Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Laika sacrifice_Sputnik2

  1. YES

    8 vote(s)
  2. NO

    4 vote(s)
  1. Feb 1, 2008 #1
    Do you think that Laika sacrifice was worthy in the name of "space conquest" ?
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 1, 2008 #2
    It was a step necessary to further the space programs of that time. My father kept a photo of Laika in his study for decades, the first creature of the earth to visit space.
  4. Feb 1, 2008 #3
    Its just a dog...........
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2008
  5. Feb 1, 2008 #4


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    :mad: Poor little dog. It was a very cruel death.
  6. Feb 1, 2008 #5
    Well, its sad the dog died. But progress does not come for free.

    Lots of animals die all the time in medical testing. Im not worried about them either, because it makes my life and other animals lives better.

    And there is also animals that die so we can eat.

    Basically, pointless torture is the only thing Im against when it comes to animals. Other than that, I dont care.
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2008
  7. Feb 1, 2008 #6
    Let me posit two questions:

    Do you care about other humans dying for your own progress?

    I'll assume "yes", since you don't seem like a psychopath, so I'll ask what separates them from other animals?
  8. Feb 1, 2008 #7


    User Avatar

    But other humans have and always will. Same for animals. We all die, some die needlessly, some die when they're due for death (i.e. fulfilled), and well, of the pointless deaths, at least some might be made useful. I know that sounds insensitive but at the end of the day, nature doesn't give a damn either.

    Sacrificing a dog for space conquest is quite quirky though, I have to admit.
  9. Feb 1, 2008 #8
    Well this poll published in an other forum like this. I won't tell you the final vote result... but i will tell you what was the reason to make this poll here.

    I heard two days before a lecture about space weather and the prediction of CME's (coronal mass ejections) of the Sun.
    From that lecture i learned how important is the prediction of a CME because if that phenomenon occurs while astronauts are far away from the magnetic shield of earth they have great probability to die from radiation.
    Also i learned how lucky was the astronauts of apolo 16 and apolo 17.

    [From Nasa article:To die, you'd need to absorb, suddenly, 300 rem or more.

    The key word is suddenly. You can get 300 rem spread out over a number of days or weeks with little effect. Spreading the dose gives the body time to repair and replace its own damaged cells. But if that 300 rem comes all at once ... "we estimate that 50% of people exposed would die within 60 days without medical care," says Cucinotta.

    Such doses from a solar flare are possible. To wit: the legendary solar storm of August 1972.

    It's legendary (at NASA) because it happened during the Apollo program when astronauts were going back and forth to the Moon regularly. At the time, the crew of Apollo 16 had just returned to Earth in April while the crew of Apollo 17 was preparing for a moon-landing in December. Luckily, everyone was safely on Earth when the sun went haywire.

    "A large sunspot appeared on August 2, 1972, and for the next 10 days it erupted again and again," recalls Hathaway. The spate of explosions caused, "a proton storm much worse than the one we've just experienced," adds Cucinotta. Researchers have been studying it ever since.

    Cucinotta estimates that a moonwalker caught in the August 1972 storm might have absorbed 400 rem. Deadly? "Not necessarily," he says. A quick trip back to Earth for medical care could have saved the hypothetical astronaut's life.]

    So the main conclusion is: Are we going to sacrifice humans in order to achieve specific
    scientific goals?

    As you all probably understand i would never make a poll with the previous question...
    so i chose this ''difficult'' one.

    I know that it is not the same, to sacrifice an animal, but how sure are you
    about that?

    Please Vote, and tell your thoughts.
    Thanks in advance.
  10. Feb 1, 2008 #9


    User Avatar

    I personally think this topic is quite silly. Cyrus says it well.

    That's all I have to say :smile:
  11. Feb 2, 2008 #10

    Chi Meson

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Humans have been sacrificed in the name of much less than "progress."

    Oil, for example.

    At least Laika was given an a name, dignity, and the status of hero. What were the names of "our" monkeys?
  12. Feb 2, 2008 #11
    I don't thing this topic is silly. Consider that Sputnik 2 was not designed to be retrievable, so Laika had always been intended to die. And i ask why to underestimate the life of an animal?

    Cyrus as you probably understand it is not the same to do medical tests at ''non
    -conscious'' animals and not the same to experiment at a theoretical ''conscious'' animal.
  13. Feb 2, 2008 #12


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Agreed, but while animal testing has a directly contributed to scientific knowledge and availability of effective medicines, I'm curious to know what "progress" was achieved in Laika's case?

    After all, the ostensible reason would have been to test whether organisms can live in space for extended periods? But considering the fact that Laika died within 4 hours, her death seems pretty pointless, in my opinion.
  14. Feb 2, 2008 #13
    I dont regard animals lives above human. Conscious or not. The dog died 51 years ago. I dont see why its even an issue. Worrying about it is not going to bring it back to life.

    Lots of people died too. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/24/newsid_2523000/2523019.stm
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2008
  15. Feb 2, 2008 #14


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I don't see humans as having any more right to life than an animal. Why would a human life be worth more? Are we realy so conceited? Seriously, why do we have more right to live? Does a cat have more right to live than a bird? Or is it just the capacity to kill those that are weaker? Does our ability to kill make us better?

    I don't care about the technology, the fact is that it was wrong to kill an innocent animal. I just don't think putting more value on technology than on life is right.
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2008
  16. Feb 3, 2008 #15
    Sadly, in a way, yes Evo. Our capacity to kill, and kill in great numbers, has put us on the top of the food chain. Not that its right, but we are not so different then other animals, in the sense of eat or be eaten. We will do what ever it takes to improve our abilities in war, and science.

    I also believe we have advanced enough, that we are smart enough, that animals used in technology is no longer necessary. But I fear it will be many generations from now, before its a reality.
  17. Feb 3, 2008 #16


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Was it? Didn't it just asphyxiate?
  18. Feb 3, 2008 #17


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Ask your dog. His answer will be more relevant than mine....

    On the other hand....
    Yes, in that sense we're not any different. Which, of course, means it is ok to kill other animals*. It's a catch-22, sure, but it's one we get to view from the outside of the oven. We alone are capable of choosing to discard our nature. On this issue, I choose not to.

    *No, that does not also make it ok to kill other humans.
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2008
  19. Feb 3, 2008 #18


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Oh, apparently she died of "overheating" after the environmental control failed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laika

    On the other hand, she was a stray, so she probably would have been euthenized anyway.
  20. Feb 3, 2008 #19


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    I think it was overheating and stress

Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?