Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Flipside on November 09, 2013, 01:29:40 pm
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24455141
A bit of a storm has erupted about a science 'kit' available soon which allows the user to control a living Cockroach after using invasive surgery to insert electrodes into it.
The company claims this is with the aim of encouraging children to 'understand Neuroscience', but personally I find that excuse a bit thin, there's only so much you can learn about Neuroscience by following the instructions of how to polish a cockroaches cranium and insert a wire into its Thorax.
I suppose on the other side of the argument, I dissected a frog when I did science, but then, at least it was dead before I started making holes in it.
-
This is sick!
-
I'm trying to remain open-minded on the whole cockroach thing itself, though it is difficult, because as cold as it sounds we are unlikely to ever run out of them but that still doesn't forgive the way in which the creatures are treated for this.
I've actually felt that some limited live-animal experimentation is a, if not 'good', at least necessary thing in the case of protecting/learning about ourselves or other species, but this, to me, just seems like using life as a kind of 'executive toy' and that cannot be a good direction to push the human psyche in.
-
Yes, we're not likely to run out of humans either.
If there's any value to be gained from doing this, it belongs in textbooks, not for the public to play with.
I have discovered this came about through a kickstarter:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/backyardbrains/the-roboroach-control-a-living-insect-from-your-sm
The big headline: The Roboroach: Control a living insect from your smartphone!
The Roboroach: Control a living insect from your smartphone!
And the first words in large letters:
Control the movements of a live cockroach from your own mobile device! This is the world's first commercially available cyborg!
Yeah. They're really going after the young scientist with this. :rolleyes:
There's interesting reading in the comments.
-
it's a ****ing cockroach people, you commit crimes of far greater enormity by doing basically anything whatsoever
-
@Lorric
Oh, I agree, Neuroscience is kind of like Nuclear Science, it stands to benefit mankind, but you wouldn't want to know your neighbour is having a tinker at it for a laugh.
@Phantom, true, you'd do more damage to the insect population if you trod on the cockroach, and very few people have problems with that, which is what I meant by my second post. I think the problem is that there is a 'humane' issue on the difference between just killing the thing quickly and submitting it to 'experimentation'.
Problem is that's a big question of 'relative morals' which is why I'm kind of trying to remain open-minded despite my own reservations. I wouldn't do it myself, most certainly, but considering public attitude towards insects anyway I don't think it's going to really make the world all that different either.
-
but considering public attitude towards insects anyway I don't think it's going to really make the world all that different either.
Well, despite this, there seems to be plenty of people against this, if google has anything to say about it, which is a good restorer in faith in humanity, despite the fact this thing got kickstarted. You can generally tell the quality of a person/people by their attitude towards animals.
-
but considering public attitude towards insects anyway I don't think it's going to really make the world all that different either.
Well, despite this, there seems to be plenty of people against this, if google has anything to say about it, which is a good restorer in faith in humanity, despite the fact this thing got kickstarted. You can generally tell the quality of a person/people by their attitude towards animals.
I wasn't clear enough on what I meant by 'not all that much difference', so I can understand how you saw it as that. What I mean is that people will do what they choose to do, and I suspect that the majority will probably simply not bother either through choice or disinterest, a majority of the minority will do it once or twice and discover how boring and pointless it is and stop once the novelty factor has worn off, and only a tiny, tiny fraction of them will actually do this on a regular basis.
-
but considering public attitude towards insects anyway I don't think it's going to really make the world all that different either.
Well, despite this, there seems to be plenty of people against this, if google has anything to say about it, which is a good restorer in faith in humanity, despite the fact this thing got kickstarted. You can generally tell the quality of a person/people by their attitude towards animals.
I wasn't clear enough on what I meant by 'not all that much difference', so I can understand how you saw it as that. What I mean is that people will do what they choose to do, and I suspect that the majority will probably simply not bother either through choice or disinterest, a majority of the minority will do it once or twice and discover how boring and pointless it is and stop once the novelty factor has worn off, and only a tiny, tiny fraction of them will actually do this on a regular basis.
This seems likely. Especially considering the price, this is no $2 app.
It still got kickstarted though, and now seems to be getting a lot of publicity, negative or otherwise. I guess we'll see. Hopefully it will simply fade into obscurity and that will be that.
-
On the one hand, it's a cockroach. On the other, this kind of experimentation in universities has to go through an ethics commitee and has clear objectives beyond "hey isn't that neat."
However, I don't think cruelty to animals statues generally apply to insects, so I'd be surprised if any of this runs afoul of the law. It is certainly sufficiently unethical that I wouldn't contemplate buying one, though. That said, I've also readily exterminated various kinds of wasps and ants when they invade and I don't have a real ethical dilemma with that.
-
This device will be banned as soon as some dumb kid injures / psychologically tortures another kid with it.
-
You can generally tell the quality of a person/people by their attitude towards animals.
tell me lorric what is your attitude towards sponges
-
I squish anything creepy that makes its way into my domicile without any qualms at all, but I'm not about to screw around with the thing's brain beforehand.
-
This is just rubbish, why would anyone want a zombie cockroach.
On the subject of moral dilemma being discussed, I somewhat agree on animal testing for the improvement of our knowledge yet this seems to be by far any kind of knowledge-seeking project.
-
/me contemplates building an army of these just to see how terrified Nuke becomes......
-
In general I won't bother people who kill creepy things that enter their home, if all they're doing is killing it quickly and being done with it. I would likely say something if it was done in front of me or if I could see it was about to happen I'd likely try to save the creature, but besides that, I won't hassle you. I don't like it, but it's too normal and too common a thing that people just take for granted and see nothing wrong whatsoever in doing. I don't think humanity is ready for compassion towards insects yet to be commonplace. "Higher" forms of life, we're getting there, we're making progress.
-
the sentience of a cockroach is so alien from our own it seems almost insultingly anthropomorphic to worry about causing it 'unnecessary suffering'
-
1) I was about to critique your usage of the word "sentience", until I looked it up and realized that you have technically used it in a correct, albeit significantly less common way. So I learned something.
2) I actually tend to agree. That, and cockroaches are filthy creatures that thrive on decay and waste, human or otherwise, and I have no qualms with this.
-
I don't think humanity is ready for compassion towards insects yet to be commonplace.
Look, we're talking about a creature that can live for weeks without a head- I don't think cockroaches feel pain or sensory data in anything approximating that of higher life. In fact, their nervous system is so basic, a cheap circuit board can override their motor functions. Yes, this is definitely a species that we should stress out over one day potentially debating philosophy with. /s
That said, I don't think this company really has the right idea. "Graduate-level research early in life" my ass. It's possible that this whole row is an elaborate troll to get people talking (though I doubt it), but I don't think things are going to work out for the company as they'd hope. If they're sincere in their desire to get kids thinking about neuroscience, then I'll give them a point for trying, but overall I think they're sending the wrong message.
Ed: There was another thing I'd like to point out, re:
In general I won't bother people who kill creepy things that enter their home, if all they're doing is killing it quickly and being done with it.
A lot of people use poison sprays to kill unwanted bugs in their houses. I, for one, do- mostly to take out an errant wasp/hornet because I'm somewhat allergic to stinging bugs and don't want to chance a physical solution. These poisons are neurotoxins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrethroid) that have an overall similar effect (on insects!) as organophosphate neurotoxins like sarin or ricin. Just a little food for thought.
-
I have never caught a cockroach, and have only ever seen them abroad, so I have almost no experience with them.
But the insects I do catch I can clearly see fear and if they get hurt, pain in them. And most of these are smaller creatures than cockroaches.
The argument that we don't know so we shouldn't bother is wrong. Unless there is truly some worthy benefit to humanity to justify it, leave innocent creatures alone.
EDIT: @ Ironbeer
You're protecting yourself, so that's okay. This is actually the very first time bug spray has come up for me. People normally just kill them. Step on them, whack them, etc.
Put the creatures out of their misery if you can please.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22786371
Shows that this has been around for months and that concerned people were already onto this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/17839642
Cockroach propaganda about why they should not squished :P
-
Unless there is truly some worthy benefit to humanity to justify it, leave innocent creatures alone.
I know you're not arguing specifically with me, but this comment is a pretty good jumping-off point for me to expand just a bit on one of my earlier points. There IS a worthy benefit to humanity to justify this sort of live experimentation. Understanding how nervous systems work in simpler creatures can be expanded into an understanding for more complex creatures and potentially be leveraged into useful medical knowledge. "For Science" is an acceptable reason for me, but that was never my point of contention.
My point of contention with the company is that this system trivializes what they even call "graduate-level" research. That comment makes it sound like anybody with a smartphone, a hundred dollars to spare, and an unlucky cockroach can perform neurological studies that are usually done at, y'know, real labs with y'know, real scientists.
-
I said back in the thread somewhere that this belongs in the lab, if it's worth the trouble at all, not among the general public.
And as for this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/17839642
Made me smile. I suddenly like cockroaches now. :)
-
But the insects I do catch I can clearly see fear and if they get hurt, pain in them. And most of these are smaller creatures than cockroaches.
This is textbook anthropomorphism. What you are seeing is your projection of your own emotions onto an animal with a nervous system which has developed along an almost totally divergent path to our own (http://tolweb.org/Bilateria/2459), modulated further by your own peculiar inability to consider any perspective on the world beyond that which is immediately apparent to you.
-
Now I must say that this is really neat
I will also say I don't give a flying damn about cockroaches
Science prevails
-
Science
marches pulses on!
-
Is there some scientific consensus whether cockroaches feel pain or suffer? Because thats what this ethical question crucialy depends on and I am not going to make a judgement until that is answered.
-
That question is simply not one that can be answered by scientific means. What is 'pain'? For other mammals we can at least attribute it to the same basic neural structures as in ourselves and draw some measure of objective empathy from that; but like I said earlier, the only real commonality between our nervous systems and those of cockroaches is that they're both arranged in a kind of tube.
-
1) I was about to critique your usage of the word "sentience", until I looked it up and realized that you have technically used it in a correct, albeit significantly less common way. So I learned something.
"Significantly less common" depends entirely on experience. The word you thought "sentience" meant is probably "sapience", and despite constant misuse by (some) sci-fi authors, the two are not interchangeable.
-
Look, guys, there's really no ethical issues with the cockroaches themselves. They're invertebrates. They don't have a sufficiently well-developed neural structure to have any kind of consciousness about what's happening them. They have some memory capacity and some ability to learn, but they really don't perceive things as we do.
They also recover from damn near any injury by their next molting and are regularly subjected to much more rigorous research with higher potential of limb loss or getting eaten by other test animals which certainly don't necessarily bother KILLING the damn roach before slowly melting them in their digestive fluids (either before or after eating them); roaches are regularly used as fodder for other animals such as frogs, snakes, spiders, preying mantises and small mammals. But these roaches fulfill their purpose.
The actual ethical issue these people are concerned (but won't likely say it) is that this is being marketed for children and then compared to the ages-old sociopathic fun that children do with insects they catch - like pushing straw through the abdomen of a bumblebee and then watch it try to fly, or just pulling legs off insects one by one - for fun.
While this device is quite ingenious and might have actual research applications, the concern is probably that the children who do the aforementioned things will just see this as a good justification for having their fun with small insects, rather than any scientific ambition or wish to learn about the experiments.
And, frankly, I have to say I sort of agree with this. I'm perfectly fine if educational facilities would acquire these devices and demonstrate the basic use of electrodes to manipulate a nervous system of a living animal. However, selling these to general public (and specifically FOR children) seems a bit dubious. This isn't the type of playing I would want to encourage in a child - there are other, better ways for a budding neuroscientist to learn how nervous systems work. I can think of several examples; grown neural nets, computer simulations, other similar learning tools. If some schools want to include this in their biology syllabus or neuroscience syllabus or whatever, fine - have the children operate these wonderful tools in a controlled environment, with a clear purpose of learning with the activities rather than making the cockroach do funny things and then posting a video about it on youtube.
For other than educational or research purposes (and, I have no doubt, surveillance utility) this is a toy with little other redeeming qualities than... having fun making the roach do what you command it to do. And, while I don't particularly feel much sympathy for the roaches considering they're not actually being harmed AND they are a pest, I do think that there are some ethical problems about needlessly poking about an animal for fun.
Here you can see a demonstration of something rather analogous being done to a Shivan (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=86009):
-
This sort of thing is an evolution of the chemistry kit. I'm sure that a very small number of kids that got chemistry kits as kids grew up to become drug cooks or make explosives. I'm sure a much, much larger number grew up to become chemists, chemical engineers or other scientists. And I'm sure the vast majority saw a few uses then got put away and had no great impact on the child's life. This is the same. The kinds of kids who'll get them will be mainly the kinds who are already of a scientific bent, or they'll get them from a relative who is. I don't think that it will make psychopaths out of them, and the roach itself is an absolute non issue for reasons already spelled out in this thread.
If I knew a kid who I thought might like a product like this I'd have zero hesitation in buying it for them.
-
How can you say it's harmless, you're cutting into the creature's skull and antennae.
And yes, I am very opposed to the idea of creatures, of any kind, being there as nothing more than toys for our amusement.
-
I just hope that everyone who gets their kid one makes sure to explain why it's ok on cockroaches (assuming it is; people who get one of these surely think so in any case) and how messing with more complex animals is not the same thing and is not ok.
-
It wouldn't be okay for more complex animals? I mean yeah, doing it while they're awake sure, but if you could upgrade from controlling cockroaches to rats... that'd certainly be something
A little anesthetic to put them to sleep, then voila. Cyborg Rat, controlled by humans with Science!
-
Oddly enough, what you say as a joke is the main concern being expressed by animal welfare groups, that without proper discrimination between something like a Cockroach and a Mammal such as a rat, people will assume they are equally 'fair game' for this sort of treatment. A Rat most certainly is aware of pain, and whether humans consider them vermin or not is a purely subjective approach.
Experimentation on rats is one thing, unpleasant but on occasion necessary, it's one of those really tricky 'ends justify the means' situations when dealing with things like cancers etc. But simply using them as a 'toy' is exactly the kind of lines people are worried about crossing without realising.
-
How can you say it's harmless, you're cutting into the creature's skull and antennae.
Insects like cockroaches basically regenerate limbs and appendages (like antennae) during their molting. The ground wire in their thorax is not sufficiently large to damage the roach's vital organs.
Whether or not insects like this "feel" pain is a matter of debate. There's conflicting experimental information on pain perception of crustaceans, but the general consensus is that for insects like this, "pain" is only a stimulus among others and they make no difference between pain-stimulus, smell-stimulus, antenna-touch stimulus or light stimulus from their eyes; they just react to it.
The fact that the cockroaches don't react to the implants (by being incapacitated or trying to get rid of the electrodes or the backpack) is in itself indicative that the roach's existence is not meaningfully inconvenienced by the experimentation. There can be some stress reaction from the ice water treatment, but really, it's a roach. Its prime directives are to survive, eat and mate. It has a VERY limited ability to do anything more complex than simple response to stimulus anyway; in this case we've just replaced natural stimulus with artificial type of stimulus.
It's still the roach moving itself, it just thinks it's supposed to react to the stimuli coming from its antennae - which just happen to be caused by electrodes than actual interaction with the world around the roach.
By contrast, a highly developed mammal would likely require heavy sedation or restraint to prevent it from ripping the wires off its head, and the presence of brain cortex also gives rise to consciousness of self - even if it's rudimentary - which basically causes the ability to suffer.
This type of thing has already been done for a long time for research purposes, and research IS being done to gain similar control over complex animals like amphibians, lizards or mammals. But you have to understand that cockroaches are uniquely simple to control because basically all their sensory inputs come from their antennae; it's almost trivially easy to hook up electrodes to said sensors (two is sufficient) to change the sensory input that the roach experiences.
In many ways, this is not a cyborg - it's cockroach virtual reality.
Doing the same with complex animals is much, much more... complex. Because we tend to have much more developed sensory inputs and on multiple layers; figuring out a way to control ALL sensory inputs to create a complete false feedback system (that wouldn't be disrupted by real world interactions like touch) would be insanely complicated for any animal with a brain cortex. You'd literally have to sockpuppet the entire brain with artificial inputs replacing natural sensory inputs.
What this would essentially be is a Brain in a Jar, even though the brain would be sustained by the biological functions of the body it still lives in. But, at that point, it would theoretically be possible to just remove the body, leave the brain hooked to the sensory IO.sys, and provide circulation and sustenance artificially. At that point the brain would still think it's living in a normal reality with a normal body. Or we could hope so.
By contrast, actual cyborg type control of an animal would require directly hooking to their motor cortex and stimulating that to cause desired type of movement, overriding the rest of the brain.
Rather than Brain in a Jar, this type of control would be more akin to a possession of some kind - the rest of the brain would be conscious of what is happening, but unable to control the actions of the body.
For what it's worth, I consider both these types of control deeply disturbing and I'd rather just get rid of the higher brain functions of said animal altogether. If you really need drones based on biological entities, better make sure they're empty husks rather than bother with the ethical issues of essentially creating slaves that still live through every moment of their lives but with no control over... anything.
If that's not enough nightmare fuel, though, you can go and look what certain parasitic single-cell organisms do to higher developed animals - such as ants, snails, or rodents - and then complain about how this relatively benevolent, non-permanent experimentation with cockroaches is "unethical". Because nature certainly isn't anything what you would call "ethical" in the first place.*
And yes, I am very opposed to the idea of creatures, of any kind, being there as nothing more than toys for our amusement.
Quite so, that's why I don't really see it appropriate to sell this product as an entertainment product.
I don't see a problem using it for research or educational purposes (and I suspect surveillance applications will at some point become relevant, considering where we seem to be going) but yes, I agree - messing with animals (even as simple as cockroaches) is not ethical if it's done just "for fun".
*yes, I know that we should behave in ethically sustainable manner even if nature does not. However that's because we are social animals and as such we have evolved to have an instinctive social contract - which can vary between individuals and be influenced by our experiments, but we all have some kind of ethics structure from birth, aside from people suffering from certain types of mental disorders. This has actually been a significant research field - social skills of infant children, mirrored to the social skills of apes that also seem to be partially inherent and partially built by environmental factors.
Also, even the most disturbing demonic possessions that nature does, fulfill a purpose of some kind. It can be parasitic, only advantageous to the parasite species - or symbiotic, which means the arrangement improves both parties' quality of life even though one or both parties might not even be aware of the interaction - such would be the case of gut flora in our digestive tracts. We only become aware of it when it gets disrupted.
Even seemingly cruel things like cats playing with their food fulfills a purpose of hunting practice. But the purpose is not necessarily "fair" or something we would see as "ethical". The only party that benefits from the cat playing with its food is the cat. At best case scenario the cat isn't even hungry and the prey item scurries away incredibly stressed and probably injured. At worst case it gets eaten. The prey doesn't benefit... the cat benefits... and the parasitic organism possessing the prey item to be easily caught benefits as well.
So maybe it could be argued that if a human child "plays" seemingly sociopathic games with small animals, it "benefits" the child by providing amusement, enjoyment, stress relief...?
So it is an interesting argument. Why is it OK to kill roaches (often with nerve toxins or suffocation) but playing with them while killing them is generally not considered OK? Is it a case of "Fate Worse Than Death?"
Because I'm pretty sure there aren't many animals aside from humans that would choose death over life in any situation. Those species would become extinct pretty fast.
-
i have no problem assimilating a species you were just going to dump boric acid on anyway.
-
Sure because you, Nuke, cannot kill cockroaches with your radioactively glorious, thermonuclear apocalypse :P
-
cockroaches have +10000 radiation resistance. most use chemical warfare.
-
Cockroaches must be crushed, not having electronics fitted to their brains.
But I'm at least glad there's been some concern over this and it's a nock against "Neuroscience" driven by a desire to control another living being.
Neuroscience is neat for how brain fuctions, not so good when it comes to matters of ethics or morality. In fact, I find the entire notion of the cyborg cockroach should be raising ethical controversy instead of stupidly following the tagline, "It's neuroscience! Follow it you unthinking potential consumers and future cyborgs!"
-
"Desire to control another living being" is not some fresh bogeyman created by neuroscience — the entire process of domestication constitutes a far bigger violation of this animal right to self-determination you're defending than sticking some electrodes into their nervous system.
-
I disagree.
One type of evolutionary pressure is just the same as any other.
How we treat domesticated animals can be an issue, but not the domestication itself.
Of course this excludes selective breeding to give animals features that are unhealthy or cause them to suffer.
-
If you're going to argue ethics in such broad naturalistic terms as 'evolutionary pressure' then I see no difference between this exercise and what cordyceps and countless other parasites do to their hosts.
-
Selective breeding is applying evolutionary pressure to make a breed of species to have features you want them to have.
Take dogs for example - the selective breeding process of domestication makes them compatible with life in mixed human-dog packs and improves the quality of life for individual specimens. The dog is an example of a symbiotic relationship. Domestication is part of how that relationship was made possible, and it was just one type of evolutionary pressure that the ancestors of modern dogs faced when they encountered humans.
I'm not sure what your argument here is. Evolution doesn't follow ethics.
It's certainly possible to condemn those instances of selective breeding which are actually aimed to produce properties that cause the animals to suffer from them, but "animal right to self-determination" doesn't really make sense to refer to in context of entire species and their evolution. Again using dog as an example, it's not like wolves choose to live their lives as untamed, wild animal and dogs are "forced" into being domesticated animals living with humans.
They are what they are, respond to the stimuli from the environment they're born to, and make the best out of it like any animal does. Species don't have capability to self-determinate; species don't decide what they want to be. Evolution doesn't discern between selective pressures from humans (selective breeding) and nature (natural selection).
-
The thing that irks me here is that the harm to the cockroach clearly doesn't justify the disgust people are expressing towards this; we all do far worse without even thinking every day. Instead it seems to stem from some disgust at the 'violation' of the cockroach's control over its own body — what I'm trying to say is, how can you condemn that, when the process of domestication entails controlling the evolution of entire species for our own purposes?
-
With all the NSA stuff... how was this not brought up?
Erm... not working... 5th Element cockroach spy
-
Personally, I don't care about those pests. It's a little icky (I always hated cockroaches), but after the trouble we've had with them in our old flat, I couldn't care less about their "well-being". Perhaps this tech could be even used for remote pesticide delivery, which could make removing a cockroach infestation cheaper and quicker (i.e. not requiring you to turn the house inside-out).
Also, I don't think we have to worry about this expanding to other animals. I've seen a mouse EEG apparatus, and it's about the size of a computer tower. Granted, it's old (the only reason we have it is that my father is perhaps the only person left alive who knows how it's software is supposed to work :)), but if the mere non-invasive EEG monitor is that big, a full controller would probably also be pretty hefty, even with modern technology. Not to mention complexity of implanting such a device into a living organism with it being alive after the fact is pretty much beyond anyone without a solid biology/medicine degree. This is a brain surgery, no matter how you slice it (hint: slice carefully :)). An insect is different matter, though, their brains are simple enough that two electrodes and a ground wire do the trick.
-
The thing that irks me here is that the harm to the cockroach clearly doesn't justify the disgust people are expressing towards this; we all do far worse without even thinking every day. Instead it seems to stem from some disgust at the 'violation' of the cockroach's control over its own body — what I'm trying to say is, how can you condemn that, when the process of domestication entails controlling the evolution of entire species for our own purposes?
That's exactly what I'm trying to say.
Controlling the evolution of a species is a completely different thing from controlling an individual specimen of said species. Do you think dogs express some sort of regret that they don't get to be wolves? That's a completely absurd notion.
It isn't an ethically significant problem to control the evolution of a species to create a domesticated branch or sub-species. The specimens belonging to that domesticated species can suffer from it, the species itself cannot. In fact from evolutionary perspective, getting domesticated is a super good strategy for any species and will give them a huge edge over any wild animal because:
-stady food supply
-protection from elements
-protection from predators
-health care
-lower litter mortality rates
-massively increased sustainable population
Individual animals typically have a massive deluge of advantages if they're domesticated pet animals (cats, dogs, etc.). On the other hand, animals bred for food production typically just get the basic advantages and then a huge caveat that their life will most likely end when they are in an ideal age to be eaten; broiler, calves, piglets - all slaughtered as they reach an optimal size that results in optimal returns in weight and quality of meat, vs. resources used to grow them. Egg chickens get to live longer, milking cows get to live longer, and animals selected for breeding get to live longer. But this has nothing to do with the domestication process itself.
Individual animals belonging to a domesticated species may be treated well and given a stimulating environment to live in, or they may be mistreated; that is a practical problem related to the keeping of said specimen of a domesticated species. But it makes absolutely no sense to talk about domestication as a process somehow denying an animal species its "right to evolve as it wants".
Species do not choose their evolutionary direction in any case; natural selection does. That's why selective breeding is not in any way ethically different from any other selection pressure that doesn't happen to come from humans; certain species in nature exert selection pressure towards other species all the time. It's called predator-prey relationship. Or plants secreting toxic molecules and herbivores eating them getting selected for ability to withstand said toxins. Or two species competing for same food supply and the other species ends up evolving features that give it an edge. The only thing where selective breeding is different from evolution in nature is that it's generally much faster and you see differences fairly soon; this is due to aggressive selection for desireable features and not letting the others breed (although, I should point out, too aggressive process can cause lots of problems with limited gene pool).
Related to animal quality of life: Currently, in our meat industry, treatment of animals is a huge problem. Vast majority them spend their (albeit short) lives in dull, monotonous environments in a completely unnatural existence, and as a result are subjected to lots of stress that arguable diminishes their quality of life. This is especially a problem for pig farming and chicken farming, due to their smaller size - cattle simply require more space to begin with so it is more usually economically feasible to let them pasture (at least in the summer) rather than keep them locked in all the time. Even so there are cattle farms that do keep the animals inside their whole lives whether it's sensible or not.
So here's a question. If we were to invent a virtual reality system that could make these animals living in production facilities think they're actually living in a stimulating environment, outside, pasturing and doing whatever comes naturally to them as a species - would it be ethically wrong to implement said system? Would the animals themselves care? They would have a much better environment, they would not be aware of actually being kept in pens while being hooked up to the system.
We might think it wrong to "deceive them". But, if you look at the situation - we're not willing to give up meat production, and so these animals need to be kept, slaughtered, and then processed into edible products. If we can figure out something to improve their perception of that short life, what's the problem with it as long as their physical needs are also catered to (food supply, health care, making sure their muscles develop right and don't atrophy...
inb4 the Matrix is actually ethically sustainable plan for improving the quality of farm animals' lives
-
What amazes me more about this is the fact that certain individuals believe they can draw a line between life beings that are "complex" enough to deserve to live, and life beings you may kill with impunity because nobody cares. Though it is fairly obvious that humans, cats and bacteria are not on the same level, would you prefer an octopus over a sea urchin? They're both invertebrates, but the former is highly intelligent while the latter is more closely related to vertebrates and therefore humans.
I believe things are harder than they seem and there's no real way to say that it's ok to make cockroaches suffer without a good reason. (I support animal testing (http://thelightblueribbon.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/sperimentazione-animale-parlano-gli-altri/), though.)
-
What amazes me more about this is the fact that certain individuals believe they can draw a line between life beings that are "complex" enough to deserve to live, and life beings you may kill with impunity because nobody cares. Though it is fairly obvious that humans, cats and bacteria are not on the same level, would you prefer an octopus over a sea urchin? They're both invertebrates, but the former is highly intelligent while the latter is more closely related to vertebrates and therefore humans.
I believe things are harder than they seem.
To me life is life.
-
and how many billions of germs did you kill today?
-
inb4 the Matrix is actually ethically sustainable plan for improving the quality of farm animals' lives
We should obviously call it the Mootrix.
-
What amazes me more about this is the fact that certain individuals believe they can draw a line between life beings that are "complex" enough to deserve to live, and life beings you may kill with impunity because nobody cares. Though it is fairly obvious that humans, cats and bacteria are not on the same level, would you prefer an octopus over a sea urchin? They're both invertebrates, but the former is highly intelligent while the latter is more closely related to vertebrates and therefore humans.
I believe things are harder than they seem.
To me life is life.
once again: what's your evaluation of the ethics of ****ing about with sponges as opposed to ****ing about with plants?
-
To me, it's not so much a question of 'what are we doing?', as 'what are we gaining by doing it?' that is the issue at play here.
As I've said before, experimentation on animals is a necessary, if unpleasant aspect of learning about ourselves and the world around us. My concern is more along the lines of where do we draw the line between necessary experimentation for educational and well-being purposes and 'doing stuff for ****s and giggles'? And where do we define the difference between the two, immaterial of what is actually being experimented on?
If this does turn out to encourage more people towards a career in neuroscience and mental-health then it could be a positive thing, but the way this is presented leaves me in two minds as to whether that is truly the goal of this project.
-
inb4 the Matrix is actually ethically sustainable plan for improving the quality of farm animals' lives
We should obviously call it the Mootrix.
quick, get this man a cookie.
-
To me, it's not so much a question of 'what are we doing?', as 'what are we gaining by doing it?' that is the issue at play here.
As I've said before, experimentation on animals is a necessary, if unpleasant aspect of learning about ourselves and the world around us. My concern is more along the lines of where do we draw the line between necessary experimentation for educational and well-being purposes and 'doing stuff for ****s and giggles'? And where do we define the difference between the two, immaterial of what is actually being experimented on?
Indeed.
If this does turn out to encourage more people towards a career in neuroscience and mental-health then it could be a positive thing, but the way this is presented leaves me in two minds as to whether that is truly the goal of this project.
I am confident the goal of the "project" is to make money.
-
What amazes me more about this is the fact that certain individuals believe they can draw a line between life beings that are "complex" enough to deserve to live, and life beings you may kill with impunity because nobody cares.
I dont think there are many who believe animals deserve to live or cannot be killed. Killing animals, any animals, is not really unethical. Making them suffer is (maybe unless it is done for a damn good reason). And in that case there is a line separating species, because bacteria, plants and such are not sentient, higher animals are sentient. The problem is that the line could be blurry in species that are in-between, like a cockroach, and determining whether cockroaches do suffer or not is a very difficult task. If this remote-control kit existed for cats I am sure it would be quickly banned as animal abuse, if it existed for amoebas nobody would bat an eyelid. With cockroaches it is a grey area.
-
What amazes me more about this is the fact that certain individuals believe they can draw a line between life beings that are "complex" enough to deserve to live, and life beings you may kill with impunity because nobody cares.
Since I think I'm one of the only two people who have used the word "complex" in that context here, I ought to clarify that I don't consider anything to "deserve to live". Killing a living being isn't a problem as such no matter how complex it is, but whether the living being suffers or not is, and to me it seems like cockroaches aren't complex enough to be able to suffer, although since I'm not completely sure I wouldn't take the risk and cut one up just for fun.
-
Just wait for the advanced kit that comes out in the future (TM) and works on cats ...
-
Just wait for the advanced kit that comes out in the future (TM) and works on cats ...
that will never work. the cat would kill you first.
-
As a related note, these same guys have an entire suite of hardware and "protocols" that present neuroscience concepts on a relatable level for kids, such as realtime traces of neurons or even conduction studies on your own arm. I think it's unfair to pick out a single experiment with the roach backpack and condemn these guys as psychos. Taken as a whole, the backpack is merely a novelty trinket, and the rest of what they do seems educational and cool enough to justify using up a few roaches. Besides, the high cost of the products probably means that they'll see sales primarily to schoolteachers, where there will be adult supervision. Even if a parent buys one for their kid, they'll still be needed to help set everything up, or be around just to make sure that the hundred dollar chip doesn't run off or get stepped on. In any case, unless the adult is pretty negligent, I don't see these toys fostering psychopathic tendencies.
It's a shame that you have to use bugs for any of it to work, but let's be honest here: where the hell else is the average joe supposed to procure easily recordable live neural tissue? Actually, my only reservation to their work was the high price (a few hundred dollars for a somewhat comprehensive suite) and the fact that most kids hate big bugs and would stay far away from these cool toys.