kotake

There have been people living for over 100 years without any technological help. But that's not what you mean, is it?

As for the life-extending technology and/or medicine, how does it work?

If time slows down as object or person nears the speed of light, then wouldn't everyone in this universe be in different time (my soul is in different time than your soul. I've seen part of you that you haven't experienced yet) since everyone is moving in different speed?

Newton first introduced the value, as an infinite sequence.

albertlee,

Yes, medicines and drugs are still being tested on animals today.

Animal tests are not accurate, yet they may happen to give drug developers a general idea of how a new drug interacts with organisms, and sometimes this can lead to the development of a drug which indeed saves many human lives. But it is then looked apart from the lives wasted under the tests. If a medicine is meant for humans, yet is being tested on non-humans, it requires the painful involvement of a bigger number non-humans than it would if it were tested directly on humans, obviously, in order to increase the accuracy.

But, of course, a given test is accurate for one particular species when performed on that species. The inaccuracy lies within the generalising of the results onto humans. For instance, if vivisectors find that a drug kills 3 out of 5 chimpanzees two hours after dosage, it does not necessarily mean that the same will apply to humans.

One of the reasons drugs and cosmetics are being tested on animals is because a number of people believes that humans can experience suffering in contrast to, or to a bigger extension than, other non-human animals.

There are many reasons. Several of them have already been expressed in this thread.

As the solar system formed, the gravity of the sun drew in the heavier, more dense chunks of planetary dust - that is why the inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars, are rocky. And the outer ones are composed of gas.

Interesting. This suggests that the likelihood of finding gas giants close to a star are remote at best.

According to a new theory nebulae don't spontaneously collapse (among others, the gas particles have too high velocities when they collide to be able to stick together) - in order for particles to clump together and form planets they must be activated by enormous external forces. These forces may come from supernova explosions, which emit shock waves and destabilise the gas clusters. The gases then collapse and start hydrogen fusion, giving birth to stars. Remaining dust settles like disks around the new born stars.

When other supernovae explode they provide the systems with heavy elements, like iron. The elements intermingle with the gas disks, and thus planets form, orbiting the star.

However, I have a feeling most species mate with another member of they're species because they think 'They're hot' (or the organism's equivalent), NOT because they're thinking 'This will make my species more genetically resistant to extinction.'

Hi I'm a new guy. I came to these forums in search of good friends because I have none! I'm not super intelligent like any of you I just though everyone here would be good people to befriend.

Well, I hope you'll like this place, and you don't have to be super-intelligent to join. I proved that by joining myself.

A big welcome to you and to the other new-comers!

I'm not sure which plant you mean. Afaik, vitamin B12 can only come from various animal sources. Vegetarians taking multivitamins or "natural" supplements as a means of replacing the shortfall are eating ground-up pig livers (or whatever they make it from). I am aware that there is a microbial product on the market, but I recall reading that the vitamin they produce is optically inverted.

Vitamin B12, whether in supplements, fortified foods, or animal products, comes from micro-organisms.[...']In choosing to use fortified foods or B12 supplements, vegans are taking their B12 from the same source as every other animal on the planet - micro-organisms - without causing suffering to any sentient being or causing environmental damage.

Eating less meat is one way to go if society wants to reduce animal suffering (in agriculture anyway), but it will only work large scale. One person here or there isn't going to make much difference, unfortunately.

Of course it will only work in a large scale! I keep thinking, if all the countless people saying so did in fact eat less meat, then it would make quite a big difference, in total.

Imagine if a person didn't vote during elections because he felt that his single vote didn't have much to say. Certainly one single unit of vote cannot change much. Now imagine if all the voters thought so. Many small units put together make up the "large scale".

To change the world one must start somewhere. It cannot all be changed over night. A good point to start is with one self.

But what I'm saying that it's totally subjective for you to decide how much is too much.

It's not that simple though. Companies exist to make a profit, and they aren't going to do that if their product killed the first round of human testers, maimed the second round, and turned out okay in the third.

Those are your beliefs. My beliefs are different. To each their own. Nobody is asking you to conform to my morals, so why should you ask me to conform to yours?

AFAIK, there have been a total of 3 cases in the last 20 years, and this is a *huge* university, with a very large attached medical school. Most of the citations are for BS beurocratic nonsense.

While vivisectionists and pro-vivisectionists repeatedly claim that (i)all animal experimentation is necessary, (ii)animal suffering is kept to a minimum, and (iii)Government inspectors ensure that vivisectors comply with legislation and guidelines which exist for the protection of laboratory animals, such claims are shown to be untrue due to those undercover investigations and subsequent exposures of laboratories which take place.

 

There is the somewhat obvious point, invariably overlooked, that it is difficult to envisage how any individual, willing to use and kill animals in the manner described in other parts of this website, will actually be capable of behaving towards an animal as modern ethical standards demand. Indeed, the very idea that companies who use animals as nothing more than laboratory tools will also behave towards them in a responsible and responsive manner is an obvious self-contradiction. In sum, how is it possible that someone who makes a living from poisoning, burning, electrocuting and/or killing animals will nonetheless be concerned about their well-being and welfare? Such a suggestion is obviously wholly absurd.

 

Although vivisection laboratories continually increase their security to ensure the outside world is not allowed any idea of what occurs beyond the security cameras, the barbed wire and the locked doors, the fact remains that undercover investigations do take place and reveal the horrors inside as the following examples reveal.

Back up your claim. Show me a statistical study that shows over 50% of scientists do animal-studies (and put themselves through the utter *hell* of IACUC) just because they feel like it.

 

Until you produce such a source' date=' I will dismiss your claim as exactly what it truly is: an unsubstantiated waste of space.[/quote']I didn't say that most vivisectors do that, but "a lot", which doesn't necessarily mean avobe 50 %. As for sources, I suggest you visit the site linked to above.

 

How can it *not*? Everything here is about personal beliefs and philosophies. There's no emprical basis for claiming something is moral or ethical. You cannot build an instrument to detect and quantify the morality of actions.

 

It's *all* beliefs. The only empirical facts are the position we are in. What we *should* do is nothing but beliefs.

I (almost) agree to that.

 

All I ask is not to have others beliefs imposed on me for the cause of "morality".

Again' date=' most of us here are expressing our own beliefs. It is as you said, we all have our own perception of morality, and in times it might lead to conflicts. But imagine that someone's beliefs invovle the act of persuading others to their own, because they see it as the only right thing to do. That being part of their belief.

 

And this is our way of living and surviving. How is it any different?

 

Ok, so we may hurt or kill animals to help ourselves survive. So do tapeworms. So do lions. Death and suffering are part of life. You kill other things in order to live. Thems the breaks.

 

Sure, we have "intelligence" but what does that make us beyond a smarter predator?

As we have no empirical facts for that (meaning of life etc), it once again comes down to beliefs.

 

But as you said, it is the society that forms our morals. Then I may claim that it is a flaw in society, that it holds animal testing as morally right, whereas it holds the killing of a human as morally wrong.

 

 

If some of my answers in this post are found dissatisfactory by being incomplete, imperfect or inconsistent, it might be caused by the fact that it's late and I am very tired.

Actually, they were 'made' to be skinned and eaten. They're a domesticated species that was produced by the South American indians as a food source.

Wrong.

 

EVERY university that does *any* vertebrate research *must* have an IACUC committee' date=' which oversees all animal welfare and makes sure humane procedures are used.[/quote']Yes, but I am quite sure negligence often occurs.

 

And what if you don't give a crap about humans, and are just studying the animals themselves?

Dead animals can be used for that, unless locomotion is desired.

 

Bullshit. I do animal testing myself, and it's most certainly not because I don't have anything to do on Friday nights.

I didn't say that you do. I said "a lot of them" do.

 

Corpses don't locomote, and that's what I'm studying. Termination and dissection is necessary to ascertain the location of the electrodes that measure muscle activation.

Alright, but for what purpose do you perform these studies? And how do they differ from examining humans?

 

Except that it's the search for pure knowledge, with associated sacrifices, that has lead to *every* major advance in science.

Not *every* major advance in science involved animal testing.

 

Here's a tip: Do you know where rights come from? They don't come from any mythical god or any such thing. They come from *force*' date=' from *power*. The only people that truly have any rights are those able and willing to rise up and fight for those rights. Those that cannot and or will not are merely living on the graces of the strong.

 

Sorry, but that's how nature works, including humans. "Morals" are something we talk about to make ourselves feel good about and justify our instinctive reactions.[/quote']I know that is how nature (in your definition) works, and that it would seem logically and evolutionary correct to take advantage of the other species so that our species were spread everywhere. But say we manage to spread everywhere and "take over the world (universe)". Then what? I simply don't see much point in doing certain things only because they are by most people labelled "natural". I believe we have obtained intelligence enough to reach for other goals.

But, I don't want this thread to evlove into a debate on personal beliefs and philosophy.

 

Humans are animals, and we're doing what animals do. Compared to most animals, we're angels. Or did you not know that over 50% of species are parasites?

Can you define "angels", please?

Whether species are parasites, predators or intellectuals, it is their way of living and surviving.

Until your liver depletes its store of B12.

I find it ironic you would point me towards a document on "pain versus suffering" immediately after swapping suffering with pain in the same reply.

 

I have no doubt that macroscopic animals such as cows can feel pain. I don't recall that being disputed in this thread. In case you are in any doubt' date=' I shall reiterate my earlier statement: I am against all unnecessary suffering caused to animals (not that that personal position should dictate my ability to rationally argue either side, of course.)[/quote']Hehe, true. It would look better with "unsure about whether someone can suffer", obviously. I was, of course, referring to mental pain, but I see that it was wrong put in the actual paragraph. Sorry about that.

 

I'm not really looking for "mights' date=' maybes and perhaps". I'm looking for an inherent lack of ethics in the act itself. I was actually going somewhere with that when I originally asked the question, and it now escapes me altogether

 

 

There are of course plenty of situations in which I would consider the killing of a cow to be unethical. But that would be due to the specifics [i']of[/i] the situation (i.e. factors that are not a product of the act itself), and is therefore not admissable.

I see. In that case I neither have any feasible answer.

 

I really don't see how you can judge someone to be acting unethically just because you consider them to have "enough" money, "enough" food, or "too much luxury". You could not make those judgements objectively without a lot more information even if you had not made up the conditions.

I don't find it unethical to have "enough", but to have "too much", in the sense of "more than needed", as this would harm others because it would deprive them of certain vital resources, leading to assymetric distribution.

 

No, it is. We do know for sure. We do have absolute facts. 'Pavlovian' (I enclose the word with inverted commas because - as with most things behavioural - it's not quite that simple) responses are very well tried and tested.

My point is that we cannot know whether pigs have consciousness. The behavioural observances might indicate different things. We say that humans have consciousness, but what in our behaviour indicates consciousness? We say we have consciousness because we can feel it subjectively. I don't think behaviour can measure consciousness, but then again I am not qualified to say so, so maytbe I shouldn't.

 

True, but then it doesn't really mean much if we're talking about pigs. The fact that one species reacts to stimulus Y in fashion X does not mean that another given species will, which is the basis of this discussion.

Again, the point was to show that even though humans are said to have consciousness, it might not be achievable to directly observe it for an outsider.

 

The default position then is "we don't really know' date=' so do what you think is best".

 

Some people think that civilisation having access to lip stick, toilet cleaner and ibuprofen is more important than a few hundred thousand animals. Others don't. Personally I think 6 billion stinking, ugly and sick humans is a more repugnant thought than bunny rabits wearing blusher, but I'm all for any reasonable efforts to reduce animal suffering in a non-preachy fashion.[/quote']Morally, we shouldn't value one life over another, which implies that animal testing is wrong. Besides, not one rabbit is put through agony for saving one human. Being as inaccurate as they are, animal test require the pain of a greater number of individuals than the number of individuals that they save.

 

 

It wasn't required to. It simply shows the basic route to that behaviour in cows[/u'].

I see. I though it was to illustrate how cows have behaviour rather than consciousness.

 

We know that our behaviour is modified by numerous other factors because we have the ability to think about processes going on in our own brains. We don't have a window into the brains of cows, and empiricism requires that we don't make shit up about what goes on in there just because we like the idea of it.

Okay, but we know there is a possibility for non-human animals to have consciousness, ergo feel mental distress. Therefore, we should base our actions on operating in accordance with this - i.e. where there is a possibility for discomfort, we should not carry out the operation - until proven wrong.

 

Apparently it would be illegal. I'd love to know precisely why.

What makes you think it would be illegal?

That doesnt have anything to do with being special.

Wrong. Who told you PETA was a credible source?

Why should we ease every animal from harm. Why shouldnt we take advantage of animals?

I didnt say we had to harm others by all means...

I absolutely agree that we eat more meat than we need. And yes, eating only meat would be unhealthy. But I'm sorry to say that veganism is most certainly NOT more healthy than a balanced diet. Perhaps you should stop taking your multivitamins for a few years and see what happens.

The idea with multivitamins is that one should take them, not stop taking them, and they are a part of vegan diet. If a vegan should stop taking multivitamins he would be no vegan. It's just not possible. If taking multivitamins instead of eating meat causes some individuals to avoid suffering, then so be it.

You do realize that that video was made with the sole purpose of manipulating you? Its nothing but propaganda. I think you should look to other people other than PETA for credible sources.

Are you insinuating that I took all the material I posted from PETA?

That doesnt answer the question. Why is luxury unethical?

Are you suggesting that monkeys are developing a space program?

I personally don't see what's so wrong with animal testing.

What I will say is this....those of you out there who say "there's all sorts of other models we can use other than animals" please tell us what they are??? .

http://altweb.jhsph.edu

http://www.frame.org.uk

http://www.stifud.se/om_djurforsok/lankar.php

To mention some.

What exactly is special about the human species when compared to' date=' let's say, chimpanzees, rabbits, or even mice?[/quote'']You have got to be joking... I would say just about anything.

I cannot make much sense out of your statement, as we share 98,8 % of our DNA with chimpanzees.

 

...Eating an animal so you don’t starve would ease your own suffering and cause suffering towards the animal.

Eating a plant instead of an animal would ease your own suffering (health, environment a.o.), not to mention the suffering of the animal raised for food.

 

...that folk on death row should have their torment added to by being guinea pigs?

You mean that guinea pigs are made for being tested on? You mean that "being guinea pigs" is the same as being experimented on? That's a sad viewpoint.

 

I would exterminate a paedophile/murderer or thoroughly evil person as willingly as you but I would not want to extend the punishment of death by forcing them to take part in experiments....that would make us as bad as them. Don't you see that? Shades of Hitler here.

Your words are somewhat contradictory. Shades of Hitler you say? That means you would exterminate the vivisectors as well? Personally I don't view anything as being "thoroughly evil", but from what you say, it seems to include vivisectors.

 

I worked with rats for a few semesters in a behavioral neuroscience lab doing drug testing' date=' and I want to point out what I noticed.

I am willing to bet that those animals suffered less than the luckiest of rats living in the wild. We worked very closely with the animal welfare people, and the total comfort of the animals was ensured every step of the way. They were put down peacefully with gas so we could get to thier brains afterwards (and you just can't do that with humans). They generally had access to food, drink, and sex at a level unprecedented for wild rats. [What else do rats want, anyway?'] We even managed to argue with each other a bit over which type of bedding was most comfortable for transport and such. There was some level of necessary suffering (like recieving injections), but I've seen humans put through far worse in experiments and walk away content.

 

Just my own personal experience... I wonder where all this "terrible suffering" supposedly is in animal testing.

Hmm, your working place must have been a true exception.

 

To program the computer, you need to know a heck of a lot about the animals that we don't know, and that means, yes: DISSECTING THEM!!!!!! Really, we don't know about every compound an cell in animals and humans, it would take an insane amount of research before we did.

Animals that are already dead may be "donated" for research. What is problematic with using the same methods as for human anatomy research?

 

Listen, if you're going to equate humans with animals, then there is no good reason why we should pay any attention to another species' well-being. Any and all advantages that can be taken to improve our quality of life or lengtehn our survival should be taken. That's how things work with the animals. Dogs torture squirrels just for the heck of it. A little entertainment at the expense of another animal's life is not an issue. If animals are our "equals", then we have no responsibility not to act like one.

Since humans have such a dignified high intellect, they should be able to use it to widen their circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures. To equate humans with non-human animals means to equate their values of life.

 

How can we be equal yet at the same time be held to higher standards of conduct?

Because our intellect allows us to do more, and this we should use to help those who lack this capacity.

 

That doesn't mean that you can take any random feature of any random animal and assume that there are similar processes behind it just because it looks a bit like a human response.

It is better to be careful rather than risky when we are unsure about whether someone can feel pain.

 

As for pain versus suffering, you might want to read http://www.vkm.no/dav/0b5264a744.pdf

 

A vegetarian is someone who eats just vegeatbles. I want to be a humanitarian.

Hehe, but actually, the word "vegetarian" does not come from "vegetables", but from the Latin word "vegetus" which means "whole, sound, fresh, or lively". The original meaning of the word implies a balanced philosophical and moral sense of life, a lot more than just a diet of vegetables and fruits.

 

BUT.. I am a realist and say hey, screw you beasts, if the shoe was on the other foot, you'd bathe us in perfume to make your crap smell better too!

You make it sound like some kind of war between humans and other animals.

It is a matter of existence. We cannot help who we are born to be. It could well be that one of us would have been born as a rat, and, unless you believe in karma, no one could help it. An individual born into a stressful preset cannot do much to get out of there. Therefore, needs the help of others (read: intelligent ones).

 

If cows had superior intelligence or survival skills I hardly think they would be in the position they are in today. You say our relationship is unlike that of lions and zebras, and you're right. We beat the system. Out species was intelligent enough to eliminate the need to hunt. I fail to see how humans are not superior to cows (or any other animal).

What you give an example of here is the fact that many humans use their intelligence to take advantage of others. Again, why shouldn't we use our intelligence to ease everyone from harm? You say cows survive because humans let them survive, but these lives are not worthy lives.

 

Why, in your opinion, do we have to harm others by all means, beat the system to put ourselves on the top? How does this serve us and the Earth altogether?

 

To the people who feel that the explotation of animals is wrong' date=' I ask you, how can you account for nature? It is a part of the natural world that one species subsist and explotes those below it.

 

Does this make nature immoral or is man above nature held to higher rules?[/quote']It is a part of the natural world that there are numerous possibilites. Both the atcs we call moral and the acts we call immoral are possibilites. Creatures are built in a way which allows them to experience both comfort and discomfort. Our structure is such that we prefer to avoid discomfort. Therefore, we, humans - as the most intelligent on the planet - should not use our intelligence to harm others, but to avoid harming others. There is no natural point in harming others needlessly. Sooner or later it will disserve us anyway. We should focus on living in peace with our co-habitants of Earth.

 

If all animals and man are given the same value, then how is it that animals are allowed to kill each other, but not man?

Animals kill each other because they need to eat. Predators are built to solely feed on meat, whereas humans, like bears, have the great advantage of being able to eat both meat and plants. One thing is that a mostly plant-based diet is healthier for humans. Yet, many people continue to eat loads of meat - not because they need it - but because it is tasty. They eat more than they need. It is luxury. The problem is the quantity of animals slaughtered for food, and the way they are treated.

 

I think that (the cows) who "only survived because we let them," would be great for genetic testing because they owe it to us as we keep them alive

So the cows owe humans for this?

I really don't like genetic engineering on animals that "feel" and "think". It is just not right.

Hehe, now that isn't very consistent with your previous statement. Given, of course, that cows most definitely can feel, and think, at least to a certain degree, as In My Memory has debated.

 

How is it unethical to kill a cow?

It might not be unethical in itself to kill. The problem lies in the treatment of the cow. But, of course, it might be unethical to kill a cow, if its death serves no one. For instance, if someone is very rich, has loads of food, and in addition kills a cow, just to sell the cow and to get even richer. That would be unethical, because that someone doesn't need the extra money. We assume here that the person who bought the dead cow already had more than enough food, and that he bought the cow just for the luxurious taste of meat. Both sides imply luxury. Luxury is unethical.

 

Animals are not tested on for some sick pleasure

A lot of them are.

 

Interestingly some hair dyes are no longer tested on animals, especially here in the UK.Which has led to some horrific injuries to women.

Otherwise, the injuries would be inflicted to the lab animals.

 

From what I read, the products in the articles you submitted had all been animal tested.

The cosmetics developers should utilise to a greater extension what they know about chemistry and biology when they create new products, instead of mixing all kinds of ingredients and testing them on rabbits' eyes. When cosmetics have fatal outcomes when used by consumers, it only shows the reliability of animal testing. "Procter & Gamble puts out the most thoroughly tested products on the market today," as the article you posted writes, and yet people suffer when they use the products. Different animals react differently to the same ingredients.

 

The pigs don't know one of them is going to die; what they are reacting to is the pre-stimulus that indicates someone is going to make a cracking great boom next to their head, which most animals can do without during meals.

It might be. But we cannot know for sure without absolute facts. The same could be observed among humans, if the observer didn't know how to communicate with humans.

 

the fact is that we don't know[/u'], and to base an argument on speculation is to build a house of cards.

Exactly. And since we don't know, we should take some precautions, and not assume that animals cannot suffer. Thus, due to this lack of knowledge, we should not perform animal testing, because we don't know if it doesn't cause suffering.

 

Who wants to eat tofu when yo could eat a medium-rare steak?

I do. And I have good reasons.

 

Makeup isn't necessary. You can be healthy and survive without makeup. Its ridiculous that we think it is such a necessity that we must test it out first. I really have no asnwer to this. i wouldn't like to see my mother's face burnt off' date=' but I never said she needs makeup in the first place. It is a "want" not a "need".

 

If a person wants to wear makeup, then I dare say they should be prepared to take the chances.[/quote']Applause!

 

The fact that a cow, or any other animal shows a powerful survival instinct doesn't seem to provide any proof of consciousness. That same instinct can be observed in the lower animals who we can all agree are not conscious, such as snails or worms.

And in humans.

Yet we say that humans have consciousness because we ourselves are subjective humans. We know we have caonsciousness because we ourselves can feel it and communicate over it; whereas we are not able to directly "feel" consciousness in other species, because we cannot communicate with them at a satisfactory level.

 

cows [...'] tend to end up dead or with four broken legs. They don't do so well at reproduction after that. The genetic basis for the population's behaviour is therefore selectively moved towards the non-suicidal.

I can't see how this differentiates cows from humans. Surely the same must apply to us? (non-suicidal behaviour because of reproduction)

 

If people can accept those risks with the proper compensation, why not allow human testing at a professional and regulated level?

This, I agree, is a good idea.

 

According to New Scientist (or one magazine like that) to replace all of the animal testing in Britain for a year would require a million human volunteers.

There are many alternatives. Voluntary human testing is just one of them. Not all animal testing would be replaced by this alternative.

 

I work for Kendle International and we pretty much do the same thing. Before the drugs even come close to the human testing, they must pass through animal testing and be deemed 'safe' for human trials through a VERY strict set of guidelines. The pharmaceutical companies don't just come up with a random mix of chemicals and then start injecting them into humans. That would be illegal. Instead their chemistry is first investigated to see if it it similar to any other chemicals already known. Then it is moved onto animal testing to see the lethality, if any, of it. Only after it has successfully passed animal testing is it even allowed to be tested on humans.

That doesn't make much sense to me. Non-human animals still go through the same hazardous process as in "regular" animal testing, and it doesn't seem to be reduced much despite the human testing. And the animal tests are not accurate. Many drugs get rejected even after passing animal testing. And sometimes, the drugs will not pass animal testing, yet they might not have been harmful to humans. I don't see much point in animal testing. http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/abs05.html

 

If there are no animal trials beforehand, far fewer people would probably want to take the risk of trying an untested chemical, and we wouldn't see as much exposure anymore. Less exposure means a lower chance of finding an unintended benefit.

There is no benefit in torturing individuals under animal trial phase. Well, there is some, but there is more netto harm than benefit from it.

 

If you went into an organic chemistry lab and threw some things together, would you be willing to put whatever you created right into your mouth? In a sense, by removing animal testing that is exactly what you'd be doing with any new 'drug'.

If that is indeed what the drug developers do, then they have a serious lack of knowledge and things to do. Would it be right to put "whatever you created" right into the mouth of a different animal?

 

What about terminal animal experiments that aren't of medical use? Ones where the goal is simply to find out how the animal itself works; knowledge for the sake of knowledge. What would various people consider justifed?

 

[...] How much sacrifce is pure knowledge worth?

As I have mentioned before' date=' animal corpses can be used for such research. Animals that died a natural death.

 

I would say that pure knowledge isn't worth so much. As long as it hurts no one, knowledge-seeking research can be performed. But if it becomes a question of pain, we should restrain ourselves from seeking the knowledge.

 

Perhaps our ability to survive tough conditions and know how to make use of our surroundings to not only lengthen our lives, but make the quality of our lives better? Using animals to test things out on before applying them to ourselves is just another example of using our surroundings to our advantage. In this case, those 'surroundings' are the other animal species.

This is a problem. Some people identify themselves with all other humans so strongly that they make all non-human animals their rivals, or even enemies. Are we at war with all the non-human animals? And what is "we"? Why do we feel more compassion towards humans rather than other animals?

 

For things like medicines and drugs which allow people to live normal, happy lives, I'm all for the testing.

Yes, but it does the opposite to the anonymous animals that the medicines are being tested on.

 

unless, someone wants to volenteer (Just kidding) there is no choice but to use animals for tests on new theories.

That is just because the non-human animals cannot make a communicable decision of volunteering or abstaining from the tests.

 

humans [...] are the first species to develop technology and consciousness[/b'].

We cannot know that.

"The Hubble images are part of the Romantic landscape tradition. They fit that popular, familiar model of what the natural world should look like."

Yep, Hubble is a source for amazing art. Great site, HubbleSite.

libation = liquor

wicker

when i inquire that that moslty wat scientists say is incorrect i am overemphasising the fact that scienctists are not giving the correct thinking on subjects of physics like gravity such as einstein and his outrageous theories.

And what is so outrageous about Einstein's theories and not about Mark's theories?

The strength of atomic and nuclear interactions depend on the value of c. If it changes' date=' it makes chemical and nuclear interactions different. And yet there's plenty of evidence that stars shined in the past, since the light we see is old, and there was a natural reactor on earth 2 billion years ago.

 

It's quite possible that some interactions would start or stop happening if the value of c changed, or the rates would change.[/quote']

There are some observations which apparently support this new theory of the changing c, as the magazine writes.

 

I: Some very distant quasars have been observed with the Keck telescopes, and the line spectra which occur when their light passes through gass clouds of Fe, Cr and Ni are somewhat shifted from the ones we would expect. The placement of the lines depends on the speed of light.

 

II: The temperature on WMAP's picture of the universe at the age of 380 000 years seems to be distributed evenly throughout the whole, which suggests that all the areas have been in contact with each other. These areas were at a distance of several millions of light years apart, yet due to the age, the radiation could only have moved 380 000 light years.

 

III: In a uranium mine in Oklo in West Africa there seems to have been a fision process about 1,8 billions years ago, because the amount of U-235 was too small compared to what we would expect otherwise. After analyzing the remnants of the reaction one can find a value for c. Some calculations show that there is a deviation from our current value.

 

 

That is what the magazine writes. Of course, these results might be normal deviations. I know too little, so what do you people think?

Here is my current desktop, but the image changes automatically and often.

All the rest of physics that works just fine with c being constant, and would actually fail if it weren't.

I may be on the wrong track, but, if c changed throughout time, today's laws of physics would still succeed if we were using them to calculate events that occur at one given moment, that is, if we knew c for that moment.

Anybody can write a book' date=' and the London Sunday Times isn't peer-reviewed. Journalists often get stuff wrong, and can't usually evaluate the merits of a scientific argument.

 

This guy apparently has an explanation for a few things in cosmology. But it has ramifications throughout science. If he's right, he has to explain how a varying c fits in with all of physics, not just his little corner of it. Just because an internet site says something, doesn't make it true.[/quote']I see. In which parts of physics does this theory not fit into?

There is no such thing as existence in 2d.[...']Computer displays, like shadows, are displays of light. There is no such "thing" that exists.

References' date=' please, for the latter part.

 

Some experiments investigating the fine structure constant, which includes c, have shown limited (a part in 10[sup']5[/sup]) change over the period you state, and others are consistent with zero change, so this may just be an upper bound, limited by experimental error.

Cadmus, are you saying that darkness is EM radiation of wave lenghts that the human eye cannot see? In that case, darkness is not an absolute concept. It must surely depend on the observer's eyes which wave lenghts of EM radiation he can see. For instance, different species that we know of perceive different wave lenghts, let alone the diversity of telescopes in use. So basically, the definition of darkness will depend on the observer.

No. Go in your room at night, shut the windows, and turn out the light. You can observe complete darkness. What does this mean? It means that all light (EM radiation) that impacts the eyes is outside of the visible spectrum. It does not mean that in this situation zero EM radiation makes contact with the eyes.

To me, the physical term of "complete darkness" is when there is no EMR at all, which is, as we have discussed only possible inside a theoretically perfect faraday cage.

Earlier in the thread you said that darkness is light (EMR) because we can "see" it. How do you define "sse it"? If we imagine the faraday cage situation, no photons will hit the observer's eye, so how can we "see" it?

Well doe's darkness exist? or do we imagine it's existance? Sometimes I wonder if darkness is an invisible entity made up of unknown molecules & like everything in our Universe seems to have an opposite making an equal; could darkness be 186,000 seconds in reverse so that we don't see it? just an idea; "so light is measured in photons" maybe dark could be measured in neg-photons this is indeed a strange topic... I guess we're all in the dark....us.2u

Are you thinking about anti-photons? Now that's a quite different discussion.

If the eyes "see" somthing then it must be light. That's what the eyes see.

In a way I can see what you are saying, Cadmus; do you suggest that complete darkness has never been observed, so by scientific method it cannot be said to exist? Yet still I belive that we should not look apart from the theory of darkness.

On some of the other forums I am member of there is an option for putting a picture inside the profile, which is also slightly bigger than an avatar. Perhaps the same could be done here?