And yet tapeworms and guinea worms aren't microbial. They'd still technically fall inside the 'sacred' realm for you. (For now, let's just consider 'sacred' to mean 'possessing an inalienable right to life'. I don't want to have to write it out each time.)

Level 4 and beyond does include worms and insects. I don't think they should apply to standard animal rights, but I don't think they should be just killed for amusement either.

>That animals can think and reason, I'll grant you. Some possess the nakliyat capacity for impressive intellectual feats. Although, rightly programmed, so does the computer you're reading this post on. 'Intelligence' seems to me to be a fragile basis on which to deem something sacred or not, especially since there isn't a shadow of a hint of a universally-accepted litmus test for intelligence.

It's not about the animal's IQ or ability to problem solve, it's really just whether they can feel pain or suffering in bad conditions and joy and happiness in good ones. If they can, and 99.9% of them can, then their feelings (I mean physical pain/happiness, not so much thoughts or emotions) should be treated with the same respect evden eve nakliyat as a humans. While computers can do basic calculations, they aren't capable of feeling, and therefore computers are simply machines and have no rights.

>Whether animal intelligence extends to a beyond-basic-instinct willingness to live is (so far as I've seen ankara evden eve in the science literature) still a big question mark. Whether animals any less intelligent than the 'big, smart 10' (dolphins thru octopuses, none of which I eat) possess emotion is sliding evermore toward a definite 'no'.

It's not so much "emotion" as just being able to process evden eve nakliyat pain and discomfort which they can feel and dislike, and we know they can feel that.

As for the animal testing, I'm not an extremist on either end. I don't think it should be used for minor problems, like colds, but it should be for diseases that have the ability to kill thousands, I think that it must be used when there is no other practical way. Even a hundred or more animals' deaths/discomforts are worth it for thousands and thousands of humans saved by the next huge cure for the diseases you mentioned, like Alzheimer's, cancer, diabetes... etc. I don't think animal testing should be used when there is a viable alternative like testing on bacteria/cells, but of course many times this just isn't possible. Other potential methods should also be looked into, but you are, unfortunately, right when you say it is the best we can do. There is really no alternative right now so it must be used if it will save countless lives.
For more minor problems like colds and cosmetics, I am against animal testing. These products aren't strictly necessary and aren't worth it for the animals' suffering. If the designers are so sure they can test it themselves, and if not they should just double check their predictions first.

(By the way, I am the same person as "Anonymous" was, I just created an account)