From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Thu Apr 19 2001 - 12:08:42 MDT
John Marlow wrote:
> This path holds the promise, perhaps, of enormous human benefits.
> The acts themselves are, pardon me, evil. No question.
> What you have here is ends-justify-the-means rationale. Any pet
> owners here? What would you think of the same being done to Fido or
> Princess?
Having lost a cat of my own recently, under circumstances in which
experiments like this might have resulted in her still being alive, I
would have jumped at the opportunity to use her as a test subject for
this. One could tell she was starting to hate life anyway as her
insides slowly gave out, so her dying this way would not have been much
worse than her dying naturally, for her or myself. (It's a bit too
late to make that choice now, though.)
But I may be an exception. More to the point, though, this typically
is not done to Fido or Princess, but to lab animals specifically bred
for these experiments. Consider mice: they can be as warm and cuddly
as any mammal their size, and are sometimes used as pets, yet they are
also the main food-devouring, disease-carrying (either in their blood
or in riders in their fur), house-damaging scourge in many areas and
eras of human history (case in point: the Black Plague). So...should
one shed a tear for cyber-mice experiments?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:06 MST