7 ms·

This is appalling if true. People will try and justify the pain and suffering of these animals and the employees by the potential benefits of these devices, but

by benrr 4y ago

This is appalling if true. People will try and justify the pain and suffering of these animals and the employees by the potential benefits of these devices, but none of this is acceptable. Who’d even want a device like this put inside their brain by a company responsible for botched surgeries and unnecessarily killing living sentient beings. The idea that this is a result of this new wave of toxic productivity mantra is also terrifying.

thefounder 4y ago
>> Who’d even want a device like this put inside their brain by a company responsible for botched surgeries and unnecessarily killing living sentient beings. I guess at least anyone who slaughters animals for sport or simply for their taste. I know few people near that burger-shop.
- krageon 4y ago
  Torture is not the same as murder and by implying that they are you make it harder for people to advocate for less torture. Nobody wins in that case, not even you.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    Experiment isn't the same as torture, either. They're not being accused of devising optimal ways to make animals suffer. If you're referring to inadvertent or incidental torture; alone in a feedlot pen too small to turn around your entire life, standing in your own shit, stuffed with grain, then unnecessarily killed (no one needs to eat meat.)
- thelock85 4y ago
  I grew up in Texas smoking briskets and practicing at targets in family cookouts. Now I’m plant-based living in California and my three guns are collecting dust in my mom’s closet. To each their own, but I don’t see how culturally or logically either lifestyle would lead me to put a chip in my brain… though I’m sure a lot of people will when/if neuralink is viable, desirable and affordable, regardless of their habits and beliefs.
- sweetheart 4y ago
  You're getting downvoted, but you're simply correct in pointing out the hypocrisy in those who claim to value animal wellbeing while also funding animal agriculture.
  - iancmceachern 4y ago
    It's about responsible agriculture, responsible animal testing. It's not black and white. What Neuralink did was irresponsible animal testing.
- pvaldes 4y ago
  Non sequitur, both claims are unrelated. "Living sentient beings" is also an unnecessarily redundant way to refer to the more popular term that is just "living beings". This is not different than saying "living living beings". Everything alive is sentient by definition.
treis 4y ago
>Who’d even want a device like this put inside their brain by a company responsible for botched surgeries and unnecessarily killing living sentient beings Going to guess the people that would be able to walk again
- Loughla 4y ago
  I'm not sure that's the great argument you think it is. Doesn't it seem a bit coercive if the people who want/need this are so desperate for it that they literally cannot care about the ethics of the company behind the product?
  - noptd 4y ago
    I guess it depends on how important you hold the lives of lab mice considering they make up the vast majority of the 1500 number cited.
    - Loughla 4y ago
      I have no idea how that matters to the argument I made. I'm very confused by your statement in the context of what I said.
      - fastball 4y ago
        The key distinction here is that "unnecessary" isn't really an objective measure. You are taking that for granted, while the person replying to you was not.
        Loughla 4y ago
        Ah. That makes sense. Thank you.
      - bheadmaster 4y ago
        I assume you also never kill mosquitos, flies, or any other kind of pests, or take antibiotics and vaccines?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
eigenrick 4y ago
The U.S. factory farm system has killed 120+ million pigs and over 7 million sheep this year (hopefully not many monkeys). I am quite sure most of those pigs were subjected to torturous conditions before they were put out of their misery. TBH, I think any outrage is hypocritical from anyone one who is not already outraged and boycotting the global meat industry.
- BoorishBears 4y ago
  The global meat industry provides us with 350 million tons of food a year. What has Neuralink given anyone for 1,500? I wonder if people are reading the article too, the problem isn't even that they're killing animals, it's that they're killing more than their research requires because of unreasonable external pressure? This feels a lot like "If you don't care about factory farms, but you do care that little Timmy is kicking puppies for fun, you're a hypocrite!!""
- danShumway 4y ago
  People being morally outraged about the mistreatment of animals in some contexts might lead to them being morally outraged about the mistreatment of animals in other contexts. This is a scenario where as a vegan I'm happy for people to have standards about animal wealfare in research. Yes, sometimes "think of the animals" arguments can be used by omnivores in ways that are harmful, but if the standard is that people need to be 100% committed before they complain about anything, then no one is ever going to be 100% committed. Any conversion to any cause almost always starts with people caring about the issue at the edges, and that process often starts out as messy and hypocritical. So in general I look at what behavior people want from me to evaluate why they're making an argument. I've seen people complain that vegans/vegetarians are hypocrites for getting a COVID vaccine that isn't vegan, but they're typically not arguing for people to care more, they're arguing that the hypocrisy means they should be able to eat meat. And in this comment section I see people arguing that the meat industry is worse than Neuralink (and to be clear, it absolutely is), but is that argument being made to try and convince people to stop eating meat? Or is it being made to argue that Neuralink shouldn't face scrutiny for unnecessary carelessness in its animal research? On average, people have a natural instinct (which can admittedly be overcome) to empathize with animals around them, which is why the meat industry needs to work so hard to separate consumers from the sources of modern meat and to mask how industrial meat farming has evolved and scaled over time and what the costs have been. I want people to develop that instinct, not suppress it. I don't really care if they're hypocritical right now, maybe if they foster that empathetic instinct they'll get less hypocritical in the future. But I don't want them to say, "well, I eat meat, so I guess I shouldn't be upset about other forms of suffering." I think that would be moving in the wrong direction. The argument should be, "yes, and", not "no, unless".
whywhywhywhy 4y ago
Think it’s disgusting to try and claim someone having the chance at no longer being a prisoner in their own body is morally in the wrong just because they might be ok with some animals suffering to make it happen. Luckily I’m not one of those people so I’ll happily say the suffering happens once, the benefit lasts for the rest of humanity.
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
  The criticism is that there’s no evidence that the undue suffering is actually contributing to faster production. Not euthanizing animals when the trial is over, instead making them vomit until the stomach acid ate their esophagus for a week. Incorrect implantation (so experiment flawed from the get go). Things like this. We should be extremely cautious that this kind of sloppy science doesn’t worsen he quality of life of already vulnerable people through botched science. We recently had a case with experimental windpipe implantation that could promise literally giving people their voices back and it liquified their necks!
m3kw9 4y ago
Not covering anyone, why assume the animals suffered significantly?
- iancmceachern 4y ago
  "In two separate incidents, experimenters used an unapproved adhesive called BioGlue to fill holes in the animals’ skulls, which seeped through to the monkeys’ brains. In one monkey, the use of BioGlue caused bleeding in her brain, and she vomited so much from the resulting side effects that she developed open sores in her esophagus" https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220926005606/en/Physicians-Committee%E2%80%99s-Lawsuit-Against-Elon-Musk-Company-Neuralink-Reveals-Existence-of-Hundreds-of-Photos-of-Monkeys-Used-in-Painful-Experiments https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220926005606/en/Phy...

by benrr 4y ago

thefounder 4y ago

>> Who’d even want a device like this put inside their brain by a company responsible for botched surgeries and unnecessarily killing living sentient beings. I guess at least anyone who slaughters animals for sport or simply for their taste. I know few people near that burger-shop.

krageon 4y ago
Torture is not the same as murder and by implying that they are you make it harder for people to advocate for less torture. Nobody wins in that case, not even you.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Experiment isn't the same as torture, either. They're not being accused of devising optimal ways to make animals suffer. If you're referring to inadvertent or incidental torture; alone in a feedlot pen too small to turn around your entire life, standing in your own shit, stuffed with grain, then unnecessarily killed (no one needs to eat meat.)
thelock85 4y ago
I grew up in Texas smoking briskets and practicing at targets in family cookouts. Now I’m plant-based living in California and my three guns are collecting dust in my mom’s closet. To each their own, but I don’t see how culturally or logically either lifestyle would lead me to put a chip in my brain… though I’m sure a lot of people will when/if neuralink is viable, desirable and affordable, regardless of their habits and beliefs.
sweetheart 4y ago
You're getting downvoted, but you're simply correct in pointing out the hypocrisy in those who claim to value animal wellbeing while also funding animal agriculture.
- iancmceachern 4y ago
  It's about responsible agriculture, responsible animal testing. It's not black and white. What Neuralink did was irresponsible animal testing.
pvaldes 4y ago
Non sequitur, both claims are unrelated. "Living sentient beings" is also an unnecessarily redundant way to refer to the more popular term that is just "living beings". This is not different than saying "living living beings". Everything alive is sentient by definition.

treis 4y ago

>Who’d even want a device like this put inside their brain by a company responsible for botched surgeries and unnecessarily killing living sentient beings Going to guess the people that would be able to walk again

Loughla 4y ago
I'm not sure that's the great argument you think it is. Doesn't it seem a bit coercive if the people who want/need this are so desperate for it that they literally cannot care about the ethics of the company behind the product?
- noptd 4y ago
  I guess it depends on how important you hold the lives of lab mice considering they make up the vast majority of the 1500 number cited.
  - Loughla 4y ago
    I have no idea how that matters to the argument I made. I'm very confused by your statement in the context of what I said.
    - fastball 4y ago
      The key distinction here is that "unnecessary" isn't really an objective measure. You are taking that for granted, while the person replying to you was not.
      - Loughla 4y ago
        Ah. That makes sense. Thank you.
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      I assume you also never kill mosquitos, flies, or any other kind of pests, or take antibiotics and vaccines?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

eigenrick 4y ago

The U.S. factory farm system has killed 120+ million pigs and over 7 million sheep this year (hopefully not many monkeys). I am quite sure most of those pigs were subjected to torturous conditions before they were put out of their misery. TBH, I think any outrage is hypocritical from anyone one who is not already outraged and boycotting the global meat industry.

BoorishBears 4y ago
The global meat industry provides us with 350 million tons of food a year. What has Neuralink given anyone for 1,500? I wonder if people are reading the article too, the problem isn't even that they're killing animals, it's that they're killing more than their research requires because of unreasonable external pressure? This feels a lot like "If you don't care about factory farms, but you do care that little Timmy is kicking puppies for fun, you're a hypocrite!!""
danShumway 4y ago
People being morally outraged about the mistreatment of animals in some contexts might lead to them being morally outraged about the mistreatment of animals in other contexts. This is a scenario where as a vegan I'm happy for people to have standards about animal wealfare in research. Yes, sometimes "think of the animals" arguments can be used by omnivores in ways that are harmful, but if the standard is that people need to be 100% committed before they complain about anything, then no one is ever going to be 100% committed. Any conversion to any cause almost always starts with people caring about the issue at the edges, and that process often starts out as messy and hypocritical. So in general I look at what behavior people want from me to evaluate why they're making an argument. I've seen people complain that vegans/vegetarians are hypocrites for getting a COVID vaccine that isn't vegan, but they're typically not arguing for people to care more, they're arguing that the hypocrisy means they should be able to eat meat. And in this comment section I see people arguing that the meat industry is worse than Neuralink (and to be clear, it absolutely is), but is that argument being made to try and convince people to stop eating meat? Or is it being made to argue that Neuralink shouldn't face scrutiny for unnecessary carelessness in its animal research? On average, people have a natural instinct (which can admittedly be overcome) to empathize with animals around them, which is why the meat industry needs to work so hard to separate consumers from the sources of modern meat and to mask how industrial meat farming has evolved and scaled over time and what the costs have been. I want people to develop that instinct, not suppress it. I don't really care if they're hypocritical right now, maybe if they foster that empathetic instinct they'll get less hypocritical in the future. But I don't want them to say, "well, I eat meat, so I guess I shouldn't be upset about other forms of suffering." I think that would be moving in the wrong direction. The argument should be, "yes, and", not "no, unless".

whywhywhywhy 4y ago

Think it’s disgusting to try and claim someone having the chance at no longer being a prisoner in their own body is morally in the wrong just because they might be ok with some animals suffering to make it happen. Luckily I’m not one of those people so I’ll happily say the suffering happens once, the benefit lasts for the rest of humanity.

SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
The criticism is that there’s no evidence that the undue suffering is actually contributing to faster production. Not euthanizing animals when the trial is over, instead making them vomit until the stomach acid ate their esophagus for a week. Incorrect implantation (so experiment flawed from the get go). Things like this. We should be extremely cautious that this kind of sloppy science doesn’t worsen he quality of life of already vulnerable people through botched science. We recently had a case with experimental windpipe implantation that could promise literally giving people their voices back and it liquified their necks!

m3kw9 4y ago

Not covering anyone, why assume the animals suffered significantly?

iancmceachern 4y ago
"In two separate incidents, experimenters used an unapproved adhesive called BioGlue to fill holes in the animals’ skulls, which seeped through to the monkeys’ brains. In one monkey, the use of BioGlue caused bleeding in her brain, and she vomited so much from the resulting side effects that she developed open sores in her esophagus" https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220926005606/en/Physicians-Committee%E2%80%99s-Lawsuit-Against-Elon-Musk-Company-Neuralink-Reveals-Existence-of-Hundreds-of-Photos-of-Monkeys-Used-in-Painful-Experiments https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220926005606/en/Phy...