Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Retired Lab Chimps See The Sky For First Time

lab chimps chimp haven sanctuary keithville sky

  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#16    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,503 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 12 March 2013 - 07:16 PM

View PostEinsteinium, on 12 March 2013 - 04:28 PM, said:

Because we are the most intelligent and most advanced species. That is what gives us the right.

So Might makes right ? Thus, when a more intelligent and advanced species lands on Earth and starts harvesting humans for food and medical experiments, they will have the moral right to do so.

Quote

Your argument is a logical fallacy.

Actually, I didn't make any argument. I asked a question.

Quote

Other animals kill and destroy other animals all the time for food. Tremendous suffering is caused merely in the quest to sustain one's own life. We also do this, but we are advanced enough that we can do it in a much less painful way. We do not need to tear apart an animal with our teeth and let it bleed to death to get our food. We shoot it, spear it, cut its throat- a much less painful way to die by any measure.

Yes, obligate carnivores require meat to survive. Humans are not obligate carnivores, we do not need to consume animals.

Quote

So you are stating that animals including us, have the right to kill other animals for food- merely to sustain our own life, but we do not have the right to kill, cause suffering to other animals for- the same reason- to sustain our own life and well being using knowledge gained from animal research? Not only do we benefit from such research, but the animals (not the ones being experimented on) species also benefit by the increased knowledge that we have.

Ah yes, it's for the sake of the animals, how noble. Just like we have to cull wild animals for their benefit. What a crock.

Quote

Sure we can be a horrible species, killing and destroying, but do not degrade us for our curiosity, for our reach to make life better. This includes research on animals.

Little boys like to pull off the wings of insects and torture them, out of curiosity, much like Renee Descartes and other vivisectionists. Yes we certainly are a curious species.

Quote

And no, if you study medical history you will find that no, we would not know nearly as much as we know now if it were not for the research done on animals.

Perhaps if earlier humans did not adhere to superstitious beliefs (like religion) they would have been able to experiment on human bodies.

Quote

The world is a tough place, we are all fighting for survival, the world is not fair. Stop living in fantasy land and wake up.

Humans are fighting for survival? Really? Are humans on any endangered species list? None that I know of, quite the contrary.


"The effect of Cartesianism was to devastate earlier Christian traditions of kindness to animals. Descartes’s followers, the Port Royalists, ‘kicked about their dogs and dissected their cats without mercy, laughing at any compassion for them, and calling their screams the noise of breaking machinery’."    Linzey, A (2004) The Powers That Be: Mechanisms that Prevent us Recognising Animal Sentience.

Edited by redhen, 12 March 2013 - 07:16 PM.


#17    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 704 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012

Posted 12 March 2013 - 09:11 PM

View Postredhen, on 12 March 2013 - 07:16 PM, said:

So Might makes right ? Thus, when a more intelligent and advanced species lands on Earth and starts harvesting humans for food and medical experiments, they will have the moral right to do so.

No, might does not make right. That is not what I mean. I firmly believe that as self-aware beings we have a moral obligation to understand nature, and to understand ourselves. If we fail to do this, then it is only a matter of time before nature (plagues, disease, asteroid impact, etc.) takes us out. If we fail to understand our surroundings and our environment, including the environment within ourselves, then we are failing to use our intellect and are failing all of life on earth. So far as we know, we are the most intelligent and most capable beings that earthly life has thus far evolved. We have the possible capacity to understand nature, and to understand the universe. We alone of all species have the possibility of leaving earth one day and surviving beyond the eventual destruction of the earth. Therefore we may just be the eventual saviors of all life on earth (as ironic as that may seem because we are always depicted as wiping out life on earth). In fact, we are the best hope so far for the survival of earthly life after the inevitable destruction of the earth. But in order to colonize the stars, we will need vast knowledge that we only have begun to compile in the last 500 years or so (arguably) about the universe, and our own health if we are to survive in space. We have made mistakes, we have caused unnecessary suffering, but we must push onward. Using the knowledge we obtained in the past we hopefully will be able to find ways to gain knowledge without causing suffering to other beings here on earth. This should be a primary goal of ours. But we must also recognize that if not for animal experimentation in the past, we would not be where we are today, and we may never have learned some of the things we have learned that are necessary for our survival. When I say survival, I mean long -term, billions of years from now survival. I mean our survival as a life-form past the eventual destruction of the earth. We live by the grace of mother nature who could wipe us out in an instant with an asteroid strike. We do not know how much time we have. We must act and learn as much as quickly as we can- or suffer the consequences.


Quote

Actually, I didn't make any argument. I asked a question.

Good point. Sorry, I was speaking to those who are absolutely against animal testing for any reasons whatsoever.

Quote

Yes, obligate carnivores require meat to survive. Humans are not obligate carnivores, we do not need to consume animals.

Prevailing theories suggest that we only grew brains as large as we have, and thus gained our intelligence, because we ate meat, and because we cooked it-gaining more nutrition from it. We are omnivores, there is no disputing that. Perhaps one day, because of research, lots of animal research included, we will be able to grow tasty meat in a lab and not ever have to kill other creatures to harvest it. I hope that day is coming soon.

Quote

Ah yes, it's for the sake of the animals, how noble. Just like we have to cull wild animals for their benefit. What a crock.

It is for the sake of all life on earth. Did we evolve to create machinery and to question everything and desire to understand nature just because? Just so that we can live like the tribes of old, hunting and gathering until our eventual and certain demise? There is a lot to debate here. I am not advocating the unnecessary suffering of animals. But nature provides MANY more means to cause suffering than we do.

Quote

Little boys like to pull off the wings of insects and torture them, out of curiosity, much like Renee Descartes and other vivisectionists. Yes we certainly are a curious species.

What is your point? Are you trying to make little boys seem evil for what they do? Are you suggesting insects have sentience? We are a curious species. Are you denying your own innate curiosity? Are you denying that which makes you human and degrading yourself to the level of an animal? Renee Descartes and the other vivisectionists did terrible things to animals certainly. Things that we would never allow today. We have learned from that, we are a young species still trying to understand our world and our universe. But I think that the atrocities committed against other humans is ever more despicable. We have always KNOWN that other humans are sentient like us. It may be easy to pretend an animal is not, but to murder and torture other humans is an atrocity that requires evil, not just ignorance.

Quote

Perhaps if earlier humans did not adhere to superstitious beliefs (like religion) they would have been able to experiment on human bodies.

Indeed. And in fact experiments HAVE been done on humans, horrible experiments. Just look up some of what the NAZI's did to the jews in WW2 for medical experimentation. You think what we do to animals today is bad? We have come a LONG way, but we still have a long way to go admittedly. And it all depends on the belief. Just look at what was done in the name of Christianity during the crusades? Look at what the Romans did to their conquered enemies! It goes both ways.

Quote

Humans are fighting for survival? Really? Are humans on any endangered species list? None that I know of, quite the contrary.

We are fighting for survival, we always have been. You may not realize it but we currently are fighting battles that you may not know anything about. We constantly are battling disease, we only recently became aware of the imminent threat of asteroids. 99.9% of all species that have ever existed on earth have gone extinct. 60 million years ago the dinosaurs were the dominant type of animal. Almost all of them (except for the ones that evolved into birds) went extinct. Yet you fail to realize this? Things can change in the blink of an eye. Our very existence on this world, in this universe, is perilous. We have evolved to the point of being able to understand much, we MUST use this capacity to understand as much as we can, as quickly as we can, because nobody knows when a world altering event could occur that would quickly wipe us, and most everything else off the face of the planet. Rendering this debate about animal experimentation rather pointless don't you think?

Quote

"The effect of Cartesianism was to devastate earlier Christian traditions of kindness to animals. Descartes’s followers, the Port Royalists, ‘kicked about their dogs and dissected their cats without mercy, laughing at any compassion for them, and calling their screams the noise of breaking machinery’."    Linzey, A (2004) The Powers That Be: Mechanisms that Prevent us Recognising Animal Sentience.

Yes, sick things were done in the past to animals. Just like sick things were done to humans in the past. Sick things are being done right now, somewhere in the world. We must learn from the past, learn from our mistakes, and keep moving forward through this perilous journey of life. Buddhists also have a tradition of kindness to animals, so do Hindu's so do many cultures and religions. We need to keep this in mind, and as we learn more and better ways to learn and understand nature, we can phase out animal experimentation. Hopefully one day we can eliminate it altogether. Animal experimentation of today is much more humane (although admittedly not very humane yet) but more more humane than in the past. We are learning, we are becoming better. Hopefully we will stay on this path. But we cannot stop animal experimentation altogether. We need to test new drugs on animals before we give them to humans, new cancer treatments, understanding genetics. This is absolutely imperative. And yes I have put my money where my mouth is. I volunteered to be a guinea pig for science twice. The drugs were already tested and found to be safe for animals, so I volunteered to be next for testing. Thank God for science, it is the only thing that can save us from ourselves. Without it, we are doomed no matter what, unless aliens magically appear and save us all before some cataclysm, but you know, I would not count on it. I cannot begin to even thank the scientists and the animals that they used in the past enough. My father is alive today as a direct result of knowledge learned from animal testing. I am vaccinated safely from many horrible diseases courtesy of animals used in testing. Any future surgery I may have to get, or that my cute little kitty may have to get will be expertly executed because of knowledge learned from past animal testing.

You know? We should have a national holiday to honor the many poor animals that suffered and died in order for us to have this knowledge.


#18    Coffey

Coffey

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,670 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norwich UK

  • "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

Posted 12 March 2013 - 10:22 PM

View PostEinsteinium, on 12 March 2013 - 04:28 PM, said:

Because we are the most intelligent and most advanced species. That is what gives us the right.

No....

That does not give us the right, what it gives us is RESPONSIBILITY.

It is our gift and we should use it as a gift. Most people are not worthy of this gift, we take it for granted. Using our senses and evolved state to sit and watch trash TV etc. If we really used our intelligence and advanced bodies etc to look after this planet and our fellow Earthlings... We would then become something special, right now we are an evolved and successful virus. A deadly killing machine that is hellbent on destroying this planet.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

#19    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,503 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 12 March 2013 - 10:52 PM

View PostEinsteinium, on 12 March 2013 - 09:11 PM, said:

You know? We should have a national holiday to honor the many poor animals that suffered and died in order for us to have this knowledge.

Yes, these animals never get any credit in published papers.

From Joel Marks (2011). On Due Recognition of Animals

"I would like to see future research accompanied by this disclaimer: "No animals were harmed by the during the production of this knowledge."

There is so much unnecessary "work" done. Marks lists a few examples of research data, most don't acknowledge any kind of moral debt to these animals, but sometimes a crack shows;

"A grisly set of experiments with rats showed that total sleep deprivation will cause death in 3-4 weeks."  There's no free full copy of this paper in JAE,  I have a hard copy.

Anyways, I think we agree more than we differ on this issue.


#20    Queen in the North

Queen in the North

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,494 posts
  • Joined:04 May 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • We're more Ceefax people.

Posted 13 March 2013 - 12:06 AM

What is the alternative?

At the moment there are no approved alternatives for the use of animals in pre-clinical studies of drugs (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Would anyone rather we just gave these new compounds to humans? Didn't think so.

Posted Image

#21    Lava_Lady

Lava_Lady

    Official UM Asylum Resident

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,832 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Hawai'i

  • Wha? /:0\

Posted 13 March 2013 - 12:12 AM

It just kills me that they've never seen the sky before. But i'm  happy that they are free now and will be cared for.



If their expressions of wonder and amazement don't move you, you're probably a rock.

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."  - F. Scott Fitzgerald


#22    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 704 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012

Posted 13 March 2013 - 12:16 AM

View PostCoffey, on 12 March 2013 - 10:22 PM, said:

No....

That does not give us the right, what it gives us is RESPONSIBILITY.

It is our gift and we should use it as a gift. Most people are not worthy of this gift, we take it for granted. Using our senses and evolved state to sit and watch trash TV etc. If we really used our intelligence and advanced bodies etc to look after this planet and our fellow Earthlings... We would then become something special, right now we are an evolved and successful virus. A deadly killing machine that is hellbent on destroying this planet.

Yes, the responsibility to understand as much as we can, to use our intellect to understand nature and ourselves. You are right it does not give us the right, now that I read your post I would reword what i said to read that we have the responsibility to conduct experimentation and testing to further our knowledge.

I agree that most people may not be worthy of the intellectual gift given to them, then again most people do not seem to have much intellectual capacity anyways :P. I disagree that we are a virus, we are not, that is ridiculous. We are mammals, similar to apes. We have conflicts, we are selfish. All animals are like this. The only difference is the technology and the tools that we have that allow us to transform the planet. No other animal has this ability. You compare us to viruses, as though you know of some higher alien or animal that has conquered their base animal desires and instincts. I do not know of any such higher creature. So I have nothing to compare us to. Whether we destroy this planet or nature eventually does, its going to happen one way or another given enough time.

And speak for yourself I do not sit around wasting my intellect watching trash TV. I read a lot about a lot of things. I hunger for knowledge. I am an engineer and I design things that are ultimately used to help further our understanding of the universe and ourselves.


#23    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,503 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 13 March 2013 - 12:27 AM

View PostQueen in the North, on 13 March 2013 - 12:06 AM, said:

What is the alternative?

At the moment there are no approved alternatives for the use of animals in pre-clinical studies of drugs (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Would anyone rather we just gave these new compounds to humans? Didn't think so.

People volunteer all the time for non-approved drugs. A poster in this thread admitted to being a guinea pig. He's lucky. Just because a drug is safe for rabbits doesn't mean the same for humans.


#24    ciriuslea

ciriuslea

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 490 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • CHAMP20NS

Posted 13 March 2013 - 12:34 AM

I do understand the need for research but geez that's just fu*king sad, at least he did get to see the sky I suspect many don't

Edited by ciriuslea, 13 March 2013 - 12:35 AM.


#25    Queen in the North

Queen in the North

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,494 posts
  • Joined:04 May 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • We're more Ceefax people.

Posted 13 March 2013 - 01:05 AM

View Postredhen, on 13 March 2013 - 12:27 AM, said:

People volunteer all the time for non-approved drugs. A poster in this thread admitted to being a guinea pig. He's lucky. Just because a drug is safe for rabbits doesn't mean the same for humans.
You have to test drugs on animals before they are allowed to be tested in humans. That's the way it is. Non approved doesn't mean not tested on animals, it means it hasn't got marketing authorisation. People volunteer for clinical trials, yes, but by that point the drugs have been tested on animals many times - they have to be to get to the clinical trials stage.

Toxicity tests on animals actually do give us a good idea of how a drug will behave in humans. Not perfect, but pretty good.

Posted Image

#26    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,503 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 13 March 2013 - 02:39 AM

View PostQueen in the North, on 13 March 2013 - 01:05 AM, said:

Toxicity tests on animals actually do give us a good idea of how a drug will behave in humans. Not perfect, but pretty good.

It's not even pretty good. Toxicity tests are less than useful, with the LD50 test  being abolished in more enlightened countries.  The Draize testis also unreliable.

"toxicologists Carrol Weil and Robert Scala of Carnegie Mellon University distributed three test substances for comparative analysis to 24 different university and state laboratories. The laboratories returned significantly different evaluations, from non-irritating to severely irritating, for the same substances."



"Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is 'Because the animals are like us.' Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are not like us.' Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction."
   -- Professor Charles R. Magel (1980)


#27    Erowin

Erowin

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 389 posts
  • Joined:03 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Seattle

  • This is incredibly silly!

Posted 13 March 2013 - 02:54 AM

I don't believe its ethically wrong to rank animals in importance. I feel that human lives are more important than that of a lizard, monkey or any other animal.
However, I believe monkeys are more important than mice, rabbits, etc. Monkeys do have levels of self-awareness, and I wish they wouldn't use them in testing... however, if they need to test medical procedures on other animals I'm all for it. Its sad, but human lives come first. As awful as that video was, a little girl dying of a rare cancer and leaving a family destroyed with grief is worse to me.

I love animals and can't stand abuse of any kind, I hate testing cosmetics on animals. But when it comes to medicine, its just too important not too.


#28    Queen in the North

Queen in the North

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,494 posts
  • Joined:04 May 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • We're more Ceefax people.

Posted 13 March 2013 - 05:09 AM

View Postredhen, on 13 March 2013 - 02:39 AM, said:

It's not even pretty good. Toxicity tests are less than useful, with the LD50 test  being abolished in more enlightened countries.  The Draize testis also unreliable.

"toxicologists Carrol Weil and Robert Scala of Carnegie Mellon University distributed three test substances for comparative analysis to 24 different university and state laboratories. The laboratories returned significantly different evaluations, from non-irritating to severely irritating, for the same substances."



"Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is 'Because the animals are like us.' Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are not like us.' Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction."
   -- Professor Charles R. Magel (1980)
There are many other aspects than LD50 and Draize. Okay then, so let's not bother with pharmacokinetic studies before using drugs in humans. That way we have no idea whether it breaks down into active metabolites, toxic metabolites, or inactive. Or let's not bother with reproductive toxiticty studies, that way we won't know if what we've got is teratogenic,causing birth defects.

I don't WANT animals to be tested on, but until someone gives me a list of suitable alternatives to all preclinical studies necessary for a drug to successfully get for a clinical trials application, that's the way it's going to stay unfortunately. There are some alternatives, such as the chicken eye test (ICE) where abbattoir leftovers are used to test for irritants. However, I'm sure you can see that's less useful, as live animals still have to be used to confirm negative results, because dead eyes are even less close to live human eyes than live animal eyes. Similarly, there's the Ames test, which uses bacteria, which again, while it has its uses, uses organisms less similar to us than the creatures you're saying shouldn't be used because they aren't the same as us.

Posted Image

#29    Grey14

Grey14

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 765 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Heart of America

Posted 13 March 2013 - 12:52 PM

View Postredhen, on 13 March 2013 - 12:27 AM, said:

People volunteer all the time for non-approved drugs. A poster in this thread admitted to being a guinea pig. He's lucky. Just because a drug is safe for rabbits doesn't mean the same for humans.

You do know that many of the specialized medical branches were able to be developed thruogh the use of Animals. Take heart surgery for instance. Many of the procedures done today that save thousands if not millions of lives a year were developed using animals first. I do not know of very many people that would volunteer to have thier heart experimented on.

"The only thing Needed for the Truimph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

#30    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,503 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 13 March 2013 - 02:37 PM

Ok, granted, medical research can be argued for. But cosmetics and household product toxicity tests? The results of these tests vary widely and they really are unnecessary.  Trust me, if you spray oven cleaner or nail polish remover in your eye, it's gonna hurt. Do we really need to subject rabbits to these tests?

Actually it's rats and mice that bear the brunt of most laboratory horrors. In the U.S. animal cruelty laws take into account a sentient beings inherent interest in continuing to exist. So, to get around this morality rats and mice are conveniently not classified as animals.

From the Animal Welfare Act:

"(g) The term “animal” means any live or dead dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or such other warm-blooded animal, as the Secretary may determine is being used, or is intended for use, for research, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet; but such term excludes (1) birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, bred for use in research,"

Pretty neat trick eh? They're not animals, they're models. What sophistry!





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users