# Human v. animal skin **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 5, 2004, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-v-animal-skin/248776 "2004-06-05T05:45:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2004, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-v-animal-skin/248776/41 "2004-06-07T19:04:55Z")
> [@Fish](#): > > It sometimes puzzles me why we revere the mythical native American tribes who, according to the stories, used the whole animal and wasted nothing—and when we use animal by-products and leather and hoofs, it’s somehow disgusting. > [@holdmytail](#): > > Except Native Americans used animals because they needed them to survive and they did not produce the huge amounts of pollution that come from factory farms and the animals they used were not raised in cruel conditions. The notion that the aboriginal populations were somehow better stewards of land who didn’t waste animals is just wrong. In many places in North America, Buffalos were stampeded to their deaths over bluffs. The tribe would then spend several days at the base of the cliffs and process the carcasses. The Buffalo at the top of the mound most likely were used pretty fully. The ones under that were only used for what is convienient and the one at the bottom were not touched at all. The amount of waste from the processing of Buffalo was huge. ---
**Author:** ![holdmytail](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ecae2f/32.png) [@holdmytail](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holdmytail)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2004, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-v-animal-skin/248776/42 "2004-06-07T19:30:38Z")
> [@adam yax](#): > > The notion that the aboriginal populations were somehow better stewards of land who didn’t waste animals is just wrong. In many places in North America, Buffalos were stampeded to their deaths over bluffs. The tribe would then spend several days at the base of the cliffs and process the carcasses. The Buffalo at the top of the mound most likely were used pretty fully. The ones under that were only used for what is convienient and the one at the bottom were not touched at all. The amount of waste from the processing of Buffalo was huge. Most Native Americans who depended on buffalo to survive followed their migrations and killed one or two at a time so that they would have enough to last them through tough seasons. There were so many buffalo though that I could see the Native Americans in the most prosperous regions wasting meat. However, these wastes don’t even compare to the amount of waste produced by the meat industry today. ---
**Author:** ![Ryle\_Dup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Ryle\_Dup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryle_Dup)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2004, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-v-animal-skin/248776/43 "2004-06-07T23:37:35Z")
> [@holdmytail](#): > > Most evidence about animal communication is pure speculation. It’s kind of like that story where the blind men try to describe what an elephant looks like. Cite? I’m assuming you’re very well read in this field because in order to make such assumptions without looking like a fool, you’d have to be very knowledgeable about what the experts have to say on this. > [@](#): > > I’m just saying it’s human nature to be more cruel to those we don’t understand because we sometimes assume that if we don’t understand it, it must be inferior. Who said we don’t understand animal communication? We may not perfectly understand it, but we can grasp what they are doing. > [@](#): > > And it doesn’t matter whether it is some (supposedly) incurable insane person or a (supposedly) inferior being, people have a tendency to treat them badly because they don’t understand them so they think that they’re better. What the hell are you talking about? Humans care for their ill in so many ways more than animals that it’s silly to compare them. > [@](#): > > Exept we recently began to treat the mentally ill with more understanding because they actually look like us and some can speak our language. Uh, yeah, becuase they’re humans. Humans help their own kind, it’s our nature to help the tribe succeed, and this means caring for the sick. > [@](#): > > Since we don’t understand animals we begin to assume what is convenient, that they are intelectually inferior and therefore don’t deserve to be treated with respect. WTF? Cite that we don’t understand animals, there are countless scientists who study animals, and numerous fields about them. Stop trying to put yourself above experts in the field by saying “we” don’t understand them, its arrogant and annoying. Give examples of how we don’t understand them, and stop sitting there saying “Ohhh maybe they’re telepathic and we’re eeevil for killing them” > [@](#): > > I’m not saying animals should be treated like people. I’m just saying they should be allowed to live as they please as much as that is possible without causing harm to people. Should humans be allowed to live by sacrificing animals? I want an answer to this question. It has been proven that animal research leads to medical breakthroughs, that’s a fact, now, are you saying that we should stop all medical research on animals because some of it might not work, and still hurt / kill animals? By the way, you pretty much are saying animals should be treated like people, because most people believe they should be “allowed to live as they please as much as that is possible without causing harm to people”. > [@](#): > > Doctors Starr and Edward almost discarded the caged ball valve as it killed all their experimental dogs. It was however successful on human beings. (A. Starr, “Mitral Replacement: Clinical Experience with a Ball-Valve Prosthesis”, Annals of Surgery, 154(4):740, 1961.) These kinds of misleading animal tests slow or even prevent progress. Bullshit, you said almost, that doesn’t mean they did. It’s a flat out lie to say these prevent progress, unless you’re assuming the scientists are morons. They don’t just go “oh this don’t work on animals therefore it will never work on humans”. > [@](#): > > Why do we need to put animals through the sufferings of smoking research when we’re trying to find out about the affect of smoking on people? How is the knowledge of smoking effects on dogs valuable? What would we do with that knowledge? Obviously we have a pretty damn good reason to do this, otherwise, why would they be doing it? It’s to study the effects of smoking on living organisms, they may not be the same but we can’t have the same conditions on humans, so we have to settle, it DOES help since they are physiologically similar to us. Besides, that is all irrelevant, the point is, we are humans, we are superior and better to animals, there is no question about this, we can and should perform tests on animals to improve our lives. > [@](#): > > Animal research almost always constitutes animal cruelty. Animals are confined and subjected to pain and stress. They are lonely, bored, and frustrated. There aren’t even any laws protecting the welfare of research rodents, birds, or farm animals. Those protecting primates and other animals are weak and rarely enforced. Tough. It’s worth it. > [@](#): > > As for food, we don’t need them in industrialized countries. People want them, therefore in our society, we need them. Need isn’t 100% absolutely neccesary or else we all die, but if there’s a market, (want, or “need”), then the demand will be filled. > [@](#): > > Especially foods like veal and foi gras. I might be inclined to agree with you on this, unnessecary cruelty towards animals used as food serves no purpose, however, it’s a difficult arguement. > [@](#): > > Experimentation, well that’s more complicated but some aspects are clear (ex. no justification for behavioral studies on animals since we’ve already established how starkly they differ from us in that department, same for cosmetics and a great deal of clinical research). There are justification for behavioral studies, it shows how animals behave, we like to study animals too. You can make similies between primitave man and monkeys. ---
**Author:** ![Unregistered\_Bull](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3da27b/32.png) [@Unregistered\_Bull](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unregistered_Bull)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2004, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-v-animal-skin/248776/44 "2004-06-08T00:02:28Z")
> [@holdmytail](#): > > At one point people who fought for the liberation of American slaves were also viewed as people who worked to take freedoms away form people via legislation in how they use private property. I wonder what the Black cockfighter that I saw this weekend thinks about being compared to a animal? I doubt that he would be too enthused about it. ---
**Author:** ![Unregistered\_Bull](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3da27b/32.png) [@Unregistered\_Bull](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unregistered_Bull)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2004, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-v-animal-skin/248776/45 "2004-06-08T00:14:27Z")
> [@Dung Beetle](#): > > We seem to be harping on the circus/rodeo angle here, but cockfights? Bullfights? How anyone could think these are okay is beyond me. Dogfights are okay too, I suppose. Sickening. It’s simple. They are normal and not a proponent of the 21st century’s most popular form of bigotry, “speciesism.” Or they are at least not virulently against private property rights. Animals being private property. ---
**Author:** ![tisiphone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tisiphone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tisiphone)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2004, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-v-animal-skin/248776/46 "2004-06-08T00:27:15Z")
> [@holdmytail](#): > > The cow on your shoes would not have died if you did not pay for it to be killed when buying the shoes. Pleather shoes are widely available although the styles don’t vary nearly as much. ☹ Pleather doesn’t breathe, doesn’t wear well, and shatters at -30C. I’d just as soon not be suddenly barefoot in the middle of Main Street in February, thanks. Ever hear of protein starvation? Got any clues about how much vegetarianism costs outside the temperate zones? If I tried going veggie, I’d be learning all about the above the hard way, as the appropriate replacements and supplemental foods are approximately ten times the price of the protein they are replacing. As I can’t afford to add another zero to the end of my grocery budget, it won’t be happening. And the semi-mythical First Nations tribe that used everything on the animal? OOoo yes indeedy. Including timing the spring hunt to ensure a supply of pregnant doe caribou, so as to get those ever-delectable unborn calves. We even have TV ads in the Canadian North that repeat “Take only what you need. Use all that you take” aimed at the First Nations. 'Specially since they don’t have to respect hunting seasons. \ I have no problems with zoos or circuses, as long as the inhabitants are treated well, as in given space as per their natural requirments, fed well, and are not abused. I fail to see the issue with training them, as long as the training process is not abusive. Positive reinforcement, instead of negative. And as my beloved Uncle Joe has a fraction of one kidney left, I’m all for animal testing. I think the dozen or so dogs that died to develop a working dialysis treatment were well worth it. I don’t believe in pointless tests, like shooting cats in the head to study what happens to soldiers with brain injuries, but…I can see a place for it. ---
**Author:** ![holdmytail](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ecae2f/32.png) [@holdmytail](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holdmytail)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2004, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-v-animal-skin/248776/47 "2004-06-08T02:31:26Z")
> [@Ryle Dup](#): > > Cite? I’m assuming you’re very well read in this field because in order to make such assumptions without looking like a fool, you’d have to be very knowledgeable about what the experts have to say on this. > Who said we don’t understand animal communication? We may not perfectly understand it, but we can grasp what they are doing. > What the hell are you talking about? Humans care for their ill in so many ways more than animals that it’s silly to compare them. > Uh, yeah, becuase they’re humans. Humans help their own kind, it’s our nature to help the tribe succeed, and this means caring for the sick. > WTF? Cite that we don’t understand animals, there are countless scientists who study animals, and numerous fields about them. Stop trying to put yourself above experts in the field by saying “we” don’t understand them, its arrogant and annoying. Give examples of how we don’t understand them, and stop sitting there saying “Ohhh maybe they’re telepathic and we’re eeevil for killing them” > > Should humans be allowed to live by sacrificing animals? I want an answer to this question. It has been proven that animal research leads to medical breakthroughs, that’s a fact, now, are you saying that we should stop all medical research on animals because some of it might not work, and still hurt / kill animals? > > By the way, you pretty much are saying animals should be treated like people, because most people believe they should be “allowed to live as they please as much as that is possible without causing harm to people”. > Bullshit, you said almost, that doesn’t mean they did. It’s a flat out lie to say these prevent progress, unless you’re assuming the scientists are morons. They don’t just go “oh this don’t work on animals therefore it will never work on humans”. > Obviously we have a pretty damn good reason to do this, otherwise, why would they be doing it? It’s to study the effects of smoking on living organisms, they may not be the same but we can’t have the same conditions on humans, so we have to settle, it DOES help since they are physiologically similar to us. > > Besides, that is all irrelevant, the point is, we are humans, we are superior and better to animals, there is no question about this, we can and should perform tests on animals to improve our lives. > Tough. It’s worth it. > People want them, therefore in our society, we need them. Need isn’t 100% absolutely neccesary or else we all die, but if there’s a market, (want, or “need”), then the demand will be filled. > I might be inclined to agree with you on this, unnessecary cruelty towards animals used as food serves no purpose, however, it’s a difficult arguement. > There are justification for behavioral studies, it shows how animals behave, we like to study animals too. You can make similies between primitave man and monkeys. Yea, I’ve read a bunch on animal behavior and communication and what we’ve discovered is all rather primitive compared to human communication. However, so many mysteries still remain you can’t just say everything ends there. Even chickens make a huge variety of different sounds that scientists are just beginning to decipher. Same goes for elephants, dolphins, whales, etc. Well in this day and age we do care for the mentally ill but if you go back about a century we treated them pretty much like animals except we didn’t eat or wear them. It’s more practical to cull or abuse the mentally ill but of course we don’t do it anymore because we’ve realized it’s wrong because even though they can’t think like us, they still feel like us. Yea, we study animals but nobody in the field can honestly say they fully understand any animal other than say earthworms. As we study more we discover that they are more complex than we previously thought. We’re not done yet, there’s no final conclusion. Humans should be allowed to live by sacrificing animals because as people we must of course put ourselves first. But vivisection is misleading and does not help people. Vivisection has directly led to few if any medical breakthroughs. You can’t apply rat operations to human ones without a great degree of error. So when you go from animal research to humans you’re essentially starting from scratch. If you perform a rat or dog or even sometimes monkey operation on a human the person is likely to die. Or where rats die people don’t. In the end animal experimetation is misleading. Breakthroughs happen when new techniques are tried on people in desperate situations or volunteers or on cadavers or in vitro. Name a breakthrough and I’ll probably be able to prove that it resulted from human research. The difference between how we treat people and animals should be that we should not sacrifice unwilling people for the greater good but if animals must be sacrificed then it should be done. Also we obviously shouldn’t marry animals and have them vote etc. We can have the same conditions on humans as especially when it comes to studies like smoking because there are plenty of smokers out there willing to volunteer for studies because they already smoke and now they’ll get paid to do it. However, paying people is much less cost effective. And dogs are physiologically very different from people. They react to smoking differently. “We’re better so we can do whatever we want”, is irresponsible and does not become people. We all want that great taste we were raised on but you have to weigh the alternatives and consider if it’s really worth destroying our resources and environment to satisfy our taste buds. We like to study animals because we’re curious but we must curtail our curiousity when satisfying it comes at the cost of suffering and death of sentient beings for no practical reason. Being an ape in a research lab is like being locked in an empty shower stall your whole life. Except they take you out sometimes to shock you or put stuff into your brain or take away your babies. Apes and other animals often go insane and start mutilating themselves. They simply aren’t made for laboratory life. Any results that research comes up with is unapplicable to humans or even sane apes. ---
**Author:** ![holdmytail](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ecae2f/32.png) [@holdmytail](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holdmytail)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2004, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-v-animal-skin/248776/48 "2004-06-08T02:52:10Z")
> [@tisiphone](#): > > Pleather doesn’t breathe, doesn’t wear well, and shatters at -30C. I’d just as soon not be suddenly barefoot in the middle of Main Street in February, thanks. > > Ever hear of protein starvation? > > Got any clues about how much vegetarianism costs outside the temperate zones? If I tried going veggie, I’d be learning all about the above the hard way, as the appropriate replacements and supplemental foods are approximately ten times the price of the protein they are replacing. As I can’t afford to add another zero to the end of my grocery budget, it won’t be happening. > > And the semi-mythical First Nations tribe that used everything on the animal? OOoo yes indeedy. Including timing the spring hunt to ensure a supply of pregnant doe caribou, so as to get those ever-delectable unborn calves. We even have TV ads in the Canadian North that repeat “Take only what you need. Use all that you take” aimed at the First Nations. 'Specially since they don’t have to respect hunting seasons. \ > > I have no problems with zoos or circuses, as long as the inhabitants are treated well, as in given space as per their natural requirments, fed well, and are not abused. I fail to see the issue with training them, as long as the training process is not abusive. Positive reinforcement, instead of negative. > > And as my beloved Uncle Joe has a fraction of one kidney left, I’m all for animal testing. I think the dozen or so dogs that died to develop a working dialysis treatment were well worth it. I don’t believe in pointless tests, like shooting cats in the head to study what happens to soldiers with brain injuries, but…I can see a place for it. Yea, I mean if yu live in a place where you need leather and fur to keep warm you have to wear it. But too often it’s a thoughtless fashion statement. Vegetarianism is definately hard but worth a try. Even just decreasing your meat intake helps. Most people get twice the protien they need, at least in the USA. Most inhabitants of zoos and all exotic animals in circuses are not provided with the life they are intended to live. Zoos try to replicate environments but can’t always do it and animals end up bored, lazy, and depressed. Surplus babies are sold to game farms and circuses. Some brag about conserving species but there’s no point because the animals will never be able to live in the wild. Circuses are much worse. Animals are not provided with a healthy environment. They are intensely confined and go through stress during travel. Polar bears and elephants suffer the most. In addition, positive reinforcement may be advocated but investigations show that major companies like Ringling and Barnum use bull hooks to beat elephants and electrocution on big cats. And as I said earlier, the tricks they must perform can cause injury to them. It’s simply not a natural lifestyle for wild animals. I once went to a cat and dog circus in Russia though, my mom knew the performer, that was nice. He just had a bunch of pets that did tricks for treats. The dogs who died in experiments numbered a hundred or a thousand times more than a dozen. And it is subsequent human experiments that develop relevant treatments. ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2004, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-v-animal-skin/248776/49 "2004-06-08T15:18:51Z")
> [@holdmytail](#): > > Most Native Americans who depended on buffalo to survive followed their migrations and killed one or two at a time so that they would have enough to last them through tough seasons. There were so many buffalo though that I could see the Native Americans in the most prosperous regions wasting meat. However, these wastes don’t even compare to the amount of waste produced by the meat industry today. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![holdmytail](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ecae2f/32.png) [@holdmytail](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holdmytail)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2004, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-v-animal-skin/248776/50 "2004-06-08T18:32:38Z")
> [@adam yax](#): > > Cite? Here is what Indians did [http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us/tserve/nattrans/ntecoindian/essays/buffalob.htm](http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us/tserve/nattrans/ntecoindian/essays/buffalob.htm) but when the colonists arrived there were millions of buffalo in the plains which means that although Indians were at times wasteful it wasn’t significantly enough to affect the buffalo population. It is the colonists who decimated the herds. [http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us/tserve/nattrans/ntecoindian/essays/buffaloc.htm](http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us/tserve/nattrans/ntecoindian/essays/buffaloc.htm) As for today’s meat industry here are a few sources. What you buy at the supermarket or eat at the restaraunt is usually factory meat. Even some meat that is labeled free range can just mean no cages but still no outside time, socializing, grazing, or humane conditions/slaughter. [http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/geis/GEIS-AnimalAgFinal.pdf](http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/geis/GEIS-AnimalAgFinal.pdf) (Environmental Impact Statement) Some photo’s. [http://www.farmweb.org/c/20010223\_dumping\_aerials.htm](http://www.farmweb.org/c/20010223_dumping_aerials.htm) [http://www.farmweb.org/](http://www.farmweb.org/) This site is very informative. [http://www.factoryfarm.org/](http://www.factoryfarm.org/) ---
**Author:** ![AThingWithFeathers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@AThingWithFeathers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AThingWithFeathers)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-v-animal-skin/248776/51 "2004-06-09T02:58:09Z")
> [@holdmytail](#): > > The cow on your shoes would not have died if you did not pay for it to be killed when buying the shoes. Pleather shoes are widely available although the styles don’t vary nearly as much. ☹ Not true. The cow would have died anyway, everything does eventually. Besides, I’m sure someone else would have bought my boots and that one person not buing a pair of leather boots isn’t going to make a difference, considering the way most women shoe shop. (I’m actually one of those people who refuses to buy new sneakers, sandals, or boots until the soles are practically falling off, but most girls I know have shoes for every day of the week. But I’m not getting into that.) > [@holdmytail](#): > > Using the same objective reasoning you could say it’s ok to kill a mentally ill person to save your father. But that doesn’t even apply here. I know. That’s why I wrote “This “objective” way of measuring things is rather screwy since it could be used to support all sorts of crazy arguments, but I think you get my gist.” > [@holdmytail](#): > > The sad thing is killing dogs is not going to save people who have cancer. Cancer in dogs is too different from cancer in humans. Whatever those tests come up with won’t be reliable information anyway and it will be tested on human volunteers to obtain relevant results. It could advance cancer treatments for dogs though, but that would be like killing poor people to save rich ones. I was actually commenting more on the ‘life for a life’ thing and the quote I gave. > [@holdmytail](#): > > The dogs who died in experiments numbered a hundred or a thousand times more than a dozen. And it is subsequent human experiments that develop relevant treatments. Yes, but how many humans would die in the name of experimentation if the testing on dogs hadn’t improved the outcome of the experiments? Mia~Switch~Mai ---
**Author:** ![holdmytail](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ecae2f/32.png) [@holdmytail](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holdmytail)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-v-animal-skin/248776/52 "2004-06-09T04:41:51Z")
> [@Kendraen Ideals](#): > > Not true. The cow would have died anyway, everything does eventually. Besides, I’m sure someone else would have bought my boots and that one person not buing a pair of leather boots isn’t going to make a difference, considering the way most women shoe shop. (I’m actually one of those people who refuses to buy new sneakers, sandals, or boots until the soles are practically falling off, but most girls I know have shoes for every day of the week. But I’m not getting into that.) > > I know. That’s why I wrote “This “objective” way of measuring things is rather screwy since it could be used to support all sorts of crazy arguments, but I think you get my gist.” > I was actually commenting more on the ‘life for a life’ thing and the quote I gave. > > Yes, but how many humans would die in the name of experimentation if the testing on dogs hadn’t improved the outcome of the experiments? > > Mia~Switch~Mai Yes, if you don’t kill the cow it will eventually die on its own. But it’s not like they make leather from cows they just randomly find lying around dead. They are raised for this purpose in huge numbers because the demand for stylish leather shoes is big. When you farm that intensively you can’t provide the animals with healthy or humane lifestyles and humane slaughter is the least priority. By buying leather shoes in climates where you do not require them you are contributing to the demand for leather and therefore the cruel and unhealthy practices of factory farming. By choosing an alternative when you can, you are reducing pollution and improving the health of animals and consumers because with less demand, fewer animals have to be crowded on dirty feedlots and pumped with drugs to keep them alive. One person can’t make a difference but a bunch of people making that decision can. It’s kind of like voting, one vote doesn’t count but the votes of a bunch of people who believe their vote counts can make a difference. Testing on dogs doesn’t improve the outcome for humans. The results of dog tests give vague ideas that have a pretty equal chance of being a success or a failure in humans. If an operation works in dogs it doesn’t give you information on human operations. When they finally go for that first human trial they’re still pretty much in the dark and have no idea if the operation will be a success. It could work in dogs and then kill human patients. You never know. The tests don’t decide anything. If it fails in dogs they could still try it in people. Dog tests are irrelevant and misleading. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-v-animal-skin/248776/53 "2004-06-09T05:14:25Z")
> [@holdmytail](#): > > Testing on dogs doesn’t improve the outcome for humans. The results of dog tests give vague ideas that have a pretty equal chance of being a success or a failure in humans. If an operation works in dogs it doesn’t give you information on human operations. I have to wonder, why do you think they go to the expense of testing on animals if the results really don’t tell them anything? If the tests are worthless and _you_ already know it, don’t you think _they_ would have figured it out by now? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-v-animal-skin/248776/54 "2004-06-09T05:21:48Z")
I said the same thing a while back, so now I’m doubly curious. 😉 > [@Me](#): > > But while we’re here, why do you get to decide whether a test is useful or useless? Because it sounds useless to you? […] You say animal testing even for lifesaving drugs is unnecessary. Is going straight to human testing the alternative? There’s a reason these things start with animal trials, you know, and it’s not sport or cruelty. ---
**Author:** ![Atticus\_Finch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-v-animal-skin/248776/55 "2004-06-09T06:08:16Z")
> [@holdmytail](#): > > Most Native Americans who depended on buffalo to survive followed their migrations and killed one or two at a time so that they would have enough to last them through tough seasons. There were so many buffalo though that I could see the Native Americans in the most prosperous regions wasting meat. However, these wastes don’t even compare to the amount of waste produced by the meat industry today. At least two other posters have told you about the error of your claim that Native Americans always used all the products of an animal, so I’ll leave it alone. The one I’m taking issue with is your claim that the meat industry today is _more_ wasteful. This is incorrect - economic pressures mean it’s as efficient as possible, with all kinds of of products being cobbled together from unsavoury bits of animals. Noone just cuts out the beefsteaks and throws the cow away - the only bits discarded are discarded because of government regulations. For example, remember the mad cow scare a few years back? Turns out that it was a common practice to feed the cows products made from the unsaleable remains of other cows, including brain tissue, which is what led to the mad cow disease. ---
**Author:** ![holdmytail](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ecae2f/32.png) [@holdmytail](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holdmytail)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-v-animal-skin/248776/56 "2004-06-10T03:49:49Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > I have to wonder, why do you think they go to the expense of testing on animals if the results really don’t tell them anything? If the tests are worthless and _you_ already know it, don’t you think _they_ would have figured it out by now? Fortunately many scientists have already stopped or decreased the amount of animal tests they do. The countries of the EU no longer use chimps. However, this primitive way of research has been going on for hundreds of years and is a hard habit to break. Some scientists are afraid to drop the ancient tradition of vivisection because they fear it would cause public outrage(because people have been led to believe that vivisection is necessary) or less government funds (since they won’t need to pay for animal feed/care). Also human curiousity and the view that animals are commodities causes the continuation of tests. Things like forcing pregnant apes to take heroin and then aborting the fetus at the last momment to study the affects. Even though we already know heroin hurts the fetus, studies can be conducted on human volunteers, and it is more practical to use those funds for prevention, education, and health care. Anyway, vivisection is being pushed out by more reliable, relevant, and humane alternatives. We’re getting there. ---
**Author:** ![holdmytail](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ecae2f/32.png) [@holdmytail](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holdmytail)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-v-animal-skin/248776/57 "2004-06-10T04:09:22Z")
> [@lambchops](#): > > At least two other posters have told you about the error of your claim that Native Americans always used all the products of an animal, so I’ll leave it alone. > > The one I’m taking issue with is your claim that the meat industry today is _more_ wasteful. This is incorrect - economic pressures mean it’s as efficient as possible, with all kinds of of products being cobbled together from unsavoury bits of animals. Noone just cuts out the beefsteaks and throws the cow away - the only bits discarded are discarded because of government regulations. > > For example, remember the mad cow scare a few years back? Turns out that it was a common practice to feed the cows products made from the unsaleable remains of other cows, including brain tissue, which is what led to the mad cow disease. I never claimed that Native Americans produced no waste, I said it was significantly less waste than we produce in factory farms. When I say that the industry produces waste I don’t mean that they throw out half the cow. I’m talking about the wastes or pollution that comes from these factories. The tons and tons of manure and those few body parts we don’t use end up leaking from lagoons into our water sources. Not only does factory farming produce a huge amount of pollution, it also takes up loads of energy and resources like electricity, water, grain, and gasoline. Most of the water in the US is consumed by farm animals. It takes many pounds of grain to make one pound of beef. If allowed into the human food market the increased availability of grain would lower prices and feed more families (although I realize that not all animal feed grain is suitable for human consumption). Factory farm meat will also pollute your body with the hormones and antibiotics animals are fed to keep them alive in the horrific conditions. In addition, factory farms hurt small sustainable meat and dairy farms because it’s cheaper to produce meat on a feedlot with antibiotics than to raise healthy animals that are not crowded together. Factory farms exist because of the huge demand for meat. The best way to fight the growing trend of inhumane low quality meat is to reduce your meat intake, buy from local farmers, or give up meat altogether. ---
**Author:** ![Unregistered\_Bull](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3da27b/32.png) [@Unregistered\_Bull](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unregistered_Bull)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-v-animal-skin/248776/58 "2004-06-10T04:57:21Z")
The “factory farm” actually produces better quality meat. ---
**Author:** ![holdmytail](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ecae2f/32.png) [@holdmytail](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holdmytail)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-v-animal-skin/248776/59 "2004-06-10T05:16:24Z")
> [@Machetero](#): > > The “factory farm” actually produces better quality meat. I HIGHLY doubt it. Better meat from overcrowded, stressed, sick, hormone and antibiotic pumped animals? Please cite. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-v-animal-skin/248776/60 "2004-06-10T05:41:11Z")
> [@holdmytail](#): > > Factory farm meat will also pollute your body with the hormones and antibiotics animals are fed to keep them alive in the horrific conditions. I’ve heard this a lot. Where is the evidence that eating meat from animals who’ve received those treatments is actually less healthy for humans? > [@](#): > > Some scientists are afraid to drop the ancient tradition of vivisection because they fear it would cause public outrage(because people have been led to believe that vivisection is necessary) Hold on… you’re saying the public would be outraged if industry stopped cutting live animals open? > [@](#): > > or less government funds (since they won’t need to pay for animal feed/care). Well, since the funds they’d lose are being put to waste anyway (or so you claim), why would it matter? > [@](#): > > Also human curiousity and the view that animals are commodities causes the continuation of tests. Things like forcing pregnant apes to take heroin and then aborting the fetus at the last momment to study the affects. People are curious about a lot of things, but we aren’t talking about spending a few minutes to gawk at a train wreck here. We’re talking about _many_ companies spending _millions_ of dollars on something that you say is worthless. If you know it’s worthless, they certainly know it too. You can’t be serious if you’re saying mere curiosity and disrespect for animals is why all those companies continue to pump all that money into animal testing. If it really were worthless, one company would realize they could lower their costs and gain an edge over their competitors simply by discontinuing a worthless program, and the others would immediately follow suit to stay competitive… so why haven’t they done so in all this time? > [@](#): > > Even though we already know heroin hurts the fetus, studies can be conducted on human volunteers, I’m sorry, I don’t think many pregnant women would sign up to take heroin and then have last-minute abortions, and I think any scientists who did such tests on humans would be roundly condemned. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-v-animal-skin/248776.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-v-animal-skin/248776.md?page=4)