What are the strongest arguments you can offer me in favor of caring about animal suffering to the point that I would be willing to incur the costs involved in becoming more vegetarian? Alternatively, how much would you be willing to pay me to stop eating meat?
I found it interesting to compare “this is the price at which we could buy animals not existing” to the “this is the price people are willing to pay for animals to exist so they can eat them,” because it looks like the second is larger, often by orders of magnitude. (This shouldn’t be that surprising for persuasion; if you can get other people to spend their own resources, your costs are much lower.)
It also bothers me that the so many of the animals saved are fish; they dominate the weighted mean, have very different lifespans from chickens, and to the best of my knowledge cannot be ‘factory farmed’ in the same way. [Edit: It appears that conditions for fish on fish farms are actually pretty bad, to the point that many species of fish cannot survive modern farming techniques. So, no comment on the relative badness.]
It also bothers me that the so many of the animals saved are fish; they dominate the weighted mean, have very different lifespans from chickens, and to the best of my knowledge cannot be ‘factory farmed’ in the same way. (It seems to me that fish farms are much more like their natural habitat than chicken farms are like their natural habitat, but that may be mistaken.)
From what I know, fish farming doesn’t sound pleasant, though perhaps it’s not nearly as bad as chicken farming.
If that description makes you think that fish farming might possibly be in the same ballpark as chicken farming, then you’re pretty ignorant of factory farming. Maybe you haven’t seen enough propaganda?
Your other link is about killing the fish. Focus on the death rather than life may be good for propaganda, but do you really believe that the much of the suffering is there? Indeed, your post claimed to be about days of life.
Added: it makes me wonder if activists are corrupted by dealing with propaganda to focus on the aspects for which propaganda is most effective. Or maybe it’s just that the propaganda works on them.
If that description makes you think that fish farming might possibly be in the same ballpark as chicken farming, then you’re pretty ignorant of factory farming.
I never said they were in the same ballpark. Just that fish farming is also something I don’t like.
~
Your other link is about killing the fish. Focus on the death rather than life may be good for propaganda, but do you really believe that the much of the suffering is there?
Yes, I do.
~
Indeed, your post claimed to be about days of life.
I agree that might not make much sense for fish, except in so far as farming causes more fish to be birthed than otherwise would.
~
Added: it makes me wonder if activists are corrupted by dealing with propaganda to focus on the aspects for which propaganda is most effective. Or maybe it’s just that the propaganda works on them.
I think this is a bias that is present in any kind of person that cares about advocating for or against a cause.
It also bothers me that the so many of the animals saved are fish; they dominate the weighted mean, have very different lifespans from chickens, and to the best of my knowledge cannot be ‘factory farmed’ in the same way. (It seems to me that fish farms are much more like their natural habitat than chicken farms are like their natural habitat, but that may be mistaken.)
Well, they can move more, but on the other hand they tend to pollute each others’ environment in a way that terrestrial farmed animals do not, meaning that not all commercially fished species can survive being farmed with modern techniques, and those which can are not necessarily safe for humans to eat in the same quantities.
I found it interesting to compare “this is the price at which we could buy animals not existing” to the “this is the price people are willing to pay for animals to exist so they can eat them,” because it looks like the second is larger, often by orders of magnitude. (This shouldn’t be that surprising for persuasion; if you can get other people to spend their own resources, your costs are much lower.)
It also bothers me that the so many of the animals saved are fish; they dominate the weighted mean, have very different lifespans from chickens, and to the best of my knowledge cannot be ‘factory farmed’ in the same way. [Edit: It appears that conditions for fish on fish farms are actually pretty bad, to the point that many species of fish cannot survive modern farming techniques. So, no comment on the relative badness.]
From what I know, fish farming doesn’t sound pleasant, though perhaps it’s not nearly as bad as chicken farming.
If that description makes you think that fish farming might possibly be in the same ballpark as chicken farming, then you’re pretty ignorant of factory farming. Maybe you haven’t seen enough propaganda?
Your other link is about killing the fish. Focus on the death rather than life may be good for propaganda, but do you really believe that the much of the suffering is there? Indeed, your post claimed to be about days of life.
Added: it makes me wonder if activists are corrupted by dealing with propaganda to focus on the aspects for which propaganda is most effective. Or maybe it’s just that the propaganda works on them.
I never said they were in the same ballpark. Just that fish farming is also something I don’t like.
~
Yes, I do.
~
I agree that might not make much sense for fish, except in so far as farming causes more fish to be birthed than otherwise would.
~
I think this is a bias that is present in any kind of person that cares about advocating for or against a cause.
Here’s a gruesome video on the whole fish thing if you’re in to gruesome videos.
Well, they can move more, but on the other hand they tend to pollute each others’ environment in a way that terrestrial farmed animals do not, meaning that not all commercially fished species can survive being farmed with modern techniques, and those which can are not necessarily safe for humans to eat in the same quantities.