science

hideshow 15 child comments

[–] TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

All value judgements are subjective. "Better" and "worse" are value judgements, not statements about reality, so they cannot be objective. But subjectively I agree with you that we treat animals awfully, not even mainly in science experiments - at least they have a tangible benefit. Just look at the way animals are bred to be tortured and murdered in factory farms.

parent

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 0 points 9 months ago* (13 children)

Curing disease is undoubtedly worth animal suffering. Once the disease is cured the benefits will confer to all future humans until we go extinct, I am certain if you were suffering from alzheimers you'd be of a different opinion.

point these criticisms at the cosmetics industry.

hideshow 13 child comments

parent

[+] the_q@lemmy.zip 1 point 9 months ago (7 children)

[deleted]

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 1 point 9 months ago (6 children)

would you tell your spouse that after their diagnosis?

cartoonish evil.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[+] the_q@lemmy.zip 1 point 9 months ago (5 children)

[deleted]

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 0 points 9 months ago (4 children)

If one had would you have declined? Your house fire is many peoples alzeimers diagnosis.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[+] the_q@lemmy.zip 1 point 9 months ago (3 children)

[deleted]

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

That's worse undeniably, but various curable diseases are in fact like that and animal testing makes that happen less in this world and you oppose it because it wouldn't save your person? That's monstrously selfish.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[+] the_q@lemmy.zip 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

[deleted]

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 0 points 9 months ago

Yes and I stand by its validity.

parent

[–] hector@lemmy.today 1 point 9 months ago (4 children)

You are not including the US in humanity clearly, because few can afford this kind of drug here.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 2 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

The existence of such a drug benefits humanity even if the USes barbaric policies prevent adoption.

furthermore even if nobody in the US got it ever it would still help an unimaginable number of people

what is the logic here? Don't help medicine move along because of one crazy country?

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] hector@lemmy.today 1 point 9 months ago* (1 child)

Advancements are only for the rich in these lands. Far from still being for the benefit, prolonging the rich's lives is arguably not.

It would be an advancement if the rights to the drug were owned by some sort of benefit corporation, or non profit, or were not sold to the worst people in the world.

It's not though. They are maximizing revenue with no one in government to stop them, to call them on gouging.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 1 point 9 months ago

i'm a communist you're barking up the wrong tree

parent

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 1 point 9 months ago

Yea but the rest of us will still benefit. The US is like 5% of the world's population, give or take. Okay there's other countries with shitty health care systems (developing ones where they just haven't gotten there yet), but I'd reckon like 80% of the world's population would have easy and cheap or free access to it through government funded healthcare, or at least a better private system than the US. That's still a net good. Y'all just need to get your shit in order, but unfortunately at this point it's going to be harder and harder to do it without violence.