From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Russell's unanswered questions
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 00:43:32 GMT

From article <mhulsey-010193131902@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> Below is a list of my questions that Russell has repeatedly left
> unanswered.  With apologies for the consumption of bandwidth, I repost them
> along with a short justification of the relevance of the questions.
> 
> Questions 1 & 2:
> 
> How would you modify the _status quo_ to simultaneously protect the
> interests of human and non-human animals?

I can't think of a single thread of discussion in tpa that hasn't 
addressed this question in some small way.  Rather than expect me 
to post an encyclopedia of my views, I'd recommend that you 
address the issues (the uses of animals in research, agriculture, 
entertainment, hunting, etc) one thread at a time and/or consult 
some of the texts published by authorities like Singer and Regan.  

> Would failing to perform a critical experiment be worse than performing one
> that proved trivial?
> 
> Justification:  By posting two examples of approved animal experiments
> described as "useless," Russell suggests that there are problems with
> current procedures for the approval of animal experiments.  I am curious
> how he would change the current procedures to prevent the approval of "bad"
> experiments, although I do not yet accept that the two examples that he
> gave are "bad."

I've answered this question previously.  As I recall, I pointed out
that your question presumed omniscience on the part of the respondent.
And, I also pointed out that ethical decisions ought to be based on 
probable good and bad outcomes... given the facts and reasons at our 
disposal.  

For someone to argue that a given experiment might have some 
unknown, unpredictable benefit is an appeal to ignorance.  We 
could just as reasonably argue that rape might be a good thing if 
it could result in a pregnancy that might give us another George
Bernard Shaw or Mohandas Gandhi or Albert Schweitzer.

One of the examples of experiments that I consider "useless" involved
the LSU cat shooting project, which was *not* subject to the 
provisions of the AWA.  When the project came under attack, the 
principle investigator presented his principle findings, but critical 
observers pointed out that those "findings" were hardly new and had been 
previously published in the early 1890's.  In fact, those "findings"
had already been incorporated in the standard methods for treating
gunshot wounds to the head.  

Had the experiment continued, is it possible that the experiments 
would have saved a few lives?  It's possible, but it's far more 
likely that the investment of two million dollars, not to mention 
the suffering, would have saved more lives had it been devoted to 
projects with a predictable benefit.  

> Question 3:
> 
> Do you propose that Christian Scientists refuse medical care because they
> believe the information is tainted?
> 
> Justification:  When I previously suggested that antivivisectionists should
> refuse medical treatments developed using animals, Russell pointed out that
> information cannot be "tainted" by its method of acquisition.  I wonder if
> Russell believes that a person could have any other reason for refusing
> such treatment.

Why would you wonder such a thing?  I've made it clear to you on many
occasions that it's rather foolish for us to presume that the motivations
of another individual must conform to some simplistic scheme.

I can think of many reasons why a person who happens to be an animal
rights advocate might reasonably refuse a given program of medical
care.  For example, the program might be risky and unproven; it might
be expensive;  it might involve some heroic committment; etc, etc.
However, the notion that an AR activist has an obligation to refuse
care because it's tainted by the prior use of animals in research
doesn't make much sense to me.

Incidently, the City Council in New Orleans is entertaining a proposal
to change the names of schools that were historically named after
former slaveowners.   Such a gesture makes sense to me, but it surely
wouldn't make sense for a KKK quack to argue that civil rights 
advocates have some sort of obligation to steer clear of schools that
had been founded or partly developed by slaveowners.  

> Question 4:
> 
> Would you, for some period, allow heart patients to die for their
> "stupidity" rather than sacrifice a few pigs or dogs to develop a new heart
> valve, etc?
>
> Justification:  Russell pointed out that much human disease is due to human
> stupidity.  I wonder if he believes that such "stupid" humans should be
> allowed to die in order to save non-human animals.

Again, this sounds like another one of your "curiosity" questions.   It
seems to me that you lack the intelligence to grasp the fact that I'm
not an absolutist vis-a-vis medical research.

> Question 5:
> 
> What do you feel to be the relative intrinsic value of a dog as compared to
> a human?
> 
> Justification:  This is an admittedly tough question that has no correct
> quantitative answer.  It does, however, relate to the use of canines in
> medical research to save humans.  Knowing how much Russell loves dogs, I am
> curious whether he would sacrifice his dogs, in a hypothetical situation,
> to save a human.

Possibly.  It's also possible that I might sacrifice a human to save a
dog.  In making such a decision, I would be choosing between the lesser
of the evils.

> Questions 6 & 7:
> 
> What if the "alternative" tests fail to detect a hazardous physical
> irritant in your toothpaste?  Wouldn't this result in human suffering?

Possibly.  What if the flaws in draize testing resulted in false
confidence in a new product, thereby causing human suffering?

> How do you propose that the Ames test of bacterial mutagenicity can serve
> as a test for ocular irritancy?
> 
> Justification:  Russell previously claimed that so-called "alternatives" to
> the Draize test of ocular irritancy provided good prediction of chemical
> irritancies.  I pointed out that chemical irritancy was not the whole
> story, but physical irritancies, and interactions between physcial and
> chemical irritancies are also possible.

And I pointed out that rabbit eyes are substantially different from
human eyes, and hence, that extrapolations between rabbits and humans
might be risky.  Question:  Does thalidomide cause pregnancy in rabbits
when administered in small doses?

> Question 8:
> 
> Have you considered the suffering of the mouse or rabbit that is ground up
> by the thresher that harvests your wheat?
> 
> Justification:  Russell claimed that because he ate fruit and bread rather
> than eggs and bacon for breakfast, his dietary regimen did not promote
> animal suffering.  In fact, all agriculture results in the suffering of
> organisms from both kingdoms.

I answered this question previously.  As I recall,  I pointed out that
it would be stupid to argue that AR advocates are promoting suffering
when they mail letters... simply because mail trucks occasionally hit
stray dogs.  

Be that as it may, let's suppose that harvesting equipment will kill 
one mouse for every 10,000 pounds of grain.  In view of the fact that
it takes 6.9 pounds of grain to produce a single pound of edible
pork and 2.6 pounds of grain to produce a pound of eggs [mileage will
vary outside the United States], it seems logical to conclude that
folks who consume eggs and pork sausage for breakfast will cause the
death of more mice than folks who consume grains directly.

> Questions 9 & 10:
> 
> If a product's raw materials are tested on animals, and, if animal tests
> are cruel, how can the resultant product be called "cruelty-free?"
>
> When purchasing cosmetics, should people care more about their eyes than
> those of a rabbit?
> 
> Justification:  Russell claimed that cosmetics manufactured by Revlon &
> Avon are "cruelty free."  I am curious just what he means by that term, and
> whether human injury resulting from the use of such "alternatives" would
> also be considered cruelty.  

I've addressed these questions before, Martin.   It seems to me that
you're incapable of learning from the discussion.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals