Recently I read about an epileptic research experiment which involved operating on the brains of 200 conscious cats without antithetic. I'm sure experiments similar to this go on the time on all sorts of animals. Certainly our treatment of battery chickens isn’t exactly great. I also know that the British government banned cosmetic testing on animals only for the animal research to move across the channel and into the wider world. The undemocratic future super power of China does some appalling things to quite intelligent animals for all sorts of small purposes. It just goes to show that even if all of Europe and all the English speaking nations where to ban all animal testing in all its forms the research would simply move abroad. At least animals tested on in the West can be given some animal welfare standards as opposed to none at all. So the only way our contribution to animal suffering can be minimized or terminated is by boycotting its fruits. And in the case of medical research this would mean drugs that save peoples lives. And the joke about boycotting yourself a cure to an illness is that the cure has already been tested on animals by the time you have access to it.
Fact is; the only type of animal cruelty you, as a consumer, can boycott and make an impact on is battery farming (namely buying a cheap chicken from the super market). This is because food consumption is ongoing whilst the development of medication is not. As surely the stocking of meat that lived a life of misery will not be helped if your individual lifetime’s consumption doesn’t continue? But in most peoples cases it does, and so the production of these products continues; so I suppose that’s that then.

Nevertheless I still think it would be a great idea if the patients of illness where given some idea of the amount of suffering that went into producing their medication. At the very least they will have accepted in an educated manner the fact that the revenue generated by legally curing themselves will go on to cause animal suffering.
Idealistic? Surely this is more effective than moving research abroad by terrorising scientists or closing down Labourites? But surely education can only be delivered on a voluntary and proactive basis?

Yet if mankind where to gain a serious faith in the afterlife, and if it ever gains a serious concern about our sins towards animal suffering then surely educating the consumer is the best constructive hope of animal activists? Is it ether that or manufacturing illegal prototype drugs that deny drugs companies of the patient revenues they feel they deserve to continue their future product research? Frankly I don’t see any other way of being effective if “Direct Action” simply amounts to research location.


[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]