1 hr ago·edited 1 hr agoLiked by Bentham's Bulldog
I think Vasco Grilo’s cost-effectiveness analysis makes some pretty controversial assumptions. Most notably, he assumes excruciating pain is 10,000x as intense as disabling pain. This seems plausibly 2-3 OOMs off to me, and if you use a lower factor, chicken welfare campaigns win out on the cost-effectiveness calculation. E.g., Rethink Priorities uses a lower estimate, having used ~600x recently and even 33x before (latter seems implausible to me in the other direction), which would change who wins out.
I like the Shrimp Welfare Project a lot and often donate to it (although I’m super uncertain about phenomenal consciousness and think there’s some nonnegligible chance shrimp aren’t conscious). My current guess is that it’s plausibly even more cost-effective to donate to chicken welfare campaigns.
I will share my honest, emotional, totally unjustifiable reaction to this argument.
I think it would not be a good idea at all to move to the Bay Area, start heavily using psychedelic drugs, join strange "human potential" spiritual communities, and become polyamorous.
But I feel somehow on a deep irrational level that accepting this shrimp argument, would begin to obligate me to accept that polyamorous DMT Bay Area scene lifestyle is the optimal (therefore obligatory) way to live life.
I may still donate to the shrimp, but it feels to me like taking one step down a path I don't want to go down and that I have seen end in disaster. Similar feelings (or different but similarly irrational resistances) may be an explanation for why some people seem to reject, dodge, or ignore this argument rather than engaging.
As of an hour ago, I donate $30 per month to shrimp, and I don't use psychedelics, am a committed Christian, and find polyamory vaguely yucky and unromantic. I also have no intention of moving to the Bay Area, though I do need to visit San Fransisco, simply because I haven't yet witnessed its art museums.
So, from personal experience, I promise you that donating to shrimp won't be that first catastrophic step down a slippery slope.
Both in neuron counts and brain mass they are in the 0.1% of human levels; and as commented before everything suggests consciousness is supperadditive.
This is not what the report says. They recognize that neuron counts are a main ingredient for their own weights. Additionally the ratio between human and arthropods neuron number are like 200.000 for a cockroach vs 16,340,000,000 for humans (0.01 %) for brain only neurons.
But remember that Rethink Priorities does not even engage with Integrated Information Theory. And complexity measures tend to be super additive (often massively).
Additionally when you use the authority of “neuroscience”, I have to remind you that we have no science of sentience beyond the epistemic circle of us and those who are very similar to us and whose reporting we can trust.
Nobody really knows “how is to be a bat”, so I don’t know what science are you speaking about: the article of rethinking priorities is full nuance, of course. They know we don’t (scientifically) know; we have intuitions and complexity theory but nothing close to observations. Consciousness is noumenal, except your own.
Using what we have, for me is quite likely that shrimp is not more sentient than my iPhone.
Why? The embryo is quite unlikely to be conscious, at least in the first 3 months. I understand that you can be against torturing an adult pig for one year, and do not care about a human embryo that still has a rudimentary nervous system.
The definitions most vegans use for consciousness would justify pretty extreme abortion restrictions they don't support. FWIW I don't think their theory of consciousness (or really any theory) is that good, and agree with your comment overall.
If you were given the choice between saving the lives of 1,000 shrimp and one human being, would you regard it as difficult? If not, is it because you believe it is obvious that we should save the shrimp or the human?
I think a lot of people have a tribal kind of moral attitude. We all have serious moral obligations, sure, but only to beings in our tribes; or so it is implicitly thought. A being is in my tribe when they are a family member, close friend, and so on. Some people have big tribes; others have tiny ones. In mafia movies, mafia people are depicted as having small tribes and a tribal morality. I have a strong moral obligation towards my family and closest friends, but fuck everyone else. Everyone else should have their own damn tribes that look out for each other. It’s up to them, not us, to defend themselves. Think of *Goodfellas* or *The Godfather*.
If this is psychologically accurate—and all I have is a suspicion that tribal morality is commonly implicated adopted; I have no real evidence—then I think a lot of people would say we have no moral obligations towards shrimp, no matter how much they suffer.
I’m not saying that tribal morality is right! I’m just speculating about how some people might respond to your post—which was fantastic.
There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is sui- I mean, shrimp.
Stuff like this is why I respect utilitarian / EA frameworks despite my Camus sympathies. I wasn't even aware about their sentience as I equivocated crustaceans with mollusks (if I recall correctly, Peter Singer made a point about bivalves); thank you for the post!
I think Vasco Grilo’s cost-effectiveness analysis makes some pretty controversial assumptions. Most notably, he assumes excruciating pain is 10,000x as intense as disabling pain. This seems plausibly 2-3 OOMs off to me, and if you use a lower factor, chicken welfare campaigns win out on the cost-effectiveness calculation. E.g., Rethink Priorities uses a lower estimate, having used ~600x recently and even 33x before (latter seems implausible to me in the other direction), which would change who wins out.
I like the Shrimp Welfare Project a lot and often donate to it (although I’m super uncertain about phenomenal consciousness and think there’s some nonnegligible chance shrimp aren’t conscious). My current guess is that it’s plausibly even more cost-effective to donate to chicken welfare campaigns.
$30 per month to help a shrimp? In THIS economy? I'd have to have the brain of a shrimp NOT to take that offer!
https://www.farmkind.giving/confirmation?id=44cfdc9e-8f37-48d4-b2cc-e3008d25fb15
1 paid subscription, please
"Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
"Not shrimp though. That's cheating."
I will share my honest, emotional, totally unjustifiable reaction to this argument.
I think it would not be a good idea at all to move to the Bay Area, start heavily using psychedelic drugs, join strange "human potential" spiritual communities, and become polyamorous.
But I feel somehow on a deep irrational level that accepting this shrimp argument, would begin to obligate me to accept that polyamorous DMT Bay Area scene lifestyle is the optimal (therefore obligatory) way to live life.
I may still donate to the shrimp, but it feels to me like taking one step down a path I don't want to go down and that I have seen end in disaster. Similar feelings (or different but similarly irrational resistances) may be an explanation for why some people seem to reject, dodge, or ignore this argument rather than engaging.
As of an hour ago, I donate $30 per month to shrimp, and I don't use psychedelics, am a committed Christian, and find polyamory vaguely yucky and unromantic. I also have no intention of moving to the Bay Area, though I do need to visit San Fransisco, simply because I haven't yet witnessed its art museums.
So, from personal experience, I promise you that donating to shrimp won't be that first catastrophic step down a slippery slope.
It is unlikely they are more sentient than an IPhone.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/FjiND3qJCvC6CtmxG/super-additivity-of-consciousness
Both in neuron counts and brain mass they are in the 0.1% of human levels; and as commented before everything suggests consciousness is supperadditive.
Neuron counts are a bad proxy for moral worth contradicted by everything we know about neuroscience.
https://rethinkpriorities.org/research-area/why-neuron-counts-shouldnt-be-used-as-proxies-for-moral-weight/
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p50vw84-ry2taYmyOIl4B91j7wkCurlB/edit?tab=t.0
This is not what the report says. They recognize that neuron counts are a main ingredient for their own weights. Additionally the ratio between human and arthropods neuron number are like 200.000 for a cockroach vs 16,340,000,000 for humans (0.01 %) for brain only neurons.
But remember that Rethink Priorities does not even engage with Integrated Information Theory. And complexity measures tend to be super additive (often massively).
Additionally when you use the authority of “neuroscience”, I have to remind you that we have no science of sentience beyond the epistemic circle of us and those who are very similar to us and whose reporting we can trust.
Nobody really knows “how is to be a bat”, so I don’t know what science are you speaking about: the article of rethinking priorities is full nuance, of course. They know we don’t (scientifically) know; we have intuitions and complexity theory but nothing close to observations. Consciousness is noumenal, except your own.
Using what we have, for me is quite likely that shrimp is not more sentient than my iPhone.
This is why it's hard to take pro-choice vegans seriously!
Why? The embryo is quite unlikely to be conscious, at least in the first 3 months. I understand that you can be against torturing an adult pig for one year, and do not care about a human embryo that still has a rudimentary nervous system.
.
The definitions most vegans use for consciousness would justify pretty extreme abortion restrictions they don't support. FWIW I don't think their theory of consciousness (or really any theory) is that good, and agree with your comment overall.
X
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons
If you were given the choice between saving the lives of 1,000 shrimp and one human being, would you regard it as difficult? If not, is it because you believe it is obvious that we should save the shrimp or the human?
$30/mo done! https://www.farmkind.giving/confirmation?id=24e9c495-81a5-4eaf-bb52-1d400550baf7
I think a lot of people have a tribal kind of moral attitude. We all have serious moral obligations, sure, but only to beings in our tribes; or so it is implicitly thought. A being is in my tribe when they are a family member, close friend, and so on. Some people have big tribes; others have tiny ones. In mafia movies, mafia people are depicted as having small tribes and a tribal morality. I have a strong moral obligation towards my family and closest friends, but fuck everyone else. Everyone else should have their own damn tribes that look out for each other. It’s up to them, not us, to defend themselves. Think of *Goodfellas* or *The Godfather*.
If this is psychologically accurate—and all I have is a suspicion that tribal morality is commonly implicated adopted; I have no real evidence—then I think a lot of people would say we have no moral obligations towards shrimp, no matter how much they suffer.
I’m not saying that tribal morality is right! I’m just speculating about how some people might respond to your post—which was fantastic.
Great article! Shared.
There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is sui- I mean, shrimp.
Stuff like this is why I respect utilitarian / EA frameworks despite my Camus sympathies. I wasn't even aware about their sentience as I equivocated crustaceans with mollusks (if I recall correctly, Peter Singer made a point about bivalves); thank you for the post!
"That means it’s equivalent to making a human death painless every year for only two cents!" The word equivalent is doing some pretty heavy work here.