[JaBlue]

"In doing so, we should also not overdo it so that it results in damages to entire ecosystems or species or causes harm to satisfy sadistic desires we may have or to merely make a profit."

"Torturing animals for no real reason: you're an [censored].

Hurting animals when it's reasonably likely to help mankind (and not just your resume): duh."

I don't think this is the right way to look at it. What makes causing pain in animals for the good of the human race better than causing pain in animals for the good of my own sadistic pleasures?

When evaluating this kind of action it seems to me that doing so from the animal's POV is the way to go.

Why do we obey the golden rule? Because we may not want others to do to us whatever it is we are considering doing to them. Put another way, the first thing we consider is how the other person will feel if we do something to them.

If you are gonna experiment on me, I don't give a [censored] whether its to possibly save lives or for your own pleasure. This example may not appeal to you guys, but I think if "I" am an animal to be experimented on, its pretty obvious that it doesn't matter why I'm being experimented on.

Why does this kind of reasoning apply to human-human situations but not human-animal situations? Remember, we experiment on these rats because we presume that their pain is very much like [if not identical to] ours.
===========

to rephrase my questions:
Is someone willing to experiment on animals committed to being willing to experiment on humans bred for science?

Why or why not?