I see what you’re saying but I have to disagree. I agree that humans are worth more. Here’s the thing though. You have to compare the numbers. This isn’t one animal to one human, where I WOULD pick the human. The fact is that 60+ billion animals are slaughtered each year. And as we both probably know, at that point its just a statistic, but take a moment to think about how much that really is. There’s no other number comparable to it.
While I applaud that you are pescetarian, I think more can be done and more should be changed. I think that if you pushed yourself to change, as that’s all rationalism is about, it could be just as an excellent a quality of life for yourself if not better. There are soo many foods out there.
I would honestly make the argument that the majority of meat-eaters are not on the curve, but rather willfully ignorant of how bad factory farming is.
Oh come on. You know what I meant with the first part. There’s no number of deaths in history comparable to this number.
Where did I get that idea? Frequently quoted on this site is, “Not every change is improvement, but improvement starts with a change” or something to that liking. This site is all about mitigating cognitive biases as well as related fields, so it IS about change. Learning about biases and mitigating them is all about change. Or maybe I was under the false assumption that the people wanted to mitigate the biases and in reality they just want to learn about them.
I thought I started out fine. I’m not trying to kick shit up. The other person said “That you don’t know other big numbers?” so I responded with the same tone.
It appears that you took christiankl’s comment to be an inflammatory tone. C could have said better things, and that’s up to him to be better in the future too.
Ask a side point—this is how a traditional flame war starts.
“There’s no other number comparable to it.” (hyperbole) ”What is this supposed to mean? That you don’t know other big numbers?” (challenge) ”Oh come on.” (objection)
A shortcut to discussion here is that it has very little of the hyperbole on either side. He might be giving you shit for the hyperbole but he didn’t escalate where,
“Or maybe I was under the false assumption that the people wanted to mitigate the biases and in reality they just want to learn about them.” Is escalating
Oh come on. You know what I meant with the first part.
To me the expressed sentiment feels, like talking to someone without a mass background who’s impressed by big numbers and who generally knows no numbers in that category. $60 billion for example is near the NIH budget.
If I want to focus on deaths the number of bacteria that die within myself in a year is likely higher than 60 billion.
This site is all about mitigating cognitive biases as well as related fields, so it IS about change.
It’s interesting that you don’t defend the idea that this website is supposed to be about pushing for change in your reply but a more general one, that this website is about valuing change.
Creating internal alignment through a CFAR technique like internal double crux can lead to personal change but there’s no pushing involved.
It’s interesting that you don’t defend the idea that this website is supposed to be about pushing for change in your reply but a more general one, that this website is about valuing change.
I don’t follow. I did defend that its about change.
There’s a difference between “here’s an argument for veganism, take it or leave it” and “you guys aren’t rationalists because you’re not adopting my favored position.”
I’m aware that you disagree, that being the premise of the thread, but your argument does not engage with my reasoning, to a degree that makes me concerned that you were not looking for perspectives but targets. Consider:
Trees are not zero important, but people are more important. (I think most people would agree with this?)
While I would not go around gratuitously killing trees for trivial reasons, as long as no qualitative negative effect on the ecosystem or somebody’s property or something like that were on the line I would not hesitate to sacrifice arbitrary numbers of trees’ lives for even one human’s even non-mortal convenience. The trees don’t matter in the right way. I still think it would be bad to kill sixty billion trees, but not that bad.
I said “hopefully” because I agree that most people are not consciously or even implicitly finding a place on the QoL/animal suffering tradeoff curve, but just using defaults. I agree that they should not mindlessly use defaults in this way and that most people should probably use fewer animal products than they do. I disagree with the rest of your position as I understand it.
I’d like to hear the argument about why trees lives are worth antthing. Sure, they’re worth instrumental value, but thats not what we’re talking about. I’m arguing that trees are worth 0 and that animals are comparable to humans. Trees aren’t conscious. Many animals are.
I think if you want to have this conversation you should not start a thread by asking for “perspectives on veganism” from people who are not vegans. It would be more honest to announce “I’m a vegan and invite you to squabble with me!”
Being perfectly honest, I actually don’t understand what’s wrong with starting with those words. Maybe this is a failure of communication on my part. I do understand that I shouldn’t have said ‘so surprised’ and some of the other stuff, but what’s wrong with asking, “Can I get your guys’ perspectives on veganism?”
“I’m a vegan and invite you to squabble with me!”
I’d rather debate things coherently as that’s what rationalism is about. I think I’m done here at this point though because not much is getting through on either side. Some of the replies I’m getting are typical (plant, “natural,” comparing animals to rocks), even fallacious, which is probably why I give off an irritated vibe, which doesn’t help either party when trying to find the truth.
I see what you’re saying but I have to disagree. I agree that humans are worth more. Here’s the thing though. You have to compare the numbers. This isn’t one animal to one human, where I WOULD pick the human. The fact is that 60+ billion animals are slaughtered each year. And as we both probably know, at that point its just a statistic, but take a moment to think about how much that really is. There’s no other number comparable to it.
While I applaud that you are pescetarian, I think more can be done and more should be changed. I think that if you pushed yourself to change, as that’s all rationalism is about, it could be just as an excellent a quality of life for yourself if not better. There are soo many foods out there.
I would honestly make the argument that the majority of meat-eaters are not on the curve, but rather willfully ignorant of how bad factory farming is.
What is this supposed to mean? That you don’t know other big numbers?
No, rationalism isn’t centrally about pushing oneselves to change. Where did you get that idea?
Oh come on. You know what I meant with the first part. There’s no number of deaths in history comparable to this number.
Where did I get that idea? Frequently quoted on this site is, “Not every change is improvement, but improvement starts with a change” or something to that liking. This site is all about mitigating cognitive biases as well as related fields, so it IS about change. Learning about biases and mitigating them is all about change. Or maybe I was under the false assumption that the people wanted to mitigate the biases and in reality they just want to learn about them.
Careful now. If you just try to kick up shit people will start ignoring you.
Try: “I am confused because...”
I thought I started out fine. I’m not trying to kick shit up. The other person said “That you don’t know other big numbers?” so I responded with the same tone.
Isn’t mitigating biases change?
It appears that you took christiankl’s comment to be an inflammatory tone. C could have said better things, and that’s up to him to be better in the future too.
Ask a side point—this is how a traditional flame war starts.
“There’s no other number comparable to it.” (hyperbole)
”What is this supposed to mean? That you don’t know other big numbers?” (challenge)
”Oh come on.” (objection)
A shortcut to discussion here is that it has very little of the hyperbole on either side. He might be giving you shit for the hyperbole but he didn’t escalate where,
“Or maybe I was under the false assumption that the people wanted to mitigate the biases and in reality they just want to learn about them.”
Is escalating
Very true. Thanks for catching me. I need to work on my communication skills.
Zarm—slightly less wrong already!
To me the expressed sentiment feels, like talking to someone without a mass background who’s impressed by big numbers and who generally knows no numbers in that category. $60 billion for example is near the NIH budget.
If I want to focus on deaths the number of bacteria that die within myself in a year is likely higher than 60 billion.
It’s interesting that you don’t defend the idea that this website is supposed to be about pushing for change in your reply but a more general one, that this website is about valuing change.
Creating internal alignment through a CFAR technique like internal double crux can lead to personal change but there’s no pushing involved.
Rationalists should win. We do care about instrumental rationality. Epistemic rationality is a means to this end. Doesn’t that mean “change”?
I don’t follow. I did defend that its about change.
There’s a difference between “here’s an argument for veganism, take it or leave it” and “you guys aren’t rationalists because you’re not adopting my favored position.”
I never said the second quote. Someone was arguing that this site isn’t about change. I argued it is.
I believe that was a fair paraphrazation of your original post, which did in fact come off as rather accusatory to me.
You didn’t defend that it’s about “pushing to change”.
I’m aware that you disagree, that being the premise of the thread, but your argument does not engage with my reasoning, to a degree that makes me concerned that you were not looking for perspectives but targets. Consider:
Trees are not zero important, but people are more important. (I think most people would agree with this?)
While I would not go around gratuitously killing trees for trivial reasons, as long as no qualitative negative effect on the ecosystem or somebody’s property or something like that were on the line I would not hesitate to sacrifice arbitrary numbers of trees’ lives for even one human’s even non-mortal convenience. The trees don’t matter in the right way. I still think it would be bad to kill sixty billion trees, but not that bad.
I said “hopefully” because I agree that most people are not consciously or even implicitly finding a place on the QoL/animal suffering tradeoff curve, but just using defaults. I agree that they should not mindlessly use defaults in this way and that most people should probably use fewer animal products than they do. I disagree with the rest of your position as I understand it.
I’d like to hear the argument about why trees lives are worth antthing. Sure, they’re worth instrumental value, but thats not what we’re talking about. I’m arguing that trees are worth 0 and that animals are comparable to humans. Trees aren’t conscious. Many animals are.
I think if you want to have this conversation you should not start a thread by asking for “perspectives on veganism” from people who are not vegans. It would be more honest to announce “I’m a vegan and invite you to squabble with me!”
Being perfectly honest, I actually don’t understand what’s wrong with starting with those words. Maybe this is a failure of communication on my part. I do understand that I shouldn’t have said ‘so surprised’ and some of the other stuff, but what’s wrong with asking, “Can I get your guys’ perspectives on veganism?”
I’d rather debate things coherently as that’s what rationalism is about. I think I’m done here at this point though because not much is getting through on either side. Some of the replies I’m getting are typical (plant, “natural,” comparing animals to rocks), even fallacious, which is probably why I give off an irritated vibe, which doesn’t help either party when trying to find the truth.