Hell on Earth (Vivisection)

In fact, I sure a lot of health problems are caused by all that shit people shovel into themselves, and yeah, if I can do it, anyone can. Just to get back to something Germs said back there, no, I don't live a miserable existence. In fact it has improved as a result of veganism, and various other changes I have made to my life. I am pretty much at peace with myself, and though I may sound a little jaded at times, well I almost 50, all the bullshit does tend to pile up over the years, know what I mean.

 

I'm also feeling much better since i went vegan, both physically and psychologically. This is a good enough reason for veganism i think.

 

Anom, your subjective experience isn't a good enough reason for veganism to be honest. Not having a go but when people go vegan they generally have to put some thought into their meals/diet. It's this thought that generally leads to healthier diets not the diet itself. So long as you're sensible about what you eat it's perfectly possible to eat red meat, dairy, whatever and lead a healthy life.
When you were responding to NGNM85 on the matter of refusing meds that have been tested on animals you are, I think, missing the point that it's not just meds that are tested on animals but surgical procedures, gene therapies, dermatological treatments etc... So by refusing to accept anything that has been tested on animals you refuse the bulk of medical science. As NGNM85 pointed out an end to animal experimentation would mean that medical advances would slow to a crawl which would lead to greater human suffering, especially for the poor as we are the ones that bear the brunt of any negative change.

 

Of cause i didn't mean to say my good experiences from being vegan is enough for anyone else to be vegan, i'm not saying everyone should be just like me! I tried it and it was good for me, therefor even if i would not take the animal rights in to concideration the healthaspect would for me be a good enough reason for me being vegan. If you don't try it you won't know how it would work for you, but i am not saying you have to try it even. For me it is not possible to eat dairy as you mentioned and still lead a healthy life, since i am lactose intolerant and allergic to caseine. Maybe it would be possible to eat meat and be healthy but i have eaten meat before and didn't feel very good.
I didn't miss the point, i just didn't comment on everything in this thread. To clarify then, as i mentioned about the meds it can come down to making a desicion about wether or not i would be willing to go through with surgical procedeures, gene therapies, dermatological treatments etc. And yes, i have been cut open and poked around in and no, at that point when it could have been pretty much a life or death thing, even though it turned out it wasn't wich.. yay! you know... i didn't even bother asking about what that was they shot up my arm for the narcosis. So i am not refusing.
Of cause i don't want more human suffering eighter, i'm not a fuckin' lunatic here, but i don't want other animals to have to suffer eighter. I don't sit on the solution for this and i am willing to admit that, but neighter do you. All the animals that are being tested on for things they already know, there's no reason at all for that. There are so many of these tests that can not possibly by anyone be seen as morally acceptable. I would want there to not have to be any animal testings at all, you may dissagree, but can't you at least see that it would be good with LESS testings? Just trying to find something in this we can agree on...

 

Absolutely. Smoking and poor diet are responsible for a staggering amount of illness and death.

[/quote]

Well, I was thinking more in terms of radical life extension, or "engineered negligible senesence", if we wanna get technical. Simply, that we have this conception that death is good and necessary, and I think that's largely a rationalization because we haven't been able to do anything about it, a sort of psychological security blanket. However, with modern developments in medical science we may be able to stall, and perhaps eventually stop the aging process. I'm sort of paraphrasing Aubrey De Gray here, but, essentially, if you could stay in relatively excellent health I think death would seem a lot less palateable. Part of the reason we accept it, other than that we have to, is that aging entails various other illnesses which have a cumulative effect of reducing the quality of life.
That was all that I was saying.

 

Perhaps true, but there is also that creeping feeling of nothing seeming 'new'.

 

Who is we? Anarchists? Humans? Personally i think death is necessary because it is the antithesis of birth, not because i can't stop it.

Of course i can't think of anyone who wouldn't think so, but how would the availability of such treatments affect the population both as a whole and as individuals? For the population as a whole what would that do in terms of numbers? if everyone lived longer there would be more of us and how would that itself affect the quality of life for the rest of the population? The individual persons whom make up the population (specifically the poor) who don't have access to the treatments why should only the rich stay young? How would reproduction fit into this? It sounds like death would still be an occurrence but not from aging so how would we deal with the population spike this would create? How large would this make the spike? Would we kill people off? Who decides who should die? Who should live?

Buddy im sorry if im rambling and i know i might be (can't say much of it other than that, I've had a stressful week) but arguments like this could go on forever, you have made some VERY good points, but the ends don't always justify the means.

 

Well, I was thinking more in terms of radical life extension, or "engineered negligible senesence", if we wanna get technical. Simply, that we have this conception that death is good and necessary, and I think that's largely a rationalization because we haven't been able to do anything about it, a sort of psychological security blanket. However, with modern developments in medical science we may be able to stall, and perhaps eventually stop the aging process. I'm sort of paraphrasing Aubrey De Gray here, but, essentially, if you could stay in relatively excellent health I think death would seem a lot less palateable. Part of the reason we accept it, other than that we have to, is that aging entails various other illnesses which have a cumulative effect of reducing the quality of life.
That was all that I was saying.[/quote]

Again a very slippery slope, do you honestly think we will be able to apply these medical advances without fucking the planet up worse by overpopulating, and would the worlds poorest countries recieve these things? It is doubtlessly within our grasp, lets live forever, like vampires, damn the torpedo's!

 

[quote="Saering”]Who is we? Anarchists? Humans? Personally i think death is necessary because it is the antithesis of birth, not because i can't stop it.[/quote]

I meant people in general. I think it’s very possible that death could always be inevitable, or at the very least, it will be for quite some time. I just think that our attitudes have been fundamentally shaped by our helplessness against it.

[quote="Saering”]Of course i can't think of anyone who wouldn't think so, but how would the availability of such treatments affect the population both as a whole and as individuals? For the population as a whole what would that do in terms of numbers? if everyone lived longer there would be more of us and how would that itself affect the quality of life for the rest of the population? The individual persons whom make up the population (specifically the poor) who don't have access to the treatments why should only the rich stay young? How would reproduction fit into this? It sounds like death would still be an occurrence but not from aging so how would we deal with the population spike this would create? How large would this make the spike? Would we kill people off? Who decides who should die? Who should live?[/quote]

Well, that’s a lot. Forgive me if I miss something, but I’ll try to at least briefly cover everything. First of all, among those with higher standards of living population is at a pretty low growth rate, the bulk of births are distributed among the working class in developed nations, and the third world. So, by raising standards of living I think this can be significantly reduced. Second, and I’m essentially quoting Dr. De Gray, again, I think society is going to have a fundamental choice, whether to have long lives or have many children. I think the former choice would be the most popular. Society is going to have to make a lot of other fundamental choices, too. We’re going to have to deal with nuclear weapons, with religion, with climate change, with these primitive, archaic notions of dividing the worlds’ populations into opposing teams, etc. I don’t see this as being any greater than those problems, maybe easier than some. Another thing to consider is that when thinking about technological developments in the future, people generally succumb to tunnel vision. For example, science fiction movies where there are spaceships that can travel the galaxy, but they seem to have everyday appliances and personal items no different than what we have today. If this profound technological advancement occurs, it will not be alone, culture, consumption of media, identity, gender politics, computing, all these things will be different. These advances will also affect one another. I think it’s possible that ultimately we could achieve an inexhaustible clean power supply, like perfecting nuclear fusion, or solar power (Enough solar energy hits us every day to meet the electrical needs of the entire planet 10,000X.) at such point I don’t think poverty could continue to exist. As resources approach infinity, it becomes far more difficult to maintain any kind of monopoly on power. However, this is merely a hypothetical future and should not impede any positive social change in the present.


[quote="Saering”]Buddy im sorry if im rambling and i know i might be (can't say much of it other than that, I've had a stressful week) but arguments like this could go on forever, you have made some VERY good points, but the ends don't always justify the means.[/quote]

Absolutely. However, and forgive me if I’m misunderstanding, but the only way I see that as applicable to this conversation is in terms of animal testing. To that I would say that for even one paralyzed little girl I would give a thousand (Most likely anesthetized.) lab rats every single time and twice on Sunday. This brings us back around to the actual thread topic.

On a side note, however, I am glad that although my thread on Anarchism and technological progress floundered, there is, in fact, genuine interest in these issues.

 

You make the future sound like ST:TNG.

 

We should be so lucky. Unfortunately, I doubt it, not in the least because of various inconsistancies and violations of basic laws of physics, etc. Good show, though. I don't want to come off as an extropian, however. Not to be a downer but I think human extinction is a real possibility and something all of us way very well see. However, if we can manage to not destroy ourselves, there could be great possibilities. We are in the process of unlocking the fundamentals of space and time, matter and energy, etc.

 

"The human race no longer enslave animals for food", Tasha Yarr I think; no poverty, no money, no prejudice, etc. Yeah, in my more optimistic moments, I like to think of a future like that.

 

Don't scientists who theorize about sentient life on other planets have to factor in the alloted time it will take for sentient species to destroy themselves?
Spooky stuff.

 

I see you're a fan as well. We have one thing in common. I actually met Denise Crosby, once, she was a sweetheart.
Oh, and it was Cmdr. Riker.

Touching back on animals, it should be noted that this no longer held any utility, not only did they have such incredibly advanced medicine, but they could create three dimensional holographic models exact in every detail, thus making animal expirimentation pointless. I suspect with sufficient understanding of our biology, we've figured out a good portion of it, and some more sophisticated computers, this will happen in our world, as well. As soon as the alternatives are just as useful or better, it will stop.

 

You should check out Nick Bostrom. He's an Oxford professor who has done extensive study into 'existential risks'; potential catastrophes that could end the human species. Not all the available data is comforting. I posted links in the Anarchism and Transhumanism thread, he also maintains a website which has dozens of articles and papers.

 

Alrighty I'll definitely be checking him out. I haven't looked much into what you've posted on transhumanism, but I'll try and approach it with a more open mind then others have.

 

Riker? You sure? Damn, I gonna have to track that episode down now.



>>> You're right, it was Riker.

 

See the whole idea of a revolution? This is one of the many reasons we need one, to ensure that as sciece and technology provide ever more magnificent advances they are available to all, not just fat old white men.

 

does anyone have a master list of companies that test on animals?
it would help me out alot, thanks.

 

The ALF used to offer a link to an extensive list on their website, but for some reason or another I can no longer find it. This might help though, a list of those who supply vivisection labs www.nocompromise.org/issues/15viv_suppliers_guide.html sorry if this isn't much help.