Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Soviet Scientists Made This Two-Headed Dog | Motherboard

motherboard.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 56 posts

Re: Soviet Scientists Made This Two-Headed Dog | Motherboard

#31

Post by V-2 »

pavlov wrote: post #4

I'm not sure I can agree with the article's claim that these experiments were necessary: "Without that terrifying two-headed dog, in other words, we’d all go down with our failing kidneys." Eventually we would have found other ways to collect the data needed for safe organ transplants than using live mammals. It probably would have delayed the introduction of transplant procedures on humans, so in that sense there wo…

"how much suffering can you justify by saying that it might save human lives down the road?" - human suffering, or canine suffering? What is the 'exchange rate'? And fish suffering? A difficult problem. PS. It's certainly much easier to be the "eventually we would have found other ways"-humanitarian, being a healthy individual :)

Re: Soviet Scientists Made This Two-Headed Dog | Motherboard

#32

Post by V-2 »

cdi wrote: post #23
JanezStupar wrote: post #2

This is sick. The idea of two headed dog is not as sick in itself as is the clear misery these animals are experiencing.

Come on people. What about thousands and thousands of disease model lab rats, genetically engineered to suffer cancer and other horrible illnesses? Should we stop biological and drug research? Misery is electrons flying in the brain. Would you empathize with a computer program simulating pain model, when pain level is increased, or when computer is powered off? Animal is a mechanism. Canidae in nature have no problem…

Essentially everything is electrons flying in the brain. I see animal welfare as a relative value (it does not take precedence over human wellbeing in my opinion), but this particular argument is utterly unconvincing.

Re: Soviet Scientists Made This Two-Headed Dog | Motherboard

#33

Post by astrobe_ »

StavrosK wrote: post #26
cdi wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on people. What about thousands and thousands of disease model lab rats, genetically engineered to suffer cancer and other horrible illnesses? Should we stop biological and drug research? Misery is electrons flying in the brain. Would you empathize with a computer program simulating pain model, when pain level is increased, or when computer is powered off? Animal is a mechanism. Canidae in nature have no problem…

Humans are animals too, and we empathize with them, so there has to be a line somewhere. You either don't empathize with anyone, or you empathize with everyone. We currently believe that it's worth sacrificing mice to make people's lives better, but we would do that, we're people. Hopefully, in the future, no living being will have to suffer for any reason. > Canidae in nature have no problem with killing or inflicti…

Morality applies between humans. Dogs, bears, sharks have no problem tearing you into pieces if their instincts tell them they have to. Other hunting animals have no problem eating their pray alive if they don't have to kill them first. Animals don't play by our rules.

Empathy towards animals really is a side-effect of empathy mechanisms between humans, that we probably need in order to live in society. These side effects shouldn't influence too much your attitude toward animals.

Re: Soviet Scientists Made This Two-Headed Dog | Motherboard

#34

Post by cdi »

StavrosK wrote: post #26
cdi wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on people. What about thousands and thousands of disease model lab rats, genetically engineered to suffer cancer and other horrible illnesses? Should we stop biological and drug research? Misery is electrons flying in the brain. Would you empathize with a computer program simulating pain model, when pain level is increased, or when computer is powered off? Animal is a mechanism. Canidae in nature have no problem…

Humans are animals too, and we empathize with them, so there has to be a line somewhere. You either don't empathize with anyone, or you empathize with everyone. We currently believe that it's worth sacrificing mice to make people's lives better, but we would do that, we're people. Hopefully, in the future, no living being will have to suffer for any reason. > Canidae in nature have no problem with killing or inflicti…

>so there has to be a line somewhere.

And that line is human consciousness.

I empathize with humans and animals too(especially mammalian), of course. But I choose not to be swayed by feelings when I think about policy. Preservation of nature doesn't require empathy, and justice among humans doesn't require it after utilitarian principle is chosen.

Domesticated animals are born and live for our utility. As long as we don't consider animal pet ownership as equal to slavery, I don't see how animal experimentation is problematic.

Re: Soviet Scientists Made This Two-Headed Dog | Motherboard

#35

Post by cLeEOGPw »

I say that the ethics should be left out of the science. If ethics conflict with research - priority should go to research, until alternative, more ethic approach is found. And the ones responsible for alternative should be the ones that claim the current method is unethical - do not let non-scientists to forbid a research just because they think it is unethical.

Re: Soviet Scientists Made This Two-Headed Dog | Motherboard

#36

Post by StavrosK »

astrobe_ wrote: post #33
StavrosK wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are animals too, and we empathize with them, so there has to be a line somewhere. You either don't empathize with anyone, or you empathize with everyone. We currently believe that it's worth sacrificing mice to make people's lives better, but we would do that, we're people. Hopefully, in the future, no living being will have to suffer for any reason. > Canidae in nature have no problem with killing or inflicti…

Morality applies between humans. Dogs, bears, sharks have no problem tearing you into pieces if their instincts tell them they have to. Other hunting animals have no problem eating their pray alive if they don't have to kill them first. Animals don't play by our rules. Empathy towards animals really is a side-effect of empathy mechanisms between humans, that we probably need in order to live in society. These side ef…

I disagree. I believe that beings that are capable of feeling pain shouldn't.

Re: Soviet Scientists Made This Two-Headed Dog | Motherboard

#37

Post by StavrosK »

cdi wrote: post #34
StavrosK wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are animals too, and we empathize with them, so there has to be a line somewhere. You either don't empathize with anyone, or you empathize with everyone. We currently believe that it's worth sacrificing mice to make people's lives better, but we would do that, we're people. Hopefully, in the future, no living being will have to suffer for any reason. > Canidae in nature have no problem with killing or inflicti…

>so there has to be a line somewhere. And that line is human consciousness. I empathize with humans and animals too(especially mammalian), of course. But I choose not to be swayed by feelings when I think about policy. Preservation of nature doesn't require empathy, and justice among humans doesn't require it after utilitarian principle is chosen. Domesticated animals are born and live for our utility. As long as we…

Human consciousness is entirely arbitrary. There's no definition that will include all humans and only all humans.

Re: Soviet Scientists Made This Two-Headed Dog | Motherboard

#38

Post by arachnid92 »

cLeEOGPw wrote: post #35

I say that the ethics should be left out of the science. If ethics conflict with research - priority should go to research, until alternative, more ethic approach is found. And the ones responsible for alternative should be the ones that claim the current method is unethical - do not let non-scientists to forbid a research just because they think it is unethical.

What? Really? This argument is something I would expect someone like Josef Mengele to say, not a modern human being in the 21st century.

You can't just leave ethics out of science. Doing so would pave the way for so many atrocities against both humans and animals "in the name of science" (and history is evidence of this).

Re: Soviet Scientists Made This Two-Headed Dog | Motherboard

#39

Post by nobodyshere »

vjvj wrote: post #30

You can compensate humans for what you do to them. We invented money for that. Furthermore, humans can make decisions to weigh up the costs, benefits and risks associated with any such offer. Animals can neither be compensated nor communicate their preferences for such decisions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 Please, tell us more about compensations and preferences.

Re: Soviet Scientists Made This Two-Headed Dog | Motherboard

#40

Post by alcari »

vjvj wrote: post #30

You can compensate humans for what you do to them. We invented money for that. Furthermore, humans can make decisions to weigh up the costs, benefits and risks associated with any such offer. Animals can neither be compensated nor communicate their preferences for such decisions.

That presupposes they have sufficient sapience to make the decision.
Post reply on HN