Hacker News Reader

Comment by thefounder | Hacker News Reader

>> Who’d even want a device like this put inside their brain by a company responsible for botched surgeries and unnecessarily killing living sentient beings.

I guess at least anyone who slaughters animals for sport or simply for their taste. I know few people near that burger-shop.

View on HN

Torture is not the same as murder and by implying that they are you make it harder for people to advocate for less torture. Nobody wins in that case, not even you.

Experiment isn't the same as torture, either. They're not being accused of devising optimal ways to make animals suffer. If you're referring to inadvertent or incidental torture; alone in a feedlot pen too small to turn around your entire life, standing in your own shit, stuffed with grain, then unnecessarily killed (no one needs to eat meat.)

I grew up in Texas smoking briskets and practicing at targets in family cookouts. Now I’m plant-based living in California and my three guns are collecting dust in my mom’s closet. To each their own, but I don’t see how culturally or logically either lifestyle would lead me to put a chip in my brain… though I’m sure a lot of people will when/if neuralink is viable, desirable and affordable, regardless of their habits and beliefs.

Non sequitur, both claims are unrelated.

"Living sentient beings" is also an unnecessarily redundant way to refer to the more popular term that is just "living beings". This is not different than saying "living living beings". Everything alive is sentient by definition.

You're getting downvoted, but you're simply correct in pointing out the hypocrisy in those who claim to value animal wellbeing while also funding animal agriculture.

It's about responsible agriculture, responsible animal testing. It's not black and white. What Neuralink did was irresponsible animal testing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com