Forums → WEPR → Animal Rights: How far is too far?

I believe it depends what you are testing. Some things cause lots of pain and harm to the animal, where as other products don't cause any pain.

I guess it does have to do with intelligence, if a few animals who have little impact on the world die or are "traumatized" then it's no big deal. I mean those cures gotten from animal testing could really make a difference. They're looking at crocodiles or alligators (whatever) for cures to AIDS because crocodiles or whatever have been around for billions of years so they must have some sort of way to block out diseases. Those cures can save thousands, possibly millions of lives. Killing maybe 100 or so canaries is definatly worth the lives of thousands of humans.

But we aren't killing them all... we're killing the 10-15 that wander into our houses each year. There are BILLIONS in the whole world. And they get born in hundreds. So 100-15 or so = 75 and then they all had kids so thats 7500 mosquitoes... there will be plenty of food for the little froggies.

Every animal has an impact on the world. Let's take our friend, the mosquito. We kill them all. That means all the frogs and other animals that eat mosquitoes will die out. The animals that eat the frogs will die out. Then, it affects the humans who eat those animals being affected.

Every animal has an impact on the world. Let's take our friend, the mosquito. We kill them all. That means all the frogs and other animals that eat mosquitoes will die out. The animals that eat the frogs will die out. Then, it affects the humans who eat those animals being affected.

Despite its alleged relevance, all arguments that wish to use intelligence as a categorical distinction for animal (creature) rights are on some kind of slippery slope: the slippery slope of variance.

First, rights are granted and there are many levels of distinction between no rights, consideration of some rights, having rights, and acting with impunity as anthropocentrism has humans doing.

Second, there are 'multiple types' of intelligence and these are developed to different extents between and within species.

So from all the above, when I see discussion of intelligence as an indication of how much in terms of 'rights' we ought to be granting, what I see is that we're essentially being influenced by the extent of our emphatic capacity to each animal, or judgements on how closely said animal's capacity for considering the import of pain matches ours.

But we aren't killing them all... we're killing the 10-15 that wander into our houses each year. There are BILLIONS in the whole world. And they get born in hundreds. So 100-15 or so = 75 and then they all had kids so thats 7500 mosquitoes... there will be plenty of food for the little froggies.

In theory, yes. In execution, next to impossible. The food chain is a fickle one, but not that fragile. Not all things that are tested on animals are deadly or harmful. Makeup shouldn't kill a rat or whatever.

msterxanos is just pointless.

he makes weird comments...

@asherlee

i meant monkey have no obligationp for us means that,they dun owe anything to us do they?

like the aliens theory,what if they landed on earth and said they need 100 of us to research on to save millions of their species?

unless the monkeys owe something to us , we may have the right to research on them.