5 ms·
It's not if it's developed ethically. The price of this research is often paid by the suffering of countless animals. Aa externality that may be slightly less o
by Sporktacular 6y ago
It's not if it's developed ethically. The price of this research is often paid by the suffering of countless animals. Aa externality that may be slightly less odious if it is at least there to reduce our suffering, not simply cash in on making more humans.
- bpodgursky 6y agoI don't think you understand the human condition (or how to think outside your own life) if you think that infertility doesn't count as suffering.
- Sporktacular 6y agoTrying for a kid with my partner actually. It doesn't mean we're entitled to one or that my child will have more of a right to exist than 100s of some other mammals. And I think it's clear that I am considering more than just my own life.
- bpodgursky 6y agoI personally believe your child has more right to exist than 1 mouse, 1,000 mice, or 1,000,000 mice. People are people. It's a different bar, and I'm not going to equate people lives with animal lives.
- Sporktacular 6y agoA bar set by people, in the interest of people. What we personally believe is subject to biases, in this case speciesism. A human would say what you say, a monkey's claim to superiority might be branch selection skills. What makes your red line inherently stronger? And it's not like you defined one or attempt to find a rational underpinning to check for your bias. That's the tribal, conservative basis for many of the injustices over immutable differences we see every day (racial, sexual etc.) Rational inquiry is about transcending this.
- throwaway316943 6y agoThere’s literally a part of the article that expounds on how this could reduce or eliminate the need to sacrifice mice when studying certain domains.
- Sporktacular 6y agoAnd if its development requires the sacrifice of as many mice as it saves then it only breaks even. Ethically, that case hasn't been made. And what comes out shouldn't suffer.