/lit/ - Literature

Humans are much more expensive than a 1 dollar lab rat.

Because accidentally killing a man is a crime, while accidentally killing an animal is not.

But we do do human experiments. We just do them after the animals.

Humans don't want to sacrifice themselves. They place more value on their own lives than on the lives of others.

ohohoho.... youtube Philosophy of a Knife for me, will ya?

>>735562

After the treatment has been proven to not kill the animal or serious deform it

>>735573

Why not? Humans take a lot more time to breed than rats, they're objectively more valuable.

>>735582
I don't understand your question; I was elaborating on that previous post. I meant that we only use humans once it has been conclusively (usually) tested as safe in animals, and as such won't pose that much harm (if any) to humans

Op here.
I probably should elaborate on my thought...
If we were to breed humans for the sole purpose of medical experimentation, that would seriously further the research and possibly save thousands of lives.
The patients would never know society or anything other than the life of a test trial.
Isn't it then possible to objectively produce results that are far more reliable than monkeys or volunteer trials that you cannot monitor safely?

>>735597

I think the question was rhetorical

>>735630

by which i mean he answered it himself

>>735542
Because murder ain't legal.

inb4 pro-life

Why doesn't OP go volunteer to be a test subject?

I'd like people to experiment on me. Sexually.

Like finding out how far I can ejaculate. Or my heart rate during orgasm.

That would be AWESOME.

>>735649
Because I am already assimilated into society therefore I would know differently.

>>735623

Because that would be immoral and inhumane by all standards.

Science has long established that it is not an institution separate from others; it has ethical shackles, whether you like it or not.

Not to mention that your proposal is a strictly utilitarian slippery slope.

>>735623
Even if we completely disregard ethics your idea is still fucking idiotic. Humans take an assload of time to grow. Some shit can't be tested on babies. Humans are hard to control. It makes much more sense to test it on animals that react in similar ways to humans rather creating some sort of mad scientist human breeding program.

Seriously, step back and think for a moment.

>>735667
Okay. Valid point. Then ignore the obvious problems, which I have in fact thought of believe it or not, and regard the ethical parts, please?

Well, scientists have found a chemical that will slow or even stop bone marrow loss in rats, which would effectively cure osteoporosis. They can't market it because they don't know what sort of effect it will have in humans. While I do think that experimentation on human beings would advance medicines and science even further, it could potentially become VERY unethical, VERY quickly. Furthermore, what decides whether or not a human being is "worthy" to be tested on? IQ? Gender? Ethnicity?

Now, if it was voluntary, that's a whole different matter, in which I would more or less support it. However, what if someone is "forced" into becoming an experiment because they can't afford college, much like the army today? There are just too many possibilities for poor treatment of said people.

But then one must consider the "greater good." If a dozen people die through experimentation, but millions are saved through the eventual product, was it worth it? Unless one of those dozen people was a member of my family, I would say yes. Even more so if one of the millions saved was as close to me.

It's a gray area, that's for sure. I support science all the way, but I also support human rights.

What is this greater good? So more teenagers can yakk on their cellphones, more businessmen can get richer, etc. If life had a point, maybe I'd be on your side about the human medical experiment thing.

>>735542
Humanism

the ends don't justify the means, because we don't know what the effect of the means will be or ultimate affect of the ends either

>>736055
That makes me sad for some reason...

Because Bioshock taught us that that doesn't work.

>>736039
By "the greater good" I'm specifically referring to the physical health of people. I probably should have stated that in my first post, but anyway, you do bring up a good point--by improving the physical health of people, what are people going to do? I doubt taking a pill to cure their cancer will change their attitude significantly, especially since the cure would be cheaper and quicker than a surgical procedure or something.

Perhaps we should just say, "fuck it all" and experiment on people whose mental capacities are so low that they're barely sentient and can't live without constant assistance. In this case, they could actually be useful.

>>736083

Could you justify this argument in anyway, or are you just stuck with the mentality of a wannabe-amoral teenager?

1) What about all that stem cell research?
2) If OP is serious, then start-up a company and pursue the money angle and play down the human experiment angle. Get some investors, lobby government to change laws. Them concentrate on torturing humans for science. It's how things are done in America.

>>736106
Well, here's how I see it: Those people are going to sit on their asses day in and day out while a caretaker, most likely hired by the person's family, feeds them, cleans them, and collects that person's welfare. They are not going to create anything, they are not going to hold a job or pay taxes. I admit, since they need caretakers, they create jobs. However, other than that, they don't do much. If their family would be willing to, they could sign the person into an experimental program. However, this would not happen until the medicine or procedure was proven to be non-life-threatening (as in, the subject wouldn't die due to the experiment itself). In this way, we could find cures for illnesses faster, and perhaps even cure the subject of his or her mental retardation (ever read Flowers for Algernon?).

That's my justification. I'm not saying that we just throw them into the lab as soon as we realize that they're vegetables, but that it shouldn't be ruled out as a possibility.

>>736134
I live in Canada.

>>736147
I wish I could believe that some people aren't valuable. If I did, you'd be #1 on my list, OP

>>736147
I'm glad that I don't meet many people with similar ethical beliefs as you, OP. Else I would have lost faith in humanity long ago.

Fucking terminally ill people, how do they work?

>>736147

We haven't lived under the dog-eat-dog mentality for a while, now; at least developed countries haven't. The notion that a person will not or cannot contribute to society in any significant degree does not mean that we can consider sacrificing their integrity, whether physical, mental, or emotional, even if it is for "the greater good". (That would be a utilitarian approach, which can be heavily criticized on its own right.)

Legally and ethically speaking, a person is a person is a person, and by virtue of that they have a number of irremoveable rights. A family's consent cannot override a person's rights unless it's for their own well-being (i.e. invasive surgery).

>>736161
>>736169
Just a heads up.
That's not OP. I am.
And sorry if I offended anyone as it was unintentional...

>>736173
This. Those terminally ill people would feel better contributing to society.

>>736180
Excellent point, and I agree with you--in the United States, where I live, we do have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For the record, I'm not the OP--I'm just a spectator on the fence. I do think that if we allowed humane, regulated, consensual human experimentation, we could continually advance. At the same time, I enjoy arguing all sides of an issue to get other viewpoints.

/lit/, I knew I could count on you for a good debate.

I wonder what /sci/ would say about this.

>>736249
>>>/sci/1072369
(hope that link works.)

it's 4chan, if you can't discuss this shit here, then where can you. since when has moral faggotry been taken seriously here

>>736261
Also
>>>/sci/1075426

>>736209
>I do think that if we allowed humane, regulated, consensual human experimentation, we could continually advance
Advance where?

My fellow Americans. As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball, but tonight I say, we must move forward, not backward, upward not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom.

>>736300
Advance forward, of course, in regards to medical science.

So we should be doing experiments on convicted criminals?
Sure, why not.

Because if the point is to help people, you don't want to experiment on them because it would hurt more people than it would help. We test on animals so that people don't die in the early stages of the development of a medical technology. It has nothing to do with morals, you fuckin' tard. If I could slap you upside the head over the net, I would.

>>736507
Who are you answering?

>>736486
Right now the American prison industrial complex is outta money. This could be a good time for a young company to start with some basic medication experiments and, as trust is gained, start some real experimentin' on death row.

>>736539
OP

>>736209
But we DO allow consensual human experimentation, it is just regulated my a mandatory code of ethic that prohibits certain things.

We've all gotta die sometime. Experimenting on ourselves isn't gonna stop that anytime soon. Now I'll get really random. In my family no one has any major diseases, except for big noses, and a plastic surgeon could solve that, if we were that vein, which we're not. Right now, most people die of starvation and war, not medical diseases. If anything, we should stop experimenting on animals, but you gotta give those sciencefags something.

If you want human experimentation to be done, why don't you offer yourself. It was nice knowing you, good bye.

>>736558
Look are you after money, or fool scientific advancement quest?

>>736558
Exactly, and I'm all for that. I know scientists have their own morals, and I trust them to be true to those beliefs, but when tempted by money and fame, they might use the same reasoning argued in previous posts.

>>736606
Except that pretty much anywhere in the world where it is safe enough to conduct serious scientific research there would be the state to disallow such activities.

>>736581
>Now I'll get really random

Go back to /b/, faggot.

>>736209 /lit/, I knew I could count on you for a good debate
I wish you would look for your internet debates in /r9k/, with the rest of your kind.

>>736627
Also very true.

>>736643
/r9k/ is basically /b/ with OC and less naked women. Why bother?

And you're turning /lit/ into the same thing. We're the literature board, not the "I have a random thought let me see if others agree with me" board.

>>736657
Note: I am not OP. Just a debater who enjoys exploring the other side to better understand my own reasoning.

>>736664
Explore another board.

>>736670
Nah, I'm happy here.

>>735656
Just what you need. A room full of people documenting your sexual inadequacy.

>>736656
because it's where you BELONG, and if it's shit, then you BELONG IN SHIT, instead of trying to belong elsewhere AND PUTTING SHIT IN IT.

>>736691
Hey, who are you to put down the sexual fetishes of someone else? They're not forcing you to experiment on them, are they? I thought not.

Sheesh, people.

>>736692
>saying this in 4chan

>>736700
truth, as they say, is never offensive

it was a hot, wet night - fetid and moist like a forgotten grandma's hole...filled with all the rotten fruits of memory.