Alright, I'm sold.Exactly. The language is super confusing because the Good does not necessarily equal the Natural. Or vice versa. Anyways, I wanna see more duck-chicken chimeras because then I might get the leanness of chicken breast with the taste of duck.
I just hope that we don't end up making more of a mess using this technology. Also they have yet to see if the Chicken born will be able to produce another Chicken...what if it turned out to produce a duck like her father...
Mm... think of the duck as an incubator. If I understood this correctly, the chicken's well... a chickenI just hope that we don't end up making more of a mess using this technology. Also they have yet to see if the Chicken born will be able to produce another Chicken...what if it turned out to produce a duck like her father...
How would they help an extinct species survive once again anyway? Like bringing back Dodos and Mammoths? Don't see them doing anything like that... But maybe repopulating endangered species, like whales and tigers. I don't see how those older species would thrive in today's world.
People like you make me sad for the future.I'm no PETA member, but I'm not for testing drugs and chemicals on animals either. When God said take the land and everything on it, for it is yours, He didn't mean to mistreat animals; He meant that it is our responsibility to look after them and treat them humanely. Forcing bunnies to painfully endure different types of lotions, etc. on their eyes and face - notably, since they can't produce water to shield them from these effects - is cruel and inhumane, and they are not there to be test subjects as such. The same can be said of the goat or any other type of animal who is bred and dies, or bred and has difficulties, etc. The preliminary testing is horrible and cruel. I do not and will not agree that the "ends justifies the means" in this scenario because there is too much suffering that occurs to arrive at that "end." There has to be a balance - the sacrifice must equal the gain - and I do not believe that it is so in this case.
And for what it's worth, I don't agree with stepping on tent caterpillars or killing spiders. I hate spiders, but I let them outside; why? Because it's not my right to create or kill. Who am I to take something that precious, or to give something that precious, like these scientists are doing? They are giving false life and false hope to species only to rip that life away. Who knows how painful those five minutes were for that animal. I don't know how anybody can be proud of that.
Yeahfive minutes
People like you make me sad for the future.
I know that animal testing is bad, but humans won't let themselves be tested, right? If you really want to save animals from testing, find an alternative. Don't just complain, do something about it. Let yourself be tested, or invent a model that can simulate those chemicals working in the body.
This debate is like me saying to desert dwellers, "don't use water other than to drink, because it wastes resources!", and then not finding another alternative to give those people affected a way to wash their clothes and dishes, bathe, or use water. Testing on organisms is an essential way to find out what things are good or not good for living beings, and there will always be a need for something like that. You guys who are like "no animal testing!": do you guys study ways to simulate how living cells respond to chemicals? No? Then stop your protests (that frankly do nothing to stop animal testing) and use that energy rather to help out to find an alternative.Yeah
Also, I have to say that it's either they live for more than five minutes, or they never get born.
So yeah just to clear that up
Help out, as in do what you can. Pitch ideas, anything. The minds of many are better than one good mind.In all honesty, I rarely read about scientists finding alternatives to animal testing. I don't have the tool, knowledge or funding to be able to find an alternative, but they sure as heck do; but why would they bother when this is a functional solution that takes less effort and ultimately costs less money?
If I had the resources, I would find an alternative. Asking the public to "find an alternative" is like telling a homeless person to dress better and find a job. That person doesn't have the resources or support to be able to "dress better," thus granting more opportunities to find a job. How can you ask the general public to find an alternative to something that obviously requires special machines, university knowledge, etc.? I can't gene splice at home nor do I have the equipment to control chemicals in a safe environment. Ultimately, and in both cases, it's the system that's broken and has skewed priorities. Rather than researching an alternative to animal testing, they go the easy route, even if maybe an alternative could cost less in the long run.
It's like global warming. They might be slowly approaching change, but they're not going to go all environmentally-friendly overnight. That would cost too much money, and the current system i.e. oil works well for them, so why would they go out of their comfort zone to change it? That's just how it is.
If finding an alternative was important to them, you'd hear about it more often, but frankly they don't care. There are a lot of activists against animal testing who protest the way scientists carry out their experiments, but they still aren't swayed. If you can't change their minds on how important or unethical something is, you can't really expect them to search for alternatives on behalf of the people who do not have the knowledge, funding or equipment to do so themselves. The general public therefore relies on the decisions made by a select group of individuals who abide by their own system of ethics. If you can't alter what they consider unethical treatment, then it's not going to change; not unless some billionaire comes out of nowhere and funds a private operation, but beans if that'll happen.