Vegan and pro Animals in Medical Experiments

[Cirion Spellbinder]

I see. So on an individual level, bring up these things if they're likely to work.

Right. Different people, different arguments.

What I'm wondering is if it would be better if all organisations stopped touching upon it altogether and devoted all manpower to campaigning against factory farming. I have a hard time imagining that.

Probably. I think getting people to stop supporting factory farming is the most effective because the ethical, environmental, and health arguments can all be used interchangeably to promote it. With issues like hunting and animal testing, only the ethical argument can be made.

[brimstoneSalad]

Probably. I think getting people to stop supporting factory farming is the most effective because the ethical, environmental, and health arguments can all be used interchangeably to promote it. With issues like hunting and animal testing, only the ethical argument can be made.

Not entirely accurate, but in general it's a good point. Health arguments do work against hunting, but the environmental arguments there are weaker.
The health argument can work for or against animal testing, depending on how you frame it and the opportunity cost.

The more important point is that when you look in terms of cost vs. benefit, the cost is much higher and the benefit much lower for animal agriculture than for anything else.

ALSO, animal testing actually makes up a very small amount of animal cruelty.

http://www.animalcharityevaluators.org/ ... donations/
Here's a good article examining the amount of harm vs. money donated to stop it, and a nice illustration.

I could hardly justify uttering a word against animal testing at the cost of speaking against animal agriculture: and there's always an opportunity cost to our activism, whether in terms of money, time, or energy.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

Health arguments do work against hunting, but the environmental arguments there are weaker.

What's the health argument? Is it common to eat your game? What's the environmental argument?

The health argument can work for or against animal testing, depending on how you frame it and the opportunity cost.

What do you mean? The only health arguement I can think of is: animal testing is ineffective, therefore it produces unsafe products which could potentially negatively impact one's health.

ALSO, animal testing actually makes up a very small amount of animal cruelty.

Wow, interesting. That's a great article.

I could hardly justify uttering a word against animal testing at the cost of speaking against animal agriculture: and there's always an opportunity cost to our activism, whether in terms of money, time, or energy.

What if it has the potential to induce positive dietary changes, and therefore decrease the impact of factory farming?

[brimstoneSalad]

What's the health argument? Is it common to eat your game?

Yes, that's why most people hunt. It's rare for hunters to not eat what they kill. People who hunt only for entertainment and do not eat their kill are widely regarded as scum, even by other hunters.

What's the environmental argument?

The environmental arguments mainly apply when populations of hunted animals have been artificially increased to provide more hunting, which is fairly common.

What do you mean? The only health arguement I can think of is: animal testing is ineffective, therefore it produces unsafe products which could potentially negatively impact one's health.

As I said earlier, the use of animal testing may be slowing the development of alternatives (which would be seen as more urgent if animal testing were not used), and those alternatives will ultimately be more useful and save more lives.

What if it has the potential to induce positive dietary changes, and therefore decrease the impact of factory farming?

Sure, but only if it can be shown to do this more effectively than addressing those issues directly.

[Jaywalker]

I agree, except you don't have an outcome that would produce better results I'm aware of.

You'd agree (when the time comes) that ideally all money spent on animal testing should go to developing new methods though, right? If not, we're in a perpetual state of "justified" animal testing.

That's not my point, though. My point is that, because of this, that is why we can't expect similar results when speaking out against each form of animal testing.

Yep, I understood that. That argument is contingent on animal testing being unjustified. My point was this: I don't consider it justified to test on animals, when the alternatives are better whichever way you look at it.

We cannot legally test on inmates because of the Constitution, and we wouldn't have enough volunteers.

Get rid of the constitution!

So, after reading the charity evaluators site; Should I not donate to local animal rescue organisations or PETA, and how effective are they? Should all vegans donate to those three recommended organisations?

All I got are personal anecdotes, but I doubt I would have become vegan if I hadn't been exposed to those types of activism. That and having two dogs helped me make some connections. I'm not sure I would have responded the same if I'd only seen the things that initially didn't matter to me. I'm not a naturally empathetic person, I got here gradually, and I think most people are the same. So there's my bias.

That's also why I like Gary Francione for example, his rhetoric seems to resonate with people. I know he doesn't make sense though, don't worry. Off-topic, but do you know how effective he's been for veganism?

[brimstoneSalad]

You'd agree (when the time comes) that ideally all money spent on animal testing should go to developing new methods though, right? If not, we're in a perpetual state of "justified" animal testing.

Ideally. But that's not necessarily the alternative use of those funds. We have to look at opportunity cost, and if somebody didn't donate to cancer research, that person was probably just going to buy a new iPad instead, not donate to research into animal-free models.

My point was this: I don't consider it justified to test on animals, when the alternatives are better whichever way you look at it.

But, that's not necessarily the alternative.

It might not be "animal test" vs. "develop better models"

It might be "animal test" vs. "new iPad"

In the latter case, it's not so clear.
We don't live in an ideal world where people treat their charitable contributions rationally.

If somebody asks about animal experiments, we should be candid; it only helps our credibility.

So, after reading the charity evaluators site; Should I not donate to local animal rescue organisations or PETA, and how effective are they? Should all vegans donate to those three recommended organisations?

Correct, all donations should go to charities using evidence to prove their efficacy.

All I got are personal anecdotes, but I doubt I would have become vegan if I hadn't been exposed to those types of activism.

These are good forms of gateway activism; they're things we can recommend to carnists. If somebody gets physically involved in these things (as a social group), it can help that person go vegan (being exposed to pets on a personal level can do a lot for people who aren't otherwise empathetic).
It's not something we should be donating money to, though. Other organizations are more effective.

Off-topic, but do you know how effective he's been for veganism?

No idea, and that's the problem to contributing to things like that.
I wouldn't tell him to stop doing what he's doing, if that's what he wants to do, but it would be great if he'd do some surveys and evaluate his efficacy scientifically.

[EquALLity]

You'd agree (when the time comes) that ideally all money spent on animal testing should go to developing new methods though, right? If not, we're in a perpetual state of "justified" animal testing.

I'm not sure about all, because that would result in the end of all testing for years. But I think a large amount of the money should definitely go into developing more ethical alternatives.

Yep, I understood that. That argument is contingent on animal testing being unjustified. My point was this: I don't consider it justified to test on animals, when the alternatives are better whichever way you look at it.

What alternatives?

Get rid of the constitution!

So, after reading the charity evaluators site; Should I not donate to local animal rescue organisations or PETA, and how effective are they? Should all vegans donate to those three recommended organisations?

All I got are personal anecdotes, but I doubt I would have become vegan if I hadn't been exposed to those types of activism. That and having two dogs helped me make some connections. I'm not sure I would have responded the same if I'd only seen the things that initially didn't matter to me. I'm not a naturally empathetic person, I got here gradually, and I think most people are the same. So there's my bias.

That's also why I like Gary Francione for example, his rhetoric seems to resonate with people. I know he doesn't make sense though, don't worry. Off-topic, but do you know how effective he's been for veganism?

Hahaha.

I think it'd be better to donate to organizations that focus mainly on factory farming.
PETA helped me go vegan also, because I saw one of their videos of the horrors of factory farming, and how abusive and disgusting it is. Other organizations have similar videos, though.

I don't like Gary Francione. He might convince people to go vegan, but the reasons aren't rational, and that puts off a lot of people. It also doesn't give people logical reasons to stay vegan, and that might contribute to the high recidivism rates.

[Jaywalker]

Thanks for the responses, I've learned new things and I will try and donate to better charities.

What alternatives?

Not testing at all, or only working on alternative methods. It seems we kind of agree on the latter in principle, though I think it's ok to stop progress for some time.