Yeah, you can see the bad faith in Neuralink's 1st paragraph: "It is important to
note that these accusations come from people who oppose any use of animals in research.
Currently, all novel medical devices and treatments must be tested in animals before they
can be ethically trialed in humans."
PCRM *is* against any use of animals in research, as am I. But we *all* know
that animals must be used in (some) research, including PCRM. So, even though
I'm *against* any use of animals in research, my opposition to it amounts to
condoning it when it's necessary and, if necessary, it be done openly and
humanely.
Their bad faith is similar to the abortion strawman. Even Renee' has said to me that
she's known someone who "used abortion as birth control". It's ridiculous. If
you've had an abortion, you know that it's not a trivial thing, medically or emotionally.
Those who objectify and *other* people like PETA (or PCRM) and trivialize their concerns
are not worth listening to. Ignore Neuralink's silly protestations. Pay attention to
their actions. Same with politicians. Pay more attention to their votes and campaign
financing, less to the rhetoric they push to their tribe.
My guess is there are many effective and well-intentioned people in Neuralink
and that this exposure, shrill, annoying, and backseating as it may be, will
help them do a better job. But we won't know that unless/until they allow their
critics some backseating access.
On 2/15/22 10:09, Steve Smith wrote:
Where are the advocacy groups to write *only* steelmen rather than being either
corporate/industry lackeys and/or hyper-aggressive activists reframing everything as a
tragedy? My sympathies are with the "little guy", the individuals and groups
with no voice or power of their own, but too often those who speak up for them get a
little shrill and inject yet other agendas than the ones I believe actually represent the
real positions and issues of those they claim to represent. It seems to be a structural
failing in the very idea of representative government/advocacy? I'm sure I may be being
overly critical/cynical here but it feels very difficult for me to sort out what is
*really* going on when a widespread or structural bias or harm is identified... it isn't
*just* noise/signal ratios, it is multiple competing caricatured? models.
I heard a brief clip of an interview with AOC who said she was considering
leaving Government and putting her energy/perspective into Direct Action or at
least Activism...
On 2/15/22 11:02 AM, glen wrote:
I suppose I could go find paid "news" articles from Big Tobacco or the dairy or
meat industry to argue nearly identical points ... or maybe we could ask BP or Exxon to
tell us how environmentally responsible they are. But why waste my time digesting
corporate propaganda? If they invite some neutral parties to keep an eye on their
practices, that might be worth paying attention to.
On 2/15/22 09:52, Marcus Daniels wrote:
https://neuralink.com/blog/animal-welfare/
--
glen
When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
