It's interesting that you bring this up; it seems that most people that own a dog do so not for its utility, but for it's emotional value--they own dogs because they can empathize with them to some degree. Even if flies could somehow serve a greater utility than dogs, we would not value them as much as we do dogs.

Perhaps this is why so many people who consume pork, beef and chicken find the consumption of dogs distasteful (no pun intended); cows, pigs, and chickens have always been food for us (for those of us in the west, at least), but our ancestors chose dogs (wolves, actually) to be companions to aid in their survival, and as we both evolved, we developed emotional bonds with them.

I won't argue whether it's right or wrong to value lives differently, but reality makes it impractical on many levels to value all life as equal. The simple fact that we've evolved to develop emotional bonds with dogs makes it quite difficult for us, if not impossible, to value all animals equally, much less all life. As I've expressed elsewhere, our emotional makeup has helped us to survive in the past, but we must bear the responsibility for it--at some point, most individuals must make compromises between emotion and sense of reason in order to function.

I had a feeling that you would appreciate this answer. ;)

Often, our morality is dictated not by reason, but by our wishes. Our wishes, irrespective of whether they are religious in nature, are often inconsistent when analyzed in rigor, and they often cannot be practically realized.

Take, for instance, the principle that all men are equal in value. An appropriate definition for value is the amount that someone is willing to pay--not just in monetary terms, but in time, work, and sacrifice. Though many proclaim this principle, it is merely a wish; not once in history has this principle been truly implemented--I doubt you can even find one man today who would make the same sacrifice for a criminal as they would a saint.

Thus, we may conclude that we find human testing repulsive because deep down, our wish is that no one must be made to suffer. At the same time, we conveniently ignore the fact that many people are even now being forced to suffer for our benefit anyway--how many people have been severely exploited to produce the products we enjoy?

Perhaps we can come to a quasi-rational conclusion from all this. Our wishes derive from our sense of empathy, which may have been a crucial evolutionary mechanism for human survival in the past. Though we may have benefited greatly from our sense of empathy, which has undoubtedly contributed to our status as the dominant life form on the planet, we must bear the responsibility for it--compromises must be made between our sense of reason and our sense of empathy in order for us to function (the majority of us, anyway).

People in different regions and different cultures behave in measurably different ways. Since policies are generally formulated with some model for human behavior in mind, policies designed for a group of people who behave in a certain way may not be ideal for groups of people that behave differently.

Furthermore, there may be certain cultures/regions which have individuals who are likely to severely abuse the policies for their own benefit at the cost of everyone else. Thus, even if two groups of people generally behave in similar ways, the presence of a small number of individuals who severely abuse the system in one group can potentially lead to drastically different policies...

I'm not really taking any side on the moral issue; I'm just pointing out a thought that should induce dissonance in individuals who take this particular stance.

Here's an even more dissonant thought: if we define worth as the value that we attribute to something, and value as the amount we are willing to pay for something (not necessarily in monetary terms, but in time, work, and sacrifice), then I would say that despite our declarations that all life is of equal worth, we do not act accordance with our declarations. For instance, we are not willing to make the same sacrifices for an insect as we would a dog, and many humans are not willing the make the same sacrifices for a dog as they would another human being.

Though many declare that all life is of equal worth, I see very few, if any, that live in full accordance with that declaration (some Buddhists may get close, but I'm sure even they have their limits). I would also say that it would be highly impractical to live in full accordance with that declaration. I've learned that reality often confronts an individual with two choices: to live in hypocrisy or to drop the absolute nature of our moral convictions.

There is an interesting paradox here. Most non-human animals could care less about killing other animals or plants, and there is no evidence that there exists any non-human animal that regards all life to be equal, none being inferior to another. On the other hand, there exist humans who do regard all life to be equal, none being inferior to another. If this moral position is superior to the alternative, does this not make the humans who hold this moral position superior?

I agree that history is important; that's why one should not ignore it--as the saying goes, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Extreme circumstances breed extremists; anyone can be turned into an extremist when placed in an extreme circumstance. Science is important because when taught properly, it has a civilizing effect--science teaches us to doubt, and (hopefully) urges us to give others the benefit of the doubt. Extremism requires the exact opposite--it requires holding beliefs without doubt.

Actually I think it would be good for the United States to have more foreign talent. One, it gives us an opportunity to keep foreign talent in the United States, and two, it helps us by giving us more talent to compete against. The more isolated we become, the more difficult it will be for us to compete with the rest of the world. Even if they take their education back to their homeland, we will, at the very least, know what we're competing against.

I don't think the problem with the job market is due to foreign talent; the problem is that we pay foreigners too little for their work--the H1-B program should be revised to strictly enforce the condition that employers pay foreign workers the same as they would an equally qualified U.S. citizen. While employers have to sign an agreement stating that they won't do this, employers manage to do this anyway, and it seems that little is being done to enforce the equal salary requirement.

Incidentally, holes have been extensively and rigorously studied by mathematicians since the 19th century; the study of holes (homology) is one of the main topics of study in algebraic topology.

I agree that there is a lot of nonsense out there in philosophy, but a lot of good work has been done in the foundations of language and of logic (though much of this is arguably mathematics). The work of Alfred Tarski and Kurt Godel comes to mind.

Without a common enemy, religious folk will probably just fight each other--history is full of conflicts over differences in religious doctrine.