🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7767@brl-smoke.ARPA>, gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes:
> In article <UWQpB7A97E-01Iw0=q@andrew.cmu.edu> jc5z+@andrew.cmu.edu (John L. Cusack) writes:
> >I think we should take those doctors who do this experimentation on animals
> >and do the same on them.
> 
> There wasn't enough information in the original posting to determine
> whether the cited animal research was for its own sake (in which case
> I agree that it should not have been done) or in pursuit of some other
> problem (in which case it might have been justified).
> 
> Consider:  Suppose that you could reduce human suffering and prolong
> human life as the probable result of performing experiments that would
> require inflicting pain and death on several (non-human) animals, and
> that no other approach would succeed.  Would the experiments be justified?
> I don't think you need to post answers to this question, just think about
> what the appropriate criteria are.

Consider...

What if the answer was "No" ??
There was a profound utterance in A C Clarke's "Deep Range" about how we
might be judged by whoever rises to do so depending on the way we have
treated our fellow creatures...
A frightening thought, is it not?


------------------------------------------------------------
Till Noever
Path:  till@didsgn.UUCP
or     gatech!rebel!didsgn!till
------------------------------------------------------------