I agree... I mean how can we expect animals to know how to read and write for the tests... they don't got no opposable thumbs and they don't understand English!

PETA pals? Pahahahahahahaha, oh man, thanks for the laugh

I hate PETA with a passion. I'm no pro-animal apologist nor "Free all the animals" as your OP PS3 said, go back and read my early replies on this thread. i just hate this kind of arrogant thinking "We rule this planet and every other animal is below us". 

Humans are compassionate? Yeah, indeed they are when they want to. Want to measure the amount of compassion versus violence in the entire human history? Because there's a clear winner there, and it's not the one that starts with a C. Humans are the only species that kill their own kind for fun, humans alone are responsible for the extinction of thousands of species that range from mammal, plant life and even some cases in the Monera realm, not only in centuries past but also recently.
There has been a distinctive push towards saving the large number of endangered species that we have in the past years, but go do a bit of research to learn just how "effective" it has been. We have reduced entire species to a point we're it's extremely hard to have a viable population sample to breed in large enough numbers to sustain themselves in the future without any kind of assistance. We basically have limited species such as the pandas, siberian tigers or the iberian lynx to only survive in specially created reserves that must be mantained and monitored constantly. 

Again, you're using conflicting terms for the top of the food chain terminology. Killer Whales also kill humans for fun, along with other species. There's a large number of species that can and do hunt humans.

You must really tell me what kind of technology do you have in your country that allows you to say, without doubt, that humanity can survive any kind of general extinction event, as there a vast number of scenarios that humanity doesn't stand a figment of chance, such as supervolcanic eruptions that would cover the atmosphere with enough ash to block out the sun and rise global temperatures to unsustainable levels, any kind of meteor impact similar to the one in the end of the cretacic period, or global nuclear warfare. And let's not talk about the extreme scenarios, such as the dissapearance of the magnetic field. For all of our technology, we are still just as vulnerable as we ever were.

I think you're confusing humans with:

There are some kinds of apocaliptic scenarios which, despite our superior intelligence and logistics (?), we cannot survive. Roaches however, would survive even a nuclear holocaust.

Actually, research tends to show people would survive a nucelear holocaust too...

Nuclear Holocaust scenarios of the Cold War were actually pretty greatly exagerrated.

http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/82jpr.html

The actural radiation of nuclear bombs isn't near as dangerous as you'd think.

Also, Cockroaches aren't particularly resistant to nuclear radiation.  More so then humans sure, but there are other bugs way more resistant then cockroaches.

It's just people hate cockroaches, and cockroaches are seen as the "lowest of the low"... so it makes for good imagry.

Though actually that would need to be a "BURST" of radiation, and not the nuclear fallout type situation generally seen in exagerrated nuclear war stories.

Since cockroaches are only more resistant because unlike humans their cells aren't constantly dividing.

Well, that scenario seems pretty bleak for people who do not live in 3rd world countries anyways.

Animal testing for the advancement of human medical science and technology is a necessary evil. Much like killing and eating animals for food. I see nothing morally wrong with eating meat and I see nothing morally wrong with testing a possibly dangerous drug on a monkey before using it on a sick child.

That said , I would have a problem with someone who went around killing cattle for no reason and wasting the meat as well as animal testing with no medical or legitimate scientific purpose.

Hey, i'm not saying it'd be awesome.  Just saying it wouldn't destroy the world.

Honsetly, i'd actually expect humans to be able to live in a constant nuclear fallout situation better, because they'd be able to adapt much more rapidly due to intellegence and technology.  No doubt shelters would be built rather quick.

That's the thing about human intellegence.  It accomplishes things evolution takes millions of years to accomplish.

Quite true. Of course, this is a double-edged sword (e.g. mass extinction).

I'm ok with animal testing if it is for medecinal progress. I don't like it but what else can we do? I'm pretty much a vegetarian but I see how testing new cures on mice might be better than on a human. Sometimes I find some people despicable and I value animals above these people, but I think of the good people who are sick... It's cruel to animals but needed. There are some human tests done too, but often it's not as dangerous.

What I hate however, are cosmetic companies or anything for the sake of vanity tested on them. There is no excuse for this, they know which products irritate our skin (in fact some of them are in and approved like sodium laurel/th sulfates-I get so itchy from it). This I am totally against and makes me think that humans can be so stupid and selfish.