Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The remote control cockroach

cockroach remote control cyborg

  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

#46    tipotep

tipotep

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,226 posts
  • Joined:14 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

  • Muchos Spectacular

Posted 10 September 2012 - 04:43 AM

View PostAtlantia, on 09 September 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

As I've already said. For me it's not a question of alternatives, it's simply a case of morality. I am against vivisection.
If you have a 'qualified objection' then it's really up to you to research the subject and decide where you believe that the alternative research models meet your criteria and where they do not.

Can I ask a serious question  ..... ?

If one of your loved ones was in an earth quake , stuck inside a collapsed building and the rescue workers pulled out some remote control cockroaches to search the rubble , would you still be against it  ?

Tip.


#47    None of the above

None of the above

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,418 posts
  • Joined:20 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 September 2012 - 07:25 AM

View Posttipotep, on 10 September 2012 - 04:43 AM, said:

Can I ask a serious question  ..... ?

If one of your loved ones was in an earth quake , stuck inside a collapsed building and the rescue workers pulled out some remote control cockroaches to search the rubble , would you still be against it  ?

Tip.

It's not a serious question. It's the usual question that people ask to try and rationalise immoral actions or shake peoples beliefs.
If you were starving you'd eat anything, If someone held a gun to your head.... etc, etc, etc


#48    DKO

DKO

    Ω is Futile.

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,837 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Western Australia

  • When you hear hoofbeats behind you, don't expect to see a zebra - Unless you're in Africa...

Posted 10 September 2012 - 10:28 AM

View PostAtlantia, on 09 September 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

Everything has a role. Plenty of animals are seen as vermin. Doesn't mean that it's ok to mistreat them.


Besides, if an outside intelligence looked at this planet and the various closely related lifeforms that inhabit it, how would they view humanity?

Compared to all the other animals I would think they would be pretty impressed with us.

The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe it. - Neil DeGrasse Tyson


Confucius Says:

Man who runs behind car gets exhausted.

Man who wants pretty nurse must be patient.


#49    tipotep

tipotep

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,226 posts
  • Joined:14 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

  • Muchos Spectacular

Posted 10 September 2012 - 12:11 PM

View PostAtlantia, on 10 September 2012 - 07:25 AM, said:

It's not a serious question. It's the usual question that people ask to try and rationalise immoral actions or shake peoples beliefs.
If you were starving you'd eat anything, If someone held a gun to your head.... etc, etc, etc

Im not trying to shake anyones beliefs , a simple yes or no would have done just fine :tu:

Bull fighting , c*** fighting , dog fighting etc is what i would  class as immoral , if you are going to include cockroaches , you had best forget about walking on grass again , how many bugs does that kill ?

Tip.

Edited by tipotep, 10 September 2012 - 12:11 PM.


#50    Render

Render

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,094 posts
  • Joined:23 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 September 2012 - 02:52 PM

Atlantia brings up a very good point. Ethics in Science. A field that discusses and researches subjects like these in great length.
I wouldn't be so quick to say the cockroach suffers pain, but it can't be ruled out at this moment in time that the insect does not experience a certain level of discomfort.
Also, in this case we can rule out that there is no other option. It is clearly stated that the alternative is a possibility But it's harder to create and more importantly, it is much more expensive. (Especially if it is destroyed).

Quote

The cerci detect movement in the air to detect predators and cause roaches to scurry. However, by using wires to stimulate the cerci, researchers were able to trick the roach into thinking something was sneaking up on it, thus causing it to move.
Wires attached to the antennae are essentially reins that feed small charges into the roach's neural tissue, which fool the roach into thinking there is something they need to steer clear of.

the insect is tricked into "thinking" something is following it. This could be reason to assume it experiences a constant state of stress.
Is it aware of "feelings" of discomfort. This hasn't been disproven or proven yet.
Emotions in humans are linked to certain chemicals in the brain. These chemicals have also been found in insects. So is it just a reflex for the insect to try and get away of what it is tricked into thinking there is, or does it feel a (constant) sense of stress/discomfort to hurry away?
Is it just a sensory and/or chemical induced reflex if humans do the same?
If the insect were to feel stress, is there a way to put it at ease and come to the same results?

Further research should take place to answer such questions.
I wouldn't just brush of the whole research field of ethics in science, it's also very important in the increasing technologicalization of society.


#51    None of the above

None of the above

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,418 posts
  • Joined:20 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 September 2012 - 06:38 PM

View Posttipotep, on 10 September 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

Im not trying to shake anyones beliefs , a simple yes or no would have done just fine :tu:

Bull fighting , c*** fighting , dog fighting etc is what i would  class as immoral , if you are going to include cockroaches , you had best forget about walking on grass again , how many bugs does that kill ?

Tip.

It's simply a variation on the usual argument that those opposed to a moral or ethical stance wheel out to try and undermine it.
And it just doesn't.
It's a big concept and I don't blame you for not quite 'getting it'. It's certainly not about accidentally stepping on a bug.
If you want base your personal morality on being able to devalue any ethical point to whether you could make someone compromise an ethical stance based on that point given enough duress or consequences sufficiently dire, then you don't need to stop at torturing insects. ;)
But whatever the hypothetical result, what you certainly don't prove is that the act itself is any more 'ethical'.
Which is why the question is 'not a serious one'.


#52    None of the above

None of the above

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,418 posts
  • Joined:20 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 September 2012 - 06:41 PM

View PostDKO, on 10 September 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

Compared to all the other animals I would think they would be pretty impressed with us.

Only if they came here with the intention of slaughter.
Then they might well look at the endless species we've made extinct and the way we have exterminated the majority of the worlds predatory species and be quite impressed.


#53    Lilly

Lilly

    Forum Divinity

  • 18,762 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Female

  • "To thine own self be true" William Shakespeare

Posted 10 September 2012 - 10:20 PM

I really don't think cockroaches are in danger of extinction. Neither are the domestic animals humans eat.

I guess one could make a moral argument regarding killing anything. Be advised though, there's some research indicating even plants may have rudimentary sensation....doesn't leave much to live on does it?

Basically, nature is predatory, lifeforms use other lifeforms to live,

"Ignorance is ignorance. It is a state of mind, not an opinion." ~MID~

Posted Image

#54    Junior Chubb

Junior Chubb

    Aqualish Dude

  • Member
  • 5,796 posts
  • Joined:28 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

  • I am Junior Chubb, son of the Chubb, father of Chubb III

Posted 10 September 2012 - 10:31 PM

View PostLilly, on 10 September 2012 - 10:20 PM, said:

I really don't think cockroaches are in danger of extinction. Neither are the domestic animals humans eat.

I guess one could make a moral argument regarding killing anything. Be advised though, there's some research indicating even plants may have rudimentary sensation....doesn't leave much to live on does it?

Basically, nature is predatory, lifeforms use other lifeforms to live,

Wow! When vegans start to only eat synthetic food, what are they going to call themselves? Thetics?

Hang on Lilly, are you taking us off-topic? ;)

I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other. I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen anything to show me where the hell Helen of Annoy has been for the past couple of months.

#55    Lilly

Lilly

    Forum Divinity

  • 18,762 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Female

  • "To thine own self be true" William Shakespeare

Posted 10 September 2012 - 10:38 PM

View PostJunior Chubb, on 10 September 2012 - 10:31 PM, said:

Hang on Lilly, are you taking us off-topic? ;)

Not trying to...trying more to focus on the natural order of things verses ones personal dietary choices. Various species use other species, that's nature. Humans using cockroaches (or other animals) isn't really contrary to nature. Now, wiping out an entire species that's contrary (pretty horrible actually).

"Ignorance is ignorance. It is a state of mind, not an opinion." ~MID~

Posted Image

#56    Junior Chubb

Junior Chubb

    Aqualish Dude

  • Member
  • 5,796 posts
  • Joined:28 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

  • I am Junior Chubb, son of the Chubb, father of Chubb III

Posted 10 September 2012 - 10:51 PM

View PostLilly, on 10 September 2012 - 10:38 PM, said:

Not trying to...

Good girl, I wouldn't like to have to come down hard on you. ;)


Quote

Various species use other species, that's nature. Humans using cockroaches (or other animals) isn't really contrary to nature.

Indeed, there are lots of relationships in the natural world, most are positive for both parties. This might not be positive for both parties, but I don't see any mistreatment going on here, well no more than with other animals we manipulate into working for us.

Edited by Junior Chubb, 10 September 2012 - 10:51 PM.

I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other. I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen anything to show me where the hell Helen of Annoy has been for the past couple of months.

#57    tipotep

tipotep

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,226 posts
  • Joined:14 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

  • Muchos Spectacular

Posted 10 September 2012 - 11:07 PM

View PostAtlantia, on 10 September 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

It's simply a variation on the usual argument that those opposed to a moral or ethical stance wheel out to try and undermine it.
And it just doesn't.
It's a big concept and I don't blame you for not quite 'getting it'. It's certainly not about accidentally stepping on a bug.
If you want base your personal morality on being able to devalue any ethical point to whether you could make someone compromise an ethical stance based on that point given enough duress or consequences sufficiently dire, then you don't need to stop at torturing insects. ;)
But whatever the hypothetical result, what you certainly don't prove is that the act itself is any more 'ethical'.
Which is why the question is 'not a serious one'.

Its a thin line and I don't agree with you but i have to admire you for your stance :tu:

Personally I think it would be a good thing if it can save lives , and I'm sure the majority of people would agree .

Have a great day ! ( or night ) depending on where you live .

TiP.


#58    None of the above

None of the above

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,418 posts
  • Joined:20 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 11 September 2012 - 03:43 PM

View PostLilly, on 10 September 2012 - 10:20 PM, said:

I really don't think cockroaches are in danger of extinction. Neither are the domestic animals humans eat.

I guess one could make a moral argument regarding killing anything. Be advised though, there's some research indicating even plants may have rudimentary sensation....doesn't leave much to live on does it?

Basically, nature is predatory, lifeforms use other lifeforms to live,

The question is one of morality and ethics. Such concerns are not influenced by whether a species is rare or plentiful.

To point out the evolutionary imperative 'survival of the fittest' is a truism, what exactly does it have to do with human concepts of morality?

Edited by Atlantia, 11 September 2012 - 03:44 PM.


#59    None of the above

None of the above

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,418 posts
  • Joined:20 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 11 September 2012 - 03:47 PM

View Posttipotep, on 10 September 2012 - 11:07 PM, said:

Its a thin line and I don't agree with you but i have to admire you for your stance :tu:

Personally I think it would be a good thing if it can save lives , and I'm sure the majority of people would agree .

Have a great day ! ( or night ) depending on where you live .

TiP.

Fair play. :tu:

Best Regards
Atlanita


#60    Ashotep

Ashotep

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,668 posts
  • Joined:10 May 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

  • Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway-John Wayne

Posted 11 September 2012 - 04:30 PM

I have a hard time worrying about the treatment of cockroaches.  They have been around forever and outlasted the dinosaurs and will probably outlast humans.  What is a bigger concern to me is how will they be used.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users