U.S. surgeons transplant pig heart into human patient • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. surgeons transplant pig heart into human patient

#701

Post by Sporktacular » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 2:05 AM UTC

fastball wrote: post #691

zizee wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your missing the point I am trying to make. Hint: It's not for my gratification, I am not asking people to show sympathy. Ironically, you accuse people of "strawmanning", and then proceed do the same to me. Perhaps take a leaf out of your own book and stop assuming intent. Have a splendid day.

> with a comment that showed no sympathy > but they were ignoring the original call to express sympathy to these animals. How is this not asking people to show sympathy?

It's not for show. As I said it was weird IMO that no concern for the pig was expressed. Given their capacity for suffering I would hope that people genuinely feel concern, which is not an invitation for hollow expressions of pity. Just doing that wouldn't make a lack of concern any less strange to me.

But dexwiz apparently enquired, or was at least aware that it seemed to have a reasonably good life. I guess that addressed my comment.

Re: U.S. surgeons transplant pig heart into human patient

#702

Post by Sporktacular » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 2:15 AM UTC

suifbwish wrote: post #640

zizee wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, perhaps it can be justified by the greater good, but that should not preclude feeling sorry for the animal in question.

It’s perfectly fine to feel sorry for the animal but there is no moral obligation for others to do so.

Only because technically we have no obligation of any kind to feel anything for anything.

But if a human was being experimented without their informed choice we would have a moral obligation to try to inform them, free them, to enquire about their welfare. What's the basis for thinking it be so different for other animals?

And if you're thinking 'but we can't obtain their informed choice' maybe we have our answer.

Re: U.S. surgeons transplant pig heart into human patient

#703

Post by Sporktacular » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 2:25 AM UTC

deltaonefour wrote: post #629

riversflow wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Human civilizations' current abundance of resources allows us the luxury to develop moral "philosophies" You've got it backwards; Human's current abundance is the creation of human cooperation, which doesn't really work without some sort of ethical framework. Philosophy enables us to achieve more, it is not the result of our achievement.

In order to achieve the leisure time you need to develop these philosophies you need civilization first. Otherwise you'd be too worried about hunting and gathering to even find the time to think about these things. A very Complex civilization requires what you talk about, but make no mistake; civilization itself came first.

That depends how you define civilisation. Margaret Mead said it started the moment people went from abandoning to caring for each other in spite of catastrophic injuries that would have required very long periods of recovery.

Someone made the decision to care for another, much less functional person at their own significant expense. Was a philosophical principle behind that or just enlightened self interest? Maybe we have an innate capacity for empathy. Other animals appear to as well.

Re: U.S. surgeons transplant pig heart into human patient

#704

Post by Sporktacular » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 2:34 AM UTC

gerash wrote: post #469

deltaonefour wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not weird at all. Biologically speaking, we are designed to eat meat. Our bodies produce all of the enzymes, such as protease and lipase, necessary for the breakdown and absorption of meat. The weird thing is how we developed sympathy and concern for such things. Human civilizations' current abundance of resources allows us the luxury to develop moral "philosophies" and become "vegetarians" effectively masking o…

I agree with this take. Chimps kill and eat smaller monkeys all the time. If you watch any nature documentary you can see how ruthless animals are as it's all a survival game after all. I'm no biologist but the empathy / sympathy part also seems to be an evolved trait. It should bring stability to a social group and reduce injuries due to needless in-fighting which effectively ensures better survival as a group.

"It should bring stability to a social group and reduce injuries due to needless in-fighting which effectively ensures better survival as a group."

That's probably how it started, but the definition of social group expanded as we came to realise how arbitrary and culturally determined social group boundaries are. Once we account for those biases, and start to see all animals as just trying to survive in the world, it's a natural progression to extend that empathy to them too.

Re: U.S. surgeons transplant pig heart into human patient

#705

Post by Sporktacular » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 2:46 AM UTC

wanda wrote: post #533

Sporktacular wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird how this is said without a shred of sympathy or concern for an intelligent, helpless creature. Weirder how it can be said without a sympathetic or concerned response. I hope we can someday move beyond seeing animals as a mere resource.

Are you... are you serious? The day that every statement of unfortunate fact has to be prefaced by an expression of emotional disapproval... that is the day I officially give up on our already laughable species. No one should have to explicitly state their disapproval of something unpleasant -- it can go without saying. And I, for one, prefer to get facts and information without a person's opinion on the matter -- no…

It's not about appearances. Referring to the data of how many usable organs came out of a prisoner, without any mention of their emotional state or state of health would be weird. With the obvious knowledge that a pig is capable of experiencing fear, depression and pain, why is it any less weird to not give any consideration to a pig?

An empty gesture of sympathy while feeling no concern wouldn't make that any less weird. It would just add dishonesty to the existing shitty state of affairs.

Re: U.S. surgeons transplant pig heart into human patient

#706

Post by Sporktacular » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 2:48 AM UTC

throw10920 wrote: post #694

wanda wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you... are you serious? The day that every statement of unfortunate fact has to be prefaced by an expression of emotional disapproval... that is the day I officially give up on our already laughable species. No one should have to explicitly state their disapproval of something unpleasant -- it can go without saying. And I, for one, prefer to get facts and information without a person's opinion on the matter -- no…

I believe that the GP poster was intentionally using emotionally-charged language in order to try to push that position, or alternatively to make an excuse to bring it up in the thread without otherwise having a reason to do so. Not really in the spirit of HN, of course.

Neither. Just my POV.

Re: U.S. surgeons transplant pig heart into human patient

#707

Post by nsonha » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 2:50 AM UTC

kbelder wrote: post #695

nsonha wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not even a question, being born into a life of slavery and ultimately being slaughtered is worse than not being born. Think about it, you are born into a prison and given no chance to even develop a proper consciousness. This is very different than a fully aware human getting locked up in a prison.

I don't know that all slaves would agree with you.

I made that last sentence just to preemptively respond to your argument.

Also live stock is much worse than slavery

Re: U.S. surgeons transplant pig heart into human patient

#708

Post by Sporktacular » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 2:56 AM UTC

theplumber wrote: post #282

Sporktacular wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird how this is said without a shred of sympathy or concern for an intelligent, helpless creature. Weirder how it can be said without a sympathetic or concerned response. I hope we can someday move beyond seeing animals as a mere resource.

I find such a remark weird given that "you" are serving such "helpless" creatures at your favorite restaurant. I think it's the ultimate hypocrisy. Not to mention that we have a situation where helpless creatures are sacrificed for the science/common good of human beings and the other situation where they are murdered for the taste of their meat & bones.

Maybe the restaurant can resolve the hypocrisy by not doing that too.

Whataboutism isn't an argument.

Re: U.S. surgeons transplant pig heart into human patient

#709

Post by Sporktacular » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 3:10 AM UTC

theplumber wrote: post #316

JCharante wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I'm vegan and I find it disheartening how they can talk about a Pig like they can talk about a cement brick.

I'm pretty sure you've enjoyed meat before going vegan. Now you enjoy lecturing others. As far as the language used is concerned humans get the same "cement brick" treatment in scientific papers. How would it help using a compassionate language? It would be just a distraction from the subject.

Okay, let's go with your human comparison, wouldn't it also be weird if a human was subjected to 30 experiments before being killed, all described without any reference to the state of the person's health or mentality? Would that not make you pause and reflect on how inhuman it is, or how so we can be?

Humans can make informed choices when studied by science, and when they aren't society strongly disapproves - registering that disapproval by criticising the lack of compassion given - and expressed.

But how exactly how did JCharante lecture anyone?

Re: U.S. surgeons transplant pig heart into human patient

#710

Post by Sporktacular » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 3:37 AM UTC

teekert wrote: post #527

Sporktacular wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird how this is said without a shred of sympathy or concern for an intelligent, helpless creature. Weirder how it can be said without a sympathetic or concerned response. I hope we can someday move beyond seeing animals as a mere resource.

I think it's good that you can have empathy for the animal but you could also sympathize with the people (inc children) that may someday have such a heart as their only option. Everybody wants to move beyond animals, a lot of research is being done on Organs on a Chip etc, but until then, we have animals. See them like the nuclear powerplants that we use instead of coal, until we can finally move to fully renewable e…

Personally I'd probably be the same. But this scenario would probably demolish my objectivity so completely that I would no longer be remotely able to pick right from wrong. If my kid was abused I would probably want cruel and unusual punishment instituted, if my kid was groomed online I would probably want to abolish all encryption or privacy laws standing in the way of finding the person doing it, etc.

That said, I still think it would be reasonable to want to know that they weren't in any agony. And there would probably be a point where I would think something is deeply wrong if a hundred intelligent creatures all suffered terribly just so that one person can live.

But in the end I'd probably go along with it, think we have way too much power for one species and donate or do everything I could to try make it right, and fail.