/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6145423
because so many people don't think.

>>6145438
>they feel the results of the thinkers thoughts
>logic doesn't feel
>feel doesn't logic

>>6145423
Because students will eventually get bored with roaches and proceed with bums.

>>6145423
they do? i don't know anyone like that, I think you've been coaxed into feelings of dismay

>>6145741
>logic doesn't feel

Sometimes it.s bitter, sometimes it's sweet. Sometimes it's nostalgic, sometimes it's new.

Saying that logic is emotionless can only come from someone who doesn't feel in the first place.

>>6145423

>They'd have no problem stepping on a cockroach if they found it in their house
How do you know? Even if most people would, you've no reason to believe the individuals speaking out against this would.
>sticking electrodes in it and driving it around with your phone makes you worse than Hitler?
Nobody said that; you're making things up.

If you have any actual arguments as to why you believe it ethical then I would be interested to read them.

>>6146291
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/roboroach-cyborg-cockroach-ethics-debate_n_4063050.html

Huffpost comments are a good source for arguments based on muhfeels.

There is absolutely nothing unethical about treating an insect as a test subject or even plaything. No more than treating an Aibo or any other robot as a pet.

>>6145854
>Because students will eventually get bored with roaches and proceed with bums.
It's worrying how this argument is so popular. Because people instantly lose all sense of morality when they use insects for their amusement. "Well, that was fun, now let's go shoot up a retirement home!"

>>6145423
because you are taking away the free will of a being. killing it is not as bad as that.

>But the notion that the insects aren’t seriously harmed by having body parts cut off is “disingenuous,” says animal behavior scientist Jonathan Balcombe of the Humane Society University in Washington, D.C. “If it was discovered that a teacher was having students use magnifying glasses to burn ants and then look at their tissue, how would people react?”
people would react to it?

>Gage says that in his experience, working carefully and closely with insects and other animals in experiments can sensitize students to the fact that roaches “are actually similar to us and have the same neurons that we have.”
wat

>>6146347
>free will
>cockroach
Gooby pls.

Actually, define free will for us.

>"They encourage amateurs to operate invasively on living organisms" and "encourage thinking of complex living organisms as mere machines or tools," says Michael Allen Fox, a professor of philosophy at Queen's University in Kingston, Canada.

Leave it to the faggot armchair philosophers to impede science and ruin everyone's fun.

>>6146354
the ability to make decisions that is not due to any physical process.

>>6146347
>implying free will exists

>>6146354
lol rite? You're hijacking an organism's functioning away from what exactly? Does training a dog also make you hitler?

>>6146369
Now I kinda want to train a dog in German.

>>6145423
Because it's disrespectful to insect's free will.

>>6146395
If you have a Doberman, Rottweiler, or German Shepherd, they won't understand any commands that are in anything other than German. It's a well-known biological fact.

>>6146364
What do you think dictates our actions, if not physical processes? Our souls?

Much of it is because it seems kind of sci-fiesque to the lay public. If they would really care about the ethics they'd protest the millions of rodents killed every year by cosmetic companies.
That being said personally I wouldn't want to damage an animal for my entertainment. That's a personal decision however much like not eating meat.

Fun fact, you fucking retards: without insects the ecosystem would collapse. In one way or another, you're here because insects are here. If you can't respect that then you're an immoral asshole. And you can shove your means-to-an-end bullshit up your ass.

>>6146420
immoral asshole?
We salute people that die to save others, but when we make that decision for them, even before they are born, by making them participate in a psychological experiment, all of a sudden it's unethical and wrong. Yet their contribution could save millions in the future.

>>6146367
Did you chose to post that?

>>6146429
You can always find a better way. Science without morals is wrong and should be dismissed.

>>6146429
What is the contribution of an insect being mutilated and becoming a child's toy? There is a difference between experimenting on animals fucking with them for some brief amusement.

>>6146442
The interaction of subatomic particles in his brain caused him to post it.

>>6146450
Stop pretending like you know how the universe works. You don't, he doesn't, nobody fucking does. Just accept that fact and move on. Shooting conclusive opinions out of your ass won't help us in any way.

>>6146454
Since nobody knows how the universe works, any and all opinions are now equally valid. Good to know.

>>6146464
Equally valid for grown up discussion, not for proving that you supposedly have it figured out.

>>6146450
Isn't his brain part of him?

>>6146466
I didn't prove that I had it figured out. I merely presented an alternate view on the matter. Anything beyond that is in your imagination. I don't see why you're getting buttfrustrated over this.

>>6146364
>magic

insects have feelings too

>>6146468
It is. But making a decision implies proactivity. How can you claim that "he" decided to do anything when he (presumably) cannot control his brain's minute chemical interactions with some sort of magical mental power?

I wish they would work against those bee-killing pesticides instead.

iMAGINE REINCARNATION IS REAL AND YOU BECOME A cOCKROACH IN YOUR NEXT LIFE

wOULD YOU WANT SOMEONE TO STICK A ELECTRODE ON YOUR BACK?

>>6146499
What if that cockroach was Jesus, come down from heaven to test us?

>>6146454
How the fuck can 1 picture have so much errors?

>>6146510
>so much
So many

>>6146515
I was being ironic

>>6146520
No, you were being uneducated. Now, you are educated. Thank your educators.

>>6146482
proactivity is just a term used to describe the usual processes the human brain goes through when prompted to 'choose' something. All the pieces which decide what the decision will be are there from the get-go.

>>6146473
Because you were speaking definitely instead of hypothetically.

insects are about as sentient as mold

would you like that someone puts a helmet in your head and make your run till your heart explodes?

>>6146526
Exactly. So free will, in the way anon defined it, is not a thing.

>>6146542
Humans are apparently the same as insects now.

>>6146547
>Humans are apparently the same as insects now.
Respect all living creatures.

>>6146541
I agree their neural networks are too primitive to dispose toward higher level thinking but I believe people are just afraid of the implications of this technology becoming so normalized as to be applied to other, more sentient living things.

>>6146524
Thank you jesus

>>6146552
Why?

>>6146547
Where do you draw the line?
Is it ethical to do this to a pigeon? A dog? An ape?

>>6146560
Because that's what makes you human.

>>6146562
Why wouldn't it be?

>>6146566
Because they are living creatures. That should be enough.

>>6145423
Because pesticides are the humane approach and healthier for than the environment than silicon and alkaline acids.

>>6146552
>>6146552

I agree we should appreciate the suffering of all living creatures but the calculus to determine something's rights is more nuanced:
1.) one's appreciation of the suffering of another living thing; the less something is capable of suffering, the less its rights
2.) the potential outcome of the suffering; sometimes lab animals are experimented upon and suffer as a result in some ways. But that's an investment for a greater good, sometimes even to help other animals.
3.) degree of relation. The more closely something is related to us, the more we can empathize with it.
4.) social contract. We give rights to other people as a sort of insurance. It sets precedent that, in the future, if they, or their progeny, are in a position of power relative to us, they won't abuse that power to take away our rights.

When we talk about rights it doesn't make sense for everything to have the same rights.

A man doesn't have the right to maternal leave. A dog doesn't have the right to an education.

>>6146565
Is that what really defines me to be a human being? That I allow other members of my species to create artificial restrictions to my actions and I abide by them?
I thought having 46 chromosomes hand having human parents made me human.

>>6146566
Why isn't it ethical with a human if it is for them?

>>6146569
Why should it be enough though?
>>6146572
How about because we can pass a law that makes it's illegal to force someone into the procedure?

>>6146574
We have a very silly mindset. We're always doing things in the name of research, and then what? Does that makes us smarter? Is our cosmic goal any more or less significant because of that? No, it's all the same. If you can't put your morals above your curiosity, then fuck it, I'm sad for you.

Because qualia we can't possible know how something else experiences the universe.

Therefore, it seems apparent to me that everything should be given maximum rights. On the off chance that a rock is sentient.

>>6146575
No, that makes you a homo sapiens sapiens. You make yourself human by having strong morals. The word human comes from Latin - humanus - and means "pertaining to man, humane, humane, cultured, refined".

>>6146582
>If you can't put your morals above your curiosity, then fuck it, I'm sad for you.
Can you expound more on this?
I'm missing the link and your argument just seems like a non-sequitur to me. What's the great about morals and why are they better than lab results?

>>6146586
Okay fine, what if I'd rather know the results than be human? It seems like there is no down side to not being called human.

>>6146589
Because first and foremost, you're a human being. Second, you're a scientist. Not the other way around.

>>6146598
Well what if I say otherwise?

You have to understand, I'm not being contrarian here. I'm genuinely trying to understand your position(Why you're right) while behind detached from the values that were ingrained into my head as a child about doing good, being fair etc...

So when you present your argument to me, to to make sure that it is formulated and presented in such a medium that I am receptive of it.
Instead of defining for me who and what I am. That's not going to make me agree with you. Only agitate me.

>>6146598
So... we're all human because you say so and because we're human we have to listen to what you say?

>>6146598
>>6146582
Hello? Please respond.

>>6146598
Seriously, can you formulate an argument without equivocation or a slippery slope?

>>6146598
HELLO!?

>>6146603
In essence, doing good makes you feel good. Doing bad makes you feel bad. This is universal and will never change. If you want to do bad, then you are free to do so. But deep down you will know it's bad and it will haunt you, one way or another.

To deprave yourself of humanity is exactly what makes you miserable.

Now make of this what you will, I have no further incentive to contribute to this thread.

>>6146665
Bassically you are tying to teach karma to these guys.

good luck, they will say is bullshit because is not scientifically proven.

>>6146665
Hitler must have been permanently depressed, or feeling bad, I bet that's why he committed suicide.

>>6146347
cockroaches are essentially machines. Whatever physiological structure is responsible for 'free will' is almost certainly not present in cockroaches, just because they're so fucking tiny. You might as well be vouching for the rights of floppy disk drives repurposed to play music with their stepper motors.

>>6146677
That's exactly why he committed suicide.

>>6146678
Humans are also essentially machines. Do your experiments on humans because at least humans can agree to it.

>>6146678
i can hold all this positivism.

I bet you dont have sex, because is just a bunch of biochemical reactions whitout sense..

>>6146665
>In essence, doing good makes you feel good. Doing bad makes you feel bad. This is universal and will never change

>>6146684
Yeah but we have sophisticated emotions and brains that can comprehend things like pain and suffering. A cockroach is essentially a carbon-based machine with light sensors, nerves on the sides of its body used for detecting walls, and a digestive tract. There's no reason to be empathetic towards a floppy disk or a cockroach.

Our culture empathizes with things that feel pain. Things with big brains. Stop romanticizing bugs.

>>6146684
Except they probably wont, or the people that do agree won't be a representative part of the population.

>>6146685
I have sex because I'm driven to do it by instinct. I'm not a physicalist, I just accept the fact that there's a sensible border between simple life and life deserving empathy.

If you are actually passionate about protecting the rights of lab animals, at least be glad that my philosophy on morality ends at rats instead of black people and children.

>>6146691
You don't even have to justify it like that.
What's wrong with saying 'I have authority over this bug and I chose to do what I want with it'?
You can't make the argument that that's translatable to human because we can outlaw it.

"But what if someone more powerful than you did that to you"
Who's to say that not experimenting on cockroaches will prevent that?

>>6146698
>What's wrong with saying 'I have authority over this bug and I chose to do what I want with it'?

Because we're essentially having a moral discussion, and it's probably not a good moral argument to make when you can easily swap the word 'bug' with 'children' or 'black people'.

>>6146691
Oh so we're so special and cockroaches are irrelevant and therefore can be tortured if we so please. Great reasoning.

>>6146711
The definition of torture is inherently specific to emotions possessed by complex lifeforms like humans. A cockroach cannot feel pain like humans can, so it cannot, by definition, be tortured.

>>6146715
Yeah, wrap your ideas in as many words as you please. If you were a cockroach, you wouldn't want someone to experiment on you.

>A cockroach cannot feel pain like humans can, so it cannot, by definition, be tortured.
Last time I checked cockroaches had extremely sensitive nerve endings reaching, and they reacted to light and pain, and that can generally explain a lot about their behavior.

You're an uneducated twat. Go burn some cockroaches, it's obviously the peak of your intellectual endeavors.

I'm out of this fucking idiotic thread.

>>6146704
>not a good moral argument to make when you can easily swap the word 'bug' with 'children' or 'black people'.

Well, doing that, you would totally change the substance of my argument, while maintaining its structure.


>>6146711
That's pretty much it. Morals are the byproduct of romanticizing the social contract.
There is nothing metaphysical about the social contract, it's purely functional. We don't gain anything by stepping into the social contract with bugs. In fact, we lose the opportunity cost of researching on them.

>>6146719
>If you were a cockroach, you wouldn't want someone to experiment on you.
That is so true! Except guess what, I'm not a cockroach, and I never plan on becoming one. The sort of translation you're making is a logical fallacy and it only inhibits your abilities, well I guess it also gives you social standing.

>You're an uneducated twat. Go burn some cockroaches, it's obviously the peak of your intellectual endeavors.
Why are you mad? I'm genuinely trying to convince your or myself that the other is right.
Did you really get educated and then reach your current conclusion, or are you just siding with what sounds reasonable or fair?

>>6146704
But bugs and black people don't have the same rights as children so it doesn't matter.

>>6146719
>If you were a cockroach, you wouldn't want someone to experiment on you.
If I was a cockroach, I wouldn't even be able to conceive of the notion of experimentation, or rights, or morality, or even the "self".

>>6146730

>But bugs and black people don't have the same rights as children so it doesn't matter.

>black people ... rights

I was literally counting the posts.

>>6146739
Shit, I know you're agreeing with me an all, but you're using shitty arguments. When arguing and giving someone the opportunity to announce that anything you said is even remotely wrong is a bad idea. It gives them momentum.
Use my superior argument and watch how he gets buttmad because I'm inherently right.

People who are against non-human animals experimentation should volunteer as test subjects.

>>6146759
HELLO?!?!

I'm ether right because you got mad, or I'm right because you left.
There is no way that I'm not comprehending your position and you felt that I'm a waste of your time. Clearly, I understand where you're coming from and see that your foundation is wrong, therefore your conclusion is wrong. Also, knowing nothing about my position you chose to respond, serving as proof that you were willing to waste your time on a stranger on the internet.

>>6146719
>You're an uneducated twat. Go burn some cockroaches, it's obviously the peak of your intellectual endeavors.

I don't see why you're getting so defensive here. My argument has nothing to do with my level of education, since what we're essentially having is a discourse about morality.

>Last time I checked cockroaches had extremely sensitive nerve endings reaching, and they reacted to light and pain, and that can generally explain a lot about their behavior.

Reacting to light and pressure does not equal pain. Describing the physiological processes of nerves does not explain pain or suffering. This is called the explanatory gap.

Does a piezoelectric device feel pain because it reacts to pressure? Does a photoresistor 'react' to light because it resists more current when exposed to light? You're attempting to bridge the gap between 'reacting' to phenomena and 'feeling' it.

>I'm out of this fucking idiotic thread.
Bye?

>>6146728
>Why are you mad?
Because you're making me mad. And you lost your fucking argument. Cockroaches can and do feel pain.

>>6146789
You know that the first person to get mad in an argument is essentially the loser, right? I did nothing to directly provoke you, and still made you mad by bringing your inconsistencies and cognitive dissonance to up to your consciousness.

>Cockroaches can and do feel pain.
Hold on a sec, are you a cockroach? That would explain a lot.

>>6146787
Basically what you're doing is you're trying to justify your ideas. Personally, I think you're a fucking idiot. So there's that. Nothing personal.

>>6146789
>Cockroaches can and do feel pain

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanatory_gap

>Because you're making me mad. And you lost your fucking argument.

The point of an argument is to attack opposing positions on issues in order to reach a sensible resolution. It's clear now that the sole reason you want to post on this thread is to "win arguments" and make sure everyone knows just how many arguments you've won. You've clearly missed the entire point of contributing to a discussion, and as a result proved yourself as a complete manchild. Grats on your sweet win, brah.

>>6146803
>you're trying to justify your ideas
You do realize that this is the core concept underlying any debate? You propose ideas, and then justify them. Are you a potato?

>>6146800
No, you did nothing to provoke me. Your ideas provoked me because I think they're immoral and I don't think you have the empathy required to understand my standpoint. You just think logically, like a fucking robot. Think with empathy and then suddenly what I'm telling you will make sense. If you have the capacity for it, that is.

>>6146803
>Basically what you're doing is you're trying to justify your ideas.
That's pretty much it. Except instead of justifying them, we are saying that there is nothing inherently wrong with them.

>Personally, I think you're a fucking idiot.
Why, because I see the world through a different lens than you? So does a cockroach for that matter.

>>6146803
>Basically what you're doing is you're trying to justify your ideas
I could have told you that.

>Personally, I think you're a fucking idiot.
Okay?

>>6146810
I think you will have a much easier time seeing it from my perspective if you glance at this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

>Think with empathy and then suddenly what I'm telling you will make sense.
Why should I live my life according to empathy? I'm here to do what's best for me.

Because in many Western value systems, freedom is better than death. Taking away a living thing's freedom is worse than killing it

>>6146665
shigg

>>6146697
/pol/ please go
>inb4 im jidf

>>6146815
Well then you are a selfish person, aren't you.

You know I don't know why I started posting in this thread in the first place. I guess I'm an idiot too. But at least I'm a moral idiot. Personally, I wouldn't harm a fly, not even if the fate of humanity depended on it. I think life is more important than survival. If something is alive and you don't have respect for it, then to my mind you are in an immoral state of mind. Think of it what you will, reason it out, make fucking explanations or extrapolations, I don't give a fuck. I've given up on trying to get the message across. You either get it or you don't.

>>6146810
Man, tell me, how does it feel to get so fucking told?

>>6146820
I don't share any of /pol/s views. I really don't see what's so absurd about the idea that empathy should be reserved for life forms capable of feeling pain and suffering. Sure, you can beg the question that cockroaches may possess the ability to feel pain, but that can apply to literally any form of life, simple or complex. I think the prudent assumption is that since a cockroach has such a simple brain and nervous system, you shouldn't sacrifice scientific research on the basis that we cannot conclusively prove whether cockroaches feel pain.

>>6146824
>Well then you are a selfish person, aren't you.
And you're not?
How are you alive after giving all your properties to feed, heal and shelter the miserable world?

>>6146824
>But at least I'm a moral idiot.
You're just an idiot with an incredibly romanticized perspective of the morality of life. Which reminds me...

> Personally, I wouldn't harm a fly, not even if the fate of humanity depended on it.
As a tertiary consumer, your digestive system wastes a shitton of energy in the food you eat just to keep you alive. Essentially, your existence is actively destroying life, regardless of whether you want to or not. If you truly value life more than survival, you have no choice but to kill yourself right here and now to help preserve the life your survival is dependent on.

>>6146830
I'm not after "what's best for me".

>>6146835
There's a difference between voluntary action and involuntary action, my dear sir.

>>6146824
>Well then you are a selfish person, aren't you.
No, I give if I can and it makes me feel good, or if people will think I'm a good person because of it.
Sometimes I can give and it makes me feel good, but the trade isn't good enough, and I don't do it. Not selfish, just efficient.

>Personally, I wouldn't harm a fly, not even if the fate of humanity depended on it.
Are you real?

>If something is alive and you don't have respect for it, then to my mind you are in an immoral state of mind.
What's the point of romanticizing life and putting it up on a pedestal? What to do gain from that? What's the point?

>>6146830
Just because he isn't doesn't make me right.
You're calling him a hypocrite and it's not helping my argument. Shut the fuck up.

>>6146834
The fuck you are, just not always. The time you aren't it's because you put moral restrictions on yourself for some odd reason.

>Essentially, your existence is actively destroying life, regardless of whether you want to or not. If you truly value life more than survival, you have no choice but to kill yourself right here and now to help preserve the life your survival is dependent on.

It wasn't his choice to be brought into this world, but now that his body is living, it would be against his moral code kill himself. This is where the cognitive dissonance comes in.

>>6146841
That's such a BS cop-out answer. If you truly believe that life as a whole possesses the same intrinsic value, you'd kill yourself. You're not involuntarily killing life, you're voluntarily not killing yourself.

>>6146834
So you're an idiot then?

>>6146846
>Just because he isn't doesn't make me right.
You're calling him a hypocrite and it's not helping my argument.
I was just pointing out that that poster as selfish as that other poster.
There's a basal selfishness that was evolutionary acquired.

Oh God. The amount of told in this thread!

Imagine an alien species putting you in cold water, scraping off the top of your head with sandpaper and stabbing electrodes into your brain and nervous system.

Then they use their highly advanced alien control systems or whatever to control you around for a while, you don't get to eat or do what you want you're just being controlled.

When the aliens get bored, you die.

This is unreasonably cruel.

imo unethical.

because, in of itself it is useless for anything other than development of method or specific research.

as a development for humanitarian gain, it requires more practical research.

so its unethical until it reaches the production line.

and even then, it may be used unethically if desired.

but OP must know that much the same thing has already taken place in humans.. a few decades ago.

although for different purposes.


and finally, the test subjects used where vulnerable people.

drug addicts.

although it was less like free drugs

and more like free drugs for surgery.


probably.

>>6146858
And what I'm saying is that I'm willing to put my money(my life) on the bet that that's not going to happen.

>This is unreasonably cruel.
That may be, but why should it stop me?
Especially if it can benefit not only me, but other living things in the future?

>>6146858
>This is unreasonably cruel.
Yeh I'd be complaining to like the UN if aliens existed and they did that to me.

>>6146858
Imagine an alien species putting you into a furnace, galvanizing you with a zinc alloy, then hammering you into an unfinished mantlepiece.

This is unreasonably cruel.

Or actually it's not, because you can't just equate apples and oranges in the same way you can't equate humans and nails.

>>6146846
>What's the point of romanticizing life and putting it up on a pedestal? What to do gain from that? What's the point?
The point is that I have developed empathy to a high degree. That's all that's important and should answer all of your questions. When I see life, I see something quite literally miraculous. It shouldn't be there, according to logic. It doesn't make sense, and yet it exists, and it flourishes and it grows and it expands and it dances the dance of life (yes, I'm being poetic, shoot me). It's extremely clear to me that life deserves respect. And it doesn't matter whether it be a whale, a human, or a tiny micro-organism. We all play our parts. If you're trying to understand what I'm telling you through reason, then you're just going to go in circles and not a damn thing I'm telling you will get through. But if you understand the simplicity and wonder of life, of there actually being consciousness in this seemingly dead universe, then you'll start respecting life.

>Are you real?
My example is exaggerated, but the point stands.

>>6146849
Yes, I'm a perfect fucking idiot.

>>6146870
Humans are cockroaches to the aliens.

Sorry if that was 2deep4u I realize not everyone on this board can be equally intelligent.

>>6146867
>Especially if it can benefit not only me, but other living things in the future?
Even though this is really cool from a scientific and technological standpoint, kids controlling cockroaches with their cellphones for 5 minutes before getting bored isn't science and does nothing to benefit humanity.

I don't think it's unethical in control insects but it's unethical to encourage children to treat living animals like mechanical toys.

they could easily get the idea that the same logic applies for all living things.

adults have enough maturity to realise that the reason for testing on animals is to benefit humanity, not simply for fun or because we can, like this "toy" encourages.

>>6146875
>Humans are cockroaches to the aliens.
>Humans are cockroaches
----
>Or actually it's not, because you can't just equate apples and oranges in the same way you can't equate humans and nails.

I don't see what you did there.

>I realize not everyone on this board can be equally intelligent.

Yeah, it's a real pain. It's a shame we can't all take part in rational debate without circlejerking about our 'intelligences'. ;)

>>6146873
>Yes, I'm a perfect fucking idiot.
More like you make contradicting claims.
After all if one of your desire is to protect the cockroaches, then not following a weaker desire to experiment on them is still following your best interest.
If doing "good" makes you feel good, then doing good is a selfish act.

>When I see life, I see something quite literally miraculous.
Oh you. Magic > reality, we know.

>>6146879

>benefit humanity

>ethics


go watch gatica

>>6146883
I should really get around to watch this movie to try to understand what it's about.
Probably a variation of this picture.

Funny to see so many edgy kids on /sci/.

>>6146882
>If doing "good" makes you feel good, then doing good is a selfish act.
I guess I'm talking in metaphors.

Anyway, nice talking to you. Goodbye.

Roaches can't think, so I'm fine with that.
>b-but they feel pain!!!11
Yeah but they don't know what's happening
>HOW EVIL!!!!1! IMAGINE IF YOU WERE A COCKROACH YOU SICK FUCK YOU'D-
No.
>IT'LL MAKE KIDS BECOME PSYCHOS AND KILL PEOPLE
No it won't.

>BUT M-MUH NATURE
No.

Why is /sci/ so retarded?
Is /pol/ raiding us?

>>6146880
Yes cockroaches and nails are a bad comparison, can you figure out why?

I'll help you along since you're apparently pretty dense, humans and cockroaches both belong to the animal kingdom, you know the category "animals", nails do not belong the animal kingdom, about the only thing that humans and cockroaches have in common with nails is the fact that we're both made up of atoms.

If you managed to solve the previously mentioned puzzle, with the help of my hints of course, congratulations!

You should've been able to do this type of categorical analysis around the age of two but I guess this works as well.

>>6146899
Why is the animal kingdom so important?
Nails and humans also contain metal and also carry microorganisms on them.
Also nails and humans co-exist in time, unlike some members of the animal kingdom which have been long-extinct.

>>6146887
>not caring about cockroaches
>edgy
CIDF pls go.

>>6146873
>The point is that I have developed empathy to a high degree.
What I want to know is what did you gain by developing that?
For example, I learned how to do math so that I could process economic transactions and in the end be better off. What does your empathy give you?

>It shouldn't be there, according to logic. It doesn't make sense, and yet it exists
>according to logic
Are you sure you're not talking out of your ass here?
The entire universe is doing everything according to logic. Life exists because it is possible by the rules of the universe.
Just because life exists in an apparently extremely tiny corners of the universe doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. That's like saying, because gold exists in such small amount in the ground it shouldn't be there. What?

>It's extremely clear to me that life deserves respect.
What do you mean it's clear to you? Did you read it in some universal book of truth? It sounds to me like you know the answer to the meaning of life and you're not sharing.
Or, I guess you are trying to share, but not give away too much. I seriously suggest you read the article on Absurdism.

>If you're trying to understand what I'm telling you through reason, then you're just going to go in circles and not a damn thing I'm telling you will get through.
So you're saying that you position is only valid from a perspective that doesn't involve reason as the main idea. That's fine, but first you have to convince me why I(or you and everyone else for that matter) Should live their lives according to something that is not reason.

>But if you understand the simplicity ... of life
What? Life is nothing but simple. F=ma is simple, life is more complex than chemistry and physics combined.

>>6146878
This argument has strayed from the OP. I think it's more about unethical research now.


>>6146883
GATTACA is a possibly of the future, a vision. The only reason you don't want to live in a world like GATTACA is because you were raised in today's worl

>OMG THIS IS SO COOL
Yeah it kind of is.

>THIS IS SCIENCE
>THIS IS RESEARCH
No it's not, it's a finished product that has already been researched. Letting children control cockroaches isn't science.

Maybe if you investigated what people actually do with the cockroaches they control you could gain some insight into humanity, but letting people use a finished product to do something that has already been figured out is not going to give us any insights into the cockroach.

>THIS IS IMPORTANT
Maybe to generate funding for actual science.

>>6146899
>humans and cockroaches both belong to the animal kingdom,

So? Cockroaches and nails are both made of matter. Why is this dichotomy important from a moral standpoint?

>You should've been able to do this type of categorical analysis around the age of two but I guess this works as well.
For future reference, the more personal jabs you make at the person you're arguing with, the more defensive and desperate you look. I'm not even saying this since I'm arguing with you, this is true in all cases.

>>6146885

i havent really watched it in ages.

so i just supposed it was about social ethics and control.

by fitting a "normal"

its probably about something totally different the next time i watch it.

>>6146902
>Why is the animal kingdom so important?
Because animals have these things called nervous systems, when we're discussing the potential effects of a device upon a creatures nervous system this is quite significant as even you might imagine.

>Nails and humans also contain metal and also carry microorganisms on them.
Good job, you parrotted something I already said.

>Also nails and humans co-exist in time, unlike some members of the animal kingdom which have been long-extinct.
I don't understand your fascination with nails, I guess you could try to use this device on a nail as a testament to your own intellectual capabilities, but I'm afraid you would be thorougly disappointed.

>>6146920
>Because animals have these things called nervous systems,
You mean Eumetazoa, right?
>when we're discussing the potential effects of a device upon a creatures nervous system this is quite significant as even you might imagine.
Sure cockroaches are cockroaches.
You're the one building up metaphors with aliens here, why not just talk about cockroaches?
What about their nervous systems?
Why are nervous systems so important?
If I give a robot a nervous system, for example motor controls with some feedback, am I not allowed to remote-control it?

>>6146920
>Because animals have these things called nervous systems

Not true. Sponges do not have nervous systems, and they are considered animals. If you want to further refine your criteria, I'd only bother looking at the potential effects of a device upon complex nervous systems.

However, since the ethical implications you're worrying about regard pain, you might as well look at the potential effects on animals with complex brains that carry the structures associated with the feeling of pain. As you can tell, we're already out of the realm of cockroaches.

>>6146924
>If I give a robot a nervous system, for example motor controls with some feedback, am I not allowed to remote-control it?

This is essentially the crux of the argument in this thread. Can we start arguing about this instead of using a bunch of confusing and erroneous analogies to push our points?

>>6146906
>What does your empathy give you?
Well, it does give him a certain level of social standing. But that's more to do with the current social mores. If everyone thought it was a great idea to kill all dogs, then being outspoken in your belief of killing dogs would benefit you socially.

>>6146912
>So? Cockroaches and nails are both made of matter.
One of them has a nervous system the other one doesn't.

>Why is this dichotomy important from a moral standpoint?
Because we are discussing a device that affects the nervous system, I'm not going to discuss the morality of using this device on a nail because it doesn't interest me and is unlikely to have any effect.

I addressed the belief that it's impossible to compare a cockroach to a human, especially with regards to what we call a "nervous system".

I also asserted that it's absurd to bring nails into this as they don't have nervous systems, and that it's more reasonable to compare humans to cockroaches than nails when we're discussing the nervous system.

If anyone wants to continue this discussion please e-mail me at afox@udel.edu and I will address your concerns tomorrow.

>For future reference, the more personal jabs you make at the person you're arguing with, the more defensive and desperate you look.
Interesting, you're trying to assert that I am desperate when you're the one bringing nails into a discussion about the ethical implications of tinkering with an animals nervous system.

That seems a bit desperate to me :-)

>>6146935
Yeah, I understand that and I knew that before I typed out that response.
Shouldn't the mere understanding of that change your mind though?

Or is social standing more important than than benefits to humanity.

>>6146937
>afox@udel.edu
Real as fuck

I'm : >>6146906
and I'm at Lilbthebasedlord@gmail.com

>>6146937
>Because we are discussing a device that affects the nervous system

Yeah, but the moral dilemma here is about pain and suffering. Having a nervous system /=/ having the ability to feel pain. See:
>If I give a robot a nervous system, for example motor controls with some feedback, am I not allowed to remote-control it?

Essentially, your dichotomy is pointless because we're not arguing about nervous systems, we're arguing about pain.

>I addressed the belief that it's impossible to compare a cockroach to a human, especially with regards to what we call a "nervous system".

Okay, so if you're arguing about the morality of tinkering with people's nervous systems, and you've established that human and cockroach nervous systems are incomparable, why did you start off your argument with some dumb analogy about aliens tinkering with humans?

For future reference, it helps to read the thread to get an idea of where the discussion is going before basing your argument on a confusing and irrelevant analogy.

>>6146935
Depends where his values lie. If he gains more utility from being a "good person" than the benefits derived from animal research, then it would be reasonable for him to continue acting on his current beliefs.

>>6146939
Things done in the name of humanity are no different than things done in the name of religion.

>>6146944
That's a pretty cool questionable analogy there bro. I'm not saying we should do it in the name of humanity. Doing things in the name of anything is pretty fucking stupid. You should be doing things for their own sake.
My point still stands.

>>6146336
>It's worrying how this argument is so popular. Because people instantly lose all sense of morality when they use insects for their amusement.

It's a basic tactic resulting from fear: the test for immorality gave a negative result when it should have given a positive one, so we loosen the concept of immorality, providing more false positives, in the hopes of catching more guilty people.

People have never had much trouble ostracising people without power. They do not feel any negative repercussions to the restriction, so they believe that there are none. Meanwhile, the ability to freely oppose some segment of society signals to society that you are "edgy" enough to do so (i.e. confident in your ability to withstand the negative repercussions).

>>6146953
I don't understand what you are saying.

>>6146956
yeah neither do I. This guy fell off the cliff of esoteric terminology.

>>6146953
>>6146956
I'm still curious about what you had to say. Please explain in more uncompressed terms.

Hello?

>>6146956
>>6146957
Sorry, it's 2AM.

Basically, humanity is paranoid, and people are assholes to people who can't hurt them because it's safer and because it makes them look powerful.

Anything even vaguely reminiscent of cruelty is labeled as potentially monstrous, because the news and the rumor mill teaches us that there are dangerous madmen around every corner. Fragments like "I saw him doing ..., but I though it was nothing to worry about" haunt the minds of every housewife and every vigilante.

But they know that their actions won't have repercussions for them - there is no barrier like there is for standing up to someone with power over them. They score some easy points and that's the end of it for them.

>>6146974
Can I read more about this?

>>6146974
While what you said is true, I don't think that's the motivation behind what opponents to animal research are saying. That's attributing some sort of ulterior motive, some evil conspiracy, where there is none.

I'd say it's just a matter of idiotic people parroting ill-defined moral concepts that they were taught, without ever having critically analyzed why they support them. It's basically "muhfeels".

>>6146998
>I'd say it's just a matter of idiotic people parroting ill-defined moral concepts that they were taught, without ever having critically analyzed why they support them. It's basically "muhfeels"
agreed

>>6146454
>muh pop science
wow
so many facts
numbers %%%%
good vibes
the universe is big
wow

>>6146526
It doesn't matter, because it's our decision anyways.

I think people simply sympathize with the cockroaches. It reminds them that their own freedom is an illusion.

"Stephen Hawking points out that in the unlikely event that Earth is ever visited by aliens, the fact that they arrive here at all would mean their intelligence is vastly superior to ours already. Suppose they came from a world a billion years older than ours--how much evolving might humans do over the next billion years? So how much superior to us might they be?
In this imaginary scenario, they would not see us as the superior beings we imagine ourselves to be. We would be their primitive animals they experiment on.
This scenario of humans being experimented on by superior beings should pose no problems at all for people who approve of these experiments on insects. If they're not inconsistent in their logic, this scenario should be perfectly acceptable."

>>6147051
That depends entirely on your definition of "self".

>>6147061
We don't consider it acceptable to experiment on cockroaches simply because we're vastly superior. We consider it acceptable to do so because there is no evidence that they are sentient.

>>6147061
They would be perfectly acceptable from the perspective of the aliens, simply and stupidly, because they can, and why not?

I wouldn't find it acceptable, because clearly, it would impede my ability to do what the fuck I want to do.

What I do with cockroaches has no impact on what's going to happen if we are visited by advanced aliens. Quite frankly, I don't believe we will be, at least in my life time.

What I'm saying is that I don't give a shit about the cockroaches will. Why should I?

>>6147061
They'd see us like we see african tribes, not like we see insects.

>>6147067
Probably more like we saw Neanderthals. Unless you're one of those "African tribes are inhuman etc" people.

>>6147059
In this case, I'd define the self as the same as the mind.

>>6147064

sentience is not binary, it exists in degrees

some humans are more sentient than others therefore it stands to reason advanced alien would experience a sentience we cannot imagine

"The sensation of color cannot be accounted for by the physicist's objective picture of light-waves. Could the physiologist account for it, if he had fuller knowledge than he has of the processes in the retina and the nervous processes set up by them in the optical nerve bundles and in the brain? I do not think so." - Erwin Schrödinger

>>6147078
Do you mean how we humans saw the Neanderthals back when both of us were around or how we'd see them if our modern society suddenly found a Neanderthal tribe somewhere?

>>6147085
>Qualia

>>6147079
And how do you define "choice"? At what point do the seemingly deterministic processes within the brain constitute a choice being made?

>>6146858
>>6146858


B-b-b-but how do you that it's not already HAPPENING

>>6147113
An act to be consciously undertaken.

>>6147147
Where does the intial spark to consciously undertake an act come from?

If we take a physicalist view of the universe, how do the chemical interactions in our brain constitute a conscious choice? Is there any possibility of choosing differently for any given decision? Can our consciousness physically affect the matter in our brain?

>>6147164
>Can our consciousness physically affect the matter in our brain?
Damn, that's scary, but at the same time, in a way, relieving.

>>6147164
Doesn't that mean that our consciousness is the product of our bodies, and if you get smarter through thought experiments your brain is a feedback loop that can get smarter on its own, allowing you to make better decisions.

>>6147147
>An act to be consciously undertaken.


There is a vast amount of literature on how subconscious hints and suggestions can alter behavior without the person realizing it. Marketing is based almost entirely on this phenomenon.

>>6147172
As far as I'm aware (and I'm absolutely open to counterarguments), the universe is basically deterministic on the macro level, and indeterministic on the quantum scale. We are made up of matter that follows deterministic principles, so anything we do must also be deterministic. When we make a "choice", it's not as if we could have ever made it differently. Alternatively, our behavior may be dictated by indeterministic means, and then it's a flip of the coin whenever a decision is made. In either case, I can see no room for causality-breaking "free will", ie. decisions that originate purely from the self.

>>6147184
STOP

>>6147189
If I'm wrong, by all means, correct me. I'd like to hear some opposing views on this.

>>6147164
>Where does the intial spark to consciously undertake an act come from?
What are you asking? Why we have to take an act? How we take an act? How we decide which act to take?

>how do the chemical interactions in our brain constitute a conscious choice?
Again, what are you asking? The chemical reactions which produce our consciousness and our thoughts? How we move our muscles consciously? In either case, I have no idea.
>Is there any possibility of choosing differently for any given decision?
Assuming everything is the exact same, no. It could happen if an electron is spinning the wrong way or something like that, though.
>Can our consciousness physically affect the matter in our brain?
That's spooky. Yes, but not directly. By directly, I mean thinking "Let there be hormone!", and there was hormone.

>>6147183
I was referring to conscious acts as opposed to heartbeats, moving your arm when you touch something hot and so forth.

No matter how much unconscious and Freud was involved in deciding to buy TunA Phantasm, it's still a conscious act.

>>6147209
I'm asking about the link between mind and body. If the mind is just a phenomenon that emerges from the brain, then consciousness is a slave to it's container. All of our our thoughts and feelings must be dictated by the composition of our brains. Since our brains are composed of chemicals that react in deterministic ways, the concept of decision-making becomes difficult to accept.

>>6147294
Why is that? The reactions have been set in such a way that they originate us, our thoughts and our choices. In a (somewhat) similar manner, we've set our metals and electrons so that our computers would calculate.

>>6147317
Because we don't consciously decide anything. Our consciousness (and any decisions it claims to have made) is simply a reflection of the state of affairs in our brains, and our brains are chugging along on the tracks that were set out for them since before they were created (assuming macro objects behave deterministically).

I'm not disputing that a decision apparently made by person X can be attributed to him, but that assigning moral agency to that decision is irrational, as he couldn't have made any other decision.

>>6147333
We do "consciously" decide stuff. No matter whether it's a bunch of chemical reactions or some spiritual soul thingy, it's still us, and we're still making those decisions. Even if everything about us was laid out prior to times we can even imagine properly, it's still us. Our actions are still our responsibility.

>>6147339
Not when we have no choice. If we are behaving deterministically, responsibility (at least in a moral sense) cannot apply.

We have no more choice in what we do, think, or feel, than the cockroach we remotely control with our smartphone.

I dunno? Are roaches actually capable of feeling pain? If the answer is yes then the answers are pretty obvious. Is unethical to torture a being for the sole reason of making a bunch of money. Killing someone is in many situation more ethical than torturing him.

>>6147468
We do have a choice. It's predetermined because both our being and the situation which leads us to a choice are predetermined, but the "our being" aspect literally is us. It doesn't matter whether we chose ourselves or not. Our choices are ours, morally or otherwise.

>>6147495
>We do have a choice.
> It's predetermined

Did you read what you just wrote? Determinism does not allow for choice. Choice implies multiple possible outcomes. Determinism allows for only one outcome.

The actions someone takes may be attributed to them, but it is nonsensical to apply any sort of moral agency to them, because morality and determinism are entirely at odds with each other.

>>6147487
Roaches aren't persons. Therefore the question of morality based on individual doesn't apply.

>Animal behaviour scientist Jonathan Balcombe has been quoted on US scientific websites as saying that the insects are harmed in the process.

No shit.

I find this pretty disgusting.

>M-MUH SCIENCE
No. This is not an experiment or anything valuable for research, it's just making toys out of living beings.

>>6147506
>Choice implies multiple possible outcomes
Didn't I state earlier that, for the purpose of this discussion, "choice" would be defined as "an act to be taken consciously"?

I'd like to boil this down. Even though the entirety of each person's mind is predetermined, it still is that person, and they still are responsible for what they do.

>>6147516
>living being

A computer is can be defined as living being.

>>6147516
Please. They're roaches. Why don't you also go defend the rights of viruses and parasites?

>>6147517
So you've changed the definition of choice to mean something other than what it actually means. I see we're talking about completely different things here.

Let's imagine you are correct, and someone has made a "bad choice". You consider them morally culpable for their action. What happens next? What is the relevance of responsibility and moral agency in a deterministic context? Do you punish them for something they were inevitably going to do?

>>6147519
A computer doesn't feel anything. I am not an expert on cockroaches, but even if they are not very advanced, I assume they have some degree of thinking and feeling. Can they feel pain? Cold? Can they be scared?

>>6147516
Do you find the idea of Aibo, the robotic pet, disgusting as well? Because that is about as complex and sentient as a cockroach.

>>6147527
What evidence do you have to base your conclusion that computers don't feel anything? Or that cockroaches experience qualia?

>>6147525
I suppose so. Otherwise, people would probably run amok doing whatever they wanted till the world blew up because "they're not morally culpable".

I didn't change the definition of "choice". You derived an improper implication from it, or, at least, one which is invalid in this context. Check Google.

>>6147531
>What evidence do you have to base your conclusion that computers don't feel anything?
Nigga please.

>Or that cockroaches experience qualia?
As I said, I am not an expert on cockroaches. I don't know what they do or don't feel, but since they are a relatively complex living organism, I think it's a pretty good assumption that they can feel something.

I don't want to create the "Save the cockroaches" foundation. I don't want to say they are better than human beings. I don't mean they are untouchable and sacred.
If this were an actual experiment with a purpose, I wouldn't mind at all.
But messing them up just so a fat kid can have 5 minutes of fun with his iphone 5 is disgusting.

>>6147531
because insects are conscious and computers are not.

>>6147538
>I suppose so
What is the purpose of punishing them? The punishment has no bearing on whether or not they will do it again. As you've acknowledged, they are going to do what they do regardless of the circumstances. It'd be like finding the idea that rivers run downhill offensive and unacceptable, and then blaming any river you see for having the temerity to do so.

>I didn't change the definition
People ITT, let's have a poll. Do you think the definition of choice necessitates multiple possible outcomes?

>choice
>noun
>an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities

First fucking definition on google. So yeah, you did happen to drop the defining aspect of the word.

>>6147547
How can you tell?

Insects react to stimuli in specific and determinable ways. Computers react to stimuli in specific and determinable ways. Or are you suggesting that because they are organic, they have a soul that computers lack?

>>6147556
>As you've acknowledged, they are going to do what they do regardless of the circumstances
I acknowledged that? Anyways, the river doesn't choose to run down, so I can't really blame it.

The purpose of punishing them is to make sure that they feel bad for what they did, and to ensure others will know that I'll also make sure they feel bad for what they do in an attempt to prevent them.

>an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities
You have >1 possibilities and you select one. We run these possibilities through our logical processes and choose one of them. If all the possibilities and all our logical processes are known, it's theoretically possible to predict the exact choice we'll make. I don't see how that takes the value of choice from it.

Spare these good men from our pathetic, pointless discussion.

Whenever I think of the sentience of insects I think of the experiment where researches moved the food of a praying mantis, which moved and cleaned itself before picking up the food ad infinitum.

Insects (all insects?) are computers with programmed actions and reactions.

>>6147570
What is it about determinism that you aren't understanding? If things behave deterministically, there is only one possible outcome. This happens whether you know the input variables or not. Whatever ends up happening, is the only possible thing that could have happened.

Rivers behave deterministically. They don't choose to run downhill. People behave deterministically (still debatable, but we've accepted this to be the case for the entire discussion). They don't choose to do whatever they end up doing. Making them feel bad will prevent nothing, because they are not the primary cause of their behavior.

Can you blame a computer for outputting 4 every time the input is 2+2?

>>6147588
I made an image for you.

I'm also very tired. Good night.

>>6147610
I also made an image.

>>6147581
this sounds interesting. do you remember where you read about it?

>>6147629
I corrected some very noticeably incorrect data in your image.

/sci/ is my new favorite board

>>6148114
What for?

>>6146415
This. Such a lovely massive dichotomy between the ethics of controlling a bug and killing millions of lab animals.

>>6145423
Fuck your ethics

>>6147531
Computers don't reproduce, cockroaches do.

It's immoral to kill anything which can grow, reproduce and, respond to stimuli. Anyone who argues differently is a sociopath and, judging by all the responses in this thread in favor of torturing animals, that's probably a lot of you.

>>6148527
By what logic do you place the criteria for moral applicability to be growth, reproduction, and reaction to stimuli? Bacteria do that. Is it immoral to kill them? How about a virtual cockroach? If you were to create a simulation of a cockroach that grows, reproduces, and responds to stimuli in the ways it was programmed, you should find it immoral to terminate the simulation too.

>>6146336
One of the first signs of a budding serial killer is torturing animals.

>>6149692
Torturing implies causing suffering for the sake of suffering. Driving a cockroach around like an RC car doesn't have that intent behind it, so it has nothing to do with serial killing. Jesus christ.

>>6148527
>It's immoral to kill anything which can grow, reproduce and, respond to stimuli. Anyone who argues differently is a sociopath

>implying using antibiotics makes you a sociopath

Oh man it's ultra pleb thread's like these that really shit this section up, I Mean i know it's 4chan and all and we have a bunch of weirdos but let's keep morals out of here

>>6149692
>One of the first signs of a budding serial killer is torturing animals.
So serial killers torture animals. That doesn't mean torturing an animal will suddenly make you a serial killer. Correlation =/= causation

We need to ban DHMO

>>6148527
>Anyone who argues differently is a sociopath
No, I think anyone who has an inability to empathize with fellow human beings to the point that it severely affects their life is a sociopath. I don't see how you're e-diagnosing soldiers, hunters, exterminators, farmers, and anyone who has used an antibiotic ever just like that. Please retract this statement and admit that you got ahead of yourself in a fit of hysteria over THE POOR ROACHES =(.

PS: Fuck cockroaches. They're disgusting, if they had the intellect of a human being I'd still say kill em because they won't stay the fuck out of my house. I can literally shoot other people if they're on my property. Damn straight I can grind a roach's head off and stick in some wires. Bunch of fucking pussy ass liberals!

>>6149899
Dubs checked mien fuhr!!!

>ITT: The Slippery Slope

Bugs =/= People.
They are of such a low...well, just about any mental process that this is a non-issue. Doing it to something like a monkey or a dog or some shit and I could see why an uproar would occur. But insects? Those things that there are even more of on Earth than us? Please.

>>6149899
Let me reiterate when I say let's keep morals out of here..specifically christian morals..criminal..stunted development types and there opinions that hold people back..aka the jewish religions (christianity, islam, etc)

>>6146441
Science has nothing to do with morality. Science is systematic exploration through careful observation and experimentation.

Morality is some guy telling everyone how he believes they should act based on his feelings. No observation, no experimentation, and no peer review necessary. That's not science, it's religion.

We're not going to make great strides forward as a society until we discard censorship and prohibition and the petty morality that spawn these baseless and backward practices.

To a certain degree it's unethical because it's pretty much us sinking to the level of shit like emerald wasp and cordyceps. The difference of course is that unlike us they use their insect controlling tactics to just barely survive, while we use it to make our already above average survival tactics more efficient.

But to be fair I guess forcing horses or donkeys to pull several hundred pounds of stuff around for hundreds of years for our convenience and travel is just as bad so maybe to a degree the ethics argument shouldn't be used too much here.

>>6149732
>>6149903
>ITT sociopaths defending torture
I guess it's okay if it's "for science"?

You're the type of people who burn ants just to hear them scream.

>>6150346
Hey, i'm not going to tell you that you're being rude, or that i disapprove of what you're doing, or that it's not the board culture or whatever people are trying to do on this board these days. I'm going to explain to you what this board is.

This board is all appearances. Early on in this board's life, we were trying to make this board appear one way, just for the hell of it. There's no true sci. All of the doctrine and preaching you hear is just an illusion. The whole point of this board is to make it appear a certain way. The whole elitist mentality is just a side effect of people here not caring about things outside their study and just trying to solidify their own life choices and philosophy.

When you post stuff like this, think about what it makes the board look like. You should be concerned with the aesthetic of the whole thing. You control what this board looks like by posting on it. Try to imagine what this board would look like to someone who came here for the first time. You can decide what the board looks like to that person. If you want it to look like immature people making crappy jokes, you can do that. If you want it to look like a looney bin, you can do that. You can do anything, but try to keep that in mind when you post here.

>billions of animals being factory farmed each year
>sentient animals capable of experiencing pain, stress and fear
>treated in an utterly inhumane way
>normal everyday part of society. thank god for cheap meat!

>injecting sensory data into the nervous system of a cockroach
>basically a biological automaton reacting to external stimuli without any higher "brain functions"
>highly unlikely to experience any pain, but still anesthetized just in case
>SCIENCE HAS GONE TOO FAR! SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING ABOUT THESE FUCKING SOCIOPATHS!

Good to see the muhfeels crowd has their priorities in order.

>>6146507
Control the cockroach, cheat on the test. More room for those on the higroad.

What's next, people feeling bad about killing microorganisms?

>>6150358
Best post I've read since coming to this board, hands down

>>6145423
ROBO ROACH FOR THE MOTHERFUCKING WIN.
http://youtu.be/04T5Zq6KPyY

>>6150588
It's copy pasta from /s4s/

>>6149732
>Torturing implies causing suffering for the sake of suffering.

no, that's not the case.