If digital minds are in expectation the most important sphere of existence by orders of magnitude, surely people like you should start thinking about the digital sphere, and not just via present day AI discourse. The digital substrate has many attributes which diverge from the material bases of other forms of life such that we should expect digital life to diverge both in internal characteristics and as a mediated experience for/against anthropocentric models popular right now
I’m surprised to read an article like this that doesn’t mention Peter Singer. (Sorry if I read too fast and missed it!)
I’m always a bit puzzled where the limits of our concern for animals should lie according to the veil of ignorance idea. Should we be opening rest homes for aged wild animals? Dishing out painkillers to ease their last days? It seems absurd but people take the shrimp argument seriously so why not? And if not, is there something wrong at the root of the argument?
And, bluntly, why should I care about the sufferings of others? There seems to be some kind of an evolved disposition to do so but why take that as our starting point and extend it? Why not take our lack of concern when we hear about an earthquake far away and bring our lack of concern closer? You’re right Peter Singer, I shouldn’t dive into that pond!
I am not a monster- I’d definitely dive in to that pond and I’m fully signed up to stop factory farming but I’m not sure I’m on board for the full implications of these arguments which seem to lead to a pretty radical reordering of society. Presumably at gunpoint at some stage!
I’ve expanded my moral circle to include mammals and birds and stopped eating their meat, (and I also try to avoid eggs if I’m not certain they’re cage-free). The reason I draw the line here is because those animals are complex enough to process not only pain, but a desire not to suffer (i.e., the ability to process counterfactual when harmed.) That’s why I haven’t been convinced to quit eating seafood (yet, vegetarians and vegans make some pretty solid arguments). Though I understand that fish can feel pain, I feel that their lack of ability to “prefer” makes the suffering they go through a lot less problematic to me than that of a cow, pig, or chicken. I’m wondering where your line is and why you draw it. Are neurological arguments compelling to you? Is it effective or accurate to view animals as being ensouled when they are sentient? Do you see your veganism as originating in passion or as a logical conclusion of a utilitarian framework? My views on animal suffering are very much in flux and I’d love to hear your thoughts.
I don't think that a desire in the morally important sense requires any understanding of counterfactuals. If a mentally disabled human was being tortured, and experienced intense pain, but they didn't have concepts like counterfactuals, that would still seem bad. At the very least with creatures like fish, I think it's plausible enough that they have whatever kinds of mental states matter that they matter a lot in expectation.
I am also not quite sure why you think that they can't grasp counterfactuals, if you think other animals can. I think grasping counterfactuals comes in degrees, and the most basic "I don't like this," is something fish can have.
I include all conscious beings. Fish are very likely conscious, shrimp plausibly are, so I include them. Plants aren't, so I don't. A nice test is the one I give in the article: if you'd be turned into the creature, and would remain you, would you care about what happened to you after you became them?
I’ll have to think about this. I agree that the processing of counterfactuals exists on a gradient, but some of the ways in which fish (and even likelier for things like shrimp) respond to positive and negative stimuli suggest (not prove) that they don’t possess enough internality for me to map myself cleanly onto/into the body of such a creature. In essence, were I a fish, would I even be able to “care” about what happened to myself in a capacity beyond basic input/output? For cows, pigs, sheep, and chickens, the answer is unambiguously yes, and that’s why I no longer eat their meat. For fish and shrimp, the jury’s still out.
I would say that the fact that it’s even possible is a pretty good argument for full veganism; why take that risk? I’m not trying to push back against you; I genuinely don’t know the answers to these questions and am considering cutting seafood out as well. Not trying to die on the hill, I just was curious about your take.
If the jury is out then it seems like it might be seriously wrong, so you shouldn't do it in expectation. Sea animals are much smaller than cows, so it probably comes out worse in expectation.
I think it's bad to be in a lot of pain even if you have no high level ability to process counterfactuals.
Yes. Why doesn’t he write about how it’s immoral? He’s made posts criticizing Christianity and Judaism because of bad stuff in Old Testament like animal abs use and slavery but didn’t mention the presence of mgm of baby’s decreasing the likelihood of Christianity and Judaism being true. Also effective altruism because it seems you can prevent a baby boy from being cut for a couple dollars each.
Idk, it'd be a good BB post for sure. I have no idea how much it would cost to prevent it per baby, but it is a very neglected area that would be worth shedding light on. Imo it's still not nearly as bad as factory farming though
You write a lot about farm animal suffering, but what is your view on wild animal suffering? As in, what we should about it
Some proposals here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbCAW_fKNQE and here https://benthams.substack.com/p/insect-suffering-is-the-biggest-issue?utm_source=publication-search
the egg reference!
If digital minds are in expectation the most important sphere of existence by orders of magnitude, surely people like you should start thinking about the digital sphere, and not just via present day AI discourse. The digital substrate has many attributes which diverge from the material bases of other forms of life such that we should expect digital life to diverge both in internal characteristics and as a mediated experience for/against anthropocentric models popular right now
I’m surprised to read an article like this that doesn’t mention Peter Singer. (Sorry if I read too fast and missed it!)
I’m always a bit puzzled where the limits of our concern for animals should lie according to the veil of ignorance idea. Should we be opening rest homes for aged wild animals? Dishing out painkillers to ease their last days? It seems absurd but people take the shrimp argument seriously so why not? And if not, is there something wrong at the root of the argument?
And, bluntly, why should I care about the sufferings of others? There seems to be some kind of an evolved disposition to do so but why take that as our starting point and extend it? Why not take our lack of concern when we hear about an earthquake far away and bring our lack of concern closer? You’re right Peter Singer, I shouldn’t dive into that pond!
I am not a monster- I’d definitely dive in to that pond and I’m fully signed up to stop factory farming but I’m not sure I’m on board for the full implications of these arguments which seem to lead to a pretty radical reordering of society. Presumably at gunpoint at some stage!
I think we should take seriously the interest of wild animals. I am skeptical that the best way of doing that is to take out rest homes for them.
The reasons to take seriously the sufferings of others are given in the article.
Btw if you haven’t come across it already this book on how people in England have seen their relationship to animals is terrific.
It’s called Man and the Natural World - changing attitudes in England 1500 - 1800.
I’ve expanded my moral circle to include mammals and birds and stopped eating their meat, (and I also try to avoid eggs if I’m not certain they’re cage-free). The reason I draw the line here is because those animals are complex enough to process not only pain, but a desire not to suffer (i.e., the ability to process counterfactual when harmed.) That’s why I haven’t been convinced to quit eating seafood (yet, vegetarians and vegans make some pretty solid arguments). Though I understand that fish can feel pain, I feel that their lack of ability to “prefer” makes the suffering they go through a lot less problematic to me than that of a cow, pig, or chicken. I’m wondering where your line is and why you draw it. Are neurological arguments compelling to you? Is it effective or accurate to view animals as being ensouled when they are sentient? Do you see your veganism as originating in passion or as a logical conclusion of a utilitarian framework? My views on animal suffering are very much in flux and I’d love to hear your thoughts.
I don't think that a desire in the morally important sense requires any understanding of counterfactuals. If a mentally disabled human was being tortured, and experienced intense pain, but they didn't have concepts like counterfactuals, that would still seem bad. At the very least with creatures like fish, I think it's plausible enough that they have whatever kinds of mental states matter that they matter a lot in expectation.
I am also not quite sure why you think that they can't grasp counterfactuals, if you think other animals can. I think grasping counterfactuals comes in degrees, and the most basic "I don't like this," is something fish can have.
I include all conscious beings. Fish are very likely conscious, shrimp plausibly are, so I include them. Plants aren't, so I don't. A nice test is the one I give in the article: if you'd be turned into the creature, and would remain you, would you care about what happened to you after you became them?
I’ll have to think about this. I agree that the processing of counterfactuals exists on a gradient, but some of the ways in which fish (and even likelier for things like shrimp) respond to positive and negative stimuli suggest (not prove) that they don’t possess enough internality for me to map myself cleanly onto/into the body of such a creature. In essence, were I a fish, would I even be able to “care” about what happened to myself in a capacity beyond basic input/output? For cows, pigs, sheep, and chickens, the answer is unambiguously yes, and that’s why I no longer eat their meat. For fish and shrimp, the jury’s still out.
I would say that the fact that it’s even possible is a pretty good argument for full veganism; why take that risk? I’m not trying to push back against you; I genuinely don’t know the answers to these questions and am considering cutting seafood out as well. Not trying to die on the hill, I just was curious about your take.
If the jury is out then it seems like it might be seriously wrong, so you shouldn't do it in expectation. Sea animals are much smaller than cows, so it probably comes out worse in expectation.
I think it's bad to be in a lot of pain even if you have no high level ability to process counterfactuals.
All good points.
What about circumcision of infants?
You mean infant genital mutilation?
Yes. Why doesn’t he write about how it’s immoral? He’s made posts criticizing Christianity and Judaism because of bad stuff in Old Testament like animal abs use and slavery but didn’t mention the presence of mgm of baby’s decreasing the likelihood of Christianity and Judaism being true. Also effective altruism because it seems you can prevent a baby boy from being cut for a couple dollars each.
Idk, it'd be a good BB post for sure. I have no idea how much it would cost to prevent it per baby, but it is a very neglected area that would be worth shedding light on. Imo it's still not nearly as bad as factory farming though