6 ms·

Obviously a last ditch rescue attempt, which vindicates the untested methodology that we might otherwise be critical of. Also rather faith restoring that so ma

Obviously a last ditch rescue attempt, which vindicates the untested methodology that we might otherwise be critical of. Also rather faith restoring that so many people are attempting to save these animals at cost to themselves.

323 5y ago
> Also rather faith restoring that so many people are attempting to save these animals at cost to themselves. You're a bit naive. They will easily be able to raise $200k on a GoFundMe like thing. They will also gain massive social networks followings and be invited to leading podcasts and TV shows to talk about their heroism. All with minimal investment and zero personal and reputational risk, nobody will blame them if they fail.
- sushisource 5y ago
  To contrast, I think maybe you're being a bit overly cynical. What evidence is there of that happening? Even if they did, is that such a bad thing? Can the guy not want to both save the dogs and make a cool video? They're not mutually exclusive.
  - 323 5y ago
    I once read an article which was about how we are willing to spend thousands to save one particular dog, or one particular injured bird, instead of donating that money to "animal habitat preservation" or something similar which will save thousands of diverse animals. And then there's the whole industrial farm-animal raising thing, where billions of animals are systematically tortured. But nobody cares, because it's not a particular animal in a particular situation that we can stand behind and do cool saving off to show our "humanity".
    - nickff 5y ago
      >"...billions of animals are systematically tortured. But nobody cares..." Many people do care, and show it in various ways, from paying extra for free-range eggs, to going vegetarian or vegan. I agree with the other commenter that you're being overly cynical.
      - oblak 5y ago
        You're right but it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, though. For every vegetarian, vegan, or anyone just willing to scale down, there are hundreds who would happily consume more of that sweet subsidized meat, even if it kills them. Sorry for the rant
        munificent 5y ago
        You may discover one day that there is no "grand scheme of things", no final day of reckoning when all of humanity is tallied up to decide once and for all if we're a Good or Bad species. It's just individuals doing what they can with what they have.
        oblak 5y ago
        Well, I didn't mean it as some kind of grand cosmic spiritual picture or anything. Frankly, I am not sure what made you believe that. In any case, what I meant was that while individual efforts matter, they're dwarfed by de facto policy, formal or not. And, implicitly, that I am more than a tiny bit annoyed by people who desperately try to offset anyone's efforts just because they can. Consume, consume, consume. As being able is a justification enough in itself.
        nickff 5y ago
        You said that efforts to relieve the plight of animals "doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things", but I disagree with you, as helping one animal is meaningful. I don't understand how you can believe that animals as a whole deserve better without also believing that each animal deserves better. You now brought up a separate issue, which seems to be rooted in a philosophical disagreement. If you think the 'desperate consumers' are causing harm, I invite you to convince them to change their ways. As an incrementalist, I see each small improvement as virtuous.
        oblak 5y ago
    - oblak 5y ago
      You're right. I've been thinking how many animals, not just birds, have been killed so that I can provide the birds that come by our window with sunflower, pumpkin or some other kind of seed. Yes, I am fucking hypocrite.
    - crate_barre 5y ago
      We would do this for anyone honestly, it’s not just dogs. That’s tough to see. My heart isn’t handling this well and I just heard about it. I hope the net is very big, they’d have to do dry runs with the net with the food in it, get them used to going into the net for the food. The hard part is going to be (well every part is hard), but if both dogs come into the net, that’s going to be a failed attempt. Sadly I think they may only get one dog out, unless the dogs have different sleeping patterns, grab the awake one. I have no idea, this is heart breaking. Maybe send a huge net with 4 drones to ensure if both dogs come in, they can carry the load out. If they pull it off, take all the free marketing you can eat.
      - onychomys 5y ago
        I mean, we'd obviously do it for people. I'm not sure we'd do it for many other animals, though.
    - sushisource 5y ago
      People act irrationally when it comes to their feelings on preserving life. Human or animal. I think it's pretty lame to say "Well, we shouldn't save one particular being because we're not maximally saving the most beings!". Accept what we can get, and work with that. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
      - exporectomy 5y ago
        It's not clear that many of these efforts are good at all. A classic example is feeding stray cats. That just increases the carrying capacity so you're creating more stray cats and even more will be hungry. Exterminate cows to prevent cow suffering? Or farm them to maximize their population?
        sushisource 5y ago
        I mean that's fair, but we're talking about airlifting some poor dogs with a cool drone, not exactly a common thing that will lead to long term problems.
        exporectomy 5y ago
        Sure. Not saying this case is harmful to animal welfare, but the idea of anything that seems immediately good being actually good, even a little bit, isn't generally true.
    - thewakalix 5y ago
      Perhaps this is "scope insensitivity". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_neglect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_neglect
    - mike_d 5y ago
      > And then there's the whole industrial farm-animal raising thing Huge difference between a pet that has developed human companionship bonds over thousands of years and a chicken or a cow that would be extinct had it not been delicious.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      Just because the act is irrational or sub-optimal does not mean it is insincere. In many respects, the "rational" response would be to shoot the dogs with a rifle and donate the rescue funds to an animal shelter.
      - cratermoon 5y ago
        There's an entire episode of the HBO Chernobyl TV series dedicated to the decision to kill the animals in the area, rather than trying to rescue them. Yes, many of the animals would have been radiation hazards, or already doomed to death, simply because of their proximity to the reactor explosion and absorption/consumption of radionuclides over time, but the same can be said for the people living and working in area. The decision to destroy all of them rather than trying to work out which ones could be safely rescued saved the resources it would have taken to make the determination and do the rescues. Those resources were probably better used to mitigate the enormous hazards associated with the destroyed reactor. In this case, there may be an argument that the resources directed towards rescuing the dogs could be better put towards mitigating the hazards of volcanic eruptions in general, but I wouldn't and won't be the one to make that call.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kodah 5y ago
  This rhetoric reminds me of the cynicism that a lot of, especially, environmental activists have. There are a lot of ways to make change. If you can prove that a drone can carry a dog out of a very hazardous environment then it's useful as our environment gets universally more hazardous. You're also casting shade on raising money or publicity -- my question to you: what major problem can be solved without isolated public examples and money? Last, I'm fairly certain calling folks naive is against the HN guidelines.
  - 323 5y ago
    > my question to you: what major problem can be solved without isolated public examples and money I'm pretty sure the things Bill Gates foundation does are not about isolated public examples - they evaluate proposals based on impact, measured in lives saved, and not in heart warming individual saves. Sterile stuff like providing anti-mosquito bed nets which don't make you tear up.
    - kodah 5y ago
      Right, providing a cheap mosquito bed is a little easier to go mass production with than being able to use drones as an emergency recovery vehicle. The latter requires the right motivation and the right (hopeless) risk profile. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation also absolutely does a lot of advertising and interviews which are aimed at winning hearts and minds about their work.
- kadabra9 5y ago
  I bet you’re a lot of fun at parties.
- mike_d 5y ago
  The company has posted to social media asking people and news media to stop trying to contact them and their employees so they can focus on preparing for the rescue. I don't think money or fame is the motivation here.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- voz_ 5y ago
  What a wildly toxic reply. Are you really insinuating that people are saving poor trapped animals due to some selfish motivation? Is this how you see the world? If so, I'd rather be what you call "Naive".
  - 323 5y ago
    It's worse. There's a whole industry on Facebook/YouTube of people who "save dogs stuck in cement" which they put into that situation, and the videos get tens of millions of views. https://www.four-paws.org/our-stories/publications-guides/fake-animal-rescue-videos https://www.four-paws.org/our-stories/publications-guides/fa... https://dogtime.com/advocacy/79431-fake-dog-rescue-videos https://dogtime.com/advocacy/79431-fake-dog-rescue-videos
    - crate_barre 5y ago
      I really don’t think this is that, and I’m the most cynical bastard on HN.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
jagger27 5y ago
This language reminds me of the infamous Thai cave rescue. Look how public opinion turned on Elon in that instance. There are a lot of differences here, of course.
- wavefunction 5y ago
  Didn't public opinion swing against Elon Musk for trying to insert himself into an already on-going rescue and then called one of the men who did rescue the kids a 'pedo-guy'? That's something I'd expect from a 13 year old on xbox live.
  - Hokusai 5y ago
    That exactly. People were disgusted by the attention grab and the lack of respect for people risking their lives. 'I'm a billionaire, look at me!' syndrome.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      Are. Not were. The fact that we see this still being mentioned is a pretty good testimony to how utterly tone deaf Musk was when he did that.
      - happytiger 5y ago
        That’s an astute point.
  - aaron695 5y ago
    > and then called one of the men who did rescue the kids a 'pedo-guy' Absolutely not. It was in response to the backlash, complicated, and clearly Elon wasn't doing anything for PR. He's smart and has a smart team, he knew if he killed the kids it'd hurt him an order of magnitude more than saving them. The fact one person died in the rescue was not unfortunate, it was expected, getting every kid out alive was unexpected. "The subject of Musk’s tweet, Vernon Unsworth, had slammed the tech leader’s efforts to aid in the cave rescue by building a miniature submarine, calling it a “PR stunt” in an interview with CNN." (CNN lied about Unsworth calling it a “PR stunt”, FWIW) People are so mentally ill they can't even remember their own lives anymore. It's all on the record in Google, but I guess no one cares about the fidelity of their own past. These drone operators will get fucked if they drop the dogs. Because people are cunts and want someone to hurt. That's the Twitter way, always ends up a lynch mob. The media has always done this, but Twitter refined it to a speedy art with no recovery, pre-internet it was cyclic at least.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

323 5y ago

> Also rather faith restoring that so many people are attempting to save these animals at cost to themselves. You're a bit naive. They will easily be able to raise $200k on a GoFundMe like thing. They will also gain massive social networks followings and be invited to leading podcasts and TV shows to talk about their heroism. All with minimal investment and zero personal and reputational risk, nobody will blame them if they fail.

sushisource 5y ago
To contrast, I think maybe you're being a bit overly cynical. What evidence is there of that happening? Even if they did, is that such a bad thing? Can the guy not want to both save the dogs and make a cool video? They're not mutually exclusive.
- 323 5y ago
  I once read an article which was about how we are willing to spend thousands to save one particular dog, or one particular injured bird, instead of donating that money to "animal habitat preservation" or something similar which will save thousands of diverse animals. And then there's the whole industrial farm-animal raising thing, where billions of animals are systematically tortured. But nobody cares, because it's not a particular animal in a particular situation that we can stand behind and do cool saving off to show our "humanity".
  - nickff 5y ago
    >"...billions of animals are systematically tortured. But nobody cares..." Many people do care, and show it in various ways, from paying extra for free-range eggs, to going vegetarian or vegan. I agree with the other commenter that you're being overly cynical.
    - oblak 5y ago
      You're right but it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, though. For every vegetarian, vegan, or anyone just willing to scale down, there are hundreds who would happily consume more of that sweet subsidized meat, even if it kills them. Sorry for the rant
      - munificent 5y ago
        You may discover one day that there is no "grand scheme of things", no final day of reckoning when all of humanity is tallied up to decide once and for all if we're a Good or Bad species. It's just individuals doing what they can with what they have.
        oblak 5y ago
        Well, I didn't mean it as some kind of grand cosmic spiritual picture or anything. Frankly, I am not sure what made you believe that. In any case, what I meant was that while individual efforts matter, they're dwarfed by de facto policy, formal or not. And, implicitly, that I am more than a tiny bit annoyed by people who desperately try to offset anyone's efforts just because they can. Consume, consume, consume. As being able is a justification enough in itself.
        nickff 5y ago
        You said that efforts to relieve the plight of animals "doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things", but I disagree with you, as helping one animal is meaningful. I don't understand how you can believe that animals as a whole deserve better without also believing that each animal deserves better. You now brought up a separate issue, which seems to be rooted in a philosophical disagreement. If you think the 'desperate consumers' are causing harm, I invite you to convince them to change their ways. As an incrementalist, I see each small improvement as virtuous.
        oblak 5y ago
  - oblak 5y ago
    You're right. I've been thinking how many animals, not just birds, have been killed so that I can provide the birds that come by our window with sunflower, pumpkin or some other kind of seed. Yes, I am fucking hypocrite.
  - crate_barre 5y ago
    We would do this for anyone honestly, it’s not just dogs. That’s tough to see. My heart isn’t handling this well and I just heard about it. I hope the net is very big, they’d have to do dry runs with the net with the food in it, get them used to going into the net for the food. The hard part is going to be (well every part is hard), but if both dogs come into the net, that’s going to be a failed attempt. Sadly I think they may only get one dog out, unless the dogs have different sleeping patterns, grab the awake one. I have no idea, this is heart breaking. Maybe send a huge net with 4 drones to ensure if both dogs come in, they can carry the load out. If they pull it off, take all the free marketing you can eat.
    - onychomys 5y ago
      I mean, we'd obviously do it for people. I'm not sure we'd do it for many other animals, though.
  - sushisource 5y ago
    People act irrationally when it comes to their feelings on preserving life. Human or animal. I think it's pretty lame to say "Well, we shouldn't save one particular being because we're not maximally saving the most beings!". Accept what we can get, and work with that. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
    - exporectomy 5y ago
      It's not clear that many of these efforts are good at all. A classic example is feeding stray cats. That just increases the carrying capacity so you're creating more stray cats and even more will be hungry. Exterminate cows to prevent cow suffering? Or farm them to maximize their population?
      - sushisource 5y ago
        I mean that's fair, but we're talking about airlifting some poor dogs with a cool drone, not exactly a common thing that will lead to long term problems.
        exporectomy 5y ago
        Sure. Not saying this case is harmful to animal welfare, but the idea of anything that seems immediately good being actually good, even a little bit, isn't generally true.
  - thewakalix 5y ago
    Perhaps this is "scope insensitivity". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_neglect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_neglect
  - mike_d 5y ago
    > And then there's the whole industrial farm-animal raising thing Huge difference between a pet that has developed human companionship bonds over thousands of years and a chicken or a cow that would be extinct had it not been delicious.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    Just because the act is irrational or sub-optimal does not mean it is insincere. In many respects, the "rational" response would be to shoot the dogs with a rifle and donate the rescue funds to an animal shelter.
    - cratermoon 5y ago
      There's an entire episode of the HBO Chernobyl TV series dedicated to the decision to kill the animals in the area, rather than trying to rescue them. Yes, many of the animals would have been radiation hazards, or already doomed to death, simply because of their proximity to the reactor explosion and absorption/consumption of radionuclides over time, but the same can be said for the people living and working in area. The decision to destroy all of them rather than trying to work out which ones could be safely rescued saved the resources it would have taken to make the determination and do the rescues. Those resources were probably better used to mitigate the enormous hazards associated with the destroyed reactor. In this case, there may be an argument that the resources directed towards rescuing the dogs could be better put towards mitigating the hazards of volcanic eruptions in general, but I wouldn't and won't be the one to make that call.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kodah 5y ago
This rhetoric reminds me of the cynicism that a lot of, especially, environmental activists have. There are a lot of ways to make change. If you can prove that a drone can carry a dog out of a very hazardous environment then it's useful as our environment gets universally more hazardous. You're also casting shade on raising money or publicity -- my question to you: what major problem can be solved without isolated public examples and money? Last, I'm fairly certain calling folks naive is against the HN guidelines.
- 323 5y ago
  > my question to you: what major problem can be solved without isolated public examples and money I'm pretty sure the things Bill Gates foundation does are not about isolated public examples - they evaluate proposals based on impact, measured in lives saved, and not in heart warming individual saves. Sterile stuff like providing anti-mosquito bed nets which don't make you tear up.
  - kodah 5y ago
    Right, providing a cheap mosquito bed is a little easier to go mass production with than being able to use drones as an emergency recovery vehicle. The latter requires the right motivation and the right (hopeless) risk profile. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation also absolutely does a lot of advertising and interviews which are aimed at winning hearts and minds about their work.
kadabra9 5y ago
I bet you’re a lot of fun at parties.
mike_d 5y ago
The company has posted to social media asking people and news media to stop trying to contact them and their employees so they can focus on preparing for the rescue. I don't think money or fame is the motivation here.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
voz_ 5y ago
What a wildly toxic reply. Are you really insinuating that people are saving poor trapped animals due to some selfish motivation? Is this how you see the world? If so, I'd rather be what you call "Naive".
- 323 5y ago
  It's worse. There's a whole industry on Facebook/YouTube of people who "save dogs stuck in cement" which they put into that situation, and the videos get tens of millions of views. https://www.four-paws.org/our-stories/publications-guides/fake-animal-rescue-videos https://www.four-paws.org/our-stories/publications-guides/fa... https://dogtime.com/advocacy/79431-fake-dog-rescue-videos https://dogtime.com/advocacy/79431-fake-dog-rescue-videos
  - crate_barre 5y ago
    I really don’t think this is that, and I’m the most cynical bastard on HN.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

jagger27 5y ago

This language reminds me of the infamous Thai cave rescue. Look how public opinion turned on Elon in that instance. There are a lot of differences here, of course.

wavefunction 5y ago
Didn't public opinion swing against Elon Musk for trying to insert himself into an already on-going rescue and then called one of the men who did rescue the kids a 'pedo-guy'? That's something I'd expect from a 13 year old on xbox live.
- Hokusai 5y ago
  That exactly. People were disgusted by the attention grab and the lack of respect for people risking their lives. 'I'm a billionaire, look at me!' syndrome.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Are. Not were. The fact that we see this still being mentioned is a pretty good testimony to how utterly tone deaf Musk was when he did that.
    - happytiger 5y ago
      That’s an astute point.
- aaron695 5y ago
  > and then called one of the men who did rescue the kids a 'pedo-guy' Absolutely not. It was in response to the backlash, complicated, and clearly Elon wasn't doing anything for PR. He's smart and has a smart team, he knew if he killed the kids it'd hurt him an order of magnitude more than saving them. The fact one person died in the rescue was not unfortunate, it was expected, getting every kid out alive was unexpected. "The subject of Musk’s tweet, Vernon Unsworth, had slammed the tech leader’s efforts to aid in the cave rescue by building a miniature submarine, calling it a “PR stunt” in an interview with CNN." (CNN lied about Unsworth calling it a “PR stunt”, FWIW) People are so mentally ill they can't even remember their own lives anymore. It's all on the record in Google, but I guess no one cares about the fidelity of their own past. These drone operators will get fucked if they drop the dogs. Because people are cunts and want someone to hurt. That's the Twitter way, always ends up a lynch mob. The media has always done this, but Twitter refined it to a speedy art with no recovery, pre-internet it was cyclic at least.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]