{"items": [{"author": "Chris", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112938759017605010116", "anchor": "gp-1360205827494", "service": "gp", "text": "I think if we actually \nhad\n technology that could \"fix\" an embryo that was going to miscarry (due to genetic nonviability, rather than some avoidable condition in the mother), the same people who now say that the miscarriage is natural would then find it immoral to withhold that technology.\n
\n
\nIn short, I think they're not really saying that they don't think embryo loss (or natural animal suffering/predation) is immoral, they're just saying that it's unavoidable right now. \u00a0In contrast, we could stop actively treating animals badly and aborting fetuses.\n
\n
\nSo I think you're really asking the question of \"Is it unethical to fail to achieve something currently thought to be impossible\"? \u00a0I think most ethical systems answer \"no\", but utilitarianism doesn't have to.", "timestamp": 1360205827}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1360247341454", "service": "gp", "text": "@Chris\n\u00a0\"unavoidable right now\"\n
\n
\nSomeone who wanted take steps to reduce these right now would probably fund research. \u00a0Because the scales of embryo death and wild animal suffering are much larger than intentional abortions and animals raised for human enjoyment I would expect that research to be really high priority.\n
\n
\n(If we actually thought affecting these was impossible that would mean we were sure that after research we still wouldn't be able to have a positive effect.)", "timestamp": 1360247341}, {"author": "Marcus", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/115811589251174483775", "anchor": "gp-1360247387246", "service": "gp", "text": "Without commenting on the premise, the inability to prevent all the evil or suffering in the world does not excuse you from acting on that which is under your control. It's a similar false dichotomy to the notion that you need to be saintly in order to unhypocritically engage in moral actions. As Rabbi Tarfon put it, \"you need not complete the work, but neither may you abandon it.\"", "timestamp": 1360247387}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1360247747990", "service": "gp", "text": "\"the inability to prevent all the evil or suffering in the world does not excuse you from acting on that which is under your control\"\n
\n
\nStrong agreement.\n
\n
\nBut I don't see how it applies here. \u00a0If you want to prevent animal suffering I think you do much better to put work into preventing suffering in the wild. \u00a0If you want to prevent embryo deaths I think you do much better to put work into natural deaths instead of abortions. \u00a0At the least you should have considered the natural harm and decided that it's less tractable than the human-caused harm.", "timestamp": 1360247747}, {"author": "Chris", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112938759017605010116", "anchor": "gp-1360248890885", "service": "gp", "text": "Yeah. \u00a0Another reason to decide to concentrate on the harm-due-to-volition for now might be related to the tactics of trying to create the kind of society that cares about the same problems as you.\n
\n
\nIf we can only convince <5% of our society to avoid eating factory farmed animals, how are we going to convince the others to start joining in our movement to prevent natural animal suffering? \u00a0They'll think we're crazy people, because our beliefs are too many steps away from theirs. \u00a0We're probably going to want to start with ending factory farming and building a movement of people who experience empathy towards many non-human animals and treat them as worthy of moral consideration, and go from there.", "timestamp": 1360248890}, {"author": "Marcus", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/115811589251174483775", "anchor": "gp-1360249154174", "service": "gp", "text": "You might find this quiz interesting: \nhttp://www.philosophyexperiments.com/moralityplay/\n
\n
\nIt's testing something called \"Moral Parsimony\" which is essentially the question of whether action or moral must by measured in absolute terms, rather than considering such factors as geographic proximity, family relatedness, whether the wrong is due to action or inaction, and the scale of the injustice.\u00a0 Particularly relevant to your question is whether action verses inaction makes any moral difference.\u00a0\n
\n
\nAnother specific factor, as opposed to broad moral framework, is whether such interventions would cause more harm than good.\u00a0 We could cage animals to protect them from harm, but at a loss of their freedom.\u00a0 Similarly medical interventions to ensure the viability of embryos, could have negative side effects.\u00a0\n
\n
\nAn example of this that we might realistically face in our lives, is deciding whether to let your cat go outdoors.\u00a0 In my personal experience, indoor/outdoor cats are happier and better adjusted then cats that only live inside.\u00a0 However, they are more likely to get injured in a fight with another cat, hit by a car, or eaten by a coyote. They are also more likely to kill birds and other animals.", "timestamp": 1360249154}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1360250472748", "service": "gp", "text": "@Marcus\n\u00a0\"whether such interventions would cause more harm than good\"\n
\n
\nExample of the sort of wild-animal-suffering prevention you might do would be to sterilize one kind of predator that is especially unpleasant to its prey. \u00a0Reducing the number of wild animals would also be an option, if you think that animals' lives are on balance negative.\n
\n
\nInterventions can certainly do more harm than good, but experimenting with them on a small scale before rolling them out should be able to help with that.", "timestamp": 1360250472}, {"author": "Mad", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/100533872344198336746", "anchor": "gp-1360332875533", "service": "gp", "text": "Current techniques find about half of miscarriages have chromosomal abnormalities. The total number caused by biological problems seems likely to be even higher -- smaller scale genetic issues undetected by those studies, or nongenetic congenital malformations.\u00a0As a geneticist, biologist, and member of a lab actively developing the relevant biotechnology, I can say the technology for detecting and repairing these embryos is probably very, very far away.\n
\n
\nSomeone unhappy with abortions is going to have a effective reduction by promoting birth control. In the US, ~800k elective abortions per year with an obvious preventative measure for >90% of them vs. ~1.5M spontaneous abortions per year, most of which are caused by biological issues far beyond our ability to address (and the tech for distinguish and saving the rest is also very distant).\n
\n
\nRegarding ecosystem engineering to reduce wildlife suffering -- I've heard the idea before and I guess I'm more annoyed than interested in it at this point. The topic sounds like it's more about interesting thought experiments than sincere moral concern. (Sorry, I don't know how to say that without coming off as harsh.) There's a massive unnatural predation issue that could be addressed right now: feral and pet cats. \nhttp://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-31/national/36650863_1_outdoor-cats-feral-cat-george-h-fenwick", "timestamp": 1360332875}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1360336623774", "service": "gp", "text": "@Madeleine\n\u00a0 \"The topic sounds like it's more about interesting thought experiments than sincere moral concern\"\n
\n
\nIn my case that's entirely accurate: I don't value animals and so this isn't a moral concern for me. \u00a0But it seems like it /should be/ a sincere moral concern for people that do value animals.\n
\n
\n\"There's a massive unnatural predation issue that could be addressed right now: feral and pet cats.\"\n
\n
\nSo the question is, how does this compare with the most tractable aspects of wild animal suffering? \u00a0Because there are already a lot of people working on cats I would expect that additional effort there wouldn't go as far, but I'm not sure.\n
\n
\n\"half of miscarriages have chromosomal abnormalities\"\n
\n
\nMy understanding is that most people opposed to abortions in general also oppose abortions in the case of chromosomal abnormalities (Downs etc).\n
\n
\n\"the technology for detecting and repairing these embryos is probably very, very far away\"\n
\n
\nYou wouldn't have to detect and repair all or even most of them. \u00a0If you could increase the chances of an embryo making it through to birth by 1% by some cheap-in-bulk means then I think that avoids more embryo deaths than successfully stopping all abortions.", "timestamp": 1360336623}, {"author": "Marcus", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/115811589251174483775", "anchor": "gp-1360336823728", "service": "gp", "text": "What basis do you have to say something \"should be a moral concern\" of someone whose moral framework you do not share?", "timestamp": 1360336823}, {"author": "Marcus", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/115811589251174483775", "anchor": "gp-1360337070605", "service": "gp", "text": "It seems like you're putting needlessly high value on the \"parsimoniousness\" (see my earlier post) of a moral system.\u00a0 There's no a priori reason to assume that parsimonious moral systems are better than unparsimonious ones. In fact, very few people have perfectly parsimonious moral views. Part of the purpose of the quiz I linked to is to demonstrate that.", "timestamp": 1360337070}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1360337670325", "service": "gp", "text": "@Marcus\n\u00a0\"What basis do you have to say something 'should be a moral concern' of someone whose moral framework you do not share?\"\n
\n
\nIt means \"from what I know of your moral framework, I would expect this to be an issue for you\", and is a request for someone to either explain how their moral framework differs from the model of it in my head or explain why the framework as we both understand it doesn't imply what I think it does.", "timestamp": 1360337670}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1360338267336", "service": "gp", "text": "@Marcus\n\u00a0\"There's no a priori reason to assume that parsimonious moral systems are better than unparsimonious ones.\"\n
\n
\nUm. \u00a0I don't fully understand what you mean by 'parsimonious' here (even after reading your earlier comment, following the link, and taking the quiz) but as far as I can tell it means 'consistent'. \u00a0For example, their quiz counts the belief that \"saving ten lives at the cost of one life is about as acceptable as saving ten thousand lives at the cost of a thousand lives\" as indicating a more parsimonious moral view.\n
\n
\nIf it just means consistent then you're saying there's no reason to assume that consistent moral systems are better than inconsistent ones, which seems absurd to me.\n
\n
\nIt would help here if you gave an unrelated moral question that you expect we would have different answers on because of my moral system's parsimony. \u00a0The more unrelated it is to beliefs either of us strongly associates with our identities, the better.", "timestamp": 1360338267}, {"author": "Mad", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/100533872344198336746", "anchor": "gp-1360340987085", "service": "gp", "text": "@Jeff Kaufman\n\u00a0\"If you could increase the chances of an embryo making it through to birth by 1% by some cheap-in-bulk means then I think that avoids more embryo deaths than successfully stopping all abortions.\"\n
\n
\nCan you stop conducting arguments with \"I think\", especially when I gave you numbers? Maybe you need to read a little slower? 1% of ~1.5M is 15k, and it's a totally speculative future tech (also, I don't think assisted reproductive technology is a neglected field). 100% of 800k is 50 times as much -- and with a clear technology for doing so in >90% of cases (i.e. elective abortions for nonmedical reasons, which should be preventable with birth control).\n
\n
\n\"Because there are already a lot of people working on cats I would expect that additional effort there wouldn't go as far, but I'm not sure.\"\n
\n
\nYou really think there isn't anything left to do regarding cats? Breeder's permits could be more widespread and the fines could be much more strictly enforced. (I'd recommend fees refundable upon spay/neuter, but you'd get more black market cats.) You could just \nban\n cats. In contrast you raise the straw man of more \"tractable aspects of wildlife suffering\" -- do you have anything specific?\n
\n
\n\"But it seems like it /should be/ a sincere moral concern for people that do value animals.\"\n
\n
\nThe conflation of embryonic deaths with animal suffering is incoherent, these are orders of magnitude apart in scale -- cats alone account for 1000x deaths of small animals compared to the sum of elective and spontaneous abortions.\n
\n
\nIn addition, many people who value animals are doing so due to suffering/welfare reasons, not inherent right-to-life reasons. Okay-with-embryo-killing and against-animal-suffering is a morally consistent viewpoint for many people who value animals.\n
\n
\nIn fact I suspect that describes the moral viewpoint of the vast majority of people who have any sympathy for animals. Most people are okay with euthanizing a terminally ill pet, and are against hurting a pet for no good reason.\n
\n
\n[edit: Chris points out your quote was only saying that wildlife should be a concern for people who care about animals. Separate to this, I've perceived you as saying you believe people-who-care-about-animals /should/ also care-about-embryos. That's the perceived conflation I was responding to.]\n
\n
\n\"My understanding is that most people opposed to abortions in general also oppose abortions in the case of chromosomal abnormalities (Downs etc).\"\n
\n
\nOne point to make -- Down's Syndrome is the smallest autosomal chromosome and least severe autosomal aneuploidy. Edward's syndrome is \"mild\" enough to sometimes survive to term, and has a median lifespan of 5-15 days. I wouldn't argue that all people who want Down's Syndrome fetuses brought to term would feel the same way about Edward's Syndrome.\n
\n
\nMore generally, I think you're persisting in disingenuous characterizations of people who have different moral beliefs.\u00a0I'm comfortable with elective abortion and think it should be legal for any reason. However, I would not characterize the opposition to abortion as \"always against it no matter what\".\n
\n
\nThere is clearly a spectrum of comfort, this is not a black and white issue: 86% of Americans oppose third trimester abortion but only 29% oppose first trimester. Two thirds of the people who oppose abortion still think it should be legal in specific circumstances -- e.g. rape and incest, or medical issues (especially the life of the mother, but fetal abnormalities are also be seen as sufficient by many). And that's just as it should be, we all recognize that there is no obvious line to draw defining the beginning of a human being's life.", "timestamp": 1360340987}, {"author": "Marcus", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/111675838261170541573", "anchor": "gp-1360342255690", "service": "gp", "text": "I think what you are missing is a \"responsibility\" question: we are not responsible, for the most part, for wild animals in the forest. We are responsible, to some extent, for the animals we raise for food and pets. The way we treat the animals we are responsible for reflects on us. (I think some part of animal cruelty laws are there as much to improve the way humans behave as to protect the animals)\n
\n
\nI think an interesting parallel is the short story \"the ones who walk away from Omelas\" (\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Omelas\n). The hook for that story as I recall it was that, by some magic, creating a miserable life for one child could basically ensure that everything else in the city went well. Now, if this was a state of being imposed by nature (eg, some virus that made everyone healthy but made 1 in a million miserable), I'd think that it would not be a bad city to live in. But if it was a state of being that required that the city impose the misery on a specific child... well, that seems morally wrong. So the question is: would you prefer to live in Omelas or in another city where maybe more children are miserable, but you did not cause it?\n
\n
\nMaybe a more realistic example is vaccination: we choose (for the most part) as a society to inject our children with vaccines that statistically have some chance of causing side effects, in return for a statistically much larger reduction in bad health outcomes. This is considered, by most, to be a good thing. Now, let's make this unrealistic for the sake of examining morality: what if the vaccine caused 1 child death for every 10 deaths it saved? Ok, I'd still take that bargain*. But now, what if we could make a cure for diseases only by killing a specific child: would we kill one child to make a cure for 10 children? I probably wouldn't, even though the math is the same*. We make statistical tradeoffs all the time that don't scale when they become specifics (eg, the VSL for a human life is about 8 million dollars, but we would never apply that VSL to a specific individual: I can't pay the government 8 million dollars and get a license to kill one person, for example)\n
\n
\n*Interestingly, in the first case, I think there is a threshold at which I wouldn't make that tradeoff: eg, I probably wouldn't push the vaccines if they only saved 1.1 lives for every life lost. Similarly, there's a threshold at which I probably would kill a specific someone if there were sufficient lives saved, but it would have to be a lot greater than 1:10.", "timestamp": 1360342255}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1360344685366", "service": "gp", "text": "@Madeleine\n\u00a0\"especially when I gave you numbers\"\n
\n
\nI'm sorry, you're right, I missed that. \u00a0I'm used to hearing that 50% of embryos die on their own and, in the US, 20% of those that survive are aborted intentionally. [1] My 1% was without thinking enough and you're right is way low; doing the math now I should have said 10%. [2] \u00a0Your numbers (1.5M spontaneous abortions, 0.8M intentional abortions plus a birth rate of 4M [3]) come to a spontaneous abortion rate of 24% and of those that survive an intentional abortion rate of 17%. \u00a0Where is your 1.5M from?\n
\n
\n\"You really think there isn't anything left to do regarding cats?\"\n
\n
\nThis isn't the same thing as \"additional effort there wouldn't go as far\". \u00a0 \u00a0I see the question as \"would one more person working on finding and/or implementing the most effective housecat reduction approach get more done than one more person working on finding and/or implementing the most effective wild-animal-suffering-reduction approach\". \u00a0There are not enough people working on cats that I think an additional person would get very little done, but there are so few people looking at wild animal suffering that I would expect there to be big\u00a0opportunities.\n
\n
\n\"'tractable aspects of wildlife suffering' -- do you have anything specific?\"\n
\n
\nBecause there are so few people working on this I think it's still in the initial research stage. \u00a0But some ideas I've seen people come up with so far:\n
\n
\n- culling in cases where natural predators have gone extinct (more quick deaths, less slow starvation)\n
\n
\n- developing pesticides that kill quicker or with less pain\n
\n
\n- permanently destroy some ecosystems (only makes sense if you think the animals there are on-balance leading negative lives).\n
\n
\n\"conflation of embryonic deaths with animal suffering is incoherent\"\n
\n
\nI'm not trying to contrast those. \u00a0I'm saying two things: (1) people who are trying to reduce the number of intentional human abortions because they believe embryos count morally as children should consider trying to reduce the number of accidental human abortions (2) people who are trying to reduce the amount of animal suffering caused by humans should consider trying to reduce the amount of animal suffering from all causes.\n
\n
\n\"Okay-with-embryo-killing and against-animal-suffering is a morally consistent viewpoint for many people who value animals.\"\n
\n
\nAgreed; not trying to argue against this.\n
\n
\n\"I wouldn't argue that all people who want Down's Syndrome fetuses brought to term would feel the same way about Edward's Syndrome.\"\n
\n
\nThe moral arguments I'm used to seeing against abortion of babies with Down's often would apply to any\u00a0congenital\u00a0disorder. \u00a0But people might change their arguments with the example of Edward's. \u00a0I can't find anyone talking about this; I'll try and ask friends I know who are pro-life what they think here.\n
\n
\n\"only 29% oppose first trimester\"\n
\n
\nRight. \u00a0I'm talking here about the moral consequences of believing that an embryo is morally equivalent to a child from conception on. \u00a0This is mostly a belief held by conservative religious people.\n
\n
\n\"we all recognize that there is no obvious line to draw defining the beginning of a human being's life\"\n
\n
\nYou and I may believe this, but there are people who don't.\n
\n
\n
\n[1] Looking for data to check this, I see\u00a0\nhttp://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/statesabrate.html\n supporting the 20% number and that the 50% number is extremely rough \nhttp://www.emcom.ca/health/abortion.shtml\n
\n
\n[2] The calculation: of US pregnancies, 50% end in spontaneous abortion, 10% end in intentional abortion, 40% survive. \u00a0Ending all abortions means an additional 10% of embryos make it through to birth.\n
\n
\n[3] CDC, 2009:\u00a0\nhttp://www.cdc.gov/nchs/births.htm\n\u00a04.1M births\n
\n
\n[4] 1.5M spontaneous abortions plus 0.8M intentional abortions plus 4M births gives a total of 6.3M pregnancies.", "timestamp": 1360344685}, {"author": "Mad", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/100533872344198336746", "anchor": "gp-1360346577316", "service": "gp", "text": "1.5M is based on a lower spontaneous abortion rate, which are the numbers typically given (which you noted once you sought sources). Larger numbers include embryos lost before the woman is even aware of the pregnancy, plus some speculation, using very sensitive blood testing to detect the implantation event a week before it's detectable via urine tests. As a scientist, I'm suspicious of the really big numbers proposed for that initial week or two, given how hard it is to detect and know what is going on.\n
\n
\n10% prevention of spontaneous abortion is still a lot less than the elective abortion rate, even using your 50/20 numbers.\n
\n
\nWe tend to \"hear\" the most extreme elements in the abortion discussion, while most Americans are in the middle. You started with \"if you believe embryos count morally\" (most people would agree with this statement), not \"if you think all human embryos have the same right to life as an adult human\" (most would disagree with this).", "timestamp": 1360346577}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1360349438657", "service": "gp", "text": "@Marcus\n\u00a0\"We are not responsible, for the most part, for wild animals in the forest. We are responsible, to some extent, for the animals we raise for food and pets.\"\n
\n
\nSocially, responsibility is very important. \u00a0Our society wouldn't work without people having responsibility for some things and not for others. \u00a0But I don't think this applies morally. \u00a0Morally we should put our efforts into whatever does the most good. \u00a0Wild animals suffering in the forest is bad in the same way the suffering of wild animals our pets torment is bad. \u00a0Socially I'm more responsible if my brother starves than if a stranger in another country starves, but morally they're both people starving and the moral obligation is the same.\n
\n
\n\"Omelas\"\n
\n
\nI've not read the book, but reading the wikipedia page it sounds like the Omelas is better than what we have now. \u00a0It's bad that a kid there needs to be tormented, but I don't put special moral weight on that suffering because it's intentionally inflicted.\n
\n
\n\"would you prefer to live in Omelas or in another city where maybe more children are miserable, but you did not cause it?\"\n
\n
\nOmelas. \u00a0And then, as I do in the current world, I would use my prosperity as a citizen of Omelas to work to reduce the suffering in the other city where more people suffer. \u00a0Ideally by expanding this magic, but if not by conventional means.\n
\n
\n\"what if the vaccine caused 1 child death for every 10 deaths it saved? Ok, I'd still take that bargain. But now, what if we could make a cure for diseases only by killing a specific child: would we kill one child to make a cure for 10 children? I probably wouldn't, even though the math is the same\"\n
\n
\nI think you can rephrase the second one to make it more palatable. \u00a0There are eleven children who are all going to die of a disease. \u00a0They draw lots and one of them is killed early to allow the other ten to live. \u00a0To me this sounds much better than letting all eleven die.", "timestamp": 1360349438}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1360351766887", "service": "gp", "text": "@Madeleine\n\u00a0\"Larger numbers include embryos lost before the woman is even aware of the pregnancy, plus some speculation, using very sensitive blood testing to detect the implantation event a week before it's detectable via urine tests.\"\n
\n
\nI'm suspicious too, but I think for people who believe an embryo is equivalent with a child it's very important.\n
\n
\n\"You started with 'if you believe embryos count morally' (most people would agree with this statement), not 'if you think all human embryos have the same right to life as an adult human' (most would disagree with this)\"\n
\n
\nI was more explicit in my blog post; you're right that I'm not arguing with the majority view.\n
\n
\n\"10% prevention of spontaneous abortion is still a lot less than the elective abortion rate\"\n
\n
\nI'm not sure what you're saying here.", "timestamp": 1360351766}, {"author": "Mad", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/100533872344198336746", "anchor": "gp-1360365948975", "service": "gp", "text": "I'm saying what you said (\"If you could increase the chances of an embryo making it through to birth by 1% by some cheap-in-bulk means then I think that avoids more embryo deaths than successfully stopping all abortions.\") still isn't true even with your high-end miscarriage numbers and the 10%-instead-of-1% update.\n
\n
\nFrom numbers in your [2]: 10% of pregnancies end in intentional abortion, and 50% end in miscarriage. Stopping 10% of miscarriages is still only 5% of total pregnancies and less than the fraction you believe end in intentional abortions (10%).", "timestamp": 1360365948}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1360375527112", "service": "gp", "text": "@Madeleine\n\u00a0\"still isn't true even with your high-end miscarriage numbers and the 10%-instead-of-1% update\"\n
\n
\nSorry; you're right again, it should be 20%. But it's 20% of embryo deaths being equivalent to 100% of abortions, and there are many fewer people working on embryo deaths. \u00a0(Still some, because conception is big business, but not as many.)", "timestamp": 1360375527}]}