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

Novel drug could protect brains from damage after repeat concussions

medicalxpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 108 posts

Re: Novel drug could protect brains from damage after repeat concussions

#71

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

moltenc wrote: post #60
maipen wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we humans are more important than them. I don’t understand the issue. We should try to minimize the pain and suffering of these test subjects, in a few decades I am sure we will have better alternatives…

> Because we humans are more important than them. The profoundly unaware speciesism and selfishness in this comment is exactly why there is so much suffering and pain in this world.

I'm not sure what this comment is supposed to mean. There's a faulty premise or something. You might as well say "the greed of universal constants is so high and that's exactly why there are so many chlorine atoms in the ocean".

I'm minimally interested in reducing the level of human pain that exists in the world. I'm absolutely uninterested in reducing the level of non-human pain in the world unless there are practical benefits for that effort.

I don't even know what "suffering" means. Is "suffering" pain, just a synonym? If so, why say "suffering and pain"? Is it some sort of fallacy to try to add emotional weight to your statement? Is suffering distinct from pain? Can you measure suffering? Detect it with some instrument? Do you even have a definition for suffering?

"Suffering" is as mystical and meaningless as when the religious talk about souls. When people use that word, I suspect very strongly that they're incapable of consistently remaining rational.

Re: Novel drug could protect brains from damage after repeat concussions

#72

Post by jayGlow »

moltenc wrote: post #60
maipen wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we humans are more important than them. I don’t understand the issue. We should try to minimize the pain and suffering of these test subjects, in a few decades I am sure we will have better alternatives…

> Because we humans are more important than them. The profoundly unaware speciesism and selfishness in this comment is exactly why there is so much suffering and pain in this world.

having an in group bias is pretty universal among social animals. do you really expect people to value another species over their own?

Re: Novel drug could protect brains from damage after repeat concussions

#73

Post by corethree »

Codesleuth wrote: post #11

> A 54-g metal (tungsten) bolt was used to deliver an impact to the dorsal aspect of the skull, resulting in a rotational acceleration of the head through the Kimwipe. Mice underwent seven repetitive less-than-mild injuries (rlmTBI, 24-inch height; W/5 mm flat) OR repetitive mild injuries (rmTBI, 36-inch height; W/5 mm flat) in 9 days. This seems very cruel, even in the face of progress. The price that animals pay fo…

Not as cruel as animal slaughter. Imagine the horror of being sliced into flesh cubes for consumption.

Compared to that this is tame.

Re: Novel drug could protect brains from damage after repeat concussions

#74

Post by alecco »

Codesleuth wrote: post #11

> A 54-g metal (tungsten) bolt was used to deliver an impact to the dorsal aspect of the skull, resulting in a rotational acceleration of the head through the Kimwipe. Mice underwent seven repetitive less-than-mild injuries (rlmTBI, 24-inch height; W/5 mm flat) OR repetitive mild injuries (rmTBI, 36-inch height; W/5 mm flat) in 9 days. This seems very cruel, even in the face of progress. The price that animals pay fo…

This is nothing compared to wild life, like starvation, disease, or being eaten alive by a cat. Just check the NatureIsMetal subreddit.

I do take issue with redundant animal testing for trivial things like cosmetics.

Re: Novel drug could protect brains from damage after repeat concussions

#75

Post by dekhn »

Codesleuth wrote: post #11

> A 54-g metal (tungsten) bolt was used to deliver an impact to the dorsal aspect of the skull, resulting in a rotational acceleration of the head through the Kimwipe. Mice underwent seven repetitive less-than-mild injuries (rlmTBI, 24-inch height; W/5 mm flat) OR repetitive mild injuries (rmTBI, 36-inch height; W/5 mm flat) in 9 days. This seems very cruel, even in the face of progress. The price that animals pay fo…

I used to work at a hospital that did radiation research. Their animal of choice was dogs. Few things sounded worse than hearing the dogs start to wail (as a group) multiple times a day. They would basically irradiate dogs to give them cancer and then study them as they died.

I stick to tardigrades, but even then I feel bad if I accidentally kill one or many.

Re: Novel drug could protect brains from damage after repeat concussions

#77

Post by AlwaysRock »

rob74 wrote: post #24
xlii wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know there aren’t any sports which are completely safe and without side effects. Sport can ruin your joints (eg. running), spine (eg. weightlifting) and cause plethora of other health issues (anecdotally I know many people who got serious injuries from while leisurely playing team games). Usually there’s net gain from those activities, and what sport one practices vastly depends on preference and I’d rath…

Cycling is better for the joints than running. Unfortunately, bicycles are so damned effective that you have to cycle for a lot longer to burn the same amount of calories as when running...

Isnt it fairly common for cyclist to get seriously injured in other ways though? Most serious cyclists I know have had at least 1 seemingly major accident with a car. And I live in a city that has a pretty significant bike lanes/routes distribution.

Re: Novel drug could protect brains from damage after repeat concussions

#78

Post by continuational »

ethanbond wrote: post #58
Swenrekcah wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is actually no completely objective way in which it’s possible to determine the relative importance or sacredness of an individual’s life between one species and another. There is no particularly good objective reason for me to value my neighbours life more than a fish. However I choose to be an unabashed specieist and value any individual human life above any individual other life.

Well the inconvenient thing is that objectively we aren't more important than other species. What you're actually doing is just overriding that objective fact with a subjective one.

Important for what?

Re: Novel drug could protect brains from damage after repeat concussions

#79

Post by moritzwarhier »

ethanbond wrote: post #58
Swenrekcah wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is actually no completely objective way in which it’s possible to determine the relative importance or sacredness of an individual’s life between one species and another. There is no particularly good objective reason for me to value my neighbours life more than a fish. However I choose to be an unabashed specieist and value any individual human life above any individual other life.

Well the inconvenient thing is that objectively we aren't more important than other species. What you're actually doing is just overriding that objective fact with a subjective one.

Well so objectively no life is worth protecting or what do you want to say?

Edit: or do you see cross-species minimization of pain as an objective objective (ha)? Or maximization of pleasure?

There is no "objective" answer to ethics.

But yes, if we want to base it on empathy, it would mean XY... so many philosophical arguments have been made about this. But it stands there is no "objective" ethics, at least to my knowledge.

Without even involving animals, there's not even a definite way how to answer the trolley problem without violating my subjective ethical values.

Human life as an ulterior value seems to be the best bet for explaining rational ethics.

Re: Novel drug could protect brains from damage after repeat concussions

#80

Post by humansareok1 »

ethanbond wrote: post #58
Swenrekcah wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is actually no completely objective way in which it’s possible to determine the relative importance or sacredness of an individual’s life between one species and another. There is no particularly good objective reason for me to value my neighbours life more than a fish. However I choose to be an unabashed specieist and value any individual human life above any individual other life.

Well the inconvenient thing is that objectively we aren't more important than other species. What you're actually doing is just overriding that objective fact with a subjective one.

Go ahead and objectively prove humans are less important than other species.
Post reply on HN