3 ms·

I'm surprised that HN is pretty much a single voice against Neuralink. How many chickens do you think it is ok to sacrifice to potentially help some paraplegic

by comboy 3y ago

I'm surprised that HN is pretty much a single voice against Neuralink. How many chickens do you think it is ok to sacrifice to potentially help some paraplegic humans? How many monkeys? Is sacrificing a human life worth it? I mean surely depends on the probabilities involved, whether or not we can find some other path which is better at minimizing sufferring etc. These are difficult questions, so I'm surprised people so quickly jump to an answer. And why focus on Neuralink. Here I found some animals usage report [1]. I'm too lazy to analyze it properly, but eyeballing it I don't think Neuralink datapoint is even meaningful. In 2017 75,000 monkeys were used in research [2]. It does not say for how many of these pain was minimized as [1] does, but ugh.. can somebody present a good case why Neuralink specifically is worth focusing on when discussing this issue? I'd also be happy to listen to good arguments for not experimenting on them at all, since it's not at all obvious to me. I've read Mama's last hug [3] and I understand why we may not want to, but at the same time, the trolley. In my twisted mind we should probably be experimenting on humans more [4]. If after psychological evaluation somebody gives they full consent, moving science forward can be some way to live a meaningful life, if you think monkeys are very much like humans then with humans we can at least clearly communicate and better minimize suffering. 1. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare/SA_Obtain_Research_Facility_Annual_Report/CT_Research_Facility_Annual_Summary_Reports https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare/SA_O... 2. https://www.science.org/content/article/record-number-monkeys-being-used-us-research https://www.science.org/content/article/record-number-monkey... 3. https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/45894068 https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/45894068 4. I'm sure Nazi Germany surely fires for some after such statement as it does for me, but they did not minimize suffering. We should. We should just allow people to take risk if they want to. We allow skydiving and trying to climb Mount Everest. Why not allow to take it with benefit to other humans.

yipbub 3y ago
> I'm sure Nazi Germany surely fires for some after such statement as it does for me, but they did not minimize suffering. We should. We should just allow people to take risk if they want to. We allow skydiving and trying to climb Mount Everest. Why not allow to take it with benefit to other humans. The problem is that incentive structures of profit, monopoly, and power accumulation mean that people will get put into economic situations where they might do this to get out of desperation or not being well informed enough. Regulation will not work well enough, and we can't proceed assuming it might. We can't engage in such risky/dystopian behavior unless we can reduce the risk of systematic abuse, and right now we definitely can't. For example: We now are so much more productive than any time in history because of automation, but our work-life balance has not significantly improved. The US (and I'm assuming other) economies are structured in a way that 0 employment would mean extremely high inflation, so they intentionally increase unemployment instead of curtailing price-gouging. The impact will not only be abuse in terms of negative outcomes for "volunteers", but the ugly psychological impact on everyone the more hellish the bottom of the economy becomes as people become desperate to avoid it. Why don't we slice apart one perfectly healthy human to save 10? Maybe their family will be rich. Suicide becomes noble. Blood, kidneys, livers, eyes, etc. What if someone is coerced? The practical consequences of what you are suggesting are abhorrent.
- comboy 3y ago
  That is clearly an issue with my viewpoint. I think it could be more heated than practically impactful (just like "kill tor because pedophiles"). Nuanced issues are not easy to regulate, but then, how about using monkeys instead? FWIW since we are discussing suffering, it's worth noting that for humans we are maximizing longevity over minimizing suffering.

by comboy 3y ago

yipbub 3y ago

> I'm sure Nazi Germany surely fires for some after such statement as it does for me, but they did not minimize suffering. We should. We should just allow people to take risk if they want to. We allow skydiving and trying to climb Mount Everest. Why not allow to take it with benefit to other humans. The problem is that incentive structures of profit, monopoly, and power accumulation mean that people will get put into economic situations where they might do this to get out of desperation or not being well informed enough. Regulation will not work well enough, and we can't proceed assuming it might. We can't engage in such risky/dystopian behavior unless we can reduce the risk of systematic abuse, and right now we definitely can't. For example: We now are so much more productive than any time in history because of automation, but our work-life balance has not significantly improved. The US (and I'm assuming other) economies are structured in a way that 0 employment would mean extremely high inflation, so they intentionally increase unemployment instead of curtailing price-gouging. The impact will not only be abuse in terms of negative outcomes for "volunteers", but the ugly psychological impact on everyone the more hellish the bottom of the economy becomes as people become desperate to avoid it. Why don't we slice apart one perfectly healthy human to save 10? Maybe their family will be rich. Suicide becomes noble. Blood, kidneys, livers, eyes, etc. What if someone is coerced? The practical consequences of what you are suggesting are abhorrent.

comboy 3y ago
That is clearly an issue with my viewpoint. I think it could be more heated than practically impactful (just like "kill tor because pedophiles"). Nuanced issues are not easy to regulate, but then, how about using monkeys instead? FWIW since we are discussing suffering, it's worth noting that for humans we are maximizing longevity over minimizing suffering.