If Shrimp are able to experience pain, (and perhaps MORE pain according to this Dawkins fellow), then it doesn’t seem like much of a stretch to imagine simpler, more abundant organisms can experience pain too.
Google tells me there are 1,347,000,000,000,000,000 Copepods in the ocean, while there’s *only* quadrillions of shrimp. It seems to me we should stop coping about this Shrimp situation and get to the real problem, copepods are suffering, and we’re not doing anything about it.
I’ve heard ocean acidification dissolves their shells. I can’t think of a way to improve their lives that doesn’t involve just reducing their populations.
Small correction: "a person inserts an arm into the cow’s rectum, locates the vagina,"... I'm not a biologist, but this is wrong. There are some animals with a "cloaca," where there is no external distinction between the vagina and rectum. Among mammals, these include monotremes. But cows are not monotremes, and their rectums are separate from their vaginas.
You put this up as a reductio ad absurdum but it isn't. Most people who think about animal suffering are gonna feel a bit sad about the negative effects of agriculture, it's just that the negative effects of farming hit so many more creatures, in a much more painful way. AND it's reasonable to imagine ways in which that pain could be reduced, because farming is totally human controlled.
Tomasik also says consuming dairy reduces wild animal suffering much more than it increases cow suffering, leading to a net reduction in animal suffering. Even if we are sceptical of his calculations regarding dairy's effect on insect populations (or the very project of WAS), the expected utility of consuming dairy would amount to being "unclear". If an action's net consequences are unclear, it can't be said to be "bad" under consequentialism.
Stop coping and think of the Copepods.
If Shrimp are able to experience pain, (and perhaps MORE pain according to this Dawkins fellow), then it doesn’t seem like much of a stretch to imagine simpler, more abundant organisms can experience pain too.
Google tells me there are 1,347,000,000,000,000,000 Copepods in the ocean, while there’s *only* quadrillions of shrimp. It seems to me we should stop coping about this Shrimp situation and get to the real problem, copepods are suffering, and we’re not doing anything about it.
Show me a cost effective copepod intervention and I’m on board
I’ll have to get back to you on that one.
I’ve heard ocean acidification dissolves their shells. I can’t think of a way to improve their lives that doesn’t involve just reducing their populations.
Small correction: "a person inserts an arm into the cow’s rectum, locates the vagina,"... I'm not a biologist, but this is wrong. There are some animals with a "cloaca," where there is no external distinction between the vagina and rectum. Among mammals, these include monotremes. But cows are not monotremes, and their rectums are separate from their vaginas.
What about field mice killed in harvesting wheat?
What about insects killed in raising fruit? (Even organic farmer use some insecticides.)
Clearly, the only moral choice is for you to stop eating entirely.
You put this up as a reductio ad absurdum but it isn't. Most people who think about animal suffering are gonna feel a bit sad about the negative effects of agriculture, it's just that the negative effects of farming hit so many more creatures, in a much more painful way. AND it's reasonable to imagine ways in which that pain could be reduced, because farming is totally human controlled.
I have a sure-fire way of reducing the pain caused by human agriculture to *zero*.... all humans kill themselves. Why isn't that the answer?
Seriously, why not? Why isn't that the optimal solution?
For all the usual reasons its bad to kill people, perhaps.
Tremendously great read.
Got to give a non-alcoholic hopped beverage cheers to Han for the copepod comment. Please tell my merchant hero mentor with a cape (Lando) hello.
I would add that Maine’s PFAS screening levels for dairy milk (and wild game) are scary. Boo 👻 Happy Halloween / CWA /SDWA !
Tomasik also says consuming dairy reduces wild animal suffering much more than it increases cow suffering, leading to a net reduction in animal suffering. Even if we are sceptical of his calculations regarding dairy's effect on insect populations (or the very project of WAS), the expected utility of consuming dairy would amount to being "unclear". If an action's net consequences are unclear, it can't be said to be "bad" under consequentialism.