We must, of course, for fair treatment, steelman[0] the argument about the lack of morality of the purported 1500 animals allegedly killed by Neuralink.

The first reaction by anyone decent should be obvious: This is horrible. I can't imagine anyone not agreeing with the simple idea that animal testing is a horrific thing.

The argument in favor of it generally includes an element of accounting for human lives saved and benefits to society balanced against using animals for testing.

Does this erase or balance-out the moral reservations we all have?

Not sure. Can we add further support for the practice?

Well, how about the fact that N animals per year (where N is a very large number) are bred for testing. In other words, N animals would never have existed in the natural order --just like we raise chickens by the billions to eat.

Before going further, a key question:

What's the scale?

According to PETA [1], 110 million per year. That's a lot of animals. I think I can say this would not be possible without breeding animals for research.

OK, how about benefits to society?

In lieu of a list, here's a link [2]. The list of medical benefits is quite long.

What does an institution like Stanford [3] have to say?

Quoting:

"It is important to stress that 95% of all animals necessary for biomedical research in the United States are rodents – rats and mice especially bred for laboratory use – and that animals are only one part of the larger process of biomedical research."

Well, that's interesting, that means 104.5 million out of the 110 million are rats bred for research.

Does that change our mindset? OK, time to look at the other side. There might be more questions than answers here.

Is the entirety of our rejection of animal testing based on emotional or moral stances? Religious?

Is there a canonical "rule of the universe" to use as a measurement or threshold of acceptance?

Is any number OK?

Is zero the only acceptable metric?

Looking at the list of benefits [2] it is easy to imagine that hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people would not exist today were it not for animal testing. I say "would not exist" because someone's death results in potentially erasing an entire genealogical tree --with potentially geometric growth. In other words, a single death could have massive consequences.

Does that justify it? Well, what if we have, as a result, overpopulated the planet. Have we interfered with our own natural selection process? Is that the crime?

What are the limits then? Is humanity supposed to live in the natural survival-of-the-fittest and not resort to life extension through science and medicine?

Are science and medicine part of our natural-selection story?

It's easy to see the analysis of this seemingly-simple issue, where a moral/emotional reaction is easy to deliver, quickly becomes massively complex with questions such as "How many people are you willing to see die?" and "How many members of your own family would have died?" or "Would you exist?".

I can't provide any answers here. This is far too complex. Opinion? Sure. We all have one.

I fail to see the utility of using animals for the testing of cosmetics. I am sure there are corner cases for justification here and there. Not sure what those might be.

Neuralink? Well, that's a good question. What's the benefit to society? I can't think of one. Well, wait, how about things like using a future embodiment of Neuralink to enhance equality/equity by providing everyone with the same cognitive capabilities? That's far-fetched, yeah. Is it a real possibility? Don't know.

Is this one of those "just because we can" ideas? Should we do it?

Clearly the purported 1500 animals (not sure what kind) attributed to Neuralink is insignificant when compared to the 110 million per year quoted by PETA. Are 100% of them bred for testing? If so, is that OK, just like eating chickens? What's the different between eating a chicken and using the same purpose-bred chicken for research?

I'll stop here. I don't have any answers. I am not sure what the right stance might be here. Not sure how "right" is defined. Not sure of anything. Lots of question though, more than I can list here.

In closing, we do need to address criticism of Musk and others who toil to advance humanity in any way. I am reminded of:

"Ladran Sancho señal que cabalgamos"

Criticism of every successful person often follows the same pattern and is delivered by the same type of people. It's easy to be harsh when one does nothing, contributes nothing, delivers no benefits to society, enjoys the benefits others create and can take a "holier than thou" stance while watching the world from a couch and having popcorn. Being critical is easy. Becoming a net contributor to society isn't.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Steelmanning

[1] https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation...

[2] https://fbresearch.org/medical-advances/animal-research-achi...

[3] https://med.stanford.edu/animalresearch/why-animal-research....