5 ms·

These are more like hit pieces by advocacy groups that are against all forms of animal testing. The Vox article for example was written by the partner of someo

by zaroth 4y ago

These are more like hit pieces by advocacy groups that are against all forms of animal testing. The Vox article for example was written by the partner of someone who worked at PCRM - the advocacy group that filed the complaint. The article is also packed with pictures of animal abuse that has absolutely nothing to do with Neuralink - which they do mentioned in the fine print. These images of course are entirely misleading and have no place in the article other than trying to draw a false equivalence.

iancmceachern 4y ago
And those points make what happoned less true or less bad?
- zaroth 4y ago
  I can’t speak to “truth”, only trust. If the reporting is ideological, the likelihood that the narrative is slanted is high. Is Neuralink doing something wrong, or are they being targeting by ideologues? We don’t know. I don’t think animal testing is bad per se, and I’m very distrustful of news releases from organizations that are against all animal testing where their reporting is peppered with totally unrelated images of animal abuse, just to be inflammatory.
- echelon 4y ago
  Animals die for humans to live better lives all the time. There are protocols to minimize, but not eliminate, suffering. Animal testing is a greater good that helps us understand the diseases that plague us and look for cures. The goals of Neuralink are some of the most important being undertaken. It might seem abstract or wishful to some, but should they succeed we will have a plausible way to escape our mortality. It's a long shot, but we should absolutely take it.
  - klodolph 4y ago
    Neuralink’s goals aren’t sufficient justification here, the question is about whether the actual research done by Neuralink can plausibly produce outcomes that benefit us, and whether the subjects are suffering needlessly. If you try to rush research, you don’t necessarily get the same research but faster, you might just get bad research instead.
    - throwaway60701 4y ago
      Why is eating steak a sufficient reason but developing such life-changing technology is not? We already know that BCIs work and bring enormous benefits to people with epilepsy, ADHD, etc. There's no question about that. The only problem is, and that's what Neuralink aims to solve, that it's a very invasive procedure, so it's not being done often. But we know it works.
      - klodolph 4y ago
        Eating a steak is not a good reason to cause unnecessary suffering. I don’t know what kind of argument you were hoping to make, but comparing one cruel thing with another is not insightful or useful. Industrial livestock production is inhumane and this is unnecessary; it can be fixed but there is not enough political will.
        throwaway60701 4y ago
        So you're expecting them not to do anything whatsoever with animals, because you define anything done with them as cruelty? I disagree completely. Of course there shouldn't be any unnecessary suffering and definitely zero cruelty, but animal testing - as well as animal eating - is fine with me and many more people. It can be "fixed" but almost nobody wants that "fix". Politicians are here to enact the will of the people. That's democracy. I don't think it's nice to talk about your differing political opinions as a "fix". This is not something that's broken, we want it this way - we wouldn't have spend so much time making regulations about it if we didn't. If you find developing technologies that could fix epilepsy and ADHD (and potentially many more neurological issues) as well as help locked-in people communicate as unnecessary, I really don't know what to tell you...
        klodolph 4y ago
        > So you're expecting them not to do anything whatsoever with animals, because you define anything done with them as cruelty? No, it sounds like you completely misunderstand my position. I guess I haven’t explained my position very well, because that’s completely incorrect. (I’m honestly a bit baffled by this.) When I say “unnecessary suffering” I am not talking in some kind of mathematical sense of necessity, but I’m using the term colloquially, as it works in ordinary conversation. It means something like this—the suffering could be avoided without undue burden. > This is not something that's broken, we want it this way - we wouldn't have spend so much time making regulations about it if we didn't. I’m not sure I understand the logic for why you say we want it this way—politicians are here to enact the will of the people is a nice theoretical foundation for understanding the political process, but the actual behavior of representative democracies diverges from the will of the people, and it’s also not a moralistic argument—part of the reason that we have a constitutional government in the US is exactly because we recognize that we shouldn’t do whatever the people will. The idea that I’m not supposed to “fix” the will of the people is kind of absurd anyway—all I’m doing is making moral arguments about what should be done, and the “will of the people” itself is an end product of people making arguments about what should or should not be done. > If you find developing technologies that could fix epilepsy and ADHD (and potentially many more neurological issues) as well as help locked-in people communicate as unnecessary, I really don't know what to tell you... You seem to be arguing that the behavior of Neuralink is necessary to achieve its goals, but the testimony I’ve heard seems to contradict this—the experiments are being done hastily, which results in bad data, unnecessary suffering, and then you have to redo the experiments. There’s a simple formula you can use to get people to do immoral unethical things, if you desire. Create pressure to get results, then create an organizational structure that shields people from seeing the consequences. This is how we have industrial farms the way we do, this is how clothing companies based in the US end up using child labor overseas, and this is how Neuralink appears to be working. When a clothing company gets caught using child labor overseas, you find some contractor to blame. You terminate the contract and hire another contractor to manage the manufacturing for you. This creates the façade of moral behavior on the part of individuals, while preserving the economic and organizational systems which encouraged immoral behavior in the first place. Neuralink isn’t out there with the goal of causing suffering just like clothing companies aren’t—and the best way I know to counteract it is with regulations.
- Alcor 4y ago
  Nobody is saying that but the quality of your argument is certainly diminished if you present these articles as evidence when they are written by a non neutral party with an agenda and at best confusing if not purposefully misleading.
  - iancmceachern 4y ago
    It's not my argument. I'm just a guy on the internet trying to help another guy on the internet who asked a question because they didn't know about this and weren't informed. Now your informed and can make your own prediction.

by zaroth 4y ago

iancmceachern 4y ago

And those points make what happoned less true or less bad?

zaroth 4y ago
I can’t speak to “truth”, only trust. If the reporting is ideological, the likelihood that the narrative is slanted is high. Is Neuralink doing something wrong, or are they being targeting by ideologues? We don’t know. I don’t think animal testing is bad per se, and I’m very distrustful of news releases from organizations that are against all animal testing where their reporting is peppered with totally unrelated images of animal abuse, just to be inflammatory.
echelon 4y ago
Animals die for humans to live better lives all the time. There are protocols to minimize, but not eliminate, suffering. Animal testing is a greater good that helps us understand the diseases that plague us and look for cures. The goals of Neuralink are some of the most important being undertaken. It might seem abstract or wishful to some, but should they succeed we will have a plausible way to escape our mortality. It's a long shot, but we should absolutely take it.
- klodolph 4y ago
  Neuralink’s goals aren’t sufficient justification here, the question is about whether the actual research done by Neuralink can plausibly produce outcomes that benefit us, and whether the subjects are suffering needlessly. If you try to rush research, you don’t necessarily get the same research but faster, you might just get bad research instead.
  - throwaway60701 4y ago
    Why is eating steak a sufficient reason but developing such life-changing technology is not? We already know that BCIs work and bring enormous benefits to people with epilepsy, ADHD, etc. There's no question about that. The only problem is, and that's what Neuralink aims to solve, that it's a very invasive procedure, so it's not being done often. But we know it works.
    - klodolph 4y ago
      Eating a steak is not a good reason to cause unnecessary suffering. I don’t know what kind of argument you were hoping to make, but comparing one cruel thing with another is not insightful or useful. Industrial livestock production is inhumane and this is unnecessary; it can be fixed but there is not enough political will.
      - throwaway60701 4y ago
        So you're expecting them not to do anything whatsoever with animals, because you define anything done with them as cruelty? I disagree completely. Of course there shouldn't be any unnecessary suffering and definitely zero cruelty, but animal testing - as well as animal eating - is fine with me and many more people. It can be "fixed" but almost nobody wants that "fix". Politicians are here to enact the will of the people. That's democracy. I don't think it's nice to talk about your differing political opinions as a "fix". This is not something that's broken, we want it this way - we wouldn't have spend so much time making regulations about it if we didn't. If you find developing technologies that could fix epilepsy and ADHD (and potentially many more neurological issues) as well as help locked-in people communicate as unnecessary, I really don't know what to tell you...
        klodolph 4y ago
        > So you're expecting them not to do anything whatsoever with animals, because you define anything done with them as cruelty? No, it sounds like you completely misunderstand my position. I guess I haven’t explained my position very well, because that’s completely incorrect. (I’m honestly a bit baffled by this.) When I say “unnecessary suffering” I am not talking in some kind of mathematical sense of necessity, but I’m using the term colloquially, as it works in ordinary conversation. It means something like this—the suffering could be avoided without undue burden. > This is not something that's broken, we want it this way - we wouldn't have spend so much time making regulations about it if we didn't. I’m not sure I understand the logic for why you say we want it this way—politicians are here to enact the will of the people is a nice theoretical foundation for understanding the political process, but the actual behavior of representative democracies diverges from the will of the people, and it’s also not a moralistic argument—part of the reason that we have a constitutional government in the US is exactly because we recognize that we shouldn’t do whatever the people will. The idea that I’m not supposed to “fix” the will of the people is kind of absurd anyway—all I’m doing is making moral arguments about what should be done, and the “will of the people” itself is an end product of people making arguments about what should or should not be done. > If you find developing technologies that could fix epilepsy and ADHD (and potentially many more neurological issues) as well as help locked-in people communicate as unnecessary, I really don't know what to tell you... You seem to be arguing that the behavior of Neuralink is necessary to achieve its goals, but the testimony I’ve heard seems to contradict this—the experiments are being done hastily, which results in bad data, unnecessary suffering, and then you have to redo the experiments. There’s a simple formula you can use to get people to do immoral unethical things, if you desire. Create pressure to get results, then create an organizational structure that shields people from seeing the consequences. This is how we have industrial farms the way we do, this is how clothing companies based in the US end up using child labor overseas, and this is how Neuralink appears to be working. When a clothing company gets caught using child labor overseas, you find some contractor to blame. You terminate the contract and hire another contractor to manage the manufacturing for you. This creates the façade of moral behavior on the part of individuals, while preserving the economic and organizational systems which encouraged immoral behavior in the first place. Neuralink isn’t out there with the goal of causing suffering just like clothing companies aren’t—and the best way I know to counteract it is with regulations.
Alcor 4y ago
Nobody is saying that but the quality of your argument is certainly diminished if you present these articles as evidence when they are written by a non neutral party with an agenda and at best confusing if not purposefully misleading.
- iancmceachern 4y ago
  It's not my argument. I'm just a guy on the internet trying to help another guy on the internet who asked a question because they didn't know about this and weren't informed. Now your informed and can make your own prediction.