Jump to content

Archived

This thread has been closed to further replies because it was not updated for 12 months. If you wish to have this thread reinstated, please contact an administrator.

Galactic-Tiger

Same-sex mice have babies

same-sex mice have babies  

13 members have voted

  1. 1. What is your opinion on this type of research?

    • It should be condemned as ethically wrong
    • It should be praised as scientific progress


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, The One Beyond All said:

First of all, you are wrong: meat consumption is one of the biggest causes of Earth destruction.. From Wikipedia:

Second of all, testing on mice it is a primitive and cruel technique that althou it may be very useful in some kind of researches it should be performed only for extremely important situations like, again, finding a cure for cancer. I honestly don't think that finding a cure for cancer and letting gay people to have children have the same priorities. Even if it is worthless to you, the life of mice should be respected cuz they have the same right as humans to live on Earth. 

There's plenty of research on the opposing views as well :

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/veganism-environment-veganuary-friendly-food-diet-damage-hodmedods-protein-crops-jack-monroe-a8177541.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/18/being-a-vegetarian-might-make-you-feel-environmentally-superior-why-that-may-be-wrong/?utm_term=.ef12660bf936&noredirect=on

This article in particular says: 

"As that report from the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee put it: “Consistent evidence indicates that, in general, a dietary pattern that is higher in plant-based foods, such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds, and lower in animal-based foods ...is associated with lesser environmental impact than is the current average U.S. diet.”

This notion isn’t, however, something that scientists have agreed on, and some new research undermines the longstanding idea."

https://www.sciencealert.com/vegetarian-and-healthy-diets-may-actually-be-worse-for-the-environment-study-finds

"Eating lettuce is over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon," said Paul Fischbeck, one of the researchers. "Lots of common vegetables require more resources per calorie than you would think. Eggplant, celery and cucumbers look particularly bad when compared to pork or chicken."

 

This article also says you are wrong about the facts:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-ol-le-beef-eating-climate-change-20170714-story.html

 

"According to the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. livestock production has one of the lowest carbon footprints in the world, representing 3.8% of total greenhouse gas emissions, which is far lower than the transportation sector (27%)."

 

Humans would also not be human if we hadn't consumed meat. Humans have always been omnivores.

http://amp.timeinc.net/time/4252373/meat-eating-veganism-evolution

 

On mice: again, they're lives are not as valuable as humans. If you had to choose between saving a human and a mouse, don't tell me you'd have a hard time choosing. You'd pick the HUMAN with a family and kids and a life and a job. Mice are pests. To quote Kelis' iconic letter to PETA: "If I started wearing endangered animals like polar bear or orangutan then talk to me. But the minks and chinchillas that quite honestly are rodents and if weren't in the form of a coat I would demand they be put to the anyway are not an issue to me"

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Miss Show Business said:

There's plenty of research on the opposing views as well :

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/veganism-environment-veganuary-friendly-food-diet-damage-hodmedods-protein-crops-jack-monroe-a8177541.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/18/being-a-vegetarian-might-make-you-feel-environmentally-superior-why-that-may-be-wrong/?utm_term=.ef12660bf936&noredirect=on

This article in particular says: 

"As that report from the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee put it: “Consistent evidence indicates that, in general, a dietary pattern that is higher in plant-based foods, such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds, and lower in animal-based foods ...is associated with lesser environmental impact than is the current average U.S. diet.”

This notion isn’t, however, something that scientists have agreed on, and some new research undermines the longstanding idea."

https://www.sciencealert.com/vegetarian-and-healthy-diets-may-actually-be-worse-for-the-environment-study-finds

"Eating lettuce is over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon," said Paul Fischbeck, one of the researchers. "Lots of common vegetables require more resources per calorie than you would think. Eggplant, celery and cucumbers look particularly bad when compared to pork or chicken."

 

This article also says you are wrong about the facts:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-ol-le-beef-eating-climate-change-20170714-story.html

 

"According to the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. livestock production has one of the lowest carbon footprints in the world, representing 3.8% of total greenhouse gas emissions, which is far lower than the transportation sector (27%)."

 

Humans would also not be human if we hadn't consumed meat. Humans have always been omnivores.

http://amp.timeinc.net/time/4252373/meat-eating-veganism-evolution

 

On mice: again, they're lives are not as valuable as humans. If you had to choose between saving a human and a mouse, don't tell me you'd have a hard time choosing. You'd pick the HUMAN with a family and kids and a life and a job. Mice are pests. To quote Kelis' iconic letter to PETA: "If I started wearing endangered animals like polar bear or orangutan then talk to me. But the minks and chinchillas that quite honestly are rodents and if weren't in the form of a coat I would demand they be put to the anyway are not an issue to me"

Interesting readings, however you are referring to US only, while Wikipedia refers to the world as a whole. Said that, I do agree with you that humans are omnivores and that is why I do believe that it is ethically acceptable to eat animals. On the other hand, mice are as much as important to the ecosystems as endangered animals. The fact that mice are not facing extinction does not justify all the cruel suffering that those researches inevitably provide. To  create baby mice just to see them suffer and die after few hours it is not ethically right. Indeed it is scientifically proved that mice have feelings too. Peace.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Miss Show Business said:

First of all, you're off topic. Secondly, you're wrong. Agriculture only accounts for 9% of co2 emmissions according to the EPA: 

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

First off, you're not a moderator, so please refrain yourself from calling me out on what you consider "being off topic", I was having a conversation with another member which derived partially onto something else.

Secondly, I never said it was the number one cause in the USA. It is considered to be around 30% worldwide.

https://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_change/science_plan2010/USDA_CCSPlan_120810.pdf

2 hours ago, Miss Show Business said:

Back OT: They're mice. Their lives are far less valuable than humans, and it's not like they're an endangered species by any means. Testing on mice is an ages old practice that's very helpful to humanity 

https://www.livescience.com/32860-why-do-medical-researchers-use-mice.html

The value of life is 100% subjective, which makes your opinion that mice lives are less valuable than humans just as valid as those who think otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 23
  • Created
  • Last Reply

  • Browsing now   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×