3 ms·

I think now you're in the territory of gathering real data. To my best knowledge, the amount of mechanical harvest needed to feed an animal one unit of protein

I think now you're in the territory of gathering real data. To my best knowledge, the amount of mechanical harvest needed to feed an animal one unit of protein is no more than 4 units of protein in the most optimistic case[0]. Even with some fudge factor, it is enough to give me an 80% certainty that cutting the animals out reduces net cruelty. I don't know the conversion factor for lab meat, but I expect it to be somewhere between eating mechanically harvested plants and regular meat. There's also the aspect of how you weigh suffering of different beings, which is a complicated enough topic that I won't get into right now[1]. I'll get back to it once feeding cattle with harvested grain becomes rare. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/protein-efficiency-of-meat-and-dairy-production https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/protein-efficiency-of-mea... [1] https://reducing-suffering.org/crop-cultivation-and-wild-animals/ https://reducing-suffering.org/crop-cultivation-and-wild-ani...

randomdata 3y ago
> To my best knowledge, the amount of mechanical harvest needed to feed an animal one unit of protein is no more than 4 units of protein in the most optimistic case[0] So even if we assume that the harvest needs to affect four animals, that still seems like pretty small potatoes, no? Any hay field I've ever walked through was teaming with hundreds of visible insects alone, and who knows what else was hidden in there, in areas smaller than an acre. > There's also the aspect of how you weigh suffering of different beings I am not sure that is necessary. An earlier comment told that all we have to do is count animals. The larger the count, the more the cruelty. The entire discussion has hinged on that assertion. Certainly there is going to be a whole lot of subjectivity. Some will argue that the number of animals doesn't matter with respect to cruelty – that suffering is wholly an individual experience. And many more will tell you that the animal that experiences the most cruelty of all is man himself and that ending that cruelty will solve all of the world's problems. But I don't think we need to find a new metric. We already chose one that was good enough.
- rhn_mk1 3y ago
  The discussion hinged of treating animals of the same kind equally: those that were slaughtered vs those who have had a biopsy. Once you introduce a different kind: those who suffer from plant harvesting, you can't apply the same rule. Or maybe you can, but you'll find that others don't agree with your estimations. For example, anyone believing in panpsychism will find this hard to work with. Do you include the harvested plants in your calculation and compare them on a 1:1 basis with slaughtered animals? This kind of nonintuitive conclusions result from insisting that all beings suffer the same. Not a good enough metric IMO. > Certainly there is going to be a whole lot of subjectivity. I'm afraid that it's not just "a whole lot", but the final answer depends entirely on subjective definitions of suffering, unless we can find a true, objective one. Sadly, some philosophers don't think that's possible at all [0]. [0] http://www.philosopher.eu/others-writings/nagel-what-is-it-like-to-be-a-bat/ http://www.philosopher.eu/others-writings/nagel-what-is-it-l...
  - randomdata 3y ago
    Regardless of where the discussion began, it shifted to an animal multiplication factor represented by N, where the value of N determines the level of cruelty. While I ultimately agree that comment did not consider a lot of open questions, possibly due to being posted in haste, it was good enough to establish a focal point and it became the place where the discussion continued from. An animal is an animal is an animal. While it is true that there is fluidity in language, and that one could define animal as only a creature kept by humans for the purpose of extracting meat, there was no push back on the use of the more common, broader definition that would be reflected in the dictionary. Plants have not been considered animals. There has been a clear division between the plants harvested and the animals affected by it throughout the discussion. Whether or not their suffering should be included is and interesting side topic, but immaterial to this one. There is no value in flailing around trying to find new metrics. We picked one. It was certainly not perfect – far from it – but it was good enough. Perfect need not be the enemy of good. While the philosophers have a point, we are only seeking something to form a belief. Beliefs need not be true. But they do need to be formed, and it seems we don't have enough information to form any kind of beliefs here?
    - 3y ago

randomdata 3y ago

> To my best knowledge, the amount of mechanical harvest needed to feed an animal one unit of protein is no more than 4 units of protein in the most optimistic case[0] So even if we assume that the harvest needs to affect four animals, that still seems like pretty small potatoes, no? Any hay field I've ever walked through was teaming with hundreds of visible insects alone, and who knows what else was hidden in there, in areas smaller than an acre. > There's also the aspect of how you weigh suffering of different beings I am not sure that is necessary. An earlier comment told that all we have to do is count animals. The larger the count, the more the cruelty. The entire discussion has hinged on that assertion. Certainly there is going to be a whole lot of subjectivity. Some will argue that the number of animals doesn't matter with respect to cruelty – that suffering is wholly an individual experience. And many more will tell you that the animal that experiences the most cruelty of all is man himself and that ending that cruelty will solve all of the world's problems. But I don't think we need to find a new metric. We already chose one that was good enough.

rhn_mk1 3y ago
The discussion hinged of treating animals of the same kind equally: those that were slaughtered vs those who have had a biopsy. Once you introduce a different kind: those who suffer from plant harvesting, you can't apply the same rule. Or maybe you can, but you'll find that others don't agree with your estimations. For example, anyone believing in panpsychism will find this hard to work with. Do you include the harvested plants in your calculation and compare them on a 1:1 basis with slaughtered animals? This kind of nonintuitive conclusions result from insisting that all beings suffer the same. Not a good enough metric IMO. > Certainly there is going to be a whole lot of subjectivity. I'm afraid that it's not just "a whole lot", but the final answer depends entirely on subjective definitions of suffering, unless we can find a true, objective one. Sadly, some philosophers don't think that's possible at all [0]. [0] http://www.philosopher.eu/others-writings/nagel-what-is-it-like-to-be-a-bat/ http://www.philosopher.eu/others-writings/nagel-what-is-it-l...
- randomdata 3y ago
  Regardless of where the discussion began, it shifted to an animal multiplication factor represented by N, where the value of N determines the level of cruelty. While I ultimately agree that comment did not consider a lot of open questions, possibly due to being posted in haste, it was good enough to establish a focal point and it became the place where the discussion continued from. An animal is an animal is an animal. While it is true that there is fluidity in language, and that one could define animal as only a creature kept by humans for the purpose of extracting meat, there was no push back on the use of the more common, broader definition that would be reflected in the dictionary. Plants have not been considered animals. There has been a clear division between the plants harvested and the animals affected by it throughout the discussion. Whether or not their suffering should be included is and interesting side topic, but immaterial to this one. There is no value in flailing around trying to find new metrics. We picked one. It was certainly not perfect – far from it – but it was good enough. Perfect need not be the enemy of good. While the philosophers have a point, we are only seeking something to form a belief. Beliefs need not be true. But they do need to be formed, and it seems we don't have enough information to form any kind of beliefs here?
  - 3y ago