Well its like fake news. I have personally been involved in enough surgical research to know that animal research DOES work regardless of what the loonies at PETA say.
Wait a second, fake news? Why not simply say that in the initial post. My reply was under the assumption that the figures presented were the case. Also, what does PETA have to do with this? The video has nothing to do with PETA? Also, the figure of the failure rates was put out by the
National Institutes of Health.. How is that "fake news"? And why would your anecdotal and unspecified experiences make it fake news? But mostly, who said animal research doesn't work? It's just the majority of it is in vain >_>
Perhaps you should exclude yourself from all the benefits ,medicines , surgical and other medical procedures that have been developed using animal models.
And why would I do that? Are you willing to exclude yourself from living in America due to it's foundations that were built upon the backs of slaves? Since I assume you're not a slavery sympathizer? What kind of logic leap is that? Or better yet, would you care to not potentially be treated in your life if you ever came down with a case of hypothermia since the Nazi's pioneered most of our understanding of it when they conducted tests on humans?
Why would anyone forsake modern day amenities for the sake of respecting the suffering of those in the past? It would actually be more of an insult on some levels if those people's suffering went to complete waste and everyone somehow was forced to forget all the knowledge learned from their horrid situation..
The whole topic of contention is doing better, please don't be like some of the folks in the recent Schiit Heresy review thread that want to dangle past transgressions over the company regardless of a superior product they put out in the future, and improve their operations and interactions with consumers.
Become a Christian Scientist and pray that you get better.
Why would I do that? Or better yet, why would I need to become a scientist of ANY kind in order to "get better"? Btw I'm an atheist.. I don't see how consideration of animal rights = go be a Christian. Heck if anything, Abrahamic religions have blood based sacrificial aspects, most of which now are symbolic emulations of Abrahams attempt at sacrificing his son to God, but instead of sacrificing people, people sacrafice anmals instead like some sort of blood cult. SO EVEN IF your advice had some merit as an antithesis, it makes actually no sense, considering religious people are ones who would be least likely to be considerate of animal suffering. As a matter of fact, religious factions go one step futher and consider their own people above other people, animals don't even come on the spectrum of consideration for the other.
This was an awful statement you've made.
Humans evolved to eat meat and everywhere in the third world the first thing people do when they get more prosperous is to eat more meat.
Evolved to eat meat? First off, who cares what we evolved on.. that is what is called an appeal to nature fallacy. On what basis do you claim such a statement anyway, considering vegan/vegetarian populations have on average longer lifespans with better biomarker indications in terms of quality of life? The modern day diet in prosperous nations is the number one killer by way of heart disease.
So not only is a diet high in whole plant food the healthiest, specifically talking about meat:
The WHO research of red meat, and processed meat is now in the same class of carcinogen as cigarettes (Class 1) and red meat (Class 2A). So unless you want to drive Harvard's interpretation, and science conducted by the World Health Organization under the bus. I'd like to hear your thoughts on why (EVEN IF) the idea that more prosperous nations eat meat.. Why on Earth that would be considered a good thing with respect to levels of high cholesterol, saturated and trans fats? It's the highest contributory factor to that number one killer I mentioned: Heart disease.
What that statement you made is as if I were to say: "We evolved raping and murdering people throughout our history, most powerful people can get away with it considering their influence and power". So what? We should aspire to do those things because we "evolved" with it?
Lastly, we actually haven't evolved to eat meat, as carnivores and omnivores don't develop atherosclerosis (clogging of the arteries), nor do we eat like omnivores and carnivores (we get repulsed at the idea of eating a dead carcass or ravaging it to pieces with our jaws). So while you can say we can survive somewhat on an omnivore diet, I doubt we've done much prosperous "evolving" when our ancestors were dying before ~their early 30's.
We ate lots of insects in our early evolution, would you care to emulate some of that as well? The only thing missing in a vegan diet is B12 (cheap as dirt supplement), and perhaps Vitamin D if you don't get enough sunlight. Oh and about B12.. the meat you're eating doesn't produce it either, nor do plants, it's produced by soil bacteria.
The meat you eat today is fortified with B12, so don't think you're getting it "naturally" like our "evolving ancestors" did.
Eating meat is what enabled us to evolve and grow the large brains that we have which enable us to cook up hare brained philosophies. Is this Audio Science?? Also I don't base my scientific opinions on propaganda movies from film festivals.
I'm not sure this topic we're talking about now is Audio Science, no. At any rate...
Actually there is debate on that. No one really knows what allowed for our evolutionary leap in neural processing prowess. I don't understand why meat from large animals would necessarily be the case, as our main source of "fuel" is carbohydrates, of which during the Neolithic revolution there was a massive boon of, and before that, we subsisted mainly on foraging and if lucky, some animals we managed to hunt. All essential amino acids are found in plants, so I don't understand why it would necessarily be the case that "our brains formed by eating meat" by that metric, carnivores should be super intelligent beings right now.
Look I understand your aversion to possible new theories in this field and such. But for you to say there is "no science" here is simply a declaratory statement. In the same fashion your post also is all over the place addressing points no one ever even brought up. I get veganism is the newest incarnation of a highly disruptive social paradigm, in the same way abolition of slavery instilled such hostility among the majority of people.
Personally, I am not concerned with what our cavemen rock clapping ancestors did. I am more concerned with the moral side of this ordeal. If I can live without needing to cause harm to others, then it is a moral imperative I don't go and cause detriment to others simply to satisfy my tastebuds for 5-10 minutes, or in the case of this original topic, kill 95% of my test subjects for no use.
So if you want to make a scientific case (which I will be very glad to hear and read papers about) on how alternatives outside of animal testing don't exist or something. Then I don't know what much else we can talk about, unless you want to call fake news to "film festival propaganda" yet do nothing to address the claims in any valid shape or form.
If you would actually like scientific material that stand in affirmation of my claims, I would be glad to sift through some I've had over the years and provide them to you for inspection. Since you seem to doubt even the most foundational claims. Though more worrying to me is your epistemic method of divining moral validity, or how you determine "fake news" in the first place.