Mama- A 59 Year Old Dying Chimp Recognizes and Is Relieved By Old Caretaker

a reply to: waftist

Chimps may be super social, but they can also be super brutal in their social lives. The others may have taken advantage of her in her weakened state.

Chimps are one other species that makes war.

a reply to: ketsuko

Yea I can see that, and I'd like to think there is a person/caretaker there that spends some time with her.

As per your comment to lightspeed, I do recognize the inevitability of animal testing and it's benefits, but at the same time maybe if we did not have to use so many chemicals in everything, we could reduce testing in some areas such as fragrance, cleaners and make-up products, for there are viable natural alternatives. The medical testing is more understandable but I hope that over time tech can somehow reduce and eliminate the need for animal testing . Some ideas Pardon the site exposure, not an activist here, but the ideas in aforementioned article offers some options and/or supplementation to animal testing.

Thanks for your reply

a reply to: ketsuko

I can not think of an argument that justifies keeping animals locked in cages and subjecting them daily to pain, disease and suffering for months or years on end.

Every product (think soap, shampoo and such-likes) must be tested by law, on animals. Rabbits have their eyes exposed to a substance for a half an hour to see how much damage it does. The ridiculous thing is that most products contain pretty much the same ingredients so most have already been tested but the law says, new product, new test. This was only recently banned in the EU by the way.

Obviously to test drugs they need a subject suffering from the disease. Deliberately infecting animals seems like bad form to me. Science can be quite the inhuman monster at times. I would suggest that more testing should be done in petri dishes or on human subjects where possible. But then again, the pharmaceutical industry seems concerned with one thing alone, profits.

There is no easy answer I guess but I don't think animal testing for human conditions is something we should pursue. Zoos and circuses need to go too, as do all those Seaworlds.

a reply to: waftist

Believe me, husband works in the industry. They are under incredible pressure for several reasons to phase out as much animal testing as possible wherever possible. For one thing, no one really likes doing it, they never have. It's incredibly wasteful and sad. For another, it's not very cost efficient. So there are very sound reasons for every business out there to eliminate an animal test as soon as a solid viable alternative turns up.

And they are doing that as rapidly as possible. One of the more recent advances was the possibility of using insect cell cultures in some of the tests that used to require animal testing. Of course, just because a test is available doesn't always mean a country will accept that it is a viable alternative which is also part of what he's involved in professionally.

a reply to: LightSpeedDriver

You have it backwards, at least for testing vaccines. They do need to try to infect the animals, but only after vaccinating them. They can then test the immune response. Obviously, if the animal gets ill, then the test was a failure.

However, the goal is to not go to that level of testing until they are pretty sure they have a viable product.

As I said, no one likes animal testing.

The other problem is that products are made in batches, and safety requirements are such that each batch must be tested to ensure its efficacy. You can't just test one batch of product and them assume that every other batch made after will be made the exact same way with no mistakes or faults. That's one sure way get people or animals with failed vaccines or severe vaccine reaction.

a reply to: ketsuko

I hear your answer, I really do. But what I actually hear most is nothing but an excuse. For more needless and inhumane pain and suffering.

Whether I have the steps backwards or not, the results are the same. First we infect, then try to "cure", or we cure and then try to infect.

"No one likes animal testing." Yet plenty of people do it daily to remain employed.

Your last argument I find to be abhorrent at best. (Not a personal attack btw!)

A product is a product. If an industry can not assure us it is all one and the same product, then why do we use it? Quality assurance, product control, following a simple recipe to arrive at the intended result...call it what you will, is, is enough. In my opinion continuous testing is nothing more than a poor and ineffective excuse to continue needless animal pain.

If I buy aspirin today, surely it is the same aspirin I bought yesterday?

Believe me, no one will ever change my mind with regard to this, with all due respect.

Oh man, that just set off the water works. Such a beautiful story, and so well needed. The moment that she recognized him......she seemed so happy. I love animals. They have so much to teach us....wonder if we will ever be able to listen?

a reply to: LightSpeedDriver

Because you are dealing with biological organisms at every step in the chain?

Every biological organism is unique and different from the smallest virus to the biggest whale. For that reason alone, you cannot definitively ever produce a product and say with 100% certainly how it will affect every single member of that population, and when you are talking about medication, you are talking about multiple different organisms involved and all of them different.

Why do you think drug reactions occur? Why do you think we have drug resistant strains?

Hint: It's because every organism is that much different that some will react differently. So in order to find out how things are, you have to keep testing to make sure that what you're making is falling inside the proper windows.

I'm not the one who should be tackling this with you. My husband is. He's the one who has spent over 15 years in frickin' quality control. You aren't attacking me. You are attacking him.

a reply to: ketsuko

I'm attacking no one, just an idea of inflicted pain on a creature (a sentient being) that does not deserve it.

a reply to: waftist

thats amazing, I love the connection that we can have with animals

it's a shame that we have to breed them to keep them from extinction etc
instead of just letting them live naturally in their own habitats.

Nice to see that that chimp remembers her old friend.