[sigh] I'll remind you of my original purpose in posting this (repeated below your post).
It's about the difference between utilitarian and consequentialist ethical practice. The
point, here, is not "transparency for all organizations" ... sheesh ... right
after SteveS mentioned strawmen. The point is that cavalier pursuit of single-minded
objectives, similar to Stanley's point we've discussed before, to the detriment of the
mesh of consequences, intended or not, is suspect.
Because Musk is a huckster with an intense "move fast and " destroy the world attitude,
it's reasonable to infer that Neuralink tends to focus too single-mindedly on their intentions and
less on their unintentions ... to internalize profits and externalize costs. In the case of animal
testing, the externalized costs take on an extra dimension. And that dimension *is* subjective. Of
course. You use the word "subjective" like a pejorative. But that's what this is about.
The subjectivity of the animals.
On 2/15/22 10:46, Marcus Daniels wrote:
So far, we get one run at life. If what one wants to maximize is transparency
for all organizations that can be a goal. It's a goal for Julian Assange, for
example. (Eventually some scrutiny was put on his life too. Oops, too bad
for Julian!)
And there are people with other goals who find that goal a distraction and a disruption.
Those people aren't necessarily corrupt because they don't want to walk around naked or
constantly be bickering with annoying shrill people who constantly think they know best.
"Do a better job" is subjective.
There's a system for people getting along -- the law. Having thousands of competing
"laws", in effect, is a recipe for misery.
On 2/14/22 09:02, glen wrote:
Animal-rights group says monkeys used in experiments for Elon Musk's Neuralink
were subjected to 'extreme suffering'
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-neuralink-experiments-monkeys-extreme-suffering-animal-rights-group-2022-2
Elon Musk’s Neuralink allegedly subjected monkeys to ‘extreme suffering’
https://nypost.com/2022/02/10/elon-musks-neuralink-allegedly-subjected-monkeys-to-extreme-suffering/
I've never quite settled out to a strong opinion on animal research. Since I'm mostly
consequentialist, the *actual* ends [⛧] tend to rule out in my mind. But cause doesn't come in pure
chains. It's a mesh, at best, an unquantifiable fractal at worst. So the means to the end are never
merely means, they're always ends, in themselves. Utilitarians tend to abstract out seeming
"no-ops" or "don't-cares", as if there were, in actuality, epiphenomena. But
there are no such things. If that makes me a Vico-ist, that's fine. How you treat the animals is
not merely a social side interest. It's a core part of good science and good engineering ... like
keeping a good notebook.
Musk is (now) a huckster, exploiting the good will and childish optimism of
dorks everywhere.
[⛧] By "actual", I don't mean whatever ends the actors have in mind when they
launch the action mesh, but the outcome over time. Of course, that's fraught and requires
some scholarship and ability to track the mesh as it unfolds. But one does the best they
can. Whatever brainfarts some moron like Musk has in his mind prior to launch is largely
irrelevant. We're all fans of scifi. The trick is being able to distinguish fact from
fantasy.
--
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/
