Quick jump to: Who would you save?
Quick jump to comments
Talking about Antispecism, it is unavoidable to tell something about this atrocious theme.
Naturally, for all non-specist people, the experimentation on animals, to any purpose, is the worst CRIME the Homo Sapiens may commit towards the other species. The animal experimentation, as well the killing of billions of animals for feeding use, is the best example for the sociopathy of the Human specie.
I will not use space here writing about the scientific debate, about the real utility of these experiments and of vivisection. In internet you can find plenty of interesting material about these concerns.
I quote here only this article: “50 disasters of the animal testing“
The other big weak point of the animal experimentation is that the result of the experiments can be biased in the desired direction, simply choosing the suitable animal specie for the test. Especially the toxicity tests about chemical substances, food additives, cosmetics’ ingredients and even drugs are done in such way. Every day thousands of animals die under atrocious sufferings being fed with large amounts of these chemical substances. Amounts that in proportion, you will never ingest in your daily life.
Tests on animals are an atrocious crime as well the experiments done by the nazists on humans in the concentration fields were. It was just another specie. And toxicity tests on animals are basically useless, since the same substance can be toxic for a specie and harmless for another. Anyway useless or not, it is not the point. It is only an important detail to know.
I save you the shock to see a sample of horrible images or videos about what some people do to living animals in laboratories, everyday, even in the civil Europe, legally. Sensible people would be traumatized for years.
I say only that I would jail all these paid criminals, for the whole rest of their life without exceptions.
For the non-specist people, the main concern is not the utility or inutility of the animal experimentation. Any kind of harmful or painful experimentation is NOT accepted, as well it would not be accepted to be done on humans!
It doesn’t matter if it would cost a slower progress of the medical cares. Surely there would be more deaths due to the missing of ready drugs, but there would be less deaths due to misleading results coming from tests on animals. (See something in the document linked above)
If a drug is destined to humans, it is more than fair and scientifically proper that it is tested exclusively on consenting humans. Of course with all the possible precautions in the initial phase. But in no case making sick thousands or millions of animals and killing them. As well as it would not be accepted to be done on humans.
The progress of medical cares might be slower in certain sectors, but faster in others.
For me personally, yes, I prefer to live a shorter life, rather than let that thousands of mice are killed to test a drug right for me. I would feel myself bad for the rest of my life. For me there is no dilemma.
The question is not about to chose between us and them. I chose to save both in the same way.
Anyway, the more modern research methods with cell cultures and simulations with super computers are the right way to speed the medical research, without unnecessary deaths. I don’t care at all if this way costs more money.
The Dilemma about “Who would you save?”
A very common question of the specist people is:
“If you have to choose between an animal and a person, who would you save?“
Well guys, it may sound crazy, but for a non-specist people, like me, the answer is not automatically “The person”.
I don’t discriminate between species, as well not between races. My answer is:
“It depends on the person and it depends on the animal“
– If the person is an idiot or a jerk, like there are many, I save the animal. The world will not miss that person.
– If the animal is pretty old I would save the person, because the person has a longer part of life before him/her. But if the person is an idiot or jerky child, I save the animal. The world will not miss that person anyway.
– Between an insect and a person I would save the person, because insects have anyway a very short life and they are subjected very easily to accidental death also in nature.
And so on…
The concept is that it is not automatic, that a person deserves more to live than an animal.
Of course, in the reality I would save always the person, because in our specist loyal system, I would be sentenced to jail…
Finally, to the typical childish reaction of a specist interlocutor which answers with:
“Oh really?! OK, then if I will have to choose between you and an animal, I will save the animal!”
I reply to him:”I would have had just bad luck, to have encountered right you”.
The Great Leonardo Da Vinci, already in the Middle Ages times told:
…and that:
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) in more recent times told:
