Is Human Life of Greater Value Than That of Other Species?

[Revoltingest]

Do you please a greater value on human life that the life of another species?

If so, why?

Yes....except for Ferengi, Klingons, etc.
More valulable than cows, chickens, pre-bacon (pigs), lions, etc.
Why?
Just general consensus & usefulness.

 

[Left Coast]

I don't have a problem with eating a plant because I can do so without kiling it.

Do you only eat plants that are not killed in the process of harvesting them for food?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Don't get me started.

This thread was inspired by a post in your scum thread, actually.

 

[Secret Chief]

This thread was inspired by a post in your scum thread, actually.

I feared as much. Anyway, my answer is probably obvious.

 

[Quintessence]

99% of all organisms that has lived on this earth have gone extinct. Extinction of species is a natural phenomenon through the process of natural selection. How do you prioritize which species are meant to become extinct and which are not?

I was once pursuing a career path where I would have been responsible for managing such difficult questions. Made study of conservation biology, and the other disciplines that are relevant for it, including philosophy (environmental ethics in particular). Conservation biology is an interesting field because while it is grounded in scientific research, it cannot and does not limit itself to that. At some point, you have to take your research findings and create policy.

Ecological research is messy and complicated as far as research goes. But even that pales in comparison to the utter mess of dealing with politics and policymaking. At the end of the day, it's dealing with all the stakeholders that ends up calling the shots, not your science or your research. If you're lucky, you're in a place where stakeholders let you do management based on the science without much fuss. And if you're really lucky you actually have the budget to enact best practices for a long period of time, because these efforts are not short term projects. They take decades, and today these projects are often less about individual species than entire ecosystems and landscapes. They have to be - we're in a sixth mass extinction that is impoverishing biodiversity at ecosystem and landscape scales. No, more than that - at the planetary scale; this is happening worldwide.

And humans caused this.

I'm hardly one to shy away from embracing death as part of the Great Cycle. My background as a scientist, and as a Pagan and Druid, isn't about denying the reality of extinction cycles, geologic time, and eternal change (aka, nothing lasts forever). But the fact that humans caused this does not sit all right with me. Humans are responsible for planetary scale ecological genocides. I'm just not okay with that. I am not okay with that being the legacy of my species, even if it is a foregone conclusion now.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Do you only eat plants that are not killed in the process of harvesting them for food?

I’m not going to say that no plants I eat are killed in the process. There are annuals that naturally die after the harvest season.

That said, I tend to eat plants whose fruits are harvested and avoid those that are killed in the process of harvest. Much of my diet is legume and grain-based.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Do you please a greater value on human life that the life of another species?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

I don't think we are of greater value, it's just that we have higher intellect, which means we have a greater responsibility to take care of the world and all of its inhabitants. Whenever we operate to focus on a smaller group, it causes strife. We should try to benefit all of the world.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Do you please a greater value on human life that the life of another species?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

Generally yes: I eat meat, consume medications that were developed with the help of animal testing, and use various products that include animal derivatives in one way or another.

If I had a pet, I would most likely place as much value on its life as, or greater value than, the lives of most other humans, but I think humans, like almost all other species that place more importance on their own survival, have to engage in human exceptionalism almost by necessity.

 

[Debater Slayer]

This is precisely the reason why I and many other vegetarians/vegans don't. I see no greater value in a human life than I do any other.

They are, after all, in their true nature, the same as me.

Do you please a greater value on human life that the life of another species?

Absolutely not.

If not, why not?

I hold that all things have equal intrinsic value or sacredness. Beyond that, the personal value I assign to something is based on relationships. Also, when it comes to preserving life, priority is given based on extinction risk.

I feared as much. Anyway, my answer is probably obvious.

How do you square this belief with the fact that many medications, vaccines, and other treatments we use were developed with the help of animal research?

How animal research is helping fight antibiotic resistance | Imperial News | Imperial College London

Which therapies do we owe to animal experiments?

This also applies if you have ever owned a pet and taken it to the vet: the treatment used to help it was almost certainly tested on animals before making it into production.

 

[SalixIncendium]

How do you square this belief with the fact that many medications, vaccines, and other treatments we use were developed with the help of animal research?

How animal research is helping fight antibiotic resistance | Imperial News | Imperial College London

Which therapies do we owe to animal experiments?

This also applies if you have ever owned a pet and taken it to the vet: the treatment used to help it was almost certainly tested on animals before making it into production.

I don’t and never have advocated animal testing. There are most certainly other ways to test such treatment/products.

 

[Secret Chief]

How do you square this belief with the fact that many medications, vaccines, and other treatments we use were developed with the help of animal research?

How animal research is helping fight antibiotic resistance | Imperial News | Imperial College London

Which therapies do we owe to animal experiments?

This also applies if you have ever owned a pet and taken it to the vet: the treatment used to help it was almost certainly tested on animals before making it into production.

I value life but live in the real world of imperfection and inconsistency. I don't equate my epilepsy drug with shooting a lion.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yes, otherwise I couldn't eat meat.

Pretty much all humans do either explicitly or implicitly anyway.

Most people wouldn't buy a product if they knew hundreds of people were killed in the process of making it, but we tend not to worry that much about all the animals killed in the process (for example the timber industry).

Human society is grounded in human exceptionalism, and I'm not sure there is any way around that, even if we were to try our best to be as ethical as possible in our treatment of animals.

Human lives may not be intrinsically more valuable, but we can't help but act as if they were.

I have a friend who works in medical animal testing. One of the things she has commented on is that some anti-testing activists demonize people like her and liken them to torturers or animal abusers even though they take antibiotics when they get sick, let the vet administer medications developed through similar processes when their pet gets sick, and enjoy the benefits of vaccines that were also developed with help from animal testers.

I think it's usually problematic to condemn and nominally distance ourselves from something while continuing to reap the benefits. It makes life harder for people doing necessary work and scapegoats them even though all of us still benefit from their work.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I don’t and never have advocated animal testing. There are most certainly other ways to test such treatment/products.

There are no other reliable ways that have been developed so far, though, for more than one reason:

Why Animal Research?

Should animals be used in research?

Why Animal Testing Is Necessary and How to Reduce It

The Importance of Animal Testing in Biomedical Research

Of course, I would strongly support any viable alternative should it be developed, and I think we should keep looking for alternatives. But as things stand, there's no replacement just yet.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I value life but live in the real world of imperfection and inconsistency. I don't equate my epilepsy drug with shooting a lion.

Same here. I don't consider medical animal testing ideal and would welcome any viable replacement, but I refuse to demonize it as long as it is necessary and well-regulated.

 

[Secret Chief]

I have a friend who works in medical animal testing. One of the things she has commented on is that some anti-testing activists demonize people like her and liken them to torturers or animal abusers even though they take antibiotics when they get sick, let the vet administer medications developed through similar processes when their pet gets sick, and enjoy the benefits of vaccines that were also developed with help from animal testers.

I think it's usually problematic to condemn and nominally distance ourselves from something while continuing to reap the benefits. It makes life harder for people doing necessary work and scapegoats them even though all of us still benefit from their work.

I can't change what's been done in the past but I would like there to be no animal testing. My life is not of greater value than all the sentient beings put through pain and killed. If a drug was developed starting from research today that in a decade extended my life by taking it, I would prefer that drug not to have been developed if it involved animal testing.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I can't change what's been done in the past but I would like there to be no animal testing. My life is not of greater value than all the sentient beings put through pain and killed. If a drug was developed starting from research today that in a decade extended my life by taking it, I would prefer that drug not to have been developed if it involved animal testing.

I think the issue runs a lot deeper than an individual level. For instance, consider the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic and consequent large-scale loss of life if vaccines had been significantly delayed:

The data from animals were an important component in giving the vaccine manufacturers and regulators the evidence of safety needed to rapidly progress into larger human clinical trials[1]. Furthermore, the developmental and reproductive toxicity studies in animals also provided important preclinical information on the safety of testing the vaccine in people of reproductive age[2]. There have been a large number of publications giving clear indication on the different animal models (and in vitro) used in the development of the different COVID-19 vaccines.

Numerous publications outline the animal species used which range from mice, rats, pigs, ferrets, hamsters, rabbits and non- human primates. The industry has been transparent in providing information on their preclinical studies through press releases[3],[4], publications including peer-reviewed[5],[6] and the publication of the vaccine regulatory authorisation decisions and public assessment reports by the different regulatory authorities [7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15]

Fitting vaccine research into one year – Were animals used?

Even if I stopped using all animal-tested medical treatments tomorrow—and that's essentially impossible—my loved ones, friends, and most people around me would still owe a significant portion of their health and well-being to said treatments. One of my parents would almost certainly have passed away by now if not for insulin treatment, for example, and animal research was a core part of developing that.

 

[HonestJoe]

Sure I can, because I was asking what value you place, not what value we place. I'm looking for individual judgments, not societal ones.

On what scale and measure are you making this binary value judgement then?

I was giving the general social outlook because I don't think this kind of thing is a personal decision. How we actually view other people and animals will be largely instinctive rather than calculated and is as complex and varied as I described. I was describing how I do it because I think that is how everyone does it.

 

[Secret Chief]

I think the issue runs a lot deeper than an individual level. For instance, consider the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic and consequent large-scale loss of life if vaccines had been significantly delayed:





Fitting vaccine research into one year – Were animals used?

Even if I stopped using all animal-tested medical treatments tomorrow—and that's essentially impossible—my loved ones, friends, and most people around me would still owe a significant portion of their health and well-being to said treatments. One of my parents would almost certainly have passed away by now if not for insulin treatment, for example, and animal research was a core part of developing that.

I realise it's a complex situation, but fundamentally it starts with our attitudes to human life vs non-human life. Your covid vaccine is a perfect example. Why did we need a covid vaccine:

Spoiler: Potentially disturbing image

 

[SalixIncendium]

There are no other reliable ways that have been developed so far, though, for more than one reason:

Why Animal Research?

Should animals be used in research?

Why Animal Testing Is Necessary and How to Reduce It

The Importance of Animal Testing in Biomedical Research

Of course, I would strongly support any viable alternative should it be developed, and I think we should keep looking for alternatives. But as things stand, there's no replacement just yet.

If we are going to develop such products, then they will ultimately need to be used or tested on someone.

Rather than testing such things on innocent animals who are healthy and not in need of them, why not test them on the one who wants them to begin with?

If a medicine needed to be developed for a malady I had, or for whatever reason I wanted to cosmetically enhance myself, would it not make more sense for such a product be tested on me than on some innocent being? After all, I’m the one who wants it, right?

 

[stvdv]

Do you please a greater value on human life that the life of another species?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

I know that Ramana didn't bother to take meds to kill the parasites eating away his arm.

I did take anti worm pills (mebendazol)

Mebendazole kills worms, worm eggs and larvae by preventing the absorption of nutrients

It proves that I placed less value on the lives of these worms than on my well being even