Group A consists of factory farmed animals which suffer a total of X units of pain in their lives.
Group B consists of animals in the wild that also suffer a total of X units of pain in their lives*
We could try to reduce suffering by preventing Group A’s existence (your suggestion), or we could try to reduce suffering by preventing Group B’s existence. Ignoring convenience why should we choose your option?
*I used the groups so as to address the fact that the individual animals may suffer different amounts.
Why not choose both as long as this doesn’t lead to unwanted side-effects? It gets interesting when the two are mutually exclusive. If it turns out that eating more meat reduces the amount of wild animals that are suffering, then that would imo be the best argument against vegetarianism. It is hard to estimate what the effects of global warming will be on wild animal populations though. And even if the argument goes through, I think the biggest benefit from raising the issue of vegetarianism comes from promoting concern for the interests/suffering of nonhumans. To the extent that current memes determine the trajectory of the far future, this would dominate over the direct impact of personal consumption.
Lots of people care about the suffering of wild animals. The facebook group “reducing wild animal suffering” currently has 500+ members and many are part of the rationalist community.
Thank you, this is news to me. The page is fairly non-descript though, do you know what sorts of measures they are taking to reduce animal suffering in the wild? Most of what I saw was actually only addressing human caused animal suffering.
The general consensus is that at this stage, it’s most important to raise awareness about wild animal suffering so future generations are likely to do something about the issue. This is done by spreading anti-speciesism and by countering the view that whatever is natural is somehow good or that nature “has a plan”. It seems especially important to try to change the paradigm in ecology and conservation biology in order to focus more attention on the largest source of suffering on the planet. Some altruists also focus on this issue because of concerns about space colonisation, for instance, future humans might want to colonise the universe with Darwinian life or do ancestor simulations, which would be very bad from an anti-speciesist point of view.
Obamacare for elephants probably doesn’t rank highly in the priorities of most lesswrongers. But from an anthropocentric perspective, isn’t an analogous scenario for human beings—i.e. to stay free living but not “wild”—the most utopian outcome if the MIRI conception of an Intelligence Explosion comes to pass?
Be wary of Facebook groups whose consensus is “it’s most important to promote awareness at this stage”.
I was just thinking about how I agree with you, but I realized that I don’t know why. What’s wrong with promoting awareness? Even though I find it intuitively unappealing, I think the reason why it’s usually ineffective is because most interventions are ineffective. I don’t see any other reason. Sometimes (e.g. when fundraising), promoting awareness is extremely effective.
I don’t know about you, but my explanation for being leery is: what Facebook groups do I expect to encounter? Answer: those that devote a large amount of effort to promoting themselves. (I also expect to encounter Facebook groups that are popular/worthy, but note that the anthropic reason I gave first applies no matter whether the group is actually good). Be skeptical of things that come to your attention through Facebook—at least beware privileging the hypothesis.
I agree that awareness promotion can be good, but another instinct tells me that Facebookers love to conclude that the best thing they can do is share/like/etc. - it’s like finding the cheapest way possible to feel like a good person.
I agree that awareness promotion can be good, but another instinct tells me that Facebookers love to conclude that the best thing they can do is share/like/etc. - it’s like finding the cheapest way possible to feel like a good person.
Yes, the “share/like/etc” phenomenon. I do think there’s a big difference between “share this video because this will somehow help those child soldiers in some indefinite way” versus “get more people to care about this issue, but also we have no idea how to actually fix it so we can’t really recommend anything beyond that.” Many supports of reducing wild-animal suffering want to actually solve the problem, but it looks like the best way to do that is to bring the problem to the attention of more people who will potentially be able to help solve it.
It’s a very different situation from, say, malaria, where we already know that donating to AMF is among the best things to do. But now that I think about it, a video promoting AMF that got popular on Facebook would probably elicit a lot of new donations.
Sure, and if the purpose of a group is to reduce animal suffering and voluntary changes in individual consumption patterns are the most effective route, then the likes/shares are presumably accompanied by those people using less farmed animal products.
The reason is Group A seems more feasible to change at the moment. Though I am deeply interested in considerations of wild animal suffering as well. I don’t see why you need to focus on one or the other.
Also, Group A at least has a clear action to take—eating less meat. Group B does not have a clear action.
I specified ignoring convenience. Is the lack of a clear action for Group B your true rejection? Would you actually try to minimize suffering in wild animals if you knew how to?
I’m interested in the intrinsic value of reducing suffering, which is why I posed the question. I wanted to know if you thought that the suffering of animals raised by humans is worse than the suffering of wild animals, all else being equal.
If you truly do care about the suffering of wild animals then I appreciate your consistency. I am not particularly bothered by fish getting eaten by sharks or zebras getting eaten by lions. I’m curious though, if you had sufficient resources, would you attempt to convert carnivorous animals to herbivores as well?
I think it is non-obvious that reducing predation is a worthwhile use of resources. I do appreciate your consistency in applying your altruistic principles though.
Perhaps the ultimate rational position for the continued survival of humans and the reduction of suffering would be to have no animals at all and turn all available land mass over to trees for oxygen and the growing of crops for some kind of sustainably producible, nutritionally perfect food (perhaps a further developed version of the Soylent reference above), but pure rationality aside, don’t we also value something that can’t so easily be quantified about wild animals and the wild environment? I for one take great pleasure from the diversity of life exhibited on our planet. I would feel pretty depressed if I knew the future survival of life was predicated on such cold, unappealing utility alone.
don’t we also value something that can’t so easily be quantified about wild animals and the wild environment?
This an interestingly common position (that I share) considering how little time people spend in the nature. What exactly is it that I value, some vague idea about wildlife that can’t be had without diverse wildlife existing somewhere out there? I like to watch nature documentaries, but I’m not sure what exactly I value in them.
I do agree with you that many people have a romanticised idea of the natural world that probably has little to do with the reality; they appreciate the polished, TV-friendly aesthetics of nature documentaries without actually spending much time beyond their urban boundaries. I come at it from the perspective of someone who grew up in the countryside and love the feeling of being in wild places far more than in a city, so I suppose I have a different perspective. Personally I find busy cities really bring me down and leave me yearning for space and greenery.
This doesn’t directly address your question, but I think it’s relevant nonetheless. Here is an excellent article in The New York Times about reducing predation.
Consider the two groups of animals.
Group A consists of factory farmed animals which suffer a total of X units of pain in their lives. Group B consists of animals in the wild that also suffer a total of X units of pain in their lives*
We could try to reduce suffering by preventing Group A’s existence (your suggestion), or we could try to reduce suffering by preventing Group B’s existence. Ignoring convenience why should we choose your option?
*I used the groups so as to address the fact that the individual animals may suffer different amounts.
Why not choose both as long as this doesn’t lead to unwanted side-effects? It gets interesting when the two are mutually exclusive. If it turns out that eating more meat reduces the amount of wild animals that are suffering, then that would imo be the best argument against vegetarianism. It is hard to estimate what the effects of global warming will be on wild animal populations though. And even if the argument goes through, I think the biggest benefit from raising the issue of vegetarianism comes from promoting concern for the interests/suffering of nonhumans. To the extent that current memes determine the trajectory of the far future, this would dominate over the direct impact of personal consumption.
Exactly my question. Why the concern over group A and almost no concern over group B?
Lots of people care about the suffering of wild animals. The facebook group “reducing wild animal suffering” currently has 500+ members and many are part of the rationalist community.
Thank you, this is news to me. The page is fairly non-descript though, do you know what sorts of measures they are taking to reduce animal suffering in the wild? Most of what I saw was actually only addressing human caused animal suffering.
The general consensus is that at this stage, it’s most important to raise awareness about wild animal suffering so future generations are likely to do something about the issue. This is done by spreading anti-speciesism and by countering the view that whatever is natural is somehow good or that nature “has a plan”. It seems especially important to try to change the paradigm in ecology and conservation biology in order to focus more attention on the largest source of suffering on the planet. Some altruists also focus on this issue because of concerns about space colonisation, for instance, future humans might want to colonise the universe with Darwinian life or do ancestor simulations, which would be very bad from an anti-speciesist point of view.
Some imagined long-term solutions for the problem of wild animal suffering range from a welfare state for elephants to reprogramming predators to reducing biomass, but right now people are mainly trying to raise awareness for more intuitive interventions such as vaccinating wild animals against diseases (which is already done in some cases for the benefit of humans), not reintroducing predators to regions for human aesthetic reasons, and helping individual animals in distress as opposed to obeying the common anti-interventionist policies in wildlife parks.
Upvoted for specificity. I appreciate that the people in this movement are taking altruistic vegetarianism to its logical conclusion.
Obamacare for elephants probably doesn’t rank highly in the priorities of most lesswrongers. But from an anthropocentric perspective, isn’t an analogous scenario for human beings—i.e. to stay free living but not “wild”—the most utopian outcome if the MIRI conception of an Intelligence Explosion comes to pass?
Be wary of Facebook groups whose consensus is “it’s most important to promote awareness at this stage”.
That said, I like the group/concept. It’s interesting to ponder, and a welcome counterpart to “reduce farmed animal suffering”.
I was just thinking about how I agree with you, but I realized that I don’t know why. What’s wrong with promoting awareness? Even though I find it intuitively unappealing, I think the reason why it’s usually ineffective is because most interventions are ineffective. I don’t see any other reason. Sometimes (e.g. when fundraising), promoting awareness is extremely effective.
I don’t know about you, but my explanation for being leery is: what Facebook groups do I expect to encounter? Answer: those that devote a large amount of effort to promoting themselves. (I also expect to encounter Facebook groups that are popular/worthy, but note that the anthropic reason I gave first applies no matter whether the group is actually good). Be skeptical of things that come to your attention through Facebook—at least beware privileging the hypothesis.
I agree that awareness promotion can be good, but another instinct tells me that Facebookers love to conclude that the best thing they can do is share/like/etc. - it’s like finding the cheapest way possible to feel like a good person.
Yes, the “share/like/etc” phenomenon. I do think there’s a big difference between “share this video because this will somehow help those child soldiers in some indefinite way” versus “get more people to care about this issue, but also we have no idea how to actually fix it so we can’t really recommend anything beyond that.” Many supports of reducing wild-animal suffering want to actually solve the problem, but it looks like the best way to do that is to bring the problem to the attention of more people who will potentially be able to help solve it.
It’s a very different situation from, say, malaria, where we already know that donating to AMF is among the best things to do. But now that I think about it, a video promoting AMF that got popular on Facebook would probably elicit a lot of new donations.
Sure, and if the purpose of a group is to reduce animal suffering and voluntary changes in individual consumption patterns are the most effective route, then the likes/shares are presumably accompanied by those people using less farmed animal products.
The reason is Group A seems more feasible to change at the moment. Though I am deeply interested in considerations of wild animal suffering as well. I don’t see why you need to focus on one or the other.
Also, Group A at least has a clear action to take—eating less meat. Group B does not have a clear action.
I specified ignoring convenience. Is the lack of a clear action for Group B your true rejection? Would you actually try to minimize suffering in wild animals if you knew how to?
I would definitely try to minimize suffering in wild animals if I knew how to. Would you?
And why would you ignore convenience?
I’m interested in the intrinsic value of reducing suffering, which is why I posed the question. I wanted to know if you thought that the suffering of animals raised by humans is worse than the suffering of wild animals, all else being equal.
If you truly do care about the suffering of wild animals then I appreciate your consistency. I am not particularly bothered by fish getting eaten by sharks or zebras getting eaten by lions. I’m curious though, if you had sufficient resources, would you attempt to convert carnivorous animals to herbivores as well?
Yes. Predation seems quite painful. Wouldn’t you agree?
I think it is non-obvious that reducing predation is a worthwhile use of resources. I do appreciate your consistency in applying your altruistic principles though.
Perhaps the ultimate rational position for the continued survival of humans and the reduction of suffering would be to have no animals at all and turn all available land mass over to trees for oxygen and the growing of crops for some kind of sustainably producible, nutritionally perfect food (perhaps a further developed version of the Soylent reference above), but pure rationality aside, don’t we also value something that can’t so easily be quantified about wild animals and the wild environment? I for one take great pleasure from the diversity of life exhibited on our planet. I would feel pretty depressed if I knew the future survival of life was predicated on such cold, unappealing utility alone.
This an interestingly common position (that I share) considering how little time people spend in the nature. What exactly is it that I value, some vague idea about wildlife that can’t be had without diverse wildlife existing somewhere out there? I like to watch nature documentaries, but I’m not sure what exactly I value in them.
I do agree with you that many people have a romanticised idea of the natural world that probably has little to do with the reality; they appreciate the polished, TV-friendly aesthetics of nature documentaries without actually spending much time beyond their urban boundaries. I come at it from the perspective of someone who grew up in the countryside and love the feeling of being in wild places far more than in a city, so I suppose I have a different perspective. Personally I find busy cities really bring me down and leave me yearning for space and greenery.
This doesn’t directly address your question, but I think it’s relevant nonetheless. Here is an excellent article in The New York Times about reducing predation.