• KrankyKong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    6 months ago

    Do you participate in modern medicine? Do you have any vaccinations or taken any antibiotics? Animal testing makes it possible. What alternative do you propose?

      • KrankyKong@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        6 months ago

        I did, but let me be more explicit for you. Animal testing is necessary because it makes modern medicine possible.

        Now, if we outlaw animal testing, what alternative should we take? That’s three timese now. You haven’t been able to give an answer yet.

        • さようなら@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          6 months ago

          Maybe there currently aren’t alternatives specifically because they aren’t needed as in why develop alternatives when the status quo isn’t challenged and testing on animals is the norm?

          • Turun@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            No one likes animal trials, most of all the researchers themselves who work with the animals. For example researchers cannot take any vacation during the trial. In fact someone needs to be in the lab at least once a day, including Sundays and public holidays.

            Also animal trials are expensive.

            Research on alternatives is progressing. It’s not like there is a big conspiracy of sociopaths that get off on animal suffering and want to keep the status quo because of that. It’s simply really really really hard to simulate a body to the necessary level.

          • Screemu@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Meat eaters will never challenge the status quo.

            Edit: As usual, those friendly and loving fellas have nothing but downvotes. Keep on killing them!

        • 🦄🦄🦄@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          6 months ago

          That isn’t an answer to the question:

          Why would it be ok to test on non-human animals but not on humans?

          • KrankyKong@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            6 months ago

            Because humans are more valuable. If you had to choose between saving one human, and one hundred rats, which would you choose? We test on rats until we deem it safe and ethical enough to progress to testing on humans.

            • jerkface@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              That doesn’t make the lives of animals worthless. And they are treated as less than worthless.

              • KrankyKong@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                15
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                Can you answer the question, “If you had to choose between saving one human and one hundred rats,which would you choose?” The answer to your questions is related to this one.

                • 🦄🦄🦄@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  15
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  It’s not related because that choice is not what is happening. You don’t have one button that kills/saves rats and one that kills/saves a human.

                  What is happening is that we have deemed it morall ok to medically experiment on non-human animals but not on humans.

                  • KrankyKong@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    16
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    It’s absolutely related. Animal testing has indirectly saved countless lives. I think you’re refusing to answer because it doesn’t help your argument.

            • optissima@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              6 months ago

              We’re already trying to scale existing methods, which means we already have the technology, it’s just not cheaper than the subsidized meat industry.

              • lud@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                Meat‽

                Are you suggesting that we test vaccines on artificial hamburger meat?

                Making something that tastes like meat is WAY different from actually making a complete immune system, fully working organs and everything else you need to test vaccines. We basically need full clones.

                Also how can you harvest lab grown organs consensually? It’s not like they can talk…

                You could theoretically make lab grown organs in a millennium or something but doing it consensually doesn’t make any sense because you can’t do it with or without consent, because they would presumably not be sentient.