BB's Substack often has interesting ideas that I had never thought of (e.g., insect suffering), but a lot of times it's not clear to me how (or even whether) I should change my behavior in light of the new information. My wife and I have a bunch of cats. They're all indoor-only, but they inexplicably came down with fleas. We treated all the cats with Revolution flea treatment yesterday. It'll take a day or so for the fleas to die, and I assume they'll suffer in the meantime. Did we do the right thing?
Also, what's the ethical thing to do about dogs and cats, in general? They eat a carnivorous diet. A single dog or cat will probably eat many hundreds of animals during its life. Should animal shelters then euthanize all dogs and cats, and only adopt-out herbivorous animals, like guinea pigs?
Killing the fleas was probably the right thing to do, since they are r-strategists and if you didn't then far more fleas would come into existence. Most fleas die of starvation over the course of 4-7 days (acc to chatgpt) which is presumably far worse than death by pesticide.
The ethical thing to do with dogs and cats is nuanced. Vegan options for pets do exist, but I'm not sufficiently informed to know if those are healthy for the pet.
FWIW, I have a paper on some of these issues, where I give a simple formal model of a conditional obligation to be an effective altruist.
Say there are two kids in a burning building. You don’t have to save either, but if you’re going to save at least one, you have to save both. Saving *only* one would be wrong.
If saving only one is wrong, but saving zero is permissible, does that mean you should save zero rather than one?
Not in my view!
It’s better to save more lives. But you’re allowed to save zero because it’s less harmful to you than the alternatives. (Saving one is just as bad for you as saving both.) So being an ineffective altruist is wrong, but still preferable, in a pairwise comparison, to the permissible minimum.
Do you believe it is worse to eat almonds and avocados and possibly other foods than to eat beef? Than chickens? If so, do you believe people should prioritize advocacy of reducing almonds and avocados rather than other (non-honey) animal products?
Not BB but his previous articles says he thinks that promoting concern for animals is the most important effects of reducing animal product consumption, so I assume he may think that traditional plant-based advocacy is more important than talking about almonds and avocados for that reason. Personally, as a vegan who doesn't totally eschew almonds of unclear origin (I'll eat them when I'm outside of the house or when someone buys them for me), I'd probably favour anti-almond advocacy to anti-beef advocacy, if it was shown that advocating against eating certain foods actually worked (sadly not the case, I think). Less sure for chickens as they seem to suffer some of the most abominable fates possible, and I strongly weigh the extreme ends of suffering and agony.
Re “I’d have done it”… I probably would have too. My main reservation isn’t whether to do it or not, it’s that Trump is a dishonest, craven, selfish operator, as you describe, “a synaptic mess”.
On the diet front, another good thing that’s way better than doing nothing: Offset your diet’s impact on animal welfare by donating to top charities working to make the food system more humane. It’s a super easy and cheap way to make a big difference! FarmKind has a calculator to do exactly this — compassioncalculator.org
Great post! This brushes against the concepts of altruistic perfectionism, when it feels unacceptable to be anything less than perfect in your altruistic actions, and moral demandingness, when your moral theory demands that you make sacrifices that seem burdensome or excessive. Both of these can lead to burnout, and if that happens then you’ll do less good in the long-term, so the most robustly good altruistic action you can take is to back off a little and be less demanding on yourself. (Some people need to hear the opposite advice. Finding the balance is always tricky.)
I agree with incrementalism, and I think this is fair criticism for my comment from earlier about the moral consistency of avoiding plant-based foods in addition to honey. However, I'll still agree to disagree on strategy. IMO focusing on animal suffering is much more important and tractable (even if it's less neglected than insects).
Continuing your long streak of saying super obvious stuff that I have to upvote because apparently they weren't obvious to others.
Thank you, this post convinced me to take my first step toward eating other people. No more shrimp for me!
BB's Substack often has interesting ideas that I had never thought of (e.g., insect suffering), but a lot of times it's not clear to me how (or even whether) I should change my behavior in light of the new information. My wife and I have a bunch of cats. They're all indoor-only, but they inexplicably came down with fleas. We treated all the cats with Revolution flea treatment yesterday. It'll take a day or so for the fleas to die, and I assume they'll suffer in the meantime. Did we do the right thing?
Also, what's the ethical thing to do about dogs and cats, in general? They eat a carnivorous diet. A single dog or cat will probably eat many hundreds of animals during its life. Should animal shelters then euthanize all dogs and cats, and only adopt-out herbivorous animals, like guinea pigs?
Killing the fleas was probably the right thing to do, since they are r-strategists and if you didn't then far more fleas would come into existence. Most fleas die of starvation over the course of 4-7 days (acc to chatgpt) which is presumably far worse than death by pesticide.
The ethical thing to do with dogs and cats is nuanced. Vegan options for pets do exist, but I'm not sufficiently informed to know if those are healthy for the pet.
Great post (as usual).
FWIW, I have a paper on some of these issues, where I give a simple formal model of a conditional obligation to be an effective altruist.
Say there are two kids in a burning building. You don’t have to save either, but if you’re going to save at least one, you have to save both. Saving *only* one would be wrong.
If saving only one is wrong, but saving zero is permissible, does that mean you should save zero rather than one?
Not in my view!
It’s better to save more lives. But you’re allowed to save zero because it’s less harmful to you than the alternatives. (Saving one is just as bad for you as saving both.) So being an ineffective altruist is wrong, but still preferable, in a pairwise comparison, to the permissible minimum.
With apologies for the self-promo:
https://philarchive.org/rec/MUOTPO-3
A lot of these issues can be avoided by choosing not to anthropomorphize bees and other animals.
I think eating honey is good, because I don't think bees living is bad. So I'll make sure to eat extra honey today.
If you really care about minimizing suffering per calorie, then most people should be hunters: https://backcountrypsych.substack.com/p/is-hunting-wrong
And then ironically, getting out into nature would disabuse you of these exaggerated notions of wild animal suffering https://backcountrypsych.substack.com/p/nature-is-not-hell
Do you believe it is worse to eat almonds and avocados and possibly other foods than to eat beef? Than chickens? If so, do you believe people should prioritize advocacy of reducing almonds and avocados rather than other (non-honey) animal products?
Not BB but his previous articles says he thinks that promoting concern for animals is the most important effects of reducing animal product consumption, so I assume he may think that traditional plant-based advocacy is more important than talking about almonds and avocados for that reason. Personally, as a vegan who doesn't totally eschew almonds of unclear origin (I'll eat them when I'm outside of the house or when someone buys them for me), I'd probably favour anti-almond advocacy to anti-beef advocacy, if it was shown that advocating against eating certain foods actually worked (sadly not the case, I think). Less sure for chickens as they seem to suffer some of the most abominable fates possible, and I strongly weigh the extreme ends of suffering and agony.
Thanks!
Re “I’d have done it”… I probably would have too. My main reservation isn’t whether to do it or not, it’s that Trump is a dishonest, craven, selfish operator, as you describe, “a synaptic mess”.
On the diet front, another good thing that’s way better than doing nothing: Offset your diet’s impact on animal welfare by donating to top charities working to make the food system more humane. It’s a super easy and cheap way to make a big difference! FarmKind has a calculator to do exactly this — compassioncalculator.org
Great post! This brushes against the concepts of altruistic perfectionism, when it feels unacceptable to be anything less than perfect in your altruistic actions, and moral demandingness, when your moral theory demands that you make sacrifices that seem burdensome or excessive. Both of these can lead to burnout, and if that happens then you’ll do less good in the long-term, so the most robustly good altruistic action you can take is to back off a little and be less demanding on yourself. (Some people need to hear the opposite advice. Finding the balance is always tricky.)
I agree with incrementalism, and I think this is fair criticism for my comment from earlier about the moral consistency of avoiding plant-based foods in addition to honey. However, I'll still agree to disagree on strategy. IMO focusing on animal suffering is much more important and tractable (even if it's less neglected than insects).