3 ms·

The point is that continuing to enjoy your existence is inflicting a massive toll of suffering around the world, to both others humans as well as non-humans. I

by stouset 8mo ago

The point is that continuing to enjoy your existence is inflicting a massive toll of suffering around the world, to both others humans as well as non-humans. I’m not saying I’d be one to push the button, but I think it’s worth trying to understand the mindset of someone who would. It’s very arguable that pushing it would be the ethical thing to do.

trylfthsk 8mo ago
Not entirely convinced that outside the torment nexuses used in industrial meat farming, natural suffering is any lesser sans humanity.
- aziaziazi 8mo ago
  Estimated scale of the torment nexuses: https://considerveganism.com/counter/ https://considerveganism.com/counter/
  - stouset 8mo ago
    The fish counter is horrifying, I had no idea.
    - aziaziazi 7mo ago
      The fish counter comes from here https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal-welfare/article/estimating-global-numbers-of-fishes-caught-from-the-wild-annually-from-2000-to-2019/83F1B933E8691F3A552636620E8C7A01 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal-welfare/artic... One could argue there's a double count: about one-fifth of fish are caught to feed other animals (mainly fish, but also terrestrial animals). But I don't think one kill offsets another. > around half of wild-caught finfish numbers are destined for reduction to fishmeal and oil, of which, respectively, 70 and 73% are used for aquaculture feeds
SoftTalker 8mo ago
What if the suffering is the point?
- cindyllm 8mo ago
  [dead]
- hypeatei 8mo ago
  It is, because you can't have pleasure without suffering but I think these conversations should focus on the amount (maybe as a percentage) of suffering that someone/something experiences. If you were locked in a room and being tortured, would you think it'd be appropriate for me to go: "they feed you at the end of each torture session, isn't it worth it to keep going for that?"
  - diacritical 8mo ago
    > you can't have pleasure without suffering That's not true, though. There's no physical law that states that an X amount of suffering is required for an Y amount of pleasure. Nothing prevents you from taking a brain that's feeling pleasure and keeping it in that state. We don't have the technology, but it's not impossible theoretically. It's a configuration of neurons that somehow gives rise to qualia. Maybe in the evolutionary or day-to-day psychological sense we "need" suffering to overcome adversity and get stronger or not to become too content with what we have and lose it, but that's very far from a law of nature or a necessity in the real sense. And obviously some animals live their whole lives in bliss, others in agony. So it's not like there aren't any real life counterexamples.
greygoo222 8mo ago
[flagged]
- stouset 8mo ago
  Humanity did not introduce evil, but we have absolutely industrialized and massively scaled it.
  - quesera 8mo ago
    I think humanity did introduce evil. It requires a sense of morality to divide good from evil, and I don't think that existed on Earth before humans. Digging into the Hominid tree might add some qualifications, but I don't see that as a meaningful distinction.
  - greygoo222 8mo ago
    There probably are reasonable methods of estimation that would say suffering associated with factory farms currently outweighs suffering occurring in the wild, though I don't know if I agree. However, factory farms are both relatively recent and temporary. It's hard to defend the position that humanity vanishing tomorrow would reduce net suffering in the long run. If nothing else, another industrial species will eventually replace us, and there's little reason to believe they'll be any better. Of course, I personally have higher hopes for intelligent life than merely not causing massive suffering. That brings me to another tangent: Are you vegan? I am. You might be, but I'm estimating you probably aren't. You can go vegan, it's easier than you think, and if you don't think you can commit, being 90% vegan is 90% as good as being 100% vegan. All thought experiments aside, you can be a part of making a better world, right now. You can also make donations: https://funds.effectivealtruism.org/funds/animal-welfare https://funds.effectivealtruism.org/funds/animal-welfare
- aziaziazi 8mo ago
  Here's a tip for you: describe what you find questionable and why, otherwise reader will understand: "I don't like that, you're [loser / mentally hill / nihilist]". I you don't like the conversation you're also free to ignore it.
mock-possum 7mo ago
That’s an interesting point, but the degree to which enjoying my existence inflicts “a massive toll of suffering around the world” seems negligible, how much harm could I as an individual really be doing? I’m a very small drop in a very big bucket, and in the already tragically short time I am allotted on this earth, I would like to enjoy myself, thank you very much. I would not dream of asking others to kill themselves so that my existence might be marginally improved.

by stouset 8mo ago

trylfthsk 8mo ago

Not entirely convinced that outside the torment nexuses used in industrial meat farming, natural suffering is any lesser sans humanity.

aziaziazi 8mo ago
Estimated scale of the torment nexuses: https://considerveganism.com/counter/ https://considerveganism.com/counter/
- stouset 8mo ago
  The fish counter is horrifying, I had no idea.
  - aziaziazi 7mo ago
    The fish counter comes from here https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal-welfare/article/estimating-global-numbers-of-fishes-caught-from-the-wild-annually-from-2000-to-2019/83F1B933E8691F3A552636620E8C7A01 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal-welfare/artic... One could argue there's a double count: about one-fifth of fish are caught to feed other animals (mainly fish, but also terrestrial animals). But I don't think one kill offsets another. > around half of wild-caught finfish numbers are destined for reduction to fishmeal and oil, of which, respectively, 70 and 73% are used for aquaculture feeds

SoftTalker 8mo ago

What if the suffering is the point?

cindyllm 8mo ago
[dead]
hypeatei 8mo ago
It is, because you can't have pleasure without suffering but I think these conversations should focus on the amount (maybe as a percentage) of suffering that someone/something experiences. If you were locked in a room and being tortured, would you think it'd be appropriate for me to go: "they feed you at the end of each torture session, isn't it worth it to keep going for that?"
- diacritical 8mo ago
  > you can't have pleasure without suffering That's not true, though. There's no physical law that states that an X amount of suffering is required for an Y amount of pleasure. Nothing prevents you from taking a brain that's feeling pleasure and keeping it in that state. We don't have the technology, but it's not impossible theoretically. It's a configuration of neurons that somehow gives rise to qualia. Maybe in the evolutionary or day-to-day psychological sense we "need" suffering to overcome adversity and get stronger or not to become too content with what we have and lose it, but that's very far from a law of nature or a necessity in the real sense. And obviously some animals live their whole lives in bliss, others in agony. So it's not like there aren't any real life counterexamples.

greygoo222 8mo ago

[flagged]

stouset 8mo ago
Humanity did not introduce evil, but we have absolutely industrialized and massively scaled it.
- quesera 8mo ago
  I think humanity did introduce evil. It requires a sense of morality to divide good from evil, and I don't think that existed on Earth before humans. Digging into the Hominid tree might add some qualifications, but I don't see that as a meaningful distinction.
- greygoo222 8mo ago
  There probably are reasonable methods of estimation that would say suffering associated with factory farms currently outweighs suffering occurring in the wild, though I don't know if I agree. However, factory farms are both relatively recent and temporary. It's hard to defend the position that humanity vanishing tomorrow would reduce net suffering in the long run. If nothing else, another industrial species will eventually replace us, and there's little reason to believe they'll be any better. Of course, I personally have higher hopes for intelligent life than merely not causing massive suffering. That brings me to another tangent: Are you vegan? I am. You might be, but I'm estimating you probably aren't. You can go vegan, it's easier than you think, and if you don't think you can commit, being 90% vegan is 90% as good as being 100% vegan. All thought experiments aside, you can be a part of making a better world, right now. You can also make donations: https://funds.effectivealtruism.org/funds/animal-welfare https://funds.effectivealtruism.org/funds/animal-welfare
aziaziazi 8mo ago
Here's a tip for you: describe what you find questionable and why, otherwise reader will understand: "I don't like that, you're [loser / mentally hill / nihilist]". I you don't like the conversation you're also free to ignore it.

mock-possum 7mo ago

That’s an interesting point, but the degree to which enjoying my existence inflicts “a massive toll of suffering around the world” seems negligible, how much harm could I as an individual really be doing? I’m a very small drop in a very big bucket, and in the already tragically short time I am allotted on this earth, I would like to enjoy myself, thank you very much. I would not dream of asking others to kill themselves so that my existence might be marginally improved.