As biotechnology advances, animal testing is increasing for human health and convenience, but the sacrifice of millions of animals raises questions about whether it is justified. We need to rethink whether it’s right to inflict pain on animals just because we are superior, protect animal rights, and shift to life-centered thinking.
Recent advances in biotechnology have led to the development of a variety of new medicines that are helping humans cure diseases and extend their lives, but we often forget that animal testing is behind these advances. We’re used to thinking that if it’s good for us, then it’s good for us, and we’re used to using the results. But now, as biotechnology advances around the world, animal testing is on the rise. In Korea alone, it is said that over 4 million animals are sacrificed for animal testing every year, which is about 10% of Korea’s population. So, is it natural and justifiable for such a large number of animals to be tested and die for humans?
There is an old saying that ‘man is the warrant of all things’. The 10th Amendment to our Constitution also emphasizes the dignity of the person and the right to pursue happiness. The Bible also says that God created humans in his own image, and in this context, humans are recognized as dignified, superior, and nobler than any other beings on earth.
Humans have distinguished themselves from animals, which literally means “creatures that move. Although humans are also moving creatures, we define ourselves as separate and superior to animals. We use our unique reason, creativity, language, and culture to distinguish ourselves from animals, giving us superior rights and justification for dominance over them.
However, when you think about it, these superior rights that humans give themselves are based on their higher intelligence, which gives them the reason to judge right and wrong, the ability to think creatively, and the ability to develop language and culture to build knowledge and culture.
But what if animals were more intelligent than humans, would humans still recognize their superiority? Or would humans claim exclusive, superior, and noble status, as they do now? The 1968 movie Rise of the Planet of the Apes illustrates a situation where the status of humans and monkeys is reversed. In the movie, humans are captured by monkeys and used as subjects for biological experiments. Humans have only caveman-level intelligence and culture and can’t speak. The monkeys, on the other hand, speak language, lead a glorious culture, and dominate humans. If intelligence is the criterion that justifies superior rights, then it would seem natural for the more intelligent monkeys to dominate and hold a superior position over the less intelligent humans. However, people who watch the movie feel sad for the humans and are horrified by the fact that the monkeys are in a position of superiority over the humans.
But does higher intelligence have such absolute legitimacy that it gives either side the right to be superior? If high intelligence is the basis for claiming superior rights for humans, then mentally retarded people with low intelligence should have no rights, yet we guarantee them human rights as human beings. On the other hand, we don’t guarantee rights to monkeys with childlike intelligence, and we don’t consider them equal to humans, even if they are highly intelligent. This shows that there is a significant contradiction in the justification for human superiority: we don’t actually grant rights and dignity to humans because of their high intelligence, but rather believe that they are superior to animals simply because they are human.
Since the industrial age, humans have not been able to escape anthropocentric thinking: we have viewed nature as a tool for our own happiness, and we have treated animals as lesser beings than humans. Chickens in corporate chicken farms are crammed into spaces barely big enough for their bodies, sticking their necks out to feed and lay eggs for humans. Dogs bred for food live their entire lives in cramped cages and end up as bosun’s bath. Laboratory monkeys are painfully sacrificed to test drugs and brain biopsies for humans. They suffer a painful death from the side effects of these processes. While humans attribute meaning to the monkeys used in experiments as contributing to the advancement of humanity, they do not intend to do the same to humans.
Does being human give us the right to be in a position of superiority over animals and to manipulate them at will? It’s time to move away from anthropocentric thinking and realize and acknowledge that humans are part and parcel of nature. It’s time to protect and respect not only human rights, but also the right to life. There is no absolute basis to assume that animals, plants, or anything else in nature is inferior to humans. All life, not just human life, has a noble value.
In recent years, there has been a global movement to move away from this anthropocentric thinking and toward protecting and respecting animals. As animal cruelty has become a major issue, many countries have enacted laws to protect animal rights, including animal protection laws, animal cruelty laws, and animal testing ethics laws. The European Union has banned the sale of cosmetics made through animal testing, and Korea enacted the Act on Laboratory Animals in 2010 and the Animal Protection Act in 2011. However, enforcement of the laws is still immature, making it difficult to verify facts in laboratories, and punishment for violating the laws is limited to the recommended level. As such, the protection of laboratory animals through laws still seems insufficient.
In Korea alone, about 4 million rats, rabbits, dogs, monkeys, etc. are used in animal experiments for human use every year. As biotechnology advances, the use of laboratory animals is increasing, and they are still used to test drugs for human health, cosmetics for beauty, and biological tests.
Humans should not test on animals simply for human benefit. Some people equate animal testing with eating meat, arguing that just as killing animals for meat is inevitable, so is animal testing. But while eating meat is a natural law and part of the ecological order, animal testing is nothing more than sacrificing innocent animals for the sake of excessive human greed and a sense of superiority.
But is this sacrifice really necessary for human development and the protection of life? Animals and humans have fundamental differences in physiology, anatomy, and genetics, so the results of animal testing don’t always translate to humans. In many cases, new drugs that have been shown to be safe in animals have been banned because they cause adverse side effects in humans. For example, thalidomide, an anti-morning sickness drug developed in the 1960s, was taken off the market in 1962 because pregnant women who took it were giving birth to malformed babies with limb defects, even though the drug was safe in laboratory animals. This shows that animal testing is not a necessary part of drug discovery and can lead to adverse side effects.
If animal testing is for human advancement, we need stronger laws than we currently have. We need to raise the bar, ensure animal rights, and reduce animal testing. We need to think deeply about the ethical aspects of animal testing and move towards a life-centered, not anthropocentric, way of thinking. We need to create a world where humans and animals can coexist with mutual respect.
I was deeply shocked when I came across videos and records of animal testing in high school, and even now, many years later, I see that animal testing is still being done in the name of human development. I will continue to call for the strengthening of animal protection laws, even if it is only one person’s power, and to spread awareness of alternative methods of testing.
