Well, I started reading this message the other day as there are many thoughts that I had to wade through. Some of it I understand, some of it I think is a bit idealistic and a lot of it is simply opinion so there isn't much I can say about that. So, here are my thoughts.
In my point of view, humanity is a disease on the face of the earth. But all being said I am a part of the disease. Humanity is evil, but people are nice, humanity is self destructive and seems single minded in its self destruction.
I guess I don't understand what distinguishes 'humanity' from 'people'. Could you please elaborate on what you perceive differs humanity from people? Seems I'm the only one in this forum who doesn't quite understand all of your post, so bear with me. LOL
The world, animals, never asked for chemical warfare, toxic polution and neuclear generators.
I don't think many people asked for chemical warfare or toxic pollution, either. In fact, most of the people I associate with are against both. However, since both are man-made (it certainly wasn't conceived of by a giraffe), does not make the whole of mankind evil. As for nuclear generators, they have their postive uses and negative. So does fire. I think what's important is how nuclear energy is used.
Disaster after disaster humanity doesnt seem to learn.
In what way does humanity remain ignorant? Is it because we still make mistakes? Because we still make errors in logic and technology that sometimes lead to death and destruction? News flash: Life is fatal. There are no guarantees and tomorrow is promised to no one.
It's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback (a term we use in the United States to point out the errors that players and coaches made during the previous' days ballgame). We [humankind] may never get this thing we called 'life' right. But does that make us, as a species, unlearned? What about all those people who strive to make life a better place for the generations to come after us? And part of making life better for our children will involve making choices that perhaps we will look back on 50 years from now and say, "well, perhaps we didn't think this idea all the way through, but we did the best we could at the time with the information we had."
We teach our children its ok to cut up living frogs in science class, millions of living frogs across the world day after day.
Not all of us teach our children that it's okay to cut up living animals. I believe many children are taught (at least in the US) that they have a choice of whether they participate in dissecting frogs, cats, etc. or not to.
Animals were on this world long before humans, yet because we can "think" we deem ourselves superior. We all die, human, animal, vegetable, but what dignity do we have while we are alive? What quality of life do we have? Do we humans as the superior life form have the right to remove all quality of life from the animals we breed for our own use?
I don't know where it is you live or what kind of culture you're exposed to but the majority of people where I live do not go out of their way to make lives miserable for animals. We're too busy working, raising our families, making our communities better and safe for residents. Many of us are too exhausted at the end of the day to purposely abuse or harm animals.
City planners and real estate developers work under the eyes of many watch-dog agencies. Because of EPA regluations and vast public awareness, they must take the community's ecosystem into account before any construction or destruction takes place. Things aren't done 'willy nilly' the way you make it sound. There may have been a time when no thought was given to the flora and fauna of a development area, but these days, you have to have a permit or license (I'm not kidding - at least this is true in my town) to put a post in the ground, chop down a tree, or, in some cases, even dig a hole.
The difference between humans and animals is that we have a choice, we are aware of this yet instead of seeing this as a responsibility, we use it to make us feel justified in the tortures that we condone on lower life forms. Animal testing may be a necessity but repeating the same tests hundreds of times all over the world year after year when we know the result is depraved. People see animals as objects, possessions rather than creatures that live and feel.
You're absolutely correct about the difference between humans and animals. We have the ability to reason. But I don't think all animal testing is performed because of our feeling 'superior'. It's done because it's practical and necessary. You would not be here today were it not for animal testing. Look at the many diseases, plagues and illnesses that come from animals. Bubonic plague ring the bell for anyone? Okay, that's an old one. Let's take a newer one: Lyme's disease. In Pennsylvania PETA protested so vociferously against making it illegal to hunt deer in one particular area. A few seasons passed and mother nature did her thing and the deer population grew and grew and grew and as it grew, so did the deer ticks. When the ticks came, the kids playing in the woods got sick. Hikers came down with bad cases of Lyme's disease (so did those kids). Where was PETA then? Okay, so this has nothing to do with animal testing (or does it?). I think my point is where on the food chain do we stop? What size does the 'lower animal' form have to be before it is considered permissible to 'test' or is considered a non-animal? What purpose does it have/not have to serve before it is labeled 'protected'. I'm talking about germs, bacteria, fleas, fruit flies, etc. (Hey, they are living organisms).
Ive seen the dark side of humans, the sick depraved abuse of innocent children by parents for self gratification, Ive seen self destructive behavior ending in insanity and death. Ive had to face the degradation of my own childhood, loss of innocence, Iv'e seen the dark part of my own soul and nearly ended my life in despair.
You're not alone in seeing the dark side of humanity. The dark side is part of our nature and it will always be part of our nature. But this doesn't have anything to do with animal testing. And, on a personal note, I'm sorry to hear about the degradation and abuse you suffered as a child. That's unconscionable. But yet, you were able to overcome it and become an intelligent, caring individual. That is to be commended.
Yet everyday you see signs of hope, people organising to reduce, even stop the suffering of animals, slowing down the destruction we as a race produce. I volunteer for the Cat Haven, I take in unwanted and dumped cats and kittens and hold them until the Haven picks them up and cares for them, try to find them a new home. Many animals are surrendered to me because the animal doesnt fit into their lifestyle anymore. A female cat with kittens are brought to me because people thought that allowing the cat to have them was a growing experience for the children, and it would make the cat a better cat.
That's also an awesome contribution you provide to your community and to those cats. However, I think we've (society) come a long way in laboratory testing of animals. Public awareness has made a huge impact on how animals are euthanized. Years ago they were shot, drowned, gutted..., horrible, horrible ways to die. Today, it's much different. Chickens are bred specifically for the purpose of eating, as are bovine and some fish. Rats and mice are bred for the specific purpose of testing. I'll admit, I wish there was another way, but I'm a realist. For now it's a necessary step in the evolution of society.
Thirteen thousand cats go through the Cat Haven every year in West Australia, thats not counting the ones dumped in the bush, surrendered to other animal welfare organisations and veterinarians. A lot of despair when you are witness to it, yet I see people who barely have enough money to live, spend hundreds on their pets medical fees, spend money on strays, feed them and have them sterilized. I know a pensioner who for years has taken in small old dogs, loves them, feeds, them and gives them veterinarian care, only for them to die a few months down the track of old age.
You can't be saying that people who take in strays are morally superior to those who work in laboratories trying to cure diseases (I'm talking about labs that perform animal testing). What about those men and women who fervently believe that the cure for cancer, diabetes, arthritis [fill-in-the blank] lies just around the corner and that cure can be found in animal testing. Those men and women are just as important and no less vital than the elderly pensioner who dedicated his last days taking care of animals.
But getting back to the subject matter, computer games are fun, we can kill, maim and destroy without hurting anything, we can be evil or good and it doesnt affect anyone. Yet computer games (same as books/movies) must have a semblance of the real world, give us something to relate to. So it must be inevitable that many contovesial subjects are brought up and dealt with in the environs of the computer world, its what keeps them intersting. As a consumer we should take these subjects as part of the whole, a piece of fiction. We can deal with the issues however we like, after all the whole subject I believe, wether its anti-animal testing, the right of a self destructive life style, or animal rights or moral sublimal messages in CRPG's is the fact of choice. It's what we as individuals do with that choice is what matters.
Well said and that's a point I agree with. It's all about choice.
Actor Larry Hagman had a lung transplant, being an alcoholic he continued drinking and destoyed the new lung, now dying he has said that if he was offered another lung he would refuse, he had chosen to live his life the way he has, had a second chance and thrown that away, it wouldnt be right to take another lung. Others might not agree with him, but it is his choice.
Larry Hagman had a lung transplant due to cigarette smoke - not alcoholism. And as far as I know, he does not smoke any longer. He's done a lot of public service announcements here in the US against smoking. I didn't know he needed a 2nd lung transplant.
We all have been taught right from wrong,
This is not necessarily true. And not everyone holds the same moral values. Not everyone or every culture's ethics are the same. That's called diversity and as humans we have every right to be as different from one another because it is our inherent nature to be so. There are many neighborhoods here in the US where kids are not taught 'right from wrong'. They fall into bad situations out of ignorance [and I don't mean 'ignorance' in the derogatory sense. I mean that they literally do not know that another choice exists]. Not everyone has had a quality upbringing or even had a decent education that others have had.
..we have a choice to act on our moral values, if we see an injustice we can choose to act on it, animal testing is one of these subjects, if we wish to change something, us as individuals can act as a group and change things, it's called progress and doesnt always have to be bad. At least animal testing can be addressed, many social human injustices are not so easily dealt with. Someoneonce once said "you can judge a society by how they treat their animals" and with that I dont want to look any deeper at how we treat each other. Sorry if this became a soapbox subject, but I've been following this thread for a while.
And here is where the quagmire gets even murkier. Moral values differ from individual to individual. I don't think animal testing is morally wrong. I think it's morally indifferent. It's a laboratory test.
It was Mahatma Ghandi who said "You can judge a society by how it treats its animals." When asked his opinion on Western Civilization he also said, "I think it's a good idea." Ghandi was a profound leader. A man whom I admire. But I don't think that western or modern culture is quite as barbaric as you make it out to be. Yes, there is room for improvement. But on the whole, I think people are inherently good.
Faralas <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mage.gif" alt="" /> (steps off her soap box)
