tr3x wrote:Oh well, so much for a debate. Complete agreement is boring, so let me play Devil's Advocate. Animal testing is based on two main concepts. 1) Human beings are superior to animals, and our lives are worth more. 2) As a result, we are free to use them as we see fit. Both these assumptions are questionable.Firstly, purely biologically, human beings are not more evolved than animals. The fact that they exist in the same time frame as we do tells us that. We have, however, evolved to be suited for different things. Human beings, for all our ingenuity with fire, technology and opposable thumbs are still weak, puny creatures compared to those that make up the rest of the animal kingdom. We are arrogant enough to think that our intelligence somehow elevates us to this special place, but put a human being in the middle of the Sahara desert, with no food, no water and no tools or clothes, and he will most likely die. Then do the same with a desert salamander. Now the obvious refutation to this is the survival of the fittest argument - humans, as the top carnivore have the natural right to use animals on lower trophic levels. The reason this argument falls is our intelligence, and our morality. Human beings are the only creatures on the planet to waste. We kill indiscriminately, in excess, to satisfy vague comforts that are by no means required for survival. Conversely, we have developed a sense of right and wrong, and ourselves judge this to be wrong. Thus our own morality dictates that we have no right to use these animals, especially since it does not hinge on our survival.A fundamental hypocrisy in the arguments above is that you would use animals as test subject only in certain situations, and not others. If you are willing to test on an animal at all, you necessarily consider its life of less value than the experiment it goes towards. In that case, why do we preach environmental conservation and biodiversity?
76,444 Literary Works • 383,969 Reviews