Thank you for taking the time to read my book and write this earnest review.
I wish I had more time when writing the book to expound upon the (relatively few) successes of past animal research. I guess it's part of my "all-or-nothing" personality, but my point was that the sheer amount of wasted lives and the horror of all the suffering FAR outweigh any examples of modern success. Yes, even for those medical advances that I personally benefit from. I just don't feel the willful brutality is worth it, unless one places compassion for human lives far above that for animals, something I'm loathe to do. Obviously, many people don't carry the same conviction.
Hey Michael, thanks for writing such an interesting and thought provoking book, and for stopping by the blog!
I tend toward an all or nothing personality too, and I think your thoughts make total sense. Some days I'm right there with you in thinking the scale is so far out of balance that we should halt the whole endeavor. I especially lean this way when I stop thinking abstractly, and I imagine how it would feel to hurt the animals in my own life.
A thought experiment I've been toying with is how I'd react if someone came to me and said that I could save the life of a random person in another country if I let them kill my dogs and harvest their organs. I can't imagine saying yes to that. So is it really fair for me to support other versions of a "harm the animals to help the humans" tradeoff?
But then I feel selfish because I know I would say yes if I was told I could kill two random dogs in a different country to save the life of my child.
Anyway, books like yours are important for helping people think through the interesting ethical implications of this bizarre world we live in, so I'm grateful you wrote it.
Slusher’s story sounds very interesting (and heartbreaking), thanks for this review! Another book on the topic I found informative is Rat Trap by Pandora Pound. She’s never experimented on animals herself and the book focuses on the data about the efficacy of animal testing. What stuck out the most to me was that the vast majority of animal research (about 87% in the UK, though I’m guessing the numbers are similar in the US) has nothing to do with improving human health. And all the evidence in support of animal testing is based on “expert opinion”: there has never been any quantitative evidence to support claims that animal testing is essential to making medical breakthroughs (on a consistent basis, that is). If we focused on building up new technologies instead of holding on to animal testing, we could probably make much better progress, saving both human and nonhuman lives.
Dang, 87% of studies not even being about improving human health is pretty ridiculous. That book looks interesting, thanks, added it to my list.
I totally agree we that need much more of a focus on using all our amazing new tech to replace animals. This is one area where I'm hoping AI can be really helpful!
Thank you for taking the time to read my book and write this earnest review.
I wish I had more time when writing the book to expound upon the (relatively few) successes of past animal research. I guess it's part of my "all-or-nothing" personality, but my point was that the sheer amount of wasted lives and the horror of all the suffering FAR outweigh any examples of modern success. Yes, even for those medical advances that I personally benefit from. I just don't feel the willful brutality is worth it, unless one places compassion for human lives far above that for animals, something I'm loathe to do. Obviously, many people don't carry the same conviction.
Michael
Hey Michael, thanks for writing such an interesting and thought provoking book, and for stopping by the blog!
I tend toward an all or nothing personality too, and I think your thoughts make total sense. Some days I'm right there with you in thinking the scale is so far out of balance that we should halt the whole endeavor. I especially lean this way when I stop thinking abstractly, and I imagine how it would feel to hurt the animals in my own life.
A thought experiment I've been toying with is how I'd react if someone came to me and said that I could save the life of a random person in another country if I let them kill my dogs and harvest their organs. I can't imagine saying yes to that. So is it really fair for me to support other versions of a "harm the animals to help the humans" tradeoff?
But then I feel selfish because I know I would say yes if I was told I could kill two random dogs in a different country to save the life of my child.
Anyway, books like yours are important for helping people think through the interesting ethical implications of this bizarre world we live in, so I'm grateful you wrote it.
Slusher’s story sounds very interesting (and heartbreaking), thanks for this review! Another book on the topic I found informative is Rat Trap by Pandora Pound. She’s never experimented on animals herself and the book focuses on the data about the efficacy of animal testing. What stuck out the most to me was that the vast majority of animal research (about 87% in the UK, though I’m guessing the numbers are similar in the US) has nothing to do with improving human health. And all the evidence in support of animal testing is based on “expert opinion”: there has never been any quantitative evidence to support claims that animal testing is essential to making medical breakthroughs (on a consistent basis, that is). If we focused on building up new technologies instead of holding on to animal testing, we could probably make much better progress, saving both human and nonhuman lives.
Dang, 87% of studies not even being about improving human health is pretty ridiculous. That book looks interesting, thanks, added it to my list.
I totally agree we that need much more of a focus on using all our amazing new tech to replace animals. This is one area where I'm hoping AI can be really helpful!