Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Eco Terrorism in Seattle
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
Method
Link
Moon-Hawk
Wow, these ELF guys are brilliant. Way to encourage environmentally conscious construction, guys. I realize they burned them because ELF felt that the houses were not as environmentally friendly as they claimed, but in effect what they did was burn some houses that were trying to be more environmentally friendly and ignored all the other houses that are openly not eco-friendly. Thus the lesson: If you try to be environmentally friendly, ELF will burn your house down if you fail. If you say "screw it" and don't try at all, and don't make any claims, they'll leave you alone.
Or do you think, perhaps, that was not the message they were trying to send?
Shrike30
Fire District 7 is one of those semirural areas outside of Everett that's really suffering from sudden buildup. Despite national trends, property values are still skyrocketing as new, expensive buildings go in and new people move to the area (a great deal of it is suburban growth from Everett... which many consider to be a suburb of Seattle) leaving a lot of the locals with older homes suddenly paying for their neighbors expenses with increased property tax, road and school levies, and the like.

A lot of the recent housing developments in the area are pretty vulgar. Very little environmental sensitivity has gone into their construction, and it's getting frustrating to look up at what used to be forested hills above small towns and see clearcuts filling with manufactured homes growing like cancer. I'm a city boy, myself, and I appreciate the need for development... but urban density is needed, not more sprawl. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this was a fake ELF event... the recent trial in the area has given them a lot of attention, and a local deciding to burn some of the places down and throw up a fake sign wouldn't require too much effort to imagine.
Moon-Hawk
QUOTE (Shrike30 @ Mar 3 2008, 12:49 PM) *
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this was a fake ELF event... the recent trial in the area has given them a lot of attention, and a local deciding to burn some of the places down and throw up a fake sign wouldn't require too much effort to imagine.

Good point. Someone's getting a very large insurance settlement for an over-priced "eco-friendly" luxury house. Er, four of them.
Method
Hmmm... sounds like a plot hook or two?
nezumi
ELF has done this before, and regularly enjoy burning things. I always thought that rather curious since burning stuff, especially houses with modern insulation and hummers with all the gross stuff in them, is very environmentally unfriendly. They really should find another method of destroying stuff.
bibliophile20
QUOTE (Method @ Mar 3 2008, 01:08 PM) *
Hmmm... sounds like a plot hook or two?

rotfl.gif Only in this place...
Chrome Tiger
If it really was the ELF, it would be totally funny to point out to the ELF the irony that eco-friendly or not, burning those houses released a metric TON of pollutants into the atmosphere.

We need radical environmentalists like this that do not think before they leap. How else will we get radical groups in the future such as Alamos 20,000?
Shrike30
QUOTE (nezumi @ Mar 3 2008, 10:30 AM) *
ELF has done this before, and regularly enjoy burning things. I always thought that rather curious since burning stuff, especially houses with modern insulation and hummers with all the gross stuff in them, is very environmentally unfriendly. They really should find another method of destroying stuff.

ELF is what you get when a bunch of angry college kids with half a brain apiece decide to get environmentally involved in a "direct action" kind of way. The smart guys don't tend to get caught, or at least realize that looking like a bunch of kooks and burning shit down doesn't really bring people around to your point of view. You gotta contend with market forces, man...
Adarael
I really wanna just go, "Hey, guys! Way to be carbon-neutral!"

Seriously, though? The ELF and the ALF and all the eco-crazy groups tend to be just a little bit culty and full of crazies.
martindv
QUOTE (Chrome Tiger @ Mar 3 2008, 01:33 PM) *
If it really was the ELF, it would be totally funny to point out to the ELF the irony that eco-friendly or not, burning those houses released a metric TON of pollutants into the atmosphere.

We need radical environmentalists like this that do not think before they leap. How else will we get radical groups in the future such as Alamos 20,000?

To be fair, Alamos 20,000 has been pretty successful at what they do.
Chrome Tiger
I also spotted this up on CNN today. Sort of linked in the whole eco-whacko attack scenario...

Link
Method
Something is wrong with people who would endanger human beings to save animals. Whales are great and I don't support whaling, but these people are nuts.
BlueMax
This thread is tagged RL but I continue to want to post in character. Mostly in response to the comments.

must... show.... restraint..

Larme
In Shadowrun, they would have released a magical kudzu bomb that would have caused explosive plant growth to surge through the houses, wrecking them entirely, down to even the foundation. Now THAT would have been eco-terrorism. Not like these morons grinbig.gif
CircuitBoyBlue
QUOTE (Method @ Mar 3 2008, 02:48 PM) *
Something is wrong with people who would endanger human beings to save animals. Whales are great and I don't support whaling, but these people are nuts.


Seriously, when you subtitle a thread "God damn hippies" and start calling people nuts, you're just asking for your thread to turn into a flame war. I'm not judging; I get into it over politics myself from time to time.

I really have to restrain myself here. I really don't want this to turn into a thread about how I, for one, value the lives of whales over those of most people. Because it started out as such a beautiful opportunity for us to all hate each other over the issue of whether or not rich people deserve to live in a world where they can be guaranteed that their house won't be burnt down, when worse than this happens to poor neighborhoods everyday. Nobody really wants to see where all this is going, because we do it so often in threads that WEREN'T designed to promote such conflict.

Just be a little more tolerant when starting threads about hot-button issues.
djinni
QUOTE (Chrome Tiger @ Mar 3 2008, 02:33 PM) *
If it really was the ELF, it would be totally funny to point out to the ELF the irony that eco-friendly or not, burning those houses released a metric TON of pollutants into the atmosphere.

just like PETA
Lionhearted
Am i the only one that found this a hilarious pun? rotfl.gif
hyzmarca
In their defense, the amount of pollutants released by a few burning homes is trivial compared to global automobile use, forest fires, volcanoes, and cow farts. Farts alone contribute more to global warming that the other three leading causes combined, with volcanoes coming in a distant second.


And the real point of setting things on fire is to gain attention for the cause. No publicity is bad publicity and even people who disagree with their methods might agree that building those sorts of homes in that area is a bad idea. It worked for Nelson Mandela when he blew stuff up (and conspired to blow people up) to bring attention to the injustice of Apartheid. It also worked in this case. I had no clue about that HOusing development untill reading that story and now I'm opposed to it on principal.
Method
QUOTE (CircuitBoyBlue @ Mar 3 2008, 02:00 PM) *
Nobody really wants to see where all this is going, because we do it so often in threads that WEREN'T designed to promote such conflict.

Just be a little more tolerant when starting threads about hot-button issues.



First, my apologies if you were offended. I had no intention of "promoting such conflict" when I posted.

Second, valuing the lives of whales over people does not legitimize attacks on human beings. If you reread my statement I said quite clearly that I am against whaling, but I am opposed to their methods. If you are saying that attacking people is an okay way to convey your opposition to whaling, then we can certainly agree to disagree. I personally have little tolerance for that kind of "protest".
Shrike30
I value the lives of sentient beings over those of non-sentient beings. Seems like a good place to draw a line.
Riley37
"I value the lives of sentient beings over those of non-sentient beings. Seems like a good place to draw a line."

Do you value the lives of intelligent humans, over the lives of unintelligent humans, such as newborns? Or does the newborn's mere potential to develop intelligence qualify for value? Just asking...
hyzmarca
QUOTE (Shrike30 @ Mar 3 2008, 07:26 PM) *
I value the lives of sentient beings over those of non-sentient beings. Seems like a good place to draw a line.


That depends on how one defines "sentient" doesn't it. For most people, the definition tends to be limited to beings that they can communicate with. If not for the fact that some Jews could speak English, the Final Solution would have been seen as an ecologically unsound attempt to rip Europe of an annoying species of animal.

Given that some great apes are fluent in American sign language and are perfectly about to converse with humans using it, I find it silly to assume that a creature isn't sentient just because it doesn't have the vocal apparatus required to speak English.
Shrike30
Did I do that at any point?

Creatures with the potential to develop sentience within their lifetime (babies are a good example) get to be in the upper rung of my hierarchy. Creatures that might do it sometime down the evolutionary road don't get to sit on the same rung as those that are already or will become (in their lifetimes) sentient.
Chrome Tiger
Jeez, people. It is a post about environmental radicals harming other people for the sake of what they believe to be environmentally and ecologically wrong. This thread is meant to convey real world links to events that are similar to ecoterrorism in Shadowrun, not to inspire hate and conflict... And where the hell did that transgress into eliminating the Jews? Calm down, have some dip and stop looking for strife and conspiracy where there is none, some people are capable of posting things without the intent of pissing people off.
Rad
QUOTE (Chrome Tiger @ Mar 3 2008, 11:22 AM) *
I also spotted this up on CNN today. Sort of linked in the whole eco-whacko attack scenario...

Link


I just love the fact that their boat is named the "Steve Irwin"

I wonder, was that inspired by his frequent harrasment of animals, or his death at the tail-barb of a stingray? It's comical on so many levels... rotfl.gif

QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Mar 3 2008, 03:49 PM) *
In their defense, the amount of pollutants released by a few burning homes is trivial compared to global automobile use, forest fires, volcanoes, and cow farts. Farts alone contribute more to global warming that the other three leading causes combined, with volcanoes coming in a distant second.


And the real point of setting things on fire is to gain attention for the cause. No publicity is bad publicity and even people who disagree with their methods might agree that building those sorts of homes in that area is a bad idea. It worked for Nelson Mandela when he blew stuff up (and conspired to blow people up) to bring attention to the injustice of Apartheid. It also worked in this case. I had no clue about that HOusing development untill reading that story and now I'm opposed to it on principal.


Mandela blew stuff up?

Wow, the things they don't teach you in history class...

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm getting out of here before the flame starts up again.

>drops a flash-pack and runs like hell<
WearzManySkins
QUOTE (Shrike30 @ Mar 3 2008, 06:26 PM) *
I value the lives of sentient beings over those of non-sentient beings. Seems like a good place to draw a line.


As long as the non-sentient beings are treated humanely, I have no issue with your statement.

Remember some of the most worst sentient serial killers started by treating non-sentient beings in very non humane ways/methods.

WMS
Fortune
QUOTE (Rad @ Mar 4 2008, 01:15 PM) *
Mandela blew stuff up?

Wow, the things they don't teach you in history class...


Methinks you need a new teacher.
hyzmarca
QUOTE (Fortune @ Mar 4 2008, 12:18 AM) *
Methinks you need a new teacher.


Most Westerners, when talking about how Mandela was a political prisoner for decades, conveniently forget to mention that his political crimes were being the leader of a terrorist organization and blowing up a government facilities, both of which he proudly confessed to.
Mandela himself refuses to Whitewash the actions of his resistance organization, Umkhonto we Sizwe, which includes the practice of executing people by putting flaming gasoline-filled tires around their necks (called necklacing, a technique praised by Mandela's controversial ex-wife) in addition from the standard car bombings of targets ranging from government buildings, to banks, to restaurants, to nuclear power plants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spear_of_the_Nation




Personally, I'd ask anyone who divides the value of life into categories based on sentience to prove that him, himself, is sentient.

Frankly, "sentient" and "not sentient" seems to be convenient post-facto classifications designed to justify human supremacy thus creating a fallacious circular definition in which humans are defined as sentient animal and sentience is defined as a quality possessed only be humans, thus ultimately being both invalid and unprovable.
imperialus
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Mar 3 2008, 06:14 PM) *
That depends on how one defines "sentient" doesn't it. For most people, the definition tends to be limited to beings that they can communicate with. If not for the fact that some Jews could speak English, the Final Solution would have been seen as an ecologically unsound attempt to rip Europe of an annoying species of animal.

Given that some great apes are fluent in American sign language and are perfectly about to converse with humans using it, I find it silly to assume that a creature isn't sentient just because it doesn't have the vocal apparatus required to speak English.



Hyz: Post 23 and you Godwin the thread? I've been here long enough, I know you can come up with better arguments than that.


*edit*
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
Frankly, "sentient" and "not sentient" seems to be convenient post-facto classifications designed to justify human supremacy thus creating a fallacious circular definition in which humans are defined as sentient animal and sentience is defined as a quality possessed only be humans, thus ultimately being both invalid and unprovable.


See! Like this.
hyzmarca
QUOTE (imperialus @ Mar 4 2008, 01:39 AM) *
Hyz: Post 23 and you Godwin the thread? I've been here long enough, I know you can come up with better arguments than that.


Actually, many environmentalists do compare whaling to the Shoah. They examine whale song and whale social activity and they come to the conclusion that whales are just as sentient as humans are, if that classification means anything.
We arbitrarily declare whales to be subhuman just as the Nazis arbitrarily declared Jews to be subhuman, allowing us to do anything that we want to do to them. The big difference is that whales, being unable to speak an human language, cannot rebut this claim or defend themselves from it.

I could have used Pygmies as an example, given the treatment of Pygmies at the hands of European anthropologists and zoologists who believed them to be a non-sentient subhuman missing link.
imperialus
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Mar 3 2008, 11:45 PM) *
Actually, many environmentalists do compare whaling to the Shoah. They examine whale song and whale social activity and they come to the conclusion that whales are just as sentient as humans are, if that classification means anything.
We arbitrarily declare whales to be subhuman just as the Nazis arbitrarily declared Jews to be subhuman, allowing us to do anything that we want to do to them. The big difference is that whales, being unable to speak an human language, cannot rebut this claim or defend themselves from it.

I could have used Pygmies as an example, given the treatment of Pygmies at the hands of European anthropologists and zoologists who believed them to be a non-sentient subhuman missing link.


I expect that these folks would find that more than a little offensive.

I'm not saying that whaling isn't wrong. Particularly the commercial whaling that took place throughout most of the 20th century. I do however think that comparing it to the Holocaust is completely and totally inappropriate, and I think it's best that I ignore this particular thread from now on.
stormcrow
You're right. It is inappropriate to compare it to the Holocaust. The Nazis weren't selling the Jew-skin lampshades and Jew-lard for a cheap buck. They didn't make extinct nearly as many subspecies of the beings classified as Jews as commercial whaling has made extinct the subspecies of the beings classified as whales. It's not comparable at all. Tell me again, what makes humans so special that we can be the cause of the worst mass extinction since a ridiculous comet impact?

To return to topic, it would be a great run for a corp (disguised of course) to hire some runners to destroy a housing development that doesn't actually live up to its promises (the houses were over 4000 square feet each and had three and four car garages for cryin' out loud) to get the insurance money, make space for a more profitable project, create media apathy to similar events and pre-emptively demonize ecoradical resistance to their next (not-so-green) project on the same land.
Cadmus
Damn had a realy cool post but ya know, I think its easyer to sum it all up like this. Reguardless of who owns or built the house and for what reason, durning them down is a good way to get shot if some one was living their, I know I'd be all for taking aim if some one tried that to my home. As well acts like this do nothing for the groups cause. Oh they got on tv. good for them, who cares, No one. They comited a crime if caught they will go to jail and I for one wont' shed a tear. Their are many ways to fight for your cause. In the US violance should not be one of them. And if you feel that it is your only option then perhaps you need to look in the mirror for a good amount of time. Burning those homes will do nothing in the long run. These people want to help the world? perhaps they should be in a lab or a school trying to find ways to make it to were people will WANT to do more, Other wise its not going to happen.

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you." -- Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

Critias
Wow. Some of you guys are actually being serious with this stuff.

The thread title isn't being "tolerant" enough to fucking criminals? Cry me a river. You want my support and tolerance, don't burn shit down. It's pretty easy. Billions of people didn't burn shit down yesterday, and I'm fine with every single one of them on the burning-shit-down front. You burnt shit down recently? Well, then, golly. I don't care if you did it because you're a crazy bastard who just likes to see things burn, or if you try to justify it to yourself be thinking the house in question isn't "green" enough for your liking -- you're still an idiot criminal arsonist. I'm under no obligation to be tolerant with you. I'm tolerant with people of other races, creeds, and religions, but "I'm gonna go burn someone's shit down because I love mother nature and granola so much" isn't really a terribly productive lifestyle choice, or one I feel a need to coddle. These guys are a flat out terrorist organization. Fuck if we need to be tolerant of those.

Whales are treated like subhumans? Well, holy shit. I wonder why? Hrm...let's see...let's see...why would we...oh, I know! Because they're not human.

I don't care for whaling, I don't hunt personally, and I have nothing but hatred in my heart for those who are needlessly cruel to animals, torture them, etc, etc -- but, well, at the end of the day they are animals. I'm not going to sit here and reap all the benefits of being born a human, and then turn around and try to knock my species a few rungs back down the ladder out of some misguided sense of guilt. I eat meat, I wear leather. I'm not going to judge the guys that do the dirty work to get me that meat and leather.

We have the brains, the thumbs, and the tools. If we want to kill them for food or clothing or self protection, we get to do so. Just like they have the claws, fangs, and instincts; if we wander into their house and they decide to kill us, more power to 'em. That's how nature works, she's a bitch. We're at the top of the food chain, so we get to do what we want. The wolf gets to kill the sheep, the fox gets to kill the chicken, the lion doesn't "lay down" with the lamb very often. We're predators, too. Why is it glorious and beautiful for other predators to kill and eat, and suddenly it's morally reprehensible when humans do it?

Edited: to, believe it or not, be a bit less caustic.
nezumi
I'm basically with Critias.

Like Colbert said, 'if tables were turned, they'd do the same to us'. The only reason whales don't hop into water-filled RVs and truck around throwing harpoons at fat people coming out of McDonald's is the fact their tails are too big to operate the pedals (and we're really bad for your health. Whales by and large tend for organic food, when given the option.)

It is interesting that there are people who authentically feel it's better to kill a person than an animal (and by and large, those people continue to feel that way until that person becomes them. PETA's stance on medical research is a great example for this one.) ALF/ELF it's worth noting do go out of their way to make sure when they blow stuff up, no one is actually in the car/house/ski facility at the time, so I believe their current body count is still 0 (not to say that justifies them, but the post about people coming to your house to burn it down is a little irrelevant. They'd just burn your car.)

However, as hyzmarca pointed out, us being humans and everything else not being human is fairly arbitrary. I mean it makes sense. If you were defining the rules about who deserves a million dollars and who doesn't, I imagine you'd put yourself in the former category, and be a bit more picky about who else joins you. Heck, if I were defining what you can eat and what you can't, I'd toss humans into the 'can eat' category, if it weren't for the fact that then maybe someone would try to eat me. When people more-or-less arbitrarily draw that line in different directions, including some species but not others, some groups of people but not others, some magical traditions but not others, some political systems but not others, you get conflict, sometimes armed conflict. That leads to blowing stuff up and, in turn, leads to fun Shadowruns. I'd love to see more posts about groups who make a particular delineation, then blow stuff up about it. It's great game fodder.
Critias
Bah. Wrong button.
Moon-Hawk
While we're at it, sentience is the ability to perceive or react to one's environment. To feel and be aware of one's environment. It is difficult to deny that a little white lab mouse is sentient. If it perceives food, it will react and go towards it. If it feels pain, it will squeak. Sentient.
The ability to think and know and reason is sapience. You know, as in, Homo sapiens. We're named after what (supposedly) makes us special.
Chrome Tiger
QUOTE (Moon-Hawk @ Mar 4 2008, 12:45 PM) *
While we're at it, sentience is the ability to perceive or react to one's environment. To feel and be aware of one's environment. It is difficult to deny that a little white lab mouse is sentient. If it perceives food, it will react and go towards it. If it feels pain, it will squeak. Sentient.
The ability to think and know and reason is sapience. You know, as in, Homo sapiens. We're named after what (supposedly) makes us special.


Well damn, that means that cows, pigs, and chickens are sentient and I should stop throwing them on my grill of doom! Mmm tasty sentient flesh! cyber.gif
nezumi
Why? Sentience never stopped me from enjoying a good burger.
Kanada Ten
When roleplaying organizations like TerraFirst! and Greenwar, it's good to remember that they value human life second, and then, only in how it furthers their agenda. But often, they are funded and linked to other organizations in loose alliances which allow them to extend their influence.

Consider SK's development of a "living facility" in Seattle. The builders naturally make claims about the ecological soundness and benefits of their project, which moderate groups like Sierra, Inc would publicly praise the efforts of designers, while trying to leverage them into further "Green Friendly" construction. But how do you coerce these corporations into certain action? By threatening to unleash your pet fanatics, perhaps. And since these "lunatics" value their cause above their lives, it's often cheaper to give-in or compromise than try to reverse extort or eliminate them.

Combining magic and hacking, eco-terrorists can make construction a nightmare, and - unlike organized crime or government regulation - you can't just pay them off, but actually have to play their game (at least until your Dawkins Group or MIFD agents infiltrate and use the groups for your own ill gains).

Random thought: I wonder if corporations might fall into a "Green Race" as they try to turn all the toxic sludge around the globe into nuyen...
PlatonicPimp
OK this talk about valuing animal life over human life is misguided.

It breaks down two ways. First, it's valuing animal life over human convenience. That is, given the choice between saving an animal and saving a human, one would probably save the human, but given the choice between the animal and someones new luxury home, well...
Second, it's valuing the ecosystem above individual human concerns. For some this is a belief that the ecosystem itself is inherently more valuable (Gaia Hypothesis). For others, it's just because without an intact, functional landbase, we're all fucked in the long term. It's more important that the ecosystem remain intact than that we have high standards of living.

So it's not a question of killing people to save the animals. It's a question of preventing the exploitation of the landbase for short term increases to standards of living. Most ELF or Terrafirst cells specifically only cause property damage or make exploiting an area more risky. They don't shoot loggers, for instance, they destroy logging equipment or spike trees and warn the logggers. I say most because ELF has a cell structure, and so it doesn't have control over what certain cells may do.
The direct action arm of the radical green movement is also filled with agent provacateurs, who are assigned by law enforcement agencies to try to get these groups to commit crimes they can be prosecuted for. These provacateurs have immunity for any crimes they commit, and many of the more vicious crimes commited by such groups are the work of these agents.

Combine that with the loose cannon aspect, and it means that just because a misspelled sign written with paint on a bedsheet says "ELF did it", doesn't really mean much. On the other hand, it is like the radical green movement to be more fixated on things that are "greenwashed" than things that aren't. They find lying about being environmentally friendly more offensive. Either way, I have no sympathy for the owners of the damaged property, who may have done this themselves and will collect insurance money regardless. I do have sympathy for the ELF, even if it turns out that a bunch of idiot arsons did this, because I have sympathy for their cause. Just because some members might make stupid tactical decisions doesn't change that I think they are fighting for the right thing.

Kanada Ten
Shadowrun's TerraFirst! and Greenwar target loggers and logger families. While they are not all toxic, most believe humans and nature have past the point of peaceful co-existence. "This is war, and there are no innocents" and all that.
nezumi
QUOTE (PlatonicPimp @ Mar 4 2008, 03:10 PM) *
It breaks down two ways. First, it's valuing animal life over human convenience.


PETA has publicly stated it would oppose any AIDS research if it caused harm to any animals. I think that most of us can agree, a vaccine for AIDS is not a matter of 'human convenience'.

QUOTE
I do have sympathy for the ELF, even if it turns out that a bunch of idiot arsons did this, because I have sympathy for their cause. Just because some members might make stupid tactical decisions doesn't change that I think they are fighting for the right thing.


ELF labels itself as using extreme means to support their causes. They have been classified as a domestic terror threat by the FBI since 2001. You don't join ELF because you want to pass out fliers and obey local ordinances. Whether they did this particular crime or not, the fact that their founding premise is to commit crimes to further their goals really means they should reasonably expect trouble. If I joined a violent gang that deals drugs, even if I myself am a non-drug using pacifist, I should not be especially surprised when the cops start paying me a lot more visits.

So yes, I do generally agree with their position that the developers' behavior is unethical, however I don't think that that somehow releases them from blame for burning things (if not this, then previous things they have been convicted of or claimed themselves).
Kanada Ten
QUOTE (nezumi @ Mar 4 2008, 02:39 PM) *
PETA has publicly stated it would oppose any AIDS research if it caused harm to any animals. I think that most of us can agree, a vaccine for AIDS is not a matter of 'human convenience'.
But is testing HIV vaccines on animals useful?

Anyway, I don't think ELF wants release from blame, per se; perhaps fault, but martyrdom is a powerful draw - especially in distopian cultures where it might be the only distinction one could achieve.
nezumi
Testing vaccines on animals is not completely accurate or effective, but it's the best we've got. If I told you I'm going to inject you with a medicine that may or may not cause you tremendous harm, you would probably prefer the one with half-effective testing methods over the one with no testing methods at all.
CircuitBoyBlue
QUOTE (nezumi @ Mar 5 2008, 09:00 AM) *
Testing vaccines on animals is not completely accurate or effective, but it's the best we've got. If I told you I'm going to inject you with a medicine that may or may not cause you tremendous harm, you would probably prefer the one with half-effective testing methods over the one with no testing methods at all.


Except, it's not half-effective, it's ineffective. And it's not like there's nothing to lose by going from nothing at all to something ineffective. You've suddenly got a lot of animals that have had AIDS injected into them
nezumi
I think you need to do some more balanced research. Animal testing has somehow been involved with every major medical achievement in the 20th century. We have innumerable examples of where animal research clearly did work. We developed cures for leprosy and small pox (off the top of my head) almost exclusively through testing vaccines on animals first, and they have been hugely successful. On the flip side, there are cases where medicines were NOT tested on animals, and consequently killed lots and lots of people.

Now if you would like to sign up to inject an HIV vaccine (which if you remember, generally involves injecting either the HIV virus itself or something akin to it into your body, sort of like the polio vaccine which ended up leaving thousands paralyzed even though it was meant to be a cure, not a cause) that has never been tried on another living body, go to it. You're doing a great service for humanity. But I would much rather survive, just speaking for myself.
Naysayer
QUOTE (nezumi @ Mar 5 2008, 10:00 AM) *
Testing vaccines on animals is not completely accurate or effective, but it's the best we've got. (...)


Has playing Shaowrun taught you nothing?!
There are literally billions of poor people around who, unlike animal, can't be eaten (soylent green nonwithstanding) and, even better, come completely for free!
Kanada Ten
QUOTE (nezumi @ Mar 5 2008, 08:52 AM) *
Animal testing has somehow been involved with every major medical achievement in the 20th century. We have innumerable examples of where animal research clearly did work. We developed cures for leprosy and small pox (off the top of my head) almost exclusively through testing vaccines on animals first, and they have been hugely successful. On the flip side, there are cases where medicines were NOT tested on animals, and consequently killed lots and lots of people.
And if penicillin had been tested on animals, it might have never reached clinical trials.

I think as our computer models become more sophisticated, and our ability to monitor the body on a cellular level develops into a feasible process, animal testing will only be done on drugs meant for that animal. Certainly by the Sixth World, animal trails of human drugs will be obsolete - except as environmental impact studies on pharmaceutical remainders in human waste ("The ecoterrorist group META has claimed responsibility for releasing a swarm of VITAS IV infected devil rats inside the Manhattan Conference Center earlier today, during a showcase of pharmaceutical products intended to ease HMHVV infections in third world nations. META claims that the rats have become increasingly resilient to poisons, and the strain of VITAS they carry has developed a paranatural resistance to standard treatments due to over-medicating and nanowash flooding their environment. For more on this breaking story, we turn to Captain Kirtz Killfish who is leading the NYPD's Animal Control at the scene. Captain Killfish, I wonder if you could give us an idea of what's happening down there." "Well, Karen, *background screaming* these particular critters have holed up in the East Wing, but as you can hear, they've taken a few hostages and are avoiding sniper fire with fucking clever use of their darkness and adaptive coloration powers." "I'm sorry, Captain, did you say the rats have taken hostages?" "Yes, ma'am, I can't release the numbers or names, but we've got a specialist in route who can communicate with them and find out their demands." "The rats have demands?" "Yeah, pro'ly want more money spent on Talis Cat control.")
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012