I have come across a page that is dedicated for information in favor of animal testing. Among the many posts on this matter, there were also two posts which show pictures of different predators and their pray, as they suggest, even bluntly, that the claims of people who fight for animal rights are silly because they work against nature. The subject of these posts, predators eating their pray (a strange subject for a page that is pro lab experiments in the first place), and the mentioning of Gary Yourofsky in them, inevitably surface a conflict between two different, opposing approaches, both in favor of humans exploiting animals for their benefit.
It’s in hebrew, but you get the point
The main collision and collapse in the logic of those in favor of the abuse and murder of animals can be manifested in the distinct difference between the meat industry and animal experiments. The main statement in favor of eating meat is, as suggested for some reason on a web page that is supposed to focus on animal experiments, that this is how nature goes. Yet the exact opposite is the main stand of animal experiments, which are being done in order to overcome nature with medicine and vaccines.
We do not live in nature and none of the things we do are 100% natural anymore. Every function our body has been going through for thousands of years is being compromised by either environmental or cultural agents that alter this function or making it more difficult for it to be performed. We do not breathe the same air, we do not drink the same water, we do not perform the same sexual intercourse and generally we do not live the natural life we used to live. So where does this excuse for eating meat come from? First, it sounds like a solid argument for a person that does not criticize what he hears, but more importantly, I think this argument is holding within itself a hidden will to go back to nature in a world of culture that has destroyed, at least for the time being, all wild nature around it. Since this argument is fallacious at its core, it creates a paradox that causes it to collapse. There is nothing natural about cattle farms, for instance, and since the meat industry is one of the most harmful industries to the environment, if not the most harmful of them all, we find ourselves destroying nature for the sake of making the myth about our natural diet live on
The same argument about the natural characteristics of eating meat often migrates to the mentioning of the pre historic man as a hunter. We need to keep in mind that man has always hunted with tools, and these tools that we built are a product of culture and not of nature. The average person cannot hunt a cow using his fists and jaw alone, nor is he agile enough to catch his prey like a tiger do. Our teeth cannot penetrate the body of a cow and none of us will ever eat her uncooked and bleeding. Even worse than this is the strange claim that buying meat today is the same as hunting in the past. I have heard this for the first time from a man who experiments on animals in labs. The claim that buying meat is the same as hunting for it is to claim that playing a video game of football is the same as actually playing football. We replace the concrete action with a virtual action, yet we give the same importance to the replacement we came up with. Hunting senses do not sharpen in the super market. Stamina, agility, listening, efficient killing, all of these are replaced with choosing a product and standing in line. Nature (not ours) is changed into a cultural, financial and bureaucratic response. And we forget that there is a difference.
Photo taken from here
But the attempt to fight nature in order to find cures and vaccines on the backs of millions of animals is trying to disguise itself as something natural as well. The claims of the people I have mentioned in the first paragraph mix between the only source of food for some animals and the decision of mankind to use different specie in order to fight his own diseases. People who favor these experiments have asked me a question on several occasions, and while it has different versions, its core is the same. Ask a person who wants to liberate animals from the labs this question – You are standing inside of a burning house, and you can either save one human or one animal, who will you choose?
Pro vivisection logic will say that since most, if not all of us are going to choose the person in danger, it would be hypocrite of us to deny animal experiments that are being done in order to save human lives. Besides the unrealistic, sterile conditions of this problem, which make it unqualified for really pointing on the solution (if on another occasion I choose to save a Jewish person because I’m Jewish, and leave the Muslim or Christian to burn in that house, does that decision allow the medical experiments on Christians and Muslims as well?), we should concentrate on the attempt to present an action that is unnatural in its foundation (finding an artificial treatment for a natural disease) by an argument that claims for natural decisions about selection. This lack of true ability to conform the artificial process into a natural selection is what causing this argument to fail. When I am standing in front of a person and an animal who are both threatened by a fire, and I have to chose one, it means that there are two beings in danger, none of them have caused the fire and it is a given that one of them will die after I make my choice. In the matters of animal experiments the situation is very different. Mankind has encountered a problem and refuses to deal with its cause (electro magnetic radiation, smoking, hazardous chemicals and more in relation to cancer, imprisonment for large numbers of animals together in relation to swine/avian flu, etc etc). Also, Mankind is refusing to test the drugs on himself, and so he takes by force other helpless animals and do the tests on them in order to save himself. A more suitable analogy for describing the problem will be – “You are standing inside a burning house. The man who set the house on fire is standing inside and he is holding an animal as hostage. Which one of them are you going to save?”. With this sort of wording, the answer should be more difficult to produce. I am well aware that there are diseases that have nothing to do with our way of life, but even those diseases do not justify the torture and killing of animals who have nothing to do with them in the first place. In any way, we are not choosing a natural way of life and we need to understand that. We do not hold vast industries of animal abuse and torture in order to find nature, but in order to find comfort, taste and worldwide exploitation for our own benefit. The dimensions of our actions, as well as their social consequences (most of us do not kill animals, but buy their meat. Most of us do not torture them in order to find cures, but let other people do this) has nothing that even comes close in similarity in the scarce points of nature on earth.
Photo taken from here