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

41–50 of 56 posts

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

#41

Post by vjvj »

nobodyshere wrote: post #39
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.

Yes of course humans can be forced just as animals are. However, under a functioning legal system, they can be experimented on if and only if they approve having viewed and understood the potential benefits and costs and the risks associated.

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

#42

Post by vjvj »

alcari wrote: post #40
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.

Yes it does. One would hope that in a properly governed country, information would be presented in a way such that the person making a decision understands that the costs and benefits are not guaranteed and that there is a risk associated - in the same way that companies have strict guidelines on how they report and investors are warned of the risks.

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

#43

Post by ubiq »

VladRussian2 wrote: post #11
acqq wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eventually we would have found other ways to collect the data needed for safe organ transplants than using live mammals. To start doing the transplants you have to actually do the transplants. Insisting on avoiding doing it on mammals, wanting to do on humans gives only one solution: would you really prefer to immediately experiment on humans instead of mammals?

putting second heart into a dog may look like some transplant experimentation. Butchering and sewing 2 dogs together - nope, it is 1959, it is for the "wow" effect in the show of "the Soviet science under the wise leadership of the Communist Party is the most advanced science in the world". No wonder that they freely let the LIFE journalists in.

I'm pretty sure if they would have used lab rats nobody would complain about the "butchering" so much.

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

#44

Post by cabalamat »

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.

Good idea, let's start by experimenting on you.

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

#45

Post by JabavuAdams »

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…

Your human-centric arguments are very weak, as I'll detail below.

The more practical danger is one of dehumanization. If there is a legal (not scientific) line that you can neatly draw between human (suffering counts) and non-human (suffering doesn't count), then there will always be pressure to classify undesirables as non-human. This is always there in the background, and if we enable it, humans get abused. So, there is some practical value in being over-protective of creatures even if we don't think they're fully people.

Yes, we as a society should figure out what level of suffering we're okay with inflicting to pursue certain goals. It's perfectly legitimate for people to hold the opinion that the right answer is "none".

> Misery is electrons flying in the brain.

This is irrelevant and dismissive. It does not distinguish between human and non-human misery, unless you believe in some magical human sauce.

> Animal is a mechanism.

This is not a convincing argument. In my life and studies, I've yet to see a convincing reason why humans are not also mechanisms (assuming a broad enough definition that includes mammals). In other words, humans and mammals are much closer on the mechanism-complexity-spectrum than say rats and mechanical watches.

I would not empathize with a single ant's suffering (if it even can), but I would empathize with a dog's suffering.

> Canidae in nature have no problem with killing or inflicting suffering btw.

True, but we hold ourselves to a more restrictive standard.

> Would you empathize with a computer program simulating pain model

Your use of the word "simulating" pre-supposes the conclusion. This is a more problematic case. Part of suffering, I think, is the inability to control the response. I.e. if all humans had the bio-machinery to turn off pain or worry, then it changes the equation. I assume that any computer program that's sufficiently complicated to convince us it's a general AI would also be able to rewrite itself to remove suffering (except by choice). That said, maybe its esoteric and abstract concerns relating to ensuring its survival could cause it suffering.

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

#46

Post by JabavuAdams »

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.

You're designing a human system with no feedback loops or separation of powers.

A minimal understanding of human nature, and a quick reading of history should convince you that this is incredibly stupid, to the point of being wilfully negligent.

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

#47

Post by JabavuAdams »

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…

What is "human consciousness"?

These are the so-called "suitcase words". They're neat and compact, but once you open the suitcase, you realize you had no idea what was inside.

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

#48

Post by V-2 »

StavrosK wrote: post #37
cdi wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

"And you my friend, how do you know I am not a fish — you are not I?" ;) It's splitting hairs... Yes of course there is no absolutely precise definition of human consciousness, but it does not mean that the term becomes useless. I can't draw a precise line between a plain and a mountain (where does one start and the other end?), but it does not mean I can never tell about anything that it's not a mountain

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

#49

Post by StavrosK »

V-2 wrote: post #48
StavrosK wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"And you my friend, how do you know I am not a fish — you are not I?" ;) It's splitting hairs... Yes of course there is no absolutely precise definition of human consciousness, but it does not mean that the term becomes useless. I can't draw a precise line between a plain and a mountain (where does one start and the other end?), but it does not mean I can never tell about anything that it's not a mountain

The term doesn't become useless, but it becomes non-usable where laws and morality are concerned. Should we experiment on cognitively impaired people because they are less intelligent than a dog or a dolphin? How about month-old babies?

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

#50

Post by V-2 »

StavrosK wrote: post #49
V-2 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"And you my friend, how do you know I am not a fish — you are not I?" ;) It's splitting hairs... Yes of course there is no absolutely precise definition of human consciousness, but it does not mean that the term becomes useless. I can't draw a precise line between a plain and a mountain (where does one start and the other end?), but it does not mean I can never tell about anything that it's not a mountain

The term doesn't become useless, but it becomes non-usable where laws and morality are concerned. Should we experiment on cognitively impaired people because they are less intelligent than a dog or a dolphin? How about month-old babies?

Intelligence and consciousness are not synonymous at all. As for the month-old babies (or a boxer knocked unconscious - not as cute, but still ;) ), I think consciousness in this context should be understood as something specific of our species as such, rather than of any individual in particular.
Post reply on HN