Companies are still testing on animals

[Wednesday Friday Addams]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

But splitting's reproduction, isn't it? Aren't those usually asexual?

They can share DNA and yes.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by Wednesday Friday Addams

They can share DNA and yes.

A person's child would share their DNA. Does that make it the same person? Even if a person reproduced through splitting, it wouldn't be the same "individual". It could possibly be considered part of a 'collective', though. So killing a bacteria spore (spore?) would be like scraping a knee.

[Wednesday Friday Addams]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

A person's child would share their DNA. Does that make it the same person? Even if a person reproduced through splitting, it wouldn't be the same "individual". It could possibly be considered part of a 'collective', though. So killing a bacteria spore (spore?) would be like scraping a knee.

I was saying the sharing the DNA as how the introduce variable's through bacteria sex. Bacteria don't have spores and unlike human cells they are separate organisms in their own right.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by Wednesday Friday Addams

I was saying the sharing the DNA as how the introduce variable's through bacteria sex. Bacteria don't have spores and unlike human cells they are separate organisms in their own right.

Bacteria don't generally have sex though, do they? I always thought it was an eat-'til-you-pop-one type of deal. And a lot of bacteria are symbiotic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endospore

[Wednesday Friday Addams]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

Bacteria don't generally have sex though, do they? I always thought it was an eat-'til-you-pop-one type of deal. And a lot of bacteria are symbiotic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endospore

Its not really sex. More of a exchange of information. And yes a lot are. Just as we depend on them to be in our gut.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by Wednesday Friday Addams

Its not really sex. More of a exchange of information. And yes a lot are. Just as we depend on them to be in our gut.

I'd call that a collective.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by MollyMac

Since we are all about testing on lesser forms of life, why can we just not test on humans in third world countries? We'd decrease population. We could then feed their leftover meat to the hungry and make tents of their flesh for the homeless so that those higher up the human food chain can live better with Red No. 3.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgpa7wEAz7I

[KontanKarite]

I just had some chicken for dinner.

But whatever. What I would like to understand is how these tests on animals are at proving anything. Exactly what are they trying to figure out? Allergy reactions? I mean... a cleaning agent? Exactly what does a cleaning agent need an animal to test on for?

[Wednesday Friday Addams]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

I'd call that a collective.

You can call the whole earth a collective.

[TheBloodEternity]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

But whatever. What I would like to understand is how these tests on animals are at proving anything. Exactly what are they trying to figure out? Allergy reactions? I mean... a cleaning agent? Exactly what does a cleaning agent need an animal to test on for?

That's exactly what I thought reading that list, "why the fuck does ArmorAll need animal testing?" I guessed it could be allergy testing until I saw Clorox on the list... I'm pretty sure we know by now that bleach is not good for your skin.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Actually there's a big flaw in that. There's merit to that feeling, but it's blinded to holistic empiricism. By that, I mean that it becomes more and more obvious that the best way to fix something is to fix everything.
For instance, I'm not a vegan, but my knowledge in it has led me to find out that if we followed a vegan diet, we could feed everyone and reduce our magnitude of influence in the environment by 300%

I don't know that that's true.
I've read that if everyone suddenly became vegan, most people would die of starvation because we wouldn't be able to grow enough food for everyone.

Also, it's important to not that the problem with world hunger isn't that we don't have enough food.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by Wednesday Friday Addams

You can call the whole earth a collective.

While Gaia Theory's an interesting idea, it's not a passing comparison to a single species of bacteria, since the Earth has many different life forms. And single-celled animals die much faster than most other creatures and by myriad causes.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

I don't know that that's true.
I've read that if everyone suddenly became vegan, most people would die of starvation because we wouldn't be able to grow enough food for everyone.

What you've read is bonkers.

Also, it's important to not that the problem with world hunger isn't that we don't have enough food.

True.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by JCC

What you've read is bonkers.

I don't know...we'd need a shitton of space. Where would peeps be livin'?

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

I don't know...we'd need a shitton of space. Where would peeps be livin'?

Cows take more room than any form of vegetation.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

Cows take more room than any form of vegetation.

Definitely this. One of my favourite statistics regarding Veganism, one that Jillian was cumming over not too long ago:

1 acre of agriculture makes as much protein as 10 dedicated to meat.

TEN!

We could eat ten times as much and use as many resources!

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by JCC

Definitely this. One of my favourite statistics regarding Veganism, one that Jillian was cumming over not too long ago:

1 acre of agriculture makes as much protein as 10 dedicated to meat.

TEN!

We could eat ten times as much and use as many resources!

I like meats.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by JCC

Definitely this. One of my favourite statistics regarding Veganism, one that Jillian was cumming over not too long ago:

1 acre of agriculture makes as much protein as 10 dedicated to meat.

TEN!

We could eat ten times as much and use as many resources!

I may have a work-around for the required acreage: veal.

More seriously though, the inefficiency of a meat-based diet is kind of a turn off for me. I may start working my way back to vegetarianism.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

I like meats.

Yeah, but the obvious and every time more accepted benefits of a vegan diet, trying to be defeated by the argument "I like meat" is simply terrible.
You could more easily justify slavery with that. "Other people do what I have to do and I can do whatever I want in my time. It is entirely illusory to believe that humankind wouldn't want that if given the opportunity. Humankind is selfish."

[Cicero]

It's pretty far fetched that the entire world will ever give up meat completely. On top of the fact that a good lot of people are happily carnivores on the grounds of mere taste, a lot of people just can't absorb nutrients from plant sources properly. About half the people I know who've tried veganism or vegetarianism ended up having to give it up because their bodies just couldn't handle it. And no, it's not because they were all doing it wrong.

The whole issue about the space and energy that goes into raising livestock is being addressed by bioengineers through research into creating meat without animals. Why bother raising entire organisms with brains and bodies to feed when such a small part of them ends up being put to use?

I think in terms of what consumers will actually buy into, laboratory grown meat is a far more likely solution to efficient food production than all-out veganism. I mean fuck, if people can still wolf down shit like McDonald's and Coca Cola a bit of in vitro muscle tissue will fit into current consumer trends perfectly. Fake is delicious, apparently.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Yeah, but the obvious and every time more accepted benefits of a vegan diet, trying to be defeated by the argument "I like meat" is simply terrible.
You could more easily justify slavery with that. "Other people do what I have to do and I can do whatever I want in my time. It is entirely illusory to believe that humankind wouldn't want that if given the opportunity. Humankind is selfish."

I wasn't trying to defeat anything. I was saying I like meat.
I don't feel like I have to justify anything. I'm going to keep eating meat. If that makes you sad or angry, sorry, but I'm not going to stop eating meat. I try to buy meat that's raised in a pasture rather than on a cement floor, but I'm not going to stop eating meat.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

I don't feel like I have to justify anything. I'm going to keep eating meat. If that makes you sad or angry, sorry, but I'm not going to stop eating meat.

I eat meat. It doesn't anger me. What angers me is that you're justifying your 'not needing a justification' for just a wordy "I don't care"

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I eat meat. It doesn't anger me. What angers me is that you're justifying your 'not needing a justification' for just a wordy "I don't care"

I'm not justifying anything. I was explaining what I said.
It doesn't really make a lot of sense to say I don't care, because nothing I've said suggests that.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Cicero

I think in terms of what consumers will actually buy into, laboratory grown meat is a far more likely solution to efficient food production than all-out veganism. I mean fuck, if people can still wolf down shit like McDonald's and Coca Cola a bit of in vitro muscle tissue will fit into current consumer trends perfectly. Fake is delicious, apparently.

You are most likely right here, and I can see it taking off once the logistics are figured out, especially if the price per pound can beat out traditional meat. Mass acceptance is based on convenience.

[Raptor]

Not all land is suited to growing and harvesting crops for people, especially on a large scale. Animals can eat on terrain difficult for farming equipment.