Live data from Hacker News

Rats free each other from cages (2011)

nature.com

61–70 of 173 posts

Re: Rats free each other from cages (2011)

#61

> The idea that we should have moral compunctions about biological reality seems absurd to me Why? We seem to have plenty of moral compunctions about lots of other biological realities. Otherwise, why do anything at all? As humans, we have so far not acted in a manner that implies we're completely OK with biological realities. We keep trying to change them. Hopefully, it will continue this way. Most people agree that…

> Why? We seem to have plenty of moral compunctions about lots of other biological realities.

Do we, in practice? Can you go into more detail?

> Most people agree that they do not want to suffer. That's what makes it evil. It's not a difficult concept.

Did we ask the animals too? Maybe the pig consensus is different.

If most people agree they do not want to pay taxes, do taxes become evil?

There is no objective reason to consider 'most people agree on x' as some kind of objective moral imperative. There is no moral quality to caring what people want. I don't think this is a very sound basis for an objective morality.

EDIT: What I'm trying to get at is basically this. You're saying that eating meat (at least meat that necessitates the killing of animals) is morally wrong. You're saying this because you want to persuade me and the rest of your audience that eating meat is morally wrong. But you are not a moral authority; I consult my conscience, which feels entirely guilt-free about the subject, and my appetite, which feels a positive obligation to eat meat. You're simply trying to exploit a "hack" in my social animal brain, which is that if you tell me that something is wrong, you are telling me that other members of the human herd will judge me unfavorably and perhaps ostracize me or otherwise punish me.

Some people, but not very many, will be swayed by your attempted brain-exploit. But I, again, observe that my conscious feels guilt-free, which is a very strong sign that the people I am surrounded by do not, in fact, disapprove of my eating meat, and also that the vast majority of people I know actually eat meat. So somewhere in my hindbrain, I realize that you are (from my perspective) lying to me, and it will make me instinctively resentful of you, because you have marked yourself as a member of The Other.

So your 'moral' argument is, objectively, amoral; and for your purposes, actually counterproductive, useful only when a person is surrounded overwhelmingly by vegans and vegetarians, who will be able to enforce a shared social norm. You could, instead, if you want to try an intellectual tack, try to show how my personal interests are served by becoming a vegetarian, but you will have to discover some interests and values that strongly outweigh my predilection for eating meat.

Or what you could do is abandon your moral arguments, temporarily, until a day when you're worried about punishing the wayward vegans rather than converting the meat-eaters. You want to make vegans cool, the social elite. You want to get into the media and fill as many TV shows and movies and podcasts and YouTube personalities with cool vegans. You want to make people want to be like you. While you're at it, make animals more important, anthropomorphize them as much as possible, try to generate as much empathy for animals as possible - to some degree, this is already being done. And then in a few decades, if you keep it up, most people will be vegetarians and you can then start talking about how killing animals for food is evil, and you can probably even pass a law to that effect. That'd be a way to get some moral feeling behind it.

Re: Rats free each other from cages (2011)

#63
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wouldn't necessarily care about genetic diversity for this sort of experiment. This experiment isn't trying to say "all animals" or "all rat species" exhibit this behavior; the interesting thing is that any animal does.

For me, the more important question is not whether all test subjects were genetically diverse: it's more important that the free rat and the caged rat are dissimilar. The situation would be vastly different if the rat pairs were related, since there is a genetically selfish motivation for caring for those within the same gene pool.

This becomes apparent when you try to co-house rats and mice. Litter mates are much less likely to fight.

Re: Rats free each other from cages (2011)

#64

Actual paper: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/334/6061/1427 There is a correction issued for this paper, but the correction is paywalled so I can't tell whether it's substantive or a nitpick. Also, please put a (2011) in the title.

The correction: “Empathy and pro-social behavior in rats” by I. B.-A. Bartal et al. (9 December 2011, p. 1427). On p. 1428, the last full paragraph of column 1 was incorrect. The paragraph should be replaced by this corrected text: “All female rats (6/6) and most male rats (17/24) in the trapped condition became door-openers. Female rats in the trapped condition opened the restrainer door at a shorter latency than ma…

Odd to me is that they use 24 males and only 6 females. In my work (which is biology), we would usually use the same group size unless we had reason to know better.

For example, there's a new-to-us model that we think might have differences between strains, sexes, and vendors. We ordered in 8 mice of each type to run a pilot.

Re: Rats free each other from cages (2011)

#65

Were the imprisoned rats male or female? If I were a male rat, I would likely free an imprisoned female rat, but I'd probably think a male rat was being justly punished for his crimes.

According to the correction posted above, 6 were female and all females became openers, while only some males became openers.

Re: Rats free each other from cages (2011)

#66
post #12

Sort of off-topic but: What companies (or researchers?) [if any] are working on animal-related technologies? I.e. animal eeg, [non-decorative] animal wear, apps for animals etc. It deeply fascinates me but seems like it's somewhat unexplored in general. I only remember some company working on VR for animals.

In the research world, there are tons of machines aimed t measuring everything about rodents. There are implants that measure blood glucose levels every few minutes, treadmills that spit out every parameter about how a mouse walks, and MRIs and CTs just for rodents. These aren't exactly for the rodents, but they do exist.

Re: Rats free each other from cages (2011)

#67
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hah, as if the abuse would stop with that acknowledgement. its beyond unlikely that we, as the human race, become vegetarian. as such, we'll never stop abusing other animals beside us. on that note: i'm not a vegetarian either, nor am i planning to become one.

I believe that the development of synthetic meats that are both cheaper and of a more homogeneously high quality will supplant butchered meat, and eventually enable us to outlaw it. The science is happening as we speak.

And meanwhile, you can help by consuming from pastured animals in preference to factory-farmed ones (if you're not vegetarian). This seems to be a trend, though one with a long way to go.

Re: Rats free each other from cages (2011)

#68

“In fact there was only one species on the planet more intelligent than dolphins, and they spent a lot of their time in behavioral research laboratories running around inside wheels and conduction frighteningly elegant and subtle experiments on man. The fact that once again man completely misinterpreted this relationship was entirely according to these creatures’ plans.” RIP Douglas Adams.

Side note: The Black Plague

My understanding is Yersinia pestis is just as fatal to rats (and fleas) as it is to people.

Re: Rats free each other from cages (2011)

#69

> The idea that we should have moral compunctions about biological reality seems absurd to me Why? We seem to have plenty of moral compunctions about lots of other biological realities. Otherwise, why do anything at all? As humans, we have so far not acted in a manner that implies we're completely OK with biological realities. We keep trying to change them. Hopefully, it will continue this way. Most people agree that…

> Why? We seem to have plenty of moral compunctions about lots of other biological realities. Do we, in practice? Can you go into more detail? > Most people agree that they do not want to suffer. That's what makes it evil. It's not a difficult concept. Did we ask the animals too? Maybe the pig consensus is different. If most people agree they do not want to pay taxes, do taxes become evil? There is no objective reaso…

> Do we, in practice? Can you go into more detail?

Treating diseases, reducing violence, caring about the rights of the disenfranchised, sitting here on HN talking about how we treat animals.

> There is no objective reason to consider 'most people agree on x' as some kind of objective moral imperative.

I didn't say "most people agree" to imply that something is "objectively" true because most people agree with it. I said it because the definition of suffering as evil is fairly common sense, because it's an experience that anything conscious shares (given a developed enough nervous system), and nothing conscious wants, tautologically due to the definition of the word.

Morality is derived from subjective wants and non-wants, there's literally nothing else to derive it from.

> You're saying that eating meat (at least meat that necessitates the killing of animals) is morally wrong. You're saying this because you want to persuade me and the rest of your audience that eating meat is morally wrong.

I'm not a vegetarian and I'm not trying to convince you in particular of anything. My beliefs on eating meat and moral wrongs are more complex than that and my conclusions are far more negative.

Re: Rats free each other from cages (2011)

#70
post #65

Were the imprisoned rats male or female? If I were a male rat, I would likely free an imprisoned female rat, but I'd probably think a male rat was being justly punished for his crimes.

According to the correction posted above, 6 were female and all females became openers, while only some males became openers.

It only tells the sex of the rats on the outside. It doesn't tell the sex of the rats on the inside.
Post reply on HN