4 ms·

I'm not happy with all this stuff - I think it's cruel. Back in the early 70s the lab I worked in had a colony of mice called "wobblers" that in some sense mode

I'm not happy with all this stuff - I think it's cruel. Back in the early 70s the lab I worked in had a colony of mice called "wobblers" that in some sense modelled Parkinson's Disease - but not usefully, as far as I could see.

boxed 2y ago
It's also cruel to eradicate entire species. At this point we can only choose between playing incompetent god or competent god. This work is the latter, and I'm here for it.
- HenryBemis 2y ago
  In that dilemma we are definitely god, you merely debate the competency. Some folks thought to develop some semi-lethal virus in a lab in Wuhan because "we can/why not" and we know what happened next. Many of us have watched every Resident Evil movie or the 12 Monkeys. Steve Gibson keeps saying "what could possibly go wrong". Our (commoners'/plebes') fates have historically been determined by warmongers, "hawks", ruthless immoral people who play chess with real humans. I am not surprised that something will definitely happen. I will be surprised on the "when". I am semi-prepared for the morons to eliminate 90% of the world's population some way or another. I just hope that if/when that happens either "I go out" it will be quick and painless, or I will have the chance to 'activate my plan' and perhaps live a simple life in a forest away from the destruction.
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  There will be a lot of Dunning-Kruger phenomena involved. Biology is hard to understand, because it is not logical in the same way that maths is. Our bodies contain untold amounts of traces of ancient bottleneck events that are no longer relevant, but the adaptations are still with us.
- zabzonk 2y ago
  No, I don't think it is cruel. For example, wolves were eradicated from what is now the UK in the Tudor ages. But it wasn't done with any particular cruelty (for the time), and just because they were eating sheep (wool was a huge industry back then).
meowface 2y ago
I think it's acceptable if they have good reason to believe the gene editing isn't going to lead to a trait that harms the animal. I think fluffier fur isn't a big deal. And I say this as a vegetarian and a huge supporter of animal rights. Inducing Parkinsonian symptoms or removing limbs is very different from some cosmetic changes. Maybe they also need to be kept in cooler environments or something, but assuming they accommodate that, this doesn't seem cruel to me.
- zabzonk 2y ago
  I dunno - the right-hand mouse doesn't look so healthy around the face. Just to be clear, I've killed quite a few mice in my time (traps, poison, cat) when they become nuisances. I'm not sentimental about them at all, but I do draw the line at actual cruelty.
  - esperent 2y ago
    To me, who has safely trapped a ton of mice (around 15 I think, over the last couple of years), and then driven way out into the nearest wild area and released them unharmed, using killing traps or poison is cruel. I don't especially judge you for it. Well, maybe for the poison since that can get into the food chain. But I also don't think you have some kind of moral high ground compared to these researchers.
    - quesera 2y ago
      The survival chances of relocated mice are basically nil. You are deluding yourself to make yourself feel better. No judgement, I've done it too. But now we both know better.
      - TylerE 2y ago
        I mean, the average wild mouse lives a year or so, tops. Small rodents are not long lived.
      - meowface 2y ago
Suppafly 2y ago
>Back in the early 70s the lab I worked in had a colony of mice called "wobblers" that in some sense modelled Parkinson's Disease - but not usefully, as far as I could see. If it wasn't useful, why did they have them? It's not labs just keep breeding mice that aren't useful for their experiments.

boxed 2y ago

It's also cruel to eradicate entire species. At this point we can only choose between playing incompetent god or competent god. This work is the latter, and I'm here for it.

HenryBemis 2y ago
In that dilemma we are definitely god, you merely debate the competency. Some folks thought to develop some semi-lethal virus in a lab in Wuhan because "we can/why not" and we know what happened next. Many of us have watched every Resident Evil movie or the 12 Monkeys. Steve Gibson keeps saying "what could possibly go wrong". Our (commoners'/plebes') fates have historically been determined by warmongers, "hawks", ruthless immoral people who play chess with real humans. I am not surprised that something will definitely happen. I will be surprised on the "when". I am semi-prepared for the morons to eliminate 90% of the world's population some way or another. I just hope that if/when that happens either "I go out" it will be quick and painless, or I will have the chance to 'activate my plan' and perhaps live a simple life in a forest away from the destruction.
inglor_cz 2y ago
There will be a lot of Dunning-Kruger phenomena involved. Biology is hard to understand, because it is not logical in the same way that maths is. Our bodies contain untold amounts of traces of ancient bottleneck events that are no longer relevant, but the adaptations are still with us.
zabzonk 2y ago
No, I don't think it is cruel. For example, wolves were eradicated from what is now the UK in the Tudor ages. But it wasn't done with any particular cruelty (for the time), and just because they were eating sheep (wool was a huge industry back then).

meowface 2y ago

I think it's acceptable if they have good reason to believe the gene editing isn't going to lead to a trait that harms the animal. I think fluffier fur isn't a big deal. And I say this as a vegetarian and a huge supporter of animal rights. Inducing Parkinsonian symptoms or removing limbs is very different from some cosmetic changes. Maybe they also need to be kept in cooler environments or something, but assuming they accommodate that, this doesn't seem cruel to me.

zabzonk 2y ago
I dunno - the right-hand mouse doesn't look so healthy around the face. Just to be clear, I've killed quite a few mice in my time (traps, poison, cat) when they become nuisances. I'm not sentimental about them at all, but I do draw the line at actual cruelty.
- esperent 2y ago
  To me, who has safely trapped a ton of mice (around 15 I think, over the last couple of years), and then driven way out into the nearest wild area and released them unharmed, using killing traps or poison is cruel. I don't especially judge you for it. Well, maybe for the poison since that can get into the food chain. But I also don't think you have some kind of moral high ground compared to these researchers.
  - quesera 2y ago
    The survival chances of relocated mice are basically nil. You are deluding yourself to make yourself feel better. No judgement, I've done it too. But now we both know better.
    - TylerE 2y ago
      I mean, the average wild mouse lives a year or so, tops. Small rodents are not long lived.
    - meowface 2y ago

Suppafly 2y ago

>Back in the early 70s the lab I worked in had a colony of mice called "wobblers" that in some sense modelled Parkinson's Disease - but not usefully, as far as I could see. If it wasn't useful, why did they have them? It's not labs just keep breeding mice that aren't useful for their experiments.