Neuralink faces federal probe, employee backlash over animal tests
We must, of course, for fair treatment, steelman[0] the argument about the lack of morality of the purported 1500 animals allegedly killed by Neuralink.<p>The first reaction by anyone decent should be obvious: This is horrible.  I can&#x27;t imagine anyone not agreeing with the simple idea that animal testing is a horrific thing.<p>The argument in favor of it generally includes an element of accounting for human lives saved and benefits to society balanced against using animals for testing.<p>Does this erase or balance-out the moral reservations we all have?<p>Not sure.  Can we add further support for the practice?<p>Well, how about the fact that N animals per year (where N is a very large number) are bred for testing.  In other words, N animals  would never have existed in the natural order --just like we raise chickens by the billions to eat.<p>Before going further, a key question:<p>What&#x27;s the scale?<p>According to PETA [1], 110 million per year.  That&#x27;s a lot of animals.  I think I can say this would not be possible without breeding animals for research.<p>OK, how about benefits to society?<p>In lieu of a list, here&#x27;s a link [2]. The list of medical benefits is quite long.<p>What does an institution like Stanford [3] have to say?<p>Quoting:<p>&quot;It is important to stress that 95% of all animals necessary for biomedical research in the United States are rodents – rats and mice especially bred for laboratory use – and that animals are only one part of the larger process of biomedical research.&quot;<p>Well, that&#x27;s interesting, that means 104.5 million out of the 110 million are rats bred for research.<p>Does that change our mindset?  OK, time to look at the other side.  There might be more questions than answers here.<p>Is the entirety of our rejection of animal testing based on emotional or moral stances?  Religious?<p>Is there a canonical &quot;rule of the universe&quot; to use as a measurement or threshold of acceptance?<p>Is any number OK?<p>Is zero the only acceptable metric?<p>Looking at the list of benefits [2] it is easy to imagine that hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people would not exist today were it not for animal testing.  I say &quot;would not exist&quot; because someone&#x27;s death results in potentially erasing an entire genealogical tree --with potentially geometric growth.  In other words, a single death could have massive consequences.<p>Does that justify it?  Well, what if we have, as a result, overpopulated the planet.  Have we interfered with our own natural selection process?  Is that the crime?<p>What are the limits then?  Is humanity supposed to live in the natural survival-of-the-fittest and not resort to life extension through science and medicine?<p>Are science and medicine part of our natural-selection story?<p>It&#x27;s easy to see the analysis of this seemingly-simple issue, where a moral&#x2F;emotional reaction is easy to deliver, quickly becomes massively complex with questions such as &quot;How many people are you willing to see die?&quot; and &quot;How many members of your own family would have died?&quot; or &quot;Would you exist?&quot;.<p>I can&#x27;t provide any answers here.  This is far too complex.  Opinion?  Sure.  We all have one.<p>I fail to see the utility of using animals for the testing of cosmetics.  I am sure there are corner cases for justification here and there.  Not sure what those might be.<p>Neuralink?  Well, that&#x27;s a good question.  What&#x27;s the benefit to society?  I can&#x27;t think of one.  Well, wait, how about things like using a future embodiment of Neuralink to enhance equality&#x2F;equity by providing everyone with the same cognitive capabilities?  That&#x27;s far-fetched, yeah.  Is it a real possibility?  Don&#x27;t know.<p>Is this one of those &quot;just because we can&quot; ideas?  Should we do it?<p>Clearly the purported 1500 animals (not sure what kind) attributed to Neuralink is insignificant when compared to the 110 million per year quoted by PETA.  Are 100% of them bred for testing?  If so, is that OK, just like eating chickens?  What&#x27;s the different between eating a chicken and using the same purpose-bred chicken for research?<p>I&#x27;ll stop here.  I don&#x27;t have any answers.  I am not sure what the right stance might be here.  Not sure how &quot;right&quot; is defined.  Not sure of anything.  Lots of question though, more than I can list here.<p>In closing, we do need to address criticism of Musk and others who toil to advance humanity in any way.  I am reminded of:<p>&quot;Ladran Sancho señal que cabalgamos&quot;<p>Criticism of every successful person often follows the same pattern and is delivered by the same type of people. It&#x27;s easy to be harsh when one does nothing, contributes nothing, delivers no benefits to society, enjoys the benefits others create and can take a &quot;holier than thou&quot; stance while watching the world from a couch and having popcorn.  Being critical is easy.  Becoming a net contributor to society isn&#x27;t.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Straw_man#Steelmanning" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Straw_man#Steelmanning</a><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.peta.org&#x2F;issues&#x2F;animals-used-for-experimentation&#x2F;animals-used-experimentation-factsheets&#x2F;animal-experiments-overview&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.peta.org&#x2F;issues&#x2F;animals-used-for-experimentation...</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;fbresearch.org&#x2F;medical-advances&#x2F;animal-research-achievements&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;fbresearch.org&#x2F;medical-advances&#x2F;animal-research-achi...</a><p>[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;med.stanford.edu&#x2F;animalresearch&#x2F;why-animal-research.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;med.stanford.edu&#x2F;animalresearch&#x2F;why-animal-research....</a>