How did Darwin's Theory of Evolution influence the methods we use to experiment (like animal experimentation)?

2 Answers | Add Yours

t3tinnovations's profile pic

Posted on

I'm in disagreement with the former posted answer to your question, as this is regarding the ethicality of mammalian treatment, generally speaking, with understandability of evolution's premise.

  If looked upon from an objective perspective, it would be unethical to treat fellow mammals, whether it's friendship (domestication/making of a pet), those we harvest for resources (such as sheep, goats and cows) for fur, skins, milks and meats, or if it is from hunting, legally and/or illegally (deer-seasoned hunting versus the killing if elephants for their ivory) negatively, in any connotative mannerism, regardless of species and genera, as we're all subject to evolutionary existentialism.  

  In this, it is only logically inferred, to treat other animals as we do those of our own species, and to speak generally and frankly, we are mostly civilized, whereas we have prison systems, educational institutions, hospitals, military, governance and social resources for human inhabitants/persons.                     Of course, it is no great mystery, murder, rape, thievery and other such villainy is problematic amidst our species, but we are not to the point of - mammaliaformes (extinction of a species) like the elephants of Asia, and the Lions of Africa, are.  (Constituted referentially, by and per, open-source readings, from academically unsound, but politically reliable sources such as Wikipedia, for extinction "scaling.")

  Similarly, we have some of the aforementioned (in civility and civilization) for our mammalian brethren (evolutionarily, and ethologically, most animals are assimilar to homosapians) however, some is not enough, ethically, moralistically, nor altruistically and logically, for our own kind.                    This is nothing more than a form of segregation, of radical 'racism' out of due ignorance to other species and genera's, all because we lack communicability and pluralistic relatability, generally speaking.

  In conclusive comprehensibility, in referential regard to your question, Darwin's brilliant work has effected science, collectively, more than most know, as his contributions are endlessly warranting, fruit-bearing and altruistically, and scientifically testable, demonstrable, verifiable and validated in their usefulness.                                                                                      What is of profoundest despair, is the lack of overall respect, compassion and intellectuality human beings seem display and share for our brethren in mammalians, as it is the twenty-first century, and we are still statistically predominant meat-eaters, carnivores...of which is not ethical, nor feasible, as there is no gain through consumption of animal-byproducts or (red-meat) in general.  I've wrote a paper, from ethological and naturalistic perspective, pertaining to the significance of this premise, as proteins and creatines are found in many vegetables and fruits, we are simply conformed to the normalcy of cannibalism (mammalian consumption.)  

It is due to greed and antipathy., and I hope for the sake of existential continuance and furtherance, humankind's twisted sense of morality and ethicality is soon changed, for the betterment of our natures, collectively.


That was a great question, if you've more to ask, feel free -- I have much to offer here, as this is my expertise.



a bewilderedly broken twenty-something. 

truthseekah's profile pic

Posted on

If one views another creature as being a product of a sterile greedy existence then one can remove any emotional ties to such being, much like a sociopath does. Both lack or suspend empathy.

So, with a detachment from emotion, any method of experimentation is fair game.

We’ve answered 302,702 questions. We can answer yours, too.

Ask a question