TranscendentalEmpire

saw an open source project for 3d printing prosthetic limbs with a focus on making affordable prosthetics for kids since they grow so quickly they need new fittings quickly as well.

Unfortunately 3d printing has mainly been a bit of a gimmick in the field of prosthetics, especially the more diy projects. Most people think that prosthetics is an engineering field with a side of medicine, when in reality it's more of a medical field with a side of engineering.

The project you were referring to never really took off because it ended up being detrimental to the patient's long-term health. With how quickly children adapt to their conditions, if you don't provide them with a prosthetic that provides more utility than their residual limb, they end up adapting to never wearing any prosthetic. Which in turn can vastly lower their mobility and ability to interact with their environments.

The fact that much of our prosthetics technology isn't that different from what they had in the Civil War is sad.

I wouldn't say it's quite that bad. I mean I did carve a wooden socket in school, but haven't ever seen one in a clinic setting. Prosthetic tech really advanced in the 90s with the introduction of materials like carbon fiber, titanium, new thermoplastics, and advanced mechanical knee units. With the amount of repetitive ground force reaction a human body can produce in motions, our field is pretty limited by the advancement of material science.

The reception of it appears to be, but prob only because Coppola is seen as more prestigious by critics because he never made a batman movie.

and she's definitely not touching herself for any other reason.

How dare you, the ancients weren't tainted with the same levels of sexual proclivities found in modern society. They weren't just grooming those boys because they just wanted to fuck them, they were engaging in pedagogy, not pedophilia! It's why all my twink TA's are underclassmen, someone must teach the youth. - every male art history teacher

The professional reviews are hilariously mixed, I'm pretty sure Coppola unwittingly made a movie that also serves as a litmus test to see how pretentious and up your own ass you are.

The honest reviews are basically, this made no sense, I don't know what he was thinking. The positive reviews can be boiled down to "if you have to ask, you're not sophisticated enough to understand".

Yeah, plus the "cutting edge" prosthetic tech we currently have is mostly overhyped marketing.

There are about a dozen powered prosthetics I always see on social media that always look really cool and the "patients" always go on and on about how useful it is......What people don't realize is those "patients" are being paid by the manufacturer, and usually part of the deal is that they get the limb for free.

They don't tell you about having to wear a heavy battery pack that only lasts for a couple hours. They don't tell you that you have to pre-program routines like tying your shoe laces. That you have to purposely concentrate on flexing residual muscle groups in your limb to activate those routines. Nor do they tell you that the majority of patients who own those devices usually revert back to a manual prosthetic for functional tasks, or just choose not to wear a prosthetic at all because they can achieve more function with their stumps.

While prosthetics have started looking more futuristic and functional, unfortunately we haven't really advanced any technology that actually improves function and utility since the late 90's. And I highly doubt we'll ever make a prosthetic that provides more utility than the limb it's replacing, not in our lifetime at least.

One feels pain and has a brain.

There is no scientific consensus that invertebrates on the evolutionary scale of krill feel pain, and a ganglia isn't exactly what passes as a brain in vertebrates.

That makes for a more complex creature which can feel more and experience the world more.

I think that's highly reductive, especially considering that we continue to discover more and more about mushrooms. We already know that mushrooms are capable of learning, individual decision making, and have a short term memory.

We cant really make a qualified position of their complexity because we still don't understand a lot about mushrooms.

To add to what the other two commenters mentioned, it's about intent too.

I don't actually think intent is really important to the moral equation. A species going extinct because of over hunting, and a species going extinct because of habitat destruction are pretty morally equivalent to me.

The animals that die in crop fields die regardless given that the corn harvested

Is that not the same reasoning people use to validate hunting?

then some - to feed other animals which you end up consuming. Thus, it's fewer animals dying overall.

This is getting closer to the ethical imperative question I asked. So it seems that the ethical dilemma is based on preserving as much life as possible?

If so, would it be more ethical to eat the insect as a protein source rather than the soy beans they are feeding upon? If the insects as you say are going to be destroyed during the harvest, would it not be morally justified to gather and eat the insects before or after?

My point isn't to be pedantic or actually implement anything we've talked about. I'm just pointing out the internal contradictions that occur in veganism. Not to try and sway anyone's life choices, but to allow for people to understand that it's logically imperfect, and to not let perfection be the enemy of good.

Accepting for the sake of discussion (but not generally) that hunting is "ethical", hunting is also a privilege. We obviously cannot all eat hunted meat for survival. You've no doubt seen the figures.

The sheer variety of produce we currently experience is also an unsustainable privilege.

Eating something with palm oil is also a privilege, one that destroys natural habitats and leads to excess carbon being released to the atmosphere.

I'm not trying to equivocate the two, but the moral justification is similar.

Here's our belief system: don't kill or hurt animals as much as is possible.

Right, but by what is the ethical delineation between say a krill and a mushroom?

What is the difference between lesser evolved animals and highly evolved plants or microbes?

It just shows a lack of empathy towards other living beings is the way I see it.

What's the moral basis of your ethical argument? Is it simply that all living beings deserve to live, or is it about preventing harm/pain?

The question is pretty simple when it's asked about something like a mammal, but less so when you ask about something like a krill. Why does a krill have the same ethical weight as a mammal, and why wouldn't that same moral imperative be applied to something like a mushroom?

Both are living beings, to our best knowledge both krill and mushrooms lack the ability to sensate pain as we understand it. Both can respond to stimuli in a way that tries to negate bodily harm.

I don't eat meat because of my own beliefs, but I often see vegans propose that veganism isnt based on a belief system, rather that it's logically conclusive. There are just too many internal contradictions for that to be true.

For example, as someone who grew up on farms..... I think everyone would be surprised to know how many animals are killed collecting something like corn. I've spent more time than I would like clearing thousands of dead frogs from screens of combine harvesters. In my experience if every life is ethically similar, than something like hunting causes a lot less harm than harvesting an acre of corn or wheat.

Because this user will delete comments they don't like. Not that I disagree with this particular statement.

However, I have responded to a specific question they had about the scientific understanding of animals and pain in a previous post, which they removed without responding to.

Yeah.... It kinda seems like he planned to amputate his penis before hand and was utilizing the shrooms as a diy analgesic.

I don't have any history of psychosis, but I have been dosed with too many shrooms before. In my experience, getting from under my blanket of fortitude would have required more mental acumen than what the mushrooms permitted.

I don't think I could have thought to apply a tourniquet, or remember to put my dismembered penis in a jar of ice unless I had prepped everything before the stuff kicked in.