The argument isn't primarily a quantitative one. It's asking what it says about the so-called life sciences that they are based on torturing living beings.
>It's asking what it says about the so-called life sciences that they are based on torturing living beings.
I think it says more about the observer than life sciences.
Morality in the real world is complex and most of the heuristics we use in our daily lives rapidly break down when examining most anything in detail.
While life sciences have a tremendous potential to help humans and the world at large, but there are also hidden costs that laypeople may not be aware of.
> Who are we as humans to decide what that means for them?
Is that a joke? Rats, cockroaches, and mosquitoes are all life forms. Poison ivy is a life form. Guinea worms are life forms.
We as intelligent beings get to decide what it all means. We can crush them, we can use them to our advancement, or we can set them up as gods and worship them.
But none of those things are beings. It's our language, and we , not mice, get to decide what the word "being" means.
It's not a joke. It's a frank question. We might decide what the word "being" means to us, but that doesn't change the reality of what the word is pointing to.
Nope. That's not how it's defined. A guinea worm is also a living creature, as is a mosquito, but they aren't beings. Beings is used to refer to intelligent life.
I think it says more about the observer than life sciences.
Morality in the real world is complex and most of the heuristics we use in our daily lives rapidly break down when examining most anything in detail.
While life sciences have a tremendous potential to help humans and the world at large, but there are also hidden costs that laypeople may not be aware of.