One small step for a monkey: The Iran space primate and other intergalactic animals

Jan 28, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Mirror.co.uk

Way before Iran had intergalactic ambitions, scores of land-dwelling animals have lifted off in a variety of aeronautic experiments This terrified monkey was launched into space by Iran today in the latest phase of its gorilla warfare with the West.

Comments
21 - 40 of 42 Comments Last updated Feb 14, 2013
danclark

Silver Spring, MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Feb 4, 2013
 
We all feed off death. Name things we eat that was never alive. I only come up with salt. All else was slive or a byproduct of life. So, we either kill a creature violently or mercifully. In the wild animals kill to survive, sea life the same. The average human prefers a merciful death of a creature before devouring it. That said, if humans want to go into orbit, then send humans. Animals are content to stay on the ground. Besides that has been done in the past so the info is there about space travel. Iraq just has to look it up.
Level 7

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Parden pard wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya see!?,,The thing about cats is,,? If they happen to be straight and regamortised,, ya can put an ice pick in it's mouth and feathers on it's-ass and try to see if ya can hit a bulls-eye on a dart board.!
Oh yea! Now there's an idea!!! LOL!
Caitielou87

University Park, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Clearly there are a variety of opinions on the table, but I have a perspective myself that I would love to share if you would allow it. If a child was suffering from leukemia and a doctor believed they had found the cure, should he proceed and just dose the child? What happens if the effects are completely the opposite and the worst occurs? Had the serum been tested on animals beforehand, perhaps the doctor would have been able to predict the effects it had on the child. My point is, we can't just come up with new ideas, medicinal or in this case "intergalactic", and immediately throw people into them. I am a Veterinary and Biomedical Science Major, and as an intended veterinarian, it is pretty clear that I love animals. However, I recognize the necessity for animal testing. Like it or not, animals are not people. They are not your mother, father, sister, brother, child...they are still just animals. They are our companions, our friends, and sometimes the only thing that keep us staple. But, they are not people.
danclark

Belleville, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Caitielou87 wrote:
Clearly there are a variety of opinions on the table, but I have a perspective myself that I would love to share if you would allow it. If a child was suffering from leukemia and a doctor believed they had found the cure, should he proceed and just dose the child? What happens if the effects are completely the opposite and the worst occurs? Had the serum been tested on animals beforehand, perhaps the doctor would have been able to predict the effects it had on the child. My point is, we can't just come up with new ideas, medicinal or in this case "intergalactic", and immediately throw people into them. I am a Veterinary and Biomedical Science Major, and as an intended veterinarian, it is pretty clear that I love animals. However, I recognize the necessity for animal testing. Like it or not, animals are not people. They are not your mother, father, sister, brother, child...they are still just animals. They are our companions, our friends, and sometimes the only thing that keep us staple. But, they are not people.
Your input is welcome. It's how we learn from each other. The animal world is a vicious one. Then so are humans. I have 2cats. My family always had pets. I know what animals are. Yes, they have limited thoughts, will follow what I call programing. But I don't base affection on those limitations. Just as we should'nt base affection on people with limitations. It's the simplicity of people/animals that gain feelings of protection for them, being vulnerable incites that parental-like need to nurture those in need.
Caitielou87

University Park, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

I am in no way denying that the animal-human bond is a strong one. I swear that my dog would lay down her life for me any day; and my cat firmly believes I am her mother. To think of these animal under the effects of animal testing (or sent into outer space for that matter) would be enough to make me sick. Animal testing is one of those topics that I wish I could turn a blind eye to. However, I fully understand its necessity in our world. That being said, the regulations of animal testing are horrible! The animals that are shipped to testing facilities are usually crammed together in vast numbers, brutally handled, and never fully checked for diseases before they are shipped. In fact, when a processor fails to verify the health of even one animal, the shipping process can lead to the death of hundreds of them. The real issue is a question of necessity: How many animals are needed? What needs to be done? When is enough, enough? What types of tests can be carried out and when? It is these sorts of things that must be fully evaluated before proceeding with anything invasive to these beautiful creatures!
BJ And The Bear

Patchogue, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Feb 7, 2013
 
The poor monkey thought he was home free........and then the rocket came back down to earth.....and back to Iran, and when the monkey realized he was back in Iran, he cried.
Caitielou87

State College, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

BJ And The Bear wrote:
The poor monkey thought he was home free........and then the rocket came back down to earth.....and back to Iran, and when the monkey realized he was back in Iran, he cried.
Though the monkey must have been frightened over the course of its journey, I doubt this had anything to do with the fact that it resides in Iran...

“Scabies are people too!”

Level 1

Since: Apr 11

Killing scabies IS MURDER!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Caitielou87 wrote:
Clearly there are a variety of opinions on the table, but I have a perspective myself that I would love to share if you would allow it. If a child was suffering from leukemia and a doctor believed they had found the cure, should he proceed and just dose the child? What happens if the effects are completely the opposite and the worst occurs? Had the serum been tested on animals beforehand, perhaps the doctor would have been able to predict the effects it had on the child. My point is, we can't just come up with new ideas, medicinal or in this case "intergalactic", and immediately throw people into them. I am a Veterinary and Biomedical Science Major, and as an intended veterinarian, it is pretty clear that I love animals. However, I recognize the necessity for animal testing. Like it or not, animals are not people. They are not your mother, father, sister, brother, child...they are still just animals. They are our companions, our friends, and sometimes the only thing that keep us staple. But, they are not people.
Well said.

“Scabies are people too!”

Level 1

Since: Apr 11

Killing scabies IS MURDER!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Caitielou87 wrote:
I am in no way denying that the animal-human bond is a strong one. I swear that my dog would lay down her life for me any day; and my cat firmly believes I am her mother. To think of these animal under the effects of animal testing (or sent into outer space for that matter) would be enough to make me sick. Animal testing is one of those topics that I wish I could turn a blind eye to. However, I fully understand its necessity in our world. That being said, the regulations of animal testing are horrible! The animals that are shipped to testing facilities are usually crammed together in vast numbers, brutally handled, and never fully checked for diseases before they are shipped. In fact, when a processor fails to verify the health of even one animal, the shipping process can lead to the death of hundreds of them. The real issue is a question of necessity: How many animals are needed? What needs to be done? When is enough, enough? What types of tests can be carried out and when? It is these sorts of things that must be fully evaluated before proceeding with anything invasive to these beautiful creatures!
Not being checked for diseases is completely normal. There is no check for diseases in nature. Diseased animals either die or recover. Sick animals also make other animals sick. It is a completely natural process. I don't see a problem with it.
Caitielou87

University Park, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Feb 10, 2013
 
USA R0CKS wrote:
<quoted text>
Not being checked for diseases is completely normal. There is no check for diseases in nature. Diseased animals either die or recover. Sick animals also make other animals sick. It is a completely natural process. I don't see a problem with it.
In nature, interactions from one animal to the next are based on their own accord. Their interactions are the result of familial bond, pack behaviors, or the desire to eat. However, when the animals are grouped together in cages for shipping, they cannot escape one another. The principle is the same as the diseases that passed amongst the slaves during the slave trade. Just because I may catch a cold from my sister does not mean that rampant spreading of diseases below the decks of ships can be considered a "natural process." Also, when needing to test animals, the animals have to be healthy, eliminating any variables from the equation. But, if they are already sick, they can no longer serve this purpose. This means that they are taken from the wild, slammed into a cage, and if the disease does not kill them, they will be euthanized. Nothing has been gained, only lost. This does not sound like a "natural process" to me.

“Scabies are people too!”

Level 1

Since: Apr 11

Killing scabies IS MURDER!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Caitielou87 wrote:
<quoted text>
In nature, interactions from one animal to the next are based on their own accord. Their interactions are the result of familial bond, pack behaviors, or the desire to eat. However, when the animals are grouped together in cages for shipping, they cannot escape one another. The principle is the same as the diseases that passed amongst the slaves during the slave trade. Just because I may catch a cold from my sister does not mean that rampant spreading of diseases below the decks of ships can be considered a "natural process." Also, when needing to test animals, the animals have to be healthy, eliminating any variables from the equation. But, if they are already sick, they can no longer serve this purpose. This means that they are taken from the wild, slammed into a cage, and if the disease does not kill them, they will be euthanized. Nothing has been gained, only lost. This does not sound like a "natural process" to me.
death by disease is a natural process. i do agree that having healthy animals is important for research. if there is value in health, it would be reflected in protection from disease or price.

as for it being unnatural to be caught, put in a cage and then tested upon and euthanized, it really isn't unnatural at all. humans have an innate drive for survival (as all living things do) and we want to find the easiest, fastest and most effective way to survive. animal testing is one of those means for humans. if other critters had the capability to do this, they would. for humans, animal testing is natural and it is natural for one species (or individuals beings in a species) to do what is necessary to survive even if it is at the expense of other critters. i don't see any harm in animal testing. it is completely natural.
Flock Of Seagulls

Patchogue, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Caitielou87 wrote:
<quoted text>
Though the monkey must have been frightened over the course of its journey, I doubt this had anything to do with the fact that it resides in Iran...
So are you saying the monkey was not afraid to be in Iran?
Caitielou87

University Park, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Feb 11, 2013
 
Flock Of Seagulls wrote:
<quoted text>
So are you saying the monkey was not afraid to be in Iran?
What are the basic survival needs? Food, water, and shelter. I don't think the monkey really has any form of differentiation between a facility in Iran and a facility in America... or a facility on the moon for that matter! The fact that it is in Iran makes no difference and detracts from the issue of the logistics of sending an animal into outer space in one's stead.

“Scabies are people too!”

Level 1

Since: Apr 11

Killing scabies IS MURDER!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Feb 11, 2013
 
Caitielou87 wrote:
<quoted text>
What are the basic survival needs? Food, water, and shelter. I don't think the monkey really has any form of differentiation between a facility in Iran and a facility in America... or a facility on the moon for that matter! The fact that it is in Iran makes no difference and detracts from the issue of the logistics of sending an animal into outer space in one's stead.
I largely agree. Question though. What is the downside to sending a monkey into space?
Caitielou87

University Park, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Feb 11, 2013
 
USA R0CKS wrote:
<quoted text>
I largely agree. Question though. What is the downside to sending a monkey into space?
What exactly do you mean? The downside of testing on any animal is the chance that you senselessly waste a life. If the the monkey dies in the process of testing the spacecraft, then nothing has been gained. You not only have proven that the spacecraft is not ready for human usage, but you have also lost the life of the animal.

“Scabies are people too!”

Level 1

Since: Apr 11

Killing scabies IS MURDER!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Caitielou87 wrote:
<quoted text>
What exactly do you mean? The downside of testing on any animal is the chance that you senselessly waste a life. If the the monkey dies in the process of testing the spacecraft, then nothing has been gained. You not only have proven that the spacecraft is not ready for human usage, but you have also lost the life of the animal.
Proving that the spacecraft is not fit for human usage is an upside but what is the downside? It seems to me that it really isn't a "wasted" life. Besides, it is completely natural for one species or individual to sacrifice the life of a different entity to preserve their own life...or in the area of social societies (even among animals) to destroy the life of other species to preserve the life of their own colony. You are operating under the assumption that monkey life has some innate value. I am asking you to substantiate that.
Caitielou87

University Park, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Feb 12, 2013
 
USA R0CKS wrote:
<quoted text>
Proving that the spacecraft is not fit for human usage is an upside but what is the downside? It seems to me that it really isn't a "wasted" life. Besides, it is completely natural for one species or individual to sacrifice the life of a different entity to preserve their own life...or in the area of social societies (even among animals) to destroy the life of other species to preserve the life of their own colony. You are operating under the assumption that monkey life has some innate value. I am asking you to substantiate that.
If you see no value in the life of that monkey, than there is no way I can convince you to see differently. Some people reside upon the idealism that humanity is the only form of life on this planet worth anything. I disagree with this opinion. I am not saying it is wrong or right; simply, I see time and time again the intelligence they exhibit and the companionship they are capable of. My question to you is, do you have pets? Have you ever become attached to an animal? And has that animal ever been taken away from you? I know for a fact that for some people, their animal is all they have. Tell them that there is no innate value in the life of that animal. It is no different for the monkeys and other test subjects.

“Scabies are people too!”

Level 1

Since: Apr 11

Killing scabies IS MURDER!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Feb 12, 2013
 
Caitielou87 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you see no value in the life of that monkey, than there is no way I can convince you to see differently.
Why is that?

“Scabies are people too!”

Level 1

Since: Apr 11

Killing scabies IS MURDER!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Feb 12, 2013
 
Caitielou87 wrote:
<quoted text>
Some people reside upon the idealism that humanity is the only form of life on this planet worth anything. I disagree with this opinion. I am not saying it is wrong or right; simply, I see time and time again the intelligence they exhibit and the companionship they are capable of. My question to you is, do you have pets? Have you ever become attached to an animal? And has that animal ever been taken away from you? I know for a fact that for some people, their animal is all they have. Tell them that there is no innate value in the life of that animal. It is no different for the monkeys and other test subjects.
I have had pets. Many different kinds in fact. I have had pet cats, dogs, guinea pigs, goats and even a cow. None of them were ever considered for food source and all were 100% pets. Other people see these exact same animals as food source. Animals are what humans say they are. I will also tell everyone that love of animals is not innate. It is learned. We learn emotional reactions to stimuli by observing our caregivers. If mommy and daddy show pleasant and happy emotions towards animals, they will do the same. If we show fear and disdain to animals, they will do the same. This is why ants are easily squashed without remorse but dogs are generally revered in this country. It is also why dogs can be food source in another. The role and value of each animal in society is LEARNED. There is also a clear distinction between pets and non pets. It is really difficult to dispute this notion.
Caitielou87

University Park, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41
Feb 12, 2013
 
USA R0CKS wrote:
<quoted text>
I have had pets. Many different kinds in fact. I have had pet cats, dogs, guinea pigs, goats and even a cow. None of them were ever considered for food source and all were 100% pets. Other people see these exact same animals as food source. Animals are what humans say they are. I will also tell everyone that love of animals is not innate. It is learned. We learn emotional reactions to stimuli by observing our caregivers. If mommy and daddy show pleasant and happy emotions towards animals, they will do the same. If we show fear and disdain to animals, they will do the same. This is why ants are easily squashed without remorse but dogs are generally revered in this country. It is also why dogs can be food source in another. The role and value of each animal in society is LEARNED. There is also a clear distinction between pets and non pets. It is really difficult to dispute this notion.
You make very distinct points, but I admit that I may have a different perspective based on the person I have become. My parents are not what you would call animal-lovers. They like animals, but not the way I do. I adore my pets. I am a veterinary student. I am a vegetarian. If this gives you any sort of background as to why I take the side I do, then I am happy to reveal this. That being said, some animals are more capable of companionship and others due to higher brain capacity. An ant is not going to form an unbreakable bond with its owner. A dog will. I understand the notion you are trying to give, but I do not see this as an accurate comparison. I agree with you that the role of animals in our society is often learned, but it does not negate the fact that certain people are naturally more attached to animals and certain people are not. As far as the difference between test animals and pets, there really is not one. I have recently undergone certification to work with the animals during a study at the university I am at. The process of being certified included quite a long list of what animals are used as test subjects, what is being done, why, when, how... the list goes on. The general concept however is that they try to minimize the pain these animals experience and there must be very clearly defined procedures. Also, the maximum amount of testing that can be done on tissue samples is carried out before bringing in live test subjects. Often, the subjects are rats, bred in captivity. But, if these are simply test rats, why are so many regulations required? Because they DO feel pain. They DO feel anxiety. They often ARE used as pets because they DO form relationships. The fact that they are capable of these aspects (and more) is just one reason why research is so limited. The whole concept of being humane is that we exhibit the compassion that we, as humans, can. This compassion should not be restricted to just the animals we bond with.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••