Call me evil however you want. But they could kill 1000x the amount of monkeys if the outcome is severly disabled humans regaining their life in some capacity. Worse is being done to animals for less useful things.
Part of the reason we expect thorough and careful processes on animals is because it is practice. If you screw up during practice what hope do you have during the real thing. Careful animals trials increase the speed of developing medical interventions safe enough for human use. They are not just boneheaded red tape meant to slow down “radical thinkers”.
That is not to say that the current processes and methodologies are perfect, there is almost certainly unnecessary bureaucracy, but the right standard, the one that maximizes the rate of progress, is much closer to what we have than what the “move fast and break things” crowd wants.
There needs to be some law that says that if you're going to do this research at the expense of the lives of so many sentient animals then it needs to be open and non-profit.
Because I have doubts that this is the real long-term mission of Neuralink.
I don't know how people get their head this far up their own arse, and before anyone flags me for saying that do remember that OP asked for this.
The exact same argument you're making could be used to justify human experiments too. In fact, this has happened - often - in recent history; with the same language and reasoning. And guess what... It was fucking evil.
yeah, I'd always trade monkey lives for human lives, but I'd also like the lives I trade to have been considered viable and worthwhile decisions to make from an ethical approach instead of being another number correlating to a large amount of attempts done. Saying similar to "I don't care if we kill 1000x more if anything at all improves" shows more of a lack of care to monkeys (i.e. their lives are being considered meaningless) than it does to defend the stance that killing more would be necessary to improve human lives.
I’m fine with for example cooking lobsters or prawns and other seafood that needs to be basically cooked alive. Because they are less sentient and less closer to human. I’m not fine with cooking chicken alive. There is a grey area about eating dogs and cats. I am generally fine with that, other people aren’t.
Monkeys are closer to human.
I think some amount of experimentation is necessary and can be good for science experiments. Monkeys are not human after all, never will be; but they are close.
I think excessive and useless experiments are bad.
But there is a gradient and I guess it’s hard to define. I don’t think sacrificing one monkey is evil. I also don’t think that needlessly torturing it is fine. There are gradients.
You can’t make parallel with experiments on human in 2nd world war though; that is a mockery of those people actually tortured back then. Saying that they are on monkey level
(I am not who you are replying to)
Just want to point out here: No, they don't need to be cooked alive. The human way to cook lobster is to run a knife through its head first. But most people don't have the stomach for this and choose to believe that boiling it alive is more humane.
However shrimps do need to be cooked alive, right?
> Google: neuralink federal investigation
> Dec 2022, pigs and sheep died, no explanation of how, no explanation of to what purpose, no discussion of what law or ethic was broken.
> Feb 2023, contaminated hardware shipped improperly
Can you please cite anything specific? All I want is an instance of some animal being butchered; not by some bureaucratic corporate mistake; not by some individual slip, but by actually evil behavior or causing unnecessary pain to an animal.
How is everyone crying so hard when there is essentially no information of what actually happened? 60 pigs died- ok, how and why?