Much less happy are the animals we eat, those confined in zoos, and many of the pets people lock in tiny spaces.
I think it's a pretty tough topic in ethics but when I was younger, I didn't think much about it because we were doing science. I remember seeing my first rat die. I didn't feel bad at the time because we did it "humanely" with gas (and it's normalized and I was only 20) and they just sort of drifted off and defecated. It's an interesting and perhaps sad use of a life.
Rhesus Macaques [0] have a lifespan of thirty years. Thirty years. Thirty years in a massively controlled environment, often sedentary, with limited opportunities to socialise with peers, and the simple pleasures of mutual grooming, lying in the sun etc. Lab animals that are rehomed in rehab centres / zoos etc are often overweight, in poor health, and have a range of nervous tics and social inexperience. Many adapt to the non-lab environment, but they tend to have underlying health problems and issues with acceptance by the alpha individuals because they lack the years of experience required to understand and fit into the complex group etiquette.
Animals may still be the best model for testing drugs / devices that will go into humans, but lets not understate the massive cost to the individual animals concerned.
[Source: personal involvement with a primate rehab centre]
Sounds a lot like work, to be honest.
I stopped going to zoos because I didn't want to contribute to keeping animals like that, but would like to read information to the contrary if that's the case.
I’ve never been to zoos outside the UK, but here often the primary function is conservation - both of the animals, which are often rescues, and of wider wildlife which is funded by ticket sales
For example, London Zoo is managed by the charity Zoological Society of London [0] and places like Monkey World are essentially rescue centres you can visit [1]
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoological_Society_of_London
Can confirm this (disclaimer- I'm a supporter). Many of their animals are rescues, including more than 70 Capuchins that had been lab animals in Chile and four groups of Chimpanzees, many of whom had been rescued from use in circuses or as tourist props - the latter often with teeth knocked out so that they couldn't bite the punters. There is currently a sadly growing collection of marmosets, most rescued from the UK pet trade after tipoffs from animal protection agencies. Many of the marmosets have diseases such as rickets resulting from their owners' lack of animal husbandry skills (e.g. thinking that all they need to eat is bananas). Most of these animals lack the survival skills or health to be released back into the wild. On a more positive note, Monkey World is also a hub for breeding critically endangered species, e.g. Woolly Monkeys and Orangutans.
Sadly, if an animal is being cared for at Monkey World, it generally means that the specific individual has been abused in the past and / or the species faces functional extinction in the wild.
The one where I live has historically been a bunch of very desolate animal display cases, but they've committed to doing what amounts to a slow U-turn, and they have done quite well in that regard.
The old enclosures were clearly built to keep animals in plain view at all times. They've remodelled a lot of them since, and they're completely rebuilding some. There are times where you don't see a single great ape during a whole visit, because their new habitats have some caves and comfy areas hidden from view, with the result that especially the gorillas now appear to have quite a bit of fun interacting with visitors at the four separate points in their enclosure where that is possible and definitely seem much more relaxed than the previous generations (as far as I can tell, I'm no gorilla myself).
Certainly still worse than a life in their natural habitat, but they are part of a multinational conservation project and all their current gorillas were essentially sent to them via this project, with the end-goal of (as I understand it) having a viable captive gorilla population in zoos around the world so there is a "backup" in case the natural populations collapse. The living conditions they provide have earned praise from experts (for what that's worth, seeing they're not gorillas themselves, either).
They still keep their lions in a tiny, cruel pen, but they're building a new one currently that is supposed to be state of the art. Most monkeys have gotten new accomodations last year I think and they're pretty involved in keeping Kunekune pigs from going almost extinct a second time and they're breeding Visayan Warty Pigs (which are absolutely amazing things, and critically endangered); I guess for a relatively provincial central European zoo with a limited budget, that's quite decent.
They've also recently completed a pretty big section with heirloom breeds of common farm animals and they do a lot of education programs and events for schools, which I feel is something my generation missed out on big time, not necessarily from a zoo, but some kind of getting in contact with animals other than the occasional cat or dog might have been quite helpful. I feel there are some really weird misconceptions about animals that are pretty widespread among people my age.
For what it's worth, I've been quite opposed to that zoo in the past, but their efforts over the last decade or so have been enough to convince me to pay for a year pass. Some zoos are much slower adopting this approach, I surely wouldn't be as supportive of one of those.
I had the same reaction. I just recently had a lot of trouble pairing Airpods to Macbook (both no more than 2 years old). If Apple can't make it work between their own devices, it's doomed. A piece of shit technology, a black stain on the whole stack.
The demo is impressive otherwise, and I don't think it's weird to control a device with your mind. Or, if weird, it's the interesting kind of weird.
I'd like to see a multi-modal GPT successor that learns not just text, image and video but also neural brain signals. It's one modality we haven't touched on yet. Maybe it will be able to extract speech directly from the brain, which is orders of magnitude harder than controlling a joystick.
Check out https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1119-1
And yes it is definitely orders of magnitude harder than controlling a joystick
With a few decades (years?) of refinement, this technology absolutely has the potential to capture private thoughts.
Sure, it may require an implant, but just like we all carry tracking beacons that have become indispensable to daily life today, in 20 years it may be “the done thing” to have an implant to control your home automation, etc. Or maybe the tech will improve to where it just needs a hat. And at that point, certain authorities will have no qualms about using it in interrogations, with or without “due process.”
It works because there is direct correlation between the speech-motor cortex and how the vocal articulators (larynx, tongue, etc) move, and how that combine to produce speech.
Abstract "thoughts", on the other hand, are not so straight-forward. For one, there's no central location in the cortex where the concept of "car", for example, lives. The distributed representation of abstract thoughts within the brain makes it orders of magnitude more difficult than decoding speech for one specific individual. Then add orders of magnitude of orders of magnitude to generalize that to different people.
Yay for planned obsolescence.
For me the strangest part of watching this is not the lab work or the animal, but the implications of this technology and where it might lead to in the future once applied to humans. I really like the idea and premise presented, but let's be honest: There are also way too many evil use cases ...
Also, if I may ask, do you think we have to choose between caring about these individuals and caring about those in factory farms? I personally care about both (as well as plenty of other ethical issues, naturally). And I imagine other people feel the same. So your suggestion that we measure the two causes against each other is rather confusing.
I don't think these monkeys are "not worth discussing" - but I don't think they merit more than a cursory evaluation. The same is true for say, people that are killed by falling coconuts.
There are, in all likelihood, cost-effective causes that you can donate to, in terms of your dollars, skills and capcity to give a damn. I'd suggest these monkeys shouldn't make the list.
I'd understand if you said they didn't make the cut for you personally, but I'm not sure why you'd be invested in ruling them out for everyone.
(And this a sidebar, but I think one could quite reasonably believe that advocacy here is worthwhile in exactly the bang-per-buck utilitarian sense you're invoking. For instance, people who are galvanized on behalf on these monkeys might then change their actions towards less visible, less relatable nonhumans like pigs, chickens, and fishes.)
The latter point (galvanised to support other welfare causes) is roughly what inspired the original post - our intuitive emotional reactions to visible harm should indeed encourage effort in investing in effective harm reduction advocacy. But if seeing these monkeys makes you sad, you really ought to think about all the less-visible, cheap to attack welfare issues that are available.
So I do very much appreciate the spirit of your comment: that we should attend to less visible (and more easily addressed) harms, and not get caught up in 'celebrity causes,' so to speak.
But I think where I differ from you is that I don't view it as an either-or paradigm. I'd say to people "Go ahead and try to help these monkey individuals, and also work for, e.g., food-farmed nonhumans (who are easier to help, etc.)"
I appreciate the risk you're citing, that people could effectively "waste" time and resources on a case like this. But I'd argue there's a greater risk in approaching ethics as A) zero sum, and B) generalizable. I'll elaborate:
A) It's certainly true that we only have so many minutes in the day and so many dollars in our wallet. But I think these zero-sum resources are often not the final limit on what we can do. Rather, the limits we reach are emotional and psychological energy - which is often not zero-sum. Getting engaged in an issue (especially when it's an issue that radicalizes you) can actually increase the amount of time and resources you find for other issues. (I.e., you reclaim it from less important stuff.)
B) I'd argue ethics is patently not generalizable (in the sense that you're suggesting - i.e. that everyone should reach the same conclusion about which cases are worth effort), simply because humans are so varied. One person might have tons of money and be happy to spend on this cause in addition to whatever they give to help farmed nonhumans. Another person might feel a special bond with monkeys that makes this an easy, non-taxing (or even net-energy-positive) issue to engage in. Yet another person might currently find the plight of food-farmed nonhumans overwhelming to consider, but these monkeys will be a stepping-stone issue that help them get there. Etc.
In a more developed, market society, you typically have several commoditized, replaceable products and most tend to leverage BT. The idea of replaceableness belongs to the product itself, but what we see in common for all of them is BT connectivity, so we tend to perceive BT as an identifier of replaceableness as well.
Neuralink very casually and tongue-in-cheek BT "paired" to the monkey, reinforcing the idea of replaceability and commoditization of the monkey.
Many people have empathy for animals and monkeys are seen as precursors to humans. It's very easy to see how treating a pre-human species like a replaceable product, leaves humans themselves creeped out and feeling like in the future they may also be treated like a replaceable product.
Neuralink needs an ethicist in a high exec position or board and a better PR manager. They should have done some of these to reduce that perception mess: - allude to the use of BT in serious medical applications before "pairing" with the monkey - reduce or change the common BT terms like pairing - use a computer rather than a smartphone - don't mention BT, just say wirelessly connected - don't use a Bond-villain smooth British voice
By talking about it as a PR problem, I don't mean to say that is the root cause, it is just what we can see at the surface.
Do they really care about ethics? Is it execs, engineers, video directors, everyone, no one? Do they care, but are just bad at PR? Do they not care, and this video is a reflection of that? This is what matters, for all those people to genuinely care about ethics.
Can they still genuinely care though, after becoming a corporation? Can bringing shareholder value align with ethics?
One botched video is simply one data point in the public trying to understand Neuralink's genuine stance on ethics.
Only people with close contact to Neuralink will really know. We are all hyper connected, but sadly, only superficially.
[citation needed]
1) The deliberately soothing British voice does not come off as soothing. It comes off as insidious, and threatening. This is in part influenced by our own cultural context with media like Black Mirror, but the effect is there nonetheless.
2) The comparison points to "pair with your iPhone" feel WILDLY misaligned with the rest of the message. The premise of Neuralink is that this is a world-changing cutting edge technology for the good of humanity. Then all of a sudden you have a situation where a living sentient being is paired to an iPhone like some sort of bluetooth speaker. It reeks of confused ethics.
I think you put your finger on why that part was unsettling.
Nobody loves them, but they're important in this case to help parralyzed humans maybe with ALS or some other disease communicate with loved ones
Where it gets funky though is trying to quantify that to an extent: how many monkey disfigurements is worth fixing one human disfigurement? Ten? A thousand?
How many chimps would you blind in order to prevent humans being blinded by the latest lash extension cosmetic?
Is it even controversial that yes, of course they are?
I mean, Boeing and the FAA kept 737 MAX's in the air after brown people died in the first crash when we all know they'd have grounded them if it was a crash in Kansas. We value human lives differently let alone animals.
> How many chimps would you blind in order to prevent humans being blinded by the latest lash extension cosmetic?
None. But I'd blind as many as are needed to trial human eye transplants, for example.
It's only a matter of time before certain governments start alpha-testing this type of technology in places like Xinjiang or Myanmar.
Who wouldn't want to ultimately be assimilated by the Borg?
First @Neuralink product will enable someone with paralysis to use a smartphone with their mind faster than someone using thumbs
Later versions will be able to shunt signals from Neuralinks in brain to Neuralinks in body motor/sensory neuron clusters, thus enabling, for example, paraplegics to walk again