Animal Rights Activists: paragons or menaces to society?

[Angel]

Ok, so I'm wondering what you guys think of animal rights activists. By this I mean the sort who (often aggressively) lobby for no animal testing for medications, no scientific research etc - not make-up or perfume, but stuff that directly affects the quality of human life.

Basically, a number of major airlines and ferry companies have, due to heavy pressure from activists on various social media sites and the concurrent hijacking of digital means of communications, stopped importing animals (rats, mice and rabbits only) which are specifically modified to display the human-like effects of certain serious and incurable diseases. To protect their own staff from possible violence or other retaliation, these companies have complied with the demands of the activists and are no longer bringing these animals into the UK. Activists are calling it a victory but the scientific community are concerned about the potential harm this can cause if they cannot continue their research.

I have my own views which I may or may not post later but for now, what are your thoughts? Are you an activist yourself? If so, for what reasons? If you're not an activist, why? Do you think they are right or wrong in preventing scientists from conducting medical research into things like cancer, AIDS, motor neuron disease, diabetes, Alzheimers etc? Do you believe that animals deserve the same rights as humans or perhaps even more rights?

Just want to reiterate - I'm not talking about the fur trade, bizarre "health" foods involving endangered species, vanity products or the like. I mean specifically medical research.

 

[V]

As with everything, I think there should be common-sense and an accommodation of ethics.

We don't need to strap chimps into restraints and force them to smoke 60 cigarettes a day, being that we know chimps are not so different from us, have emotions, thoughts and language of their own. It's not right that they be put through such things just so that people can please themselves with a cigarette and feel slightly better or worse about dying early because of it. Animal testing for non-essential things like perfumes, cigarettes and so on, I do not agree with. I find it disgusting, in fact.

For medicines and substances essential for hygiene and saving people in large numbers from preventable death, then yes. Antibiotics, cutting edge operations, antiseptics, soaps, contraceptives, and so on. I would not want to be a guinea pig for a drug myself, I admit, but if it saves many lives then using an animal to further our *useful* knowledge I don't object to. When I say useful I do mean within reason. Not like any daft experiments on dogs by cutting off their heads to see if they can re-animate the dog afterwards (graphic warning on this one, although it is an old video and appears to be real, I don't know, it does appear to show a dog reanimating without its body), or transplanting monkey's heads. Realistically, if the application of such things could lead to re-animating freshly dead or decapitated or spinally injured people, then I do not think it's worth it, since the research shows that the animal is severely handicapped and damaged afterwards. Would it be worth reanimating a person so that they can live paralyzed or as a vegetable? I find the reasons into the research such as "combating brain damage" and neural understanding to be noble enough, but such experiments seem quite blunt and frankly unnecessary. I hear the latter was an experiment conducted in the last few years in an attempt to see if spinal injuries can be repaired. But how many people worldwide literally have their spine severed yet are lucky enough not to have died, and need it reattached? Probably not that many. Would lopping the heads off countless monkeys really justify a few people who would then be able to blink?

More applicable would be an experiment where a monkey is given a certain type of brain damage and then the researchers attempt to find ways to administer recovery therapy or observe improvements or decline in the condition - which I'm sure they're doing already so that brain-damaged people may one day have hope of recovery. But still, I find it a highly distasteful topic... I know I might readily take the cure that comes from all these animal deaths, but would I be willing to do the tests on the animal? No, I wouldn't.

Sadly, this is how people have to learn things about the brain and body (some of the earliest 'modern' and illuminating experiments on brain damage were conducted on human prisoners by Nazis) so there is always going to be an unpleasant element in that you are going to have to destroy a brain or body to find out how it works, or what it can cope with. But I DO agree that human life is much better now than it was 200 years ago with people dying from vaccinatable diseases, without cures, without proper hygiene products, etc. as a result of animal testing. So I say there should be compromise. No wanton testing, no ridiculous experiments "just because we can" or "let's see what happens if we chop this off", and no continued testing for products we already know are bad for human beings, or products that human beings consider luxuries and that are harmful anyway. Or for dubious 'improvements' in commerical products - I heard that Iams pet food for example, dissected various cats and dogs to see the effects of their food on the animals. Surely that is *not* necessary! We already know what cats and dogs can safely eat from long term human experience, we do *not* need to make them suffer to 'know more'.

I am not an activist because frankly I do not think we live in a proper democracy in which activism and protest is paid the proper attention to. I would be wasting my time because we live in a plutocracy, in which the richest corporations have the loudest voice and influence our politicians more than the electorate do... and since many of the animal testers are corporations, there isn't much chance my voice, or even a million voices in a picketing protest will make a difference. What *will* make a difference is raising awareness of what corporations do to consumers who buy from them. Boycotting Iams, for example. That's the only way you can hurt a corporation now, by witholding your money from them. Blowing up a few research facilities will achieve nothing, as those corporations have the money to set up two more where every one gets shut down.

 

[Angel]

If anyone here is an activist - at what point do you draw the line (if at all) when it concerns your own well-being, or that of the people you know?

I mean, do you only accept medication that has NOT been tested on animals? Would you refuse a procedure because an animal had to undergo it first before it was considered acceptable for human use? How about if you were to develop a life-threatening illness or something debilitating - would you refuse medical care that was in any way, shape or form involving the use of animals in creating it safely for humans? How would you even find out if your medicinal care was tested on animals in the first place? Would you even go as far as to refuse EVERY form of treatment that HISTORICALLY has used animals in its production and testing?

As an activist, do you believe you have the right to prevent ALL ill people from getting a cure for their condition because of how YOU feel about the issue? And if you do take medications that have been tested on animals, does that make you a hypocrite, do you think? If the only cure for cancer or dementia were to come from animal testing (not saying that's the case, but if it were) would you still stand by your principles, knowing that it could condemn many?

 

[V]

I just want to say, although I'm not an activist, that I agree with saving people from awful diseases who have the chance of living a healthy and fulfilling life after, but I do not think we should try to beat death itself and extend the human lifespan to 200 years or something, just 'because'.

 

[Angel]

I just want to say, although I'm not an activist, that I agree with saving people from awful diseases who have the chance of living a healthy and fulfilling life after, but I do not think we should try to beat death itself and extend the human lifespan to 200 years or something, just 'because'.

I'd agree with that - although when I hit 80, I might change my mind

It's why they won't necessarily offer operations to those over a certain age - because it's simply not viable in the long-term and the surgery could be better served with a younger person who has more chance of living a longer life and/or needs the mobility (such as certain arthritic surgeries). There has to be balance, after all.

 

[V]

There does... I mean, if people want to live longer and longer, then we have to stop having as large families. We can't have both I guess.

A lot of people's attitudes to people dying of diseases now though is as if the hospital or doctor got it wrong if the person dies. As if death is an accident or a misconduct. Sometimes there really are accidents or misconducts, and people die when they had a very good chance of survival for various reasons like human error, but are people really so disconnected from the idea that we are all going to die someday that it's an outrage if someone does?

 

[Angelo Credo]

I'm a man of science, ergo I start taking issue when people start getting in the way of what could be real, scientific progress.
On the other hand, I also believe that some degrees of animal testing and experimentation is just truly unnecessary.

I think there's a fine balance that needs to be maintained where animal testing is concerned. I don't think the scientific community can afford to be rid of animal testing entirely, because like it or not, a human life has more intrinsic value than that of an animal (this is in regards to what roles they can fulfil, what they can accomplish, what value in general they can potentially bring to the world etc) and while it's certainly unfortunate that animals can, and do die during these tests, I'd much these experiments be carried out on animals in order to eliminate risk to humans.

I don't know, animal activists bother me in some ways, what they're doing is not only effectively hindering medical advances towards potentially curing things like cancer, AIDS, Alzheimers and other frankly horrific diseases, they're also basically putting forward the notion of "Yes, we'd rather have fellow human beings undergo the risk of pain, suffering and death in order to save animals specifically bred for the purpose."

In fact, that's the other thing that bothers me about it. What exactly in the hell do they plan to do with these animals anyway? It's not like they can be freed into the wild because they have no practical experience in fending for themselves, so they'll die faster because they're weaker. If not releasing into the wild, then they keep them in captivity for the remainder of their lives? That's still equally cruel, with no family so to speak, the animals are then still forced into a lifetime of isolation and loneliness, a fact that provably shatters the minds of certain animals and drives them insane.

It's a nasty scenario, experimental testing may be cruel, but when you consider that the animals are explicitly bred for the purpose, therefore they have developed precisely no natural animal behaviour, any other alternative is still equally as cruel.

Oh yeah, and on another note Angel, where you've mentioned companies complying with demands of activist groups to prevent risk of danger and/or harm coming to their staff, that's when I start viewing activist groups and nothing more than scummy, petty terrorists. When you start threatening people if your demands aren't met, that's exactly what you become, your cause is then worth precisely zero respect, and those people outright deserve the hate they get for that.

 

[V]

True enough, if you blow up a facility or try to set all the animals free, the animals would be dead within days no doubt, unless the activists themselves planned on looking after them. If the facility was ruined, the company owning it would either have to move the animals to another facility with room, or - more likely, for insurance purposes, would simply put them all down anyway. Unless you directly planned on stealing all the animals away and caring for them, 99% of them would probably end up dead in no time.

It's a very unrealistic approach to solving the problem. Reminds me of a person I spoke with once who said that they thought all pets and all farm animals should be freed. And I said how long did they think all those animals would last before they became considered vermin and were exterminated, or ate each other, or otherwise upset the natural ecosystem they escaped into more than humans already have. Pets and farm animals have their own niche within a human managed ecosystem, but outside of it, they probably wouldn't last five minutes. And the human 'management' of the natural world is expanding every day making smaller and smaller places for animals to live without human influence. You could try convincing people not to spread, instead... and I'm sure that wouldn't even be listened to.

 

[mrrandomlulz]

On most ground I would be a troll, however when it comes down to topics like these I can be quite serious, prepare to see the boring side of me. You have been warned

As an avid hunter, I would agree with most activist on alot of ground, I hate when animals are tested on for fashion purposes in stuff, the ones that count as terrorist however I do not see as "Activist" at all, groups like PETA are just publicity whores, wh could forget them trying to get Ben and Jerry's to switch to human breast milk, or their infamous pornography, and who could forget the famous "PETA Superbowl ad Incident" in which PETA tried to get a pornographic ad into the Superbowl stating vegans make better lovers. PETA are actually some of the biggest hypocrites, and most activist outside of PETA hate them. The reason? This is why. This is all the evidence that PETA is evil.
Did you get the part where they called a firebomber a "Fine young man"
Did you get the part that the majority of the video has rock solid evidence against them?
Did you notice how they use none of the millions of dollars they make to help animals?
Yeah, that is all TRUE!
I find it ridiculously stupid.

 

[Richtofen]

I'm not an activist and I'm not for animal testing for fashion purposes. I think it's more of finding a "balance" as everyone has stated. Some sacrifices have to be made, although the animals have no choice in the matter if they are bred for that purpose, it's like picking the lesser evil. (Unless you were a willing human to dedicate your life to medicine even though you know your life is at stake) I hate to see animals being treated this way but we'd have no advancement in modern medicine, as long as it is for ethical reasons and not "just because" I can agree to it, that's where I draw the line.