goo experiments - moral dilemma?

[Dirty Bob]

If I took seriously the things that games taught me and the moral standards they can depict I would be in prison by now. Actually, I'd probably be dead.

Moral of the story: 99% of people don't take games seriously.

Don't go play any of those rocket Flash games. You'd get really upset about turtles, hedgehogs and such being launched into space in the name of more upgrades.

[jwenting]

Now sure, these days there are shelves full of safety regulations published by organizations like OSHA, NIOSH, etc., intended to minimize casualties. But the very fact that it took bigtime special-interest lobbying to get such organizations created and charged with improving safety shows how "acceptable" industrial casualties are to the general public, because the general public simply doesn't care. If it had, the safety regulations would have been in place from the get-go.

and most of those are silently ignored unless there's a government inspector in the house for the simple reason that abiding by all of them all the time would make it impossible to get any work done whatsoever (and of course because a lot of them are counterproductive or even in contradiction with each other).

[jwenting]

please don't take KSP (or anything) more seriously than this and you'll be fine.

[Deadweasel]

It's interesting that this question comes up, regarding a game in which the kerbals themselves are test subjects for flights that frequently result in their deaths.

The central attention is on the morality of sending up a potential life form for testing, but how many kerbals were sacrificed to get to the point where that was possible?

I'm not willing to weigh in on the morality question one way or another, because while I have pretty much the standard level of empathy for other creatures, the fact is that animal sacrifices have already been made in real life space programs, and we have made great advancements because of it.

Russia sent up a bunch of dogs for its research program, the most famous of which was of course Laika, the first Earth-born creature in orbit, aboard Sputnik 2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_space_dogs

She died after a few hours due to a thermal control system malfunction, but the satellite re-entered atmosphere 162 days later.

Then there were the monkeys. The US, France, Russia and the USSR have all launched monkeys into orbit or at least on sub-orbital flights. Iran did it too, most recently on Dec. 14, 2013.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkeys_and_apes_in_space

From there, I'm sure most of us have at least heard or read something about the cats, spiders, frogs etc that went up on Shuttle and ISS flights, all of which contributed valuable insight as to how weightlessness affects them. What's critical about using animals is that they don't sit there and ponder their lot in life, or spend hours analyzing what's going on. They just act as their instincts tell them to, and that's the most important aspect of those experiments. Humans actively work hard to adapt to new environments before they even experience them, which can result in misleading or even outright false conclusions. Meanwhile, animals keep trying to do what they know, and sometimes slowly adapt to their environment as they figure out what works and what doesn't.

Case-in-point: cats (almost) always land on their feet. We think we know how, based on slow motion video, and yes, even vivisections. Now take the cat into space and see how it reacts. The studies have contributed -at least in part- to developing more reliable gyro positioning systems, something that will be critical if we ever expect to explore beyond the Moon someday.

The bottom line is: animals will never develop a space program; we humans have. As such, (and as long as we're talking about morality), then it befits us to assume a custodial role of our world and everything living on it, because our actions already influence them far more than they would ever do on their own. Some bleeding hearts will cry "foul" at using animals for studies, but in the long term, would they still think they had a point if the advancement of knowledge and capabilities based on those studies resulted in new processes, technologies or behaviors that slowed or even reversed our own negative impacts on this planet, and therefore the other lifeforms living on it?

A few (of millions or even billions) of those animals were selected to teach us something based on their unique capabilities and biologies, and in return, the things they teach can lead to knowledge that could benefit a great deal more than just us humans.

TL;DR: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

[Nepos]

Well Kerbals have to use the goo-squid things now, it is all they have left. They sent all their children into space and got no science . beside why do you think the great space kraken is out there. It is a goo experiment seeking revenge.

[jwenting]

and don't forget that the Soviets never intended for those dogs (at least the first ones) to come back alive if at all...

Later ones maybe, when they wanted to test reentry systems, but the first were effectively dead the moment they were selected for that flight.

[Comrade Jenkens]

The difference between human / kerbal casualties and animals is the sentient beings know the risks and are prepared to accepted that. Animals don't have a choice and contrary to many peoples opinions here they can feel pain and be miserable!

I accept certain scientific and medical testing as necessary even though I don't like it but many uses like testing beauty products on them is just plain wrong. What also concerns me is the human superiority approach and the attitude that animals are just unfeeling objects that we can treat how we like.

[User Unrelated]

It may make me seem like a "horrible person" in some people's eyes

but we/Kerbals are the dominant species (for the most part, in most situations)

We/they can do as we/they please.

Do you think the Orcas worry about seal's wellfare when they kill them and toss their lifeless bodies around for "fun"?

EDIT: perfect timing for the post above... I'm not saying that they are unfeeling emotionless blobs.

Think about a hungry shark, preying on a surfer. The shark don't give a care what the surfer thinks, if he's hungry, he's going to eat that surfer, bettering the shark's life by providing nutrients for bodily processes. Expansion of scientific knowledge can be seen as sort of the same situation.

We can't all live in a happy world of rainbows and perfectness. Pay attention to the HUMAN suffering on the planet before you start defending animals with everything you've got.

I understand SOME of the animal rights stuff, like living conditions, not torturing animals, etc, but not killing them?... there's such a thing as the food chain, and it is at work every day.

I think to sum up my post... humans are animals just as much as any other. Think about it.

Edited March 14, 2014 by User Unrelated

[Vanamonde]

This is a subject that many people feel strongly about. It's fine to disagree and to say so, but insulting other members will not be tolerated, so keep it clean.

Also, thread moved to Science Labs.

[Guest]

I accept certain scientific and medical testing as necessary even though I don't like it but many uses like testing beauty products on them is just plain wrong. What also concerns me is the human superiority approach and the attitude that animals are just unfeeling objects that we can treat how we like.

You've got a big misconception about how animal testing actually works. Nothing that demonstrates adverse effects on cell colonies is gonna go into animal testing, especially if it's intended as a beauty product. It's too expensive, only a tiny fraction of substances ever goes into animal testing phase. Barring some unexpected interactions (which would otherwise affect poor guys in human testing phase...), stuff that gets applied to animals is generally harmless. That's pure pragmatism, actually. If your lab animal dies or is otherwise badly hurt, you've got to find another one. Oh, and pay money for it, because a homeless cat from the street is not much of a test subject, unless it just happens to already have the disease you want to develop cure for (and even then, he's probably got many more, which can and will mess with the results). Lab animals need to be greatly cared for, if just because of the fact that if something was wrong with them, your results would be off, and you don't want to re-do tests at this stage.

Same with space-going animals, and probably even to a greater extent. In order to get good, consistent results from animal testing, you need to make sure their state is constantly monitored and that they are very well cared for. And those are tests that you don't want to mess up, as they're incredibly expensive.

[lajoswinkler]

Does not look like fungus to me.

Having started thinking about it, I see the reactions/answers in the thread below from a totally different perspective.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/53507-What-do-you-think-the-Mystery-goo-really-is

That is not Mistery Goo TM. That is a little squid that got trapped in the small science bay.

[lajoswinkler]

If I took seriously the things that games taught me and the moral standards they can depict I would be in prison by now. Actually, I'd probably be dead.

Moral of the story: 99% of people don't take games seriously.

Don't go play any of those rocket Flash games. You'd get really upset about turtles, hedgehogs and such being launched into space in the name of more upgrades.

A tiny fraction of people is influenced by such stuff to do horrible deeds, but that's not the point and it never was, so saying that "computer games don't cause murders" is a straw man argument.

What games and movies do is they elevate the public tolerance towards unethical behavior. The society becomes more passive towards certain things. Kids are raised believing it's ok to create a unit of people dedicated to murdering "unwanted ones" instead of bringing them to court and letting them face justice. That was not acceptable 50 years ago. People were fighting against such disgusting things. Nowadays it's just some activists that nobody wants to listen to.

Have you noticed how fights between adolescents have changed from typical fair displays of dominance towards "finish him!" ? Brutal injuries and murders among young people have skyrocketed. Why is that? What has happened?

Then again, we see how the governments throughout the world are increasing their respect towards human and civil rights. Compared to the world 100 years ago, there is much less official tolerance towards such violations. 100 years ago the world was very brutal compared to ours, in the terms of official state treatment of criminals, disabled people, people of other skin color, beliefs, sexual orientation, even ***.

Behind history's selective memory which keeps the nice things such as good music and art styles, there was a huge foundation built on butchers.

It's a weird thing that's going on right now. People are becoming more passive when they hear about wars and violence, yet the official stuff is going towards ethical prosperity. One step at a time, but it does. I honestly don't know how it's going to progress in the future. Maybe these are societies' last violent breaths before it succumbs to better scenarios.

[SargeRho]

If games really do that, then explain the dropping crime rates, specially murder rates, in most of the western world. Studies have repeatedly shown that violent games may in fact *reduce* violent behaviour, and I can confirm that from personal experience.

[Scotius]

OK, here's my two cents: I'm all against senseless killing or animals - if we can avoid harming living beings, we should go out of our way and do exactly that. I understand sometimes it is necessary - i feel bad about it, but if alternative is hunger, sickness or other form of human suffering, then our well-being takes precedence.

But goo? Goo is an accidental, organic by-product of a jell-o production . I cant feel bad for it, just as i can't find it in me to feel bad for a yeast culture being baked in my bread.

[DaveofDefeat]

I say that we are not violent because we play violent video games. Rather we play violent video games because we are violent.

[KerbMav]

Summing up some of the posts and commenting them:

Traffic accidents are just that: accidents. OK, mostly they are the result of either reckless or stupid behaviour or both. But if every driver would be attentive, considerate and physically fit (not drunk, tired, to old etc.) and would abide to the rules - how would an "accident" (in the meaning of reckless stupidity happening) come to pass?

There is a difference between a willing test subject and an animal forced into an experiment.

Forced because it would not do most things out of its own accord.

There is also a difference between "we take them with us up into space and study their behaviour in micro gravity" and "lets open the airlock and see if its eyes freeze, boil or pop" as well as "lets see if it survives the launch and leave it up there forever (to starve/suffocate)".

If science and advancement is to be driven by "the needs of the many outweigh the need of the few", should the human species - with its "millions and billions individuals" - not accept to test new inventions on humans? Shouldnt this sentiment bring forth human individuals willingly to be subjected to test that will benefit the species as a whole?

And after all "humans are just animals to" as has been mentioned.

Animals killing animals to feed on is not comparable to subjecting "inferior species" to experiments. Animals playing with their prey (or each other) practice skills important for survival: hunting, catching and killing prey, fighting inside a hierarchy/for a mate to procreate etc.

There is no need for humans to use other species as test subjects to see if humans will survive/endure a given situation, in fact the best test subject to answer these question is: a human being. Humans only decide to use other species because they see themselves as "superior" and "more valuable".

Is the suffering of humans around the globe a reason or a result of homo sapiens indifference to members of its own species?

Is this indifference towards suffering outside an individuals own group a sign of superiority towards questions of morality or a questionable morality?

Curious Funfact:

Humans make laws to legalize forcing unwilling animals to do stuff and as well to illegalize consenting adult humans wanting to do stuff.

Then again, we see how the governments throughout the world are increasing their respect towards human and civil rights. Compared to the world 100 years ago, there is much less official tolerance towards such violations. 100 years ago the world was very brutal compared to ours, in the terms of official state treatment of criminals, disabled people, people of other skin color, beliefs, sexual orientation, even ***.

It seems to me that societies switch between liberal and oppressive over the course of centuries.

Lets not forget that in the last years different governments have changed/passed laws to either include social/demographic groups into society or to outright illegalize/suppress them.

That is not Mistery Goo TM. That is a little squid that got trapped in the small science bay.

I fear this thread has moved beyond that question ...

[NASAFanboy]

The rights of an human will always take predence over the rights of an animal.

Now, why don't we test stuff on humans?

Because humans are sentient. Because humans can communicate with the researchers, because they can express emotion, because they are worth much more alive than dead. Humans may be animals, but we're the king of the animal kingdom, the top of the food chain, and the only one capable of space travel. And thus, we are slowly elevating ourselves from animal-status to that of having the power to rival nature itself. Humankind can destroy the Earth if it wanted. We can render every species extinct, and in a century, we'll be a Type I species, one capable of controlling the entire Earth itself and shaping it as we see fit. We aren't animals anymore. We're progressing to the next level, the next stage of intelligence.

As for animals?

They're stuck here. They can't enter space without human technology supporting them each and every step of the way, and without humans to use the technology. They can't progress technologically, they can't engineer, they can't build massive cities, they can't build anything worth more than ten pennies. Why? Because they simply aren't intelligent. They don't have histories, no records, no technologies, no Plato or Sheakeshpare, none of that. And thus, because they are less intelligent, cannot communicate with the dominant species of their planet, and cannot record their histories and do not have any technologies capable of advancement, they are inferior to the interests of the human race. We will be superior to them, and we will utilize them as an resource, not an fellow human. Animals are resources, not humans. Yes, we should care for them, but it is completely OK for us to eat meat and use them for advancing our knowledge of the sciences.

Animals killing animals to feed on is not comparable to subjecting "inferior species" to experiments. Animals playing with their prey (or each other) practice skills important for survival: hunting, catching and killing prey, fighting inside a hierarchy/for a mate to procreate etc.

There is no need for humans to use other species as test subjects to see if humans will survive/endure a given situation, in fact the best test subject to answer these question is: a human being. Humans only decide to use other species because they see themselves as "superior" and "more valuable".

Science and technology is completely essential to human survival. Thus, it is as important to use as feeding and fighting inside an hierarchy. Also, it is an well-known fact that if an animal with DNA similarities to an human, lets say, a monkey or a dog, if they can survive an enviroment, then it proves that it is possible for an human to survive the same enviroment. Life support systems are the same; they are all designed to support living organisms, but it is better to have one fail with an animal onboard than to have one fail with an astronaut.

Also, here is another argument.

It takes 18 years for an human to fully mature and become educated and ready to become an productive member of society, which they will do for another 50-60 years, after which they will stop and happily live their life until they die.

It takes only 1 or 2 years for an dog to mature. It takes around 5-10 years for an monkey to mature. From this, is it quite clear that an human life takes importance over an life of an animal in every way. Why? Because its longer and harder for humans to mature and reach adulthood/educate themselves to become productive members of human culture. The animals we use as test subjects barely take as long. Humans also have an natural aversion to killing each other, and as a result, any death of an human test subject at the hands of an researcher are potrayed as brutual by the media, an act that will stall research for years. But if an animal dies of an error and that error is caught by researchers before they do it to an human, then the science research goes on and on.

Which is why humans will always, always be superior to an animal. Animals are animals. They are things and resources, not an human. They are liabilities mostly (Some are useful), not assets.

Edited March 14, 2014 by NASAFanboy

[lajoswinkler]

It seems to me that societies switch between liberal and oppressive over the course of centuries.

Lets not forget that in the last years different governments have changed/passed laws to either include social/demographic groups into society or to outright illegalize/suppress them.

I fear this thread has moved beyond that question ...

Never before in history of mankind have people had so many liberties. We live during the pinacle of our development and can indeed consider ourselves lucky because of that. I do.

[Accelerando]

Now, before you call me cruel, I'll just quickly point out that I'm an strong Human Supremacist.

Just like all those guys who beat their slaves on the grounds it was necessary to maintain production for the good of white men were "just strong white supremacists," eh? That doesn't really help your case a lot, just FYI...

[NASAFanboy]

Just like all those guys who beat their slaves on the grounds it was necessary to maintain production for the good of white men were "just strong white supremacists," eh? That doesn't really help your case a lot, just FYI...

No, no.

You see, slaves are different. They are capable of feeling pain, emotion, and are intelligent. To enslave one because of skin color is complete and utter bullcrap.

But animals on the other hand...

[Accelerando]

No, no.

You see, slaves are different. They are capable of feeling pain, emotion, and are intelligent. To enslave one because of skin color is complete and utter bullcrap.

But animals on the other hand...

That doesn't change the fact that justifying yourself on the grounds that you identify with your own beliefs doesn't make you uncruel. That's what I was pointing out.

[Ravenchant]

-snip-

While I agree with some of your points... no, humanity can't destroy Earth. We *could* render it uninhabitable to a good deal of species including us, maybe to the point of radically changing the entire biosphere. But push everything to extinction? No chance, life is hardy.

To call (most) animals liabilities is, well, silly. We rely and depend on them to a great extent, a huge number of inventions owes their inception to observations of the animal world and so forth. Also, psychical support. Have you ever kept a pet?

I'll just quickly point out that I'm an strong Human Supremacist.

This disclaimer really isn't neccessary. We know.

[NASAFanboy]

This disclaimer really isn't neccessary. We know.

I got a couple messages asking me what mentality I was.

I jsut decide to clear it up.

[78stonewobble]

Personally and subjectively.

I have no problem with animal testing (or voluntary human* testing for that matter) if it advances our scientific knowledge or is necessary to guarantee the safety of "stuff" in our every day life.

On the other hand I find it rather ridiculous the amount of animal testing that goes into something as silly as beauty products, but I'd rather that people voted with they're wallets there and simply stopped spending that much money on it.

* I'll even go as far as saying that any animal/alien/plant/AI that displays a human level selfconsciousness, must be willing participants in any experiments that they go through.

PS: I find it silly to run morally amok on these issues since none of us would be here if it weren't for hundreds of thousands of years of killing other humanoids, lesser animals and billions of years of animals killing eachother. Heck, doesn't even chimpanzees trade meat for ***?

PPS: All these principles are equally applicable to the world of kerbal.

[KerbMav]

It takes 18 years for an human to fully mature and become educated and ready to become an productive member of society, which they will do for another 50-60 years, after which they will stop and happily live their life until they die.

It takes only 1 or 2 years for an dog to mature. It takes around 5-10 years for an monkey to mature. From this, is it quite clear that an human life takes importance over an life of an animal in every way. Why? Because its longer and harder for humans to mature and reach adulthood/educate themselves to become productive members of human culture. The animals we use as test subjects barely take as long. Humans also have an natural aversion to killing each other, and as a result, any death of an human test subject at the hands of an researcher are potrayed as brutual by the media, an act that will stall research for years. But if an animal dies of an error and that error is caught by researchers before they do it to an human, then the science research goes on and on.

Which is why humans will always, always be superior to an animal. Animals are animals. They are things and resources, not an human. They are liabilities mostly (Some are useful), not assets.

Then why not use human babies? They are not as intelligent as a matured human then, we can always make more and we do not have to wait 18 years. It doesnt matter if they die, because they are not able to contribute to society and are more of a liabilitly really. And they cannot express their feelings or talk to the scientists, only scream - like an animal.