@WillWorkForChocolate If we could donate 500,000 pedophiles, rapists, serial killers and drug dealers to science and save the innocenent animals? Hell yeah! [sic] Elucidate, how would you come to thinking a criminal _no matter how heinous the crime would equal less than a chimp? And how would you justify that to said criminal’s spouse, parents, or children that the chimp was worth more than their locked up loved one if his/her involvement was forced and not voluntary?
@Simone_De_Beauvoir And there is no reason to do 500 vs. 500000 – I’d do 500 animals or 500 humans and I’d leave it to random chance. If you had some brilliant scientist slaving away in the lab and a team hits upon a possible drug or treatment for Alzheimer’s, on paper it appears it will work. The catch is they don’t know if the estimated dosage will kill the patient or how much the patient can take and get better or take to avoid the illness. Usually when a clinical trial comes around they have willing participant because those participate or desperate, they have no choice but to try the it because they are surely dead with out it. But if those brilliant scientist figured they can get the most accurate numbers by using apes, chimps, or whichever had DNA closest to humans without having to place humans in harm’s way, it come down to humans vs. primates. If those scientist figure to prefect their work they would have to test it out on 500 primates but if they got it right they could help out at the very least 500,000 humans (don’t know the actual number of people destined for Alzheimer’s), what would be the reason not to prevent suffering in humans if primates would be the fall guy? In other words would allowing many humans suffer for the sake of preserving one primate be acceptable?
@crisw If it’s between a baby chimpanzee and an irreversibly comatose 70 year old, the person in a coma loses. How would the baby chimp add more value to whatever than a comatose man in his 70s? Logically to society as a whole neither one is providing much. However would the chimp be missed by the other chimps in the pin to the extent the old man would when he passes? Would the chimps take it harder that their buddy or sibling died or was killed or would it be as many other animals they seem to get on with business should one fall to a predator or other ill effects?
@Scooby Why test on either! I’m leaning towards natural selection If there was never any sort of testing like that done many people maybe even us more than likely would have suffered needless harm.
@RealEyesRealizeRealLies The testing should be upon well informed, well paid volunteers… no monkey business If you did not have enough people brave enough or desperate enough to sign up for the clinical trials and you had to rely on volunteers if the treatment or drug had possible grave and adverse side affects how much would you think those volunteers should be paid for risking their health and maybe their lives? And how much would they have to do to earn that money? One shot? 1 – 10 shots or doses, survive x amounts of months then pick up your check? And if only the very poor and desperate take up the opportunity to earn the cash how to keep from it being the lives of the poor vs. the rich who will most likely be able to afford the drug or treatment after it is perfected enough for the general public?`