3 ms·

So if the ethical thing to do is ever not the most convenient, humanity is doomed. Actually, that explains a lot

carapace 8y ago
I have a kind of conjecture: In Nature wisdom and necessity converge, while in an artificial setting, they often diverge. Under evolution (in the prehistoric epoch just before the evolution of Homo Sapiens) the "wise" course of action was always the same as the necessary. Non-sentient living beings choose the optimal course of action to the limit of their abilities (due to evolution.) It was only once we evolved our higher-order thinking and communication abilities that it became possible to generate contexts (cities and farms) wherein the right thing to do diverges from the necessary thing to do. We have fooled our own "bio-computers". I think we need a kind of civilization "reset". I don't mean a violent upheaval, rather we should develop lifestyles that are ecologically harmonious without giving up technology. One possibility is a system of food production called "Permaculture" which I like to describe as "applied ecology". Speaking to your point: > So if the ethical thing to do is ever not the most convenient, humanity is doomed. The ethical (in the sense of ecologically sound) is fun and convenient. It's fun to live in harmony with Nature. I think we can cure civilization of its discontents.
zaroth 8y ago
It’s not really about convenience. The vast majority of humans simply can not afford to carry the personal cost of avoiding the negative externality of their meat consumption. That is to say, the vast majority of humans can not afford to sacrifice not eating meat to get their protein, due to a combination of inavailability of suitable substitutes of equal or greater quality, and also the perceived quality of life sacrifice, the associated mental, emotional, and social costs of doing this. For people whose diet and indeed lifestyle is established in part as being meat-eaters, switching is costly in more ways than just financial. And even if a theoretical diet could substitute for the missing meat which costs the same or less, in practice a satisfying entirely non-meat diet for most meat eaters would be expensive in time and money to achieve. It’s not clearly an ethical win to demand all of humanity to pay the cost to switch when a better alternative is possible; go out and do the fantastically hard work of inventing a better non-meat. So good that it’s not a cost but a benefit to switch to it. And then (almost) everyone will. I see huge parallels between this and, for example, electric vehicles. Forcing everyone to switch too early is extremely costly. But through technical innovation practically everyone will drive electric because it’s so much better for them.

I have a kind of conjecture: In Nature wisdom and necessity converge, while in an artificial setting, they often diverge. Under evolution (in the prehistoric epoch just before the evolution of Homo Sapiens) the "wise" course of action was always the same as the necessary. Non-sentient living beings choose the optimal course of action to the limit of their abilities (due to evolution.) It was only once we evolved our higher-order thinking and communication abilities that it became possible to generate contexts (cities and farms) wherein the right thing to do diverges from the necessary thing to do. We have fooled our own "bio-computers". I think we need a kind of civilization "reset". I don't mean a violent upheaval, rather we should develop lifestyles that are ecologically harmonious without giving up technology. One possibility is a system of food production called "Permaculture" which I like to describe as "applied ecology". Speaking to your point: > So if the ethical thing to do is ever not the most convenient, humanity is doomed. The ethical (in the sense of ecologically sound) is fun and convenient. It's fun to live in harmony with Nature. I think we can cure civilization of its discontents.

zaroth 8y ago

It’s not really about convenience. The vast majority of humans simply can not afford to carry the personal cost of avoiding the negative externality of their meat consumption. That is to say, the vast majority of humans can not afford to sacrifice not eating meat to get their protein, due to a combination of inavailability of suitable substitutes of equal or greater quality, and also the perceived quality of life sacrifice, the associated mental, emotional, and social costs of doing this. For people whose diet and indeed lifestyle is established in part as being meat-eaters, switching is costly in more ways than just financial. And even if a theoretical diet could substitute for the missing meat which costs the same or less, in practice a satisfying entirely non-meat diet for most meat eaters would be expensive in time and money to achieve. It’s not clearly an ethical win to demand all of humanity to pay the cost to switch when a better alternative is possible; go out and do the fantastically hard work of inventing a better non-meat. So good that it’s not a cost but a benefit to switch to it. And then (almost) everyone will. I see huge parallels between this and, for example, electric vehicles. Forcing everyone to switch too early is extremely costly. But through technical innovation practically everyone will drive electric because it’s so much better for them.