Linear wrote

Lecter wrote

Nab wrote

Lecter wrote

I just don't understand how people can accept the food chain then complain about animal testing.

I accept the food chain, but how does that correlate with our need to test cosmetics on rabbits?
If we were eating the rabbits it would make sense, but we're not.
We're using them to make ourselves prettier, that's not key to our survival.

Welcome to the 21st century.

Is there a point in there?
Or are you subtly saying that the only reason humans are better than animals is because we say so?

What is your definition of better? And if no one else is going to say we're not better than them - you must assume we are better.

In 'their' terms, the 'best' is the dominant male with the best mating call (etc). We are stronger and smarter than them in almost any way.

We are trying to understand the world around us, sure there is animal testing for greed but more than not, it's done to protect and better ourselves in useful ways.


What is different from eating the animal to survive, or using the animal to increase understanding.

It is only curiosity which makes us want to increase understanding.
I don't have a definition of better in terms of life as a whole.
Better is simply something which can achieve the same goal as something else in a more efficient way.
All life has different goals, and different ways of achieving them.
Survival of the fittest is a far too linear, pardon the pun, view in my opinion.
It reduces life to simply surviving and reproducing, when I believe there is far much more to the picture.

bruv wrote

If this becomes available to purchase, the earth won't last long at all.

it will last long if we use this on the earth to make it live forever