Isn t it cruel for humans to experiment with animals?

The meat eaten every day is obtained by killing animals, and many daily necessities are also made from various parts of animals.

There will be no conscience when a tiger kills a prey, because this is the law of the subsistence food chain. But a simple law of nature does not seem to explain why humans use animals to do experiments that have nothing to do with food, in fact, the answer is very simple, human desires are endless (appetite, greed, desire to explore, etc.), this is the essential attribute of human beings, so human beings are not satisfied with only satisfying appetite, and there are other kinds of desires, so as animals at the lower level of the food chain can be sacrificed.

It is necessary to put an end to taking animals unless people have no appetite desires, but is that possible? Do you want to be in that kind of human society?

It's cruel, but what's the solution? Man always thinks that his life is more precious than other animals, and who makes these animals invincible to humans? This society is such a "law of the jungle".

Hello, this is Venerable Jinghui's teachings, I hope it will be helpful to you:

Question: I have a question that has been contradictory for a long time, and I would like to ask the old monk. I am from Xiamen University, and now I am about to graduate from graduate school, I am studying chemistry, and my job is basically confirmed.

I've always been an admirer of science, not interested in religion at all, and my dream was to be a chemist. After two years of entering university, I began to feel that many of my current problems, especially social problems, and many problems in my own thinking, could not be solved. There are also some discussions among classmates, and there are also various ways to find out.

I'm lucky enough to have access to the Dharma, and it's been about three years now. But I feel less and less interested in the major I am studying now, and I feel that this thing is ......

So even if you have some negative causal responsibility for what you do, that responsibility is small, so be sure to look at the problem from the perspective of social responsibility. If you're like you, and you don't want to do some chemical experiments that are causally responsible, then what if the judge believes in Buddhism and wants to sentence people to death? If the person who is executed believes in the Buddha, is it not allowed to carry it out?

So don't confuse this with the Buddhist concept of compassion and abstaining from killing. The Buddhist concept of compassion and abstaining from killing is entirely based on personal cultivation. If you harm others for your own personal gain, of course you are breaking the vows. When you do experiments, you only have one thought, you want to make medicines, you don't have any hatred for the animals you experiment, and you don't want to keep the results of the experiments for yourself, you do this work to serve the society.

Buddhism and society are not opposites. Since it is the boundless vow of sentient beings, there are many ways to save sentient beings. There are boundless beings and there are also immeasurable methods.

The immeasurable method vows to learn, and engaging in chemical experiments is also one of the methods. Don't contradict, don't contradict. There should be no contradiction between the individual's sense of self-cultivation and the sense of social responsibility.

To realize the awareness of social responsibility is to implement personal cultivation. To take a little responsibility, to have this courage. For the sake of the masses, I don't go to hell, who goes to hell?

It is indeed cruel, and some of the experiments on animals are used for the benefit of them. Notice, I'm talking about some.

You see a lot of happy families of three, one member may die because of illness, these happy families are broken up like this, if we develop advanced medical methods we can save them, but sometimes we have to do experiments, can we use people to do experiments? No! We had to experiment with living things.

Many of the animals tested were raised in human laboratories.

It's cruel, but you can't just test people.

Cruelty is not cruel. It's for human beings.

Not easy to define. Because if it's used for medical research, then it's saved a lot of people.

0 Do you say cruelty?

It can be cruel to animals.

But don't forget.

Animals also hunt each other.

It's just survival of the fittest.

Cruel to the extreme! Rabbit passes"Try"Plants, found a cure"medicine"(rabbit disease), we also have to experiment with drugs by ourselves like Shennong tasted a hundred herbs.

It's not unfair, if you don't use animals as test subjects, you can only use humans, which is not good for the development of human beings, and it's not a very cruel thing, and many experiments don't harm animal lives.

This is not very fair to animals, but out of humanitarianism, people cannot be used for experiments, and they are not so cruel, and generally animals that do experiments will be well protected.

It's really unfair to animals, but isn't it the same when people eat meat? The vegetables you eat for dinner are also considered to be unfair to plants, and plants and animals have life. So from another perspective, animal testing is done to save more people who are plagued by diseases.

This is very unfair to animals, after all, animals are also a life, and it is very cruel to use animals for experiments, and this practice is not good.

Yes, those who say they shouldn't, I think they should be thrown into the primeval forest to enjoy the feeling of equality of all beings.

After all, we have to understand them, but we don't want to go too far.

It should be, it must be. You can't do that experiment!

From the perspective of ecological balance, humans cannot use them for experiments, but without the first experimenter, one day the whole world will be destroyed by the virus.

From a human point of view, it shouldn't. From a scientific point of view: there is no way to do it.

For the sake of science, there is no way to do experiments with people.

Positive point of view: For the sake of science, there is no way, such as the new crown virus and the SARS virus, we have to use a vaccine to do experiments on animals, is it difficult to use people for experiments? If you don't experiment on animals, you don't know if the vaccine is effective.

Animal experiments have taken human medicine to at least one dimension. However, human beings have not done enough on the issue of how to deal with life and the issue of equality of life. In favor of the "3R rule", we must also treat animals well when using them for experiments, and we should also work for the welfare of animals.

Let the entire life group of the earth maintain "biodiversity" as much as possible, and try not to lead to the extinction of biological species because of the existence of human beings.

Although the kind of road medicine and military avoidance road class is currently developed to avoid.

It can be tested to reduce physical pain and improve the protection of test storage.