[null_shift]

Or we halt the research until computational models become viable. You make it seem like we have no choice but to test on animals. I’m sure that is how the researchers rationalize it to themselves.

[Scandiravian]

We could do that, but the amount of preventable suffering that decision would cause, to me, makes that a bad decision.

I'm sure an argument to stop research in lifesaving medicine is easy to rationalize if you're in a privileged position where you don't have to deal with your children dying from malaria or being born with HIV, your elder family members slowly disappearing to Alzheimer's, or your partner's body withering away to cancer

[null_shift]

I have had to deal with at least one of those things. It still doesn’t change my opinion.

I feel that it is ethically wrong to enslave and torture animals for humanities benefit. If that means that I will die from a disease that would have been prevented otherwise, I can accept that. I don’t feel it is right for me to impose suffering on another sentient being for my own incremental benefit.

[inawarminister]

And let people suffer for decades with much slower advancement in drug making and therapy development?

Perhaps you can sell it to patients and their families first before agitating it in the public sphere.

[null_shift]

I guess I don’t understand why it is considered morally acceptable to torture countless animals for the benefit of humanity.

I understand it from a purely utilitarian standpoint, but it doesn’t sit well with me ethically.

I wouldn’t want an advanced alien species to enslave and torture me at their own benefit.