Animal Rights

[Wavid]

Following from Hazel's mention of Animal Rights Protestors on another thread, there has been quite a few mentions in the news about the issue of the more militant protestors. this has culminated in new legislation in the Queen's Speech (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4034861.stm).

I have to admit to being slightly bemused when on the BBC news the other day, they showed footage of some protestors lobbing bricks through some bloke's windows, and then of another lot setting fire to someone's car. The correspondant said "The Government are planning to make protests like this illegal".

Whaaaaat? You mean it isn't already? Quick get me a brick and I'm off to West Winch!

But seriously. I can't imagine any of the sensible Palimpular folk condone the more extreme of the Animal Rights protests, but does anyone feel strongly on the issue? And who are these people who are harassing all these lab workers - are they just nutters in search of a cause, or if animal testing was banned, would they live law-abiding lives?

[amner]

In the excellent Things Can Only Get Better: Eighteen Miserable Years in the Life of a Labour Supporter, 1979-1997 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0552998036/qid=1101292428/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_11_4/026-3104671-5863600) John O'Farrell - amid lots of other rather smart and funny comments - points out something that a lot of people of a certain age ( :oops: ahem) will recognise only to well; that is, the confession "I Was Embarrassingly Left-Wing in the Early Eighties". He doesn't mean just holding a general leftist political outlook, but actually tying your colours to every single mast on the Good Ship 'Lost Cause' whilst wearing a WW1 great coat, selling Socialist Worker, going on demos and flouncing about in one of those Arafat scarves with the little white bobbles.

Anyway, erm, I kinda did much of that. Past tense, by the way.

One of the issues I never bothered with however, was animal rights. Animals are more important than humans, then? No, sorry. They're not. Perhaps when we've eradicated every other cause of suffering in the world then we can move on to civil liberties for frogs and marmosets, but until then, grow up.

'Rats have Rights too!' I'm told. Can't help you there, I never saw the original 'Rats have Rights'.

[John Self]

Ah yes, O'Farrell's book is indeed wonderful - and the Amazon link should contain a review by a young John Self, if I'm not mistaken.

I agree with everything amner just said, apart from being embarrassingly left-wing in youth (actually I toyed with voting Conservative at my first general election in 1992 - please don't ban me - on the basis that they were, and remain, the only UK-wide party to stand in Northern Ireland). For this reason I never give to animal charities, not because I don't support the work they do, but because they are far and away the most popular charities and get literally more money than they know what to do with (as I have discovered when having legal dealings with them, as they spend a great deal on legal administrators to pick through every hole in wills leaving money to them). I'd rather give my hard-earned to less populist causes which are equally deserving.

[Wavid]

This is going to start sounding worryingly like a consensus (where's Eve when you need her?!) but I too don't think it is much of an issue. Where testing is done for medical reasons I don't think there can be any sane argument against it. Cosmetic stuff is slightly more dubious, but not so much that I'm going to get worked up about it.

Why these rabid crusties seem intent on doing people harm to try and further their cause, I don't know. But I suspect they are a very small minority.

Didn't one bunch of loonies dig up a grave recently, or something? I might be mistaken.

[Colyngbourne]

Excuse the incoherencies of this reply:

We have a responsibility not to be wilfully cruel to animals either in the wild or in captivity, for experimentation or for food production.

But...

Animal rights representatives seem to value the animal's life over human life, and that animals should not be killed ever, at all, or unnaturally abused. That implies veganism as a natural corollary but we wouldn't have developed into the intelligent, larger-brained hominids that we are, if it hadn't been for eating meat (or let me know if I've got that anthropological detail wrong). Extreme animals rights folk don't seem to view humanity as having any value at all, that all the amazing conscious love and meaning and creativity of our existence is equal in value to the croakings of a frog.

Incoherency over.

[amarie]

Didn't one bunch of loonies dig up a grave recently, or something? I might be mistaken.

Yes, they did. What kind of a sick mind you need to have to even think about doing something like that I just don't know.

I'm in agreement with all the above posts on animal rights. I don't think it's necessary to test on animals for cosmetic purposes any more - whether it ever was necessary, I'm not sure. But what some of these extremists get up to is beyond belief. We need testing on animals to help prevent, and even eradicate, some of the world's most terrible diseases. If I had to make a choice between giving myself or a loved one a drug that had been tested on animals in order to make us better, or a fluffy wuffy bunny rabbit, then I'm afraid the bunny rabbit would have to go.

[bakunin_the_cat]

that all the amazing conscious love and meaning and creativity of our existence is equal in value to the croakings of a frog.



That's no way to talk about Sacha Distelle!

To be honest though, this is a strange discussion as we all seem to agree with each other. Animals shouldn't be exposed to unneccesary cruelty but at the same time they don't need this peculiarly British sentimentality which puts more importance on Fluffy and Fido than we do on our own children. Kill a man in a film and you'll barely raise an eyebrow. Kill a kid and you might get a little more attention. But kill a dog and it's well. 'how could people make this sick and degrading filth?' Not that I'm saying we should all go round shooting granny's little pooch, of course, but it does seem to me to have all got a little skewed.

[NottyImp]

"...but we wouldn't have developed into the intelligent, larger-brained hominids that we are..."

Where? Oh, you mean the chimps.

[amner]

I didn't think we'd get through a Politics thread without someone mentioning Dubya.

[gil]

I'm not about to indulge in Animal Rights protests etc., but I have to say that, especially in later life, having owned, now, a dozen cats and dogs over the piece, I find it hard not to believe that animals have as much right to live free of pain as do humans. Frankly, I'd rather a hundred graves, including my own, were dug up, rather than an animal suffer. Dead bodies don't count. Nor, to an extent, does property, against basic kindness to living creatures, including, but not exclusively, our fellow man.

And here is where the responsibilty part begins. Most adult humans have a certain amount of free will that they can exercise to avoid pain and stay alive. But captive animals and people in desperate situations have no such control. It is incumbent upon us, as caring members of the human race, to do what we can. Everyone knows that we in the West are privileged, and live to some extent, at the expense of at least the comfort , sometimes the life, of people in the third world and experimental animals. I carry the guilt of not doing enough for all of these. As far as I am concerned, it is the helplessness and pain of the victim that pricks my conscience - not the supposed value of the victim's life and comfort. Until we can live without costing our fellow creatures distress, then we ought to do something about it.

So I'd as soon see my pennies go to the RSPCA as to Children in Need, to IFAW as Oxfam, to PDSA as The Red Cross, and I wish there was more to go around.

[pandop]

But seriously. I can't imagine any of the sensible Palimpular folk condone the more extreme of the Animal Rights protests, but does anyone feel strongly on the issue? And who are these people who are harassing all these lab workers - are they just nutters in search of a cause, or if animal testing was banned, would they live law-abiding lives?

Well I do have my suspicions about any groups who think they can advance the cause of animal rights by killing a foxhoud. Not to mention those who were ill informed/advised enough to release Mink into the wild in this country.

They also strike me as being desperate, they have recently targeted the company my boyfriend works for - because one of the ingredients they use was tested by Huntingdon Life Sciences, 30 years ago!

I must also confess to occasionally pointing out the flaws in their stance .... but only when I *need* sugar, and they are in the way ...

Hazel

[pandop]

For this reason I never give to animal charities, not because I don't support the work they do, but because they are far and away the most popular charities and get literally more money than they know what to do with (as I have discovered when having legal dealings with them, as they spend a great deal on legal administrators to pick through every hole in wills leaving money to them). I'd rather give my hard-earned to less populist causes which are equally deserving.

I do, but only to Cats Protection, and I don't know why I do that, as they are the ones who blessed us with thatbastardcatfromdowntheroad (hey someone has to 'own' it), otherwise known as my beloved moggle

Hazel

[RC]

It's all about love. Some people can love animals the way other people love people. I can sort of understand it, especially for children, or older people who may lack company. Nevertheless to me, not having had an attachment to an animal since I was ten, it seems slightly perverse or lunatic. I've known people to wrap presents for their pets and put them under the tree. I know a woman who hasn't much money to spare who buys expensive food tidbits for her dog, as a 'special treat'. If you asked someone like that, "Is that an animal or a child?", they'd be puzzled why you ask---What's the difference?
But if the eighties taught us anything, it was not to tell people what or whom they may love. Some people truly care deeply about animals, or certain species of them. If they suffer, as they seem to do, at the thought of the animals' suffering, then I'm not surprised that they are making these massive campaigns. I think if they were more rational they would at the same time have to take up the cockroach cause - but then few people are very rational. From my perspective it's a shame that their concern for beasts apparently outstrips their concern for any of the many categories of suffering humanity. But they mean well, don't they?
As a footnote - there are quite a lot of dogs in my neighbourhood, and morning and evening I meet them being dragged around the streets on leashes. If I think about it I am dismayed that these creatures, who do after all have their own nature, are so callously treated. A dog ought to run around town with other dogs. Given the choice I bet any dog would take that over any amount of pampering, or he would while he still had a soul. On the other hand I have no pity for cats. There is no goodness in a cat. Other people's cats often land in my lap, for no other reason than that they know I don't like them. In preference to that kind of insolence I'll take a leaking snotty infant any day.

[Colyngbourne]

I'm afraid our pets do receive treats at Christmas (though they don't get them at any other time of the year), partly as an encouragement to get the children to think of something other than themselves (it's hard enough getting them to sacrifice their pocket money on small presents for their siblings); but I draw the line at extra treats for the goldfish or the snails. :wink:

[NottyImp]

You have snails? We have rats. They get teats all the time (well let's face it, a rat treat isn't very big).

[Wavid]

We have rats. They get teats all the time

Not yours, I hope, Notty?!

[Maggie]

You have snails? We have rats. They get teats all the time (well let's face it, a rat treat isn't very big).

Hm-m-m-m-m I've never actually seen a snail with teats :lol:

[Colyngbourne]

Well, if you've ever seen snails (common old garden variety) mating, they have something more substantial than a teat to use! Luckily I keep ours half-starved since lots of lettuce and cucumber at the right time of year gets them a bit perky :shock: - Natasha and Shinigami are now 4 ½ years old (Roddy passed away in the summer), and Small, Epyon and Li-Syaoran - their combined offspring - are now 3 yrs old. It's all a bit menage-a-trois with snails, I'm afraid.

[Maggie]

[- their combined offspring - are now 3 yrs old. It's all a bit menage-a-trois with snails, I'm afraid.[/quote]

Sounds a little bit like this would qualify for one of our "reality" television shows :D

[NottyImp]

Small, Epyon and Li-Syaoran

Looking at those names, you've been reading far too muich Sean Wright.

[Colyngbourne]

Small, Epyon and Li-Syaoran

Looking at those names, you've been reading far too muich Sean Wright.

Japanese anime, rather : Gundam Wing (Shinigami and Epyon)and Cardcaptor Sakura (Li Syaoran)

[pandop]

I've known people to wrap presents for their pets and put them under the tree.

Yup - and once he can smell the catnip our moggle unwraps (well tears the paper off) himself - prime after breakfast entertainment!

Hazel

[Wavid]

Here's (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1341&item=71196689 40&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW) one for the animal lovers, [cough].

How very unpleasant.

[John Self]

Ugh. "This is not a toy," and yet the poor thing is mounted on a rocking frame and the pelt at the back shows distinct signs of worn smoothness that it doesn't elsewhere. And the taxidermist put in strengtheners in the back and legs "just in case a child tried to ride her." So what we have here is a parent who has to sell their child's real-dead rocking horse because the kid just found out it's real and is threatening to have herself admitted to care...

[John Self]

Darley Oaks farm, which has been the subject of a campaign for five years over its supply of guinea pigs for vivisection and animal testing, has finally given up (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/4176094.stm)against the animal rights terrorists.

Congratulations, guys! Five years, eh? At this rate you'll have Huntingdon Life Sciences closed by the year 2525, which will enable the vivisection industry to move to other countries with fewer care requirements for animal testing. And then you can apply for re-admission to the human race, once you've got over the high spirits (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4708677.stm)of digging up people's relatives' remains, telling people's neighbours they're paedophiles, firebombing their houses and/or daubing them with shit, threatening their children and so on.

[amner]

At first, this:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41333000/jpg/_41333555_bombedpolice203.jpg

might appear threatening, but it's just that it's neater than their attempts at joined-up writing.

[Wavid]

My sister, who works for the RSPCA, has contacted me asking that I help publicise a petition they are running to stop the use of dogs as shark bait. It does sound pretty filthy.

Visit www.rspca.org.uk/sharkbait (http://www.rspca.org.uk/sharkbait) to register your concern, if you want to help them in their campaign.

After all, where will kebab houses get their meat from if it is all being fed to sharks?

[Stewart]

My sister, who works for the RSPCA, has contacted me asking that I help publicise a petition they are running to stop the use of dogs as shark bait. It does sound pretty filthy.

These people, why do they always have to stand in the way of progress? :-x

[gil]

...and if you discover, as I did, that the RSPCA site is clogged, this French link has a petition form in English, too.

http://www.30millionsdamis.fr/FR/Dossiers/NosPetitions/Contrelutilisationdechiensvivantscommeappatspourla pecheauxrequins/Contrelutilisationdechienserrantscommeappatspourla pecheauxrequins.asp

[Stewart]

I'm still trying with the RSPCA website although I'm more interested in seeing the picture of the cat crusted over with months' worth of faeces.

[Hinton]

I 'heart', adore and sometimes dance to the music of the Moz. He's been called a gloomy git, a racist and a washed-up old man, and I have defended him on all charges. He is not my god, but his best songs do provoke feelings of awe in my withered soul. Why then, when he opens his mouth on politics, and the subject of animal rights in particular, does he instantly transform himself into a raving loon?

I support the efforts of the Animal Rights Militia in England and I understand why fur-farmers and so-called laboratory scientists are repaid with violence - it is because they deal in violence themselves and it's the only language they understand - the same principals that apply to war. You reach a point where you cannot reason with people. This is why the Animal Rights Militia and the Hunt Saboteurs exist. They are usually very intelligent people who are forced to act because the law is shameful or amoral.
In England, animals are hunted to the point of extinction, and then a great effort is made to save and reintroduce animals, and once they are re-established, they are then hunted back to the point of extinction. Everybody needs to hate something, it seems.
http://true-to-you.net/questions_with_answers_from_morrissey (http://true-to-you.net/questions_with_answers_from_morrissey)

In light of recent events around Oxford, and six years worth of events at Darley Oaks farm (arson, assault, smear campaigns, graverobbing, blackmail) I though a thread on this animal rights business would be an interesting proposition.

Thus, this isn't soley a dig at Morrissey (though he deserves it for that cretinous remark, and a thousand others) but a wide-ranging thing. Your opinions on animal testing, protest tactics and animal rights extremists are sought and welcomed.

[John Self]

Hinton, I've added your new thread to our existing animal rights discussion thread.

Yes, I suppose everyone has his blind spots. Morrissey has often indulged his taste for saying things for shocking effect, and this just seems to be his favourite topic.

[Hinton]

Sorry lad, didn't spot the existing thread, will have to read through it properly.

As for Morrissey I'd like to see him once, just bloody once, confronted as regards this piece of idiocy. That fawning, nervous interview by Jonathan Ross seems to be the template for a lot of interviewers (the ones who aren't constantly saying things like 'go on, admit it, you're an arse bandit aren't you' that is). That "so-called laboratory scientists" line really is the turd atop the cake.

[John Self]

Quite. "So-called," you mean, Morrissey, because that's what they are?

(Btw do share your thoughts on Ghost Town when you're through, on the Patrick McGrath (http://palimpsest.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=245) thread. I thought the last story was the best.)

[amarie]

'They are usually very intelligent people who are forced to act because the law is shameful or amoral.'

And of course it's not shameful to dig up someone's remains and hang on to them for what, nine months now? What on earth is Morrissey blethering on about?

[kaninaki]

Interesting discussion. Certainly what happens to many millions of animals in the name of research and gluttony is obscene. I use the word obscene because Coetzee uses it in his novel Elizabeth Costello. The protagonist, Costello, gives an etymology of the word - she "chooses to believe that obscene means off-stage." "To save our humanity, certain things…must remain off-stage." I think that the essence of extreme acts of protest is really just a way of answering obscenity with obscenity. It's the only way, maybe, to get people to notice. Though maybe it also turns people off. Dunno.

Anyway, back to Coetzee's Elizabeth Costello - has anyone read it? There's a great section in it called "The Lives of Animals" (based on a lecture given at Princeton, which can be downloaded here (http://www.tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/Coetzee99.pdf)) where Coetzee relates the experience of animals in slaughterhouses to the holocaust. Fascinating reading - extreme, but plausible argument, I think.

I think that such protests can only be extreme. Information about what happens to animals can only be extreme, and disgusting. Does anyone keep up to date with Peta.org? I've seen some of the video and photographic footage on that site and it's made me sick. I saw this footage taken of horses being bled in a Turkish establishment and was sick and couldn't sleep and cried all night. It still haunts me. I've sent an email and a letter to the president - no response. But I'm wondering whether it was the obscenity of what I saw that helped me to react. Though, granted, the protests don't work quite in the same way and normally tend to turn people off a cause rather than reel them in.

[rick green]

Thanks for the link. Looks promising, but I don't feel up the the 56 pages just now. I've pretty much kept quiet about animal rights, but I'm all for them. Are you a reader of Pete Singer, kaninaki? He's another author I'd like to read, but just haven't got around to yet. I agree that the militant activists aren't really helping the cause.

[amner]

Militants are all we seem to get, guys. Well, when you have arseholes digging up old grannies and nicking their remains, what else would make an impact? Militants seems to be what we do best.

[kaninaki]

Yeah, familiar with Singer's ethics. And his book Animal Liberation kinda sparked it all off. I think the holocaust analogy is actually Singer's idea...but it's been a long while since I read him. He's such a great free thinker. I would love to tackle one of his recent books on the ethics of George Bush...

[John Self]

For Coetzee to use the presumably ultimate derivation of obscenity as 'offstage' to label anything that happens out of the public eye 'obscene' is a little convenient, I think. A more direct connection is that the Latin obscenus means inauspicious.

Though maybe it also turns people off.
Yes. But also what turns me off even the peaceful, please-sign-the-petition protests I see from time to time in the city centre is that the 'obscene' material they use to back up their protests is so obviously several decades old. There's a particular photograph of a monkey with its head held in a steel frame and its brain exposed which I can picture in front of me as I type - an effective image, surely, but it's the same photo they were using twenty or more years ago when I first saw these protests. Where was it taken? When? In the course of what process? To use this to protest against animal experimentation now in the UK, which is nothing like this, is self-defeating because it says to me 'We don't have anything to show against today's experiments.' It's the same with anti-abortion campaigners and their photos of foetuses in hospital bins. If that sort of thing ever happened in the UK, it certainly hasn't for many decades, so it's irrelevant to the 'argument.'

[Hinton]

Thanks for the link. Looks promising, but I don't feel up the the 56 pages just now. I've pretty much kept quiet about animal rights, but I'm all for them. Are you a reader of Pete Singer, kaninaki? He's another author I'd like to read, but just haven't got around to yet. I agree that the militant activists aren't really helping the cause.

Singer's Animal Liberation is something of a holy text to many in the animal rights movement. Taking that into account it's quite easy to see why they get the science so wrong, so often. Singer used the 'Thalidomide proves animal testing doesn't work' nonsense after it had been debunked, quoted selectively, cited a few experiments that suited his purpose and, voila! A bestseller was born.

John's point about out of date photos is good one. A lot of the really nasty looking stuff dates back to the 70s and 80s. It's designed to provoke a simple, emotional response and nothing more. Once you've got people good and outraged you can then introduce them to Singer's mangling of science.

Nonetheless, this entire discussion is now irrelevant. It turns out the the ALF have been right all along!

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30800

[John Self]

Excellent link, Hinton! I try to keep pretty current with The Onion but hadn't seen that one.

Ah yes, the ever-sensible Peter Singer (http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,254477,00.html), whose term for the disabled was "defective." And: "Killing [infants] ... cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings." A view shared, I believe, by King Herod. And weren't there these other guys going about Europe in the 1930s and 40s who talked of "life that is unworthy of life"? Singer is a Jew, and they would have got rid of him, too. Whatever happened to them?

[rick green]

I feel like I have to do some research before adequately addressing this topic. Let me begin by saying that Singer's idea of a sliding scale of value for human life, rather than an absolute value, is not necessarily one I agree with. But it is a good place to begin the discussion, not just of animal rights, but of abortion rights, the right to die, eugenics, etc. It seems to me that supporting abortion and euthanasia (which I don't) one implicitly supports this notion that the value of human life is not absolute, but varies according to circumstance. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Factory farms, feedlots and slaughterhouses are similar to the network of nazi death camps at least in this sense: they embody the industrialization of violence. And Singer's ethics is similar to nazi thinking at least in this sense: it doesn't see all human life as equally valuable. Now this comparing people to nazis is a handy rhetorical trick, but maybe not very productive. Perhaps we ought to leave the fascists out of the discussion as much as possible. They seem to add unnecessary complication to an issue that's plenty complex on its own.

[HP]

If you believe, as I do, that animals have just as much right to life, as humans, then the whole issue is extraordinarily simple. Indeed, without humans this planet wouldn't be in the fine ol' pickle it is at the moment. Name me one animal that's managed to cause as much wholesale carnage and detriment to the global environment as man. So no, I don't support the more outrageous antics of animal rights activists, but to believe that the animal testing labs are not responsible for causing horrendous suffering for their poor subjects is to turn a conveniently blind eye to the unpalatable truth. Being inflicted with cancers, tumors, and god knows what else is hardly a picnic for any sentient creature. As for cosmetic testing - I've seen what they do and the ensuing suffering just makes you despair.

[John Self]

I think we're in danger of repeating ourselves (http://palimpsest.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=33792#post33792). In which case I refer to my comments made in that thread.

[HP]

Haha ... well, I'm nothing if not constant! What it goes to prove, too, is that for all our reaoning and debate, no one ever seems to change their original opinon on these things ... rather like the religion threads.

[chillicheese]

The way we treat animals has direct influence on the way we treat each other.

...or have I already said that ??

[kaninaki]

And Singer's ethics is similar to nazi thinking at least in this sense: it doesn't see all human life as equally valuable. Now this comparing people to nazis is a handy rhetorical trick, but maybe not very productive. Perhaps we ought to leave the fascists out of the discussion as much as possible. They seem to add unnecessary complication to an issue that's plenty complex on its own.

You're right - it is a good rhetorical trick! But quite valid too if we agree that ethics exist on a continuum. Bringing in the fascists does help if we work out how Singer differs from the Nazis and not dismiss his ethics because of the similarities.

I'll be thinking about this. Sorry, my head doesn't work very quickly lately!

The article that John linked to is full of great background material which will help in this discussion. Back later.

[John Self]

Newsnight at 10:30pm on BBC2 tonight is given over to a debate between pro- and anti-animal testing voices. Should be interesting, if ultimately unenlightening.

[kaninaki]

If you feel like summarising the pro and against arguments for us here, John, I'd be very thankful. That is, if you'll be watching it.

[John Self]

I'll try to, kaninaki, but you can also watch tonight's programme on this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm)link after it's been broadcast (ie tomorrow).

[John Self]

I did watch it, kaninaki, and as expected it wasn't terribly edifying. I'm not impartial on this issue of course, so it may be predictable that I thought the pro-testers made their case more strongly than the antis. That may have been because the main anti spokesman, Mel Broughton of SPEAK (http://www.speakcampaigns.org.uk/), just didn't really seem up to the debate, failing to answer questions directly and generally sounding unconvincing on the scientific issues. His main point there was 'oh, we're living in the 21st century, we can operate on a cellular level, there are all sorts of other methods we can use' without specifying what they are. On the ethical issues I thought he was worse still: so determined was he not to condone any harm to animals whatever, that he refused to say he would kill a malarial mosquito on his arm; failing to realise that this sort of thing makes him look not principled but irrational. Then again, I wouldn't kill a malarial mosquito on his arm either.

The pro-testers had the usual examples of therapies that have been derived from animal testing, specifically the deep brain stimulation procedure for Parkinson's disease which has produced frankly miraculous results in 40,000 to 50,000 sufferers, following research on around 150 primates. I think that effortlessly justifies itself.

The only thing that surprised me in the programme were the poll results which said that 58% of people thought animal testing was acceptable, where I thought the figure would be far higher than that.

Anyway, as I say, watch it on the link above and make up your own mind.

[CassieZoe]

To use this to protest against animal experimentation now in the UK, which is nothing like this, is self-defeating
John Self

How do you know current animal experimentation is nothing like the old photos? Could it be that there are no new photos because the experimenters got wise to people taking them?

On a more serious note, we pounce from issue to issue in this argument without anything more valid than our own gut feelings to guide us. The thought of anyone having to suffer for years while alternatives to animal experimentation are developed makes me as sick as the thought of any animal having to suffer (and die, don't forget, all experimental animals are killed when their usefulness to humankind is done) so that I can get a better headache pill. It's all a question of degree. Why can't we just stop experimenting on animals for anything except life-threatening diseases?

The best point to come out of the TV discussion was the economic one - that the animal experimenters get the money to do their experiments while those researching other methods get very little. The second-best point was that experimenting on a rat doesn't actually make any medicine safe for use in human beings. They still have to do experiments on humans, such as the very same ones that recently killed a couple of guys who had volunteered.

[Stace]

I would hazard that it depends on your particular brand of morality and whether you believe that man has the divine right to do whatever he pleases to the 'lower' creatures that also share our ecosystems

I use the word lower, because to use other animals in the ways mankind does indicates we don't particularly rate them as anything other than 'lower'

[John Self]

Why can't we just stop experimenting on animals for anything except life-threatening diseases?

Because a great many diseases that require urgent attention are not actually life-threatening, like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, or multiple sclerosis. The havoc they wreak on someone's ability to live well arguably causes more suffering than a premature death.

[CassieZoe]

Good point. But I still think they should get more money for developing non-animal experiments. I agree with you about Mel Brougham though - he didn't do his side any favours by being stubborn on the mosquito point. But nobody can win the animal experimentation argument, no matter how reasonable, because reason isn't the only thing involved. The revulsion I personally feel comes from elsewhere than in the brain. I think we have to recognise that neither side can ultimately stop the other either having or acting on their strong feelings. I think this point has already been made in the thread actually, so I'll shut up and go away.
Cheers!

[Stace]

Because a great many diseases that require urgent attention are not actually life-threatening, like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, or multiple sclerosis. The havoc they wreak on someone's ability to live well arguably causes more suffering than a premature death.

I'd be interested to hear how you would argue that Alzheimer's Disease is not a life-threatening syndrome?

[Hekaterine]

I'd be interested to hear how you would argue that Alzheimer's Disease is not a life-threatening syndrome?

I've always assumed Alzheimer's destroys your quality of life, but doesn't shorten it. I know this is your area Stace so would be interested to know more.

[Stace]

By it's very process it systematically destroys the brain (in its' basic terms) causing systemic failure of any number of biological processes.....including most crucially the immune system. Alzheimer's doesn't kill people. Failure of one or more of the body systems due to severe brain failure caused by Alzheimer's does. So in that regard I'd say it's eminently life-threatening

Plus, early-onset Alzheimer's disease usually advances particularly rapidly causing death on average within 10 years from the above mentioned process. If you consider early onset type can emerge in your early 50's, it can most certainly shorten your lifespan

[John Self]

I know this is your area Stace

I'm terribly sorry, I had no idea! Get well soon.

[HP]

Now that IS a sick joke ... shame on you, Mr Self!

[Hekaterine]

Go, on Stace, thump him! ;-)

[amner]

Should there be a line drawn, from the other side of which we cannot gain amusement?

[Hekaterine]

Is that a serious question Amner, or are you being sarcastic? There are various theories as to the use of humour, one of which being that we joke about things we would otherwise find too hard to bear.

I'm personally not in favour of offensive humour (and I recognise that 'offensive' may be in the eye of the beholder).

[Stace]

Was it humour? Or some territorial stamping and beating of the chest?

[amner]

Yes, it was a serious question.

I'm personally not in favour of offensive humour (and I recognise that 'offensive' may be in the eye of the beholder).

That's rather tautologous, isn't it?

[Hekaterine]

Fair enough.

That's rather tautologous, isn't it?

I don't think it is although, on re-reading, I think I may have spotted an oxymoron.