There are lots of people who have tried to esstimate the intensity of fish suffering. I think the rethink priorities report is the best methodologically—but the others tend to estimate that fish suffer more. If you note in the RP report, they say that those controversial philosophical assumptions don’t affect the end result much. I agree that it’s very uncertain—this report gives the lowest estimate I was able to find.
If you note in the RP report, they say that those controversial philosophical assumptions don’t affect the end result much.
They say this of some of their assumptions (a small subset, really), not all of them. (And I am not sure I believe them even about that subset.)
I think the rethink priorities report is the best methodologically
This says more about the fundamental problems with the entire endeavor (not to mention the epistemic sloppiness of animal-rights advocacy in general) than it does about the RP report’s conclusions.
I agree that it’s very uncertain—this report gives the lowest estimate I was able to find.
Surely this can’t be true.
For example, my estimate is that the “intensity of fish suffering” is “zero” and/or “undefined” (either answer may be appropriate, depending on how you construe the question). That’s much lower, I think you’ll agree, than the number given by the RP report!
Now, perhaps you don’t consider me a credible source on this question. That’s fine. My point, however, is this: if some people think that “fish can suffer” is both true and something that can be meaningfully measured or estimated, but other people think that “fish can suffer” is silly, incoherent nonsense, then the following things will be true:
The former sort of people will be the ones engaging in such estimation/measurement efforts, and producing such reports.
The former sort of people will, almost necessarily, be the sort of people who care about animal rights, animal welfare, animal advocacy, etc.
That means that the set of people who take the question (“how intensely can fish suffer”) seriously, and attempt to produce an answer, will be selected for being the sorts of people who are inclined to come up with an answer that implies we should care about the suffering of fish.
Thus when you say “well, I went looking for serious attempts to measure/estimate the answer to the question ‘how intensely do fish suffer’, and here are the answers I found”, you will of course get stuff like this “one-twentieth as much as humans”, and are pretty much guaranteed not to get answers like “not at all, in fact the question is confused to begin with”—but this outcome will be almost uncorrelated with which answer is actually true.
There are lots of people who have tried to esstimate the intensity of fish suffering. I think the rethink priorities report is the best methodologically—but the others tend to estimate that fish suffer more. If you note in the RP report, they say that those controversial philosophical assumptions don’t affect the end result much. I agree that it’s very uncertain—this report gives the lowest estimate I was able to find.
They say this of some of their assumptions (a small subset, really), not all of them. (And I am not sure I believe them even about that subset.)
This says more about the fundamental problems with the entire endeavor (not to mention the epistemic sloppiness of animal-rights advocacy in general) than it does about the RP report’s conclusions.
Surely this can’t be true.
For example, my estimate is that the “intensity of fish suffering” is “zero” and/or “undefined” (either answer may be appropriate, depending on how you construe the question). That’s much lower, I think you’ll agree, than the number given by the RP report!
Now, perhaps you don’t consider me a credible source on this question. That’s fine. My point, however, is this: if some people think that “fish can suffer” is both true and something that can be meaningfully measured or estimated, but other people think that “fish can suffer” is silly, incoherent nonsense, then the following things will be true:
The former sort of people will be the ones engaging in such estimation/measurement efforts, and producing such reports.
The former sort of people will, almost necessarily, be the sort of people who care about animal rights, animal welfare, animal advocacy, etc.
That means that the set of people who take the question (“how intensely can fish suffer”) seriously, and attempt to produce an answer, will be selected for being the sorts of people who are inclined to come up with an answer that implies we should care about the suffering of fish.
Thus when you say “well, I went looking for serious attempts to measure/estimate the answer to the question ‘how intensely do fish suffer’, and here are the answers I found”, you will of course get stuff like this “one-twentieth as much as humans”, and are pretty much guaranteed not to get answers like “not at all, in fact the question is confused to begin with”—but this outcome will be almost uncorrelated with which answer is actually true.