6 ms·

Yeah, and "by all measures, normal" was also bullshit, the monkey was paralyzed from the neck down with no spinal connection! I can't believe we have so little

Yeah, and "by all measures, normal" was also bullshit, the monkey was paralyzed from the neck down with no spinal connection! I can't believe we have so little regard for the rights of species very nearly as intelligent and probably equally aware as us. It would be extreme torture to go through a beheading and reattachment with probably little or no anesthesia, and then be forced to live for 8 days in a fucked-up painful & dying state, and no way to escape or even move!

jahewson 12y ago
Nowadays there are ethics committees and they would not allow such an experiment, thankfully.
- ddoolin 12y ago
  In some places, at least. Wherever capable of performing the experiment, hopefully.
- jonmrodriguez 12y ago
  On the other side of the coin, I think people should be allowed to opt-in to such an experiment if they are fully informed and not being financially coerced. E.g., if someone's body is dying and they want their brain to live a little longer, and they need several extra days to finish saying goodbye to their loved ones. But there would need to be a ton of anesthesia and other calming drugs given both during and the entire time after surgery. I don't think that experiments like this should be off the table if needed for progress as a civilization, but I think we can't force very lucid animals into these experiments and not give them anesthesia. The experiment itself isn't necessarily good or bad, but forcing a lucid animal into this even if it expresses fear or wants to flee is wrong.
- Fuxy 12y ago
  And this is where it gets dicey. These experiments are necessary in order to further our understanding of biology we cannot just rule them out as cruel since if we don't do them someone else will. In China they use political prisoners as involuntary organ donors for gods sake. Hell you can get donor organs within weeks in China while it takes months or even years in other countries just to give you an idea. So the question is would you rather have countries with less regard for human or animal lives do the experiments and reap its benefits while you stick your head in the sand or would you do the experiments yourself while attempting to treat the creatures in the most humane way possible?
  - JetSpiegel 12y ago
    > So the question is would you rather have countries with less regard for human or animal lives do the experiments and reap its benefits while you stick your head in the sand Worked so far as pollutants are concerned...
  - justsee 12y ago
    Your moral framework appears to give a pass to any activities another person is capable of doing, which doesn't appear to be much of a framework at all. In particular, it would also logically support any experimentation on live humans which could provide greater understanding than would otherwise be the case. This position was infamously held by wartime goverments in World War II and one I think most reasonable people would reject completely. A consistent moral framework which requires minimisation of human suffering really has to expand to consider more species capable of suffering.
    - Fuxy 12y ago
      My moral framework requires consent from human beings as for other creatures i see no problem experimenting with them as log as we put in the best effort possible in reducing their suffering in the process. And no my framework doesn't give pass to any activities another person is capable of doing it give pass to any activity is necessary in order to advance our understanding and in the future save more lives. If you're going to qualify all creatures on the same level then we shouldn't be experimenting on lab rats either don't you think? We shouldn't be killing all those malaria spreading mosquitoes either since their creatures too right?
      - justsee 12y ago
        > My moral framework requires consent from human beings as for other creatures i see no problem experimenting with them as log as we put in the best effort possible in reducing their suffering in the process Consent is only possible in high-functioning adult humans though. I would expect you would make the concession that 'valid consent' would exclude very young and old humans and the intellectually disabled. But they are no different in this respect to members of other species that can't (or wouldn't if capable) give their consent. If you see no problem in inflicting suffering on another conscious being that is non-human then why is reducing their suffering even important to you? If it is important, then why isn't it as important as the suffering of a human of reduced intellectual function? > If you're going to qualify all creatures on the same level then we shouldn't be experimenting on lab rats either don't you think? Yes, a consistent moral framework would likely agree with this sentiment, assuming consciousness and the ability to suffer is the important consideration. > We shouldn't be killing all those malaria spreading mosquitoes either since their creatures too right? Well that is the position of adherents of Jainism [1], but it does really depend on what test of consciousness and capability of suffering you think is necessary to meet, rather than whether something is simply a 'creature'. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism#Non-violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism#Non-violence

jahewson 12y ago

Nowadays there are ethics committees and they would not allow such an experiment, thankfully.

ddoolin 12y ago
In some places, at least. Wherever capable of performing the experiment, hopefully.
jonmrodriguez 12y ago
On the other side of the coin, I think people should be allowed to opt-in to such an experiment if they are fully informed and not being financially coerced. E.g., if someone's body is dying and they want their brain to live a little longer, and they need several extra days to finish saying goodbye to their loved ones. But there would need to be a ton of anesthesia and other calming drugs given both during and the entire time after surgery. I don't think that experiments like this should be off the table if needed for progress as a civilization, but I think we can't force very lucid animals into these experiments and not give them anesthesia. The experiment itself isn't necessarily good or bad, but forcing a lucid animal into this even if it expresses fear or wants to flee is wrong.
Fuxy 12y ago
And this is where it gets dicey. These experiments are necessary in order to further our understanding of biology we cannot just rule them out as cruel since if we don't do them someone else will. In China they use political prisoners as involuntary organ donors for gods sake. Hell you can get donor organs within weeks in China while it takes months or even years in other countries just to give you an idea. So the question is would you rather have countries with less regard for human or animal lives do the experiments and reap its benefits while you stick your head in the sand or would you do the experiments yourself while attempting to treat the creatures in the most humane way possible?
- JetSpiegel 12y ago
  > So the question is would you rather have countries with less regard for human or animal lives do the experiments and reap its benefits while you stick your head in the sand Worked so far as pollutants are concerned...
- justsee 12y ago
  Your moral framework appears to give a pass to any activities another person is capable of doing, which doesn't appear to be much of a framework at all. In particular, it would also logically support any experimentation on live humans which could provide greater understanding than would otherwise be the case. This position was infamously held by wartime goverments in World War II and one I think most reasonable people would reject completely. A consistent moral framework which requires minimisation of human suffering really has to expand to consider more species capable of suffering.
  - Fuxy 12y ago
    My moral framework requires consent from human beings as for other creatures i see no problem experimenting with them as log as we put in the best effort possible in reducing their suffering in the process. And no my framework doesn't give pass to any activities another person is capable of doing it give pass to any activity is necessary in order to advance our understanding and in the future save more lives. If you're going to qualify all creatures on the same level then we shouldn't be experimenting on lab rats either don't you think? We shouldn't be killing all those malaria spreading mosquitoes either since their creatures too right?
    - justsee 12y ago
      > My moral framework requires consent from human beings as for other creatures i see no problem experimenting with them as log as we put in the best effort possible in reducing their suffering in the process Consent is only possible in high-functioning adult humans though. I would expect you would make the concession that 'valid consent' would exclude very young and old humans and the intellectually disabled. But they are no different in this respect to members of other species that can't (or wouldn't if capable) give their consent. If you see no problem in inflicting suffering on another conscious being that is non-human then why is reducing their suffering even important to you? If it is important, then why isn't it as important as the suffering of a human of reduced intellectual function? > If you're going to qualify all creatures on the same level then we shouldn't be experimenting on lab rats either don't you think? Yes, a consistent moral framework would likely agree with this sentiment, assuming consciousness and the ability to suffer is the important consideration. > We shouldn't be killing all those malaria spreading mosquitoes either since their creatures too right? Well that is the position of adherents of Jainism [1], but it does really depend on what test of consciousness and capability of suffering you think is necessary to meet, rather than whether something is simply a 'creature'. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism#Non-violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism#Non-violence