Sam Iles's Blog

This New Year we’ve got ourselves has made me look closely at all of my web properties (for want of a better word) and better consider how to manage them, how to develop them further and how better to spend my time.

One such property is my charity Cures Without Cages. Now, several more people that I expected have donated and the website gets a nice number of views. However, to really do what I want to do with it, I need to work a lot with it and I just can’t do that right now.

So, here is the plan. Stop it being a charity. I will change a few parts of the website to reflect this new status, remove the option to donate but add more and better information about animal testing and its faults.

I still, however, believe very much in the idea of it all – ‘voting with one’s dollar’ and exploiting basic capitalist world rules to achieve one’s goals. For that reason, I shall maintain the website’s point of not donating to charities which test on animals. To that end, I will add a prominent list of charities to the website which do not test on animals and encourage people to give those organisations their support (rather than using me as the direct monetary intermediary and was the previous set up).

The eventual goal, however, shall be to reinstate it as a money accepting organisation in the future. Perhaps, this will happen in a few years when I have more time to run it (or, more help to run it).

I shall continue to run the podcast (which has, from my best estimates of glancing at server logs, around 50-75 listeners) and I shall use the CWC blog to share my thoughts on occasion. I shall also use the Twitter page to share more, too.

I hope you agree that this approach will be far better and will hopefully further our goal of an animal-testing free world much faster.

I’ve never really understood where I stand on animal testing.

Of course, I’ve thought it was wrong and I wanted it to stop. But, I wasn’t sure of what should happen in the mean time. Of course, animal testing won’t happen over night. I’ve always struggled with questions like “should we just stop animal testing right now” because I’ve never been sure of the impact it would have on medical research.

That’s why I set up Cures Without Cages. I thought that it would help (in a way other charities don’t at all) reduce demand and funding for animal tests and allow the industry to adjust. (I, of course, don’t expect CWC to have that much of an effect, that’s just the vision).

I am firmly convinced that animal testing is not essential. The alternatives are better. Also, the results really are bad for science, not helpful to it. This is agreed by science. So, I think that it should stop and always have done so. However, it is my position on what should happen now that I’ve been rethinking.

My question is simply is it ever right to experiment on animals? Is there ever any justification in the use of animals for human benefit? Take this quotation from Gandhi on animal experiments: “All the scientific discoveries stained with innocent blood I count as of no consequence”. I think this sums it up perfectly. Gandhi was firmly on the side of it never being acceptable, in any situation.

I think that reading the horror stories of experiments has what’s confirmed my opinion. I won’t bother relaying them to you – you can head over to PETA if you want to see some. But, fundamentally, I began to question whether this horribly evil level of suffering is right and I came to the conclusion that it isn’t.

I mow believe that never, under any circumstance is it essential to test on animals. Despite the potential benefits, there is no reason to do it. Mostly because those benefits don’t exist. Scientist after scientist and university after university and report after report are saying that animal tests are pointless and only hinder science.

So, I’m pleased to finally have an more concrete and stable answer to the animal testing debate: I hate it, wish it would stop and don’t care about the ‘benefits’ at all.

But, there is one more thing to clear up. The question ‘would you reject a cure for cancer if it was obtained through animal testing’. There are few problems with the question first off. Namely, this isn’t the debate. The point is that it isn’t needed at all. The same cure could be developed through the use on non-animal means. The makes the question moot and a highly hypothetical situation.

But, I like hypothesising, so I will attempt to answer it anyway. Short answer: yes, I would reject, on behalf of humanity, such a animal obtained cure. I’ve come to the conclusion that animal testing is always wrong, no matter what it may bring us. If I presented you with the question ‘would you happily torture a hundred or so children and adults for a few years to get a cure for cancer?’ you would probably say no. Some of you would say yes, I expect. But, not me. I don’t think it’s right to torture people for the benefit of others. For me, this also expands to animals, I now realise. Of course, this is just a fictitious, hypothetical situation, so doesn’t really matter.

Anyway, that’s my view: animal testing is bad under any circumstance. No exceptions.

So, someone recently asked me on Formspring is I thought we were spending too much money on cancer research, and I replied yes. Some people got a little upset, asking why I wanted everyone to die and so on. Let me explain.

The average life expectancy for a rich country in the west is around 75, ± 5 years or so. The lowest is Swaziland, with just 31.8 years. The average for all African countries is around 45, ± 5 years or so. This huge difference is due mostly to HIV/AIDS and hunger. The United Nations has actually warned that Swaziland may not exist for much longer, and the entire population could die from AIDS. And, most people in Africa do not get enough food, and it causes them to die far earlier than in the west.

Cancer, on the other hand, is a disease of affluence. Some scientists now say that cancer is actually a man-made disease, that was virtually non-existant in the past. They say it is caused mostly by huge changes to our environment and diet. Very few people in Africa die from cancer.

Consider for a moment two lives:

First, a man in the UK who lives his whole life being able to afford what he needs, being able to buy a lot of what he wants, having shelter, a relatively pain free life and never being hungry. Imagine he dies at age 75 of cancer.

Second, a man in Africa, who never has enough food, is in constant danger, constantly getting ill, trying to provide for children and never happy. Imagine he dies of starvation aged 30.

Which life would you rather lead? The happy, safe, food-filled life of the cancer sufferer, or the man who is in constant pain and dies very young? I know my answer.

So, if we’d rather be the English man, shouldn’t we do everything we can to help the African people? If we agree that their life is far worse than ours, shouldn’t we want to help?

The amount of money we spend on cancer research to expand our lives in the west ever further seems unjustified when so many die young in Africa. (A quick search on the Charity Commission’s website will show you just how much is donated to cancer research, compared to Africa.) But, don’t get me wrong: I do think a cure for cancer would be great, and I don’t think we shouldn’t spend money on it. After all, 5 year olds in the west can still die from cancer. But, money spent on AIDS research and on eradicating poverty seems far more important to me.

Perhaps, once the life expectancy of the entire world in 75 years old, then we start focusing on the diseases of affluence like cancer and heart disease.

Let me know if you agree or disagree on Twitter or Formspring…

I’d like to introduce you to Kiva. It is awesome.

It’s a basically a charity where you can’t loose. You donate a small amount of money, say $25. Kiva’s experts then find a suitable person in need of a loan to start a business or something similar. The recipients are always in 3rd world countries like Uganda and require small amounts averaging $300 to open a small shop. When then can, they repay the loan and you get your money back.

Firstly, this is the best type of 3rd world aid. Rather than sending them a short term bag of food, you’re setting them up for life and greatly improving the local economy. As the old saying goes: “give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”

The other good thing is you get your money back. An impressive 98.5% of loans are paid back. Even if your loan isn’t returned, we’re only talking very small amounts like $25. You’re not loosing much. You’ve a far better chance (98%) of getting your money back than if you gave it to Oxfam (0%).

So there we go. In my opinion, the best type of 3rd world aid. I currently have around $500 of outstanding loans and take it from me: it feels great.

Recently I’ve been doing a little side project and it’s just launched.

Cures Without Cages is my new animal testing charity. But, it’s different from most animal rights charities in that it doesn’t spend its donation money on raising awareness and sending people leaflets and not really doing much.

I aim to take a proactive approach, by spending money directly funding medical research projects that do not test on animals. Pretty simple, huh?

It is, as in economics, voting with your dollar, a simple attempt to reduce demand.

I’ve also recorded a podcast which explains lots about animal testing. I recommend you subscribe in iTunes.

The website explains more about animal testing, why it’s wrong and why non-animal tests would be better.

I hope you take a look at the site and perhaps consider donating. Thank you.