• Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    What is the difference exactly? It’s both animal testing. It’s going to be cruel by its very nature. They’re testing on animals because they’re not allowed to test on humans. If they could they would.

    Everyone here acting like this is all black and white. Without animal testing there’s no modern medicine. That is a choise we could have made but didn’t. Thousands of animals had to suffer so that millions of people would not. From an utilitairian point of view it’s a no-brainer but it’s still cruel as fuck and there’s no getting around that. Animal testing or no - both leads to individuals suffering unecessarily.

    I, for one aren’t willing to take the moral high ground here, because I eat meat ie. take part in the chicken/pig holocaust.

    • photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I guess I’ll take the floor as a vegetarian and say I agree, but that doesn’t mean we can’t triage the extent of animal trials. Was it really necessary to give monkeys implants? I don’t really know how you’d test that system before putting it in people without testing it on animals first. Do we really need this kind of implant? Well, it’s a BCI, which lots of teams around the world are working on, so Neuralink would never be the only ones doing trials. As AI get ever better, I think it’s important that we have the ability to communicate with it better and maneuver more easily and naturally in cyberspace.