4 ms·

You’d be amazed how much livestock goes direct to landfill due to disease caused by overcrowding and poor practice - and of course the meat you throw out becaus

You’d be amazed how much livestock goes direct to landfill due to disease caused by overcrowding and poor practice - and of course the meat you throw out because you let it spoil at home. It’s over a third of all animal product - a significantly worse rate than neuralink and other trials - never mind the absolute numbers, which come to hundreds of millions of mammals, and billions of birds, and tens of billions of fish, every year - just in the US. A dozen, even a hundred, or a thousand monkeys are insignificant in comparison. Where’s your outrage for the side-product of your usefully slaughtered hog? https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22890292/food-waste-meat-dairy-eggs-milk-animal-welfare https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22890292/food-waste-meat-...

Veserv 3y ago
So is it okay to kill a thousand monkeys for funsies because it is “insignificant in comparison”? No, that would be highly unethical. There is no societal benefit to such a action, so nothing can justify the action. No matter how few animals you killed that is infinitely worse than the meat industry in aggregate. How about if I kill 1000 monkeys to produce junk science thus slowing the rate of scientific progress? That is even worse since not only is there no societal benefit, there is societal harm. No matter how few animals you killed that is infinitely worse than the meat industry in aggregate. Well guess what, Neuralink is almost certainly doing junk science as evidenced by their total disregard for basic established scientific protocol. The problem with Neuralink is not that they kill animals. I am okay with killing animals. What I am not okay with is the bad science. When you are running experiments to validate if your implant is safe, and you use a unapproved adhesive known to be neurotoxic to attach the implant, then the monkey dies to the neurotoxic effects of the adhesive, you did not do any science, you just learned that you should stop ignoring instructions. A child could have taught you that. You are not pushing the boundaries of knowledge through the sacrifice of animals, you are pushing the boundaries of primary school. You do not get to kill animals to learn that.
- madaxe_again 3y ago
  But a trillion animals for no purpose whatsoever is “infinitely better” than 12 monkeys, and you’re ok with that? That’s based on good science?
  - Veserv 3y ago
    You know very well that eating animals has a purpose. The very fact that you are arguing that it is okay to torture monkeys means that you do not actually believe that eating animals is wrong. But you know what does have no purpose whatsoever, killing monkeys because you can not read the instructions. In fact, any organization incompetent enough to do that regularly will invariably kill people during human trials due to avoidable mistakes, fail to achieve anything, and possibly poison the well for actually useful animal testing of brain implants and more. Stopping Neuralink's total disregard for basic scientific protocol around the ethical usage of animal test subjects saves lives and increases the rate of medical progress. Every time you protect their unethical animal testing you are delaying the discovery of robust solutions to paralysis, and you are okay with that? I am not.
    - madaxe_again 3y ago
      You didn’t read TFA, did you. I’m talking about animals which are killed and sent to landfill as a result of agricultural failure, not animals which are eaten. But anyway, I hear you loud and clear - “rocket man bad”.

Veserv 3y ago

So is it okay to kill a thousand monkeys for funsies because it is “insignificant in comparison”? No, that would be highly unethical. There is no societal benefit to such a action, so nothing can justify the action. No matter how few animals you killed that is infinitely worse than the meat industry in aggregate. How about if I kill 1000 monkeys to produce junk science thus slowing the rate of scientific progress? That is even worse since not only is there no societal benefit, there is societal harm. No matter how few animals you killed that is infinitely worse than the meat industry in aggregate. Well guess what, Neuralink is almost certainly doing junk science as evidenced by their total disregard for basic established scientific protocol. The problem with Neuralink is not that they kill animals. I am okay with killing animals. What I am not okay with is the bad science. When you are running experiments to validate if your implant is safe, and you use a unapproved adhesive known to be neurotoxic to attach the implant, then the monkey dies to the neurotoxic effects of the adhesive, you did not do any science, you just learned that you should stop ignoring instructions. A child could have taught you that. You are not pushing the boundaries of knowledge through the sacrifice of animals, you are pushing the boundaries of primary school. You do not get to kill animals to learn that.

madaxe_again 3y ago
But a trillion animals for no purpose whatsoever is “infinitely better” than 12 monkeys, and you’re ok with that? That’s based on good science?
- Veserv 3y ago
  You know very well that eating animals has a purpose. The very fact that you are arguing that it is okay to torture monkeys means that you do not actually believe that eating animals is wrong. But you know what does have no purpose whatsoever, killing monkeys because you can not read the instructions. In fact, any organization incompetent enough to do that regularly will invariably kill people during human trials due to avoidable mistakes, fail to achieve anything, and possibly poison the well for actually useful animal testing of brain implants and more. Stopping Neuralink's total disregard for basic scientific protocol around the ethical usage of animal test subjects saves lives and increases the rate of medical progress. Every time you protect their unethical animal testing you are delaying the discovery of robust solutions to paralysis, and you are okay with that? I am not.
  - madaxe_again 3y ago
    You didn’t read TFA, did you. I’m talking about animals which are killed and sent to landfill as a result of agricultural failure, not animals which are eaten. But anyway, I hear you loud and clear - “rocket man bad”.