structure is more logical and more based in Order than the rest. This is, I'm sure you will agree, a major part of my beliefs concerning the concept of "soul". Quote: Highest intelligence? Again, a pretty tenuous claim... Firstly, because we need to question whether or not highest intelligence really makes us superior. Like I said in my last post somewhere, we hardly have any capabilties that other animals do: Dolphins have echo location, and a remarkable communication way... Compared to other species, we are pretty much on the bottom rung of the ladder when it comes to capabilities. Secondly, we can also argue that humas cannot lay claim to the highest intelligence... But this is not proven yet, even though it is under scrutiny and doubt... I would venture to say that the superiority of human intelligence is and has been the ultimate survival attribute. Human intelligence has enabled man to create better communications systems than that of dolphins (we're using one such invention at this very moment) as well as 24-hour survelliance (the ever-present cctv, to name one system-- ;) ). We have developed instruments that can detect foreign matter (smells) in parts per billions that even dogs cannot detect. As for navigation, some of us may not have that great a sense of direction, but we have used our intelligence to make up for that deficiency admirably through the use of technology...and to the point that we can locate ourselves to less than a meter of any spot on our planet--something the swallow and the salmon can do. As for the supremacy of human intelligence in the animal kingdom, the animals right behind us (to the best of science's tests thus far) would be porpoises, then some of the great apes. I have yet to see anything other than rudimentary tools used by either of these groups without the help of humans. What are some arguments for any other member of the animal kingdom having the highest intelligence? Many make the claim that porpoises are more intelligent than humans, but I have yet to see any concrete evidence. Concerning species-level survival: We will have to agree to disagree, but I must say that hive species (ants, bees, termites, etc.) can arguably be seen as one entity rather than a group of individuals. In those species, the queen is the end-all be-all and the rest of the hive are merely extensions of her. Here in the USA, it is not uncommon at all for people to pitch in together to help people they do not know. All it takes to see this at work is to wait until some natural disaster takes place (hurricane, earthquake, etc.) and you will see people from all over helping out. This also does not stop at our borders. When there is a disaster in other parts of the world, the same response is the rule rather than the exception. While the results are far less than optimal (due to the greed of some people--i.e. the so-called governments of the suffering people), food relief efforts throughout Africa have been on-going for decades. From a more nationalist viewpoint, the USA has intervened militarily on many occasions for humanitarian causes (Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, to name the most recent) and has gotten little thanks and much condemnation for its efforts (which is one reason many of us in the States have become hardened to many situations--if we're only going to be spit upon for preventing two groups of people from killing each other why should we bother?). And lastly concerning species-wide improvement would be the search for the cures for various diseases (some might even involve animal testing). No matter who finds the cures or the preventatives, the entire species benefits because it will not be kept secret (not even if the discoverers want it to be). Quote: These things we are discussing here are definitely the root questions and problems at the centre of the big debate of animal testing. Our views on whether or not we are superior, and who possessses the highest intelligence etc, definitely have an effect on what we think of testing on animals for medical reasons... This is why I am thankful that you have responded to this, and helped dig deeper into this subject. I agree that these are central issues to the symptomatic questions regarding animal testing. Thank you for including me in the discussion. This is the type of discussion that I would share with my best friend over coffee until late in the night before I moved from Michigan. This has brought back memories of many of those discussions...some of them even sitting out in the snow around a small fire in the back yard during a heavy snowfall. Those were good times...and so has this been. Bryant/Yarnie

Kiama	27 May 2002
Hey Yarnie! This really is great... Let's set the fire, get a mug of hot chocolate (With a drop or two if Irish Whiskey in in...) and talk talk talk! In response to the arguments of highest intelligence: Yes, you are right that so far, no concrete evidence has been found to show that dolphins/porpoises are more intelligent than us. BUT, considering humans only use 5% of our brains, (Or is it less... Scientists! HELP!) and dolphins have brains that, as I said before, can do the half awake half asleep thing, we might need to think about what exactly intelligence is... If we are judging what inteligence is by our own standards, then technically we are being biased: A dolphin could be judging our intelligence by their standards, and coming to the conclusion that we are less intelligent than them... BUT this all depends on the spcies' view of intelligence. It also depends on what constitutes 'highest' intelligence... We may say that 'highest' intelligence means conscious decision making and moral action, aswell as the ability to create new technologies and civilisations. Indeed, man is the only species to have done this technology thing. But now we move onto the second part of this response: In response to the arguments of technology: Your point depends highly on what one's view of the human use of technology is... Some may say that is merely a defense act against nature, because we don't have the atural abiliities like some animals do... Some would argue that it is really that intelligent, cuz intelligence also involves thinking about the consequences of our actions: And our technology really has mucked up this planet to some extent... Either we didn't look at th epossible consequnees hard ebough, or we looked at them, and ignored them. Either way, in the pruporter of this views' argument, it was not intelligent of us to do this... We have caused inbalance in the ecosystems of the planet, causing the extinction of thousands of species, somwe of them undicovered... There was a statistic I had in my head a while ago, about the number of species in the Amazonian Ranforest that are made extinct every year because of our activities there... Another good exa\mple of how maybe we are not as intelligent as we think, i the distribution of wealth: The Developing World takes up about 70% of Earth's human population, yet has about 20% of the world's welath... I think it might be less... I'll have to go through my Philosophy notes for this statistic... Like yo8u said before, human greed has alot to do with these things, and it can also be argued that we are th eonly species to have individual greed which can cause death and suffering to other creatures of our own species. Some multi-billionaire in England could be starving hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians cuz of his/her greed... Yes, this happens in the animal world, but amongst individual animals (Eg- Two lions fighting over a caracss....) So, the big question is: Is technology really a good way to measure our intelligence? In response to hives and anrs and stuff: How do we know these ants are not individuals? Unfortunately we don't, and we can only speculate that they have no individuality through what we see of them, judged by our own standards. We look at a colony of ants,m and see that altruistic bridge thing going on, and say: "Hey, look at what they're doing! They are sacrificing themselves for the good of the colony! The might not have individuality, cuz if they did, why would they do that?" all the whie forgettig that what we see as non-individuality may be something completely different! These ants may be making a conscious choice to build that bridge out of themselves, and since many ethicists and philosophers (Right down to Aristotle) would argue that making conscious choices is what shows soul and individuality, we might also go so far as to say that this decision making in ants (If indeed it is deciosn making) can constitute individuality... There... I think I'm done. Y'know, I think this is th eonly discussion that I have used to include what I learned from nearly every single subjwect I have ever studied in school. Other than cookery. Cookery was useless and I gave it up after about 3 months! :P Philosophy has come into this, geography, history, Ethics, Psychology, Religious Studies.... The list goes on! This really is a great discussion! Kiama KISSES FOR YOU! :* :* :* :* :*

slinky_jo	27 May 2002
Birds fly using magnetic impulses from the earth; pets can find their way home from 1000's of miles away; ants can carry 100x their weight... ...humans invented dildos and ball point pens that don't work :D Gimme wings and a great nose anyday ;) PS - OK, didn't wanna get into this, but my buttons are being pushed here, people!!! Did you know that meat sits in your colon for up to 82 hours? While veges sit there for about 12 hours. No, it's not cos your body needs to draw vitamins and nutrients from the meat - that happens in the duodenum. No, meat sits in your bowel and rots. YUM! The human body can "digest" anything - wood, paper, fabric, grass, etc. Bile is pretty potent stuff, man! And as for the teeth debate - I use my canines for biting cotton thread and crisp bags open :D

Kiama	27 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by slinky_jo PS - OK, didn't wanna get into this, but my buttons are being pushed here, people!!! Did you know that meat sits in your colon for up to 82 hours? While veges sit there for about 12 hours. No, it's not cos your body needs to draw vitamins and nutrients from the meat - that happens in the duodenum. No, meat sits in your bowel and rots. YUM! The human body can "digest" anything - wood, paper, fabric, grass, etc. Bile is pretty potent stuff, man! This is the argument from my vegan friend which I couldn't remember! Thanks Slinky! Kiama

Yarnie	27 May 2002
OK, I'm going to respond in reverse order because, frankly, its easier and I'm lazy this morning! (chuckles!) Quote: posted by slinky_jo: Did you know that meat sits in your colon for up to 82 hours? While veges sit there for about 12 hours. No, it's not cos your body needs to draw vitamins and nutrients from the meat - that happens in the duodenum. No, meat sits in your bowel and rots. YUM! The key words here are "up to". I had seen some of these same studies prior to starting to use the Atkins diet and asked my Dr. about it--we had a good discussion about it. It seems that there is some divergent thought as to why meat takes longer to pass through the gastro-intestinal system. According to my doctor, the added time for meat in those studies could as easily be poor performance of the bowels of the participants as anything else. Again, I suspect that this is another of those studies that tries to pigeonhole everyone into the either/or categories. Quote: If we are judging what inteligence is by our own standards, then technically we are being biased: A dolphin could be judging our intelligence by their standards, and coming to the conclusion that we are less intelligent than them... BUT this all depends on the spcies' view of intelligence. It also depends on what constitutes 'highest' intelligence... We may say that 'highest' intelligence means conscious decision making and moral action, aswell as the ability to create new technologies and civilisations. Indeed, man is the only species to have done this technology thing. We ARE humans and only have our own standards to use. If a porpoise judges us by their standards (and I'm not saying that they are capable of such levels of thought) then they are biased as well. You hit the nail on the head--it all does depend on the species' view of intelligence. No way to get around any bias. Sorry. If we are to make any kind of quantitative attempt at measurement, we can only use the yardstick which we know. Quote: In response to the arguments of technology: Your point depends highly on what one's view of the human use of technology is... Some may say that is merely a defense act against nature, because we don't have the atural abiliities like some animals do... Some would argue that it is really that intelligent, cuz intelligence also involves thinking about the consequences of our actions: And our technology really has mucked up this planet to some extent... Either we didn't look at th epossible consequnees hard ebough, or we looked at them, and ignored them. Either way, in the pruporter of this views' argument, it was not intelligent of us to do this... We have caused inbalance in the ecosystems of the planet, causing the extinction of thousands of species, somwe of them undicovered... There was a statistic I had in my head a while ago, about the number of species in the Amazonian Ranforest that are made extinct every year because of our activities there... The argument of "defense against nature" uses the premise that we as humans are outside of nature and at war with nature. HSS is as integral a part of nature as any other creature you can name. We've now swerved into yet another concept: Wisdom. In my mind Wisdom and Intelligence are two different things, although they are both related to Knowledge. Knowledge is information and the ability to retain it. Intelligence is the ability to use Knowledge in a constructive (or in some cases, destructive) way. Wisdom is how we use our Intelligence and directly pertains to how we look at potential consequences before embarking on a course of action. While Humans have not been WISE in some of our decisions, that does not (IMO) reflect or detract from the level of intelligence in the species. Quote: Another good exa\mple of how maybe we are not as intelligent as we think, i the distribution of wealth: The Developing World takes up about 70% of Earth's human population, yet has about 20% of the world's welath... I think it might be less... I'll have to go through my Philosophy notes for this statistic... Like yo8u said before, human greed has alot to do with these things, and it can also be argued that we are th eonly species to have individual greed which can cause death and suffering to other creatures of our own species. Some multi-billionaire in England could be starving hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians cuz of his/her greed... This is veering off into a political discussion of Capitalism vs. Socialism and I won't be pulled into that because it is a discussion that can only end badly (just trust me on this). However, you mention lions (and I'll add wolves into the discussion, too) and it is not unusual for excess males to be driven off from the pride/pack. Since these creatures hunt in groups, individual creatures have a slim chance of survival once they have been expelled. And greed does not necessarily have to have national borders to be applicable. Somalia and Ethiopia are both prime examples of how foreign countries (USA, UK, etc.), and their wealthy citizens, send help to relieve the effects of famine and that help is stopped due to the greed of local warlords. It isn't a struggle between wealthy and poor countries so much as between bullies and those they can control. This, too, is quite common in the animal world--I have but to look out my window at the large squirrel that has driven off almost all of his competitors while amassing a huge store of food that he could never eat on his own in his entire lifetime. Regarding hive-based creatures: I'll see if I can find the studies ( ;) you know how I feel about studies, though! LOL!) that seem to indicate that the queen is only "brain" in the whole outfit. The queen is the only one to reproduce and will kill/drive off other fertile females. In bees, if the queen is killed or is removed, the hive will die. This has been a good discussion! I'm enjoying it! (even though it is now warm weather, we can imagine it being a late night with about a foot of snow on the ground...the fire is blazing in the fire pit...hot Irish coffee handed all around and we talk and debate while watching the embers fly upward into the swirls of falling snowflakes.....)

Kiama	28 May 2002
*Drum roll please* (Drums start roling, and Kiama approaches Yarnie slowly, eyes fixed, hands at her side... She is poised, ready, focussed... She moves forward, relentlesly, never breaking eye contact... She stops when her nose is an inch away from Yarnies, and her eyes glare fixatedly... Suddenly, before anybody can protest, she grabs Yarnie in a huge big bear hug, spilling his Irish coffee on the new fallen snow!) Yarnie! You win! I give up! Great arguments though! (Hugs Yarnie some more!) Since I am not an advocate of the arguments I presented above, I am at a loss to generate anything else to argue back... Thankyou for taking part in the discussio: Its been great! :* :* :* :* :* Kiama

Yarnie	28 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Kiama *Drum roll please* (Drums start roling, and Kiama approaches Yarnie slowly, eyes fixed, hands at her side... She is poised, ready, focussed... She moves forward, relentlesly, never breaking eye contact... She stops when her nose is an inch away from Yarnies, and her eyes glare fixatedly... Suddenly, before anybody can protest, she grabs Yarnie in a huge big bear hug, spilling his Irish coffee on the new fallen snow!) Yarnie! You win! I give up! Great arguments though! (Hugs Yarnie some more!) Since I am not an advocate of the arguments I presented above, I am at a loss to generate anything else to argue back... Thankyou for taking part in the discussio: Its been great! :* :* :* :* :* Kiama (chuckles) Nah! No winners, just a rather thorough look at two sides of a very facetious issue. ...and I agree, it has been a great discussion!

Geenius at Wrok	28 May 2002
Sure you do. You got hugged.

Yarnie	28 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Geenius at Wrok Sure you do. You got hugged. LOL! Ok, HUGS ALL AROUND!!!!! ((((((((HUGS everyone who will stand being hugged!))))))))

Kiama	29 May 2002
*Kiama grins from ear to ear cuz she got a hug fom YARNIE!* YEEEHHAAAAA! Kiama :D

The Animal Testing thread was originally posted on 20 May 2002 in the Chat board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Chat, or read more archived threads.