check it out, theyve stopped construction of an animal testing lab coz of death threats :D :D

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996180

wadda u guys think on the subject

Seeing as though they can't get consent from the animals I think it's wrong. Also we do it because some consider animals to be lower forms of life which is also wrong. But hey, it's good news. There's always volunteers after easy cash for testing.

Muhahahahaha! :D

Easy ca$h? Where do I sign up?

Um..


Oxford University revealed on Monday that by "mutual consent" it had agreed with the construction firm Montpellier Plc to end their contract to build the biomedical research facility. [...] Oxford University insists that the research facility will go ahead. "The University remains firmly committed to the completion of this building," says a spokesperson.
So surely all that's been caused is a delay, especially if they've already started to build/lay foundations etc?

From Another article (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994605)

"A recent survey found that nine out of 10 people support the need to use animals in medical research."
So depressing, but I kinda find it hard to believe. If so many are pro, then who are all these animal rights terrorists who are, according to the first article, "the most immediate threat to the British population"??

Animal Rights terrorists are the most immediate threat? Huh? Are they gonna start car bombing us?

Anyway, it's difficult to be right when those in charge are wrong.

It's my theory that we (i.e., Animal Rights activists) are viewed as a threat because we are so audacious as to insist upon respect for all life. Wacky, I know, but we're kooky that way.

I agree with Thor 100% RE: volunteers. You want a mascara that lasts all day and doesn't burn like acid if you get it in your eye? Then YOU volunteer to have it dumped in your open eye, and save the bunnies the trouble. I have yet to see a rabbit who wears mascara with regularity. Well, except for Bugs Bunny, and then only in drag.

Not that I would deny a bunny the right to dress in drag, although his parents might have a thing or two to say about it. :p

I'm not trying to blue-sky here - I recognize the need to create products that improve the lives of human beings. That said, I don't support the notion that other lives have to be comprimised to accomplish that admirable goal. :D

Um, my dad is a neurobiologist, and has been killing rats his entire professional career as part of his research (just to set up my bias).

These animals are bred just for this. There's companies based on nothing but breeding animals for research, when they closed the animal testing lab, a company lost a contract for those animals. Those animals are either a) no longer bred b) killed right after birth. You take the cute little baby mice and kinda just chuck them in the garbage (this may be against some hippie humanitarian laws, so you may have to gas them first).

I had to laugh at "hippie humanitarian laws;" very Eric Cartman! :p

Is there a way they could donate the mice to pet shops, et cetera as pets or (let's face it, a snake's gotta eat, too) reptile feed? I guess it seems wasteful as well as cruel to just chuck them in the dustbin.

Not to mention unpleasant for the poor soul who has to empty that trash can.

At least the mice aren't being mascaraed before their unceremonious disposal. :rolleyes:

hehe, you're probably right, they probably do. It would be a waste to do that... the original point was more of an attack on the fundemental idea that all life is unquestionably sacred and to end it is unquestionably inhumane.

Funny story though... for the longest time (when I was 6-8 or so), I couldn't figure out why my shampoo said "This product not tested on animals," I would always wonder... so, how do they know if it will make my hair fall or something?

Hmm...having killed more than one mosquito in my time, I may be forced to concede (partially) that last point to you. I guess my credo is more of a "let's not go out of our way to abuse and debase other creatures for fun and entertainment."

Also, since Paulie Shore is technically an animal, I suppose there's at least one life I won't miss when it's gone. :D

The shampoo thing makes me wonder, too, although I guess they've got a pretty firm grasp on what will and won't hurt us at this point.

"Try adding a little of Compound 2 to the formula, Bill."

"My eyes! My eyes! AIEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"Ok, let's forget about Compound 2."

"let's not go out of our way to abuse and debase other creatures for fun and entertainment"

I definately have no argument there, and because of that, at least in the US, there are strict humanitarian laws about how animals are killed (well, they just put them to sleep before cutting their head off, ugh, the students/assistants usually get stuck doing that, though).

Thor: there's volunteers, and there's experiments which involve killing things and playing with their organs, mutating, killing, playing some more, etc. :)

As far as being dangerous, the most active terrorist group based sollely in the US is the Earth Liberation Front (ELF):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Liberation_Front
http://www.earthliberationfront.com/

edit: reading the wikipedia article again, these guys are pretty cool :) ooh I hate hummers... not that this is the right way to do it... although... they don't condone killing people, and one could think of this as destroying the weapons that are attacking our beloved Earth... which we must Liberate... to the Front comrades!

Thor,

Seeing as though they can't get consent from the animals I think it's wrong.

Doesn't that imply that you do not eat food nor wear clothes (containing leather, e.g.) that used to be a part of an animal which didn't consent to be killed for it? If so, you are a better person than I am. I try to eat on a vegetarian basis, but i sin with an occasional chicken sate.


Also we do it because some consider animals to be lower forms of life which is also wrong. But hey, it's good news. There's always volunteers after easy cash for testing.

If healthy persons are considering taking potentially lethal medicine out of economical motivations, they should rather be admitted to a psychiatrist or should receive a higher salary/government subsidy.

Tezcatlipoca's Hat,

You want a mascara that lasts all day and doesn't burn like acid if you get it in your eye? Then YOU volunteer to have it dumped in your open eye, and save the bunnies the trouble.

Do want medicine that doesn't burn through your stomach? If so, by your own rationale you'd like to be a test subject for medical research?

Unfortunately, we have not yet the technology to emulate the human body in all its complexity and animals are, sadly, really the next best thing. Therefor, when it comes to medical research, we are dependent on using animals and since at least I, as a human, am dependent on medical research to prolong my life, I do not have objections to animal testing in the medical sphere. Having said that, killing animals out of religious traditions, for cosmetic testing or for other purposes than the most basic food (and premetioned medical research), is, in my book, not ethical.

If you really care about animal welfare, I think your effort is better directed into promoting a vegetarian diet and to encourage people to stop buying pets, rather than to obstruct the construction of medical research facilities.

Mouse,


Do want medicine that doesn't burn through your stomach? If so, by your own rationale you'd like to be a test subject for medical research?

I thought it was odd when that fireball shot out of my navel! And here I was chalking it up to the special at La Rana Loca.

:cool:

Seriously, though, good point. My objections are mostly directed toward cosmetic and, er, recreational research on animals anyway.

I will backpedal just a hare (see what I did there? Har, har, choke, gasp, wheeze) and say that, if it would cure diabetes or cancer or whatever the hell is wrong with Tom Green and Paulie Shore, then I am all for (humanely administered) research that uses animals as vicars for humans, unless of course we can convince Tom and Paulie to allow us to conduct the research on them.

As for vegetarianism, I do my best, although I will admit to the occasional chicken burrito. Well, and I eat fish as well. Okay, so I'm a lousy vegetarian. :rolleyes:

Wow, getting a lot of mentions in here.


there's volunteers, and there's experiments which involve killing things and playing with their organs, mutating, killing, playing some more, etc.

I'm sure there are some people who want to die. Get them involved and make them sign release forms or something. At least others will potentially benefit from their urge to die.


Doesn't that imply that you do not eat food nor wear clothes (containing leather, e.g.) that used to be a part of an animal which didn't consent to be killed for it? If so, you are a better person than I am.

Nope, I'm not a better person than you are. In fact, I'm preaching this while eating a chicken sandwich. Although that is part of my dietry need and I am an ominvore so I guess that's acceptable. As for the clothing...crickey. Cotton comes from a plant and I'm sure my fake leather stuff is from animals that have died a long, long time ago (oil).


If healthy persons are considering taking potentially lethal medicine out of economical motivations, they should rather be admitted to a psychiatrist or should receive a higher salary/government subsidy.

This is why the stupid are born ;) Seriously, there are a lot of people who make easy money by participating in experiments. As these people are giving consent (whether or not their judgement is sound) it is consent none the less which then means that the experiment is morally sound. But the participant needs to be informed of any and all predicted outcomes and be made clear of the reality of the experiment.

Thor,


In fact, I'm preaching this while eating a chicken sandwich. Although that is part of my dietry need and I am an ominvore so I guess that's acceptable.
True, we are omnivore by nature. On the same token, most of us are also equipped with a very strong sense to survive as long as possible. I believe that medical science is one of our many ways of expressing that instinct. Therefor, I think that (ab)using life outside your our own species, to prevent ourselves from dying, is every bit a human nature as eating an animal to take in energy to survive for another day.

However, for the carnivorous elements in your diet, there are reasonable viable alternatives. For medical science, the alternatives are not yet up to par.

Do want medicine that doesn't burn through your stomach? If so, by your own rationale you'd like to be a test subject for medical research?
There's alternatives (http://www.buav.org/pdfs/alternatives.pdf) for most animal testing that's done (even if it is in pdf format :rolleyes: ) and more alternatives could be easily found if people had more funding.

Firefly,


There's alternatives (http://www.buav.org/pdfs/alternatives.pdf) for most aniaml testing that's done (even if it is in pdf format :rolleyes: ) and more alternatives could be easily found if people had more funding.
Sure, and of course in those areas where the alternatives are equal in results to using life animals, I'm all for it. However, there is no computer model or articial product complete enough to entirely substitute for the real thing. I quote from http://www.niehs.nih.gov/oc/factsheets/wrl/fctmyth.htm:


There are a variety of techniques available to the researcher that do not require the use of whole animals. For example, cell culture techniques, which use live cells derived from animals and humans, most of which need to be cultivated in animal or human serum (a derivative of blood), have proven to be useful alternatives to the use of whole animals, as has computer modeling and other non-animal techniques. Together, they play an important and growing role in biomedical research.

Yet, with all the promise they hold, they cannot in the foreseeable future replace whole animal models in any comprehensive fashion. They cannot reproduce the interactions of intact biological systems (for instance, the nervous system and immune system) provided by live laboratory animals. Further, there is no alternative to the use of live animals if we wish to test whether or not a compound causes birth defects: if such a compound causes increased rates of fetal death or malformations in animals, it is virtually assured to cause some form of defect (perhaps different from the specific defect seen in animals) in human beings, and pregnant human beings should not be exposed to the compound.

While we are at it, take a look at the policy on animal testing of the Oxford University, where the alleged research facility is going to be built (complete text at http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/biomed/policy.shtml ):

The University of Oxford only uses animals in research programmes of the highest quality and where there are no alternatives. All such work is carried out under licences issued by the Home Secretary after weighing its potential benefits against the effects on the animals concerned. The University is committed to the principles of reduction, refinement and replacement; on each project it ensures that the number of animals used is minimised and that procedures, care routines and husbandry are refined to maximise welfare.

There's alternatives for most animal testing that's done (even if it is in pdf format ) and more alternatives could be easily found if people had more funding. There's a point though, where this becomes impractical, due to the aforementioned funding problems, where the research is no longer feasible. Either you're going to pay many times what you're currently paying for medication, or you don't get medication.

What's natural about purple eyelids anyway? I don't quite find it attractive.

hmm.... sounds like something i would do....

I MEAN.... uh.... wow great plan... eyea...

Mouse,
As for vegetarianism, I do my best, although I will admit to the occasional chicken burrito. Well, and I eat fish as well. Okay, so I'm a lousy vegetarian. :rolleyes:

7 years without giving in, i find meat disgosting

How can you compare animal testing to eating meat? You can chase down a buffalo and chew its throat out for all I care, just don't tie something up and slowly torture it to death in strange ways, please.
I don't care what the cause is, I'm not too keen on medical research period, animals or not, let sick people die and stop doing wierd strange things to animals :mad: Its pretty simple, there's no little logical loopholes to weasel into.
Animals only are supposed to kill things for 2 reasons, food and to remove competition, since our only competent competition is other human beings we should technically by the laws of nature only be killing human beings for reasons other than sustenance. Human on human violence is all above the belt, go nuts, but its unethical to direct violent tendencies intended for other humans onto other unsuspecting species who are not in our game. Hunt them down, they will understand, tie them up and poke them with a hot iron and no, they won't understand. A human will, they will understand you're a sick fuck, but they will understand none the less. Thats the guideline.
Its no coincidence animals know how to be preyed upon and humans know how to be tortured and victims of anger, etc etc. They are the objects those activities are intended for. We need to stay focussed. Put the triangle in the triangular hole.... I'm referring to one of those toys babies have where they put the shapes in the... shut up :mad: You know what I mean.

All the weeping vaginas who wring their hands about animal testing need to visit the pediatric ward at a cancer hospital before they claim to be champions of all that is righteous and philanthropic. You do know it is animals that they validate most chemotherapy drugs on, right? And you do know what those drugs are for, don't you?

You sanctimonious cuntgaskets are more of an impediment to the overall quality of life than anything else. Being so arrogant as to assume that you can ascribe your own twisted metric of morality to the rest of humanity is nauseating to think about.

It's nice that you're all up in arms about preventing the helpless from suffering needlessly, but I guess children don't count, right?

Yeah I realise there aren't alternatives for everything, but there's no excuse for testing cosmetics, shampoo etc on animals. And I don't want to even know why Flash cleaning products (i.e. for the kitchen) are tested on animals. :bugeye:

I think they should use prisoners on death row/serving life sentences for biological research. At least then it'd be the correct biology.

You do know stokes that animals get cancer as well?
What do they do? They die in the fucking cold, while some stinking bald cunt lives it up in the hospital breathing their childrens air. Go fuck yourself, how is it the tortured animals fault that some douche has cancer? They have cancer because they're supposed to die. No need to rape a baby seal and burn a puppy over it. Just let the fucker die.

Is there a way they could donate the mice to pet shops, et cetera as pets or (let's face it, a snake's gotta eat, too) reptile feed? I guess it seems wasteful as well as cruel to just chuck them in the dustbin.

You're a pro-life animal lover yet you want those pet mice to be fed to snakes? Have you ever seen a snake feed on a mouse? The snake wraps itself around the mouse and slowly constricts it. The mouses bones snap in all places and the air is crushed from its lungs. The mouse lets out a gasp of air unable to let out a scream of agony and puts on one of the worst faces you can see trying to pleed for dear life but it's unable to move. As it stays encoiled by the snake for a few more minutes, it continues to suffer until the snake finally opens up its jaws and swallows the mouse whole while you get to see a nice fat lump work its way through the snakes body until it slowly disolves.

Nature is flat out wicked. It's funny how animal lovers think it's so peaceful and loving. Mothers get their babies snatched up and killed right in front of them. They have to look over their shoulders everywhere they go in fear of not dying. I can name numerous things and you're worried about little burns here and there? And that's just one example I gave out of hundreds of other horrific things that occur in nature.

Animals that are tested in labs are bred for that purpose. It's not as if it's some animal picked up off the streets from a loving home and then has to succumb to the harmful testings. The animal is bred and tested there so it knows no other purpose. It has no experiences. It's as if it's been living in a dark cave all it's life. When an animal is like that, even if it's a human, it's not really life because is has no experiences. Heck, that's why I'm not against abortion either. Now if that baby was born and then killed after, I'd be up in arms, but until then, it knows nothing, just as those animals bred for testing doesn't know either.

Ignorance is bliss, for them and for us, especially people like you. There's many things people just aren't able to deal with and if they realized those things -- and trust me, there's a lot worse than simple animal testing that goes on -- you'd go nuts. But to try and have this high morality just makes you, and others, look like a fool. Many contradictions and lots of hypocrasy goes on. Do you want to go live in a cave naked all your life? Because that's the only thing you'll be able to do if you're totally pro-life. I don't even need to mention those things because others have brought it up and heck, even you yourself said so in another post of yours saying how you're a bad vegetarian having the occassional chicken or fish.


How can you compare animal testing to eating meat?

Do you even know what is required to get that meat on your plate? It's not the act of eating meat that is being compared but rather the act of getting that meat in the first place. Go on and do even more harm to us by being strict vegetarians. Go on and eat those LIVING plants you're killing and not to mention the plants that provide us with oxygen. At least we're killing and eating up cows that produce lots of methane gas that's harmful for the environment and inhales all sorts of oxygen we're slowly losing due to all those plants being gone if the whole world were vegetarians. (okay so I'm pushing it a little, lol)


You do know stokes that animals get cancer as well?
What do they do? They die in the fucking cold, while some stinking bald cunt lives it up in the hospital breathing their childrens air. Go fuck yourself, how is it the tortured animals fault that some douche has cancer? They have cancer because they're supposed to die. No need to rape a baby seal and burn a puppy over it. Just let the fucker die.

You seem to be quite defensive for one that believes in survival of the fittest and how laws and morality are just there to protect the weak and hinder the strong. By testing products on animals, we are doing exactly that, using our strong powers to remain that way. Thankfully due to our animalistic nature of being survival of the fittest to remain on top of the food pyramid, we're able to stay powerful and help grant ourselves longer lifespans.

You can go ahead and say we're not supposed to live long and we're supposed to die once we're sick, but that just goes to show how little you know about nature, survival of the fittest, and the like because if that were so, we wouldn't have the knowledge and power we do now to circumvent those natural laws you which you wrote.. your laws to empower the weak and bring down the strong. Your way of thought is one whole endless loop of contradiction.

You're all just living in a dream world unable to deal with reality. Yeah, where's that survival of the fittest to deal with your weak selves? Yep yep, darn those hindering laws to help us put you out of your miseries!

- N

Wow, okay.

I'll reply to the part of Neildo's message that refers to my earlier post:

Well, I imagine the way a snake eats a mouse is pretty much the way it eats anything, be it a mouse or a double cheeseburger. Most snakes are not, by nature, chewers. If the mouse and the snake met under other circumstances, I doubt Mr. Mouse would say "Silly me - can you hold on for a sec while I reduce myself to bite-sized pieces?"

I will admit to being a tad flippant in my comments regarding testing, vegetarianism, et hoc genus omne, but I believe I made it abundantly clear in my follow-up post(s) that my only real beef (har, har, gasp wheeze) with testing is that which is done indiscriminately. As I said in my conversation with Gro$$, I think it's just wasteful to chuck the mice into the dustbin if they're not going to be used for testing. Surely they could learn to be pets or used for food for snakes, who are not, after all, going to ask for a veggie burger. :rolleyes:

As for the relative "wickedness" of nature, well, not out of ignorance did Tennyson refer to it as "Nature, red in tooth and claw." Of course things get ugly; it's life, after all, and much of it is unpleasant. For one thing to live, very often another must die. My primary objection with regard to animal cruelty is the apparent (and I say apparent, because I am not a mind reader) disregard for life that occurs on occasion in these facilities, and not in the jungles or savannahs or steppes. I think it's a bit farcical to make the leap from concern about animal testing conducted by people to the cycle of life that occurs in the wild (a classic example of what logisticians refer to as "The Slippery Slope"). :confused:

Never have I claimed that the benefits we reap from medical testing are too costly when weighed against the lives of the animals; I simply expressed a desire for an alternative method, with the full understanding that such an alternative is not viable right now. Far from toiling under a benighted misapprehension about the way the world works, I am instead lamenting the fact that we have not, as yet, found a way to research and experiment that benefits us without comprimising other life.

Regarding the last two paragraphs of the post that seem to be addressed to me:

A) I have never confused ideology with moral superiority, and with luck, never will. I apologize if I gave anyone the impression that I hold myself morally superior to others based on my theories regarding animal treatment by human beings (and not by other animals, for goodness sake!).

B) Those portions of the post attempting to draw spurious connections between the topic at hand and abortion (not to mention the relative naïvety of myself and others) I will chalk up to misguided hostility and disregard. While I am not "totally pro-life," I am very much in favor of civil and intelligent discourse, and find myself discouraged by a seemingly random attack masquerading as criticism. :bugeye:

Dr Lou Natic,


How can you compare animal testing to eating meat?
In both cases the animal suffers injury or death. In both cases the motivation for dealing out that suffering is to support human life.


You can chase down a buffalo and chew its throat out for all I care
How about using a spear? Or a gun? Our human modus operandus of survival is to bend nature to our own benefit, and we do it pretty well thanks to our intelligence. Where a jaguar takes down an antilope by superior strength and speed, we do it by superior intelligence. We got so good at it, that with time we developed sciences devoted to cure our ill stricken bodies, and not surprisingly, we use animals doing that too.


I don't care what the cause is, I'm not too keen on medical research period, animals or not, let sick people die and stop doing wierd strange things to animals
Are you sure you can maintain this mentality when you are in need of medical services?


Animals only are supposed to kill things for 2 reasons, food and to remove competition
I've seen cats killing mice purely for the fun of it.


You do know stokes that animals get cancer as well?
What do they do? They die in the fucking cold, while some stinking bald cunt lives it up in the hospital breathing their childrens air.
They die, because they do not have the means to help themselves. We do. Why refuse ourselves treatment? Would you seriously allow yourself to get blind, loose limbs and die if you are unfortunate to develop diabetes, or do you want to live?


how is it the tortured animals fault that some douche has cancer?
It isn't, but that is not the issue at hand.


They have cancer because they're supposed to die. No need to rape a baby seal and burn a puppy over it. Just let the fucker die.
I fail to see how raping baby seals and burning pupies has anything to do with finding a cure for cancer, or any other disease. Your line of reasoning seems to be as follows: "you get sick, you are supposed to die, not to get cured.". It is not a very solid argument if at least a part of our success as humans is based on defying nature where it bothers us.

You do know stokes that animals get cancer as well?
What do they do? They die in the fucking cold, while some stinking bald cunt lives it up in the hospital breathing their childrens air. Go fuck yourself, how is it the tortured animals fault that some douche has cancer? They have cancer because they're supposed to die. No need to rape a baby seal and burn a puppy over it. Just let the fucker die.

Spoken like somebody who has never in their sheltered existence enjoyed the benefits of modern medical science. You, sir, are quite the humanitarian.

Animals do not need to be respected.

The testing of drugs on animals is completely justified, and it's merely some sanctimonious morons who would delay the development of lifesaving drugs and treatments that would save human lives. I wonder if you'd be so adamant in your ridiculous beliefs if your own family member were stricken with a disease with a cure under development that needs animal testing to make it safer. It's plain selfishness.

Who the fuck cares about animal lives? We've fought to establish our supremacy as the top species, and we should at least take advantage of that position to further ensure the lives of our species. Non-human species are less than human not because they don't have souls (like some moronic Xians will have you believe), but because they've LOST to us in the survival game. They don't need "rights". We're at the top of the food chains. Animals and plants should only be taken care because we do need to eat. Once we learn to synthesize all nutrients from inorganic materials, we no longer need the ecosystem and we can just leave it for the dogs.

The only arguments opposing animal testing are globs of ad hominem. Which is about as credible or convincing as mulch.

some research has to be done but most can be done on the computer anyway. when they think they have something that will work give it to the terminally ill patients as tests, theyre gonna die anyway so how can it be any worse.

think about it, if the medicine fails then they die as they would have
if it works then you know right then that it will work on humans and the person you are tryin to save doesnt die

duh

vslayer,


some research has to be done but most can be done on the computer anyway.

I'm afraid that computer models are not even at the level of sophistication needed to simulate all the different chemical processes that keep an insect alive, let alone a mammalian body or parts thereof.


when they think they have something that will work give it to the terminally ill patients as tests, theyre gonna die anyway so how can it be any worse.

think about it, if the medicine fails then they die as they would have
if it works then you know right then that it will work on humans and the person you are tryin to save doesnt die


I think you have a few practical problems with this approach. Researchers just do not come up with a medicine out of the blue. They need to figure out how organisms work. They need to experiment to find out how things relate to each other. That means the researcher has to put his or her subjects through an array of potentially harmfull tests which have no medicinal value but only serve to give the researcher an increased insight of how an organism works. Only in time, such tests will lead to a cure. Do you think a terminally ill patient would like to be subjected to such potentially painfull tests, if he or she would probably not live to benefit from them?

Another problem: how to investigate causes that trigger a disease? In such a scenario it could be convenient for a researcher to start with a healthy individual and expose it to what he or she thinks is a potential trigger for the disease, like e.g. a certain chemical or some type of radiation. Since some diseases like cancer are present in some animals, just as they are in humans, they make ideal test subjects for this type of research. You can understand how terminally ill patients are of no "use" here.

Animals do not need to be respected.


Who the fuck cares about animal lives? We've fought to establish our supremacy as the top species, and we should at least take advantage of that position to further ensure the lives of our species. Non-human species are less than human not because they don't have souls (like some moronic Xians will have you believe), but because they've LOST to us in the survival game. They don't need "rights". We're at the top of the food chains. Animals and plants should only be taken care because we do need to eat.

Ok talking about supremacy. We'll target the non-human species first.

So what's next in line? Are you gonna aim the crosshair at "sub-standard" races - the ones who eventually lose out in the NEXT survival game? Or perhaps we could use these people in future as the test subjects after all other living vertebrate - and wildlife species - have been sacrificed in celebration of our supremacy as the leading lifeform. You speak like a supremacy extremist, and so obsessed with the thought of being at the top and wiping off all others below. Haven't you heard of co-existence? I'm sure that evolution has bestowed more than just bigger brains and intelligence.


Once we learn to synthesize all nutrients from inorganic materials, we no longer need the ecosystem and we can just leave it for the dogs.

Testimonials of a parasite. Utterly revolting.

i agree, how can you possibly believe that humans are the only species of any importance. we should do our tests on zero