5 ms·
> Not anywhere close to 1500, this is criminal. 10 billion animals are killed in the USA each year, but 1500 is criminal?
by raducu 4y ago
> Not anywhere close to 1500, this is criminal.
10 billion animals are killed in the USA each year, but 1500 is criminal?
- colordrops 4y ago
- whywhywhywhy 4y agoNot really. 1500 is fine for a chance at helping people with paralysis, would have to be magnitudes higher for me to care. The potential good outweighs the cost significantly
- iancmceachern 4y agoThis device is not going to deliver that (help with paralysis) for a decade or more. At best it's going to allow people to move a cursor on a screen.
- idrios 4y agoAnd for someone fully paralyzed that'd be a massive quality of life improvement
- maximus-decimus 4y agoI'm fine waiting an extra-decade and killing 3k animals for that. Hell, let's make it 10k animals. This is huge. Even just moving the cursor on a screen... you're fixing carpal tunnel syndrome for every white collar employee working at a computer all day.
- iancmceachern 4y agoMe too, but this is not what Musk has promised. He is promising far more in far less time. His typical MO. And thinking that an average office worker would get an invasive brain implant to prevent carpal tunnel is nuts. Carpal tunnel is a thousand times better to have than an invasive brain surgury.
- ashwagary 4y agoAs a big proponent of founders having skin in the game, I hope Musk's family members and children are some of the first in line for human trials.
- fastball 4y agoIf Musk ever becomes quadriplegic I can almost guarantee he will sign himself up.
- woeirua 4y agoSorry, but no one is going to get an incredibly invasive and risky neural implant to solve carpal tunnel syndrome.
- colordrops 4y agoYou didn't understand my point. I'm saying if this bothers you, you should stop eating meat. If it doesn't bother you, well, then no cognitive dissonance.
- iancmceachern 4y agoYes, because of the details of how and why. It's not the number. Yes, thousands of people die every day, but they doesn't make the needless murder of one person any less of an issue.
- fastball 4y agoGotcha. Intentionally killing pigs for food when there are many alternatives: morally fine. Unintentionally killing pigs for potentially life-saving / life-changing medical research: morally bad.
- iancmceachern 4y agoNo, you missed it by a mile. Killing pigs in a respectful way for food or medical research - ok. Killing pigs for medical science in a unnecessary, disrespectful way that causes unnecessary tortuous pain to them while doing so- bad.
- ben_w 4y agoNot that it contradicts your core argument, but I'd be surprised if the number of animals slaughtered in a way that fails the official legal standard for ethical, but nobody noticed for one reason or another, is less than 0.1% of the total.
- fastball 4y agoHow do you kill something respectfully? Bow before you shoot it in the head? And why would that matter? "Unnecessary" is a value judgement made by you, not an objective property of their death. They died for the purpose of furthering science and medical research – many people would consider that necessary even if fewer mistakes could've been made.