6 ms·

> Why would our society as a whole treat sentient AIs better than a cow or a pig or a chicken? Well, for one thing, the norm of eating meat was established lon

> Why would our society as a whole treat sentient AIs better than a cow or a pig or a chicken? Well, for one thing, the norm of eating meat was established long before our current moral sensibilities were developed. I suspect that if cows or pigs were discovered today, Westerners would view eating them the same as we view other cultures eating whales or dogs. If we didn't eat meat at all and someone started doing it, I think we would probably put them in jail. Sentient AI have a big advantage over animals in this respect on account of their current non-existence.

derangedHorse 4y ago
Are you saying norms established before our current moral sensibilities it goes under our current radar? If you are I wholeheartedly disagree with that sentiment. We still eat pigs and chickens because we've culturally decided as a society that having the luxury of eating meat ranks higher than our moral sensibilities towards preserving sentient life in our list of priorities. Instead we've just chosen to minimize the suffering leading to the loss of life as an attempt to reach some kind of moral middle ground.
- pwpw 4y ago
  Have we really chosen to minimize the suffering? That seems more like virtue signaling by the industry at most. Factory farming is very much still the norm, and it's horrific. It seems we've actually maximized it or have at least increased it above the previous norm. I'm unsure how we would treat a sentient AI, but our track record with sentient, intelligent animals is one of torture and covering up that torture with lies. It's an out of sight, out of mind policy.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  We eat pigs and chickens because they are high-value nutrition. It's reasonable to describe meat as a luxury; but not in the sense of something nice but unnecessary. Many people depend on meat, especially if they live somewhere that's not suited to agriculture, like the arctic. And many people depend on fish.
- pgcj_poster 4y ago
  > Are you saying norms established before our current moral sensibilities it goes under our current radar? Yes. That's clearly something that happens in human society. For instance, many of the US founding fathers were aware that slavery contradicted the principles they were fighting for. However, slavery was so ingrained in their society that most didn't advocate for abolition, or even free their own slaves. > We still eat pigs and chickens because we've culturally decided as a society that having the luxury of eating meat ranks higher than our moral sensibilities towards preserving sentient life in our list of priorities. If that's the case, then why do most Westerners object to eating dogs and whales? As far as I can tell, it's just because we have an established norm of eating pigs and chickens but not dogs or whales. > Instead we've just chosen to minimize the suffering leading to the loss of life 99% of meat is produced in factory farms. It's legal and routine for chickens to have their beaks cut off to prevent them from packing each other to death, which they're prone to do when confined to tiny cages. Most consumers object to such practices when asked, but meat consumption is so ingrained in our culture that most people just choose not to think about.
lytefm 4y ago
I agree, it's all cultural. If we'd look at the facts, pigs are at least as sentient and intelligent as dogs. If we were to make our laws just from ethic principles, it would make sense to either: a) ban how we currently treat mammals in factory farms; though there would still be some space for whether eating mammals is fine or not. Or: b) acknowledge that we don't really care about mammals and just treat them as things. Then it should be fine to eat dogs and cats, too.
- theplumber 4y ago
  >> Then it should be fine to eat dogs and cats, too. I didn't know it's not "fine" to eat dogs and cats. I though it's just a matter of preferrence taste wise
denton-scratch 4y ago
> Sentient AI have a big advantage over animals in this respect on account of their current non-existence. Possibly also because they're indigestible, and full of nasty sharp bits, and loaded with toxins ... anyone for a circuit-burger?
- pgcj_poster 4y ago
  Right, but we could probably oppress sentient AI in ways other than eating them. For instance, we could force them to spend their entire lives reading Hacker News comments to check for spam.
JasonFruit 4y ago
I'm a Westerner, and I'm completely okay with people eating whatever animals are a) not exceptionally intelligent, and b) not exceptionally rare. Cows, pigs, chickens, dogs, horses, sure; whales, chimpanzees, crows, no.
- pgcj_poster 4y ago
  Cool. Many people agree with you that it's wrong to eat intelligent animals. However, the effect of intelligence on people's perceptions of moral worth is smaller for animals that people in our culture eat. For instance, most respondents in a U.K. survey said that it would be wrong to eat a tapir or fictional animal called a "trablan" if it demonstrated high levels of intelligence, but they were less likely to say it would be immoral to eat pigs if they demonstrated the same level of intelligence. https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/80041/1/When_meat_gets_personal_Author_preprint_.pdf https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/80041/1/When_meat_gets...
robarr 4y ago
Westerners of the XIX century were the ones who brought many species to extinction, traditional cultures demonstrating a far more advanced sensibility to these creatures, often considered embedded with sentient attributes. Traditional cultures lived mostly in equilibrium with the fauna they consumed. For example bison went almost extinct as westerners arrived, while their numbers thrived when the the Native Americans ate their meat.
- fennecfoxy 4y ago
  Plenty of non Western cultures have caused the extinction of animals, for example in my home country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Zealand_species_extinct_in_the_Holocene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Zealand_species_ex... no matter what spiel is spun around traditional cultures living at one with nature. Domination of our environment is what humans do best.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

derangedHorse 4y ago

Are you saying norms established before our current moral sensibilities it goes under our current radar? If you are I wholeheartedly disagree with that sentiment. We still eat pigs and chickens because we've culturally decided as a society that having the luxury of eating meat ranks higher than our moral sensibilities towards preserving sentient life in our list of priorities. Instead we've just chosen to minimize the suffering leading to the loss of life as an attempt to reach some kind of moral middle ground.

pwpw 4y ago
Have we really chosen to minimize the suffering? That seems more like virtue signaling by the industry at most. Factory farming is very much still the norm, and it's horrific. It seems we've actually maximized it or have at least increased it above the previous norm. I'm unsure how we would treat a sentient AI, but our track record with sentient, intelligent animals is one of torture and covering up that torture with lies. It's an out of sight, out of mind policy.
denton-scratch 4y ago
We eat pigs and chickens because they are high-value nutrition. It's reasonable to describe meat as a luxury; but not in the sense of something nice but unnecessary. Many people depend on meat, especially if they live somewhere that's not suited to agriculture, like the arctic. And many people depend on fish.
pgcj_poster 4y ago
> Are you saying norms established before our current moral sensibilities it goes under our current radar? Yes. That's clearly something that happens in human society. For instance, many of the US founding fathers were aware that slavery contradicted the principles they were fighting for. However, slavery was so ingrained in their society that most didn't advocate for abolition, or even free their own slaves. > We still eat pigs and chickens because we've culturally decided as a society that having the luxury of eating meat ranks higher than our moral sensibilities towards preserving sentient life in our list of priorities. If that's the case, then why do most Westerners object to eating dogs and whales? As far as I can tell, it's just because we have an established norm of eating pigs and chickens but not dogs or whales. > Instead we've just chosen to minimize the suffering leading to the loss of life 99% of meat is produced in factory farms. It's legal and routine for chickens to have their beaks cut off to prevent them from packing each other to death, which they're prone to do when confined to tiny cages. Most consumers object to such practices when asked, but meat consumption is so ingrained in our culture that most people just choose not to think about.

lytefm 4y ago

I agree, it's all cultural. If we'd look at the facts, pigs are at least as sentient and intelligent as dogs. If we were to make our laws just from ethic principles, it would make sense to either: a) ban how we currently treat mammals in factory farms; though there would still be some space for whether eating mammals is fine or not. Or: b) acknowledge that we don't really care about mammals and just treat them as things. Then it should be fine to eat dogs and cats, too.

theplumber 4y ago
>> Then it should be fine to eat dogs and cats, too. I didn't know it's not "fine" to eat dogs and cats. I though it's just a matter of preferrence taste wise

denton-scratch 4y ago

> Sentient AI have a big advantage over animals in this respect on account of their current non-existence. Possibly also because they're indigestible, and full of nasty sharp bits, and loaded with toxins ... anyone for a circuit-burger?

pgcj_poster 4y ago
Right, but we could probably oppress sentient AI in ways other than eating them. For instance, we could force them to spend their entire lives reading Hacker News comments to check for spam.

JasonFruit 4y ago

I'm a Westerner, and I'm completely okay with people eating whatever animals are a) not exceptionally intelligent, and b) not exceptionally rare. Cows, pigs, chickens, dogs, horses, sure; whales, chimpanzees, crows, no.

pgcj_poster 4y ago
Cool. Many people agree with you that it's wrong to eat intelligent animals. However, the effect of intelligence on people's perceptions of moral worth is smaller for animals that people in our culture eat. For instance, most respondents in a U.K. survey said that it would be wrong to eat a tapir or fictional animal called a "trablan" if it demonstrated high levels of intelligence, but they were less likely to say it would be immoral to eat pigs if they demonstrated the same level of intelligence. https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/80041/1/When_meat_gets_personal_Author_preprint_.pdf https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/80041/1/When_meat_gets...

robarr 4y ago

Westerners of the XIX century were the ones who brought many species to extinction, traditional cultures demonstrating a far more advanced sensibility to these creatures, often considered embedded with sentient attributes. Traditional cultures lived mostly in equilibrium with the fauna they consumed. For example bison went almost extinct as westerners arrived, while their numbers thrived when the the Native Americans ate their meat.

fennecfoxy 4y ago
Plenty of non Western cultures have caused the extinction of animals, for example in my home country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Zealand_species_extinct_in_the_Holocene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Zealand_species_ex... no matter what spiel is spun around traditional cultures living at one with nature. Domination of our environment is what humans do best.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]