{"items": [{"author": "Sasha", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707724891522", "anchor": "fb-707724891522", "service": "fb", "text": "I'm wary of triggering something with this question, but curious - why don't you object to eating meat or cheese? (esp given that A. you seem to accept that they cause suffering and B. that to my knowledge you're a utilitarian)", "timestamp": "1422122004"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707726453392", "anchor": "fb-707726453392", "service": "fb", "text": "@Sasha: I agree that meat and cheese production cause animals pain, but I don't think that they have neural structures to perceive that pain the way humans do. I \"don't think there's anyone there to suffer\".", "timestamp": "1422123023"}, {"author": "Sasha", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707726623052", "anchor": "fb-707726623052", "service": "fb", "text": "Don't you think there's a reasonable probability that you're wrong to take into account in expectation? It certainly seems to be an open question on which many (even most?) neuroscientists would disagree.", "timestamp": "1422123150"}, {"author": "Audrey", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707726832632", "anchor": "fb-707726832632", "service": "fb", "text": "Still waiting for someone to take up my offer of becoming vegetarian for the low low price of $500 a month.", "timestamp": "1422123302"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707727451392", "anchor": "fb-707727451392", "service": "fb", "text": "(I'm the friend Jeff's talking about.) I had asked Jeff not to mention my name in connection with the post, but that seems silly now. It seems like a shouldn't do things that I'm not happy being this public about.

Jeff's a nice friend!", "timestamp": "1422123843"}, {"author": "David", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707727501292", "anchor": "fb-707727501292", "service": "fb", "text": "Audrey, is that a serious offer? I know somebody who might be interested.", "timestamp": "1422123887"}, {"author": "David", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707727581132", "anchor": "fb-707727581132", "service": "fb", "text": "Audrey, nevermind, I misread your post. I thought you were offering $500/mo, not requesting it.", "timestamp": "1422124010"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707727601092", "anchor": "fb-707727601092", "service": "fb", "text": "\"Secondar-order\" effects are obviously a concern. I suspect the social influence of our actions is more important than the \"direct\" (in quotes because the chain from eating less chicken to fewer chickens being farmed is obviously not all that direct, but it does seem more direct, or at least easier to understand).

A few thoughts on second-order effects are:", "timestamp": "1422124050"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707727616062", "anchor": "fb-707727616062", "service": "fb", "text": "(Most important)-- I think being vegan is much less important than being involved in advocating for animals. It's the system that needs to change rather than individual consumer behavior. This is similar (but with some important differences) to how I think encouraging people to emit less carbon is silly. The greenhouse-gas problem needs to be solved on a system-wide level, and encouraging me to fly in airplanes less is just a distraction from that.", "timestamp": "1422124055"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707727626042", "anchor": "fb-707727626042", "service": "fb", "text": "Looking at Brian's (http://reducing-suffering.org/how-much-direct-suffering.../) estimates of suffering-per-kilogram, the ratio was chosen to account somewhat (I say \"somewhat\" b/c these things are really hard to estimate) for second-order effects. But having another look at the table and consider a 10-1 milk-to-cheese ratio (it takes a lot of milk to make cheese), the ratio doesn't come out that favorable in some cases. Jeff, do you eat much chicken at work normally? How would you feel about only counting foregone chicken?

I still think about the circumstances in which eating cheese will have the worst second-order effects. My home is still vegan, and especially now that there's another vegan at work (in a small company), supporting the idea of vegan food at lunch there seems good (telling the catering company that we don't need as much vegan food anymore seems bad).

I'll also add that I'm uncertain about this arrangement. Jeff hasn't promised to continue it long-term, and I'm uncertain how my feelings will develop. Given the constraints above, I don't have that many cheese-eating circumstances anyway (I don't eat out that much and still have a preference for vegan places when I do).", "timestamp": "1422124060"}, {"author": "Boris", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707727815662", "anchor": "fb-707727815662", "service": "fb", "text": "Very relevant: \"Moral Trade\" by Toby Ord :) http://earad.io/toby-ord-moral-trade/", "timestamp": "1422124239"}, {"author": "Boris", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707727870552", "anchor": "fb-707727870552", "service": "fb", "text": "And a PDF: http://www.amirrorclear.net/academic/papers/moral-trade.pdf :)", "timestamp": "1422124272"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707728624042", "anchor": "fb-707728624042", "service": "fb", "text": "Jacy, I think there's positive as well as negative idea-spreading effects. E.g. in response to just this post Sasha's comment to Jeff (\"Don't you think there's a reasonable probability that you're wrong to take into account in expectation?\") seems potentially helpful in potentially pushing Jeff to think more about how he treats moral uncertainty.", "timestamp": "1422124844"}, {"author": "Sasha", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707728634022", "anchor": "fb-707728634022", "service": "fb", "text": "As much as I hate picking on people for already being awesome, I'd add that as one of the most recognised figures in the EA movement, you should probably multiply whatever the expected effects you think eating animals have by an order of magnitude or two, to account both for several people drawing inspiration from your example and others failing to do so if you do something they consider wrong.", "timestamp": "1422124855"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707728678932", "anchor": "fb-707728678932", "service": "fb", "text": "More importantly Jacy, I think it also helps to make the point that I think your activism is more important than you consumer choices.", "timestamp": "1422124889"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707728828632", "anchor": "fb-707728828632", "service": "fb", "text": "Do I get to multiple the offsets from Jeff by an order of magnitude or two? :)", "timestamp": "1422124947"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707728938412", "anchor": "fb-707728938412", "service": "fb", "text": "There's other positive discussion-and-idea-spreading effects too, Jacy. Say I'm at a meal with folks, avoid meat, and confirm that there's no egg in the pasta. Quite a lot of fodder for discussion there!", "timestamp": "1422125066"}, {"author": "Audrey", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707729207872", "anchor": "fb-707729207872", "service": "fb", "text": "David - I almost got my hopes up haha. As an avid meat eater, it would take some serious money for me to become vegetarian.", "timestamp": "1422125217"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707731887502", "anchor": "fb-707731887502", "service": "fb", "text": "@David: \"Jeff, do you eat much chicken at work normally? How would you feel about only counting foregone chicken?\"

I don't eat that much chicken, but I'd be willing to only do this with chicken if you'd rather.", "timestamp": "1422126890"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707734252762", "anchor": "fb-707734252762", "service": "fb", "text": "Does anyone out there who cares about animals think this is a good idea? Buck?", "timestamp": "1422127386"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1422127952"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707736054152", "anchor": "fb-707736054152", "service": "fb", "text": "@Elliot: Offsets follow from any kind of consequentialism, not just utilitarianism.", "timestamp": "1422128600"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1422128879"}, {"author": "Sasha", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707736867522", "anchor": "fb-707736867522", "service": "fb", "text": "'This is precisely the sort of thing that I consider to be a reductio ad absurdum of utilitarianism. [ETA: compare chattel slavery or serial rape. The logic would be exactly the same.]'

This is the sort of thing I consider to be a reductio ad absurdum of reductio ad absurdi.", "timestamp": "1422129188"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1422129832"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707738609032", "anchor": "fb-707738609032", "service": "fb", "text": "@Elliot: There are many consequentialist moral theories: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism...

I'm much more strongly attached to consequentialism then I am to utilitarianism.

(I'm very much not Randian.)", "timestamp": "1422130003"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1422131855"}, {"author": "Ross", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707746498222", "anchor": "fb-707746498222", "service": "fb", "text": "@David Chudzicki: > Does anyone out there who cares about animals think this is a good idea?

I care enough to eat vegetarian-not-vegan, and think it's a good idea, given consequentialism. I also think that, given it being a good idea, Jeff doing it is an even better idea, because the multiplier mentioned above acts on the \"look for and make positive-sum moral trades\" meme.

Could someone in the camp of \"this is a modus tollens against consequentialism\" explain the failure mode at issue more explicitly? I feel like I don't understand how it operates. (Mostly because I don't understand who, including aggregate of the animals, is losing.)", "timestamp": "1422135092"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1422136718"}, {"author": "Frederic", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707774542022", "anchor": "fb-707774542022", "service": "fb", "text": "Except that what Jeff is describing involves a net decrease in animal suffering while your rape offset does not reduce rape. Abhorrent is a term I find suspect in an argument btw.", "timestamp": "1422154039"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1422157398"}, {"author": "Frederic", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707780804472", "anchor": "fb-707780804472", "service": "fb", "text": "Abhorrent means it disgusts you which could include, say, cauliflower and is not meaningful in terms of morality.", "timestamp": "1422157520"}, {"author": "Josh", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707781383312", "anchor": "fb-707781383312", "service": "fb", "text": "I feel like when you're talking about actual crimes, there's an element of extortion here. If you give me a hundred bucks, I won't mug anyone today.", "timestamp": "1422157782"}, {"author": "Frederic", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707781443192", "anchor": "fb-707781443192", "service": "fb", "text": "You have to assume the other person is acting in good faith. But that's a practical objection and Elliot's making a theoretical objection.", "timestamp": "1422157867"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1422157953"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1422158464"}, {"author": "Josh", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707782600872", "anchor": "fb-707782600872", "service": "fb", "text": "I wasn't even really talking about cheating, though. If I need $100/day to support myself, I might in fact be entirely happy to take a payoff rather than mugging people.

I guess I'm seeing a distinction between three things: (1) Ethical trades that aren't illegal, where I'm doing something that you think makes the world a better place, in exchange for something that I think makes the world a better place, a deal that's only really made possible by our ethical disagreement. (2) Exchanges involving illegal behavior, where the person refraining from the illegal activity is perfectly happy to take the swap rather than commit the crime, like the mugger who doesn't really care whether they get their $100 from mugging people or from a rich person who wants to swap cash for less crime. (3) Exchanges involving illegal behavior, where the person refraining from the illegal behavior doesn't seem (to me anyway) to be getting anything out of the deal, and the person swapping with them is going to actually do the illegal activity. The rape example is the third case, and I think doesn't make sense at all, because why would a serial rapist be just as happy to have their buddy rape someone, rather than doing it themselves?", "timestamp": "1422158848"}, {"author": "Andrew", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707789711622", "anchor": "fb-707789711622", "service": "fb", "text": "Jeff, I'd like to hear your response to Sasha's second comment, that animals might be suffering and you're gambling on that. It seems like a solid argument to me.", "timestamp": "1422165995"}, {"author": "Sasha", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707800744512", "anchor": "fb-707800744512", "service": "fb", "text": "Ditto. I have no desire to persecute anyone for not being veg*n, but with someone like Jeff, I do want to press for their full argument.", "timestamp": "1422189445"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707802071852", "anchor": "fb-707802071852", "service": "fb", "text": "@Josh: Your #1 describes how most ordinary charities work.", "timestamp": "1422191340"}, {"author": "Josh", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707802805382", "anchor": "fb-707802805382", "service": "fb", "text": "I think the difference between my case #1, and ordinary charity, is that in an ordinary charity, usually the person giving the money and the person using the money (aka \"giving their time\" or whatever other resources they're spending the money on) both agree on the ethical goal. Maybe there's no distinction between paying someone to do something positive, and paying someone not to do something negative, but I think it feels different. And swapping negatives feels different than paying, in any case -- \"I'll stop driving to work if stop eating meat\" seems different to me than \"I'll give you $500/mo not to eat meat\".", "timestamp": "1422192442"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707805559862", "anchor": "fb-707805559862", "service": "fb", "text": "@Josh: Many charities employ people, directly or indirectly, who don't think being charitable matters much. For example, I could donate to a charity who uses it to pay their sysadmin who happens to be an objectivist. Both the director and I think their having a working computer system is very useful toward their important goals, but the money is still being received by someone who is only doing the work because it pays.", "timestamp": "1422195499"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707806468042", "anchor": "fb-707806468042", "service": "fb", "text": "@Sasha, Andrew: Let's say I'm 95% sure livestock don't suffer in a morally relevant way. That leaves a 5% chance that they do, so how bad is that? If their suffering does matter, it probably still matters much less than humans; let's say 1000x for pigs, 2000x for cows, higher for chickens. Lets run the numbers for pork since that's the worst case. Using Brian's numbers on [1] expected days of life caused per kg of meat demanded, to save a year's worth of pig living I'd need to refrain from eating 400lb of pork. A years worth of pig living, at the 1000x discount from above, and assuming the pigs experience is as much worse than death as a person's experience is better than death, is equivalent to about 0.001 additional human years of life. Giving someone an extra year of life (a QALY) through distributing antimalarial nets is around $100.

So! If I'd rather give an additional $0.10 to effective charity than pass up eating 400lbs of pork then I should go with the donation.

(And this is leaving out the multiplication by 5% to handle my small creedence that the animals are suffering at all.)

[1] http://reducing-suffering.org/how-much-direct-suffering.../", "timestamp": "1422196467"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707806662652", "anchor": "fb-707806662652", "service": "fb", "text": "(Even if you have no discount for pig lives compared to human lives, if you donate $0.25 to effective charity instead of passing up 1lb of pork, you still come out having made the world better.)", "timestamp": "1422196645"}, {"author": "Sasha", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707810904152", "anchor": "fb-707810904152", "service": "fb", "text": "'If their suffering does matter, it probably still matters much less than humans; let's say 1000x for pigs, 2000x for cows, higher for chickens.'

This seems really peculiar - conditioning on the claim that they suffer at all, I've never heard a rationale that they do so significantly less. Claiming that they don't suffer at all as argued by eg Eliezer seems to require that conscious experience is emergent from some kind of 'complex enough' nervous system.

But once you're past that hurdle, it seems like a wholly separate (and at least as controversial) claim to say that humans are so much further past it than animals.

The claim that animals don't suffer at all (when it stems from claims about neural structures) seems to imply that neither do babies, up until at least a few weeks after birth (according to David Pearce, until they're starting to walk and speak: http://www.hedweb.com/transhumanism/antispeciesist.html).

The latter claim, that animals suffer massively less, correspondingly implies that there's a transition period for babies during which gradually less extreme forms of torture are appropriate tradeoffs for, say, saving an adult from getting slightly out of breath.

Unless you've done serious neuroscience research (and even then, but marginally less so), it seems epistemologically unsound to have as low as 5% credence in animals suffering (and apparently almost 100% credence in the proposition that 'if they do suffer, it's almost imcomparably mild to human suffering') when such positions seem to have little support from professional neuroscientists.

I've always thought it intuitively 'obvious' that there had to be an endless, infinite multiverse, but I can distance myself from that intuition well enough that I put about 0% credence in it. One day, perhaps, actual cosmologists will tell me whether I'm wrong or right, and until then I'll remain agnostic, erring towards whatever the majority of actual cosmologists believe, with credence roughly erring towards the size of the majority. How else can it make sense to reason on subjects about which we're so relatively ill-informed?", "timestamp": "1422200217"}, {"author": "Peter", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707814526892", "anchor": "fb-707814526892", "service": "fb", "text": "I always wonder why people often draw ethical lines around animal/non-animal based on characteristics of mammals. Invertibrates have extremely simple nervous systems compared to mammals (with the possible exception of cephalopods) so it is very hard to imagine they suffer. However, I've never heard of anyone proclaiming they would eat invertebrates, but not other animals.", "timestamp": "1422202678"}, {"author": "Denis", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707819357212", "anchor": "fb-707819357212", "service": "fb", "text": "Most farmed animals clearly show very similar reactions as humans would to treatment that we would perceive as painful or otherwise inducing suffering. The arguments I\u2019ve read that they don\u2019t actually feel pain, but that it is just a mechanical, painless avoidance reaction have relied implicitly or explicitly on Cartesian reasoning involving independent souls an stuff like that. I think it\u2019s a greatly more parsimonious claim to assume that other animals feel almost the same way human animals do than to claim that a wholly different mechanism is at work there, which yet looks almost the same on the outside.

The reason I would still accept that animal might suffer less than humans in similar situations is that humans may have more detailed ambitions and hopes. Hypothetical farmed humans would know that they\u2019ll be butchered in just a few years, would know that they\u2019ll live only once, would see their dreams drain away with every new day locked in the farm, would feel humiliated because they know human culture from stories conveyed through language, would feel that they must stand up for the one who is singled out for slaughter but fear that they\u2019ll be slaughtered themselves and consequently feel broken like Winston at the end of 1984 after he made his choice in room 101, and much more. I grant that most nonhuman farmed animals might feel such things to a lesser degree, but I\u2019m not even convinced they don\u2019t feel them at all.

Hence I\u2019m close to 100% sure that animals as advanced as chickens, pigs, and cows have feelings that are not qualitatively different from ours, but would accept that their suffering may be one, perhaps two orders of magnitude less severe than what farmed humans would perceive. I wish this were easier to research and quantify.

Edit: I\u2019ve used the 1984 analogy in various discussions before because it is clear, powerful, and well known. The clash in names was in no way intended.", "timestamp": "1422203277"}, {"author": "Frederic", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707820295332", "anchor": "fb-707820295332", "service": "fb", "text": "I think 95% skepticism about livestock suffering is far out of line with scientific understanding. If I could figure out how to wager on it I would offer you one.", "timestamp": "1422203953"}, {"author": "Sasha", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707824022862", "anchor": "fb-707824022862", "service": "fb", "text": "Richard Dawkins has argued that there are evolutionary reasons why intelligence might actually correlate inversely with capacity to suffer: http://boingboing.net/2011/06/30/richard-dawkins-on-v.html", "timestamp": "1422205539"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707829816252", "anchor": "fb-707829816252", "service": "fb", "text": "@Jacy: \"you would rather have 20,000=(1/.05)*1000 pigs go through some level of suffering (say, having broken legs) than 1 human\"

Yes.

\"if you had a 50% chance of either living in a human factory farm (i.e. confinement, injuries, illness, social isolation, inhibition of natural behaviors, painful mutilation/slaughter, etc.) or a developing country (and ignore effects you have on other people), you'd take this opportunity?\"

No, you're right, being on a factory farm is worse than being alive typically is good. Maybe 20x worse? As in if I didn't exist, I'd be willing to come into existence if I had only a 5% chance of living on a factory farm. This adds a factor of 20x to the numbers above, so instead of $0.10 <-> 400lbs pork it's $0.10 <-> 20lbs.

\"Does avoiding animal products really reduce the amount you give to charity?\"

I think it should, yes. Specifically, I think people should take the options for improving the world that offer the best ratio of other-benefit to self-sacrifice. Imagine I decide how much to donate, pushing myself however hard I can. Then someone says \"Why don't you give up meat too!\" If the amount of meat I eat in a day causes an amount of suffering that an additional daily donation of $X would avert, then if I would rather donate $X instead of forgoing meat I should do that.

Here's another way to approach it. Imagine you currently use a clothes dryer, and I ask you why you don't use a clothesline. You say you don't think a clothesline does very much to improve the world, though it does do some. I say since it improves the world and doesn't reduce the money you have for donations you should do it anyway; does that work? I don't think it does.", "timestamp": "1422207399"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707832061752", "anchor": "fb-707832061752", "service": "fb", "text": "@Sasha: \"Claiming that they don't suffer at all as argued by eg Eliezer seems to require that conscious experience is emergent from some kind of 'complex enough' nervous system.\"

That's pretty much what I think. The capacity for suffering isn't something that all collections of neurons have. You need some kind of internal awareness that I don't think any of the animals we typically raise for food have.

\"conditioning on the claim that they suffer at all, I've never heard a rationale that they do so significantly less.\"

Really? Is this quibbling over the meaning of \"significantly less\"? I think there are lots of people who think animals do suffer, but given the choice between one human suffering and N animals suffering would choose the animals to suffer for N > 100.

\"The claim that animals don't suffer at all (when it stems from claims about neural structures) seems to imply that neither do babies, up until at least a few weeks after birth\"

This makes sense to me. Imagine we had the choice between letting a 1 year old baby who was about to die instead live one more month or letting a 40 year old adult live one more month. Ignore for both cases the effect on the various people that love them and would enjoy having another month with them. I think its many times more valuable to give that month to the 40 year old.

\"implies that there's a transition period for babies during which gradually less extreme forms of torture are appropriate tradeoffs for, say, saving an adult from getting slightly out of breath.\"

Babies grow into adults, so torturing them is a terrible idea. There's also a decent chance that babies develop various kinds of thought and awareness before being able to express it, which is less likely in kinds of animals that don't ever get to where they express it.

\"and apparently almost 100% credence in the proposition that 'if they do suffer, it's almost incomparably mild to human suffering'\"

I don't have 100% credence on that. Maybe 80%?", "timestamp": "1422208751"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707999326552", "anchor": "fb-707999326552", "service": "fb", "text": "Elliot-- it really seems like the trade can't be a \"reductio ad absurdum\" of utilitarianism when there are so many utilitarian arguments against it.", "timestamp": "1422320110"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707999351502", "anchor": "fb-707999351502", "service": "fb", "text": "Josh-- to me it's very clear there's no element of extortion here. Jeff isn't eating the meat he does in order to trade not eating it. He's really committed to getting the counterfactuals right in this sort of thing.", "timestamp": "1422320122"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707999361482", "anchor": "fb-707999361482", "service": "fb", "text": "I think it's not a good idea for me to continue with this. That's partly due to good reasoning given in feedback in this thread and elsewhere recently. Part of my thinking was that activism is more important than diet choices anyway, so it's not such a big deal. Jacy makes a good case that the effect on people is the opposite, though: Having the offsets justify the diet makes diet too central.

But more than that, I think I'm just feeling kinda icky about it. That feeling was present but small before, and larger now.

It wasn't the actual cheese-eating that feels icky but the influence on identity: Going from \"I'm vegan\" to \"Under these circumstances, I eat cheese and am supposed to feel okay about it.\" Regardless of the offsets meaning the direct effects on animals are positive, it *feels* like letting them down (and letting down other activists). That feeling plays a helpful role in movements like this, and I don't want to ignore it.

Going from thinking this was a good idea to not feels a bit odd, even though there was always a lot of uncertainty about whether it's a good idea. There was obviously a big social influence in changing my mind (in a good way, I think).

Ross, I still like the \"look for and make positive-sum moral trades\" idea and agree with you that it's good for Jeff to be looking for examples to implement.", "timestamp": "1422320128"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=707999680842", "anchor": "fb-707999680842", "service": "fb", "text": "I also appreciate Jeff's back-of-the-envelope calculation on whether he should worry about animals. His framework seems reasonable, but there's a simpler approach I like better: 1 lb of pork corresponds to 1 day of a pig's life (using the same estimates Jeff is), so I can think about how I feel about a pig living a day like that. (Awful.) Imagining a day of a pig's life seems more direct and less likely to get confused by large scales.

Something like Jeff's approach is probably important for cause prioritization, though. (But I think his inputs are wrong, of course.)", "timestamp": "1422320248"}, {"author": "Josh", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/707722670972?comment_id=708000104992", "anchor": "fb-708000104992", "service": "fb", "text": "I agree that there's no extortion in this case; the case where a criminal is offering not to engage in activity that both they and the other person think is criminal (and morally wrong), in exchange for money, is the one where it feels like extortion.", "timestamp": "1422320401"}]}