Animal Testing for non-medical reasons. Are the deaths worth it>

Life on earth has evolved for billions of years. From the tiny prokaryote to the Dinosaurs of old to our current population species have relied on others to survive. There is a shortage of resources in this world and we all compete for them. Plants for example undergo temporal separation and spatial separation so that they germinate at different times of the year (so every plant can get enough sun) and so they don't grow in inefficient environments. What plants also do is allelopathy which is a nice word for poison. They poison their neighbors so they can survive. From Walnuts to Sages to Marijuana, poisons are made. What does this tell us about humans. We, like all life, are in a race with every other living thing. Some things help us for now and some things hinder us. In a world where 15 million human children die of hunger per year, having something organic to test experimental crop techniques on is great. In a country where malaria kills millions, testing irradiation techniques on animals to kill the sperm let us perfect this technology for use on tsitsi flies which killed their populations (and stopped malaria). God forbid we ever needed to kill off our own sperm (I read a great short story with this premise) we know how we can do it. What about the birds we sent down into the mines to test for gas. Countless human lives have been saved b/c of this. What about DDT testing on birds. If we didn't do this DDT might still be slowly killing us all, animals included. Then there is the profit gained from animal testing. Money that can go towards helping others. If I test an animal and buy a car its bad but if I test an animal and save 100 others its good? I can give plenty of examples of how testing has saved humans and/or animals. I am interested to know your framework for deciding who wins. Do you want to maximize biomass or total cells? Is a cow worth a human life? On to some rebuttals. 4. Morality We humans agree that we all have rights. We do not inherently have them. Our rights are on a piece of paper. We consent to these rights for many reasons. Should animals have them too? Maybe, but currently they don't have them. That is why it is morally acceptable to kill/test an animal. 3. Cash is king and who says it is bad. The best course of action is based on a cost/benefit analysis. Sometimes computers work better than animals. Sometimes not. 2. Humans and animals catch diseases much in the same way. Marijuana developed its psychoactive qualities to poison insects from eating the plant. Marijuana affects insects almost exactly how it affects us. Our nervous systems are even more similiar in animals. Computer simulators sometimes fall short and there aren't adequate labs often where outbreaks occur. We can quickly test animals albeit inefficiently w/o labs. Sometimes the cost/benefit favors a lab, sometimes it doesn't. 1. So this is inefficient science. It still tells us something for little cost. I hope to convince you to that animal testing can be good for humans, bad for animals, good for animals, bad for humans, or any combination of the three. Banning the testing outright would deprive us of many benefits. More humans would die and even if computers could be used studies would cost more (hence more people would be deprived of the study for longer or prices cost more so more people indirectly suffer).