what the libcucks fail to understand is that this is a small price to pay for the end goal: an embedded HUD with unskippable advertisements in the margins of your eyesight
this screenshot is a headline edit/joke, about a real USA Today article (which is far more praising) and is spreading around twitter and here. The real number of primates they’ve killed is lower, but I think it’s important to understand why.
Neurallink is a fucking awful company whose marketing materials and CEO are outright lying as to their products’ supportable potential. But they’re not big enough to actually have killed 3,000 primates. Most significantly, we know that the the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine filed a lawsuit against a UC Davis lab for invasive and deadly brain experiments on 23 intelligent primates.
The Physician Committee points out in its complaint that Neuralink and UC Davis staff failed to provide dying monkeys with adequate veterinary care, used an unapproved substance known as “Bioglue” that killed monkeys by destroying portions of their brains, and failed to provide for the psychological well-being of monkeys assigned to the experiment.
The reason it’s important to point out that it’s less than 3,000 is that this kind of work is very often done at university laboratories, which gives us more leverage to slow it down or keep it out of this dude’s hands.
Holy…okay. 3000 non-human primates might not be the correct number, but even 23 primates dead in this experiment is horrifying from a science perspective.
I worked in a neuroscience lab that did work with one (1) rhesus monkey. His name was Beckett. Beckett had better healthcare than a university undergraduate. Hell, it took less hoops to get some experimental studies involving undergrad volunteers up and running than it was to do one experiment with Beckett wherein he got to sit in a chair and eat grapes.
See, the paperwork regarding experiments with animals was intense. I spent three days filling out the forms and going back and forth with the ethics board to let us do experiments on terminal mice wherein they’d peacefully be put under anesthesia and never wake up from surgery. As in we were putting a sick mouse to sleep and had to be 100% sure it would not be in any pain or distress. Screwing up and causing a mouse harm or killing it outside of these exact bounds? You’d be lucky if you ever got to work with a mouse again.
Not only that, but since an animal was expected to die in the experiment, we had to report how many we needed in the experiment and then how many actually died. And if the latter number was higher, you better believe the ethics board would be on our case demanding to know what the actual hell happened.
(There’s a plaque, by the way, in the labs, in remembrance of all the animals whose lives we ask for in the pursuit of science. It’s right there when you walk in.)
The paperwork and restrictions get more and more complex and strict the higher up the “evolutionary chain” you go up. If you MUST use an animal model, you use the lowest one on the chain that can meet your requirements. As in, why use frogs if you can use zebrafish? Why use fish if you can use fruitflies? Why use a living creature at all if your computer simulation is good enough? And if you can’t give a good answer, your proposal should be denied.
Back to the monkeys and Beckett. Monkeys, or “non-human primates” as they’re often known as, are usually at the top of this chain. Ideally, you treat them like humans who are unable to consent for themselves. Which means they need advocates for them. Beckett pretty much had a vet assigned just to him. If he so much as had a sniffle, the vet had the power to veto any and all experiments he’d be involved in until he was feeling better.
This was important because if your lab had a monkey and that monkey died for reasons other than “natural causes” that the ethics board did not okay? There was going to be an investigation and if they didn’t like what they found, not only would your lab never get another monkey again, but there was a damn good chance you’d be barred from working with any and ALL animals.
So from this perspective, “23 monkeys dead” should be read a very specific kind of shock and disgust. One dead should have made any kind of ethics board hit the breaks on this shit and start asking pointed questions as to “why”.
(Oh, and in case you’re wondering, there is an answer to the question of “what happens to monkeys who can’t be used in research anymore?”
They’re sent to the farm.
No, really. There are legit primate sanctuaries specifically for retired research primates. Where they get to live out the rest of their days in peace and safety in as close to a natural environment as possible. Beckett was a cranky old guy, and when I left the lab he was still there, but the plan had been for him to retire to one of those. I hope he got there and ate as many grapes as he could sucker the researchers into giving him as he could.)
Fellow researcher here, and I can 100% concur with the above. It takes SO much work and paperwork to get approved for every animal you get your hands on. We have hundreds of documents that will state essentially the same 5 things over and over because we HAVE to have a paper trail.
Having almost two dozen non-human primates dead? That’s horrifying. Someone was bribed and the ethics board should be at all of their throats, shutting down this project forever.
This blog is mostly so I can vent my feelings and share my interests. Other than that, I am nothing special.
If you don't like Left Wing political thought and philosophy, all things related to horror, the supernatural, the grotesque, guns or the strange, then get the fuck out. I just warned you.
