Brain implants allow paralysed monkeys to walk • Hacker News Board

Re: Brain implants allow paralysed monkeys to walk

#151

Post by Ericson2314 » Sat, Nov 12, 2016, 2:42 AM UTC

truth_sentinell wrote: post #128

anbende wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there are ways of farming that are ethical that are already in use (the 1% in your argument), then we absolutely should discuss those. We would want to start increasing that number. It changes things considerably whether livestock can be raised ethically. If they can, we can try to do that. If they can't, then the only ethical solution is to stop raising livestock. So discussing that 1% has practical implications.

You can't raise livestock for hundreds of millions of people "ethically" -whatever that means-. That's why people industrialized the process, and on most big factories there's little human intervention. I can't picture the day where people stop eating meat. It just won't happen, not matter what arguments you present. The best way to go is replacing it, and the perfect postulate is lab meat, which I hope, is going to…

Billions of animals won't be brought into existence, you mean.

Re: Brain implants allow paralysed monkeys to walk

#152

Post by kakarot » Sat, Nov 12, 2016, 3:25 AM UTC

Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #27

biofox wrote: post #7

"For more than a decade, neuroscientist Grégoire Courtine has been flying every few months from his lab at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne to another lab in Beijing, China, where he conducts research on monkeys with the aim of treating spinal-cord injuries. The commute is exhausting — on occasion he has even flown to Beijing, done experiments, and returned the same night. But it is worth it, say…

I would assume it's because monkeys are more intelligent than the animals we tend to eat; cows, chickens, sheep & pigs. Also, intentionally paralysing a creature, leaving it to live in that condition, and then performing experimental surgery/procedures on it is significantly different than slaughtering it. Whilst I appreciate the scientists mean well, and I do understand how this could benefit humanity; this sort of…

Someone else already debunked your intelligence argument, but I would like to add something.

Think about how the medical field developed... for biological science you often are going to have to break a few eggs. It sucks... I really understand the motivations you have behind your feelings about hurting animals for human gain, but there isn't any "manual" for biology, hacking away is often the only way to test hypotheses.

Re: Brain implants allow paralysed monkeys to walk

#153

Post by mbfg » Sat, Nov 12, 2016, 3:34 AM UTC

truth_sentinell wrote: post #128

anbende wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there are ways of farming that are ethical that are already in use (the 1% in your argument), then we absolutely should discuss those. We would want to start increasing that number. It changes things considerably whether livestock can be raised ethically. If they can, we can try to do that. If they can't, then the only ethical solution is to stop raising livestock. So discussing that 1% has practical implications.

You can't raise livestock for hundreds of millions of people "ethically" -whatever that means-. That's why people industrialized the process, and on most big factories there's little human intervention. I can't picture the day where people stop eating meat. It just won't happen, not matter what arguments you present. The best way to go is replacing it, and the perfect postulate is lab meat, which I hope, is going to…

once lab meat/lab milk can be produced at or below cost of farming, cows will likely go extinct, unfortunately.

A less vulgar correlary is that once horse racing is outlawed, horses will mostly go extinct as well, as the racing industry is responsible for being able to acquire feed/hay/veternary care for the average horse owner. Without it will be practically impossible to keep 'pleasure' horses.

We humans are nasty creatures.

Re: Brain implants allow paralysed monkeys to walk

#154

Post by nihonde » Sat, Nov 12, 2016, 3:41 AM UTC

digler999 wrote: post #104

nihonde wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case, why not start with human subjects?

Probably because many treatment options can cause harm. So no researcher wants to take the very real risk of harming another human. If you harm an animal unintentionally, and in the name of trying to do something good, not many people will question it. But if you kill a paralyzed patient, or make him suffer excruciating pain, you're likely going to feel remorse and his family is going to demand an answer.

I think the social taboo is self-reinforcing argument. Animals have the same rights as humans. Indeed, we are animals. Those who draw categorical lines to justify their morose experimentation ought to be judged in the same light as someone who would cage a human boy and deliberately sever his spinal cord in the name of a higher good. It's the same. I don't condemn the science, but I do condemn the hypocrisy.

Re: Brain implants allow paralysed monkeys to walk

#155

Post by RehnoLindeque » Sat, Nov 12, 2016, 4:01 AM UTC

mbfg wrote: post #153

truth_sentinell wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't raise livestock for hundreds of millions of people "ethically" -whatever that means-. That's why people industrialized the process, and on most big factories there's little human intervention. I can't picture the day where people stop eating meat. It just won't happen, not matter what arguments you present. The best way to go is replacing it, and the perfect postulate is lab meat, which I hope, is going to…

once lab meat/lab milk can be produced at or below cost of farming, cows will likely go extinct, unfortunately. A less vulgar correlary is that once horse racing is outlawed, horses will mostly go extinct as well, as the racing industry is responsible for being able to acquire feed/hay/veternary care for the average horse owner. Without it will be practically impossible to keep 'pleasure' horses. We humans are nasty…

From what I've heard most land-use in the world goes towards animal agriculture - mainly for growing feed. Don't quote me, but I think it's over 40% of all land use in the USA. On balance I'd be far more concerned about the destruction of habitat for already endangered wildlife.

Re: Brain implants allow paralysed monkeys to walk

#156

Post by FullMtlAlcoholc » Sat, Nov 12, 2016, 4:04 AM UTC

treehau5 wrote: post #42

FullMtlAlcoholc wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of this sentiment, western nations are going to be leaps and bounds behind China and other nations when it comes to technologies /treatments derived from CRISPR. When George Church and ithers called for a moratorium on CRISPR based research, Chinese scientists said suit yourself and cintinued doing research on it. When the day comes that wr can cinduct research like this with simulations and can spare beasts…

> I find it more peculiar that people will treat a dog or other subhuman creature better then they will homeless person. Maybe a tad off topic, but as a older millennial growing up in "dog" culture, thank you for saying this. The times I have seen my fellows, heck even my places of employment, bend over backwards to help the "Humane" society (ironic name, isn't it?), or hold puppy adoption events, or donate supplies…

By all means, I heartily recommend it. I grew up with an adoptive brother from the age of 8. I honestly think I'd be a less complete and more spoiled/selfish person if I grew up as a single child. He now has a wife and child and the rest of us have a new, extended family. Even though I have a degree in Economics, It's not hyperbolic to say that things like these are truly the priceless things that make life worth living.

Re: Brain implants allow paralysed monkeys to walk

#157

Post by kpil » Sat, Nov 12, 2016, 11:35 AM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #89

lostlogin wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why just them though? We don't treat humans that well a lot of the time, and if AI looked to us for an example, things are going to be rough.

I see it as a continuum not as a black and white situation. The higher an animal is on the Encephalization quotient, the more respect they deserve. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient This is why I think it's ok to swat a mosquito that's being annoying, but not to euthanize a monkey that's being annoying.

I think average neuron count in the cerebral cortex is good if not better. Some really large animals are outliers, but the EQ score is probably misleading in smaller animals.

(Except for birds and fish, but hey...)

Re: Brain implants allow paralysed monkeys to walk

#158

Post by theonemind » Sat, Nov 12, 2016, 11:55 AM UTC

FullMtlAlcoholc wrote: post #23

TeeWEE wrote: post #4

I cant help to feel sad for the monkey. I'm not sure this is the way research should be done. Why not try this on a smaller scale animal first before doing it on a monkey? Also you don"t need to cut the spinal cord todo data analysis.

Because of this sentiment, western nations are going to be leaps and bounds behind China and other nations when it comes to technologies /treatments derived from CRISPR. When George Church and ithers called for a moratorium on CRISPR based research, Chinese scientists said suit yourself and cintinued doing research on it. When the day comes that wr can cinduct research like this with simulations and can spare beasts…

We could also make even faster progress by experimenting on humans. If China does that, perhaps we should also do it to keep up with them. We could solve the homeless problem at the same time.

I tend to agree that western nations will lag, but I don't think that makes a good argument for doing it.

Re: Brain implants allow paralysed monkeys to walk

#159

Post by posterboy » Sat, Nov 12, 2016, 12:31 PM UTC

mentos wrote: post #57

Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would assume it's because monkeys are more intelligent than the animals we tend to eat; cows, chickens, sheep & pigs. Also, intentionally paralysing a creature, leaving it to live in that condition, and then performing experimental surgery/procedures on it is significantly different than slaughtering it. Whilst I appreciate the scientists mean well, and I do understand how this could benefit humanity; this sort of…

Philosophical and metaphysical question, what do we do about all of the suffering that has occurred in the past? There is no accumulator for suffering, each state exists independent of the next. If it already happened once, how is it any different if it happens again?

Ever heard of karma? Or the popular scientific butterfly effect?

Re: Brain implants allow paralysed monkeys to walk

#160

Post by ricree » Sat, Nov 12, 2016, 12:50 PM UTC

nihonde wrote: post #154

digler999 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably because many treatment options can cause harm. So no researcher wants to take the very real risk of harming another human. If you harm an animal unintentionally, and in the name of trying to do something good, not many people will question it. But if you kill a paralyzed patient, or make him suffer excruciating pain, you're likely going to feel remorse and his family is going to demand an answer.

I think the social taboo is self-reinforcing argument. Animals have the same rights as humans. Indeed, we are animals. Those who draw categorical lines to justify their morose experimentation ought to be judged in the same light as someone who would cage a human boy and deliberately sever his spinal cord in the name of a higher good. It's the same. I don't condemn the science, but I do condemn the hypocrisy.

>Animals have the same rights as humans. Indeed, we are animals

By that reasoning, oughtn't we grant the same rights to a sea sponge?

It's not clear to me that animals, as a general class, deserve any particular care or rights beyond what we might extend to living creatures in general. So far as we grants rights to animals, the clear criteria seems to be complexity (especially of the intellectual sort) and closeness to humanity.