3 ms·

It’s downright criminal what they did. This should never ever have been allowed, the company should be dissolved. Also Musk should be jailed for his role in all

It’s downright criminal what they did. This should never ever have been allowed, the company should be dissolved. Also Musk should be jailed for his role in all of this, as a founder and the one pushing for results, resulting in all of this. Fucking hell.

andreistan26 3y ago
[flagged]
delfinom 3y ago
The rich at the top never get jail, that is how the oligarchy known as the US works.
- joe__f 3y ago
  Also true everywhere else in the world, probably at least slightly better in the US and other democracies.
joenot443 3y ago
Should Neuralink's work prove to be successful, and they were later able to restore movement to otherwise paralyzed humans, would you still feel the same way? It seems that you value the lives of monkeys very highly, which is understandable. Is there an amount of human suffering which could be avoided which could justify the loss of macaques? I don't know if there's a definite answer. I think the moral question of accepting the deaths of animals for purposes of humanity's comfort is one we've debated for millennia now.
- singleshot_ 3y ago
  Definitely a good point. I think a lot of the rage here stems from the assumption that these brain implants will be less about restoring abilities to the disabled and more about giving people the ability to post in social media at the speed of light. The frivolity of the potential applications seems short of justification for animal abuse, even if saving lives is sufficient justification. (Edit: I figure there will be some frivolity, but truly useful medical advances will be made. Are they worth the lives of monkeys? I sure am glad I’m not a bioethicist because I dunno).
- latexr 3y ago
  > It seems that you value the lives of monkeys very highly. Maybe they value informed consent. Something which humans could give in this situation but other primates can’t. Maybe the issue is that the experiments were done on someone who cannot say “no” (though we can argue they are doing just that by exhibiting fear). Had the experiments been done on humans, this would be the equivalent of doing them on slaves instead of consenting adults. > Is there an amount of human suffering which could be avoided which could justify the loss of macaques? We can flip the question: “is there an amount of macaque suffering which could be avoided which could justify the loss of humans”? Why not? Is avoiding our suffering more important because we ended at the top of the food chain? Maybe if we in turn did a great deal to protect other species we could argue that saving humans benefitted everyone, but the status quo is that making another species suffer for our benefit will only lead to other species suffering even more.
PM_me_your_math 3y ago
[dead]

andreistan26 3y ago

[flagged]

delfinom 3y ago

The rich at the top never get jail, that is how the oligarchy known as the US works.

joe__f 3y ago
Also true everywhere else in the world, probably at least slightly better in the US and other democracies.

joenot443 3y ago

Should Neuralink's work prove to be successful, and they were later able to restore movement to otherwise paralyzed humans, would you still feel the same way? It seems that you value the lives of monkeys very highly, which is understandable. Is there an amount of human suffering which could be avoided which could justify the loss of macaques? I don't know if there's a definite answer. I think the moral question of accepting the deaths of animals for purposes of humanity's comfort is one we've debated for millennia now.

singleshot_ 3y ago
Definitely a good point. I think a lot of the rage here stems from the assumption that these brain implants will be less about restoring abilities to the disabled and more about giving people the ability to post in social media at the speed of light. The frivolity of the potential applications seems short of justification for animal abuse, even if saving lives is sufficient justification. (Edit: I figure there will be some frivolity, but truly useful medical advances will be made. Are they worth the lives of monkeys? I sure am glad I’m not a bioethicist because I dunno).
latexr 3y ago
> It seems that you value the lives of monkeys very highly. Maybe they value informed consent. Something which humans could give in this situation but other primates can’t. Maybe the issue is that the experiments were done on someone who cannot say “no” (though we can argue they are doing just that by exhibiting fear). Had the experiments been done on humans, this would be the equivalent of doing them on slaves instead of consenting adults. > Is there an amount of human suffering which could be avoided which could justify the loss of macaques? We can flip the question: “is there an amount of macaque suffering which could be avoided which could justify the loss of humans”? Why not? Is avoiding our suffering more important because we ended at the top of the food chain? Maybe if we in turn did a great deal to protect other species we could argue that saving humans benefitted everyone, but the status quo is that making another species suffer for our benefit will only lead to other species suffering even more.

PM_me_your_math 3y ago

[dead]