[aw124]

I'm opposed to this project because it involves using animals in medical experiments, which I believe is never ethically justifiable. It goes against basic moral and ethical principles regarding animal treatment. If the project were designed to allow animals to choose whether or not to participate, it would be more acceptable. Some scientists have already explored such approaches. By not giving animals a choice, you're limiting their freedom and potentially exposing them to physical or psychological harm through your simulation. As someone who advocates for animal rights, I'd prefer to see alternative methods that don't involve animals or allow them to participate voluntarily

[mmooss]

You have interesting points but I feel you are jumping to conclusions. 'Curiosity not judgment' is a great rule for me, at least, because I rarely know enough to judge. Criticizing without knowing almost certainly makes me wrong, produces nothing, and costs me the opportunity to do something useful. It also wastes time and energy for multiple people.

It also is unfair to the experimenters and alienates them, when they could become allies and improve their methods. It alienates others; it makes you seem defensive and someone who lashes out unfairly - who wants to be involved with that? Even if the researchers agreed, would they want to have this judgmental, attacking person around?

For example, someone could ask: 'Hi - This is quite innovative. How are the animals introduced to the setup, trained, and experimented with? Are they basically required to play? What if they stop? Do they want to stop at the end of the session? Do they seek it out? Are there signs of stress or enjoyment? There is a bunch of innovation in animal research on giving them choices, and as we learn more about animal emotions and intelligence it makes much more sense to consider these things. This experiment seems like a perfect setup to explore some of those things; I'd love to engage with you on it, and/or here are some links to learn about it ...'. The researchers might love to help.

Maybe you know all that. I just hate to see good causes turned into alienation.

[hashstring]

> Even if the researchers agreed, would they want to have this judgmental, attacking person around?

1. You calling the person above judgmental and attacking is not as tolerant either.

2. What about things that are morally wrong? Slave owners wouldn’t want to have a judgmental attacking person around either. Does that mean we have to have curious-discussions about slavery?

[mmooss]

Your comment finds ways to make it adversarial. What are you trying to build?

> What about things that are morally wrong?

That takes possibly the most certain path toward evil: I think what they do is morally wrong so I can act without morality toward them. It's the rationalization of many awful acts and people and ideologies. Just look at the worst of what religions do.

We should not think we are somehow above or exempt from that error, or so above sin generally that we can preach.

[hashstring]

> I think what they do is morally wrong so I can act without morality toward them.

I never said that this is how we should treat immorality. That’s somehow your interpretation of what I wrote.

> We should not think we are somehow above or exempt from that error, or so above sin generally that we can preach.

Preach.

[blobbers]

Given that we're not great at communicating with animals, what level of reward would be considered justifiable for participating in the study?

As in they could get a reward for starting the study...

Also, isn't this sort of "voluntary" testing a little unethical in itself? For example, testing an addictive drug on a rat, they don't know the downstream consequences since there is limited communication, but the immediate effects might be incredibly gratifying. It would lead to high "volunteer" rates but still expose them to massive harm.

[buttercraft]

From the author's comment up thread:

"when they learnt to run on the ball and how that influences their reward, they got hooked. I believe they enjoy not just the reward, they get a sense of how their actions influence the game and they like that. They would run on the ball so much at some point they wouldn't even bother drinking all the juice and it was just dripping on the setup."

[ponow]

Then make your own world where you don't benefit from the knowledge gained by means you don't approve of. This world is not that world.

[bloq66]

I agree with you, but I would add that even so, it is still far better than 99.99% of scientific animal experiments, in which animals are usually subjected to severe suffering (for example, through the injection of human tumors) and are almost always killed at the end, as their tissues have to be examined.

[cube00]

I struggle to see how it's a acceptance that it's done at someone's home without the animal experiment safe guards and ethics oversight you'd get at a research facility.

Topped off with a plug to get your email address for their new startup.

[senderista]

Do your pets give you consent for everything you do with them?

[account42]

We don't even give human beings that choice. Everyone gets to be part of the rat race, whether they like it or not.

[bayesnet]

I rolled my eyes at this at first but after looking at the setup they have I have to agree with you… there’s something viscerally horrifying about hooking something sentient up to a trackball with a VR “headset” with no way out.

[ctenb]

What about work horses?

[bayesnet]

It’s something about messing with reality. Obviously I can’t know this since (as far as I know) I am not a rat, but I have to believe it’s profoundly disorienting for their little rat brains to interact with VR. At least a work horse can trust its senses.

[hashstring]

Thank you, it’s good to read a thoughtful response instead of the median “ooh I love this” “i love rats and I love doom too”.

Human self-centredness is often insufferable.