Animal testing

[Virgin Mary]

Are you for or against animal testing? I'm against it, especially when it's for cosmetics etc. They should get humans volunteers to do it, or do tests on people who are on death row, you can't really say they've got much to look forward to in life.

[kasi]

i'm against it. it's horrible...

[sarey]

AGAINTS!
I am totally againts animal testing.

[iGroves]

I did a speach on it in school on how I was against it.

[-Soph-]

I'm against, Especially as you said with the cosmetics, The conditions they have to live in are terrible, And through all this alternatives to animal testing can be used, Just loads of researchers don't want to change.. [Because they smell.]

[FlyingJesus]

It doesn't bother me. Cosmetics I couldn't care less about, and I guess it's a waste of an animal which I could be eating, but medical research on animals I'm well up for. I'd rather kill a rat or a pig than a human, especially if it was to help research that could potentially cure fatal illness. Also there's the fact that I just don't care about the welfare of animals, because I don't believe they feel pain in the same way as us.

[WHANGFACE]

We did a massive like 4 page essay assessment on this in Science not so long ago, maybe about 3 weeks? It really opened my eyes to how bad it was, I'm against.

[Ryan+Joe]

against.

[Robzor]

AGAINST !

[velvet]

Against, as mensioned above theres an alternative they can test on, but they choose not to, maybe i'd be for it medically if they improved the standards of animal welfare.

[asher_]

Are you for or against animal testing? I'm against it, especially when it's for cosmetics etc. They should get humans volunteers to do it, or do tests on people who are on death row, you can't really say they've got much to look forward to in life.

I'm against animal testing when it comes to cosmetics where alternatives could be used. However, to a certain degree I don't totally disregard animal testing for medical research. Testing things on humans is never a good idea and seems like a bizarre thing to do. I remember reading a case about voluntary humans getting tested on and it wasn't good.

[Virgin Mary]

I'm against animal testing when it comes to cosmetics where alternatives could be used. However, to a certain degree I don't totally disregard animal testing for medical research. Testing things on humans is never a good idea and seems like a bizarre thing to do. I remember reading a case about voluntary humans getting tested on and it wasn't good.
Testing things on humans FOR humans is the best available option. Something will have much different effects on a lab rodent than it will on a human. People who volunteer do it knowing the possibile risk of such an outcome.

[lolerskates]

Something will have much different effects on a lab rodent than it will on a human.

But wouldn't you have preferred to have had an idea about the drug you were testing on a human first. If you give a drug to a rat and the rat dies, the chances are that if you give it to a human the human will die too. Cosmetics is a big no, but medically I think it is needed. The animals are bred for it, they don't know any different, think of the outrage if they came along and took your pet for testing.

[Virgin Mary]

But wouldn't you have preferred to have had an idea about the drug you were testing on a human first. If you give a drug to a rat and the rat dies, the chances are that if you give it to a human the human will die too. Cosmetics is a big no, but medically I think it is needed. The animals are bred for it, they don't know any different, think of the outrage if they came along and took your pet for testing.
Well, like I said, test it on those on death row. Maybe they should start breeding humans for it.

[ilovejordan]

What does ambiguous mean?

[lolerskates]

There are not enough people on death row to test. Only a handful of executions are carried out in the western world every year. Also it takes longer to create and raise a human baby as opposed to a litter of rats :P

[asher_]

I just wish the scientists actually gave a damn about animal welfare and atleast tried to give them some form of a life prior to testing, instead of breeding dozens of rabbits, simply for testing things such as cosmetics.

[Virgin Mary]

What does ambiguous mean?
Like if you think that testing for cosmetics is wrong but for medical reasons it's okay.

[WHANGFACE]

Like if you think that testing for cosmetics is wrong but for medical reasons it's okay.
Oh damn, I should have voted that really. I thoguht it means you don't have an opinion :rolleyes:

[Virgin Mary]

http://www.stopanimaltests.com/index.aspx :(

[ilovejordan]

Like if you think that testing for cosmetics is wrong but for medical reasons it's okay.

Ohh yea thats me *votes*

[Virgin Mary]

Well you could always sacrifice them.

[louder]

ew. against.

[Virgin Mary]

Great! More power to the animals :D

[FlyingJesus]

If an animal is bred simply for that purpose, then why not use them for it? It's not like they're sentient anyway, they don't have real emotions and don't feel real pain. Been a thread to do with that theory a while back about animal rights or vegetarianism or something, I believe Eamonn, Helen and myself were campaigning for fair treatment of plants, as it's about as relevant as animal cruelty.

[RedStratocas]

Depends.

Monkeys for cosmetics= bad

Lab rats to test medicine= okay

[Uwe]

Im for.
I'd rather they get tested on then me.
However, I was watching a video were 100s of Dogs get killed every year for no reason because they have no need for them. so instead of sending them to a [cant remeber name but were you can buy dogs ect ect] they shot them in the head. ;l

[FlyingJesus]

No worse than PETA does.. they kill any animals that are injured, so they don't have to worry about them.

[Mentor]

FOR. Most of the people here would be dead if it wernt for animal testing..


Are you for or against animal testing? I'm against it, especially when it's for cosmetics etc. They should get humans volunteers to do it, or do tests on people who are on death row, you can't really say they've got much to look forward to in life.
O.o so you value to life of a rat over that of a liveing breath, centiant human? even though the rat or other animal arnt even conisouse of existance?

[asher_]

If an animal is bred simply for that purpose, then why not use them for it? It's not like they're sentient anyway, they don't have real emotions and don't feel real pain. Been a thread to do with that theory a while back about animal rights or vegetarianism or something, I believe Eamonn, Helen and myself were campaigning for fair treatment of plants, as it's about as relevant as animal cruelty.

Of course they feel pain.

[Tash.]

Against, I detest it. Its one of the only things I passionately hate. I think I read someone with the same opinion as me.. if not nevermind. But if you're going to test things on animals, especially to do with medical cures etc. Do it on a human. Its useless on an animal, they may react completely differently to a human. For those saying animals are not aware of existence, and do not feel pain the same as humans, i'm sorry, but anything with living tissue that moves and thinks, have feelings and therefore feel pain. Anyway, just an opinion. Which I'm going to stick to no matter what.

[lolerskates]

PETA are just ******ed, they kill more animals than they save. Apprantly they blew up this hamburger factory and killed all the cows in the surrounding farmland, they're crazy. And of course animals feel pain. Scientists even believe flowers feel pain and that just before you pick them and they're severed from the plant they supposedly scream, so yes the chances are if a dandelion can feel pain so can a regular lion.

[Mentor]

Of course they feel pain.
only as impulse to there nervos system, not as consiose responce like humans.

Pain means the consuise responce to the stimulus humans have, so no animals dont feel pain, only detect damage, which kicks in there self preservation instincts


Against, I detest it. Its one of the only things I passionately hate. I think I read someone with the same opinion as me.. if not nevermind. But if you're going to test things on animals, especially to do with medical cures etc. Do it on a human.
Feel free to volunteer then..

Its useless on an animal, they may react completely differently to a human.
But in reality the ones they test on DONT, so the testing is valid and its tested on a non centain life form that doesnt cair insted of a centain consuise life form that does...

For those saying animals are not aware of existence, and do not feel pain the same as humans, i'm sorry, but anything with living tissue that moves and thinks, have feelings and therefore feel pain.
0.o well i think you need to retake biology then, brains do all the think and all the responding to pain, animal brains dont have the consuise aspect though (no frontal loab) hence do not feel pain in human terms, only a responce to damage which is part of an instintal self presevantion system.
Feelings, deffinlty not, emotions are also relaint on a frontal loab, unless you clame you would still have emotions, feel pain and think, even if your brain was removed from your body, your clame doesnt hold up...

[iluvben]

If an animal is bred simply for that purpose, then why not use them for it? It's not like they're sentient anyway, they don't have real emotions and don't feel real pain. Been a thread to do with that theory a while back about animal rights or vegetarianism or something, I believe Eamonn, Helen and myself were campaigning for fair treatment of plants, as it's about as relevant as animal cruelty.
Oh yeah anti-peta , save the plants , peace bruvva !

[asher_]

only as impulse to there nervos system, not as consiose responce like humans.

Pain means the consuise responce to the stimulus humans have, so no animals dont feel pain, only detect damage, which kicks in there self preservation instincts

Although some animals are given anestheia a lot, if not half are put through pain and distress. They feel pain just like humans feel pain.

[BL!NKEY]

I am for it for some testing like scientific testing that will make medicine to cure diseases.

But for hair products I dont think they should do dangerous tests with the animals. Maybe when they are almost dont with the product they can use it on the animals before it is tested on humans and hits the shelfs.

[Mentor]

Although some animals are given anestheia a lot, if not half are put through pain and distress. They feel pain just like humans feel pain.
no they dont? the anestheia is not used becuse they feel pain in the human sence, its insted to stop the animals built in relfex actions and instincts to take over. If an animal is attacked in the while its survival instincts take over to keep it alive. These instincts though dont always help, they cause the animal to struggle and get destressed. Which in many cases will do them more harm than good in the human maintained environment.
The survival instincts shoulnt be confused with actaly conusly feeling pain, you have them to, althogh we have the consiose aspects to, you touch somthing hot you will automaticly withdraw your hand even without haveing to coniusly do so, and even before the message arives at your brain and is prossesed conisoely, since it just goes to the spine and back to save time "/
Humans are like other animals but we have the frontal lobe and consiuiness on top of it which allows us to understand and perseaveing things in complty diffent ways "/

[Betteh]

Entor, although hardly nobody here agrees with you, I think you just won the debate. :P

[FlyingJesus]

That would be because he's right. Animals and plants feel "pain" only as an instinctive reaction to something that threatens the continuance of their species, or quite often just themselves. As Mentor said, it's not the same as feeling real pain, because they don't have the capacity to understand it.

People believe in animal rights because we've been brought up with these liberal ideas that somehow if humans stop being nasty then the rest of nature will follow suit. This won't happen, I promise you. Not eating a burger because the poor moo cow died to make it won't stop lions, crocodiles, or even domestic animals from hunting and killing to eat.

If you want to argue that we shouldn't use animals to test treatment (cosmetic or medical, makes no difference to me) for humans, then why not step up the argument by saying that we shouldn't be using plants to make cures, we can only use compounds and such found in non-living matter like rocks. Anyone here think that rocks hold the key to curing widespread disease? Thought not.
Meat is murder = Salad is murder.
Animal testing is horrific = Picking daisies is genocide.

[asher_]

no they dont? the anestheia is not used becuse they feel pain in the human sence, its insted to stop the animals built in relfex actions and instincts to take over. If an animal is attacked in the while its survival instincts take over to keep it alive. These instincts though dont always help, they cause the animal to struggle and get destressed. Which in many cases will do them more harm than good in the human maintained environment.
The survival instincts shoulnt be confused with actaly conusly feeling pain, you have them to, althogh we have the consiose aspects to, you touch somthing hot you will automaticly withdraw your hand even without haveing to coniusly do so, and even before the message arives at your brain and is prossesed conisoely, since it just goes to the spine and back to save time "/
Humans are like other animals but we have the frontal lobe and consiuiness on top of it which allows us to understand and perseaveing things in complty diffent ways "/

Animals have similar electrical impulses in their brains that are much the same as those in a human; as well as, having similar areas of the brain involved in processing pain and acting upon it. I understand what you said about touching something hot and it's the same with an animal; If an animal who is being slaughtered gets killed quickly it is quick and painless because their bodies don't have enough time to react; however, if they are killed improperly, and in a lot of cases they are, the animal will die a slow, distressing and painful death. In regards to the anesthetic, it creates loss of feeling and/or awareness so no pain is felt at all.

[asher_]

Plants don't exhibit any behaviour that indicates any form of consciousness. Also to bring back entor's point, an animal's survival depends on reacting to situations which may cause pain and suffering, plants however cannot react to these situations such as changing their position incase of a forest fire, so it's unlikely plants would develop the ability to feel pain when it has no survival advantage.

[splatttt]

I totally disagree with it. Animals have feelings too. And as for testing on guinea pigs i think its sick. they gave a cancer cure drug thingy to it and it died a painfull death =[[

REALLY SICK

[RedStratocas]

I totally disagree with it. Animals have feelings too. And as for testing on guinea pigs i think its sick. they gave a cancer cure drug thingy to it and it died a painfull death =[[

REALLY SICK

Id rather them kill a guinea pigs and cure cancer to be honest. Things like cosmetics and non-needed things on animals is cruel, but testing lab rats on cures for cancer I think is fine.

And we'll have to keep doing it UNTIL BUSH ALLOWS STEM CELL RESEARCH!. I am seriously ticked that he vetoed that damn bill. I want him SPECIFICALLY to get cancer and die.

[splatttt]

i understand what your saying...
I mean bush is stupid ^_^

[RedStratocas]

i understand what your saying...
I mean bush is stupid ^_^

Ugh, he thinks embrios are people.

[splatttt]

Hes just really annoying..

Hw wouldnt know how to do things right if it smacked him in the face

[RedStratocas]

Hes just really annoying..

Hw wouldnt know how to do things right if it smacked him in the face

I dont hate him because he's annoying or because his accent is funny or because he cant pronounce a lot of words. I hate him for other reasons like political issues:P

[splatttt]

Hahha thats me out then im no good with politics =]]

[FlyingJesus]

He can't allow stem cell research at a time like this, there are far too many hardline Christians (himself included) that believe in sanctity of life. It's not going to happen any time soon either, things are going the opposite way in terms of how pregnancies and such are controlled, with abortion becoming illegalised again in parts of America.


Plants don't exhibit any behaviour that indicates any form of consciousness.

I take it then that you are for the euthanasia of people in a vegetative state?


if they are killed improperly, and in a lot of cases they are, the animal will die a slow, distressing and painful death

The point of the argument we are placing however, is that pain doesn't mean anything to animals. Squealing, jerky movements, struggles, they're all part of what's absolutely natural, even plants have small reactions like this (they're just very slow and basic, such as moving to feed - facing the sun), it doesn't mean real, conscious pain. What it means is that the animal's nerves sense something harmful to their existence, and instinctively tries to get away. Unless you abuse and abuse an animal over and over, you can't teach it to stay still when it's getting hurt, because they don't understand it and can only act naturally. Humans however register what's going on, and can choose what to do about it. This difference means that we can understand pain rather than simply act entirely by reflex actions.

PS: The plant thing is a joke, I use it to show how little I care about animal rights.

[Virgin Mary]

Is not the same true of a baby?

[Swastika]

Im both against and for because:
If its for research that could cure illness then im for. Like someone said earlier, i'd rather kill a animal which i could be eating rather than a human.

Im against if its for cosmetics. I dont think the pig would feel ok about it. :)

-Jamie

[Virgin Mary]

It's not the testing that annoys me, it's the way they treat the animals. Unless of course it's the testing where they stick a computer chip into their brain.
http://www.nocompromise.org/images/UPenn84-cat.jpg
http://members.iinet.net.au/~rabbit/monkey~1.jpg
http://www.animal-testing.info/images/4.jpg
http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/rabbit-test-03.jpg

[asher_]

The point of the argument we are placing however, is that pain doesn't mean anything to animals. Squealing, jerky movements, struggles, they're all part of what's absolutely natural, even plants have small reactions like this (they're just very slow and basic, such as moving to feed - facing the sun), it doesn't mean real, conscious pain. What it means is that the animal's nerves sense something harmful to their existence, and instinctively tries to get away. Unless you abuse and abuse an animal over and over, you can't teach it to stay still when it's getting hurt, because they don't understand it and can only act naturally. Humans however register what's going on, and can choose what to do about it. This difference means that we can understand pain rather than simply act entirely by reflex actions.

I'm still a little dazed about what you are trying to argue here, is it that animals do not feel pain the same way that we do? Animals show the same physical reactions that humans exibit. If they get hurt they may hide, or they may bite whomever is hurting them in an act of self defense and surely that's the same reaction a human would have if in pain and in the same situation?

[FlyingJesus]

Is not the same true of a baby?

Although babies act mainly on instinct alone, they are still part of a sentient species, the only such species on Earth as it were.

[Virgin Mary]

Although babies act mainly on instinct alone, they are still part of a sentient species, the only such species on Earth as it were.
Virtually all animals are sentient, to some degree anyway. Dolphins and apes are just one example. I could just as easily and solipsistically say that no one but me is sentient.

[RedStratocas]

He can't allow stem cell research at a time like this, there are far too many hardline Christians (himself included) that believe in sanctity of life. It's not going to happen any time soon either, things are going the opposite way in terms of how pregnancies and such are controlled, with abortion becoming illegalised again in parts of America.

But he VETOED this bill. It wasent even him making this bill. Congress voted almost with out question for the allowing of stem-cell research. All Bush has to ever do is sign the damn thing. But for the first time in his 5 and 1/2 years as president, he didnt sign a bill and vetoed it. Out of all the bills, hundreds of them probably, he decided to veto one with importance such as this. It actually amazes me....

By the way, in recent polls, more than 3/4ths of the country supports stem cell research.

[jordybumz!]

do tests on people who are on death row

I like that idea ^

[Virgin Mary]

Natural life created by God is sacred. Life created artificially by humans isn't.

[Mentor]

Animals have similar electrical impulses in their brains that are much the same as those in a human; as well as, having similar areas of the brain involved in processing pain and acting upon it. I understand what you said about touching something hot and it's the same with an animal; If an animal who is being slaughtered gets killed quickly it is quick and painless because their bodies don't have enough time to react; however, if they are killed improperly, and in a lot of cases they are, the animal will die a slow, distressing and painful death. In regards to the anesthetic, it creates loss of feeling and/or awareness so no pain is felt at all.
Yes? becuse humans and animals shair the same basic workings, where pretty simlar, but if your brain were about a 1/4 its size you woulnt be half as smart or capable of half the things you are now. Your brain would still work in the same way though.
Cut out your frontal lobe, you wont be consiose or centiant no more. Animals dont have a frontal lobe at all. ONLY humans have it, and thats what makes us self aware.
I could quite easly program a peace of computer software cabale of puting out simlar responces, if its attacked or damged it will try and protect itself. This by no means my computer is consiose, or even by many deffinitions alive? so i cant see your aurgument "/

Plants don't exhibit any behaviour that indicates any form of consciousness. Also to bring back entor's point, an animal's survival depends on reacting to situations which may cause pain and suffering, plants however cannot react to these situations such as changing their position incase of a forest fire, so it's unlikely plants would develop the ability to feel pain when it has no survival advantage.

Thats becuse there not consciouse, but nore are cats, dogs, rates sheep, donkys or any other animals you cair to mention.
Since animals only need pain as warning its equaly stupid for them to eveolve the factulty that allows them to exspeince the reaction in a discomftable way as oppose to just reacting to it.
Thats why a animal caught in a trap will gnaw its own limb off, im doubful a human would do the same, becuise are consioseness actaly acts as a disadvantage when survuval is at steak, becuse we exspeince "pain" rather than just the reaction to it, we also know and understand the pain, which an animal does, and make consiose judgements on it, which an animal doesnnt.

Plants can do alot of things animals cant, Hell venus fly trap can count? far smarter than most animals then aint it...


Virtually all animals are sentient, to some degree anyway. Dolphins and apes are just one example. I could just as easily and solipsistically say that no one but me is sentient.

No they arnt? they are still not self aware, smart yes, but not self aware, the human brain is infinatly more advancaed than that or an ape? Plus it would realy help if you actaly mentioned a SMART animal when trying to make this point, an octopus for exsample, is capable of advanced communiction, tactical team work, advanced judgment and is a pretty smart animal "/
Not sentaint, but very smart.

Summary
Animal testing IS needed.
The people who oppose it dont understand it are uneducated on the subject. This is most people.
The people who support it, understand why its nessary, this is just the smarter people. Luckly the smarter people make the desisons.... most the time.

Most people here WOULD be DEAD if it were not for animal testing, the majorty of all medican has resulted from it, most of the vaccienes given to babys comes from it.
the death of a few 1000 rats means the suverival of a few million Humans.
A few deaths to save Millions aint a bad thing, keep in mind many of the cures also save the animals... 1000 rats die, a billion rats can be saved if wanted...

[Virgin Mary]

No they arnt? they are still not self aware, smart yes, but not self aware, the human brain is infinatly more advancaed than that or an ape? Plus it would realy help if you actaly mentioned a SMART animal when trying to make this point, an octopus for exsample, is capable of advanced communiction, tactical team work, advanced judgment and is a pretty smart animal "/
Not sentaint, but very smart.

Some lesser animals may not be sentient, but many are. Maybe not as much as humans but to some extent, plus an animal being intelligent or self-aware is sapience, not sentience and an animal doesn't need to be sapient to be sentient. I'm not fully against testing, I think it should just be carried out in a more humane manner.

[asher_]

No they arnt? they are still not self aware, smart yes, but not self aware, the human brain is infinatly more advancaed than that or an ape? Plus it would realy help if you actaly mentioned a SMART animal when trying to make this point, an octopus for exsample, is capable of advanced communiction, tactical team work, advanced judgment and is a pretty smart animal "/
Not sentaint, but very smart.

Actually, self awareness has been convincingly demonstrated on chimpanzees and orangutans. Have a read up on the mirror test if you're unaware of it.

[alexxxxx]

Cosmetics: No

Medical: Yes

[JonJon]

So you'd rather they test it on humans? Even the ones on "death row" it still think it'd be better to test it on animals, because that's just treating the dying poorly too. Or, why test it at all? Just put it straight on the market, and see if it injures anyone.

The best way is on animals, and the only other option is to stop making cosmetics.

[Virgin Mary]

So you'd rather they test it on humans? Even the ones on "death row" it still think it'd be better to test it on animals, because that's just treating the dying poorly too. Or, why test it at all? Just put it straight on the market, and see if it injures anyone.

The best way is on animals, and the only other option is to stop making cosmetics.
They're on death row for a reason, it's not like saying we should test it on people with terminal illnesses because they're going to die anyway.

[JonJon]

They're on death row for a reason, it's not like saying we should test it on people with terminal illnesses because they're going to die anyway.




Well, it'd be ok if they wanted to test it out before they die, if they're going to die anyway. But if they didn't accept the offer, they shouldn't.

[Virgin Mary]

Well, it'd be ok if they wanted to test it out before they die, if they're going to die anyway. But if they didn't accept the offer, they shouldn't.
They aren't asked if they want to be executed by injection or electrocution or whatever.

[:dallsgreen]

I'm against.

[Mentor]

Some lesser animals may not be sentient, but many are. Maybe not as much as humans but to some extent, plus an animal being intelligent or self-aware is sapience, not sentience and an animal doesn't need to be sapient to be sentient. I'm not fully against testing, I think it should just be carried out in a more humane manner.
No... sapience is about being wize, which is more todo with application of understanding, Nothing to do with self aware or capable or understanding emotive responces.

Sentient: Self-aware, choice-making consciousness.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define%3Asentient&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial


Actually, self awareness has been convincingly demonstrated on chimpanzees and orangutans. Have a read up on the mirror test if you're unaware of it.

The mirror test doesnt prove much, even simplistic robots have been desmostarted as haveing the abilty to succefuly aknolage its themselves as opposed to another being.. rats can also do that.. so can flys... and if plants had any optical receptors they probaly could too, all that shows is there of heigh intelgance than a table...

[BL!NKEY]

But he VETOED this bill. It wasent even him making this bill. Congress voted almost with out question for the allowing of stem-cell research. All Bush has to ever do is sign the damn thing. But for the first time in his 5 and 1/2 years as president, he didnt sign a bill and vetoed it. Out of all the bills, hundreds of them probably, he decided to veto one with importance such as this. It actually amazes me....

By the way, in recent polls, more than 3/4ths of the country supports stem cell research.


I kinda of poped into the thread but about the stem cell research

The Governator (Arnold Swarsanegger) of California decided to like disregard the thing abuot not giving money for research and I think he gave like a few hundred million to stem cell research in Californis.

I will try to find an article about it and give a link cuz i dont know much abuot it.

I am for stem cell cuz it will really help lots of people

edit: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/25/news/stem.php

[Virgin Mary]

Animals can think about thought
Tim Radford, science editor
Wednesday December 3, 2003
The Guardian

Monkeys can manage mathematics. Dolphins can be decisive. But US psychologists have broken new ground in the animal intelligence challenge. They have proved that animals are also smart enough to join the "don't-knows".

It means that animals, like humans, may be capable not just of thinking, but of thinking about thinking, of knowing that they don't know. Psychologists call this "metacognition", evidence of sophisticated cognitive self-awareness. Ordinary mortals know it as "dithering".

A team from the University of Buffalo, New York, the University of Montana and Georgia State University report in the December issue of Behavioural and Brain Sciences that they gave humans, bottlenose dolphins and rhesus monkeys nonverbal memory tasks. Some were hard, some easy.

"The key innovation in this research was to grant animals an 'uncertain' response so they could decline to complete any trials of their choosing," said John David Smith, of the University of Buffalo.

"Given this option animals might choose to complete trials when they are confident they know, but decline them when they feel something like uncertainty."

There is no doubt that animals can work things out. Laboratory monkeys have counted up to nine, while a New Caledonian crow at Oxford learned to bend wire into the shape of a hook to fish titbits from a bucket. These studies were evidence of thought, but not of thinking about thought.

But the evidence from the latest experiment showed that monkeys and dolphins, at least, could opt for the "uncertain" response, in a manner essentially identical to a human don't-know.
Humans underestimate animals far too much. An animal doesn't need to be able to build a rocket to be sentient. For all we know, there may be intelligent beings in the universe who are far more advanced than we are and who consider us to not be sentient because we aren't as advanced as they are.

[Mentor]

Humans underestimate animals far too much. An animal doesn't need to be able to build a rocket to be sentient. For all we know, there may be intelligent beings in the universe who are far more advanced than we are and who consider us to not be sentient because we aren't as advanced as they are.
.. Ok, properganda is the key word here, your takieng this of an animal rights sight and looking at a massive misreporstention of facts.... they pick and choose parts without finishing the storys and compleaty misrepersent what there saying.
Uncerstanty over a persific action is not an act of chooseing, any more than feeding a string of letters in to a box especing numbers on a computer is the computer then chooseing what to do.
If an animal hasnt learned a repsonce and is exspeirnceing something new, it will obviolsy have no set cource of action to take. Hence will take a more randomised responce insted and then learn form that exsperince for use if they then come across the same thing again.
Go talk to my chatbot titan, he can also do that, im scepticl youd call him alive though "/

Plus the more advanced lifeforms not considering us sentain is crap.
1) being more advnaced they would have more accurate ways to tell.
2) Sentance is defined by us, hence would not be what another lifeform would nessarly definie it as, sentaince is by no means the top level of intelangence an animal can have? humans are only minuetly self aware "/

[Virgin Mary]

Yes, but being sentient and being alive are two different things. You could build a robot which is sentient, but that doesn't mean it's a living being. Then again, it depends what your view of alive is.

[Mentor]

Yes, but being sentient and being alive are two different things. You could build a robot which is sentient, but that doesn't mean it's a living being. Then again, it depends what your view of alive is.
Well if it were sentaint it would have more rights than any animal since just living doesnt give much status, as most plants and trees have found out "/
Being sentiant on the other hand carrys ALOT.

[asher_]

“For as long as humans have domesticated animals and have articulated a social consensus ethic, it has included an ethic for the treatment of animals, albeit a very limited one. That traditional ethic has been an ethic forbidding cruelty to animals, that is, deliberate, sadistic, useless, unnecessary infliction of pain, suffering, and neglect on animals.”
— Bernard E. Rollin, Professor of Philosophy and Professor of Physiology and Biophysics at Colorado State University, in his book Farm Animal Welfare: Social, Bioethical, and Research Issues
“You are not handling a lump of plastic. You are handling animals with central nervous systems that feel pain and suffering.”
— Janice Swanson, animal behavior specialist at Kansas State University, addressing a United Egg Producers meeting
“Killing an animal is not the same thing as mowing the grass. A life ends. That’s something you take seriously. What does the word ‘sacred’ mean? You do not treat it as an ordinary thing. Killing cattle is not the same as running grain through a mill.”
— Temple Grandin, Ph. D., Assistant Professor of Animal Science at Colorado State University

“ Recent research has revealed that birds are capable of complex cognition . . . it is now clear that birds have cognitive capacities equivalent to those of mammals, even primates . . . it should be realized that even vastly improved intensive systems are unlikely to meet the cognitive demands of the hitherto underestimated chicken brain. . . . With the increased knowledge of the behaviour and cognitive abilities of the chicken has come the realization that the chicken is not an inferior species to be treated merely as a food source.”
— Lesley Rogers, Ph. D., Professor of Physiology, University of New England, in her book The Development of Brain and Behavior in the Chicken
“That’s one sad, unhappy, upset cow. She wants her baby. Bellowing for it, hunting for it. It’s like grieving, mourning––not much written about it. People don’t like to allow them thoughts or feelings.”
— Temple Grandin, Ph. D., Assistant Professor of Animal Science at Colorado State University, referring to a reaction of a mother cow when her calf was taken from her, as quoted in Oliver W. Sacks’s An Anthropologist on Mars
“Animals are sentient beings with an intrinsic worth.”
— Margareta Winberg, Swedish Agricultural Minister, speaking to an EU conference focusing on humane treatment of animals in Europe
“The very fact that companion animals are so highly regarded raises difficult issues for agricultural and performance animal doctors. Some of these animals are not markedly different in their mental capacities from many companion animals. At a time the profession seeks to promote companion animals as members of the family, to what extent must it also advocate the interests of its food, farm, and performance animal patients?. . . Nevertheless, discussions devoid of attention to animal interests are appearing with frequency in the literature espousing the model of the veterinarian as herd health consultant.”
— Jerrold Tannenbaum, M.A., J.D., Associate Professor of Environmental Studies, Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine, in his book Veterinary Ethics: Animal Welfare, Client Relations, Competition and Collegiality
“There is much evidence showing that animals have sophisticated systems for regulating their lives and that they are much disturbed if they cannot control certain aspects of what happens to them. There is also good evidence for elaborate systems for detecting and responding to painful stimuli.”
— A. F. Fraser, Memorial University of Newfoundland, and D. M. Broom, Professor of Animal Welfare at Cambridge, in their book Farm Animal Behavior and Welfare
“Humans who enslave, castrate, experiment on and fillet other animals, have had an understandable penchant for pretending animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction between humans and ‘animals’ is essential if we are to bend them to our will, wear them, eat them—without any disquieting tinges of guilt or regret. It is unseemly of us, who often behave so unfeelingly toward other animals, to contend that only humans can suffer. The behavior of other animals renders such pretensions specious. They are just too much like us.”
— Dr. Carl Sagan & Dr. Ann Druyan, in their book Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors

[Virgin Mary]

Well if it were sentaint it would have more rights than any animal since just living doesnt give much status, as most plants and trees have found out "/
Being sentiant on the other hand carrys ALOT.
Being sentient and living, all animals deserve rights then.