Beware the tendency to oppose improvements that make moot your sacrifice. Kajta Grace: A pattern … I have noticed before … goes like this. Some people make personal sacrifices, supposedly toward solving problems that don’t threaten them personally. They sort recycling, buy free range eggs, buy fair trade, campaign for wealth redistribution etc. Their actions are seen as virtuous. They see those who don’t join them as uncaring and immoral. A more efficient solution to the problem is suggested. It does not require personal sacrifice. People who have not previously sacrificed support it. Those who have previously sacrificed object on grounds that it is an excuse for people to get out of making the sacrifice. … Some examples of this sentiment:
Years ago when I worked on recycling -- automated equipment to do the separations -- the opposition was from those who wanted sacrifice. Our approach was cost effective and shown to work, but our opposition got a lot of laws passed with subsidies and container fees, etc. that shifted the economics in favor of our present multi-container recycling systems.
I never really understood the activities of automated recycling opponents and this discussion helps a lot. I was always arguing science, technology and economics and they were always winning the votes with emotional arguments.
> # A downside to recreating extinct species with cloning is that it will let people bother even less about stopping extinctions.
Does this one look like a terrible example to anyone else? For every charismatic mammal or plant we clone, there's going to be hundreds of species that we haven't studied beyond a few quick notes, much less have preserved enough material to even think about creating a viable population.
Simply put, we empathize more with humans than animals. Their subjective experience is more complex and relatable. I still care about animals a non-trivial amount, but value their lives less.
At what level is a non-trivial amount of subjective experience? And why are you so sure animals are at or above this level? Why are you putting on par their level of subjective experience with humans?
In my opinion, an animals (not humans) non-suffering, short-lived existence is more favorable than not existing at all. Even if the animal was destined to be killed for food.
I can think of two conservative examples offhand that may be relevant:
The HPV vaccine. I distinctly remember complaints that it "sends girls the message that sex is not dangerous" or something. If it actually isn't dangerous, that might be the correct message to send, though! (HPV had previously been the darling of Christian conservatism, because it's actually a skin infection and isn't really protected against with condoms.)Distaste for "the new new math" in public schools. There are legitimate complaints to be made about this (programs like TERC in particular require an outstanding teacher, and those are in short supply in public schools), but unfortunately none of them are the ones brought up by parents. The principal objection is that what kids do in math classes now looks like fun, instead of serious work.
An exercise pill. Many a gymrat would foam at the mouth because they put 10-20 hours a week into their regimen, only to have it obviated by a once-a-day pill. Twice as much foam when we come up with "body sculpting" pills that would allow you to choose your look (slim, slightly cut, beefy, Ahnuld, etc.)
Pwno: hrm, seems there's no link to reply directly to you, but if you mean "pain free, but still a being with nontrivial amounts of subjective experience had to be systematically farmed and killed" probably not.
I appeal to my intuitions of "would I eat pain-free human meat?"
I am not one of those who believes that climate change will mean any sort of apocalyptic disaster. Therefore, President Obama is a failure for not terrifying the American people about climate change.
Brink Lindsey fell into this trap while criticizing liberals on global warming.Are you expecting people to watch the entire 57-minute video in hopes of figuring out which trap you think he fell into, or could you perhaps summarize the point and say where in the video (how many minutes in) we should look to find it?
This is a great illustration of a point of this post (or background?). The original focus of veganism was concern for animals, but the term has come to refer largely to diet, not other animal products and definitely not to the explanation. Without saying anything about the motivations of vegans*, I think society encourages fragmentation along easily policed rituals, not along philosophy.
Years ago when I worked on recycling -- automated equipment to do the separations -- the opposition was from those who wanted sacrifice. Our approach was cost effective and shown to work, but our opposition got a lot of laws passed with subsidies and container fees, etc. that shifted the economics in favor of our present multi-container recycling systems.
I never really understood the activities of automated recycling opponents and this discussion helps a lot. I was always arguing science, technology and economics and they were always winning the votes with emotional arguments.
> # A downside to recreating extinct species with cloning is that it will let people bother even less about stopping extinctions.
Does this one look like a terrible example to anyone else? For every charismatic mammal or plant we clone, there's going to be hundreds of species that we haven't studied beyond a few quick notes, much less have preserved enough material to even think about creating a viable population.
This was going to be my example too; and I read all the comments only to be frustrated. Stop stealing my examples for Robin!
Simply put, we empathize more with humans than animals. Their subjective experience is more complex and relatable. I still care about animals a non-trivial amount, but value their lives less.
Why would that logic not extend then to farming humans?
"non suffering short lived human existence is more favorable than non existing at all, even if that human is destined to be killed for food"
And I don't claim to have all the answers here, but it sure seems to me that the situations are at least morally similar, even if not identical.
great examples!
At what level is a non-trivial amount of subjective experience? And why are you so sure animals are at or above this level? Why are you putting on par their level of subjective experience with humans?
In my opinion, an animals (not humans) non-suffering, short-lived existence is more favorable than not existing at all. Even if the animal was destined to be killed for food.
I can think of two conservative examples offhand that may be relevant:
The HPV vaccine. I distinctly remember complaints that it "sends girls the message that sex is not dangerous" or something. If it actually isn't dangerous, that might be the correct message to send, though! (HPV had previously been the darling of Christian conservatism, because it's actually a skin infection and isn't really protected against with condoms.)Distaste for "the new new math" in public schools. There are legitimate complaints to be made about this (programs like TERC in particular require an outstanding teacher, and those are in short supply in public schools), but unfortunately none of them are the ones brought up by parents. The principal objection is that what kids do in math classes now looks like fun, instead of serious work.
An exercise pill. Many a gymrat would foam at the mouth because they put 10-20 hours a week into their regimen, only to have it obviated by a once-a-day pill. Twice as much foam when we come up with "body sculpting" pills that would allow you to choose your look (slim, slightly cut, beefy, Ahnuld, etc.)
Pwno: hrm, seems there's no link to reply directly to you, but if you mean "pain free, but still a being with nontrivial amounts of subjective experience had to be systematically farmed and killed" probably not.
I appeal to my intuitions of "would I eat pain-free human meat?"
http://bloggingheads.tv/dia...Commenter bjkeefe sums it up:Shorter Brink Lindsey:
I am not one of those who believes that climate change will mean any sort of apocalyptic disaster. Therefore, President Obama is a failure for not terrifying the American people about climate change.
Would you eat pain-free meat?
TGGP wrote:
Brink Lindsey fell into this trap while criticizing liberals on global warming.Are you expecting people to watch the entire 57-minute video in hopes of figuring out which trap you think he fell into, or could you perhaps summarize the point and say where in the video (how many minutes in) we should look to find it?
Brink Lindsey fell into this trap while criticizing liberals on global warming.
vegan vs vegetarian
This is a great illustration of a point of this post (or background?). The original focus of veganism was concern for animals, but the term has come to refer largely to diet, not other animal products and definitely not to the explanation. Without saying anything about the motivations of vegans*, I think society encourages fragmentation along easily policed rituals, not along philosophy.
* "the beginning and the end of vegetarian"
In Europe, one of the most prevalent examples is: we can't have markets in organs because that would cheapen the gift given by current donors.