Hacker News Reader

Comment by alegen | Hacker News Reader

Showing this article on a board filled with hackers who value free speech and free will more than anything else is a bad idea. Doesn't matter if it is a cockroach, a rat, a rabbit or a human being.

I do not agree with giving 10 year-olds this "toy". That cockroach (no matter how disgusting it may be for some) is a living thing! The ethical aspects of this project should me taken more seriously and not just "OMG cool gadget buy it".

View on HN

I don't have any ethical concerns about this toy, but I have killed and eaten animals, used their hides for clothing, and even kept them trapped in bowls and cages purely for my own amusement.

It would seem pretty ridiculous to be upset over this if you do any of those things.

Quote: "even kept them trapped in bowls and cages purely for my own amusement."

Well, I`m just not that kind of person :)

Later edit: the things you list are completely unrelated to making a living organism do something -without its consent-.

Ethically, what is the difference between controlling a cockroach through direct stimulation and controlling a dog through the usual combination of behavioral manipulation and physical restraints?

Because I believe you aren't completely in control of the dog. Just like you aren't completely control of another human when using conversational techniques to make them do something.

You wouldn't be able to manipulate a dog into taking its own life, but with this cockroach you would against its will.

It's pretty easy to make a whippet run into heavy traffic merely by throwing a ball.

Trust me, they'd run into traffic without the ball too.

I agree it is easy but are you the kind of person to kill a dog without any reason? This statement implies that it is ethical to do so.

The people behind this project say that it is for educational purposes, but really now.. how many people will use it that way?

I was answering the question whether or not it is possible to manipulate a dog to take it's own life. I think it is possible. I do not think it's ethical, though. However, it might be, if the dog was Cujo.

Great point. But there's a huge difference between throwing a ball that an animal chases and sending electrical impulses into its brain to physically make it run into the traffic.

I don't think there is that much of a difference, just as I think it's not very ethical of us to say that we can't eat dogs because it's unethical, but chickens are a-okay. They are just another species living on this planet. They may not be as smart, they also have no play in deciding what's the intelligence level they need to be at before humans can stop considering them food.

We, humans, decide what we can and cannot eat. And some of us still hunt animals just for sport or for their horns and fur, even if they are in that "higher intelligence" bracket.

But hopefully as our societies evolve, and technologies also evolve to at least give us a choice between having to eat a chicken, and having to eat manufactured/replicated meat, we'll learn to give up on these, too.

There really isn't a difference but we're all hypocrites the vast majority of the time, probably without even knowing it. Food is just too much of a part of us, we don't want to give it up!

I see it as inevitable that artificial meat replaces wholesale slaughter with actual animal rights. Let's just admit that most of the world (myself included) won't stop eating meat until that artificial stuff is here and focus on the easier topics first.

Is it more ethical to control a cockroach by holding it on your hand?

So far, all of the comments are against it on ethical grounds.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com